-
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
- Thread starter ManaByte
- Start date
- Status
Sapiens said:
How did he know closing his eyes would work?
How come ToD Indy acts like he knows what Raiders Indy did with the swordsman?
How come Indy is poisoned with something that's supposed to kill him instantly, but he lives for another 5-10 minutes through an action scene?
Christopher
Member
Well I was going to go to the movies to see this, but hell no after all of this to be honest I think I'll just go rent the first three from blockbuster.
Just a little tidbit: The Crytal Skulls are agreed upon as fakes by the scientific community. The well known ones can be traced back to one man (Eugene Boban) who probably made them, or had them made in Germany and sold in Mexico City in the 1860s.
And did everyone and their mother forget the line "But gold isn't magnetic?" That means the skull isn't magnetic. It has some other power. Therefore you can't apply any of the laws of magnetism to it. It has it's own properties.
At least that's my take on things.
And did everyone and their mother forget the line "But gold isn't magnetic?" That means the skull isn't magnetic. It has some other power. Therefore you can't apply any of the laws of magnetism to it. It has it's own properties.
DrLazy said:
* I'm a little murky on why the Russians wanted the first alien. There are several reasons though. They may have thought they could use its skull to activate the city. Maybe they thought that the alien body would lead them to the city.
* You're really questioning INDIANA JONES' ability to get off a train at the station? And why he was in the trunk? So if you had Indy in custody you'd put him in the back seat? Have you not seen Raiders? The man is very good at taking over a moving car. He was kidnapped because they knew he had knowledge of the alien and thought he knew what the government did with it.
* The Commies didn't know who had the letter, they only knew that Indy was supposed to end up with it. I'm fairly certain that it was the Commies, disguised as the FBI, who ransacked Indy's office at the college, looking for the letter.
* Oxley looked at the skull too much and he went insane. He started repeating the word "return." He thought it meant to return it to where he found it. So that's what he did.
* You're really questioning INDIANA JONES' ability to get off a train at the station? And why he was in the trunk? So if you had Indy in custody you'd put him in the back seat? Have you not seen Raiders? The man is very good at taking over a moving car. He was kidnapped because they knew he had knowledge of the alien and thought he knew what the government did with it.
* The Commies didn't know who had the letter, they only knew that Indy was supposed to end up with it. I'm fairly certain that it was the Commies, disguised as the FBI, who ransacked Indy's office at the college, looking for the letter.
* Oxley looked at the skull too much and he went insane. He started repeating the word "return." He thought it meant to return it to where he found it. So that's what he did.
At least that's my take on things.
CommanderQueen
Banned
My point was that this isn't a theological or religious argument.
And yes DoctorWho, the crystal skull is a valid part of history and well researched, I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing that the statement that religious figures are as credible and believable as aliens.
People have said "oh well, the religious stuff was just as believable as the stuff in KOTCS", and for most that isn't the case. It has nothing to with religion/atheism/supernaturalists, it has to do with the story being more of a fantasy than the other films.
So for some of the cynical, arms-crossed types, the film will be judged as "not as good". Thus a lot of the muckraking reviews we've seen.
And yes DoctorWho, the crystal skull is a valid part of history and well researched, I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing that the statement that religious figures are as credible and believable as aliens.
People have said "oh well, the religious stuff was just as believable as the stuff in KOTCS", and for most that isn't the case. It has nothing to with religion/atheism/supernaturalists, it has to do with the story being more of a fantasy than the other films.
So for some of the cynical, arms-crossed types, the film will be judged as "not as good". Thus a lot of the muckraking reviews we've seen.
This is a good point that many people fail to realize. Temple of Doom is arguably the worse of the first three, yet people still call it a good movie, and some even think it's the best of the three. I don't see why people have suddenly grown cynical to Indy, but movies that take themselves completely seriously and are full of mistakes are somehow redeemable?Sapiens said:
The Lamonster
Member
I agree. This movie is just plain old-fashioned fun.aznpxdd said:
Sapiens said:
Why are you confusing bad storytelling with lack of realism? The two have nothing to do with each other. The problem with Crystal Skull wasn't the fact that it was outlandish or unbelievable; it's that it was a semi-interesting story poorly told.
