2519 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Ha! Do you dudes seriously think I won't go into Crystal with at least semi-virgin eyes, despite your (thanks, the bunch of you) warnings about the crap lighting. My fiercely independent review--hopefuly entitled The Dodge Supremacy--will be published next week.

Crap lighting from Spielberg and Lucas? I shall see what I shall see. But the trailer looked just wonderful--at least before I closed my eyes. My confident prediction: the film will rock and make big bugs. For goodness' sake, I meant big BUCKS.

Well, maybe the lighting thing is just me. I'll have a good old read of all the reviews out there (fan and "professional") and will be interested to see how many other people had the same problem with it.

[Judo chop]

Hmmm.... I actually really liked KING KONG.

I know. I remember. And I still can

[DamnCoffee]

Hmmm. These reviews aren't very promising.
I'll have to reserve judgment until Saturday.

[Royal Dalton]

Well, nobody's really slammed it yet.

[The Dove]

Indeed.. most of the reviews I saw gave it 4 out of 5 stars and by no means am I going to expected it to be on the same level of greatness as Casino Royale.. I'm just going into Crystal Skull expecting it to be a popcorn-fun filled adventure film. I think with slightly lower expectations, i may be more pleasently surprised.

[Harmsway]

Here it is, the official Harmsway review of KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (spoilers follow).

So, how is it? Well... describing it as the LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD of Indy movies wouldn't be far off. It's better than LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD (it certainly feels somewhat like part of the series), and manages to be mildly diverting. I walked out of the theatre feeling pretty good. It's a disappointment, to be sure, but it's not one that made me bitter. Just less than enthusiastic.

That probably puts it in league with the two sequels to RAIDERS, TEMPLE and CRUSADE, both very flawed movies in their own right, and I can't rightly say that KINGDOM is any better or worse than either of them. Different flaws for each. I liked KINGDOM better than CRUSADE, but I can't say I'd take it over TEMPLE. TEMPLE has far better bits than KINGDOM ever serves up. Maybe, just maybe, on repeat viewings I'll come to view it as the best of the sequels, but not by much.

KINGDOM is one awkward film. David Koepp's script is downright terrible. It's a shame, too, since the story should have produced a dynamite film. It's just that everything is executed in such a mediocre way that none of it clicks. Exposition dominates discussion, bogging down the film in overly complicated speeches. Jokey comedic bits hurt sequences that would otherwise be okay.

The characters/performances are all hit-and-miss. Ford is good some of the time, awkward at other moments. Indy's characterization is the same. Shia LeBeouf does well as Mutt Williams, but it's in spite of the material he's been given. Karen Allen is flat-out terrible, and her character isn't handled much better in Koepp's script. Cate Blanchett's Irina Spalko? Well, let's just say a lot of potential for a really interesting, bizarre character goes out the window after the first few minutes we meet her. Ray Winstone's Mac? Entirely unnecessary. John Hurt's Harold Oxley? Awful. I don't know how they got him to do it.

The whole affair is more energetic and interesting than CRUSADE was, but paradoxically, it feels as if Spielberg is even less involved in this film than he was in CRUSADE. This doesn't feel like a film Spielberg directed. It's the least of his films since 2000, and it's lazy. Mighty lazy. I can't believe he went from MUNICH to this.

But perhaps the biggest loss is a sense of awe. All the other Indy films had it, even with the Sankara stones. But here, with the crystal skull, Spielberg/Lucas/Koepp drop the ball. It's not that the skull doesn't have potential, it's just never framed in a way that makes it so. There is a single awe-inspiring moment, and it comes just in time for the end (a beautiful shot of the flying saucer rising out of the ground, with beautiful effects work), but it's too little, too late.

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL gets a C+ from me.

[Loomis]

Well, it's being torn apart by the Talkbackers over at Ain't It Cool News:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36840

Now, I guess it's no surprise to see negativity and rage from the AICN crowd - and many of them seem to be professional Lucas bashers into the bargain. Still, I have to admit that they do have grounds.

I'm also seeing plenty of scathing reviews from IMDb users (as well as, to be fair, a lot of positive ones). Make of it what you will: maybe it's mainly the fury of whingeing geeks who had ludicrously high expectations. Or maybe the filmmakers really did drop the ball.

[Harmsway]

Now, I had two big problems with CRYSTAL SKULL:

1. The look of the film.

The look of the film didn't bother me that much, honestly. It wasn't what I would have gone for (I don't really care for the gloss), but I've seen worse.

2. The action. I really doubt that this film will have much appeal to younger action junkies. It could and should have had the greatest action scenes ever. The concepts are fine, but the execution is pedestrian. In terms of edge-of-seat excitement, the action is better than that in T3 and just about on a par with that in DIE HARD 4.0, which isn't exactly high praise. Bourne and CASINO ROYALE just shame the action in CRYSTAL.

Entirely agreed. I've read review after review praising the vehicle chase, and I just don't get it (some reviews even claim it's better than the RAIDERS truck chase). To my eyes, it was forgettable, silly stuff without much thrill. Spielberg can, and has, done much better.

Unfortunately, it also looks and feels more like an Indiana Jones outing directed by George Lucas rather than one directed by Spielberg. "Where the heck was Spielberg?" is a question you may well find yourself asking as you watch this one. (One Spielberg trademark, though, is that the film's first half hour or so is by far its strongest.)

I'll second that, too. It feels the least Spielbergian of any Spielberg film I've seen.

[jaguar007]

THe lighting did not bother me that much (except it made the sets look a little less real) and I thought it gave it more of a 50ish feel. I think the whole movie would have been elevated considerably had the car chase through the jungle been done for real instead of in front of a green screen. All previous entries had big actions scenes that gave you the sence of awe (Truck chase in Raiders, Mine car in doom and Tank in Crusade). The car chase was supposed to be what those scenes were but was unexciting because of the excessive green screen use.

[Harmsway]

Now, I guess it's no surprise to see negativity and rage from the AICN crowd - and many of them seem to be professional Lucas bashers into the bargain. Still, I have to admit that they do have grounds.

Sure, but the film's not that bad. It's not that good, but it's not that bad, either. It's just middle-of-the-road.

[Loomis]

KINGDOM is one awkward film. David Koepp's script is downright terrible. It's a shame, too, since the story should have produced a dynamite film. It's just that everything is executed in such a mediocre way that none of it clicks.

Precisely. To be fair to the writer(s), there are some pretty funny lines, but, well, that's about it. But it's definitely a film failed more by its directorial execution than by its script, mediocre though that script is.

I can overlook the film's many plot holes, because, hey, it's Indy. You don't expect (or, even, particularly want) watertight scripting from this franchise. I mean, the plot holes, goofs and anachronisms (e.g. rubber life rafts in the 1930s) only add to the sense of good old-fashioned cheesy hokum fun done with a wink.

So I don't really care, for example, that Cate Blanchett's plan doesn't make any sense, and I don't wonder overmuch who the mask-wearing guys at the ruins are and what they're up to.... but I do care that these things are not offset by the sort of lavish, edge-of-seat thrills and spills I expect from an Indy Jones film.

This doesn't feel like a film Spielberg directed.

Indeed. You'd be forgiven for thinking Brett Ratner had stepped in.

Spielberg on good form would have saved CRYSTAL, but his apparent absence (in the sense of his heart not being in it - I mean, I'm sure he physically turned up on the set) sinks it.

[Tiin007]

Now, I had two big problems with CRYSTAL SKULL:

1. The look of the film. Unfortunately, this really marred my enjoyment. For reasons that baffle me, the filmmakers have gone in for an incredibly overlit, ultra-bright, chocolate boxy sheen that reminded me of REVENGE OF THE SITH at its worst. CRYSTAL is on the whole a fine flick, and it's never boring, but it's just tragic that it actually hurts to look at it for most of the time. ROCKY BALBOA and DIE HARD 4.0 also went in for trendy lighting and arty desaturation of colour, and partly suffer from it, but here it's much, much worse. In all seriousness, I'd advise wearing sunglasses for CRYSTAL. It's distracting, it's an eyesore and it's a real shame. Why they couldn't have given it the same lighting style as the other Indy outings absolutely defeats me.

I could not agree more. Frankly, I was thinking the exact same thing, yet couldn't figure out how to phrase it. But you definitely got the point across, Loomis. This was my one real problem with the film. It made it seem less like an Indiana Jones movie and more like a...well, I can't really think of anything at the moment, but you get the point.

Other than that, the film was fairly enoyable. I didn't like the way it opened (and by that I mean literally the first five or so seconds), but that's only a minor quibble.

Some people were afraid that LaBeouf's character would take the spotlight away from Indy, but trust me Henry Jones Jr. definitely took center stage. In fact, I found him more enjoyable to watch than Short Round (not to mention far less distracting).

There were some nice references to the previous three films, but not enough to make it feel like a nostalgia-fest. And they didn't make Indy out to be the worn out old hero out for one last fight. Yes, his age was referenced, but not to the degree that Sly's was in Rocky Balboa (where taking note of it was essential to the plausibility of the plot).

Overall, I'll give Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystall Skull a 7/10. It was an enjoyable movie, but not quite up to par with the previous three. Whether this was because of the lighting issue or merely a deterioration in quality, I'm not quite sure. But I am sure that if you go into the theater without grand expectations, you'll find yourself glad to be reunited with one of the greatest action/adventure heroes of the '80s (second only to Bond, James Bond).

[DamnCoffee]

Tiin007, could you tell us about the music. Is there more of the Raiders March than in the actual soundtrack?

[Harmsway]

To be fair to the writer(s), there are some pretty funny lines, but, well, that's about it. But it's definitely a film failed more by its directorial execution than by its script, mediocre though that script is.

I'll second that. I was thinking that as I watched the film. There were moments that wouldn't click, or would just play out half-heartedly, and with some better direction, they'd play out pretty darn well. The reason KINGDOM falls short is Spielberg, who apparently cared more about having fun with the Indy crew on set than actually producing a dynamite film.

[Tiin007]

Tiin007, could you tell us about the music. Is there more of the Raiders March than in the actual soundtrack?

Well, I haven't listened to the actual soundtrack, but I can tell you that there was definitely plenty of the Raiders March. Whenever Indy did something "classic Indy" (i.e. the type of thing to warrant playing Raiders March), it was played. Oh, and it was played during the end credits.

On a related note, something I noticed during this film (and recent viewings of the previous three) was how much a lot of the music in this series seems to come straight out of a Star Wars movie. John Williams does a very good job with soundtracks, and overall you shouldn't be dissapointed, Mharkin007. Trust me, this film has its flaws, but the music certainly isn't one of them.

[Harmsway]

Tiin007, could you tell us about the music. Is there more of the Raiders March than in the actual soundtrack?

Well, I haven't listened to the actual soundtrack, but I can tell you that there was definitely plenty of the Raiders March. Whenever Indy did something "classic Indy" (i.e. the type of thing to warrant playing Raiders March), it was played. Oh, and it was played during the end credits.

Yeah, there's plenty of the Raiders March in the film. A good deal more than appears on the soundtrack. Indy's introduction, plus the chase in the hangar, gets a good dose of it.

[00Twelve]

Like with the SW prequels, I'm trying to remember the method behind the madness, concerning how out-of-this-world wacky it all got in the second half (really, beginning with the ant horde). I know that they were going for the 50's B-movie sci-fi thing this time, rather than 30's serial.

I can't help thinking, though, that you can't make a "B-movie" with a hundred million dollars.

Ahem, George.

[Judo chop]

So be it.

Never fear though. The Dark Knight will save us.

[jaguar007]

So be it.

Never fear though. The Dark Knight will save us.

I will be holding my breath for QoS.

[DamnCoffee]

Tiin007, could you tell us about the music. Is there more of the Raiders March than in the actual soundtrack?

Well, I haven't listened to the actual soundtrack, but I can tell you that there was definitely plenty of the Raiders March. Whenever Indy did something "classic Indy" (i.e. the type of thing to warrant playing Raiders March), it was played. Oh, and it was played during the end credits.

Yeah, there's plenty of the Raiders March in the film. A good deal more than appears on the soundtrack. Indy's introduction, plus the chase in the hangar, gets a good dose of it.

Thank God!

[Judo chop]

So be it.

Never fear though. The Dark Knight will save us.

I will be holding my breath for QoS.

Well, yeah duh. Of course. That

[ACE]

OK. Firstly, know that I LOVED the Star Wars prequels. I loved their complex, layered world, sense of narrative coherence and poetic assonance with the original series. Sure, they were flawed (Jake Lloyd and some of Hayden Christensen's acting) but they did feel true. Hopefully I had evolved in the 20 year gap so they did not hit me like a diamond bullet as the original trilogy (and Superman. And The Spy Who Loved Me. And Star Trek. And The Rescuers [er, that's enough - Ed.]) had. However, for me, they have value and entertain(ed) me thoroughly. I daresay an 8 year old would be smitten with the new prequels as me and my peers were with the originals.

IJATKOTCS falls into similar territory. The best part of the endeavour is the repositioning to the 1950s, the Cold War-Sci-Fi backdrop. Sure, it is a modern film with abundant CGI (ignore Spielberg's press about trying to make it look like the old films - it doesn't). Save Bond and Bourne, nothing feels real for reel these days. However, the combination of intriguing story (with historical liberty) and characters and spectacle make this an enjoyable watch.

Tonally, it had a mellow feel. Connery was wise not to do this film (there's no place for him anyway) and, thematically, it would not have worked, IMO. Harrison Ford was great as was Shia LeBeouf. Cate Blanchett was fun but like John Hurt, was forced to have an immediacy of characterisation which felt less satisfactory. Did John Gardner write Ray Winstone's part? Karen Allen looked like Annie Hall but her spunky heroine in the original film has been reduxed to a mere expositional functionary in this film. Anyway, I like the updating and nods to the past (Connery, Denholm Elliott, the Ark, snakes).

There are some lovely ideas - Hangar 51, the nuclear city, motorbike chase through university town, fire-ants, the leather-jacket generational character costuming, the basic City Of The Gods plot and the McCarthy backdrop (Jim Broadbent was particularly good and moving).

I don't think Spielberg phoned it in. He was consciously trying to surprise. His trademarked mirror shot got a fresh variation, Indy's entrance was fun, I like the imagery of the Soviet villains chopping down the rainforest. While Kaminiski's photography is less successful than Douglas Slocombe's clean palette, Guy (Superman Returns) Hendrix Dyas' production design improves upon the always fake-looking work of all the previous Indy designers. ILM's work is superb (better looking on the big screen than on TV) as always. The big supernatural finale may be too much but it is in keeping with what has gone before.

At times it felt like there were nods to the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles but not having seen too many of those episodes, I do not know (the Pancho Villa line). I also felt there it was too much of a group adventure (5 principals at the end excluding the villains) - it felt more like Lethal Weapon 4 or a Star Trek film. However, flawed like the Star Wars prequels, this did feel a true Indy film, true the spirit of the originals. At the moment, I place it slightly above Temple which is above Crusade. All are a long way from Raiders though. I did not mind the silliness because I expected it and it was no sillier than parts of Temple or Crusade. I hope Lucas will follow through on his discussed 5th movie with Shia and Harrison (in the Connery role) although it is difficult to see if the biker jacket, comb and flickknife ensemble will replace Indy's iconic paraphernalia. I doubt Spielberg will direct - they'll "Joe Johnstone" it.

Please see it and make up your own mind. If you've liked the Indiana Jones films, you'll like (but probably not love) this instalment. I'm always out of synch with popular opinion (hated the Pirates movies, thought Batman Begins vastly overrated, loved The Avengers, Die Another Day and X-Men 3!). The last person who should involved in the development and production of films ...is, er, me.

This summer, my favourite film has been Iron Man. I'm looking forward to Prince Caspian (being a Narnia nut) and even The Dark Knight.

Of course, the daddy, for me, will be QUANTUM OF SOLACE but rather like Solitaire, "You knew that. You KNEW that!"

[Tarl_Cabot]

Locales: You never get a sense that they're in South America(because they filmed in Hawaii).

They filmed the opening of RAIDERS in Hawaii, and it felt like South America. What's the difference this time out?

Good question and I don't have a good answer except evrything in Raiders felt real. The Temple where get gets/looses the idol was a sound stage in London but damn if it didn't feel like a real place! The Tanis ruins...all made you believe you were in Egypt. Anyway, the iguazu falls stuff was fun despite being geographically incorrect.

The first scene in Peru felt like an A team set on the universal studios back lot populated by mexicans fresh off an east L.A casting call. It just annoyed me. They can afford to go to frickn Peru and shoot for a few days. Go!

[Johnboy007]

Well, it appears my wish has come true.

Indiana Jones Soundtracks to be Re-released

Doesn't appear they'll be expanded. But at least Temple of Doom will finally get a real CD.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Here it is, the official Harmsway review of KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (spoilers follow).

So, how is it? Well... describing it as the LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD of Indy movies wouldn't be far off. It's better than LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD (it certainly feels somewhat like part of the series), and manages to be mildly diverting. I walked out of the theatre feeling pretty good. It's a disappointment, to be sure, but it's not one that made me bitter. Just less than enthusiastic.

That probably puts it in league with the two sequels to RAIDERS, TEMPLE and CRUSADE, both very flawed movies in their own right, and I can't rightly say that KINGDOM is any better or worse than either of them. Different flaws for each. I liked KINGDOM better than CRUSADE, but I can't say I'd take it over TEMPLE. TEMPLE has far better bits than KINGDOM ever serves up. Maybe, just maybe, on repeat viewings I'll come to view it as the best of the sequels, but not by much.

KINGDOM is one awkward film. David Koepp's script is downright terrible. It's a shame, too, since the story should have produced a dynamite film. It's just that everything is executed in such a mediocre way that none of it clicks. Exposition dominates discussion, bogging down the film in overly complicated speeches. Jokey comedic bits hurt sequences that would otherwise be okay.

The characters/performances are all hit-and-miss. Ford is good some of the time, awkward at other moments. Indy's characterization is the same. Shia LeBeouf does well as Mutt Williams, but it's in spite of the material he's been given. Karen Allen is flat-out terrible, and her character isn't handled much better in Koepp's script. Cate Blanchett's Irina Spalko? Well, let's just say a lot of potential for a really interesting, bizarre character goes out the window after the first few minutes we meet her. Ray Winstone's Mac? Entirely unnecessary. John Hurt's Harold Oxley? Awful. I don't know how they got him to do it.

The whole affair is more energetic and interesting than CRUSADE was, but paradoxically, it feels as if Spielberg is even less involved in this film than he was in CRUSADE. This doesn't feel like a film Spielberg directed. It's the least of his films since 2000, and it's lazy. Mighty lazy. I can't believe he went from MUNICH to this.

But perhaps the biggest loss is a sense of awe. All the other Indy films had it, even with the Sankara stones. But here, with the crystal skull, Spielberg/Lucas/Koepp drop the ball. It's not that the skull doesn't have potential, it's just never framed in a way that makes it so. There is a single awe-inspiring moment, and it comes just in time for the end (a beautiful shot of the flying saucer rising out of the ground, with beautiful effects work), but it's too little, too late.

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL gets a C+ from me.

That's pretty much dead on. The saucer shot was awesome but too much inexplicable CGI and nonsense preceeded it.

