PDA

View Full Version : Kingdom of the Craptastic Skull



Chris S. (Fez)
05-22-2008, 12:39 AM
I wanted desperately to like it but the movie literally made me squirm. Ford looked fine. But the screenplay, editing and direction were all spectacularly ******.

This is a depressing day for a life-long Indy fan.

Titus
05-22-2008, 07:10 AM
Maybe you're to old. How many years have passed since the last episode?

Iain
05-22-2008, 07:13 AM
Is it just me or does anyone else find it a little weird to have people dissecting and reviewing a film here before I've actually had a chance to see it?

I went to see Iron Man almost reluctantly after seeing all the negative stuff about it here.

I have mixed feelings about this one but I'm still looking forward to seeing how they've treated it.

Steamthrower
05-22-2008, 07:15 AM
We've all waited for 19 years for this, so I hope it's good. Haven't seen it yet, so I'll vow to myself that I won't read this thread until I've seen it.

I vow...I vow...darn it...

Chris S. (Fez)
05-22-2008, 07:20 AM
Maybe you're to old. How many years have passed since the last episode?

Crusade came out in 89, so while the math might be depressing, I don't think my advancing age (30!) makes Raiders of the Ark any less awesome. Here is a cut/paste of my CGtalk post on the subject:

"The screenplay was a meandering contrived mess, burdened by boring, sloppy exposition and totally lacking the wit and fun of the first three films...well, Raiders and Last Crusade at least. Temple of Doom may be my least favorite of the trilogy, but the action is inspired; tangible and terrifically filmed/choreographed. Even after countless viewings, the rope-bridge climax never fails to put me on the edge of my seat. Conversely, not once in Skull did I feel the "vertigo" of Indy and Co's peril...not once.

The acting and editing was awful, the action was forgettable, and there was not a single memorable swell in the musical score.

We came home from the midnight screening and popped in Raiders. It is NOT nostalgia that makes Raiders so superior to Skull. There is not a throwaway shot in the entire film. It is thrilling, focused, fun and funny with action, editing, directing, sound, music and cinematography that puts Crystal Skull to shame.

Ford looked just fine in Skull but I felt his comic and dramatic timing was way off. The rest of the production was not worthy of the franchise.

Also. LeBuff is a wiener."

Chris S. (Fez)
05-22-2008, 07:27 AM
Is it just me or does anyone else find it a little weird to have people dissecting and reviewing a film here before I've actually had a chance to see it?


I made sure not to include any spoilers but I agree the obnoxious thread title certainly might spoil expectations. I'll mail Chuck and see if he can change it.

Kuzey
05-22-2008, 07:40 AM
I was dying to see it, but I might catch it on tv some day.

As for the screenplay/story, it was co written by George Lucas...enough said :thumbsdow

Kuzey

Red_Oddity
05-22-2008, 07:48 AM
Screw that, i'm going to watch it in the theatres no matter how many bad reviews it gets.
I missed a lot of cool flicks just because some people thought it was complete tripe (Stardust is the most recent one that comes to mind i avoided because of the reviews and user comments, i seriously regret ever listening to them on that one)

Chris S. (Fez)
05-22-2008, 07:57 AM
I was dying to see it, but I might catch it on tv some day.

As for the screenplay/story, it was co written by George Lucas...enough said :thumbsdow

Kuzey

Yeah, what Oddity said. Definitely go decide for yourself.

It was a thrill to see Indy back on the big screen, no matter how much I disliked the film.

Titus
05-22-2008, 08:03 AM
The acting and editing was awful, the action was forgettable, and there was not a single memorable swell in the musical score.

When I was a kid and saw Indie never tought or cared about the acting and editing, let alone about the score. You are seeing this movie with different eyes than the previous, I doubt they are better in any way.

Kuzey
05-22-2008, 08:12 AM
True indeed.

Seeing the trailer...it feels like it's a tv movie, but that's just me :D

Kuzey

Jim_C
05-22-2008, 08:20 AM
Trailer makes me so '''oh no.....this isn't gonna be pretty"

For me a lot of the early Indy allure was the almost-believability in the flights/fights which seems to have gone out the window in this one.

They seemed to have turned Indy into a super hero like they did to John McClain in the last Die Hard.

mattclary
05-22-2008, 08:43 AM
Crusade came out in 89, so while the math might be depressing, I don't think my advancing age (30!) makes Raiders of the Ark any less awesome.

Dude. You were 11. This movie is the same as the old ones. At least he didn't rape your childhood memory by explaining Indie's uncanny whip use by microscopic symbionts living in his blood.

Chris S. (Fez)
05-22-2008, 08:45 AM
When I was a kid and saw Indie never tought or cared about the acting and editing, let alone about the score. You are seeing this movie with different eyes than the previous, I doubt they are better in any way.

I think one of the reasons Raiders is remembered and relevant today is BECAUSE the "acting and editing" is so strong. Have you ever visited a park or playground from your youth and been shocked/dissapointed at how tiny the treehouse looks? How mighty it was in your mind!

Raiders stands apart from many other films because it is every bit as good as you remembered it.

Frankly, I will be surprised if you consider Skull equal to Raiders.

Andyjaggy
05-22-2008, 08:48 AM
Well Newtek forum members are notorious for being extremely harsh critics of movies.

I might agree with this one though, haven't seen it yet, but the trailer made me wonder how good it would be.

Steamthrower
05-22-2008, 08:54 AM
On second thought, considering what Andy said, I'll just sit through reading these depressing posts and reviews, make my mind up that it's a pathetic piece of...******** is the word that will get through the censors...and then go see it and be pleasantly surprised.

colkai
05-22-2008, 09:29 AM
It's Indy, me and da missus are there, brain left at door and 'have fun' mode set to max. :)

Andyjaggy
05-22-2008, 10:02 AM
Yeah not every movie has to be a masterpiece, some are just meant to be fun. I'll probably see it this Sat. And come back and share by opinion with all the people here who don't care. :)

Chris S. (Fez)
05-22-2008, 10:05 AM
Dude. You were 11. This movie is the same as the old ones. At least he didn't rape your childhood memory by explaining Indie's uncanny whip use by microscopic symbionts living in his blood.

I'm not so sure. Have you seen Skull yet?

I watched Last Crusade last week on DVD and Raiders last night, so Skull is hardly tainting some nostalgiac childhood impression of the movies.

IMO Crusade is funnier, scarier, sexier and faster-paced than Skull. The film is filled with great lines and clever character interaction that all take place seamlessly within the story: "X marks the spot" "She talks in her sleep" "Son, I'm sorry, they got us!" etc. etc.

I mean, the Connery/Ford chemistry is downright magical compared to Lebuff/Ford.

adamredwoods
05-22-2008, 10:38 AM
Look. I love the Indiana Jones trilogy. Just finished up an ad campaign for it too!

But look-- I have realized that HIGH EXPECTATIONS will almost ruin any movie.

So when going to see this or any Hollywood "blockbuster"... go to have fun, tease the movie a bit, and leave expectations (and brain) at the door.

Past letdowns: Alien vs Predetor (How can this compare to Aliens??), Star Wars Episode I, II, Lord of the Rings 1, 2, Matrix 2, 3, Burton's Planet of the Apes... etc. All ruined because I thought that Hollywood could write, direct, and produce with depth and integrity.

parm
05-22-2008, 04:13 PM
Just got back from the cinema. Really enjoyed it.

I think it's well worth seeing on the big screen. The sets and big panoramas are brilliant. The action is good and the story is also good. I can't think why they waited so long, to make another Indiana Jones movie. He's one of the best and most original of cinema characters.

Steamthrower
05-22-2008, 04:15 PM
He's one of the best and most original of cinema characters.

Isn't that odd, when he was originally intended to be a parody? :D

parm
05-22-2008, 04:50 PM
I wasn't aware of that. Who does the character parody?

frantbk
05-22-2008, 05:08 PM
Two pages of dramatic views on Indy. I don't know why some of you are so upset about the lack of splash from this movie. It has been 19 years and neither of the three major players Spliberg, Lucas, or Ford are hurting for money or fame. Old men that haven't much else to do with their time.

geothefaust
05-22-2008, 05:45 PM
It's because of the Nazi's. They make perfect bad guys.

Soviet Russian's are as cool as their American counterparts. and therefore, not scary as the Nazi's. :p

madjester
05-22-2008, 05:57 PM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060748/

...was an inspiration for it, along with real life (though exaggerated) archaeologists.

As an aspiring storyteller, who holds Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Arc high as enduring examples of just the right cheesey to solid story ratio, it is hard for me to see both of these once great stories revisited when they stood so well on their own.

However, they have the right as the original artists to revisit the work, even though I think a majority of people would rather see something new and leave the originals alone. Unfortunately Science Fiction and Fantasy films and universes seem to be ripe for redos and continuations.

Even the minor changes to Blade Runner were irritating and it would not surprise me in the least if M. Night Shyamalan or some other director decided to "continue the story." (Sorry got a bit bitter mid-page on this one.)

danielkaiser
05-22-2008, 08:26 PM
Darth flannel hasn't made a good movie since THX 1138 and then he had to go and screw that one up too.

All most every movie by Spielberg has been about divorce (abandonment issues I guess).

jin choung
05-22-2008, 09:59 PM
At least he didn't rape your childhood memory by explaining Indie's uncanny whip use by microscopic symbionts living in his blood.

right but that's because he already did this in last crusade....

it may just be me because it seems an inordinate amount of people like it but i freakin' HATED HATED HATED HATED last crusade....

it can't hold a candle up against the either of the first two movies, certainly not raiders which is my hands down favorite.

from what i've heard of crystal skull it sounds like it suffers from the same problem as last crusade -

ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE OF PERIL.

if there's nothing at stake, if the heros are just dancing with nazis who get played for laughs, if hitler is just a boob who goes around signing autographs and misspelling his own name-

then what is at stake for the heros? what is at risk? what have they overcome if they win?

last crusade is just a sprawling apology for temple of doom which, while not great, was pretty dang good.

ugh. i hate it when artists get old and soft. start putting walkie talkies in place of shotguns and little whiny kids talking about midichlorians....

and wtf is up with george lucas?! first thing i learned from my creative writing class in high school - NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR WORK.

but that's all george does anymore. apologizing. making excuses. saying how you can never please fanboys. instead of ACTUALLY TRYING. and it's all made for 12 yo anyway.

ugh....

anyway, going to go see it tonight... and there's another thing, lucas had a GRAND opportunity to make the star wars prequels great. if the first trilogy was an aristotelian comedy for kids, he could have made the prequels a grand aristotelian tragedy for adults.

his audience was GUARANTEED! he had room to take risks. be BOLD! AIM, TRY for GREATNESS.

but no.... just devolve it all into fluff more fluffy than the first time.... what a fing waste.

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
05-22-2008, 10:03 PM
Look. I love the Indiana Jones trilogy. Just finished up an ad campaign for it too!

But look-- I have realized that HIGH EXPECTATIONS will almost ruin any movie.



Spielberg is and should be held to a higher standard IMO, if for no other reason than he has essentially unlimited resources to make a movie.

Later folios of Shakespeare's plays show that lines were likely refined and even added by actors. Perhaps the Skull screenplay was so secretive it did not benefit from this sort of creative collaborative effort. I think the film suffers for it, for the dialogue and/or action is not nearly as witty/inventive as the other Indy entries IMO.

I don't mean to be a killjoy but after talking to friends, family and colleagues today I know I am not the only one who feels the franchise deserved a bit better.

jin choung
05-22-2008, 10:09 PM
Spielberg is and should be held to a higher standard IMO, if for no other reason than he has essentially unlimited resources to make a movie.

Later folios of Shakespeare's plays show that lines were likely refined and even added by actors. Perhaps the Skull screenplay was so secretive it did not benefit from this sort of creative collaborative effort. I think the film suffers for it, for the dialogue and/or action is not nearly as witty/inventive as the other Indy entries IMO.

I don't mean to be a killjoy but after talking to friends, family and colleagues today I know I am not the only one who feels the franchise deserved a bit better.

lucas is a megolomaniac now. he doesn't let anyone collaborate with him anymore... it's either his way or the highway.

probably the great stuff in the first movie is a result of collaboration with kasdan and spielberg and even the second unit director... and it becomes more and more evident that it was the co-writers on empire strikes back that probably made that so great.

but now, lucas won't take anyone's advice but his own and look at what he does... heck, nobody liked lucas' idea for the script but lucas said it's either this or nothing.

so yeah, no collaboration.

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
05-22-2008, 11:31 PM
but that's all george does anymore. apologizing. making excuses. saying how you can never please fanboys. instead of ACTUALLY TRYING. and it's all made for 12 yo anyway.
jin

Totally agree. When I first saw an interview where he insisted Star Wars is for kids I wondered what possibly could have possessed him to "alienate" (for lack of a less dramatic word) the people that PAY for the movie tickets. Not that that has hurt his sales...

Crusade is no Raiders but I think the action is inventive and suits the story and characters. Ie.: That scene where Indy is standing hopeless/defenseless on the beach about to be gunned down by the plane. Dad sees the sea gulls, draws his umbrella out like a sword and the rest is history...it is a perfect scene in my opinion. The characters drive the action just as effortlessly as the action drives the characters. But the thing is it only seems effortless. Somebody with discipline and dedication worked and reworked and reworked that screenplay until, well, it worked.

Skull, on the other hand, is often assembled like a sitcom, where jokes have little if anything to do with the larger story. Dialogue and action, character and story rarely converge, and when they do converge the result is inexcuseably contrived at times.

The race to retrieve The Artifact in Skull never comes close to the same urgency reached in the first three films. Ie. the urgency of getting the Grail is compounded in the climax when "the healing power of the grail" is the only thing that can save Sean Connery.

Compare that meticulous plotting to Skull and suddenly Crusade seems absolutely brilliant...

Now that I know what to expect maybe I'll actually be able to relax and enjoy myself the next time I see it.

jin choung
05-23-2008, 03:06 AM
well, last crusade "working" is a matter of opinion.

as i said, the whole sitcom jokey thing took an alarming turn for the worst in that movie:

- nazi in plane passing by as it smashed into a tunnel... hilarious... : (
- "alarm!" screams the nazi den mother... marvelous... : (
- "adolph" goin' around signing autographs on religious code books
- "ah venice!", "tanks - your welcome", "didn't i tell you not to trust ANYONE?" , "i have come to see the tapestries!" (channeling an art loving scottish b1tc*h for some reason...?)
- marcus brody as a walking joke
- homage to raiders storefront gag... ugh...
- TRULY TEDIOUS tank vs. horse battle? ugh....

the problem with a movie like last crusade and lots of sequels is that they are SELF INDULGENT... let's show the audience how much we really enjoy each others company... let's yuck it up for the camera.

gag.

also, as i said, i know a distressing amount of people for whom last crusade is their favorite movie of the bunch. that i just don't get.

i disagree with them passionately and vociferously. but certainly, to each his own.

jin

p.s. to properly calibrate my cinematic tastes for y'all - i REALLY disliked the first lord of the rings movie, DESPISED - no, HATED the second, and loved the third.

Iain
05-23-2008, 03:42 AM
i disagree with them passionately and vociferously. but certainly, to each his own.



Well, quite. I thought Last Crusade was a cracking example of "boy's own" cinema. It was corny and cheesy but that's part of the appeal to me.
There was great chemistry between Ford and Connery, cool locations and the important supernatural element which was almost non existant in the second film. Oh and, of course, Nazis. Everybody hates them and wants to see a good guy trump them.

The second film is, for me, by far the weakest. The mine sequences were just dreary and the supporting characters were annoying and forgettable. Short Round doing karate on grown men was hilarious and the Thuggees weren't at all scary to me, even at a young age.

jin choung
05-23-2008, 03:44 AM
wow, I LIKED KOCS!

will try to keep this spoiler free.

one thing that i TRULY DESPISED about LC was it's over-bright, flat studio lighting... everything was high key and even the darkest areas were muddy grey without any true highs and lows. and as i've said, that's my evaluation of the drama of that movie as well... watered down without any real highs and lows and no sense of peril.

cinematography in this movie had a design, and contrasty and not afraid to let highlights blow out and darks go really dark. while limited resources leant raiders a more naturalistic look, KOCS strives to be engineered and artificial but with a gritty edge in the action suspense moments which suits the genre. also some superhalogauzynostalgia lighting early with shia but i didn't mind and it fit the heavy handed "i want you to know you're in the fifties" thing.

the thing that grabs you right behind the cinematography initially is the editing! truly spielbergian montage at its finest... it's kinetic and thrilling and immerses you immediately into the period. without a single word of dialog for about 5 minutes!

there's also a visual gag at a guard post that really takes advantage of the limitations of cinematography (camera can only show you one vantage point at a time and what obscures the camera is truly obscured) and it's really a throwback to the nuts and bolts cinematicness spielberg showed in movies like duel early in his career. loved it.

that's another thing about the first half of this movie - ssandgl take every detail about the fifties and throws it at you right after the kitchen sink. no subtlety cuz there's no time. gl also takes the 50s sci fi angle and runs with it and imo, all of this works.

it's the LAST THING from subtle. but it works.

i suspect the people who will have the most problem with the movie are those who object to the genre being bent from holy ancient mystical relics to a more explicitly scifi milieu but for using the passage of a decade to explore another genre of pop pulp, i was totally fine with it. especially since he just takes disparate elements of a pop mythos and really squeezes a LOT of mileage out of it and makes every connection that he can!

biggest hate in the first half of the movie involved "making a mountain out of a mole hill" and attendant cg critters. it's early in the movie and it pointlessly just kicks you right out of the movie before you could even properly get into it. you want to throttle him and scream "why george why?!"

the admittedly self indulgent homage at the end of the first big action sequence is completely underplayed and works all the better because it does not linger. much more discipline exercised here than in LC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

harrison ford plays IJ in advancing years almost PERFECTLY! i thought it would be just awful - just horrifyingly horrible. but he's good. you can see what he was and he wears it so you accept what he's become.

and it's the good hf from raiders... the ballsy but quirkily comedic guy... not the self indulgent (there's that phrase again) grandstanding dumshite ashole whose only reliable technique in his acting repertoire is a strong index finger (it doesn't make even one appearance!).

worst thing from him i think is a truly ridiculous looking left/right sequential punch.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
two ludicrous bits involve waterfalls and vines. dammit, is this what they think is "crowd pleasing"?

i was ok with it but this is the kinda jokey hokey "business" that keeps a pretty good movie from being anything more. seriously guys, why don't you even TRY for it? sigh.

sure, you're an entertainment, you're not going for citizen kane. but TRY to play it straight, TRY not to pull you out, TRY to fill plot holes....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

there's a thing in the last scene involving the hat that is really great and resolves as it should imo. torches should be passed when warranted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

visual effects wise, really really really well done. destruction scene at the end is breathtaking and since it reveals a key ingredient, really dam satisfying too.

jin

p.s. one gimmick involving a shadow and a revelation is just EMBARASSING! WTF?!?! we've been immersed in x-files for a decade now! WE GOT IT IN THE FIRST ACT!!! NO FING REVELATION! MOVE THE F ON!

Chris S. (Fez)
05-23-2008, 06:12 AM
wow, I LIKED KOCS!

two ludicrous bits involve waterfalls and vines. dammit, is this what they think is "crowd pleasing"?


Those two were beyond embarrassing IMO. And that Snake bit might have worked if not for the terrible editing, staging and acting. It was a prime example IMO of the many shots/scenes/sequences that should have been punchier and more tightly edited. Argh. Like the last scene with the sidekick... where they ripped off motivation from The Mummy (which shamelessly pillaged Raiders, so revenge is sweet I suppose). The staging in that sidekick scene is abysmal, just abysmal.

Speaking of which, the lighting and cinematography was gorgeous but it also smacked of sound stage and/or post: oversaturated, overprocessed. Last Crusade was flat by comparison, as you say, but IMO it still managed a rich REAL look. That is nitpicky though. The film looks fantastic.

The thing that most irritated me was how uninvolved Indy was in the last act. He was similarly just a spectator at the end of Raiders but was indirectly invested in the action by the fact that he knew that he couldn't satisfy his curiosity and survive. In KOC it seemed none of Indy's actions/decisions mattered to the climax. He was just helplessly watching the dominoes fall with no power to affect the outcome of anything (unlike Doom and Crusade where his every move/decision matters). That was my initial impression mind you.

In any case, I'll try to leave the fanboy hypersensitivity at home and check out KOC again when I am not overtired (saw a midnight screening), as we do like/dislike some of the same LC sequences.

cholo
05-23-2008, 01:24 PM
Let's be realistic. None of the first 3 weren't that great either. I loved them as a kid. I remember them as seen through my kid eyes. I recently bought the boxed set. What a waste of money! I'll definitely go see this last one at the theatre and try to like it the way I liked the first 3 when I was young, but I'm not expecting much. Nostalgia is definitely the reason they'll be collecting any money from me (again). :)

warrenwc
05-23-2008, 03:37 PM
I have to go against the tide here.
NOT that there aren't very valid crits, but I enjoyed the whole thing & didn't even TRY to analyze anything until after the credits.
The only disappointment I suffered was that I wasn't ready for it to be over at 2Hrs.
That's usually way too long for me, but I didn't expect it to be RAIDERS.
I guess I managed to go in without expectations & was thoroughly entertained.
Yeah, they could have done better in some respects, and I would LOVE to have seen what Kasdan could have done with the screenplay, but I liked it.

jin choung
05-23-2008, 07:28 PM
Let's be realistic. None of the first 3 weren't that great either.


again, you're entitled to your opinion but i totally disagree. raiders of the lost ark easily rises to "great movie" status.

not cinematic masterpiece but as good as a movie can be before it becomes "cm".

jin

Jim_C
05-24-2008, 01:43 PM
Boycott!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/24/russia.indiana.jones.ap/index.html

BigHache
05-26-2008, 09:04 AM
Boycott!

I find that almost funny. I'm not sure I've EVER seen a fictional film historically accurate.

Did anyone see it yet? Caught it Friday I'm not quite sure what to think of it...

NAS
05-26-2008, 09:49 AM
Can't say this is a great film but it's watchable fun


NAS

Andyjaggy
05-27-2008, 08:17 AM
Yeah it was a fun film. I'm not rushing out to buy it though. Agree about the vines and waterfall. Why do they have to add stuff like that in?

Your all into the movie and then bam! Suddenly taken out of it, and asking yourself WTF is this?

beverins
05-27-2008, 09:02 AM
I give Indy 4 a "7" if you're a fan of the series... with some caveats..

Starts nicely, and then fades towards the end. I didn't MIND the ending in general, it just was so watered down and Bleh. You'd think with the subject material they could have done so much better.

Thought the CG was fine, but yes, there are a few scenes where it looked like a greenscreen comp from the 80's. Maybe done as an inside joke?

What I took exception with was the addition of the other archaeologist/historian/adventurer who is turned into a psychic prophet for Indy to follow. Way to dilute Indy and make him no longer on top of his game. Yeah, he's older and slowing down, but comon now. He can figure this stuff out for himself, why did we need this Oxley fellow at ALL?

Also, the Evil Commies look and act like ex-Nazis. Which would make sense if they WERE ex-Nazis, like, from East Germany...which they're not... well, whatever.

The natives in both "dungeon scenes" were completely wasted and unnecessary. They could have been very easily excised, or changed to something more mysterious and dangerous.

The script definetly shows its over-written nature from being passed around to lots of different writers. Too many cooks may not spoil this broth, but they sure do make you wish that it tasted better.

Basically, if you enter this movie without being an Indiana Jones fan, you will not leave as one. And if you enter as a fan, you will enjoy the ride but it feels like an epilogue to the Indiana Jones tale rather than his last big adventure... and with the intended scale of the story, you wonder WHY it had to feel like an epilogue.

Also, after the climactic ending, Indy says what he learned from this, and his line makes no sense because of what happens. The Greatest Gift sure doesn't play out like a gift......

hunter
05-27-2008, 01:37 PM
Wow lot's of view points. I think Raiders will always be best because aside from the supernatural events, Most of What Indy does is almost in the realm of the believable. In Temple of Doom(the worst of the franchise imo) it starts getting more far fetched and fantastical. And there is somewhat a return to ground in The Last Crusade. KOTCS is fine and a good ride, but in this day of Pirates at Lands End and such Indy of Raiders couldn't compete so they moved ever further into fantasy. Indy could survive a dragging under a truck (maybe not without the aid of a ditch) ;) but the whole refrigerator scene in Kingdom, c'mon. The new film just goes so far beyond what's possible where Raiders you could almost buy all of it. That's why Raiders will always be the best in my book.

adamredwoods
05-27-2008, 03:53 PM
Just saw this movie, finally.

Weakest of the 4, I describe it as.

No depth to the movie. No peril, too much exposition. It wont last after the third viewing.

It's 'fun' but only in the theater.

Oedo 808
05-27-2008, 04:51 PM
Most of the time that I encounter film reviews of this nature I almost always go on to dislike the film.

I'm dreading the thought of watching this because I know that I can't let go of some of the points that have been mentioned above, and even then I just skimmed to avoid any spoilers.

It may be sad not being able to take the film on it's own merits alone, but I think that one of the hardest things about watching this film will be that I've already had enough of the past crowings of Mr Potato Head Lucas. I think he has trouble in distiguishing between the improbable and the implausible. I also think he is quite patronising when he says that the films are aimed mainly at kids, it's true that many will enjoy parts of films like StarWars: Episode One that most adults will not, but that doesn't mean that their enjoyment or immersion will be the same, and it is they who will lose out because of it. So I take exception when he aims a comment at fans like me saying that he sacrificed making a film that I would enjoy in favour of making a film that kids would enjoy. Utter tosh.

I think I'll give this one a miss as some days I can go thinking "Ah who cares, it'll be a bit of fun." But that's not the hat I'm wearing at the moment, maybe later.

