Spoilers in this thread/Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[imagineer boy]

I never got why Lucas continues to emulate 50s B-Movies and Sci-Fi serials. Why is he trying to homage something that was crap? Surely Indy deserves something with less cheese. :shrug:

Quentin Tarantino has based all of his movies off of crappy 70s exploitation flicks. Its just the nostalgia made with the formula of a great movie that make it work so well.

Well, in regards to the Ark, I hope a considerable number of people... At least the practicing Christians and Jews.

My deal with this new Indy is that they seem to have totally destroyed the character in my eyes. His work is based in archaeology/anthropology. His past adventures (excluding Temple of Doom, for which we all seem to share the same disgust) were ancient artifacts that were recorded in ancient texts that actually exist (the texts, not necessarily the artifacts). The artifacts were human.

There are actually ancient mayan texts found in some temples reguarding the crystal skulls. It stated that the gods came down from the heavens to bring the Mayans the crystal skulls. Mainly the artifacts that Indy chases after are artifacts that are said to exist, but a great shroud of mystery surrounds them. The same goes for the crystal skulls. No one knows for sure how and who made them.

I don't think it's a hip issue, people were disappointed with the last three Star Wars films.

I really don't get the hate for the prequals. They do have their flaws ( some of the acting, Jar Jar, love dialogue, etc. ), but I don't really think that they're "the worst movies ever made" like some people make them out to be. I've seen far worse ( mainly on mst3k ). Plus I think they have more redeeming values than bad, like I've always thought that they at least had solid plots and the stories were good.

BTW, anyone else see that some old Russian commies are upset about the film? Ha ha, suckers! :lol:

 

[Master Yoda]

BTW, anyone else see that some old Russian commies are upset about the film? Ha ha, suckers! :lol:

I hear that some ants are pretty upset about the move as well. On the flip side primates loved the film.:lol:

 

[enough]

yea, cause falling from an airplane in a raft onto a river is so much more doable. In my opinion, it really set the time period and looked neat.

If it weren't for that raft Indy would've never ended up in that village to help recover the stones - in that respect the raft (although entirely implausible) was needed to further the story.

The whole Nuke going off added NOTHING to the story - the music, cars, set, etc. are enough to establish the time period... if you take the nuke testing on its own that could represent anywhere from 1951 to 1962 (considering it was an above-ground test).

All I'm saying is that putting Indy in front of a mushroom cloud was the tip of the bad iceberg for me.

 

[Fun2BFree]

The whole Nuke going off added NOTHING to the story - the music, cars, set, etc. are enough to establish the time period... if you take the nuke testing on its own that could represent anywhere from 1951 to 1962 (considering it was an above-ground test).

All I'm saying is that putting Indy in front of a mushroom cloud was the tip of the bad iceberg for me.

Yes, it added nothing to the story. But I thought it was a humourous sequence and the mushroom cloud is an iconic image, as much as the rolling boulder in Raiders (what did that add?). :shrug:

 

[WDWFREAK53]

I didn't mind the "hokey-ness" of it. All of the films had hokey scenes. IMO the story just stunk. (It wasn't even that the story was all that bad...but the ending was comical to say the least.)

Maybe it would've been better if you never saw the actual alien or spaceship. Kinda like how The DaVinci Code ended with it eluding to the fact that it could've been under the Louvre. "Signs" fell under the same trap...the movie was good up until you actually saw the Aliens. Sometimes things are better left up to the imagination of the viewer.

 

[enough]

Yes, it added nothing to the story. But I thought it was a humourous sequence and the mushroom cloud is an iconic image, as much as the rolling boulder in Raiders (what did that add?). :shrug:

well, considering that the boulder was the finale to all the traps in that temple I'd say the boulder was pretty well placed... I don't know if I'd compare that to surviving an atomic bomb by way of a lead lined fridge.

 

[enough]

Maybe it would've been better if you never saw the actual alien or spaceship.

I totally agree with that. Like I said I don't mind the alien aspect - there has been a supernatural/mystical element to all Indy films so that's not what rubbed me the wrong way.

The thing that bummed me out was the story just didn't seem as well put together as the last one.

And I feel like they cheaped out by adding in the Marion/Mutt aspect especially since it wasn't well developed. One second they're on a new plateau after watching a spaceship take off, the next minute they're getting married.

maybe I'm nit-picking, but it just didn't do justice to the "feel" of Indy that I grew up with.

 

[imagineer boy]

Maybe it would've been better if you never saw the actual alien or spaceship. Kinda like how The DaVinci Code ended with it eluding to the fact that it could've been under the Louvre. "Signs" fell under the same trap...the movie was good up until you actually saw the Aliens. Sometimes things are better left up to the imagination of the viewer.

Eh, trust me. If you didn't see those things, then it would be considered cop-out. Especially in Signs' case. It would be like Jaws without ever seeing the shark.

BTW, am I the only one who thought the aliens in Signs were really cool looking?

 

[WDWFREAK53]

Eh, trust me. If you didn't see those things, then it would be considered cop-out. Especially in Signs' case. It would be like Jaws without ever seeing the shark.

BTW, am I the only one who thought the aliens in Signs were really cool looking?

They were pretty cool...

Yes, it would've been a copout. I agree with you about Signs. There were other ways to "not cop out" though. The first time you see the alien at the end...it's in a reflection of the television. It was fine like that...they could've done different camera views to keep your suspense up instead of just showing the alien.

 

[Computer Magic]

At least they got progressively better with each film. The Phantom Menace was just awful though. I rather enjoyed Revenge of the Sith...and I kinda liked Attack of the Clones.

I agree, but how could you go wrong? Everyone wanted to see Darth transform. But even Sith had corny lines...Seems Lucas is good for that. What seemed to work in the 80's isn't carrying over so well for today's world.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

I agree, but how could you go wrong? Everyone wanted to see Darth transform. But even Sith had corny lines...Seems Lucas is good for that. What seemed to work in the 80's isn't carrying over so well for today's world.

I didn't say that RotS was Hollywood Gold.

The original 3 Star Wars films had corny dialogue too... (ahem..."Scruffy looking nerfherder?") :lol:

People will get past the slightly corny dialogue if the story is well done and it's visually put together well.

I'm just saying, of the 3 prequels...Sith was MUCH closer to the feel of the originals than the other two.

 

[Computer Magic]

I didn't say that RotS was Hollywood Gold.

The original 3 Star Wars films had corny dialogue too... (ahem..."Scruffy looking nerfherder?") :lol:

People will get past the slightly corny dialogue if the story is well done and it's visually put together well.

I'm just saying, of the 3 prequels...Sith was MUCH closer to the feel of the originals than the other two.

the corny lines worked in the 80's...I found Scruffy looking nerfherder funny as well as I'd rather kiss a Wookie...

If you first herd those lines today, I'd think many wouldn't find it funny.

 

[XaiChai]

Well, in regards to the Ark, I hope a considerable number of people... At least the practicing Christians and Jews.

My deal with this new Indy is that they seem to have totally destroyed the character in my eyes. His work is based in archaeology/anthropology. His past adventures (excluding Temple of Doom, for which we all seem to share the same disgust) were ancient artifacts that were recorded in ancient texts that actually exist (the texts, not necessarily the artifacts). The artifacts were human.

By bringing in the aliens, Indiana Jones was no longer an archaeologist or anthropologist, but a cryptozoologist? No. That's not cool. Yes, the Nazca lines are mysterious, but there's no record of them ever being made by aliens. In fact, their connection to the story is almost arbitrary. They could have set the story in Austria and it would have had the same effect.

At least in the past versions, Indy's adventures were human, as they should be.

The only thing I really appreciated in this movie was that their "City of Gold" was actually a "City of Knowledge." Kind of ironic, if you think about the movie it was put in.

TOD is actually my favorite movie, so no...we all don't share that disgust. There actually are crystal skulls out there, even though they aren't alien skulls there still is some truth in it. Indy's adventures were HUMAN? Not in my opinion. Most of his adventures deal with the power of God and paranormal objects in relation to God. Whether it be the catholic God or some sort of Indian God...or some sort of Mayan god (which is what the aliens in the movie were) but w/e...

 

[InfernalPenguin]

Wow, where to begin...


Just to start out, #1. I loved Indy IV and #2. I think it's incredibly unfair that it seems to be the trendy thing to hate on Lucas/Spielberg/everything new.


I saw the reactions to Crystal Skull coming from the day they announced it. In fact, everybody that hated it saw it coming too, and made up their mind ever since.

You may say to yourself that you didn't, that you went in with a positive point of view... but that's not the case.


It's written into the movie's genes, and there's no amount of writing or plot or acting or CGI (or rather lack thereof) that would've made people that didn't like it suddenly love it. This is because:

-It wasn't made in 1980
-It has no Nazis
-Harrison Ford is older
-It isn't "Raiders of the Lost Ark"

Yep... that seems to be the big fault with this movie is that it isn't Raiders of the Lost Ark. That's what everybody expected. You didn't get it. Now you're breaking down the drawbridge, pitchfork in hand.


Everything everyone seems to hate, in my opinion, is EXACTLY what made the movie awesome, and I think alot of people forget what Indy is.


Indiana Jones is pulp action goodness.... it's a serial comic adventurer. It's unrealistic. It's fun. It's great.

I share my vision of the franchise with a couple of other reviewers that I've read out there. The first experience that I had with Indy wasn't Raiders. It was all three movies rented out of blockbuster... over and over and over and over again since I was a kid.

Therefor, what I know is because I was fed Dr.Jones in it's ENTIRETY, not just the first movie.

I can say, without a doubt, that this fourth installment fits RIGHT IN, regardless of what others say.


-Oh, but it's unrealistic-

...if you're looking for realism in cinema, the arthouse is down the road. Meanwhile, let me and the others geek out with pure suspension of disbelief. This is NOT what adventure movies are about. Adventure movies are about jumping off bridges, swinging across ravines, and beating the odds in general.. which is pretty much Indy's superpower.

-Blah blah blah, aliens-

Nitpicking, is what I say. There is nothing more fantastic about aliens than there is about arks or grails or hindu stones.

IN FACT.... the aliens, in my opinion, were CLEVER and friggin' BRILLIANT

I explain:

Indy Jones, like I said, is pulp adventure at it's best. This basically means it deals with dreamy, 11 year old views of the ancient (and modern) world. In the eyes of this kind of fiction, the Ark exists. So does the grail. So does Mjolnir's Hammer, and the Monkey King's staff, and the Spear of Destiny, and you name it. The list goes on.

Looking at everything from this viewpoint, remember that in the 50's, during the Cold War, the big deal was ALIENS. UFOs. People projected their fears unto the skies. Roger Corman capitalized on this with Invasion of the Body Snatchers and his otherworldy repertoir of films. It was IN at the time.

Given the setting of the movie, the match is PERFECT.

But did they shove it down our throats? No. It started with a little hint in the form of Roswell and Area 51. BUT THEN they diluted it with ancient, classic Indy adventures in Peru.

They INTEGRATED it with the whole mystery of the Nazca lines and all those suspicions about the Maya, where they went, and all the hubub about how they were so advanced.

SHOWING the aliens at the end is, pretty much, on par with the Ark melting some faces..... with the Stones burning.... with Henry Jones Sr. drinking from the HOLY friggin' GRAIL! (come on!).

Where's the difference? The difference is you weren't expecting it and so it's BAD.


-The atomic bomb-

I agree with what someone else here said: ICONIC IMAGE.

In Last Crusade we saw him get his duds.... in Raiders we saw Adventurer Indy... in Temple we saw the shady Indy at Club Obi Wan...

...and in Crystal Skull we see Old, Mature Indy FACING THE SIGN OF THE TIMES. That mushroom cloud was stunning.... realism be damned, the image that that scene portrays I think is the film's way of saying "Times have changed, and Dr.Jones along with it". Wonderful.


-The Monkey Vines-

....yeah, that was pretty...um....well, it was funky. BUT IT DIDN'T RUIN THE WHOLE DAMN MOVIE.



Now then, if I didn't mention anything, it's because it's things people have been (as if what I had mentioned weren't enough) NITPICKING. NITPICKING IT to heck.


I'm gonna finish this off by quoting Roger Ebert...which I've been doing to death recently, everytime I post some sort of review for the movie.


He compared the movies to 4 pounds of sausage. Which pound of sausage will be the most delicious? The first, of course... because then interest begins to wane. However, they're all equally good.


I quote, "I can say that if you liked the other Indiana Jones movies, you will like this one, and that if you did not, there is no talking to you. And I can also say that a critic trying to place it into a hierarchy with the others would probably keep a straight face while recommending the second pound of sausage."

 

[Flower'sChild]

TOD is actually my favorite movie, so no...we all don't share that disgust.

Yes, I like Temple of Doom also and so do many other people. I know that Temple of Doom is not an Indiana Jones movie that many people favor (one of those reasons being that is so different from Raiders and Crusade), but a lot of people do love this movie.

 

[Flower'sChild]

I went to an Episcopalian school for 4k to 6th grade and went to church twice a week and I and never heard of it until I saw Raiders. Granted I was only 10 when the movie was released but I had still never heard of it. Like it or not the legends, myths or whatever you want to call it of aliens in one form or another being involved in ancient civilizations have been around pretty much forever. Indy's past adventurers were all religious in nature (the ark, the grail, evil cult) which IMHO were far less believable the the possibility of an advanced alien civilization having some sort of influence on and ancient human civilization.

Yes it is true that a lot of people who goes to Schools,Churches ect. that study the Bible don't know what the Ark is. After all I don't think the Ark is mentioned one time in the New Testament. There are lots of things in the Bible that people know very little about. But all the same there are still a lot of people who do know about the Ark from Bible study and in some Schools they do talk about the Ark from time to time. It just depends on what School,Church ect. , different people study different things.

 

[JCorduroy]

Simple review, since I don't really see the need to delve into the argument about realism of alien influence of anicent civilization vs. kali-ma vs. the holy grail vs. the ark of the covenant, because honestly I don't see the need. They're all a stretch of the imagination based upon your beliefs. End of the day, they're all great plot devices to advance the story.

Things I Liked:

Opening game of chicken with the 50's kids and the russian soldiers
That first whip crack - sent chills up my spine
Hangar 51 Fight and impending chase scene
The Ark, and the ensuing snippet of the Raiders theme
Mac's betrayal
The Nuclear test town
Indy silhouetted against the mushroom cloud
The nods to Marcus and Henry Jones Sr.
Mutt's introduction
The Marshall College chase scene
Mutt (which shocks the HECK out of me - I was prepared to hate him)
The nod to the Young Indiana Jones chronicles - mentioning his involvement with Pancho Villa was awesome
Indy using the blow gun against the skull faced assailant
Discovery of the crystal skull
Marion!!!
Quick sand, and the revelation of Mutt's lineage
Jungle chase scene
Mutt vs. Irina fencing duel
Mac's redemption
Entering El Dorado
The skull being returned
The reveal
The wedding
Mutt with the Hat
Indy taking the Hat

Things I didn't like:

The snake
The tarzan scene (cool scene, just out of place)
The ants
The ants making a ladder out of themselves to go after Irina
Mac's re-betrayal (seemed forced)

So...the good outweighs the bad for me. I absolutely loved this movie, had a great time with it. Sure, I liked Raiders a lot more, but I also didn't expect this movie to be Raiders. It's very much in line with the Last Crusade for me, and that's not a bad thing. End of the day, liked it a lot more than Temple (which was still a very fun movie.)

I give it a B+

 

[WDWFREAK53]

I quote, "I can say that if you liked the other Indiana Jones movies, you will like this one, and that if you did not, there is no talking to you. And I can also say that a critic trying to place it into a hierarchy with the others would probably keep a straight face while recommending the second pound of sausage."

First off...I'm a huge fan of Indy and was really looking forward to this. I purposely didn't look up anything about it and didn't want to know anything about the story or it's plot. I wanted to go in fresh and have everything be a surprise (I would even switch the station if I saw the ad come on).

I went in really excited. I left...really REALLY disappointed.

I was giddy like a little schoolgirl when he picked the hat off of the ground and placed it on his head. Unlike most, I loved the "fridge" scene and the giant mushroom cloud. Then I saw the Mummy scene (Ants)...and I hated the Mummy. Next I saw Tarzan. WHAT??! Lucas/Spielberg...can't you come up with something ORIGINAL??? The swordfight on the Jeeps...LOVED IT. Then I got a crappy ending with a flying saucer. Whuh? Where did THAT come from?

Sorry, I loved all 3 of the originals...and even though this had some great scenes...the movie as a whole felt rushed and unfinished.

 

[InfernalPenguin]

First off...I'm a huge fan of Indy and was really looking forward to this. I purposely didn't look up anything about it and didn't want to know anything about the story or it's plot. I wanted to go in fresh and have everything be a surprise (I would even switch the station if I saw the ad come on).

I went in really excited. I left...really REALLY disappointed.

I was giddy like a little schoolgirl when he picked the hat off of the ground and placed it on his head. Unlike most, I loved the "fridge" scene and the giant mushroom cloud. Then I saw the Mummy scene (Ants)...and I hated the Mummy. Next I saw Tarzan. WHAT??! Lucas/Spielberg...can't you come up with something ORIGINAL??? The swordfight on the Jeeps...LOVED IT. Then I got a crappy ending with a flying saucer. Whuh? Where did THAT come from?

Sorry, I loved all 3 of the originals...and even though this had some great scenes...the movie as a whole felt rushed and unfinished.

Well.... that pretty much correlates with everything else. I'm not saying you're "wrong" because there's nothing to be wrong about.

I have a friend who's an AVID.... Temple of Doom/Last Crusade.... well, I wouldn't use the word "hater", but he doesn't hold them in high regard... and even HE liked Indy IV.

The thing is, he told me, that he totally vibed with the aliens until they showed them. "And I can see how it was cool and the whole 'broom to the footprints' thing was awesome", he said, "but I just didn't like it. Still loved the movie though"


I think that's what's ticking me and other people who liked the movie off(not what my friend said, but it's opposite). The fact that other people LIKED THE MOVIE TOO.... but for some reason all they seem to do is rattle off a few things that seem to be the concensus on what was "terrible, horrible & wrong" about the movie and then quantify it up to mean that Indy IV sucked.


I just... don't get it. If the majority of the movie vibed with you, (I don't mean you, I sort of mean a general 'you people') why do you hate it?


I don't hear anybody saying anything other than naming the part of the movie.... and that's it. No explanation. Just "ARE YOU KIDDING ME?" or "THAT WAS STUPID!" .

But what baffles me the most (and I'm sorry if the brash, contradicting, non-nice film geek is coming out) is that the things that people say they hate.... ARE PRETTY MUCH ANALOGUES OF THINGS SEEN IN PAST INDY MOVIES.


The ants were pretty much the "creepy crawlies" like the rats and snakes in the other movies. Given the fact that they were in the amazon, that was really cool (read "La Voragine" by Horacio Quiroga, if there's an english translation, there's a really awful account of an army ant attack).


I'm just.... really confused.

I also get ticked off when people suddenly attack Lucas and Spielberg like they know better. Ok. You didn't like it. Fine. But hey... it's their damn story. And I think people suddenly forget EVERYTHING ELSE THOSE TWO HAVE DONE just for the sake of one thing.


Although, I take this all as a symptom. Of two things:

#1. George Lucas, with Star Wars, and along with Spielberg on Indy, have created something that has become such a cultural force, that the public has adopted it as it's son, and is basically reeeeeeeeeling at anything they see as a threat to it, hence all the "Stop making movies!" shouts and such. If I were them, I'd take all the negativity as a compliment.

#2. The audience has grown up(figuratively speaking). And by that I mean they saw these movies a long time ago, and were imprinted by them. Now they see them from a different perspective and fail to consolidate the themes of what they're seeing with their current viewpoints. Of course, they blame the script/cgi/plot/et cetera.


All in all, I guess I'm just confused.... I feel like they fed an audience a delicious chocolate chip cookie once....twice.....three times. And now they're giving us the same cookie, but for some reason suddenly everyone chokes and spits it back up.

Like I said.... wasn't Raiders, so it didn't vibe. They did something different than what people expected, and suddenly the fanboy minutemen are grabbin' the rifles.


Gah... I'm rambling. I'll stop. Scratch everything I said. Replace with "De gustibus no est disputandum", even though I hate to break out a cliche dead language, but I think it fits the topic.



Oh, P.S.:

JCorduroy.... The SNAKE?! You didn't like the snake? I mean... I'm trying to think whether you're talking about any other snake but the one they used to get out of the quicksand.

Are you nuts? That was such an Indy moment..... "Say it's a rope... JUST SAY IT'S A ROPE!"

 

[Pongo]

Like I said.... wasn't Raiders, so it didn't vibe. They did something different than what people expected, and suddenly the fanboy minutemen are grabbin' the rifles.

I'm not a fanboy, nor am I grabbing at my rifle, but as a moderate Indy fan, I didn't really enjoy this story. The movie was very entertaining, but I feel like the story tainted the feel and spirit of the character. To me, Indiana Jones has a very specific feel, and this story just didn't vibe with that.