(Spoilers) Initial Reactions and Discussion for Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

See, that's what I have a problem with.

It's not about liking or disliking a movie, but insulting others by declaring the only reason they must have liked it is because of a bandwagon effect is just a disgrace.

If you don't like the movie, fine, write that you didn't like it, but don't post rubbish like this paragraph. No need to insult other people because they have a different opinion or *gasp* actually have a different taste than you

 

I couldn't agree more. The way the setup the first half was great....but then it just goes way out of control.

And yes, I'll be seeing it again. Because I'm such a huge fan, I'm going to give it another chance and see if anything changes for me the second time around; and believe me I do hope I see some things differently.

 

I'm an Indy newbie (just saw the other films this week) and I enjoyed the movie. In my theater, you could hear the fan-girls (and possibly fan-boys) gasp/squeal/etc. over certain parts of the movie, which really amused me. I throughly enjoyed Indy surviving a nuclear blast, something that it seems only he could do.

I think the last scene may have been awkward because they might be setting up something for another movie. It was almost passing the hat to his son. Him marrying Marion seemed to be a nice ending to all of his James Bond-Girl-type relationships.

Anyway, I very much enjoyed the film, even without a whole lot of history to the Indy cycle.

 

Very much agreed. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the film, that's too bad for you, but don't make it sound like everyone that did enjoy it did so because they're helpless to do otherwise due to their bandwagon mentality or some such garbage. That's ridiculous. Argueing about personal taste is like dancing about architecture.

Haha, man, I had a lot of that in my theatre too, lots of ladies, young and old, all very much in love with Ford it seemed.

 

You know when they try to make films bigger and better, but end up going too far? That's how I felt about this. Some of the stuff in it was just ridiculous which sadly overshadowed the good parts of it.

 

I went to a midnight screening pretty much on the spur of the moment - nipped into the cinema to see if there was anything good on on a Wednesday night, and lo and behold, Indiana Jones 00.01 . . .

All I can really say is that I loved it. It's not the same as the other three, but it's still Indy, and for me it still had the Indy vibe; Adventure with a capital A. A big, out-there, over-the-top last hurrah.

 

I think I'll just quote this review. It's exactly how I feel about it. It's not the same, but it's not SUPPOSED to be the same as the other three. The other movies are different in their individuality.

My review grade overall A for effort, B for realism.

And I'll put it before Temple of Doom on any favorites list.




There were definitely some classic Indiana Jones moments and for those moments, I really enjoyed the film.

The waterfall thing, even though it wasn't realistic, still was classic Indiana Jones. I just loved the way Harrison delivered his lines for that sequence.

My favorite scene in the whole movie by far, was when Indiana almost let himself sink in quicksand because he was afraid of the snake and told his son to call it something different so he could actually grab it.

And then there was, "You're a teacher?" *gasp*


"Part time."

Absolutely classic.

Other things that were nice, seeing the characters again and where they were during WWII was really interesting. The fact that Indiana Jones was a colonel during the war and earned medals was fascinating. Especially liked the nod to Sean Connery and Marcus Brody too. I think Brody would've approved of how his statue was used. The ending scene where he took his hat back from his son, was great also. You don't touch the hat!

And other people complained about the lack of a new theme in this one from Williams, well, to that I will say that was a bit disappointing, but hearing the Indiana Jones march on the main screen? Was just really awesome. That proved way beyond the shadow of a doubt "Wow, Indy's back!"

 

I enjoyed a majority of the film...and I went that picture of Sean Connery on my desk.

Just like the Star Wars prequels, a Indy 4 is never going to live up to everyone's expectations. Sure, I think they could have gone in a different direction with the plot, or maybe even with the plot they had, but it's not my film. After nearly twenty years without America's James Bond on-screen, it's good to see him back. Did I love this film? No. But, then again, I've seen the trilogy more times than I'd like to admit, and I've only seen Crystal Skull once. In time, perhaps the ending will grow on me, but there were many scenes that were pure Indy--the first twenty minutes were brilliant, and were alone worth the ticket.

 

I really enjoyed it. There were a few scenes that may have been a little far-fetched, but that's what makes it fun!

 

Seeing it in 3.5 hours...

 

I absolutely loved it, and/but I'm not a huge fan of the other Indiana Jones movies. The borderline-scifi plot actually works for me, simply because that sort of idea is as ingrained in our culture as any of the other secrets Indy has chased before. Simply swap aliens in for gods and there you go - there's not really much of a difference. Harrison's as good as always, and Shia actually looked like a convincing successor. All in all, the film filled me with a sense of wonder which I really haven't ever gotten from any film ever before. I mean, the premise itself is implausible, but somehow I found myself genuinely astounded by almost every sequence.

 

Arg. I really, really want to like this film completely and fully without any qualms. But I feel like I need to exorcise a few qualms before I can get to the business of all the stuff I really enjoyed about the film. So pardon me while I get some venting out of the way

Things I did not like

I thought the aliens thing was going to be ok. I really did. And for most of the movie it was. But my brother and I had agreed upon something prior to going in- it'll be fine as long as they DON'T show an alien. But they did. And a SPACESHIP. Those things would have been fine in another series, but seeing them in Indy just felt like it didn't fit. Sorry. The third act just made me sigh. Not really mad, just with a kind of, "Why?" feeling. It wasn't necessary to show and then I felt like it would be easier to swallow. For my part, I'll almost certainly get over it But unfortunately it will be too much for a lot of people to handle.

Was it just me or was Ray Winstone's character completely one-dimensional? I just couldn't care less about him either way. Alfred Molina had more character in 10 minutes than Winstone did in the whole movie. He just felt useless to me. Didn't bug me that much but I felt very indifferent toward him.

A little less action, a little more conversation, please. The action sequences were by and large great and a lot of fun. But where were our downtimes? Where were the moments for characters to regroup, lick their wounds, talk things over? Indy and Mutt had great interaction but once they found out they were father and son I wanted some more heart to heart like Indy and Henry Sr. had in brief moments. The same went for Marion. We're apparently just supposed to take it for granted that they get married, because we never really get to see them falling back in love. Just a little *little* more character development moments would be good. They were what made Raiders and LC in particular good.

Communists are not nearly as ominous as Nazis. Not really anyone's fault and just a product of the time period to have them in it.

Too much following Ox around. Would have been nice for Indy to do a bit more leading himself.

WHY start the movie with a CGI prairie dog in the shot?! It was unnecessary and felt like it almost ruined the Mountain for me. Plus it was just a plain stupid thing to do for someone trying to tout how little CG the movie supposedly has.



Ok, I'm good. Got it out of my system now I should disclaim something. The old Indy films are not films to me and I completely acknowledge that. They're just part of my life. I don't even remember first viewings for any of them it was so long ago. And I certainly wasn't a young filmmaker with an awareness of all the details going into a film. I like to shut that part of my brain off as much as possible when watching a new film, but unfortunately it's not quite possible. I went into this film honestly with almost no expectations of how it would be. These qualms I have are things that I think are 'too bad' and could have been remedied. But they're not by any means the end of the world or meaning I don't like the movie. I do.

And here are some reasons why:

Indy. Ana. Jones. .... ! I never once thought, "Harrison Ford is doing a great job with Indy." Nope. It *was* Indiana Jones up on that screen, plain and simple. That was just... indescibably awesome.

I'll say it - I really liked Mutt. I thought the character was well constructed and Shia was perfect casting. Could definitely see hints of Indy in him but he also had a personality of his own. Great chemistry with Harrison. I am quite pleased about his character.

Tons of hilarious parts. I can't count all the times I was laughing my ass off, but there were a good number. A random favourite line: "It's just a thing", from Mutt when he's freaking out in the tomb and runs into a dangling "thing" in cobwebs. For some reason I thought this was a really funny line. Don't ask me why. Another part: The diner fight. I love that Indy tells Mutt not only to pu

 

I was actually disappointed with this one. I would rank it on par or below Temple of Doom for my least favorite. But it was still great fun and it really felt like an Indy movie until its finale. Afterwards I told my friend, "All the fun is in the journey, not the destination." Which is probably the most accurate way to describe how I feel about this film.

The good:

Harrison Ford: It seems like he hasn't missed a step.
All of the action sequences (I will point the exceptions out)
The scene where Indy is sinking in quicksand (one of my favorites of film)
The end where Mutt is about to put on the fedora, but Indy takes it away.
The references to the Ark, Henry Sr., and Brody
Ants
The graverobbing scene: This is another scene that just felt like pure Indy.
Did I mention Harrison Ford?

The bad:

The plot: I don't care what others say, I don't think that sci-fi/aliens belong in an Indy film. Perhaps if they would have kept the aliens dead, it would have been better. I also didn't find the Crystal Skull to be as threatening as the Ark of the Covenant.
The finale: This is the biggest disappointment I have. The finale is too farfetched and over the top, even for Indy standards. Once again, I don't think aliens should have been used at all.
Indy surviving an atomic bomb? (though that siloutte shot is fantastic)
Mutt, King of the Monkeys: Did they have to turn him into Tarzan?
The swordfight: It was ok, until you had Mutt with one foot on each car.
Karen Allen: Her acting wasn't the greatest, and she really didn't feel like the old Marion. She was an unnecessary addition.
Indy should never get married, pure and simple.

Overall, it was enjoyable, but disappointing. It may be as good as TOD, but in no way will it ever touch ROTLA or TLC. I'll probably see it again.

 

Got back from the movie!

Awesome Movie!!!

Aliens!!!

 

This pretty much sums up what I didn't like. And I'll agree that the first part of the movie is WAY better than the last...

The abruptness of the end just left a bad taste in my mouth, as did the way we skimmed over the father/son/Marion thing. Rushed and not enough dialogue, or something.

 

OK, here's my two cents worth.

Having seen the film twice now, I hope I can allay peoples' darkest fears by saying: it's alright. Heck, it's even pretty good.

And I'm a die-hard Indy fan. Raiders is one of my top 5 films of all time, and the Indy films, along with Star Wars, shaped my childhood.

And that childhood wasn't raped by this movie. It wasn't even groped, or leered at.

Crystal Skull is about as good as Last Crusade, which itself is the weakest of the original Indy trilogy.
The tone of the film is very akin to Last Crusade, as is the pacing. That same light-hearted, playful, almost "Indy lite" feel is very evident in Crystal Skull.

The whole film unfolds at a very leisurely pace. Long gone is the breakneck rollercoaster pace of Raiders or Temple of Doom, but to be honest, the movie doesn't suffer overmuch for it.

The jump in timeline from the original trilogy's 1930's era to Crystal Skull's 1950's isn't as jarring as some feared it might be.

The action set pieces are spot on, and again, they're more akin to those of Last Crusade than they are to Raiders or Temple.

Seeing an older Indy up there on the screen won't cause people too many problems, nor will seeing Mutt hijack a good chunk of the action.

Yes, Crystal Skull is in many respects a very different entity than the Indy movies we've seen before, but the Indy essence is still there for all to see.

Anyway, if Last Crusade is your favourite Indy film, you'll probably like Crystal Skull a lot.
If it isn't, simply set your expectations to realistic and enjoy the ride.

 

About people saying it was an abrupt ending. Um, all the others had those type of endings except for Raiders. In Doom, they get back to the village, give the stone, and then Indy and Willie kiss and the credits start to roll. How is that NOT abrupt? In Crusade they escape the tunnel and then after a little diloague ride off into the sunsight. Skull and Raiders are the two that actually take time to go back home and wrap up thier stories. I'm not saying that I didnt like Doom and Crusade's endings, I did, they were less difinitive, thats all.


Also, people are talking about over the top, unrealistic action sequences. Have you WATCHED the other three films? This film was made in the spirit and style of the other three and action/adventure movies are designed differently now. So when this kind of thing comes along again, it feels...different. Its just that we're not used to it. All of the movies are over the top and ridiculous, its what makes it fun. I wish people were able to watch the previous three without the nostalgia goggles on and witness them again "for the first time". It would be interesting to see that this new Indy is in the same style as the others.


Oh ya, I enjoyed the film, but its alot to take in and hard to digest, it was more like a surreal dream than a movie experience, much like Revenge of the Sith. The movie, for me, went by so fast, when the credits rolled, I was like, "where did the movie go?" I'm seeing it again tonight, and will have a more thorough review later.

 

In contrast to what most people felt, I didn't think the final act was out-of-place at all. Actually, if any element of the film didn't fit, I would have to say it'd be the McCarthyism in the early film. Somewhere in between "I Like Ike" and Indiana's seemingly happy return to America, we have this section where America is run by bad people who are ready and willing to screw over good guys like Indiana Jones and the dean. But after Indiana and Mutt head out on their quest, that idea disappears entirely from the film. I mean, I didn't feel entirely comfortable with those segments when I watched them, but even then, I was expecting it to go somewhere, or at least get resolved somehow.

 

But the some of the action sequences are over the top, even more so than the other three. Really the only ones that jump out at me are Indy in the fridge, Mutt playing tarzan, and Mutt doing the split on the two cars.

 

For me it was the opposite... at the start i felt a bit lost and it took me a bit to get into it, but the second half picked up and it kept me hooked until the end.

I agree also that Indy has always had unrealistic parts the thing is, it's not the same watching it as a kid when ur not as picky than watching it as a critical adult. Like the PT in SW, i think that the sentimental memories from childhood can prevent from enjoying the new movies, just because our perspective is different and we have certain expectations.

 

I agree whole-heartedly, although I loved all the new Star Wars movies.

 

I think most people's openmindedness and imagination has usually been killed in our society by about age 19, maybe younger.

 

Based on all the repeat viewings of the original Indy trilogy, I'd have to totally disagree with your assessment of The Last Crusade. To me, it's simply the most fun of all the Indy movies, and the one that stands up to repeat viewings the best of the three. I remember having second thoughts the first time I watched it on opening day, almost wondering if they'd gone a bit too far with some stuff. But it actually holds up just fine, for my personal taste.

Raiders of the Lost Ark, to me, is the one that holds up the worst under repeat viewings, because so much of what made it fun the first few times around depended on the freshness of it. Also, it seems the most "straight" take on Indy, so to me it seems a bit too serious on repeated viewings. Temple of Doom, as much as I feared they'd gone too far with the "dark" stuff back in 1984, seems to hold up OK after all these years. It's the one I probably watched the most times when it was new in theaters, so I deliberately stopped watching it for the longest time.

But like Roger Ebert put it, if someone asks you which is the best Indy, it's kind of like you have to maintain a straight face and say that the second pound of sausage was the most fun (I'm paraphrasing but read his review if you want to see why he said it).

Let's just face it, many of us will probably by the Indy quartet on DVD when it is released, if not on conventional DVD then almost certainly when it is out on Blu-Ray. So it'll still end up on our home video libraries all the same

 

Oh me too, but i've noticed this, specially with the older fans who watched the originals as kids...newer fans i dont think have these issues, at least not as pronounced as the older ones.

For me, Raiders is still THE one, i re-watched it this past weekend and i still love it as much as the first time i watched it

 

The McCarthyism bit makes a lot of sense. It is a reminder that we're no longer in the 30's, when America was still fairly isolationist and not at all determined to even enter WW2. Watch the Young Indy Chronicles and you'll see how much things change depending on whether or not there's a war going on -- and in 1957, it wasn't a conventional war, it was a Cold War. Unlike some of the younger viewers here, I actually live the final few years of the Cold War. There really were times there when you stopped to think what it would be like if there ever was a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

And of course that knowing Indy was brought along by the Soviets when they raided the Area 51 would have to arouse some suspicion. Darn it, this was the age when they were black-listing even screenwriters and actors in Hollywood, asking them if they had ever been members of the communist party!!! How could someone who actually participated in some major internal security lapse in the homeland not be suspected a little bit??

It is obvious why it kind of disappears for most of the movie -- they head to South America! And by the time he's back, they've thwarted the Soviet ambitions and dispatched some of their top KGB agents. There's no way that word wasn't going to get back to both Washington and Moscow.

But, most importantly of all -- you DON'T need to look too closely at the plot. We all know it's just an excuse to set up the chases, the action scenes, etc. That's why it's a Hollywood summer movie.