2519 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

This series IMHO makes all four films redundant.

I don't see how, since the goals of the series and goals of the films are so different they can't really be compared. The TV series doesn't do a good job of carrying the "adventure serial" flag, that's for sure.

[Bondian]

This series IMHO makes all four films redundant.

I don't see how, since the goals of the series and goals of the films are so different they can't really be compared. The TV series doesn't do a good job of carrying the "adventure serial" flag, that's for sure.

There's a quote in this that establishes the series. It's when Indy first meets George McHale. He mentioned some German or Russian place that is featured in the series.

He's almost like a Alec Trevelyan / Janus character.

[Harmsway]

There's a quote in this that establishes the series.

A few, actually (there's the reference to Pancho Villa as well), but I still don't see how the series is somehow "superior" to the films, given that they're made with entirely different intentions.

[Bondian]

Thanks, mate. I'd forgotten about that one.

It's just my opinion. Some may think that the television series is contrived. It can be annoying that we find Indy involved with good and bad people from all over the world in such a short time. A long haired American leading a Belgium Army. It sounds illogical. But what the hell. It's exceedingly well done and so well produced and executed. We (the viewers) get to spend some time with some of the tyrants and heroes of the 20th century. Not only that, we learn some true history with usually a 30 minute or so documentary.

I love the movies. But after viewing the entire TV series I've learned more about history, than a film series trying hard to impress that what it tried to convey could be true.

[HildebrandRarity]

[quote name='Harmsway' post='873039' date='23 May 2008 - 03:49'][quote]name='HildebrandRarity' post='873018' date='22 May 2008 - 19:19']Anyway, it's time to put Grandpa Jones to pasture and concentrate on James Bond for the rest of your lifetimes.[/quote]
The time will come to put Bond out to pasture.
[/quote]

I don't see it happening in my life time. There may be the odd 4, 5 even 7 year break here and there if a financial stinker is ever put out, but the ability to rejuvinate and the shift in global demographics (mainly away from America) suggests James Bond will be around 25 to 30 years minimum...as long as adults continue to crave adult-type entertainment.

James Bond is an aspirational, always-current and materially relevant global brand (unlike Indy Jones or other period or sci-fi or comic book super heroes) and that puts it in a class of its own.

[dinovelvet]

Haven't seen it yet. Really don't know if I want to, given what I've been reading. Not just in this thread, but other sites. On every forum I look at, I'm seeing all the right (wrong?) words -

"silly"
"CGI"
"monkey"
"Lucas"
"cartoon"
"cringed"



The confusing thing here is that there seems to be a massive gulf between what the critics are saying (79% positive) and what fans are saying. I dunno, is it worth it?

[bpetta1]

Yes, it is rough. I have no idea why the critics liked (or claimed to like) this movie. There is nothing resembling a good film. It rides on the coattails of the previous three, and even manages to screw that up. It was a totally useless, inconsequential movie that was poorly conceived and poorly produced. I've seen it twice to give it a fair shot and can say I genuinely hate it...I never thought I would ever say those words for the decade I've waited reverently for this film to be released. I have a Raiders poster framed in my room, not even ten feet from where I'm sitting right now for christsakes. This movie is ... below-average. And I loathe it.

Harrison and Spielberg: How could you? I expected it from Lucas, but you are the ones to blame. You agreed to this and will forever be lowered substantially in my opinion. Despite what everyone says, this was the one movie you couldn't screw up. Throw a mediocre plot together with an Indiana Jones feel and half-way decent acting and I would have loved it. But you gave me a mediocre plot with terrible cinematography, dialogue, I'll say it, even the acting was terrible. Everything was terrible. The humor, the climax, everything. I was cautious of the idea of the Crystal Skulls and the heavily rumored alien subplot, but was open to it. You not only underwhelmed your fanbase, but insulted us. This was an insult. How dare you?

[ACE]

It was a totally useless, inconsequential movie that was poorly conceived and poorly produced. I've seen it twice ...

How many times do you see films you like?

Yeah, dinovelvet, it's worth seeing (see bpetta1 quote above) even if you don't like it. It would be interesting to hear your own opinion and for you to make your own mind up.

[bpetta1]

ACE - I've gotten this reaction from a few people I've talked to. I saw it twice, partly because I hadn't made up my mind on what I thought. But mainly, because I was in denial and wanted desperately to disprove what I felt I had seen. The second viewing was damning.

There are a few fun parts in the movie that are worth seeing, but they are few and far between and when it's over, they will be far from your mind which will be filled with questions that have no answers.

[ACE]

Fair enough, Bpetta1.
You must admit, it does sound odd.
But I guess you loved the original series and your faith has been broken by this.

I think time will be a big factor of acceptance for this movie. In 5 years, when the hype and expectation has died down, this film will sneak into polite society. And people will enjoy it for what it is, not what they wanted it to be.

BTW, George Lucas is not solely responsible for this. Spielberg and to lesser extent, Ford, must share blame (and credit). Notice how little screenwriters David Koepp and Jeff Nathanson feature in the condemnations - this 12-writer-Spy Who-Loved-Me-Bitches-Brew of a script has more finger prints on it than a Tijuana whore.

The stated aim of Raiders Of The Lost Ark was to make money. It was shot fast and cheap and on time to salve Spielberg's past woes. That doesn't mean there isn't a whole lotta love there but when people talk about this instalment being money-grabbing, twas ever thus for Indy and all film franchises - that's why they're franchises!

I'm up for a fifth film with Mutt. It will have to have a "Raiders Of The..." prefix though.

[Colossus]

No wonder Connery never got involved in this, i bet he saw the script and laughed his a** off and sent it back to Lucas.

Edited by Colossus, 23 May 2008 - 09:20 AM.

[DamnCoffee]

I'm up for a fifth film with Mutt. It will have to have a "Raiders Of The..." prefix though.

Why though, it was revealed that his name was Henry Jones, so he could easily coin the Indy nickname.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: Review
Well... all I can say is... WOW! This Indiana Jones Film is easily one of the best in the franchise. I love it from start to finish. Harrison Ford still proves that he is the right man for the job, certainly he's a little older, a little wiser... but he is still the same kick action hero he always was and always will be! Firstly. I love Indys introduction, its absoloultly perfect as he has been greatly missed for 19 years. The only problem I have with Harrison is that his line delivery sounds like that of a video game character, though., I'm glad to say, his presence and charm pulls it off. I really do not think the writing is weak at all, yeah it has its moments but who cares, this is not meant to have a deep meaning, this is meant to be a light hearted, action adventure movie, and it certainly lives up to expectations. For Example. In CRUSADE. I didn't care about the quest for the holy grail, I just watched it for the entertainment and how Indy got to it. The same goes for this SKULL.. I'm going to be completely honest here, i just watch Indiana Jones to be entertained, its not like Bond where I think the character should have real emotional depth, but I have to admit that I did love the moments in the previous three when Indy did show some humanity. Nothing else I can say really. Great Music... I love how Williams reused the 'Flight from Peru' Track from Raiders. I'm beginning to warm greatly to the score since I have seen it in action. Great moments of humour, most notably Indy tripping over the dummys in the Nuclear Test Centre and his quip "Yeahh sure dont wait for me!!" as he is running after the jeep. I loved the whole Fridge scene, though it did look like an out of control TARDIS flying through the sky, The Quicksand Scene was rather amusing as was the whole call the snake a rope sherade. The Only problem I had with it was that I felt that it was over to soon, It needed to be longer.
Anywhay...Great Action and Supporting Actors, nothing else I can say really - I Loved INDY IV. I give it a 8/10, seriosuly, its fantastic entertainment! all I can say is... Roll On Indiana Jones 5.



1. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
2. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
3. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
4. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

[dinovelvet]

No wonder Connery never got involved in this, i bet he saw the script and laughed his a** off and sent it back to Lucas.

Lol, yeah I remember seeing people mock Big Tam for turning down the new Indiana Jones movie. Are they laughing now? Anyway, he probably used the script for toilet paper.

And then sent it back to Lucas.

Yeah, dinovelvet, it's worth seeing (see bpetta1 quote above) even if you don't like it. It would be interesting to hear your own opinion and for you to make your own mind up.

Yeah I haven't decided yet. So far its not looking good, as I'm hearing all the dreaded keywords about it. Got the long weekend to figure it out, I guess.

[Loomis]

I dunno, is it worth it?

As Samuel Johnson said, it's worth seeing, yes - but not worth going to see.

Seriously, this is a flick that will probably be more satisfying and (thanks to the way it was lit) more pleasing - or at any rate less injurious - to the eye on DVD.

(Which is something I never thought I could say about an Indiana Jones epic.)

I don't hate the things people are "supposed to" hate about CRYSTAL SKULL, e.g. the prairie dogs and monkeys, just as, in Bond, I don't hate the things that fans are taught by the "experts" to hate, such as J.W. Pepper, the slide whistle, Dolly and so forth. Heck, I loved those cute prairie dogs!

What I did take exception to was the lack of any real energy to the film.

The last film I saw before CRYSTAL was POINT BREAK, which has always been a sort of cinematic comfort food favourite of mine. It has all the flaws of the most maligned aspects of the Indy Jones series: wooden performances, a silly story, plot holes galore, outlandish stunt concepts (e.g. Keanu Reeves behaving like Bond in the MOONRAKER PTS) and some very goofy humour. What's more, the tone veers all over the place, from goofiness to grittiness (it's surprisingly hard-edged in places and indeed carries an 18 certificate in the UK) to melodrama. The film is a mishmash of a bewilderingly broad range of genres: buddy movie, undercover cop movie, comedy, surfing subculture movie, John Hughes teen angst movie and Bondian action extravaganza. It's a real mess, a dog's dinner, as they say. But in that respect, it's really no different to, say, INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, which dwells on playground humour involving Indians eating creepy-crawlies yet was also shocking enough (for its genre and target audience) in its explicit gore as to merit the creation of an all-new rating, the PG-13.

So what does POINT BREAK have to do with INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL? Well, for me, POINT BREAK works for two main reasons:

- It has charm. This is chiefly down to the performances. Reeves and Swayze are engaging leads who have enough charisma that they become interesting for the audience to watch.

- It has energy. Kathryn Bigelow's direction rises above the shockingly messy material. The film has flair and a real kick to it.

Now, CRYSTAL SKULL has charm, but it doesn't have energy. Ford's charisma pretty much carries the whole show, and Allen, Blanchett and Shia are also decent. But where is the picture's energy? Spielberg seems to have been asleep at the wheel. His direction is flat and workmanlike, displaying no passion for the project.

With the other Indys, you get the feeling that Spielberg's attitude was "This is really just a load of crap, but I'm going to do it brilliantly" (which by and large he did). This time round, though, you get the sense that he thought "This is really just a load of crap, but I'm going to do it, just to get together with George and the old gang again".

But, sure, it's still worth seeing. After all, most movies out there are still much worse. For many of us it's great just to see Ford dressed up as Indy again - it's basically just the equivalent of watching Indy passing wind in the bathtub, but, hey, it's still Indy, after all, so woo-hoo!

However, there are undeniably some nice moments throughout, and the Nevada opening is terrific, albeit that it could (and, needless to say, should) have been handled rather better. Overall, it's a fun nostalgiafest.

But, really, it comes to something when we're discussing whether the new Indiana Jones outing is even worth watching, no?

[marktmurphy]

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.

I'd agree with all of that: it's a good, fun time in the cinema but probably no classic like the originals. It does sit alongside them, however, unlike the Star Wars series.

There's a lack of tension and excitement, and Spielberg doesn't seem as imaginative as he used to, but it more than keeps you entertained. There's flaws a-plenty, and I'll probably get round to listing all the ones I saw (why's it all indoors? Why does no-one call him Indy?), but it's all a bit churlish as it more than kept me entertained and made me laugh plenty of times. It's good.

[DamnCoffee]

I'm up for a fifth film with Mutt. It will have to have a "Raiders Of The..." prefix though.

Why though, it was revealed that his name was Henry Jones, so he could easily coin the Indy nickname.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: ReviewWell... all I can say is... WOW! This Indiana Jones Film is easily one of the best in the franchise. I love it from start to finish. Harrison Ford still proves that he is the right man for the job, certainly he's a little older, a little wiser... but he is still the same kick action hero he always was and always will be! Firstly. I love Indys introduction, its absolutely perfect as he has been greatly missed for 19 years. The only problem I have with Harrison is that his line delivery sounds like that of a video game character, though., I'm glad to say, his presence and charm pulls it off. I really do not think the writing is weak at all, yeah it has its moments but who cares, this is not meant to have a deep meaning, this is meant to be a light hearted, action adventure movie, and it certainly lives up to expectations. For Example. In CRUSADE. I didn't care about the quest for the holy grail, I just watched it for the entertainment and how Indy got to it. The same goes for this SKULL.. I'm going to be completely honest here, i just watch Indiana Jones to be entertained, its not like Bond where I think the character should have real emotional depth, but I have to admit that I did love the moments in the previous three when Indy did show some humanity. Nothing else I can say really. Great Music... I love how Williams reused the 'Flight from Peru' Track from Raiders. I'm beginning to warm greatly to the score since I have seen it in action. Great moments of humour, most notably Indy tripping over the dummy's in the Nuclear Test Centre and his quip "Yeahh sure don't wait for me!!" as he is running after the jeep. I loved the whole Fridge scene, though it did look like an out of control TARDIS flying through the sky, The Quicksand Scene was rather amusing as was the whole call the snake a rope charade. The Only problem I had with it was that I felt that it was over to soon, It needed to be longer. Anywhay...Great Action and Supporting Actors, nothing else I can say really - I Loved INDY IV. I give it a 8/10, seriously, its fantastic entertainment! all I can say is... Roll On Indiana Jones 5.



1. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
2. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
3. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
4. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

[marktmurphy]

This series IMHO makes all four films redundant.

I don't see how, since the goals of the series and goals of the films are so different they can't really be compared. The TV series doesn't do a good job of carrying the "adventure serial" flag, that's for sure.

The TV series is dreadful. Huge production values don't make up for being boring. It's appallingly written and doesn't appear to be directed at all. I just watched one called 'Treasure of the Peacock's Eye' and it's absolutely shocking. No wit, terrible action (who is this karate-kicking, snake-loving man with no sense of humour? It certainly ain't Indiana Jones) a stupid story, idiotic cameos from real famous people for no other reason than the sake of it ("Here's EM Forster...") and a story which peters away on a desert island where nothing happens until Indy decides to go home without finding the treasure. Yes, an Indiana Jones story where Indy decides to go home rather than have an adventure. Terrible.

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).

But First Blood isn't as good as Raiders.

[Loomis]

No one's saying it is. But RAMBO is as good as FIRST BLOOD (just about) and far superior to RAMBO III. Whereas CRYSTAL SKULL isn't as good as RAIDERS (not nearly) and isn't far superior to LAST CRUSADE.

[marktmurphy]

No one's saying it is. But RAMBO is as good as FIRST BLOOD (just about) and far superior to RAMBO III. Whereas CRYSTAL SKULL isn't as good as RAIDERS (not nearly) and isn't far superior to LAST CRUSADE.

But I don't see the point in pointing out than Plan 9 From Outer Space 2 is as good as the original whereas Citizen Kane 2 doesn't live up to it's predecessor. That doesn't make Plan 9 2 a better movie.
Citizen Kane 2 has a much greater challenge.

[Loomis]

No one's saying it is. But RAMBO is as good as FIRST BLOOD (just about) and far superior to RAMBO III. Whereas CRYSTAL SKULL isn't as good as RAIDERS (not nearly) and isn't far superior to LAST CRUSADE.

But I don't see the point in pointing out than Plan 9 From Outer Space 2 is as good as the original whereas Citizen Kane 2 doesn't live up to it's predecessor. That doesn't make Plan 9 2 a better movie.
Citizen Kane 2 has a much greater challenge.

Well, FIRST BLOOD (while not as good as RAIDERS) wasn't PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. It was considerably better.

I'm not sure that RAMBO's challenge was any smaller than that of KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. It also had to restart a dead series nearly twenty years on, but with none of the critical goodwill that Indy had, a far smaller "fanbase", and without Indy's guaranteed huge budget and box office. LAST CRUSADE was a massive hit, whereas RAMBO III bombed. Lucas and Spielberg have always been Hollywood giants with total money, power and freedom, but when Stallone signed up for RAMBO IV he had nothing but many years' worth of flops to his name - he was a byword for "washed-up has-been who can't get arrested" (he signed for RAMBO IV before he made ROCKY BALBOA, which film restored his fortunes somewhat). And the character of Indiana Jones was never the massive laughing stock that Rambo was at the end of the '80s. Even to get RAMBO made, never mind to get it up to FIRST BLOOD levels of quality, was a pretty big accomplishment.

CRYSTAL SKULL may or may not be a better film than RAMBO - personally, I think they're about the same in quality. But I think Stallone deserves far more kudos than Lucas/Spielberg for his franchise flick #4 belated comeback.

And I'm far from sure that CRYSTAL SKULL even matches TEMPLE and CRUSADE in quality.

[marktmurphy]

No one's saying it is. But RAMBO is as good as FIRST BLOOD (just about) and far superior to RAMBO III. Whereas CRYSTAL SKULL isn't as good as RAIDERS (not nearly) and isn't far superior to LAST CRUSADE.

But I don't see the point in pointing out than Plan 9 From Outer Space 2 is as good as the original whereas Citizen Kane 2 doesn't live up to it's predecessor. That doesn't make Plan 9 2 a better movie.
Citizen Kane 2 has a much greater challenge.

Well, FIRST BLOOD (while not as good as RAIDERS) wasn't PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE.

Yeah I know: it was Plan 9 4

But seriously; I'm just exaggerating to make the point.

CRYSTAL SKULL may or may not be a better film than RAMBO - personally, I think they're about the same in quality. But I think Stallone deserves far more kudos than Lucas/Spielberg for his franchise flick #4 belated comeback.

But it got bad reviews and did pretty badly, didn't it? I don't think Indy will work that way. So he might deserve your kudos for what you think of the film, but I'm not sure general opinion will agree.

Personally I've got nothing against Stallone- I like his balls in doing Rambo and I will definitely try and catch it on DVD (I suspect that I will rather enjoy it) and I know what you're saying about it being slightly easier to get a new Indy greenlit than a Rambo one, but all the same I don't see the point in saying one matches up to the original more than the other- one of those originals is a strong contender for best film ever made. And First Blood, whilst being very good, is best enjoyed in a slightly ironic sense- it's a high quality post-pub movie that you have to laugh at rather than with in some points. The sheer invention and imagination in Raiders, together with the way it hits everything it aims for in an almost flukey way makes it a much harder propostion to match in my book.

As you say, Skull and Rambo may be about the same quality (which I'll go with, as I haven't seen both) and that's the only statement that needs saying. To say that Rambo matches its original in quality more only serves to denegrate the Rambo series, doesn't it? If their latest sequels are about similar quality then it must mean that Rambo wasn't as good to start with.

And I'm far from sure that CRYSTAL SKULL even matches TEMPLE and CRUSADE in quality.

Yeah, I'd probably agree, but that doesn't make it a bad film. It's still good solid and enjoyable even if it doesn't reach the heights of the first three.

[DamnCoffee]

I've just realised that Skull has made its way into IMDB's Top 250, ranking at #175.

[Loomis]

But it got bad reviews and did pretty badly, didn't it? I don't think Indy will work that way. So he might deserve your kudos for what you think of the film, but I'm not sure general opinion will agree.

Well, as with CRYSTAL SKULL, there's a split between what critics think and what "the fans" think, but it goes in the other direction. Seems to me that CRYSTAL is pleasing the critics but not the fans, whereas RAMBO pleased the fans but not the critics. In Rambo fandom (such as it exists - we held our last meeting in a phone box ), RAMBO was a success.

Personally I've got nothing against Stallone- I like his balls in doing Rambo and I will definitely try and catch it on DVD (I suspect that I will rather enjoy it) and I know what you're saying about it being slightly easier to get a new Indy greenlit than a Rambo one, but all the same I don't see the point in saying one matches up to the original more than the other- one of those originals is a strong contender for best film ever made. And First Blood, whilst being very good, is best enjoyed in a slightly ironic sense- it's a high quality post-pub movie that you have to laugh at rather than with in some points. The sheer invention and imagination in Raiders, together with the way it hits everything it aims for in an almost flukey way makes it a much harder propostion to match in my book.

As you say, Skull and Rambo may be about the same quality (which I'll go with, as I haven't seen both) and that's the only statement that needs saying. To say that Rambo matches its original in quality more only serves to denegrate the Rambo series, doesn't it? If their latest sequels are about similar quality then it must mean that Rambo wasn't as good to start with.

Sure, but all I'm saying, really, is that I consider Stallone's recovery to franchise form to be more impressive than that of Lucasberg - longer odds, much worse track record, etc. It's like the elephant who waterskis - it's not that he does it well, it's that he does it at all.

While I'm not as much of a RAIDERS worshipper as you are (although I do think it's terrific stuff, and I don't have any problems with it - I just wouldn't call it "a strong contender for best film ever made"), I'd agree that matching RAIDERS in quality is a far, far taller order than matching FIRST BLOOD in quality. RAIDERS is superb, and a milestone in popular moviemaking.

By the same token, though, didn't at least a part of you expect rather more from the makers of RAIDERS than what CRYSTAL SKULL has turned out to be? Honestly, are you not even slightly disappointed?

(It's not) a bad film. It's still good solid and enjoyable even if it doesn't reach the heights of the first three.

Agreed. I know I'll watch it again at least once, probably on DVD, and who knows? I may well enjoy it more the second time. I don't hate CRYSTAL SKULL, and I didn't emerge from the cinema thinking "Lucas is the devil! Why didn't he make the Indiana Jones film I wanted to make?". OTOH, it does have more than a few obvious flaws, and, yes, it could have been better.

[HildebrandRarity]

Loomis, how do you compare Crystal Skull to Iron Man? I've seen Iron Man twice but will see Crystal Skull tomorrow.

Harmsway conceeded (and then confirmed) the quality stakes a while back...in favour of IM, so interested to see what you have to say.

[Matt_13]

What I simply didn't like about this film was the quality of the writing. The script felt repetitive and kind of awkward most of the time, with Ford being dealt a lot of cringe worthy lines. The CG look also made things feel a little off and the action, while pretty well done on the whole, never really got the adenaline going. I don't know, it could just be me but I really couldn't get into the adventure this time around.

[HildebrandRarity]

Another thing, some of you guys must be just gutted to have put so much time and energy (45 pages worth of posts on a James Bond site) into a project that not only delivered so little but also was only going to line the already well-lined pockets of a couple or three individuals who were well, well past their prime. Good show.

I'm glad i'm a James Bond fan. At least I can look forward to something which has the involvement of three individuals who are young and remain hungry and who are only just hitting the very peak of their prime, namely Brocolli, Forster and Craig. Now that's something to savour.

[Loomis]

I haven't seen IRON MAN. Will probably check it out on DVD. But here's how I'd rate CRYSTAL SKULL against other recent franchise fare and franchise "comeback" movies I did see:

BETTER THAN

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III

STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE

STAR WARS EPISODE III: REVENGE OF THE SITH

TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINES

THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH

ON A PAR WITH

DIE HARD 4.0/LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD

RAMBO

STAR WARS EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES

TOMORROW NEVER DIES

WORSE THAN

THE BOURNE IDENTITY/SUPREMACY/ULTIMATUM

CASINO ROYALE

DIE ANOTHER DAY

GOLDENEYE

LETHAL WEAPON 4

ROCKY BALBOA

Never saw the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN flicks, so I wouldn't know how CRYSTAL SKULL compares to them.

[Simon]

Another thing, some of you guys must be just gutted to have put so much time and energy (45 pages worth of posts on a James Bond site) into a project that not only delivered so little but also was only going to line the already well-lined pockets of a couple or three individuals who were well, well past their prime. Good show.

Guessing you're hoping that QoS delivers then otherwise there will be countless pages and time and energy similarly devoted...

[HildebrandRarity]

I haven't seen IRON MAN.

You must be joking! It's the movie of the year thus far.

And you're going to see it on DVD? What a waste. It's a BIG screen movie, dude.

I'm dissapointed, my friend.

[marktmurphy]

By the same token, though, didn't at least a part of you expect rather more from the makers of RAIDERS than what CRYSTAL SKULL has turned out to be? Honestly, are you not even slightly disappointed?

Yeah of course, but that was inevitable really: too long a wait and the quality was too high beforehand. So I find it hard to be very down on the film, mostly because I did have a good time. It's flawed, but I still had fun.

Annoyingly that Harry guy on AICN makes a good point: the Indy films were built on nostalgia (for the 30 serials etc.) and so for this film to be based on nostalgia for the old films does sort of make sense. I know the originals had arguably more besides nostalgia than this one does, but all the same it's very charming and enjoyable.

And worse than Lethal Weapon 4? Seriously? Nah- that is a terrible film, much more self-indulgent. Not sure I'd say Die Another Day is better either, although I don't despise DAD. I'd put them on a par also: they're both very entertaining. Crystal Skull has a bit more charm and flair, though.