• 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.
Going by the parallels between this series and the Die Hard series, I bet this will be received well-critically (as it already is), and it will fall between the 3rd and 2nd (or dead-last) for many fans.
 

Cheebs

Member
Except unlike die hard more or less everyone is returning both the crew and the cast. Same story writer, same director, same editor, same composer, same producers, same cast...etc.

Die Hard 4 had Bruce Willis and no one else ;)
 
Cheebs said:
Except unlike die hard more or less everyone is returning both the crew and the cast. Same story writer, same director, same editor, same composer, same producers, same cast...etc.

Die Hard 4 had Bruce Willis and no one else ;)
Good point! It has already started to break the parallels. My hope factor has gone up.
 
AniHawk said:
He loved Last Crusade too. This reminds me of his review of that film. Siskel gave it a thumbs down in 1989 for being same ol' same ol'.

Well, I agreed with Ebert's assessment back then so this is good news.
 

SpacLock

Member
Green Shinobi said:
Wait, wasn't Die Hard 4 supposed to be amazing? I haven't seen it, but those were the impressions I got. Did I miss something?

Not if you try to compare it to the others.

DoctorWho said:
Major spoilers in Ebert's review!!! I'm ruined!

Just start reading the last paragraph of reviews. I've been spoiler free doing that.
 
Green Shinobi said:
Wait, wasn't Die Hard 4 supposed to be amazing? I haven't seen it, but those were the impressions I got. Did I miss something?
Bahahah

no

But I really didn't mean to derail again. I've just had that theory of the parallels between the two series for a while.
 

Solo

Member
Well, Die Hard 2 is rancid shit, so what does it matter? Also, King Kong is probably my most hated movie of the decade so far, just to throw a final Kong word out there.
 

temp

posting on contract only
Man as much as I was trying to force myself to be excited about this, I've been thinking that this is gonna be a big disappointment. But some of these reviews, especially Ebert's, are making me pretty pumped.
 
Solo said:
Well, Die Hard 2 is rancid shit, so what does it matter? Also, King Kong is probably my most hated movie of the decade so far, just to throw a final Kong word out there.
Hahaha, well I obviously wouldn't call it rancid shit, but being better than DH2 =/ amazing. And I'm not even totally sure if I'd go that far. But that's me, and I readily admit my biases.
 
Solo said:
Well, Die Hard 2 is rancid shit, so what does it matter? Also, King Kong is probably my most hated movie of the decade so far, just to throw a final Kong word out there.
Why do you prove time and time again that your taste in movies can't live up to your avatar?
 

Solo

Member
Green Shinobi said:
Why do you prove time and time again that your taste in movies can't live up to your avatar?

You love King Kong and Cloverfield, two of my most detested movies, so I could ask the same of you. Also, what are these "times after times"?
 
CajoleJuice said:
Anyway, getting back on topic, I do have some hope for this movie, but the amount of CG in the trailer was just off-putting.

I've yet to notice much of this CG and Spielberg keeps saying that there is very little in the film.
 
Solo said:
You love King Kong and Cloverfield, two of my most detested movies, so I could ask the same of you.
Time will prove me right on those two.

But anyway, that came out harsh. I should have said "hyperbole FTL" or something.

I mean, Die Hard 2 = rancid shit? Come on. Even if it wasn't as good as the first, it wasn't that bad. As far as bad sequels go, the recent Shrek and Pirates of the Caribbean sequels are in a whole different league of suck.

And if King Kong and Cloverfield are two of the movies that you've hated most in this decade, then you must not watch a lot of movies.
 
DoctorWho said:
I've yet to notice much of this CG and Spielberg keeps saying that there is very little in the film.
I just know a lot of the stuff in the trailer I saw before Iron Man looked like CG. My friend agreed. Maybe it was due to the quick cuts of a trailer.
 
I seriously wonder about how much validation one needs from critics to see a FUCKING INDY MOVIE. Maybe it is because I (rightly) understand that these kinds of films are required viewing for anyone who loves action and adventure. Damn kids and their ceaselessly turgid erections for review aggregator sites.
 

SpacLock

Member
To some of the people wondering about the actual skulls earlier.

"The crystal skulls are a number of human skull models fashioned from blocks of clear or milky quartz crystal rock, claimed to be pre-Columbian Mesoamerican artifacts by their alleged finders. Contemporary mainstream scientific opinion is that the skulls are instead of 19th century European manufacture. None of the specimens made available for scientific study have been authenticated as pre-Columbian in origin.