I feel like a great movie could have been made with this premise. Koepp let us down. As did Spielberg and Lucas for going ahead with this script.
CommanderQueen
Banned
I will agree with you Mifune that the movie was a little bit of a letdown and could been made better by some edits and reworking some scenes to help the pacing issues, but I think what most people are saying is that it's doing well so far, it's an Indiana Jones film and most people don't take it as seriously because it's fun.
That being said, a lot of people think that reviewers are being very harsh, comparing it to Phantom Menace, etc. and I really enjoyed it. It was another adventure, good or bad, and we hope to see more soon.
That being said, a lot of people think that reviewers are being very harsh, comparing it to Phantom Menace, etc. and I really enjoyed it. It was another adventure, good or bad, and we hope to see more soon.
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
:lol seriously people, we all know Indy movies are completely unbeliavable. No fucking way theres a single human being who thinks a man can do what Indy does in his movies
the problem here (among other stuff I already mentioned 10000 times) is that noone cares about crystal skulls. Noone in the world cares. Yes, perhaps someone does, but come on, them skulls and the Ark and the Grail aren't even in the same playground.
seriously, if they followed Fate of Atlantis storyline, which is still damn superior to this one and a great candidate for an awesome Indy movie, it woulda been a totally different story. And they complicated things with shitty crystal skulls. Nossir, sorry, they're not big enough for Indy
the problem here (among other stuff I already mentioned 10000 times) is that noone cares about crystal skulls. Noone in the world cares. Yes, perhaps someone does, but come on, them skulls and the Ark and the Grail aren't even in the same playground.
seriously, if they followed Fate of Atlantis storyline, which is still damn superior to this one and a great candidate for an awesome Indy movie, it woulda been a totally different story. And they complicated things with shitty crystal skulls. Nossir, sorry, they're not big enough for Indy
:lol What the fuck is wrong with you? You repeatedly call people that don't like the movie nerds, someone calls you a nerd, and you lash out at him because you somehow infer that he's a nerd and doesn't realize it? How old are you? How much of an annoying douche can you possibly be?Sapiens said:
MightyHedgehog
Member
I don't think it's about pre-established understanding of the items themselves, though that certainly affects how much you believe that those items actually exist prior to viewing the films. America and Europe is very much steeped in Christian-Judeo mythology through religion. The primary viewing audience happens to be folks that live on these continents. TheAnasui Kishibe said:
alien
alien
The problem is that the writing is weaker than any of the previous installments and lacks the more skillful understanding of that unique Indy presentation that Lucas, Spielberg, cast, & crew brought to the original trilogy. Even if you knew all there was to know about the Holy Grail, Sankara Stones, Ark of the Covenant, and the Crystal Skull before viewing these films, you'd likely get a better sense of mystery and discovery from previous three Indy installments than from Skull. Even if you knew nothing about them before initial viewing, those films probably still did a better job of making their case for the believability argument about this supernatural element. The original three felt more grounded in reality, even though it's through religion rather than empirical evidence that they feel so much more believable.
The point is that this film could have been about any item to be chased after as long as the way in which the presentation of the ideas was good enough, even in the face of varying preconceived notions about it that might lead some to inherently buy it as more 'realistic' than others. Making people believe, for a short time, in something that isn't actually real is the point of most films, at least functionally. If you're good enough and successful enough in doing so, people are engaged and thrilled. This film just wasn't as good as the others in this way, IMO, though I still put it on par with Temple of Doom.
Fate of Atlantis would probably have faced similar issues if the problem is preexisting general interest in a given subject as a major factor for caring about a given film. I do agree that its story, as told in the game, would have probably been better suited as an Indy film, but there's nothing to stop a story about a crystal skull from being just as good except for how effectively it's sold to the viewer.
If Skull is guilty of failure of anything, it's not the subject matter, but execution.
I really liked Skull, it was a ton of fun and a worthy entry to the series but the guys calling Raiders not something that should be put on a pedastool and is just a fun adventure movie as well are crazy.
Raiders of the Lost Ark was nominated for the fucking BEST PICTURE oscar. That isn't just some silly adventure movie.
Raiders of the Lost Ark was nominated for the fucking BEST PICTURE oscar. That isn't just some silly adventure movie.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Speevy said:
Mifune said:
Koepp just stitched together previous scripts into this one. The main three wanted to make a 4th Indy movie so bad that they eventually gave up trying to find a script that all 3 would like and instead hired Koepp to put together the best pieces from the rejected drafts. This happened shortly after Lucas rejected Frank Darabont's script which apparently Spielberg and Ford like quite a lot. Jeff Nathanson's script was apparently the backbone, as he got a story credit, but there are also pieces from other scripts, in particular Jeb Stuart's Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men From Mars script. Hence where that line in the movie came from. I have no idea how much of Darabont's script made it in as no one has ever said what his entailed other than that it included Marion. Which is a shame since Frank claims that Spielberg called it "the best draft of anything since Raiders of the Lost Ark." And for the record, Shyamalan never even wrote a script.
BobFromPikeCreek
Member
Fucking George Lucas.Oozer3993 said:
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
Cheebs said:
Oscars don't mean shit, let's just say Raiders is a splendid movie, adventure fiction at its absolute finest, Oscar worthy if Oscars were worth a shit
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
MightyHedgehog said:
I agree with everything you just said. I talked about that one problem because I already said that how lack of suspension of disbelief, poorly tied up plot, way too much not so exciting dialogue, abundance of characters and abuse of CGI really ruined that magical feeling present in the previous movies. They still feel exciting today and they manage to communicate you much more by showing less; you have Indy looking for the Ark: stop. You have Indy chasing the Grail; stop. But what's behind those artifacts? Who created them? You don't know and you don't care, (I'm not putting TOD here because it's a non-canonical quest), everything else in between is perfectly crafted, and the fact those items are universally known certainly does help the viewer to feel the great importance of his hunt for those supernatural and religious treasures
StriKeVillain
Banned
Just got back from watching it. It was decent. As it's own movie it was fine but compared to the others it was just bland. It was missing the magic and the charm from the other films. Also, too much CGI.
This is it? This is what it took 19 years, script rejection after script rejection, and lots of debate between George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Harrison Ford as to what a fourth Indy movie should be? This is the idea that finally united them? Warning: knowing that it took so long for them to agree on a script, and that this is the best they could come up with, means Im going to be extra hard on it.
Wow, this movie sucks. Its like, Hook bad. Hell, it makes Temple of Doom look like a passable movie. The plot is retarded, it plays more like a screwball comedy than an adventure movie, there is never any sense of danger (which strips the film of any sort of thrills), the callbacks are predictable and annoying (Marion could also have been cut from this wholesale; making Mutt Indys son just seemed like a convenient way to shoehorn her character into the movie), Indy has become Basil Exposition, the new characters have the depth of the shallow end of the kiddies pool (and John Hurt looks like he is just continuing his performance from The Proposition), the cinematography is way off base for an Indy movie (its predictably Kaminski-ed; washed out color palettes and weird, bloomy lighting), effects work is shoddy for ILMs standards (and there is far too much CGI), it uses some of the oldest film clichés out there, hell, even the action scenes, which are Spielbergs bread and butter, are bland and uninspiring (actually, I felt overall this war far from Spielbergs finest hour behind the camera). I dont even know what to say about the A-bomb scene, the CG gophers, the Tarzan scene, the aliens, John Williams forgettable score, or the cheesy wedding. Raiders is a classic, Temple is crappy but watchable, and Last Crusade is a lesser Raiders retread held afloat by Sean Connerys performance. Skull has none of these traits. And what in gods name is Cate Blanchett doing in this? She is far too talented for this production.
If I had to mine a few positives out of this turd, they would be a few decent visual gags (I liked Indy going from Mutts bike into the enemy car and back again), the chemistry between Shia and Harrison, and the art design.
In terms of the three summer movies Ive seen thusfar, Crystal Skull is at the bottom of the heap, quite a bit below both Speed Racer and Iron Man. In terms of Indy movies, Raiders >>>> Last > Temple > Skull.
Wow, this movie sucks. Its like, Hook bad. Hell, it makes Temple of Doom look like a passable movie. The plot is retarded, it plays more like a screwball comedy than an adventure movie, there is never any sense of danger (which strips the film of any sort of thrills), the callbacks are predictable and annoying (Marion could also have been cut from this wholesale; making Mutt Indys son just seemed like a convenient way to shoehorn her character into the movie), Indy has become Basil Exposition, the new characters have the depth of the shallow end of the kiddies pool (and John Hurt looks like he is just continuing his performance from The Proposition), the cinematography is way off base for an Indy movie (its predictably Kaminski-ed; washed out color palettes and weird, bloomy lighting), effects work is shoddy for ILMs standards (and there is far too much CGI), it uses some of the oldest film clichés out there, hell, even the action scenes, which are Spielbergs bread and butter, are bland and uninspiring (actually, I felt overall this war far from Spielbergs finest hour behind the camera). I dont even know what to say about the A-bomb scene, the CG gophers, the Tarzan scene, the aliens, John Williams forgettable score, or the cheesy wedding. Raiders is a classic, Temple is crappy but watchable, and Last Crusade is a lesser Raiders retread held afloat by Sean Connerys performance. Skull has none of these traits. And what in gods name is Cate Blanchett doing in this? She is far too talented for this production.
If I had to mine a few positives out of this turd, they would be a few decent visual gags (I liked Indy going from Mutts bike into the enemy car and back again), the chemistry between Shia and Harrison, and the art design.
In terms of the three summer movies Ive seen thusfar, Crystal Skull is at the bottom of the heap, quite a bit below both Speed Racer and Iron Man. In terms of Indy movies, Raiders >>>> Last > Temple > Skull.
polyh3dron
Banned
I grew up with Scientology. I laugh at it.Count Dookkake said:
Also:
Solo said:
This.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Even with all of the mixed feelings about the movie, I really wouldn't mind if the rumors turned out to be true regarding the possibility of more Indy installments. IMO, Skull is still better than any action-adventure that has come out of Hollywood since Last Crusade. And in the event that successive films end up with equally-mixed verdicts, I could still look at the series with the understanding that there were Jones' glory days in the earlier films and those that were still fun if not nearly as awesome. After all, the Star Wars prequels screwed things up fundamentally because of their affect on the history of the entire series going forward in chronological sense. Indy would just be plugging along as an active retiree since he's only going to get older.
Top 5 things I hated:
1. Too much CGI. My brain hates CGI. It simply cannot accept it as truth.
2. Indy was invincible... even stranger considering how old he is.
3. Storyline was too convoluted and silly. Indiana Jones movies are based on pulp novels. They should be simple and fun. The original was fun and clever at the same time. Anyone who says otherwise doesnt understand what they were trying to accomplish with them and should watch more classic films.
4. fridge
5. animals
Top 5 things I loved:
1. The character/ actors. Everyone involved did a great job. Shea labouf seems to have potential to stick around. Cate Blanchet was gorgeous and overqualified. The lady from the past ones was amazing and the interplay was fun.
2. the score. I expected it to be over the top and in your face. It wasnt. It wasnt nostalgic or any other bullshit. It just supported the film.
3. The shots. I always knew where everyone was in relation to eachother, I was never confused. Not a lot of slow-mo or jump cuts or shaky cam bullshit. Classy stuff.
4. The way the movie didnt hold my hand. It really did "show and not tell." You recieved a suprising amount of info from the visuals and less from dialogue.
No one said "this is **** a secret place where we keep *** you may remember it from ****"
5. The middle section
Overral this felt like a cash in.
1. Too much CGI. My brain hates CGI. It simply cannot accept it as truth.
2. Indy was invincible... even stranger considering how old he is.
3. Storyline was too convoluted and silly. Indiana Jones movies are based on pulp novels. They should be simple and fun. The original was fun and clever at the same time. Anyone who says otherwise doesnt understand what they were trying to accomplish with them and should watch more classic films.
4. fridge
5. animals
Top 5 things I loved:
1. The character/ actors. Everyone involved did a great job. Shea labouf seems to have potential to stick around. Cate Blanchet was gorgeous and overqualified. The lady from the past ones was amazing and the interplay was fun.
2. the score. I expected it to be over the top and in your face. It wasnt. It wasnt nostalgic or any other bullshit. It just supported the film.
3. The shots. I always knew where everyone was in relation to eachother, I was never confused. Not a lot of slow-mo or jump cuts or shaky cam bullshit. Classy stuff.
4. The way the movie didnt hold my hand. It really did "show and not tell." You recieved a suprising amount of info from the visuals and less from dialogue.
No one said "this is **** a secret place where we keep *** you may remember it from ****"
5. The middle section
Overral this felt like a cash in.
This movie is terrible. There were a few entertaining parts but the rest was pure garbage. I realized that the movie was going to suck as soon as Jones
after that....... :| There were so many stupid parts like
:lol :lol :lol the scene with
and I didn't feel like the characters were ever in danger in any of these scenes.
And why are people spoiler tagging the word
. It says in the trailer that the skull
:lol I am tagging it to avoid banning. I don't think it is a spoiler.
survived a nuclear explosion.
shia swinging and then to make it worse, he caught up to the cars
the ants was a lame excuse to get rid of some of the russians
And why are people spoiler tagging the word
aliens
was not made by human hands
flintstryker
Banned
learn to think for yourself.Christopher said:
MightyHedgehog
Member
Becausecastle007 said:
God
GitarooMan
Member
I liked it quite a bit, certainly at this point more than Temple of Doom, but I'll have to see again down the line to confirm that. I thought one of the action sequences in particular was pretty incredible, and in general its a fun movie with good characters. After watching all of the other movies the last couple of weeks, this one feels like it fits in and I can see myself watching it alongside the rest years from now.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
For me the movie was about 60% Last Crusade and 40% Temple of Doom.
Absolutely had a ball though I thought the transition of(minor spoiler)
was handled brilliantly and I frankly was so excited to see Harrison Ford act like he gave a damn I forgave the movie for a lot.
So I loved it but then again I really love Indiana Jones.
Absolutely had a ball though I thought the transition of(minor spoiler)
of Indiana to exhibit more and more mannerisms of Connery
So I loved it but then again I really love Indiana Jones.
Christopher
Member
flintstryker said:
:lol I love this - keep it coming.
What are reviews for then? If you pay me the 12.00 to go see it, hell I will.
I've never seen an Indy film, and if this one isn't so great I'm not gonna waste my money on it - hence while I'll rent the older films to get a better feel of Jones then this new one.
MightyHedgehog
Member
If you haven't seen one before, do yourself a favor and pick up the trilogy on DVD. Watch them in the order they were produced (Raiders, Doom, Crusade), or you could watch them in chronological order (Doom, Raiders, Crusade) with the Young Indiana Jones series first if you really want to start earlier in the cannon. In any case, I think because of the winks and nods to earlier films found in all of them following Raiders, I'd watch them in their produced order before going off to see Skull. It'll probably be in theatres all summer, anyway...and then in bargain theatres shortly thereafter. Hell, the DVD will probably be out this Xmas.Christopher said:
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
3/5. Ford, LaBoeuf, and Allen were all fantastic and mostly made up for the dumb parts. Spielberg & Lucas have definitely lost the touch, though. The passion of their youthful careers just isn't there. It felt more like a bunch of Indiana Jones gags & action scenes than a coherent movie. But what was good was really good.
CajoleJuice
Member
Yes, Chris, please watch the original trilogy first. Like I posted earlier in this thread, my cousin watched this fourth movie without ever seeing any of the others, and now he has no urge to see the rest of them. I wish that attitude on no one.Christopher said:
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
CajoleJuice said:
Did it occur to you that your cousin just has terrible taste in movies?
Count Dookkake
Member
polyh3dron said:
Congratulations!
MightyHedgehog
Member
Don't listen to this person. You'll only be robbing yourself of the experience. This person takes this stuff too seriously. :lol In order to really appreciate Raiders, you really have to watch the others...Solo said:
Saw it today. I went to the same theater and at about the same time that I went to see Narnia last week. Same kind of family-oriented crowd. Everyone loved it. They all laughed at
. Much applause at the end. Again, that's the kind of audience I enjoy watching a movie with. That's why I stay far away from midnight showings.
Indy freaking out over the "rope"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked