How Do You Rate Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull?

That doesn't make sense. Sure, Lucas tossed the Frank Darabont script but on the other hand, Ford and Spielberg must've accepted the David Koepp script or there would've been no Indy.

It was a collaborative effort, so if Lucas gets blamed for any perceived poor quality, so should also Spielberg, David Koepp, Frank Marshall and John Nathanson.

And a rating, not going to give one yet. I thoroughly enjoyed it the first time around and I'm going for a second time. Perhaps after a few weeks, I can come back with a verdict

 

And executive produced by Lucas. Too bad they didn't use the other Indy 4 script, the one that Ford and Spielberg approved, but Lucas tossed out because it was too good.

You're right Yodas Waiter, this DOESN'T make any sense. These three function as a creative trio, and they all obviously have a lot of respect for one another. It's not like Lucas can say, "let's use the script with the bad dialogue", and the other two are gonna go, sure George! It's highly collaborative and they all have to agree on the script in order for the project to go forward. It's been that way for a long time now.

There's an extreme and irrational obsession with hating Lucas in some quarters, even when it makes NO sense at all.

It was fun, but it is not the movie that is the high light film of the series.

It used to be if people went to a movie and it was "fun", particularly something like an Indy film, well since that's what it was intended to be, that would have been plenty. But NOW it's not enough that it's FUN, it's a FAILURE if it's not the HIGHLIGHT of one of the greatest series of popcorn films ever made. Good grief.

 

It is by far the best film of the summer. The science fiction element in it was very original. I don't think there is a movie like this one anywhere. The special effects sequence of the saucer coming up through the surface was "tops" as far as visual effects goes. And the protrayal of the 1950s era was spot-on, especially during the scene at the cafe.

 

I have to agree, it's the best movie of the summer, by far.

 

10 out of 10

I love Kingdom of the Crystal Skull so much its almost unhealthy.



BRING ON INDY 5

 

Still undecided, I hated the Fridge scene and felt that they had been too obvious on the Von Danikien angle (a lot of the alien stuff was from his books which I read when I was at school) and now can totally find holes in.
Supernatral is one thing, Aliens in X-Files is fine, it just crossed genres, and then worst of all concentrated too much on stunt sequences and not enough on interaction and interplay between the characters.

 

I really enjoyed it. Most people I know didn't and I still don't get 'why?'. Oh well.

It was definitely better than Temple of Doom.

9/10 from me.

 

I would give it a 9 just to give all the actors some slack here if I knew what script that Harrison agreed with George was it will probably be for Indy 5 Harrison said he would do it if the script would base it in the 1960's somewhere .

 

I definitely thought Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was really a pretty good and awesome movie. Yes I even saw the lost ark of the covenant make an appearance. However, I would've preferred if Indy was called "Indiana Jones" more than "Henry Jones Junior". I'm also glad they brought back Harrison Ford to play Indiana Jones.

9 out of 10. So not bad.

 

I gave it an 8 but almost put 9. It's just a fun, fun movie.

 

The Darabont script was awful. It didn't feel like the script to an Indiana Jones movie. It just felt like a typical bloated and horribly overrated Frank Darabont drama. Darabont's forgotten everything he knows about writing a B-movie. The last good B-movie he wrote was The Blob and that was twenty years ago. Even his version of The Mist sucked. Man can't do B-movies anymore. He's too busy angling for an Oscar.

 

I gave it a 2, only because I sat through it without turning it off. On the other hand, I was so bored and unengaged by the movie that I had time to wonder why the color was so undersaturated or over-yellowed in almost every out-door daylight shot in South America. And why was everyone's hair glowing? I realize about 90% of the movie is filmed in front of greenscreens, but you'd think they'd have figured out that the over-backlighting was a problem. I would expect better from a student film.

I had been warned that the new Indianna Jones movie wasn't as good as the old ones, but I was expecting better than utter crap. Low & behold, the worst ideas seem to be Lucas', and neither Spielberg nor Ford could keep him from ruining it. Speilberg was right: should have left the series ended. What's truly frightening is how long it took to come up with and develop this travesty. It's supposed to be a tribute to the spirit of the 50s cheeze movies instead of the 30s Adventure Pulp. Guess they forgot what made the original 3 interesting somewhere along the way. If Lucas wants a tribute to the 50s scifi, he should have done it with the SW prequels. They might have been better that way.

Temple of Doom gets a lot of bashing, which I don't think it deserves. Sure, it has some weak elements, but it was head, shoulders, torso, and groin above this latest movie. I'd watch Temple of Doom again. I'd have to be desperate to watch Crystal Skull.

A lot of people bash Lucas as if he's the only source of bad ideas. This has been pointed out. To be fair, Speilberg and the other people are just as guilty. However, as has been noted, Lucas was completely free to do whatever he wanted with the prequel SW movies. He could have done absolutely anything. Well, we've see what that resulted in. A total waste of everyone else's time and talent. Fact is, the best elements of StarWars were contributed by people other than Lucas, and when it comes to throwing away good material, Lucas proved to be the master by ignoring everything that Brian Daley and Timothy Zahn wrote, not to mention huge volumes published by West End Games. (To his credit, he also threw out everything written by Kevin J Anderson, so that's almost a wash).
I'm a believer in the principle of "It's just a movie, relax and have fun." That's actually the basis for my watching movies: If I enjoyed it and had fun, it was a good movie, and my job is done. If, however, I did not enjoy it, then I start looking at why. Several of my favorite movies are hardly intellectual, and do not stand up to detailed analysis, but they were fun, and I enjoyed them. They were pleasantly diverting and left me in a good mood.
By that simple standard, this movie failed.

 

You'll be pleased to know Lucas and Spielberg are so successful they will both be making MORE movies!!! They can do what ever they want to!

 

I'm really sick of people acting like this movie has cgi anywhere and everywhere. The comment about 90% of it being filmed on green screen is totally false. If you watched the special features you'd know that the vast majority of the film was shot on location or on set. While some sets did use a bit of blue/green screen, it was usually not a majority. And I only noticed one major scene filmed where the whole background was blue screen, and that's not uncommon to do in most major films these days, even lord of the rings did it for some scenes. This film like the prequels also used a lot of miniature work and digital matte paintings, which is not the same as cgi, and often fools people.

 

That still doesn't explain the fact that the movie failed to do more that barely pass a basic Blank Screen test.
Then again, I'm one of the few people who didn't like the LotR movies either.
Reguardless of the name the effect or technique, if it hinders the enjoyment of the movie or the suspension of disbelief, it is a liability, not an asset.