2519 replies to this topic

[zencat]

Just saw it.

Don't read on if you don't want to know.

It's fine. I enjoyed myself. My expectations were in check, and that was good. I was expecting a somewhat creaky movie, and it was definitely creaky (in parts). Script was filled with unswept cobwebs from 20 years of development. But I loved the whole opening on the Nevada base and Cate was great. Also enjoyed Shia. And I really liked all the alien stuff. They went further than I thought they would, to the point of genre mixing, but my Moonraker-lovin' self was fine with that.

Nostalgia carried me along for much of it. But for whatever reason, my feeling right now after seeing it is...sadness.

[Mr_Wint]

Just saw it and here's a quick review:

The script is awful. The story is almost impossible to follow, the dialogue is really boring (I cant think of a single memorable line at the moment!) and the characters are totally flat and not developed at all. The humor is totally misplaced sometimes.

The direction, the action and just about everything else is quite good (maybe too much focus on action...). Great visuals but, sadly, very few "Indy-moments".

The music is fantastic, as expected. It really saves the film here.

Score: 6/10

[ACE]

Genre mixing, zencat?

Next you'll be having Yeti in Bond films!!!!!

I see what you mean about your last line. I actually contacted friends of mine with whom I saw Crusade in 1989 and we felt a bit like Indy's ourselves, ruminating on our lives in the passing years.

"It's not the years, kid. It's the mileage."

[Harmsway]

So now that the movie's out, how do you folks feel about the possibility of an INDY V? Lucas and Spielberg have been talking it up all of a sudden. Should it happen? How should it be done?

[Loomis]

So now that the movie's out, how do you folks feel about the possibility of an INDY V? Lucas and Spielberg have been talking it up all of a sudden. Should it happen? How should it be done?

Well, obviously, I'd love to see an INDY V if, for instance:

- They had a really good and interesting script.

- Lucas agreed to have no creative role whatsoever.

- Spielberg were truly fired up about the project and on terrific form.

- The filmmakers ditched the awful visual style of CRYSTAL.

But none of those things would ever come to pass. Sure, in theory, I'd love to see a good INDY V - but it's impossible.

They had their chance - as well as many, many years of development and all the money in Hollywood (as well as all the fanboy/movie geek goodwill in the world) - and they blew it. That's all there is to it.

I wouldn't even want followups to ROCKY BALBOA and RAMBO, and I love those films! Why not? Because they're "final chapter" films. There's nowhere else for those franchises to go (well, Rambo could go the prequel route, I guess). CRYSTAL is also a final chapter affair. And I certainly don't want a Mutt spinoff franchise.

The Indy series is done. Let it die with what little dignity it has left.

[dodge]

All of this leads me to wonder: are the site experts who proclaim the failure of Crystal Skull, Indiana Jones, Spielberg and Lucas and Ford--are they willing to admit in the face of that much talent 'gone wrong' in their eyes...that QoS may also fizz?

What's the diff, bubbaloos?

[Loomis]

All of this leads me to wonder: are the site experts who proclaim the failure of Crystal Skull, Indiana Jones, Spielberg and Lucas and Ford--are they willing to admit in the face of that much talent 'gone wrong' in their eyes...that QoS may also fizz?

What's the diff, bubbaloos?

There is none. If I don't like QUANTUM OF SOLACE I'll say so (and in my usual exhaustive and exhausting detail, no doubt).

If it's the new TWINE - which seems possible - I'll treat it as mercilessly as I treated, well, TWINE.

[ACE]

Lucasfilm presents
a Joe Johnstone film

HARRISON FORD
SHIA LABEOUF
NAOMI CAMPBELL
TALISA SOTO
JAMES EARL JONES
SAMUEL L JACKSON
MARTIN SHEEN as Willard Benjamin
STUART WILSON
JIM BROADBENT
JOHN HURT
and
JOHN RHYS DAVIES
in
RAIDERS OF THE FOES OF KILIMANJARO

1961

Mutt graduates as an archeologist and is sent to the Congo.
Involving strange African cults and the Cold War.
A new Soviet general teams up with an African warlord.
Indy teams up with a UN Doctor to battle including a safari hunt, a treaherous moutain climb, a thrilling boat chase up the Congo, a mosquito infested swamp before arriving at an ancient, lost city within the bowels of Mount Kilimanjaro

Theme song performed by Toto

[dinovelvet]

All of this leads me to wonder: are the site experts who proclaim the failure of Crystal Skull, Indiana Jones, Spielberg and Lucas and Ford--are they willing to admit in the face of that much talent 'gone wrong' in their eyes...that QoS may also fizz?

What's the diff, bubbaloos?

About 17 years?

That, and the people working on QoS are, for the most part, more modern, relevant, serious, and cutting edge.

[Dell Deaton]

Just got back from seeing this film w/ Number One Son. Grade: C-

As far as I'm concerned, it never captured what any of the other three had, didn't click on its own, and wasn't particularly fun. Won't say that I had high hopes for this one, but they certainly missed an opportunity in my mind. That said, it wasn't for lack of a vision, because I do think they had that.

[Sir James Moloney]

Just saw it and...

I

Edited by Sir James Moloney, 23 May 2008 - 01:43 AM.

[Professor Dent]

I saw it tonight too. I'd rate it a

Now, except for the trailers & the TV commercials, I avoided pretty much all spoilers so maybe that helped me. The music was good as were the stunts & effects. I have a few gripes on the story but I'll keep this spoiler free & hold those until after the weekend so more folks have a chance to see it.

[HildebrandRarity]

So now that the movie's out, how do you folks feel about the possibility of an INDY V? Lucas and Spielberg have been talking it up all of a sudden. Should it happen? How should it be done?

For a guy who gave it a C+ and referred to it as middle of the road you sure seem to be in a bit of a hurry. I suppose you love your mediocrity.

It'll be nothing but a money grab and an embarrassment.

I know I haven't seen it yet (that happens w my 12 year old on Saturday) but it's interesting how people in this thread were talking up this movie and trashing Iron Man.

I'll let you guys know how this flick stacks up to Iron Man which, to me, is the movie of the year so far. Will Saturday's trip to the cinema change that? I don't know.

Anyway, it's time to put Grandpa Jones to pasture and concentrate on James Bond for the rest of your lifetimes.

[Righty007]

So now that the movie's out, how do you folks feel about the possibility of an INDY V? Lucas and Spielberg have been talking it up all of a sudden. Should it happen? How should it be done?

I'll let you guys know how this flick stacks up to Iron Man which, to me, is the movie of the year so far.

Iron Man is the movie of the year and I doubt Indy will top it. The Dark Knight, however, will give Iron Man a run for its money.

I'll see 'Kingdom' this weekend and I'll report back here.

[Matt_13]

Just saw it and I really didn't like it. It's too bad because with a good script and with the available talent a genuinely good Indy film could have been produced. Instead we were dealt with this ridiculous, poorly written, extremely bland version of an Indiana Jones film. I am so disappointed seeing as my hopes were really high but things really did get out of hand quickly in this film. Huge let down.

[Johnboy007]

I am hopelessly biased when it comes to Indiana Jones, but I thought Crystal Skull was great. It's not as good as the other three but it's perfectly enjoyable and better than anything like it I've seen recently. When I have time to clear my head I'll post something a little more detailed, but I think many are a little harsh on this film (face it, nothing will ever top or come close to Raiders...) It does have its clunky moments, but I don't think they're bad enough to bring the film crashing down.

Call me crazy (and I'm sure many will) but I'll take a 65 year old Harrison Ford over Robert Downey Jr. anyday.

[Righty007]

Call me crazy (and I'm sure many will) but I'll take a 65 year old Harrison Ford over Robert Downey Jr. anyday.

I'll let you know if that's true when I see Indy but Iron Man is the best movie of 2008 thus far.

[Harmsway]

So now that the movie's out, how do you folks feel about the possibility of an INDY V? Lucas and Spielberg have been talking it up all of a sudden. Should it happen? How should it be done?

For a guy who gave it a C+ and referred to it as middle of the road you sure seem to be in a bit of a hurry. I suppose you love your mediocrity.

Nah, just curious about what the attitude towards a sequel was, honestly. I don't really want to see INDY V, myself.

I'll let you guys know how this flick stacks up to Iron Man which, to me, is the movie of the year so far.

Between the two, it's not much of a competition. It's IRON MAN that comes out the victor, with a solid B+ compared to KINGDOM's C+.

Anyway, it's time to put Grandpa Jones to pasture and concentrate on James Bond for the rest of your lifetimes.

The time will come to put Bond out to pasture.

[Righty007]

Anyway, it's time to put Grandpa Jones to pasture and concentrate on James Bond for the rest of your lifetimes.

The time will come to put Bond out to pasture.

Never!

[Tarl_Cabot]

at least Downy Jr doesn't have 8,000 sidekicks in Iron Man. Too many cooks in the kitchen steven/George.

[Johnboy007]

So now that the movie's out, how do you folks feel about the possibility of an INDY V? Lucas and Spielberg have been talking it up all of a sudden. Should it happen? How should it be done?

Despite my enthusiasm for IV I don't think Indy V ought to happen. I don't think this squad has enough left in the tank to put out anything of quality, and I don't want to see Indy recasted or a spin-off Mutt series. I didn't have a problem with Mutt, but he's not Indiana Jones.

But if they do end up making another straight-up Indy you probably won't find me complaining.

[Gobi-1]

Ok I'm finally back home from my all day Indy-extravaganza. Today I saw the film two times. The first was at a Midnight showing traditionally projected. The second time this afternoon I saw it digitally projected.

My first reaction from seeing it this morning was that I had a mixture of joy and disbelief. I was overjoyed that I was finally getting to see a new Indy adventure on the big screen. Something I honestly didn't think would happen. The disbelief came from the fact that I was seeing a brand new Indy adventure on the big screen. Much like my reaction to Revenge of the Sith I couldn't quite grasps it all in one viewing. I felt like every scene was over just as it was getting started. It went by in a blur. I did enjoy the film and at times it looked exactly like it was filmed in the 1980s but I was also surprised by the amount of CGI and how cartoonish, Mummy Returns cartoonish, some of it was. Looks like ILM devoted most of its attention to Iron Man. The film was way over the top in the second half. Makes Temple of Doom look like a documentary. I was trouble by this and notice some lost opportunity for character development and action (The Jungle Cutter doesn't do anything unfortunately.) If I was going to rate the film after one viewing I would give it *** out of **** and would declare it the weakest of the four films. My theater's presentation of the film wasn't up to snuff which I wasn't surprised at since it's not digital. The image was misframed so the names during the credits cut off entire letters (ate Blanchette, hia LaBeouf, etc.) Despite my doubts I knew that my second viewing would put things into perspective for me and I would be better able to judge things.

After a night's sleep I got to see the film again this afternoon at a DLP Digitally Projected theater. I knew this time that I would at least get a quality presentation. This time I was ready for the film and I absolutely LOVED IT. I felt like I was really watching an Indy movie and despite the flaws and weaknesses I didn't let them bother me.

[00Twelve]

So now that the movie's out, how do you folks feel about the possibility of an INDY V? Lucas and Spielberg have been talking it up all of a sudden. Should it happen? How should it be done?

For a guy who gave it a C+ and referred to it as middle of the road you sure seem to be in a bit of a hurry. I suppose you love your mediocrity.

Nah, just curious about what the attitude towards a sequel was, honestly. I don't really want to see INDY V, myself.

I'd only want to see it if they really could pull off a Rocky Balboa-calibre story, and I just don't want Lucas involved. Lucas has just tainted himself. After the prequels and now this, I don't think fans will trust him to make a film with a good script again. There was even a shot where the friggin' torch flame was CGI. A torch flame.

[bpetta1]

For me, Indiana Jones has always been #1. Bond has always, always been #2. Never ever did Bond top Indy, though I have swayed over closer to Bond in a few instances. Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade was the first movie I ever saw in theaters. I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark at least twice a week when I was growing up and was Indiana Jones for three Halloweens in a row (Bond once). I loved every one of the films, including Temple of Doom. I even had an Indiana Jones poster over my bed until I was 12.

So, you can imagine the anticipation I've felt for this movie. Ever since the advent of the internet, I've followed all its production highs and lows. After seeing the previews, I was cautious, but very optimistic. After the reviews from Cannes came in generally positive, I was energized and literally could not think of anything but the amazing Indy adventure I was about to experience after waiting literally my entire life (I'm 21).

I watched the midnight premier and couldn't honestly grip what I felt about the movie. There were a few, "No way could this be happening in an Indy movie (nothing this bad)" moments. But also, I remembered some rather good parts and I, overall, was enjoying the movie until Act III. But surely, after so much anticipation, feeling nothing was a bad sign. So I decided to see it again today before I made my final decision.

Sadly, after seeing this twice in two days, this is not an Indiana Jones movie. This is perhaps the most damning fact of all. I never felt emotionally connected and I did watch with an open-mind. The script was HORRIBLE, no character development, not even an interesting artifact to chase. The Crystal Skulls were simply explained in a one minute monologue. I just graduated in Creative Writing from LSU and got accepted into film school at the University of New Orleans. The first rule of screenwriting is SHOW DON'T TELL. Well, this script is all tell, and no show. It was very sloppily and lazily written with no respect for the audience's intelligence.

The dialogue is stilted, every character is a static character, and the quirky nonsensical occurences of the original trilogy (excluding this on purpose) has somehow transformed into an unfunny slapstick-heavy cartoon. After last night, I couldn't decide whether I kinda liked it, or if I kinda disliked it. Either way, I thought it was hovering around average. After the second viewing, I can honestly say that I loathe this movie. I'm disgusted by what was happening on screen and how Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford handled it. Many people will blame Lucas, as it was his idea, but Spielberg and Ford agreed to this. Whereas the first three are still cherished today, this is simply a one-time movie experience that will be forgotten in six months.

I'm physically hurting at how bad the movie as a whole was. Do go see it though, if only for the first 50 minutes (which are superb). For awhile you'll think, "Wow, that guy on CBN was wrong this is pretty good." And that's great. I, too, was optimistic. But, ultimately, this movie let me down in a way I can never explain fully.

How the critics gave this positive reviews is beyond my comprehension. It was a mildly enjoyable action movie, but I can't even say with a straight face that it felt like Indiana Jones. And by no means, by NO means, was it a good film. See for yourself, and hopefully when I see it a third time my opinion will change...I doubt it though.

[Gobi-1]

I'd only want to see it if they really could pull off a Rocky Balboa-calibre story, and I just don't want Lucas involved. Lucas has just tainted himself. After the prequels and now this, I don't think fans will trust him to make a film with a good script again. There was even a shot where the friggin' torch flame was CGI. A torch flame. rolleyes.gif

You do know that Lucas doesn't direct the Indy films and that he only spends a handful of days on the set. Once Uncle George comes up with the storyline he hands it off to Steven to direct.

And about the scene with the CG flame I think I know which shot your talking about and there could be a logical reason for it. Maybe there was a deleted scene where the flame goes out (for what ever reason) and they filmed it as such. Only they cut the shot out then realized they needed to keep the torch lit for continuity and did a quick CG flame.

[Harmsway]

And about the scene with the CG flame I think I know which shot your talking about and there could be a logical reason for it. Maybe there was a deleted scene where the flame goes out (for what ever reason) and they filmed it as such. Only they cut the shot out then realized they needed to keep the torch lit for continuity and did a quick CG flame.

It's entirely possible. There's a solid amount of deleted material from KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL... I'm hoping it shows up on the DVD. I really want to see some of these scenes, and their loss could explain some of the choppiness.

[00Twelve]

I'd only want to see it if they really could pull off a Rocky Balboa-calibre story, and I just don't want Lucas involved. Lucas has just tainted himself. After the prequels and now this, I don't think fans will trust him to make a film with a good script again. There was even a shot where the friggin' torch flame was CGI. A torch flame. rolleyes.gif

You do know that Lucas doesn't direct the Indy films and that he only spends a handful of days on the set. Once Uncle George comes up with the storyline he hands it off to Steven to direct.

And about the scene with the CG flame I think I know which shot your talking about and there could be a logical reason for it. Maybe there was a deleted scene where the flame goes out (for what ever reason) and they filmed it as such. Only they cut the shot out then realized they needed to keep the torch lit for continuity and did a quick CG flame.

That is indeed possible.

Regarding Lucas, I had a real Lucas vibe on this one. Much more strongly than on the others. Steve definitely commanded the director's chair (you can see it in the performances), but the Lucas aesthetic is definitely there, in all it's glossy splendor.

[JimmyBond]

I agree with absolutely everything Gobi-1. Sure the movie has flaws, but I just had such a good time with this film that I'm able to overlook a lot of them. From start to finish this is a rollercoaster of a film, never would I believe an Indy film would outpace Temple (my favorite of the series) but there you go, a nice brisk pace, plenty of camp, and Harrison Ford at the center of it all, just having a great time, and it rubbed off on me.

Watching this film, I felt like a little kid again watching Last Crusade for the first time

[Harmsway]

Steve definitely commanded the director's chair (you can see it in the performances), but the Lucas aesthetic is definitely there, in all it's glossy splendor.

Yeah, but I think this is truly accidental, and not really a sign of Lucas' involvement. Spielberg and was really trying to get back to the look of the earlier films (he reiterates as much again and again in interviews), and it's clear that Kaminski just didn't deliver in recreating the Slocombe look, being too beholden to his usual style of lighting and shooting.

[Bondian]

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of WTF!

Directed by Stephen Zucker

Produced by George Zucker

Screenplay by Jim Abrahams

Starring Harrison Pierce Ford (as Dr. Idiotic Jones Jr.)

This excursion opens as it ends with amateurish absurdity on an amazing scale. First we see a skit on the 'Paramount Logo' and Harrison (I could do with the money) Ford's insane hat finale accompanied by (and I love him till the day I die) John Williams' done-to-death Indy march.

Just to confirm Stephen Zucker's childhood ambition. I could see several nods to the Bond movies. Namely...That git squatting to tie his shoe (aka Bond in <span class="film">Casino Royale</span> and having his band of Ruskies shoot some people who we really do not care about. He squats just like Daniel Craig, but acts like 'Stamper' in <span class="film">Tomorrow Never Dies</span>. There are several others, but I'll explain those later.

I agree with Loomis. This movie comes across like a Lucash affair. However. Where Lucash makes me believe in him, is in the 'Young Indiana Jones' television series. This series IMHO makes all four films redundant. First rate acting, real locations, amazing attention to detail both in history and costumes. The television series seems real, whereas the films come across as bloated affairs lacking believability and so obviously faked. And this film really tires the senses. If Roger Moore at the age of 80 was Indiana Jones, I could accept the entire productions need for CGI and so much humour. However. In fact the humour is unfunny. It's stupid. I feel like I have had some part in the script.

Harrision Zucker seems totally out of his depth here. Tries to have a go, but is thwarted by having to act in front of green screen, and that white light our Loomis so rightly mentioned. It's as if Stephen Zucker has purposely tried to keep any realism away from the piece. Most of the movie complements that dire hovercraft scene from 'Shag Me Another Day'.

When I think back on what made Spielberg the genius he once was. All I can think of now is that he wanted to impress. 'Duel' and the first episode of 'Columbo' was pure magic. And as he would agree, it was 'Hitchcockian'. Later on he found his own 'niche'.

I have to say that I'm more than underwhelmed by the production. And I'm a more than heavy John Williams fan. But all of them are past any sensibility to make this unworthy entry in the 'Indiana Jones' franchise work.

Being a major film buff. I have to say that I'm saddened and embarrassed in what I've seen in the past twenty years. Very seldom can I say that a movie is worth going to watch. I love 'Music and Lyrics' as it's always worth multiple viewings. But just look at the lack of continuity. But that's another topic.

As for 'Ironman'. Yet another pile of dross (although slightly humorous) that's getting piles of money just because it appeared in 'Marvel'.

How 'seasoned' professionals could pass this as a new entertaining and positive entry in a two decade absence franchise is beneath me.

I'm so sorry for sounding negative. But I like my movies at least entertaining without too much concentration on why they must be made in the first place.

Cheers,


Ian