Breaking my 2 movies rules:

1. I never see movies opening night
b) I only go on tight arse Tuseday


But the Mrs is all excited after seeing the trailer during Iron Man last week, so I gotta go. But I am looking foward to it, I've always been a sucker for big budget nonsense.

Reply

I'm seeing it tommorrow I wanted to see it tonight.

Reply

3AM. Just got back. Great film. I mean, it's Indy, so suspend your disbelief for 2 hours and you will have an amazing time. Best Spielberg picture in many years.

Reply

Was shit. The good couldn't fix the bad. 5/10

Reply

I just hope Penner has a cameo...

Reply

It wasn't terrible at all, just didn't ever get caught up in the story at all. The action was very fun though.

Reply

Im a huge Indy fan and had big expectations after reading all the positive reviews, but for the most part I was disappointed and wanted more. I thought the first half of the film was actually better than the 2nd half. Once it got beyond Indy and Mutt, there were too many characters.

I didnt care of the overuse of CGI either. I thought it looked great in some shots (the mushroom cloud) but it was overdone, especially the finale and the monkeys.

I was fairly entertained, but the script was sloppy and never really got going.

Reply

UGH!

It was shit.

Reply

I felt like it was a script written directly from david Icke

Reply

Not as good as the others. Had high points and low points. Those friggin monkeys, wtf? But I enjoyed the action, Shia wasn't as bad as I feared and Harrison Ford is still the man.

Reply

Just got back from seeing it.....was horribly dissapointed...

And im not even dissapointed for the reason others are dissapointed for..

I am just angry because Lucas and Spielberg said that there was going to be very little CGI in order to keep it on cue with the original films.....they lied....There was so much CGI in this film that I didnt care about all the other things, it was the CGI that angered me.

Reply

I enjoyed it.

Reply

TPWW curbs my enthusiasm.

Reply

Personally I've always thought Temple of Doom was totally weak and ott and the other two were immense, so if its better than ToD I'll be satisfied enough

Reply

My God.

What a disappointment.

Reply

So I'm going to see this today. What you guys are saying is that I need to be bent or something to get a kick out of this otherwise disappointing trainwreck of a series revival?

Wonderful.

Reply

My advice - spend your money on something else, anything else.

Reply

But I like the first three Indy films, and I feel like I'd be robbing myself the experience of at least being able to say for myself "yeah, the early films were way better" like I can about Star Wars.

Plus I bet I can get someone to shout me.

Reply

Guess I'll download it then.

Reply

Okay, just got back from it. I don't think it was awful. It still had a nice Indy feel to it. The CGI was a bit much, and seriously, wtf monkeys but other than that, it was a pretty enjoyable film. I'd still rank it higher than Temple of Doom. Harrison Ford kept up alright and Shia LeBeouf was much better than I thought he'd be, so I dunno. It was fun enough.

Reply

I loved it.

Reply

Huge Indiana Jones fan here...

I love the blinding of nostalgia going on here. When some of you sit down to watch and Indiana Jones movie, what are you expecting to see? Because they're as good as Best Picture dramas, means they're suddenly to be judged on the same criteria? Indy is supposed to be a cheesy and fun action adventure.

The story was on par with the others. The comedy was on par. The action was on par. The production and acting was clearly on par.
And though I thought a few effects were shitty, so are a few effects in each of the other 3.
Indy is a wildly illogical and serial-style story about a hero who's always in over his head. It always is supposed to be about Indy, the quest for mystical archeological artifacts with supernatural powers, and a bunch of fun.
The wit was there, the villians were there.

The relationship between Indy and the new characters was just as good as they were in the other films.
It had chases, fist fights, gun fights, violent kills (people getting shot, burnt alive), and it had the gross outs and nastiness (someone getting eaten alive by fire ants).

It was directed excellently, shot brilliantly, and done in the same spirit and tone as all of the others.
Yes, the end was ramped up a bit but it fit. It was signature Indy, and the middle was especially signature Indy.
The main enemy was done better than it had been done since Raiders

The alien complaint makes no sense to me. It wasn't Aliens in the end, it was some interdimensional thing that the aztecs worshipped as gods and thats what the Skulls gave power to. No different than religious artifacts or voodoo magic stones.

Now, there were a few things I hated but they were very minor. Shia and the monkeys. That should have been completely left out. It was uneeded.
The CG on the end guy. Should have just left it as the skeleton or used a suit, or made it scarier.
Other than that, it was fine.
I've heard people complain about the fridge. So he survived a small test nuke explosion in a lead lined fridge. So? It's not COMPLETELY illogical. At least not any more so than jumping out of a high altitude plane with 3 people in a river raft and landing safely on a slope


It really was up to par as an Indy movie, which makes it excellent. It's not the 'original' like Raiders, and it might not be as personal as Last Crusade, but it's pound for pound equal. I think people go into this expecting it to suddenly be Citizen Kane, when it never was and never should be. It's Indy.

Reply

Aliens/interdemensional beings = the same exact thing. seriously all that stuff was like i was listening to coast to coast AM or reading a book from david Icke or John Leer

Reply

Yes, because the supernatural prospect of UFOs in Aztec artifacts and archeology is so much more outlandish and out of place than black magic, haunted spirits of god, fountains of youth and all the other religious and magical shennanigans surrounding the artifacts in other Indy films.

Reply

I think the aliens thing kind of reminded people of shit like the recent Star Wars films, E.T., War of the Worlds - things Spielberg and Lucas are known for, and it drew some of the viewers out of the film and made them scrutinize it more harshly. Perhaps alien beings (which looked like your average Martian from Mars, with the big head and glassy eyes sort of thing) were better to be left out of the Indiana Jones series.

Still, it was a fun movie, and if you were going into it expecting anything more than just a really fun, really big film, then you my friend, were mistaken.

Reply

To expand on my previous review:

-The CGI was overbearing
-Even within the realm of Indy films, I can only suspend my disbelief so far
-The pacing was horrendous (We'd get a decent action scene followed by 10 minutes of boring exposition that brought the film to a dead stop. Like the scene where Indy stares into the skull.)
-John Hurt's character felt tacked on. Like the only reason he was there was to give directions.
-Harrison Ford was very inconsistent. Especially with his comic timing ("Kid, it looks like you just brought a knife..................to a gun fight.")
-Most of the comedy in general fell flat to me
-Marion's acting was annoying. She could not stop fucking grinning, even when bad shit was going down.
-SPOILER: Why the hell did the aliens fuse together at the end? Why did Spalko suddenly blow up? What was up with Mac ripping off The Mummy by stealing gold even when death was obviously imminent? The ending just had so many problems.

Reply

I'm going to agree 100% with CoE

Reply

I don't know what to tell you COE other than it's a freakin' Indy film. Go back and rewatch some of that stuff, it's always over the top, ridiculous, don't suspend belief just check it at the door on your way in, slapstick, corny, dry, fun times.

Reply

Though your points about pacing may hold truth. I was just so wrapped up in joy to see another IJ movie that I didn't notice.

Reply

I could suspend disbelief for the other films because they were engrossing from the beginning and it felt believable because the films made it feel so (except Temple of Doom).

With Crystal Skull, the directing and storytelling did not help with the suspension of disbelief, but merely pointed out the ridiculous nature of the actions. And sure, the raft bit from Temple of Doom is unbelieveable, but it's far more plausible than surviving an atomic bomb inside of a refrigerator which is entirely impossible.

Reply

the pacing is exactly that of Raiders, if you know anything about pacing

Reply

And John Hurts character just being thrown in there to give directions, lol. I mean, I don't want to condescend to you but I suggest you go back and watch one of the other 3 indy films before you wax film on this one. Maybe you didn't like certain plot points, characters, or appearances based on personal preference, but its the same shit as the others.

Like I said, characters, dialouge, comedy, action and ESPECIALLY pacing and style are the exact same as the other 3.

Is it as good? I'd say prob not, though nostalgia and preference weigh heavily on such opinions.

Reply

"we get a decent action scene followed by 10 minutes of boring exposition"

I.E., the street scene in raiders followed by Indy and Sallah talking about the ark's location and Nazis digging
or Indy and Marion finding a ship and talkign to the captain about where they're going, and the nazis setting up shop and arguing with Indy over the Ark for 20 minutes after the single greatest action sequence in movies?

All I'm saying, and I know you are a film buff like I am, but all I'm saying is just cuz you hated the movie doesn't make it flawed. You have every right to hate it, but just because TO YOU the plot sucked or things seemed off or it wasn't good doesn't mean it is technically falacious. It's the same deal as the others. I think a lot of people remember the movies as being so damn good, rightfully so, that they go into a new one expecting it to be so damn good based on their now more mature tastes, and instead of judging and accepting it as and Indy movie, judge it compared to an "indie" movie.

Reply

I know about pacing, darling.

If you're saying that Raiders had the same format, that could be partially true. But the scenes in those movies the exposition did not feel like a chore and were engaging in spite of being there solely to fill the audience in on the plot.

Speilberg, in this case, was not able to balance the scenes in a way that made the film continually engaging. Things trailed off and were unexciting until another ridiculous action scene occured.

In good films, expositional scenes should not feel like a chore.

And as far as your other statements go, I feel that they can be similarly summed up by my above statements. There may be similarities in the overall format of the other three films, but Speilberg was not able to make those scenes as engaging as they should've been to balance out the film.

I judge the other Indy films as regular films with my mature taste as well. Part of the reason I'm not complaining about the other Indy films lack of realism in their action scenes has to do with suspension of disbelief. The other Indy films were engaging and interesting before their over the top action scenes. So when those action bits occured, my mind put them in the realm of possibility because it felt true to the universe those characters lived in.

With Crystal Skull, that didn't happen. Instead of believing those action scenes because of what preceded it in this film, they stuck out like a sore thumb. My mind didn't willingly accept those ridiculous acts. Speilberg didn't make those actions FEEL plausible.

And now people tell me, "You've gotta suspend your disbelief, it's an Indy movie!" Having to force myself to suspend my disbelief is a distraction and shows it is a poor film. Suspension of disbelief is a natural reaction to what is presented to me, not something I owe the filmmakers because they got lazy.

Reply

You just didn't like the storyline. The exposition was no more of a chore or any less engaging overall than in any others. If it engaged you less, than it was flawed to you but it doesn't make it a failure technically on the part of Spielberg and the screenwriters. They did it correctly, and most importantly exactly as it had been done in the past. You're prob 20. Indy seemed like something much greater when you were 5 than it does now

I just read Ebert's review on this film. Agree with him 100%

Reply

I found no problems with the pacing. In fact I was quite happy with the fact that they didn't drag out the ending but put the last cut right where it FELT it should be. The rest of the film flowed very nicely. I've heard a lot of people complain about the pacing, but lots of people have short attention spans, so maybe the two things are related.

I think with a movie like Indy 4, people build up all of these insane expectations that can't possibly be met. It was a fun movie and a good addition to the Indiana Jones universe.

Reply

I thought it was pretty great. Really had no problems with it at all. Or at least none that I would complain about.

Reply

thought it was meh, at least the ending was

Reply

What was the point of the FBI questioning Indy in the beginning if nothing came from it?

also the monkey bit was dumb

Reply

I enjoyd the film. I don't remember much from the previous three Indy films, so this was like all new to me.

For a 2 hour movie, the pacing was great and didn't lag.

Reply