I agree with Loomis about not being able to review this like a normal film becuase of our child hood baggage and memories of perfection that was Raiders.I've covered the negatives and now the positives:

I loved the opening with the car racing, the much malighned prairie dogs made me smile-that felt spielberg despite being a lucas fetish.The fact that it's Indy in the 50s' is fascinating. the first 30 minutes is strong.I liked the Indy interrogation scene alot.

The fight with the russian while the ants were encroaching was excellent.

[DamnCoffee]

I watched a streaming video of the Hanger Escape and I'm loving it so far! I only decided to watch this as I couldn't wait, but that's all I'm gonna watch. Did anyone notice that the theme from Raiders was recycled (Flight from Peru)?

[ACE]

I watched a streaming video of the Hanger Escape and I'm loving it so far! I only decided to watch this as I couldn't wait, but that's all I'm gonna watch.

Oy vey!

[Tarl_Cabot]

Overall, it's the second best Incredibly Belated Comeback For An '80s Action Hero effort after ROCKY BALBOA. Still, that it beats the likes of DIE HARD 4.0 and T3 ain't really saying much.

You enjoyed it more than Rambo (IV) then?

Well, I guess I enjoyed RAMBO a little more by virtue of the fact that I'm more of a Rambo fan, but objectively I'd say that CRYSTAL SKULL and RAMBO are roughly equal in quality terms. Both are sequels that pass muster but don't bring anything new to the table.

Certainly, the action in RAMBO is far superior. I know this sounds like a major diss of CRYSTAL, but I don't think I had even one vaguely edge-of-seat moment. There's no "****, yeah!" action, nothing to quicken the blood. There are action scenes, sure, but the execution is nothing special at all. Is it valid or is it irritatingly picky and fanboyish to say that more might have been expected in this department from the return of Indiana Jones?

Still a fun timekiller, though, but, boy, did it hurt my eyes to look at it.

I think Rambo is ultimately more successful than Indy 4 in terms of being measued against the first and most recent entry in the series. It stands toe to toe with FB and beats the pants off RIII. You can't really say that about 'Skull. And Rambo's action isn't just "on par" with the other films-it's actually vastly superior if not groundbreaking(have we seen violence like that in 'fun' movies before? and how many holy ****! moments did it have? at least 3).

So, advantage Stallone.

I think Skull could have been an awesome Indy film if it was treated like Stallone update( ). Cut the family reunion stuff out completely and make Indy a lonely old guy on a mission, have him meet up with an attractive 40-50sih Peruvian lady archeologist and find romance...a leaner and meaner Indy film and we've got a champ.

[The Dove]

You know, I should really try and restrain myself from reading everyone's reviews of the film and avoid spoilers.. I'm seeing it tomorrow morning.. However, I am listening to soundclips of the soundtrack on barnes and noble.com and so far am VERY impressed.. Williams does it again!!

[Loomis]

I think Rambo is ultimately more successful than Indy 4 in terms of being measued against the first and most recent entry in the series. It stands toe to toe with FB and beats the pants off RIII. You can't really say that about 'Skull.

Yep, you're right.

And Rambo's action isn't just "on par" with the other films-it's actually vastly superior if not groundbreaking(have we seen violence like that in 'fun' movies before? and how many holy ****! moments did it have? at least 3).

There's no equivalent in CRYSTAL SKULL of that wonderful (and surprising) moment in RAMBO when Rambo bursts onto the scene with his bow and arrows and you're geeking out and going " YEAH! THE HERO IS BACK!!!!!!!!".

It's strange how the geriatric action star comeback boom has played out. Years ago, smart money would have had it that INDIANA JONES 4 would be by far the best film of the bunch, followed perhaps by TERMINATOR 3 (which turned out to be probably the worst, IMO), and that ROCKY VI would just be an utter, utter embarrassment.

Mind you, I remember people telling me that STAR WARS EPISODE I would be one of the greatest films ever, and I guess there must also have been a time when GODFATHER III looked like something to get really excited about.