Bloom, IN I'VE SEEN "INDIANA JONES and the KINGDOM of the CRYSTAL SKULL"!!!! (MEGA-SPOILER WARNING!!!!!!!!)

Jennifer and I just returned from seeing the 4pm showing of "INDIANA JONES and the KINGDOM of the CRYSTAL SKULL" at the Paramount lot! And, despite what I would call (in my eyes) minor flaws...the film is excellent!

It is definitely closer in tone to "Crusade"...but, there are some great moments that feel very "Raiders", as well as "Temple".

I'm pretty emotionally exhausted, actually. So much anticipation and excitement...which was just bursting out of me for the last two hours!...So much to take in during one viewing. A slightly more complicated plot this time around in some ways; the "mystery" and "puzzle" was complicated in a lot of ways. I'm definitely going to see it a few more times this week...but, I can proudly and honestly say that...I'VE SEEN IT!

 

dude! thats awesome!

 

That's awesome! I can't wait to see it myself

 

That's awesome Lito. I'm really excited to see it! Has anyone in Btown gotten their 12:01 ticket yet? I might try to get it off Fandango tonight.

 

Just got my midnight tickets from fandango a few minutes ago...
I can't wait!

 

Thanks, guys! I hope all of you enjoy the film as much as I did (the opening scene alone is worth the price of admission, in my eyes!!!!!).

 

Did a couple other people go catch this last night? Sara and Austin I believe? Come on people, more comments on this... the antici.....pation is killing me.

 

definitely a lot of fun - anyone else have that "wait, how did we get *here*???" moment?

 

Im invoking the 2nd post rule Darth Evie, Tell us about your self.

 

Seen it last night. I liked it, but did not love it.
I know I will start a huge fire with this question but,
Who do you like better as a character , Han Solo Or Indy?

 

I'd take Indy over Han any day! Glad you liked the film. A lot of 80's babies (and 70's babies) are not liking it as much as the original trilogy (which I expected)...but, most people are enjoying the film and thinking that for a 19 year span between films...it's a hell of an entertaining Indy film!

 

Sorry Lito, My F I earned in English is showing.
I'll fix the other post. the question was Who do you like as a character better Han or Indy?
And to clarify , I did like it , but one of the bad things about it I dint like was it Dint feel like an Indy movie all the much to me. If they had stuck to a biblical plot line as in Raiders and Last Crusade it would have felt more like an Indy movie. And for a LF/Spilburg join , It had some of the WORST CGI I have seen in years.

 

I loved it! I have no complaints. When you get down to the 4th movie in a series, and it can still be that entertaining and fun, you know you've got something special. Like many others, I'd rank it better than Temple of Doom but just below Raiders and Last Crusade -- but those two are cinema classics! It is a great movie with some really excellent and memorable moments.

 

SPOILER WARNING OUT THE WAZOOO!!!!! -

I hear your complaints, Eric...and I've heard the same thing from others. But, I don't "agree" with them.

I understand that people are "used to" the combination of Indy combined with Biblical-type stories (I personally think that's because the two strongest films in the original trilogy, "Raiders" and "Last Crusade", used a Biblically-based MacGuffin. But, I have to ask myself; why are those complaining about the combination of aliens and Indiana Jones complaining about it? What are their reasons? Is it because the idea of aliens is too far fetched for them? Is it because most people are more ready to accept an idea based on religious or Biblical ideas because they're been force-fed those ideas (religious ideas) since they were young children? Is it because mainstream society in our country and perhaps the world are more willing to accept the idea of God and religion than they are aliens? And perhaps only because the "masses" do so and most people have been brain-washed into buying the whole kit and kaboodle since they were children?

I don't know what the reason is...but, I've heard the complaints regarding the premise of the new film and I personally think they're ridiculous. Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion...and I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad or put anyone down...so, don't take what I'm saying personally. I just don't know why people are so ready to accept all of the ridiculous idea and tenants of religion and yet they have such a difficult time admitting to the possibility of aliens and life in other dimensions, on other planets, etc. I mean, come on...some of the founding ideas of most religions sound pretty ridiculous if you can look at them and analyze them from a very objective standpoint; a magical man that watches over everyone/everything and employs the use of spiritual "angels" who fly around the world to do his bidding...the idea that he had a son who came down to Earth through a magical pregnancy/birth that wasn't conceived through fornication, etc.

I don't see why Indiana Jones has to be limited to stories and discoveries that only involve God or his magical miracles. This film felt like an Indiana Jones movie to me...from start to finish. But, I also didn't allow the ending (which was unlike any of the other films that preceeded it) to spoil my enjoyment of the film...even though it was more "outlandish" than the finales of the previous films and it didn't "fit in" with the previous films' storylines. I was just so damned glad that the film was entertaining, well-made, and...well, an Indy film!

The real-life legend of the Crystal Skulls and the evidence of them combined with the stories and evidence of Mayan/MesoAmerican culture only serve to give further credibility to the whole "alien" theory...and I knew about all of that stuff before I went into the film. Perhaps that's why I didn't have a hard time "buying it". I also know that since the film took place in the 50's, both Lucas and Spielberg wanted the story and the MacGuffin to be relevant to the films from that era and also to be symbolic of the fears of that time (aliens, America's fear of being subverted by outside forces more powerful than our society, etc.).

All I know is...the alien angle didn't ruin the film for me or make the film feel like it didn't "fit". But...I'm also a rabid Indiana Jones fan, so...take my opinion for what it's worth and consider the source.

 

All good points Lito.

 

Thanks, Eric. Please don't think I'm picking on you or anything...I'm just defending the film against the criticisms I've heard the most from those that have seen it so far.

But, again...I'm glad you liked the film! I LOVED IT!!! (Jennifer and I are going to see it again tomorrow!)

 

Well, I have finally seen it, thought it was worth the momey,
and kept telling myself all the little mistakes I saw, will be fixed on the DVD

and really, they were small, like editing that garbled the intended storyline,
but

really, I just sat back and watched and enjoyed.

There are many many inside jokes and "tips of the hat" to other famous films.

like the one near the very very end, that looked like the end scene
from Journey To The Center Of The Earth.

Best "Tip of the Hat" was using Sean Connery's actual "head shot" for one of the photo's
and the general thanks I felt the film was giving him for his part in the INDY series.

more when I see it again.

MT

 

Another complaint I've heard from fans. I don't get this one either. The CGI was no better or worse than the matte paintings, miniatures, models, and bluescreen in the original trilogy. Don't believe me? Go back and check the following scenes; in "Raiders", the final shot of the film, while classic...is obviously a painting. In "Temple", the scene where Shorty's on the balcony looking in awe at the majesty of the view from his room and Indy yells to him, "Shorty, where's my razor?"...that has to be one of the worst matte paintings ever captured on film. Also, in "Temple"...the scene on the edge of the cliff with the water shooting out of the tunnel entrance has some pretty shoddy effects work. The mine car chase in that film...if you look closely while watching the scene, it's obvious that Indy, Willie, and Shorty are ALL miniatures. In "Crusade", when Indy and his Father are in the car and the plane is chasing them; when the plane slams into the tunnel walls...that shot is pretty "apparent" that it's a bluescreen miniature.

It seems that the new Indy was doomed from the start in this regard; if they had stuck to traditional effects work...people would have complained that it was too "old-fashiooned" and "fake" looking (just as they do about the shots I mentioned and many other shots in the original trilogy). They chose to employ CGI and people are complaining about how "fake" it looks. Not sure how they could've pleased everyone. Yes, the CGI looked "fake" in some spots...but, to me it didn't look any worse than the CGI in "Transformers", the "Pirates" sequels, or the "Matrix" sequels. And, it certainly didn't look any better or worse than the traditional effects work in the scenes I already mentioned.

Again, I'm not trying to pick on anyone...and I'm surely being overly-defensive of this film because it IS an Indy flick. But, it just seems ike there's no real way to please a lot of "fans". If the film they were expecting isn't EXACTLY what they imagined...or if it isn't pitch perfect every step of the way, the "fans" feel disappointed because the film didn't "measure up" to their expectations or their memories of the original trilogy. The "Star Wars" prequels got the same type of reaction and this is exactly what I feared for "Indy IV". But, a lot of the memories these fans have for the Indy films are memories that are tinged with an affection and nostalgia that is reserved for fond recollections of something out of their past...their youth and childhood. But, the simple fact is...NONE of the original Indy films are perfect. I may love them to death...but, they each have their flaws in terms of logic, execution, and believability. Yes, "Raiders" was as close as a film could get to being perfect...but, even it has some flaws. "Temple" is full of lapses in logic, credulity, and even features a MacGuffin that, when viewed objectively, can illicit this reaction; "Meh...who cares about magic rocks in India?" "Crusade", as much as I love it (it's actually my favorite Indy film) has sequences that can come off as flat, and more than a couple of plot holes. But, the bottom-line is; a lot of people view these films through rose-tinted glasses. Ergo, they expected near-perfection from the newest Indy film. And because it WASN'T perfect...people feel "let down"; almost the same exact reaction some people had to the "Star Wars" prequels.

It's just a theory...but, it seems like a lot of the Indy "fans" I've heard complaining about the new film (and this doesn't include you, Eric) are people who are unable to just admit that perhaps the films themselves aren't so much different as they are themselves. They're unable to let go of their adult skepticism and thusly, they are unable to just enjoy themselves and the positive aspects of entertainment or art. They tear apart every single piece of art they experience, or latch onto small flaws and allow those flaws to ruin the overall experience for the

 

Ya but those blue screens mats and painting were 30 years ago bud!!!

 

Yes...but, the scenario is the same for ALL the films; at the time (27, 24, and 19 years ago respectively), the visual effects were all cutting-edge, state of the art, and top-dollar effects work. Hell, "Raiders" and "Temple" each won an Oscar for Best Visual Effects. Despite those facts, there were some scenes in those films that featured visual effects that weren't exactly "up to snuff"...but, overall, the visuals were pretty darn good, just like "Skull".

You're saying that the visuals in the original trilogy are "allowed" to look a little "fake" or "weak" at times because those films are much older. But, the Visual Effects work on the original trilogy was top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art, just as the visual effects on "Skull" were. 'Nuff said.

 

Lets just agree to disagree old friend.

 

I'll agree that we can disagree...but, I still say that the level of quality in the Visual Effects is the same throughout all the films. Sure, some of the visuals in "Skull" were a little "shoddy"...but, overall the visuals were great; just like the original three films.