The skulls are often claimed to exhibit paranormal phenomena by some members of the New Age movement, and have often been portrayed as such in fiction."

Crystal-Skull-museum.jpg


Picture at a British museum.
 

temp

posting on contract only
"The movies I like are objectively better than the movies you like! And once more, there is a thing such as 'good taste', and your opinion differs from it, while I have it completely!"
 

Solo

Member
Green Shinobi said:
Time will prove me right on those two.

But anyway, that came out harsh. I should have said "hyperbole FTL" or something.

I mean, Die Hard 2 = rancid shit? Come on. Even if it wasn't as good as the first, it wasn't that bad. As far as bad sequels go, the recent Shrek and Pirates of the Caribbean sequels are in a whole different league of suck.

And if King Kong and Cloverfield are two of the movies that you've hated most in this decade, then you must not watch a lot of movies.

Me hating movies you fellate means Im not watching enough movies? Alrighty then. Differing opinions FTL, I guess.

Die Hard 2 is a straight remake of Die Hard, but replacing the plaza with an airport. Its as bland, derivative and uninspired of a film as you'll see, made clearly to cash in quickly on the success of the first film. It also fails in pretty much every area that the original succeeds, and Hamlin couldnt lick McTiernan's boots. Yes, its crap. Im pretty sure even the staunchest of DH fans admit to it being the red headed stepchild of the series.

Anyways, Im done with that. How about that grail?
 
MightyHedgehog said:
I seriously wonder about how much validation one needs from critics to see a FUCKING INDY MOVIE. Maybe it is because I (rightly) understand that these kinds of films are required viewing for anyone who loves action and adventure. Damn kids and their ceaselessly turgid erections for review aggregator sites.


that's exaggerating a bit. Every Indy movie was a critical success as well, but that doesn't mean Spielberg can't pull a turd sometimes, and this is also 2008
 

Cheebs

Member
People in the initial teaser thread thought the jungle shot was a green screen environment till the very shot they claimed was a green screen cgi shot was seen in a making of video, on location in a jungle.
 
Saw it today with xsarien. He says he needs to chew it over some more, I say thumbs up. Loved the action sequences, laughed a lot. There will likely be endless hand-wringing over whether this film "fits" with the previous trilogy or feels like an unnecessary appendix, but I thought it felt just like an Indy movie.
 
Kobun Heat said:
Saw it today with xsarien. He says he needs to chew it over some more, I say thumbs up. Loved the action sequences, laughed a lot. There will likely be endless hand-wringing over whether this film "fits" with the previous trilogy or feels like an unnecessary appendix, but I thought it felt just like an Indy movie.

Wrong thread. We talk about King Kong in here.
 
Cheebs said:
People in the initial teaser thread thought the jungle shot was a green screen environment till the very shot they claimed was a green screen cgi shot was seen in a making of video, on location in a jungle.


:lol :lol :lol

That's like all the alleged CG in the SW prequels that is actually model work.
 

Cheebs

Member
BlueTsunami said:
wtf Kobun, were you at the premire or something? Did you see Kate Blanchetts HOT BAWDY?!
MOAR!!!! Too bad Lucas decided to hold on to her though and ruin the awesomeness :(

340x.jpg

340x.jpg
 

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
Cheebs :bow

And shes fricken tall too

*visits IMDB*

Wow, shes only 5' 8½" ?!!! Everyone in the industry IS Short. She looks like she towers over everyone :lol
 

Flynn

Member
Dan said:
I saw a commercial the other day that had Cate Blanchett's character saying the skull wasn't made by humans...

Who the hell is in charge of this slapdash advertising campaign?

C'mon. The whole Chariots of the gods thing isn't exactly a spoiler. All three Indy movies are based on the Occult. And the whole aliens built they pyramids thing is occult 101.
 

kamikaze

Member
Kobun Heat said:
Saw it today with xsarien. He says he needs to chew it over some more, I say thumbs up. Loved the action sequences, laughed a lot. There will likely be endless hand-wringing over whether this film "fits" with the previous trilogy or feels like an unnecessary appendix, but I thought it felt just like an Indy movie.

saw it today, too and i think i'm in kobun's boat; fun movie that captured the indy feel for me. not my favorite (that's still last crusade), but still good. i can see how people wouldn't like it, though.

things that may kill the movie for people: shia lebouf,
plot that involves aliens
, the ending.

things that may make the movie for people: shia lebouf and harrison ford, fun action scenes
monkeys
:D , nods to previous films
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom