Jump to content
IGNORED

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull


Goose
 Share

Recommended Posts

I haven't seen Raiders in a long time. I'm going to watch it again soon.

I saw TOD and TLC a little while ago when they were shown on BBC1.

KotCS felt like a mixture of ToD and TLC to me. Without the stand out set piece stunt work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont agree with that. It feels very much like an indy film and all the references to marcus and his dad, and the reappearance of marion and stuff, all would have felt very different if it wasnt a character we already knew

But none of those make it an Indy film, it just made it a film with Indy references in it. As I said I dont think its a bad film at all and it has great action sequences in it however it just feels very ordinary, none of the action made me go weeeeee because none of it felt as if it could actually happen.

Basically action sequences have to do 1 of two things, either be impressive enough to make you go WOW or realistic enough to make you believe whatever your watching, however bizarre, is perfectly plausible.

The worst just make you think what your watching is incredibly silly. The first three Indy films all nailed the realistic enough to make you believe it could happen feeling, this one made me think that what I was seeing was incredibly silly at points (again most of this is directed at the ending).

So references are all well and good but that in itself does not make it an Indy film. Replace Marion with any other love interest and would it really have felt that much different as long as the story was handled a bit better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the film had a lot of problems, it did still feel like an Indiana Jones film to me for the most part, even if Indy was played rather strangely. Like why is he being coy with translations all the time ("Oh in Mayan it ALSO means...") and there seems to be a lot of explaining and 'working out' of rather dumb things. In Raiders he explains everything on the chalkboard to the government men, and then only very rarely mentions anything like that again. Half the time, he just does something rather than talking about it. Like in Temple of Doom, he just silently figures out to grab statue-boob to open a secret door. I wasn't ever really bothered by goofy antics or gags in the new movie, which are part of all the films, but was a bit put out by the changes in the character of Indy and style of his adventure.

However I do agree with whoever said down thread that the film is being judged harshly because of how much later it has come out. If the film had been released closer to Last Crusade, say 1994, then I don't think people would be as worked up. Plus the effects in the second half of the film would have fit right in back in 1994 too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are two things at play here – one thing is that the movie is set (out of necessity) in a different era from the others. Indy isn’t some maverick 30s adventurer now, he’s

post-war, ex-army and older

.

It wasn’t made a big deal of, and didn’t matter when he was in the thick of the action, but it was always going to make this film feel slightly different from the first three. As well as being awesome, with

the nuke and the McCarthy-style FBI men

, the first twenty minutes pretty much scream at you ‘THIS IS THE FIFTIES!’

The other thing is that a lot of us grew up with the first movies and can’t lose ourselves in a new film quite the way we used to.

I was a kid when I saw ToD and could vividly imagine being torn apart by crocodiles after falling from a rope bridge – I wasn’t just being entertained, I was there. And judging by the vocal reaction of some of the kids in the screening I saw, they were having the same experience with KotCS especially with stuff like

the ants

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And judging by the vocal reaction of some of the kids in the screening I saw, they were having the same experience with KotCS especially with stuff like

the ants

.

The kids were also loving it at the screening I was at, finishing Indy's lines when he starts to count the

waterfalls

and things like that. They also laughed at things like Shia LeBeouf getting hit in the balls several times. The grown ups in the audience also seemed to be enjoying themselves and laughed at

the blowdart, punching Mac in the tent, when Indy says "I Like Ike"

and so on. I suppose next weekend will be the test of it's real popularity with the young, new audience to Indy movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:P Oh, please tell me you're not serious!

No I was just having a wee joke poke, but the effects in the second half are bad. I wonder if the film was a little rushed to meet the Memorial Day weekend, it couldn't have been a money issue because they had loads of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kids were also loving it at the screening I was at, finishing Indy's lines when he starts to count the

waterfalls

and things like that. They also laughed at things like Shia LeBeouf getting hit in the balls several times. The grown ups in the audience also seemed to be enjoying themselves and laughed at

the blowdart, punching Mac in the tent, when Indy says "I Like Ike"

and so on. I suppose next weekend will be the test of it's real popularity with the young, new audience to Indy movies.

what was the deal with the

'i like ike'

thing? i heard him say it and wondered what he was going on about. i must have missed something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what was the deal with the

'i like ike'

thing? i heard him say it and wondered what he was going on about. i must have missed something.

Dwight D Eisenhower's nick-name was 'Ike'. It was a political campaign in the early 50s... people would wear badges saying "I Like Ike".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dwight D Eisenhower's nick-name was 'Ike'. It was a political campaign in the early 50s... people would wear badges saying "I Like Ike".

and what did that have to do with anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and what did that have to do with anything?

I'd heard the phrase before, but didn't know much more about it other than that it referred to President Eisenhower. I don't know if it also had any particular defiant "Beat the Commies!" significance in the '50s - I assumed it did, from its context in the film.

And checking the Wikipedia article - yup, as expected, someone's shoehorned a reference to Indy 4 into the last paragraph. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was saying it to a bunch of Communists who weren't fans...

'No ticket....' it ain't.

*EDIT. Tits! Beaten...!

Can't stop thinking about Darabont's

'Indy's brother'

script... Surely 'a source' will leak it at some point?

Jim Broadbent played his character exactly like the guy he played in the tremendous Mike Leigh short 'A Sense of History', by the way, which is highly recommended...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105355/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was saying it to a bunch of Communists who weren't fans...

'No ticket....' it ain't.

*EDIT. Tits! Beaten...!

Can't stop thinking about Darabont's

'Indy's brother'

script... Surely 'a source' will leak it at some point?

Jim Broadbent played his character exactly like the guy he played in the tremendous Mike Leigh short 'A Sense of History', by the way, which is highly recommended...

<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105355/" target="_blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105355/</a>

Slightly off topic, but I always thought "no ticket2 was really flat. its a good line but its delivered terribly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a kid when I saw ToD and could vividly imagine being torn apart by crocodiles after falling from a rope bridge – I wasn’t just being entertained, I was there. And judging by the vocal reaction of some of the kids in the screening I saw, they were having the same experience with KotCS especially with stuff like

the ants

.

I think this is what people are forgetting. I watched this with my daughter and throughout the whole jungle chase scene she was squeaking with excitement, practically bouncing out of her seat and at the ant part she started chewing her hair band with the tension. Her hair band had fallen out when she clasped the top of her head in terror as the ants appeared.

Watching this kind of film with kids gives you a whole other outlook on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this tonight. Some minor spoilers below but it's all stuff thats already been mentioned.

I thought the first half was quite strong. A nice sense of history and time having moved on, whole thing screamed 'new era' at you. It didn't feel like classic Indy as such, but it felt right for a modern day IJ film. And as many have said, the dust cloud shot was amazing.

Unfortunately the second half was nowhere near as strong. Too many silly bits start start creeping in, the CGI gets dodgy, the plot virtually vanishes. The imagery also shows a complete lack of imagination - the ending was about as cliched as it could get.

So good and bad. Enjoyed the experience, but suspect repeat viewings might only reinforce the bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's clear that I disagree. :angry:

I had no problem with the vine swinging, or anything else. It was no more silly than in previous movies. Arguing otherwise is futile.

Well - the army of friendly monkeys certainly made it more silly than anything that went before. But you've missed the point about people complaining about it... it's not whether or not it's ludicrous... it's whether or not it was an actual stunt or CGI. You can immediately tell the difference in these things when it's CGI or real stunt work - and when you know it's CGI - it destroys the suspension of disbelief. It no longer becomes exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was pretty good, wouldn't mind seeing it again. I'd seen people moaning about CGI but it really didn't bother me and mostly I thought it was very well done. I thought by and large the film was faithful to precedents set by the series, in both content and tone, I liked the look of the film too. I thought Ford as an older Indiana was good and after initially thinking "oh FFS" when the bloke from Transformers appeared I think the whole cast was pretty good.

Best bit for me was the final scene in the film, just before the credits, I thought that was excellent.

EDIT: Reading through the thread I'm fairly stunned at the amount of negativity this film's getting here, genuinely. It seems that people would hate it no matter what they'd made just because it wasn't released during their early childhood. Or even before.

Also, I neglected to mention that I watched Last Crusade a few days before going to see this and thought Crystal Skull was much better. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still the lack of innovation in direction that I find most disappointing. Poor as ToD is there are some lovely shots that make a Spielberg movie for me - like "NOBODY'S FLYING THE PLANE" and all that follows (like the exaggerated left and right to look at the engines once they realise the fuel has gone). It's got an almost theatrical quality, as almost all the best scenes in the series do. Only Indy's introduction in the opening minutes and the nuclear town scene had that for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still the lack of innovation in direction that I find most disappointing. Poor as ToD is there are some lovely shots that make a Spielberg movie for me - like "NOBODY'S FLYING THE PLANE" and all that follows (like the exaggerated left and right to look at the engines once they realise the fuel has gone). It's got an almost theatrical quality, as almost all the best scenes in the series do. Only Indy's introduction in the opening minutes and the nuclear town scene had that for me.

I watched ity today for the third time and i think its supremely well directed. The motorbike take is full of long energetic character movements and theres stunning choreography throughout. Almost every sequence has long takes with stuff happening in both the foreground and the distance. Very old school and not at all how movies are usually made these days.

i took my 8 year old daughter and she said this was her 2nd favourite after Raiders, though she hasnt seen ToD (bit too scary i reckon).

regarding the sword fight on the back of the vehicle, there are 3 shots that i'm fairly certain ARE a stuntman riding 2 vehicles simultaneously. its only the close up sword fight that is heavily CG'd. I still think it looks great and that whole sequence is just awesome.

the ending is a complete non event though. majorly disappointing, but everything else i think is great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think world renowned stuntman Vic Armstrong did the second unit/stunt stuff on this. If I remember, he was working The Mummy 3.

Yep, Wikipedia confirms it - though Armstrong did discuss action sequences with Spielberg while they were working on War of the Worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree the stunts, effects and all that were typically Spielberg and superb. But

I really hated it and that kills me to say that.

It was all a big jolly party, with Lucas cheese at it's very very worst in places.

The only thing missing was George Formby singing turned out nice again at the end.

Gutted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note, I just saw 'What Happens in Vegas' and thought that was one of the funniest chick-flicks I've ever seen. What Happens in Vegas >>> Indy 4.

I saw a dead rabbit at the side of the road on my way back from work which had been soaked by the morning's rain, then apparently steam-cooked when the sun came out in the afternoon, and that was better than Indy 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got back from watching this. I was really enjoying it

up to a point after the motorbike chase which ended in the campus library. But then the middle sagged, and the action scenes were pretty lame after that. Poor use of CGI, which I wasn't expecting. The scene with the tarzan swinging and the monkeys was especially shit. Was it me, or did there seem to be literally no chemistry between Allen and Ford? Compared to the way they sparked off each other in Raiders, it felt odd. Allen looked spaced out, half the time.

A bit disappointed really. I'm hovering close to a 3 out of 5. But I'll give it 2.5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.