2519 replies to this topic

[Royal Dalton]

(Correction to all re the lighting: we've had numerous complaints here about the bright lighting. That's in the opening part of the film and intended, I'd say, for two purposes: to set us in a different era right off (the film looks, to my eyes at least, like old Fifties movies here)

You must have seen a lot of washed out old film prints over the years, then, Dodge.

[dodge]

(Correction to all re the lighting: we've had numerous complaints here about the bright lighting. That's in the opening part of the film and intended, I'd say, for two purposes: to set us in a different era right off (the film looks, to my eyes at least, like old Fifties movies here)

You must have seen a lot of washed out old film prints over the years, then, Dodge.

No doubt I'm so much younger than all the rest of you, old prints are all I get to see!

[Johnboy007]

Russian Communists Want Indy Banned

[Harmsway]

Raiders is my all time favorite popcorn movie but Iron Man is a better film hands down than 'Skull. Maybe you prefer the Indy series to the marvel comic book property and that's totally cool but Iron Man is a more economically structured movie, has more humor and no WTF moments(tarzan,monkeys).

I think IRON MAN has more than its share of awfulness. It has an execrable storyline and a terrible villain. The action, like in KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, is mediocre. The visual style is boring. The actors are generally wasted in their roles, aside from Downey and Paltrow. Without Downey in the lead, it would be a failure on the level of FANTASTIC FOUR and DAREDEVIL.

But FWIW, I think your Dark Knight will be the summer's best film.Just a hunch.

Mine too. The competition for that spot isn't that fierce, and if THE DARK KNIGHT only delivers half of what I want it to, it'll slip right in there.

[Safari Suit]

"It's rubbish ... In 1957 the communists did not run with crystal skulls throughout the U.S. Why should we agree to that sort of lie and let the West trick our youth?"

You tell em' boys!

THE DODGE SUPREMACY
Or: Lemme at my Humble Pie!

Oh dear, now I've become terribly cycical.

[baerrtt]

Maybe the ultimate problem is that, after so many dark films over the years (even films released during the summer season like MINORITY REPORT and WAR OF THE WORLDS), Spielberg hasn't got the natural touch at this type of filmaking anymore.

RAIDERS was as inconsequential as KOTCS is accused of being but the main difference was Spielberg was a young, in his prime and(coming off the disaster that was his 'comedy' 1941) something to prove director. There's nothing wrong with Spielberg wanting to kick off his 'serious' shoes and have fun again but the film (which I reasonably enjoyed) at it's worst is no better that the mediocre ripoffs that have succeeded the INDIANA JONES films (NATIONAL TREASURE, THE MUMMY etc).

It's the curse of being yet another sequel to a an original film (RAIDERS) which is not only considered as one of the best and influential films of it's genre (action) but is one of the FEW films from that genre that some consider one of the best/greatest films of all time period.

Raiders is my all time favorite popcorn movie but Iron Man is a better film hands down than 'Skull. Maybe you prefer the Indy series to the marvel comic book property and that's totally cool but Iron Man is a more economically structured movie, has more humor and no WTF moments(tarzan,monkeys).

I think IRON MAN has more than its share of awfulness. It has an execrable storyline and a terrible villain. The action, like in KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, is mediocre. The visual style is boring. The actors are generally wasted in their roles, aside from Downey and Paltrow. Without Downey in the lead, it would be a failure on the level of FANTASTIC FOUR and DAREDEVIL.

But FWIW, I think your Dark Knight will be the summer's best film.Just a hunch.

Mine too. The competition for that spot isn't that fierce, and if THE DARK KNIGHT only delivers half of what I want it to, it'll slip right in there.

I agree with you on IRON MAN by the way. Like PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN with Johnny Depp's lead performance it's a case of a not very good action film carried by a quirky (for the genre) and excellent lead performance by Downey Jr.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

I pretty much got what I expected and hoped for. Kingdom will sit nicely next to my other Indy dvds. It was a great ride, somewhat flawed like past adventures, but the pure fun it provides helps in overlooking any shortcomings. First of all, I found the new setting compelling. The dirty commies and 50s setting were fantastic. My favorite stuff was probably the first act where we are bombarded with 50 elements. Indy and Mutt really worked together, and Mutt was a likable character. There were no lines that made me cringe, in that respect I think the dialog worked well. Indy acted like Indy, Marion as Marion etc.

The problem with the script was more to do with too many characters resulting in not enough development for each of them. I have no problems with the alien angle, but I would've preferred if they showed a little less and left them more mysterious, like how in previous films we witness the power of god, but not God himself.

Other than that, Indy can still kick some [censored], despite his advanced age. It is hard to compare it to the other three at this early stage, I suspect it is my least favourite, but I still enjoyed it immensely, and look forward to watching it numerous times over the next few decades.

Now that I think about it, would anyone have preferred the title 'Saucer Men From Mars'? The more I think about it the more I'm starting to prefer it to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, mostly because it sounds exactly like a 50s B movie title should and it is more to the point.

Edited by Mr Teddy Bear, 24 May 2008 - 06:15 PM.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Maybe my expectations were too high, but I'm rather disappointed.

A mediocre entry to the Indy series. My instant rating puts in at 3rd in the series (but that only because I can't stand Temple of Doom).

Was it just my ears, or did they somehow process Harrison's voice so he didn't sound as old as he does in current interviews? I noticed it particulary at the beginning of the film, but perhaps I just got used to it as the film progressed.

[Tarl_Cabot]

So I dug out my RAIDERS DVD and watched about half the film. Hadn't seen it in years (I saw - and enjoyed - the second half of TEMPLE of TV the other day, and tried and failed to sit through CRUSADE when it was on telly recently).

I was expecting RAIDERS to be perfect, and you know what? I don't think it is. Don't get me wrong, it's hugely entertaining stuff, and when it works it really works. It's full of shots and scenes that have rightly entered movie history, and back in the day it felt genuinely fresh and exciting and led to hundreds of imitations, blah blah blah.

But perfect?

I don't know if I was watching a different RAIDERS to the one that everyone raves about, but I find that the film has a few pacing problems. Okay, so I'm not calling for the modern day Michael Bay treatment whereby everything's put together so fast and so messily because it's feared that viewers have no attention span whatsoever, but consider the scene near the beginning in which government agents visit Indy and Brody - it's a dialogue-fest that seems to drag on forever, with the actors (as often seems the case during RAIDERS) rather too far away from the camera. It slows things down.

I bring this up because of all the criticisms that CRYSTAL is an excessively talky affair. Well, so's RAIDERS, in places. It has its share of garbled exposition, and certainly more than its share of plot holes.

I mean, how does the Nazi know that he should follow Indy to Nepal? (Okay, you can "fanwank" an answer, namely that the Nazis were keeping tabs on the American government agents, who led them to Indy, but it's the sort of thing that requires some suspension of disbelief.) How does Indy know where to find Marion? Why do the Nazis go to extreme and constant lengths to have Indy killed as soon as he turns up in Cairo, yet they don't kill him when he's a sitting duck talking to Belloq? (Although they do try again straight afterwards.)

And then there are the performances: while Ford has some wonderful, history-making moments (his shooting of the swordsman cracks me up every time), there are also points at which he overacts horribly or is just plain wooden. And there's not quite as much chemistry between him and Karen Allen as I'd always imagined.

RAIDERS is mainly a triumph of production design and action. I wonder whether it's as far removed from CRYSTAL as many people are making out.

No, Raiders is perfect.the action gets racheted up with each set piece and that's the key element. Most action movies blow their wads in the 'pre-title audience hooker-scenes.Read Harry Knowles' TWINE review for further analysis. It's perfect.

Raiders is my all time favorite popcorn movie but Iron Man is a better film hands down than 'Skull. Maybe you prefer the Indy series to the marvel comic book property and that's totally cool but Iron Man is a more economically structured movie, has more humor and no WTF moments(tarzan,monkeys).

I think IRON MAN has more than its share of awfulness. It has an execrable storyline and a terrible villain. The action, like in KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, is mediocre. The visual style is boring. The actors are generally wasted in their roles, aside from Downey and Paltrow. Without Downey in the lead, it would be a failure on the level of FANTASTIC FOUR and DAREDEVIL.

But FWIW, I think your Dark Knight will be the summer's best film.Just a hunch.

Mine too. The competition for that spot isn't that fierce, and if THE DARK KNIGHT only delivers half of what I want it to, it'll slip right in there.

Aw man it's not as bad as Daredevil(a movie I wanted to love but hated)!!. Jeff Bridges is enjoyable playing against his hippie image. The final battle was ho hum but it's still a very enjoyable film. Yes, hardly a masterpiece but a quality summer affair. I think Iron Man II will be much better now that the origin stuff is outta the way.

[Shadow Syndicate]

Really sad movie, If you haven't seen it already, don't waste your time or money. And I am a huge indy fan. Raiders was the first non disney movie I saw at the age of 3. Beat the crap out of Snow White. Used to play Indiana Jones with my brother, walking around the woods or in a dark garage wielding whips my dad brought home from Egypt, department store fedoras and bomber jackets, and Drugstore cap guns. I was waiting for last night almost all my life, and I left feeling utterly empty inside

[Tarl_Cabot]

Wow that bad? Sounds like the Star Wars prequels!

I enjoyed Skull's occasional moments of pure Indyesque fun but it's a movie that underachieved. I was already too jaded by Lucas' quarter centry of mediocredy to be too let down.Let's face it, he hasn't delivered a master peice since Raiders. The Ewoks, Short Round were just the tip of the iceberg...while I didn't let those things ruin Jedi/Temple, those films weren't in the same league of their predeccessors.

[darkpath]

Hmm... prevailing views seem to be negative; but there are a few who seem pleased as punch over it. That does make it a tad difficult to reconcile. As my wife and I have to be pretty particular about what movies we go to see these days (logistics of getting a minder for our little 00 in training, you understand) I'd hoped for a little more consensus in results.

On the other hand, I'm quite curious what trailers were packaged with the film. Anyone care to illuminate me on that matter?

How about a poll on opinion of the film, so we can quantify opinions?

[Tarl_Cabot]

Russian Communists Want Indy Banned

"Members of Russia's Communist Party are calling for a nationwide boycott of the new Indiana Jones movie, saying it aims to undermine communist ideology and distort history."

Most fiction will do that.

At least the Germans and Indians were good sports.



Trailors I saw were for Dark Knight, Don't mess with the Zohan(looks hilarious), The love Guru(looks like a tired Mike Myers' comedy-the man has no idea how to make a funny without a cultural reference). Hancock, The curious case of Bejamin Button(tim Burton? it loks creepy) Baz Lurman's Australia and The Hulk(looks good).

No 007 yet.

[DamnCoffee]

I've just got back from a second viewing and I must say I enjoyed it immensely! Yeahh the Alien Space Ship think was really OTT but It was entertaining and fun - I loved it.

[Jeff007]

Can't beleive after over 15 years they settled on an alien theme.

[dinovelvet]

I wasn't disappointed--which is to say, I gagged.

And yet I called this little rant The Dodge Supremacy for two good reasons: Now that I've been really had, I'm eager to see what Marc Forster can do. 2) I've satisfied I've got the chops to call it like I see it.

Lemme at that Humble Pie!

Ouch! Glad I didn't bother to go. Dodge, after suffering this trauma, I recommend you go look at the "boat chase" footage in the QoS forum, where you'll find Marc Forster letting us know they're doing the stunts for real, no green screen nonsense, and let it warm your heart! This is what I was getting at with Forster/Haggis being more relevant filmmakers. They're not old hams looking to recapture their former glories or just hang out and have a laugh!

[DamnCoffee]

Can't beleive after over 15 years they settled on an alien theme.

I didn't have a problem with the Alien theme at all, I just think that people have a problem with it because they showed an alien and a bloody space ship! If you look at the previous three, Christ or Satan wasn't shown, but I think that Skull showed just a little to much. I wasn't bothered though, it was a fun movie.

I did feel that Mutt should of said "Don't Call me Junior!" instead of "I dont know... why didn't you Dad!" after Indy said "Why Didn't you stick around Junior?".

[Double-Oh-Zero]

I just saw it this afternoon.

It was fine; accomplishes what it sets out to do with flying colours, which is give me a damn entertaining ride for two hours with Dr./Colonel Jones. It is not better than Raiders, and frankly, anyone going into this movie expecting it to be really doesn't deserve to be there in the first place. The alien stuff was great; I buy that more willingly than the centuries-old knight at the end of Crusade.

Yes, there are some silly bits, but Temple and Crusade had their share of daft moments, too. But any stumbles that it takes are made up for by the performances (you can tell that every single cast member was saying "F*** me, we're making another Indy movie!" in between takes) and nostalgia of watching an Indiana Jones movie and feeling ten years old again.

I'm a smitten kitten. Couldn't be happier for Spielberg, Ford, and Lucas. They've still got it.

[Kilroy6644]

On the other hand, I'm quite curious what trailers were packaged with the film. Anyone care to illuminate me on that matter?

I can't remember all of them, but there was Benjamin Button, Get Smart (I really enjoyed that one), The Spirit, and Zohan. Those are the ones I remember.

[Harmsway]

Jeff Bridges is enjoyable playing against his hippie image.

He's pretty bad. But the material he has to work with is pretty bad, too. Awful, boring character.

The final battle was ho hum but it's still a very enjoyable film.

Sure, it's enjoyable. I'm just saying that I actually think KINGDOM is more enjoyable.

Can't beleive after over 15 years they settled on an alien theme.

They'd settled on it as early as 1995. It's been the storyline for all of the INDY IV scripts, and it's a lot more toned down here than it was in INDIANA JONES AND THE SAUCER MEN FROM MARS.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Can't beleive after over 15 years they settled on an alien theme.

Really? You think another biblical artefact and the power of god would've been more climactic?

I'm glad we didn't get a second Raiders remake.

Edited by Mr Teddy Bear, 25 May 2008 - 02:59 AM.

[jaguar007]

I don't think Crystal Skull is really as bad as some people make it out to be. The problem is people will compare it to the other Indy movies,esp Raiders instead of comparing it to other summer movies out there.

Yes, it is the weakest of the 4 (I actually like Temple) but it is really no worse than the Spiderman, Pirates, Mummy, National Treasure or Iron Man.

The biggest complaint is the green screen and CGI, the movies listed above are all CGI heavy.

The previous Indy movies all had "take your breath away" memerable action scenes and stunts (Truck chase, Coal mine chase, Tank chase). Skull had the jungle car chase but the green screen and CGI killed it. Spiderman, Pirates, Mummy, National Treasure or Iron Man did not have any standout action scenes either.

[Harmsway]

According to Lucas, KINGDOM is meant to be the start of a second Indy trilogy:

http://www.foxnews.c...,357988,00.html

Can't say I much interested in the "Indy & Mutt Adventures" direction this is going. As a big Indy fan, I'll certainly anticipate any future adventures regardless, though. Wonder if it'll pan out, or whether it's just Lucas chatting it up (Spielberg and Ford have also stated they are game for more sequels).

[Jackanaples]

Jeff Bridges is enjoyable playing against his hippie image.

He's pretty bad. But the material he has to work with is pretty bad, too. Awful, boring character.

The final battle was ho hum but it's still a very enjoyable film.

Sure, it's enjoyable. I'm just saying that I actually think KINGDOM is more enjoyable.

Can't beleive after over 15 years they settled on an alien theme.

They'd settled on it as early as 1995. It's been the storyline for all of the INDY IV scripts, and it's a lot more toned down here than it was in INDIANA JONES AND THE SAUCER MEN FROM MARS.

Harmsway, did you ever read the Darabont draft of the script or are you aware of how it differs from the Koepp version? I read that Spielberg and Ford loved that one, but Lucas hated it. My guess is that it was exactly the take on the material that I would have loved.

[Harmsway]

Harmsway, did you ever read the Darabont draft of the script or are you aware of how it differs from the Koepp version?

I know some things. Not a lot. The script hasn't ever been leaked in a big way. It was called INDIANA JONES AND THE CITY OF THE GODS. Mutt wasn't in it, Marion was, the crystal skulls/crystal skeletons were utilized, the villains were leftover Nazis after WWII had ended. It also featured the line of dialogue, "It's not the mileage, it's the years."

I read that Spielberg and Ford loved that one, but Lucas hated it. My guess is that it was exactly the take on the material that I would have loved.

Hard to say. Maybe so. Those who have read it have only said good things, though I can't say anything about it.

[Jackanaples]

Okay, I definitely prefer Russians to leftover Nazis. Though if I read Darabont's script he might change my mind. I certainly wouldn't miss Mutt, not because I particularly hate Shia or his performance --I'm just much more interested in Indiana Jones than I am in his son.

I agree with you on the alien aspect --the 1950's B movie angle was something I was really looking forward to. Sadly, they didn't really do anything with it. I was hoping for some creepy THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD type stuff. The younger Spielberg would have jumped at the chance for that.

[DamnCoffee]

Jeff Bridges is enjoyable playing against his hippie image.

He's pretty bad. But the material he has to work with is pretty bad, too. Awful, boring character.

The final battle was ho hum but it's still a very enjoyable film.

Sure, it's enjoyable. I'm just saying that I actually think KINGDOM is more enjoyable.

Can't beleive after over 15 years they settled on an alien theme.

They'd settled on it as early as 1995. It's been the storyline for all of the INDY IV scripts, and it's a lot more toned down here than it was in INDIANA JONES AND THE SAUCER MEN FROM MARS.

Harmsway, did you ever read the Darabont draft of the script or are you aware of how it differs from the Koepp version? I read that Spielberg and Ford loved that one, but Lucas hated it. My guess is that it was exactly the take on the material that I would have loved.

Really? I would of thought Lucas would of loved an over the top movie!

[Tarl_Cabot]

Can't beleive after over 15 years they settled on an alien theme.

I loved the whole Alien thing but I just wish they had explored it and taken it more seriously. The saucer shot was magnificant though.

[DamnCoffee]

Can't beleive after over 15 years they settled on an alien theme.

I loved the whole Alien thing but I just wish they had explored it and taken it more seriously. The saucer shot was magnificant though.

I was probably the only one who didn't laugh in the cinema at that point of the movie. The wierd thing is though - Aliens probably do exist and people find it hard to believe as they have no proof, but god knows how many Flying Saucers have been spotted over the years.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Jeff Bridges is enjoyable playing against his hippie image.

He's pretty bad. But the material he has to work with is pretty bad, too. Awful, boring character.

The final battle was ho hum but it's still a very enjoyable film.

Sure, it's enjoyable. I'm just saying that I actually think KINGDOM is more enjoyable.

Can't beleive after over 15 years they settled on an alien theme.

They'd settled on it as early as 1995. It's been the storyline for all of the INDY IV scripts, and it's a lot more toned down here than it was in INDIANA JONES AND THE SAUCER MEN FROM MARS.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.I liked him as a bad guy but I'll admit he's not as flashy sexy as the Joker.