BigHache
05-28-2008, 11:12 AM
Oh and they edited in the infamous Wilhelm Scream, of course, for whatever reason.

Jim_C
05-29-2008, 08:32 AM
Oh and they edited in the infamous Wilhelm Scream, of course, for whatever reason.


Take Spielberg/Lucas creations out of this comp and it's only about half as long.

sad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdbYsoEasio

Anti-Distinctly
05-30-2008, 03:02 AM
First act was good and I was quite happy (not to mention relieved), then as it went on it just became absolutely ludicrous. As someone mentioned before, certain parts (the vines) just completely took me out of the film. This kind of thing happened more and more frequently as the film went on until I just looked away and sighed in the 'climax'.
There was overzealous use of CG in action sequences that augments the feeling that it wasn't real - it's very easy to spot FX sequences when the situation or event is that implausible.
Maybe I'll enjoy it more after the hurt wears off. I don't know.
Systematically, my most cherished films are being ruined. Star Wars, Aliens, now Indy. They'll just keep going until nothing is left...

pooby
05-30-2008, 04:19 AM
It's a shame you let the silly stuff ruin it.

I found that I was always intruigued to find out how the plot would all roll out and, I was constantly entertained.
And taken in the context of the old comic book style that the films emulate, it was not THAT ludicrous, except for the odd thing that I found I just was able to laugh off.

I could write a page on stuff that could have irritated me had I let it, but there was plenty of fun to be had in the Film, and I suggest that anyone wanting to see it just leaves their disbelief at the door and just goes along for the ride.

What I hate for example is films that try to persuade you that Superheroes should be taken somewhat seriously.
This film doesn't attempt to go anywhere near realism, and in general it's the better for it.

Oedo 808
05-30-2008, 05:41 AM
I'm usually quite a harsh critic of films, but when I went to see The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen at the cinema, I was the only one who enjoyed it, which I think was a first. I couldn't believe the things that my friends were picking holes in, I thought "Did you not guess what type of film it was within the first two minutes?"

Well I had a pretty good idea, so I settled back into the seat and made sure to keep critic in my head firmly gagged, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

But I don't think that's what I really want from an Indiana Jones film, plenty of improbable high jinks is fine, but it sounds to me like this may step over that plausibility line that is the ruin of many films for me. Though I wouldn't want a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen style Indiana either.

I reckon that this film is probably fine on it's own, but that it's just too much to ask fans like me to watch the film on it's own merits without hoping for another Raiders of the Lost Ark. I'll try to avoid this trap when I get around to seeing it, knowing that it's not will actually be a help.

Though that's not to say going to see it expecting to see the best of the series and not being disappointed wouldn't be preferable. Just as it was with the Star Wars prequels. :yoda:

Anti-Distinctly
05-30-2008, 07:29 AM
***POTENTIAL SPOILERS*** (well, I'm going to mention certain sequences)


It's a shame you let the silly stuff ruin it.

I found that I was always intruigued to find out how the plot would all roll out and, I was constantly entertained.

Don't get me wrong, I really did like the first act - it was good old fashioned Indy. Plus, I really did want to enjoy it and in places I certainly did (sandpit sequence I enjoyed for example :)). But at the point of the Tarzan moment, it pushed it too far, but that would've been just acceptable if that was as far as boundary was pushed. But the script just went way too far.
Lucas strikes again.



And taken in the context of the old comic book style that the films emulate, it was not THAT ludicrous, except for the odd thing that I found I just was able to laugh off.


I agree with the sentiment, but I was comparing it to the other Indy films in terms of credibility. They are fantastical at one or two points, but remain distantly plausible. Crystal Skull went considerably beyond that.

Also, the plot seemed to fall apart. Who were the weird pygmy people at the gravesite? In the temple? What were they there for?
After the waterfall part and everyone saw the entrance to the temple (skull waterfall thing) Indy stated that he must go alone as the skull told him to. Next scene everyone is together and it's never mentioned again. Please don't take this as nitpicking - I'm certainly pleased that you enjoyed it pooby :) - but these are examples of my general thought the the film descended into incoherent stupidity for me. Sadly.

sean hargreaves
05-30-2008, 09:15 AM
I love Indiana Jones because he's not got superhero powers. And in the other films he really feels like he is in peril.

But, you know, this film looks like its a victim of every friggin' blockbuster nowadays, and thats the cg, which drives the impossible camera shots, which lessens the peril because you KNOW its cg. Theres a heck of a lot to be said about practical cameras, shooting real actors and vehicles in a real environment, and having someone like Spielberg coming up with dynamic camera angles that are REAL!!

You can almost hear the discussion:

A) "Ok, we're going to shoot the jeep on a cliff, racing along, almost falling off!"
B) "Is the cliff a location?"
A) "No, its a 3d digital matte!"
B) "What about the jeep?"
A) "We're going to make it cg as well!"
B) "Then why don't we just make the actors cg?"
A) "Yeah, we were thinking the same thing!"
B) "The whole shot can be cg, we don't have to composite all those elements, AND THE CAMERA CAN GO ANYWHERE, YIPPPEEEEEEEEEE.....!"

Cut to the people in the audience once the film is finished:

"Thats cg, thats cg, thats cg, thats cg.........YAAAAWWWNNNN!"

The impossible, bumblebee cg camera is the durge of filmmaking right now, and spoils the peril. Example: Spiderman.

I'm NOT knocking cg at all, I'm knocking the way it is used to get filmmakers out of figuring things out practically.

S

Anti-Distinctly
05-30-2008, 09:30 AM
Precisely. It's particularly odd that Spielberg is responsible considering that in Jurassic Park and many of his other films, he was concious of the 'impossible camera move' that plagues so many films.
One of the best uses of CG I've ever seen was in Cast Away and I'm not talking about the aircraft crash sequence. The commentary for that film was a real eye opener for how CG and FX should be used.

Edit: In Spielberg's defence, given that script I'm not sure what else could've been done.

Titus
05-30-2008, 09:37 AM
Edit: In Spielberg's defence, given that script I'm not sure what else could've been done.

He could slap Lucas on the back and say: "George... come on!" :).

Jim_C
05-30-2008, 11:34 AM
"Thats cg, thats cg, thats cg, thats cg.........YAAAAWWWNNNN!"



Well according to this (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9951772-7.html), you were not suppose to notice.

sean hargreaves
05-30-2008, 11:53 AM
All I'll say is nothing is realler than real, the more elements that are synthetic, the more the brain is telling you "Somethings not quite right!"

We are not there yet with CG. There are certain lighting conditions that cg can duplicate incredibly well that go unnoticed, but a lot of the time its just obvious. Its like the scene in The Fly where they teleport the piece of steak from one machine to another, and the steak looks real, smells real, but you bite into it and its synthetic!

I am for CG being used for 'bits'. I'm tired of entire scenes being labored over by effects companies and the end result is not convincing.

I would love to see how Spielberg would have handled this film 20 years ago. I bet he would have altered the scenes to fit what was possible and made it dynamic in the way he used to. I mean, I love seeing action sequences where you think wow, the cameraman must have got nailed on that shot. Not only are the actors in peril, so is the crew.

I'm glad that IronMan did'nt go over the top with the bumblebee camera in the flying sequences, it did'nt look like the camera was on a bungie cord.

Anyway, the overuse of these techniques only date films. The problem is, EVERYONE GOES TO SEE THEM THE OPENING WEEKEND TO SEE WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH, AND ITS THE SAME LABOR INTENSIVE SHOTS THAT LOOK SYNTHETIC!! And the companies make their money back and are convinced this is how to make movies and it goes on and on. Its a business, I know, but it just disappoints me that it keeps going on and on.

Can't wait for the effects master, James Cameron to kick the studios into gear when he completes Avatar, and shows them THIS is how you use cg.

......I hope.........oh please..................I hope!!!!

Anti-Distinctly
05-30-2008, 12:12 PM
He could slap Lucas on the back and say: "George... come on!" :).

The mind boggles as to why that evidentially didn't happen.
It had some fair moments...maybe I'll chill out with old age and grow to like it. *sob*

adamredwoods
06-21-2008, 11:33 AM
Abridged version of Indiana Jones IV. Funny.

***SPOILERS***
***IF YOU LIKED THE MOVIE EVEN REMOTELY, DO NOT READ***
http://www.the-editing-room.com/indianajones4.html

jin choung
06-21-2008, 01:42 PM
i liked the movie but still thought that was hilarious.

jin

Iain
06-22-2008, 01:57 AM
I thought it was really good.
100 times better than I expected.

People seem to have forgotten how to enjoy experiences like this-CGI has always been obvious in the blockbuster genre. It's just not a place where great subtlety or base realism is required.