• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Official Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Rottenwatch/Reviews

Status
Not open for further replies.
Those are reviews sent in to AICN, not reviews from AICN themselves. I actually like a couple of the guys who review at AICN. Sue me.
 

woodchuck

Member
i havent read any of the reviews yet, but i like how manabyte thinks only the positive review came from the "level headed person"
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
woodchuck said:
i havent read any of the reviews yet, but i like how manabyte thinks only the positive review came from the "level headed person"

It's the only one that didn't sprinkle in "Lucas raped my childhood" rants.
 

acidviper

Banned
wow, do not want - how disappointing at least Lucas isn't fuxoring with the the original trilogy. Netflix cued.
 

JdFoX187

Banned
zoku88 said:
Some people are really impressionable...
Nothing wrong with that, but wouldn't one rather wait on a review that wasn't thrown together just to create hits and be the first one out?
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
JdFoX187 said:
Nothing wrong with that, but wouldn't one rather wait on a review that wasn't thrown together just to create hits and be the first one out?

For all we could know, it could've been written by Uwe Boll.
 
waek us when it's time

30idstt.jpg
 

Seth C

Member
I really want to be excited about this movie. I want to love it. Unlike most, I love Shia. Still, the trailers have done almost nothing to make me excited. Honestly, I think Ford is just too old for this. He looks stiff, and so does all the action.

I'll reserve final judgment of course, and I am not reading anything that site publishes.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
Indy 4 compared to Wrath of Khan (SPOILERS):
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36701

“Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” blends many of the divergent elements of the first three. The jeopardy and stakes of the first. The darkness and rituals of the second. The generational differences, relationships and humor of the third.

Oddly enough, the mix reminded me of a non-Indy movie, “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,” wherein an aging, melancholy hero is galvanized back into action, reclaiming meaning for his latter day existence. It even has a similar relationship with a young man who has a large chip on his shoulder, for very good reasons, and a woman from his past reappearing. Marion Ravenwood’s name carries similar feelings as “Carol Marcus” in this context.

I’ve read another reviewer of this film claiming disappointment the character of Indiana Jones wasn’t accorded the same introspection and ruminations of the last Rocky Balboa outing. The first and last “Rocky” movies, before the sequels became cartoonish caricatures, were both human dramas. They were character pieces heavy on dialogue and building towards inevitable finales in the ring. Indiana Jones is an action adventure series. While Indy acknowledges his advanced age, he does it in the context of how things are handled in “Indiana Jones” fashion. That doesn’t mean halting his exploits to pontificate ostentatiously on mortality. Sorry, "It's not the mileage, it's the years" fits this world. Unlike Rocky, Indy steps into the ring for combat after the first reel.
 

bill0527

Member
ManaByte said:
They have been doing screenings, so people have seen the movie and reviews are starting to come out.

I'm still not sure if I buy the AICN reviews as authentic. Harrison Ford was on Jay Leno and Jay was talking about how he always gets to screen a movie before a guest appears so they can talk about it and he wasn't allowed to screen this movie. He was jokingly asking Ford if the movie sucks because there is such a tight lid on it. Ford wasn't even allowed to bring any clips with him for the Tonight Show appearance. USA Today also had a Ford article yesterday and as of a few days ago, he hadn't even seen the final cut of the movie yet. From everything I've read, the very first screening isn't supposed to take place until May 18th at the Cannes Film Festival.
 

JdFoX187

Banned
There have been a few screenings, I believe. But I don't know if AICN would be some of the first people they'd invite. Though, Ford did say it was possibly better than the original three on Leno last night. Can't wait though, I know I'll enjoy it whether it's a good movie or not.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
JdFoX187 said:
There have been a few screenings, I believe. But I don't know if AICN would be some of the first people they'd invite. Though, Ford did say it was possibly better than the original three on Leno last night. Can't wait though, I know I'll enjoy it whether it's a good movie or not.

They weren't people FROM AICN who went to the screening. People who went to the screening wrote into AICN, they don't work for the site.
 
ManaByte said:
MARK ALL SPOILERS WITH
TAGS OR HAVE YOUR FACE MELTED OFF!
Rottenwatch Link:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indiana_jones_4/

First reviews:
Two reviews from the "George Lucas raped my childhood" camp (MASSIVE SPOILERS):
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36667
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36677

Positive review from a more level-headed person (minor SPOILERS):
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36678
"High headed"? Really now? I'm sorry, but everything I read in the (non spoiler) negative thread confirmed my suspicions about this movie.

Ironically, the problem is that Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford are trying far too hard to give everyone what they think that they want. Look! It’s the Ark! Look! It’s Marion! Look! It’s not the mileage, it’s the years! Everyone’s just treading water in this thing. The result is a movie that could – and should – conceivably have been made about a year or two after the Last Crusade, and would probably have been pretty well received. But after twenty years, everyone expects something that this movie can never be, and the harder the film tries to cram in as much nostalgia and clever references to what’s gone before, the more achingly clear it is that this movie is an empty exercise. It’s all about trying to recapture lightning in a bottle. Nothing about this film stands on its own – it’s constantly leaning on the past, hoping we don’t notice that it doesn’t bring anything new to the franchise.

That's obvious just from the teaser trailer. I'm obviously still going to see the movie, but everything I've read so far suggests it's just Spielberg's version of the Star Wars prequels. Over the top, relying on nostalgia as a crutch, and unnecessary. Which is sad to me, as a fan of the franchise.
 
PhoenixDark said:
That's obvious just from the teaser trailer. I'm obviously still going to see the movie, but everything I've read so far suggests it's just Spielberg's version of the Star Wars prequels. Over the top, relying on nostalgia as a crutch, and unnecessary. Which is sad to me, as a fan of the franchise.
But the Star Wars prequels didn't do that though. Sure, they did reference a few things but that was to tie in all the stories together. Whereas the Indiana Jones movies aren't 1 continuing story, they are self-referential yes but they are also self-contained movies.
 
Scullibundo said:
Those are reviews sent in to AICN, not reviews from AICN themselves. I actually like a couple of the guys who review at AICN. Sue me.

Agreed. Some of them are reliable. The guy penning under the name of "Moriarty" is a more than decent reviewer. The site owner, on the other hand...

On the film itself: it's too early to call.
 
Shalashaska said:
But the Star Wars prequels didn't do that though. Sure, they did reference a few things but that was to tie in all the stories together. Whereas the Indiana Jones movies aren't 1 continuing story, they are self-referential yes but they are also self-contained movies.

In terms of nostalgia you're correct, but the prequels relied on over the top antics to hide the poor quality of everything else, and I think that's the case here. In terms of nostalgia the film is apparently stocked with references to past films in the Indy (and Spielberg) cannon. That second review brings up a great point about the Rock Balboa sequel, which isn't a great movie but still manages to stand on its own feet while recognizing the past films. Crystal Skulls takes the opposite road and instead has a lot of moments that scream "hey remember this? It was so cool right? Well, here it is again!"
 
PhoenixDark said:
In terms of nostalgia you're correct, but the prequels relied on over the top antics to hide the poor quality of everything else, and I think that's the case here. In terms of nostalgia the film is apparently stocked with references to past films in the Indy (and Spielberg) cannon. That second review brings up a great point about the Rock Balboa sequel, which isn't a great movie but still manages to stand on its own feet while recognizing the past films.
Well I haven't read any reviews (and won't until I see the movie myself) so I can't comment on that. I think we all expect for there to be references to the past movies, but I wonder what the definition of 'stocked' is in this regard.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
crustikid said:

The man who posted as ShogunMaster, reached via the Web site, said he is a theater executive who saw the film at an exhibitors’ screening this week. He spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid reprisal from the studio.

Paramount had shown the film to a handful of theater company executives at its Los Angeles lot and elsewhere.

Guess that kills the "there have been no screenings" theories.

Theater executives may have an incentive to play down a movie’s prospects after such a screening, to get better terms. In any case, many fans will most likely flock to “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” if only to make their own judgments about Mr. Spielberg’s decision to revisit the franchise fully 19 years after its last installment. Still, bad notices could keep the more ambivalent moviegoers from attending and thwart a truly huge box office haul.

So the person who wrote the negative review on AICN was a theater exec trying to bash it to get a better deal.
 
I can't believe people are taking the trailers as direct parallels for the film. Spielberg purposefully has made them as generic and unrevelatory as possible. They're merely created to say hey Indy's back just in case you didn't know.

The movie could still suck, but the underwhelming trailers are no indication of that.
 

Chichikov

Member
VistraNorrez said:
I can't believe people are taking the trailers as direct parallels for the film. Spielberg purposefully has made them as generic and unrevelatory as possible. They're merely created to say hey Indy's back just in case you didn't know.

The movie could still suck, but the underwhelming trailers are no indication of that.
I agree with you that you can't judge a movie by its trailers, but come on, tell me you don't believe the bolded part.
 
VistraNorrez said:
I can't believe people are taking the trailers as direct parallels for the film. Spielberg purposefully has made them as generic and unrevelatory as possible. They're merely created to say hey Indy's back just in case you didn't know.

The movie could still suck, but the underwhelming trailers are no indication of that.


word, man.

come on people, show more brain than what you've been doing until now. The first SM2 teaser trailer sucked ass, everything seemed so dull, then movie rocked

Indiana Jones is to Spielberg what Mario is to Nintendo: they are not going to fuck up their best franchise, no way in hell
 

Chichikov

Member
Anasui Kishibe said:
Indiana Jones is to Spielgerg what Super Mario is to Nintendo: they are not going to fuck up their best franchise, no way in hell
Analogies are like fruit salads, they don't always come out right.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
Chichikov said:
I agree with you that you can't judge a movie by its trailers, but come on, tell me you don't believe the bolded part.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20192040_4,00.html

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Of course, there are downsides to the burgeoning Internet age — and one of those downsides is, when a popular movie is coming up, people sort of peck it to death before it even opens. There's been a huge amount written on the Internet about the development of Crystal Skull, including lots of spoilers on chat boards — though most of it is clearly labeled. Is it getting harder to protect the development process?
STEVEN SPIELBERG: It really is important to be able to point out that the Internet is still filled with more speculation than facts. The Internet isn't really about facts. It's about people's wishful thinking, based on a scintilla of evidence that allows their imaginations to springboard. And that's fine.
GEORGE LUCAS: Y'know, Steven will say, ''Oh, everything's out on the Internet [in terms of Crystal Skull details] — what this is and what that is.'' And to that I say, ''Steven, it doesn't make any difference!'' Look — Jaws was a novel before it was a movie, and anybody could see how it ended. Didn't matter.
SPIELBERG: But there's lots and lots of people who don't want to find out what happens. They want that to happen on the 22nd of May. They want to find out in a dark theater. They don't wanna find out by reading a blog.... A movie is experiential. A movie happens in a way that has always been cathartic, the personal, human catharsis of an audience in holy communion with an experience up on the screen. That's why I'm in the middle of this magic, and I always will be.

Do you think the sanctuary of the dark theater is being eroded?
LUCAS: No! Look, it's like sports —
SPIELBERG: Yes. I think it is being eroded, by too much information and too much misinformation, especially.
LUCAS: But look, it's like sports. This isn't new. When March Madness gets started with the NCAA [basketball tournament], there are thousands of blogs out there. Rampant speculation. If you follow it enough, you go crazy. [With Crystal Skull], you don't know what's actually gonna happen till you walk into that theater. I don't care if you know the whole story, I don't care if you've seen clips. I don't care how much you've seen or heard or read. The experience itself is very different, once you walk in that theater.
SPIELBERG: Well, here's my debate on that. I've always been stingy about the scenes I show in a teaser or a trailer. Because my experience has been — and my kids' experience has been, 'cause they talk out loud in theaters, like everybody else does today — that if a scene they remember from the trailer hasn't come on the screen yet, and they're three quarters of the way through the movie, they start talking. ''Oh — I know what's gonna happen! Because there was that one little scene they haven't shown yet in the movie I'm experiencing, and it's coming up!'' And it ruins everything.

What about creating deliberate disinformation, the way, say The Sopranos' producers did?
SPIELBERG: I did that, but I don't do that any more 'cause it takes too much effort.
LUCAS: We have managed to keep the fact that Will Ferrell is the main villain in Crystal Skull out of the blogosphere.
SPIELBERG: Exactly. But it did get out that it's Steve Carell, last week.
LUCAS: Except people don't know that they're a team...
SPIELBERG: [Laughs] And by the way, when you run this? There'll be people that believe it!
 

Chichikov

Member
ManaByte said:
There's a huge difference between not wanting the trailer to spoiler your movie and intentionally making it generic and un-revolutionary.
Also, if Spielberg is so stingy about showing scenes in his trailers, how come The Last Crusade one had shots from the last 5 minutes of the movie?

Again, I don't really know how good this movie is going to be, and let's face it, none of the Indiana Jones trailers were all that great, but claiming that it was intentionally bad is ridiculous.
It's like those delusional Matrix fans claiming that the mind numbingly awful dialog in the 2nd movie was put there intentionally to instill a sense of confusion and doubt in the viewer.
 

Solo

Member
"Ironically, the problem is that Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford are trying far too hard to give everyone what they think that they want. Look! It’s the Ark! Look! It’s Marion! Look! It’s not the mileage, it’s the years! Everyone’s just treading water in this thing. The result is a movie that could – and should – conceivably have been made about a year or two after the Last Crusade, and would probably have been pretty well received. But after twenty years, everyone expects something that this movie can never be, and the harder the film tries to cram in as much nostalgia and clever references to what’s gone before, the more achingly clear it is that this movie is an empty exercise. It’s all about trying to recapture lightning in a bottle. Nothing about this film stands on its own – it’s constantly leaning on the past, hoping we don’t notice that it doesn’t bring anything new to the franchise.
"


I dont know which "review" this came from, or who wrote it, but boy, talk about hitting the nail on the head. This is exactly what Indy IV has seemed to be from the outset, a giant clusterfuck of fanservice, rather than an attempt to make a legimate and fresh fourth film.

I dont have a clue what he wrote, but damn I wish Darabont's script hadn't been rejected by the flanneled one.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
Solo said:
"Ironically, the problem is that Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford are trying far too hard to give everyone what they think that they want. Look! It’s the Ark! Look! It’s Marion! Look! It’s not the mileage, it’s the years! Everyone’s just treading water in this thing. The result is a movie that could – and should – conceivably have been made about a year or two after the Last Crusade, and would probably have been pretty well received. But after twenty years, everyone expects something that this movie can never be, and the harder the film tries to cram in as much nostalgia and clever references to what’s gone before, the more achingly clear it is that this movie is an empty exercise. It’s all about trying to recapture lightning in a bottle. Nothing about this film stands on its own – it’s constantly leaning on the past, hoping we don’t notice that it doesn’t bring anything new to the franchise.
"


I dont know which "review" this came from, or who wrote it, but boy, talk about hitting the nail on the head. This is exactly what Indy IV has seemed to be from the outset, a giant clusterfuck of fanservice, rather than an attempt to make a legimate and fresh fourth film.

I dont have a clue what he wrote, but damn I wish Darabont's script hadn't been rejected by the flanneled one.

That came from the review from the theater exec who was trying to downplay the movie to get a better deal out of Paramount for his prints.
 
Solo said:
I dont know which "review" this came from, or who wrote it, but boy, talk about hitting the nail on the head. This is exactly what Indy IV has seemed to be from the outset, a giant clusterfuck of fanservice, rather than an attempt to make a legimate and fresh fourth film.

you haven't even seen it though (?)

no offense but there's a lot of typical internet 'i'll bash a movie i've never seen' going on in this thread
 

Solo

Member
Tyrone Slothrop said:
you haven't even seen it though (?)

no offense but there's a lot of typical internet 'i'll bash a movie i've never seen' going on in this thread

Obviously I havent seen it. When did I say I had? I can only base my opinions on what Ive seen in trailers/previews/interviews, which so far looks and reads like he Indy IV Manabyte would have made.
 

itsinmyveins

Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Chichikov said:
I agree with you that you can't judge a movie by its trailers, but come on, tell me you don't believe the bolded part.

I don't know about "generic" and stuff, but it definitely seems to be going for a bit of nostalgia and action filled sequences.

Honestly, I don't know what they should have done to make it a "great" trailer. The Indy-movies are pretty straight forward adventures.
 
Anyone pre-empting actually watching the movie with negativity isn't worth responding to. Their views have absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever, so who cares? lol at shogunmaster or whatever his name was turning out to be a theatre exec as well... jeebus.

11 days to go
 

Costanza

Banned
I haven't seen the movies in like 8 years and I barely remember anything so I should probably pick up those special edition DVDs coming out this week and catch up again.
 

madara

Member
Yeah definitely time to bail on review threads on net this summer I'm just so sick of routine we got into, sucks the life out everything fun. It doesn't matter the movie, even if it escapes the original run in a few months there will always be it sucked threads on every flick.
 
Of course the movie will suck for hardcore fanboys. The actual movies will never live up to all the hype and speculation they've done in their heads for the last 10+ years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom