|
I just saw the film. Minor spoilers to follow. We had an unadvertised sneak preview in Harrisburg, PA tonight, and boy, it was a PACKED house - they opened a second theater just to fit all the people who showed up. Right off the bat, let me say that I really love the first three Indy films, and I did not go into this movie expecting the best movie ever made; I was looking for fun, adventure, cheesy villains, and a lot of punches to the face that sound like hammers onto steak. On those notes, Crystal Skull delivered wonderfully. There were nice references to Marcus Brody, Henry Jones Sr., and I even thought I heard a reference to The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles in there somewhere, too (the name Pancho Villa ring a bell?). -- Harrison Ford - Let me just say this: he's still Indy. There were a couple of stunts where Ford was definitely not under that hat, but there were a few that I was shocked he did himself. There's no "shirtless, sweaty and bleeding" Indy like in the past films, but do you really want to see Ford like that these days? Anyway, I'd love to know what's happened in the many years since we last saw Colonel Jones. Shia LaBouf - I don't think Mutt is quite a memorable character as past sidekicks; he's a bit of a one-note character, but LaBouf does his job well. As for that rumor regarding his relationship to Indy: Yes, he is Henry Jones III... but neither he nor Indy know it until halfway through the film. Could he hold his own in an Indy spin-off as George Lucas has been fantasizing? Mmm... I'm not sure. Karen Allen - Marion's back, and she's still got that wonderful smile. She felt like a bit of a different person then when we last saw her (since I watched Raiders last night in preparation), but after 21 years (in film time) and 27 years (in real time), it's not enough of a difference to bother me. I liked seeing her again, but I'm not sure she had enough time to really shine as a character this time around. Cate Blanchett - If they ever made another Rocky & Bullwinkle, she'd make an excellent Natasha. She's got the whole creepy-Russian role down, but she got a little cartoony after a while. Cate, you need to practice that accent some more; your British kept slipping through. -- On to the rest: the story itself was a little different for an Indy film, involving real aliens, space-ships (okay, one space-ship), and mind control. After ghosts melting people, grabbing still-beating hearts from people's chests, and hyper-aging in the first films, I should be okay with the unreality of the Indy universe, but I was pushed a little out of the story by this one - not enough to make me dislike the film, but it's a very sharp contrast to Raiders, for example, where the story was about 90% plausible. But that's just my opinion. -- Now, for my (minor) complaints. There is much more CGI in this film then the various interviews with Lucas and Spielberg lead you to believe. Yes, I know that they really did build many of the film's sets, and you can definitely tell (the stone pillars from the preview, a graveyard, the underground ruins, etc.) what's real, and the real stuff is really wonderful. Some of the sequences were simply impossible to create without CGI assistance (a waterfall sequence, etc.) and that stuff turned out nicely, because of the scope of the scenes. But for most of it, it's very obvious. I'm not just talking set extensions or the alien, which is completely CGI by nature, but there were plenty of exterior shots filmed in front of a green screen (for large nature shots, the countryside from the top of a tall monument, etc.) - you tell there was nothing past the edge of those stone walls. There were CGI animals, briefly, in both the opening and middle of the film, that never really worked. Even swarms of insects were just "off" enough to be a distraction. Oh - I'm pretty sure Shia LaBouf was CGI in at least two scenes, too. Did I expect to see a film that looked like it was made in 1989? No, I suppose not. But despite Lucas and Spielberg's claims that this movie would "match up" with the look of the original films, the only thing that seemed to carry over (in terms of special effects) was the 80's era PARAMOUNT logo. Also, there was hardly any blood in this movie! I'm not somebody who looks for murder and death in everything, but Indy never shoots anybody (well, not directly, anyway), and even after getting punched a dozen times, he's barely affected. Indiana Jones has never been a superhero, but he's got a little in him this time around. -- Overall, I was fairly satisfied with how the film turned out. It is definitely a bigger movie then the originals - it's definitely a "21st Century Indy" - but I think people who enjoyed the first films will enjoy this movie as well. My rating: 4/5. (PS: Not enough whip action this time around.)
|
#
?
May 20, 2008 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
Aatrek posted:(PS: Not enough whip action this time around.) Well, there never was a whole lot of whip action in any of the movies when you think about it. Anyways, my review - Just saw this at a midnight show and wow, what a fun movie. All of these early reviews coming in were from people expecting a huge movie to "re-introduce" the character to a new audience that needed things like giant robots to entertain them. This simply was not the case. Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford set out to make another Indiana Jones movie in the vein of the original trilogy, and they achieved what they wanted just fine. This was a fun movie, plain and simple. There's really no other way to put it other than "fun." I did notice that there was a bit numbing of the violence (i.e. nobody's face was melted off or hearts ripped from chests), but it was still a great adventure with everyone's favorite college professor. I enjoyed the hell out of this film and constantly had a huge grin on my face. The jungle chase scene was just about as much fun as the mine-car chase in Temple Of Doom and will make you feel like a kid again, which is something that all of the Indy movies share. Go to the movie expecting nothing more than a fourth outing with Indy and you will be very pleased. Also, that opening fight with the Russians had one of the most badass stunts ever. The whole fall through the window onto the platform with chains and then jump down with chains 20 feet swing like a pendulum and kick that commie bastard in the chest THROUGH ANOTHER WINDOW!. Badass. 5/5 for making me have one hell of a time.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2008 08:01
|
|
|
My least favorite part of the film was the climax. I felt the entire movie was good old Indy, and then they get some crappy cgi alien who blows up Cate Blanchette's eyes But overall I found the movie quite enjoyable. Harrison Ford is still a badass, and Shiah Lebouf was surprisingly not that bad. But if he would have put on that hat at the end, I would have been so pissed There's lots of really cool action and whatnot in this movie (no poo poo) which in my opinion salvages the lovely alien story 4/5 oxymorgan fucked around with this message at 15:00 on May 22, 2008 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2008 10:42
|
|
|
Indy is back. For all the implausibilities and "far-out-there" moments that this film may have compared to the rest of the trilogy, it is still Indiana Jones right where it matters. The car chases, the exotic locations, the brawling - it's all here and the rest of the film gladly sits back and remains content in doing what it knows best. I could go through with a heavily plot-laden review, analyzing each of the characters, but the movie has so much hype that it really needs to no introduction. Cate Blanchett is creepy, Harrison still looks great in his 60's, and Karen Allen is still the Marion we've known for over two decades. The only person I really want to give a special mention to is Shia LaBouf. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - this kid is one of the best young talent in Hollywood, and I would gladly see him again should the give him the mantle for future Indy movies. He fits his role perfectly, right down to the grease in his hair. It's not perfect, by any means. It does get considerably harder to suspend your disbelief as the movie goes on, but that's not an issue if you accept that you will have to do so and go with it. When it comes down to it, the fedora is back on the big screen, spouting one-liners we'll remember for years to come. Since it seems obligatory to add our remarks, I put it about Temple of Doom level, possibly higher. It doesn't have the same charms as Raiders and Crusade, but I love the cast a lot more than in Temple. A nice, solid 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2008 10:47
|
|
|
For all those worried about the franchise losing some steam because of the large gap between movies, there's not much to worry about. Admittingly, the movie starts off a bit rusty. About 20 minutes or so in, it picks up and you're reminded that this is Indiana Jones. While it is a sequel, it felt a bit like a homage to the previous movies, as a little bit of each one shown throughout. The banter between Jones and Mutt is reminiscent of Last Crusade with Indy and Dad. The fire ant sequence evokes the same kind of creepiness that was in Temple of Doom, while the whole quest itself is wrapped in a mysticism that was in Raiders. If you've seen any of the ones before, the movie feels like familiar territory, although the story can get a little far fetched, even for this series. LeBouf was a welcome addition as he could hold his own with Ford, although I really didn't care much for Winstone's character. Since Marcus couldn't obviously be in the movie, they needed some supporting character, but I just didn't find his motives for the quest and actions to be all that believable. Perhaps if there was an inkling to the character's past or personality, he might have worked better. Dialog between him and Indy give a little insight but not enough in my opinion. John Hurt's character and his backstory was much more fleshed out and enjoyable. Blanchett was an okay villain, but nowhere near as good as the previous ones. The psychic stuff was a little hard to swallow, but I'm glad they didn't focus on it too much. With all that being said, the movie was pretty good. Since it is the 4th in the series, there has to be some sort of obligatory ranking scheme. I put it ahead of Temple of Doom, but not quite above Raiders or Last Crusade. The long wait did not do it any disservice as it almost seamlessly picks up where the series left off. The ending is satisfying and should give closure to the series. With rumors of a sequel, I really hope that it doesn't come to fruition. Crystal Skull is a worthy addition to the series and stands on its own merits too. Everything came together and clicked for this one, but I wouldn't want to see them risk a follow up adventure. 4/5 Harlock fucked around with this message at 19:30 on May 22, 2008 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2008 19:10
|
|
|
I also caught the midnight showing, however I was not impressed. My friends and I came out of the theater ready to make fun of its many flaws. I am a fan of the original trilogy. I won't go so far to say the movies are perfect or based in reality, but they felt believable. However this film contained so many scenes that just seemed to take me out of the experience. -Surviving a nuclear explosion inside of a refrigerator? (plus the fact that Professor Jones calls it "nukular") -Cutesey CGI groundhog cutaways? -CGI monkey attack. Are we watching Jumanji? -Not one but 3 ridiculous waterfalls? More than anything what pissed me off was the temple. Inside of it is countless treasure. The temple is housed within a space ship, and filled with magnetic skeletons with psychic powers. Pillaging this temple would make any man filthy rich and give science huge technological advances. The temple is free to pillage, unless you bother to do the honorable thing and travel across the globe to return the last skull to it's resting place. Then your reward is your eyeballs catch fire and you get sucked into another dimension. Thanks aliens, thanks. George Lucas had 6 Star Wars movies. Did they really need to make the first Indiana Jones movie in 20+ years about inter-dimensional aliens? The movie is fun, it's watchable, but it just seemed too over the top for me to be an Indiana Jones movie. It was more like watching The Mummy: starring Indiana Jones. In fact, now that I think about it, it seems like it stole from The Mummy in a couple of places. Flesh eating ants are a lot like scarab beatles. And at the end of Mummy 2 didn't their pyramid and it's surroundings also get sucked into a vortex? If I had to recommend a movie to friend right now, I would definitely recommend Iron Man or Speed Racer over Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. jNamon fucked around with this message at 20:04 on May 22, 2008 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2008 19:37
|
|
|
The movie is most definitely an Indiana Jones Adventure. Especially if you expect cheesy dialog, feel-good moments, and B-Movie Action cliche's the first three had. Overall, its an amazing ride, and opens the door for future Indy flicks. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2008 21:13
|
|
|
An okay movie. Felt a little unnecessary, but everyone does a decent job here. Worth seeing in the cinema, but I can't see it being remembered by many besides die hard fans. 3/5
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 00:27
|
|
|
Saw the midnight showing with a packed house. The movie was retarded. A bunch of aliens with all these lights and lasers? The monkeys? Indiana Jones getting married? And, why the hell did Jones and crew welcome the "triple agent" back with them after the first betrayal? Every character has superhuman strength and endurance, everyone spouts "witty" banter constantly and the climax is ludicrous. I'm sorry, but you can't fly a few miles in a metal box and come out without so much as a bruise. Spielberg might as well of had Indiana Jones sprout a third arm out his back to help him climb a wall and expected us to think nothing of it. There was nothing exciting in this movie for me. It gave me no reason to be interested in it. It wasn't fun, and it wasn't worth 10 bucks. 1/5 Jagfire fucked around with this message at 01:11 on May 24, 2008 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 05:45
|
|
|
It was fun, but not amazing. I'm pleased that it did not piss all over my childhood the way the Star Wars prequels did. Shia's character was not annoying, and not stupid either. Okay, he was slightly annoying at first, up until the milkshake joint fight, because he was appearing to be very one-dimensional at first. I was expecting to hate him, and I came away thinking he wasn't bad at all. The climax-ending was pretty hokey. And the ending after that was also pretty hokey, and seemed to wrap everything up hunky-dorey without the slightest hint at how Jones' troubles back home were resolved. The villians were a bit more comic-bookey than I'm used to seeing in Indy movies. The action bits were good. I also thought Marion shined in her limited role. The special effects were not really amazing (except for two that I thought were pretty awesome); it is kind of difficult to accept that from a movie with Spielburg and Lucas these days. Also, I swear the whip only got used twice, the whole movie. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 06:13
|
|
|
Just saw it an hour ago and I must say I was pleased with the first half and completely appalled by the second half. As ridiculous as the refrigerator survival of a nuclear blast was I thought it was kind of cool and fitting with the era of it being a nuclear time and all, but overall stupid. The motorcycle chase was pretty cool and midway through it I thought that the movie was actually pretty good and at the very least was entertaining, and hey maybe I'll buy the DVD! But then it started downhill. The movie boils down to 3 completely retarded scenes. -the refrigerator scene -the monkeys in the jungle, and he falls off the truck and the rest of the vehicles keep going at high speed for at least 2 minutes, yet he's still able to catch up with them on VINES!??! -the alien and flying saucer I mean what the gently caress was with the ending? Who thought that actually would be a good idea?? I don't know the level of George Lucas' involvement in this film but it wreaks of him in that it relies on retardedly over the top computer animation. I hate to be one of those people that finds fault with everything in a movie, but this one just blew it for me. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 07:13
|
|
|
Where ever George Lucas is right now, I hope he is choking his fat rear end to death. Spielberg can join him. Raider and The Last Crusade are two of the best action movies ever made because they stuck to (at least somewhat) relevant and realistic topics. Even when the ridiculous things happen, such as when they open the arc, it still exists within the framework of a higher power. Despite its extraordinary nature, it still exists within the plausible boundaries of religion and fantasy. Martians on the other hand, do not. They have no place in the Indiana Jones world. I don't understand what Lucas' space fetish is, but he needs to get over it and stop ruining great trilogies. Someone already pointed out the Mummy reference - did anyone else catch the AvP plagiarism also? Spacemen who come down and teach humans everything? In the temple there where artifacts from all the ancient cultures, etc. Nice work guys, real slick. This movie was good for maybe 30% of the time. Otherwise go rent the Last Crusade again. 1/5. It might have been a two if I didn't feel so let down.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 07:16
|
|
|
Without overreacting, this was an ok flick, but not an Indy flick. As an Indy flick it's the worst of the four. Spoiler free: There are many plot holes (and things not fleshed out) in this flick. While that is true about every Indy flick, the movies are so entertaining you don't even notice until afterward. With this film, you notice while you're watching it. There are a few moments that have no place in Indy films. There are some characters that are absolutely pointless and their purpose could have been duplicated with material means. There are plot elements that are seriously glossed over and are terribly convenient. Indy himself feels a little slow, especially at the start, but gets better as the film progresses. Marion is decent if not a little wasted in the part. Mutt is a good character and one of the few you get enough feeling for to know what he's about. Raiders was a great character/action pic; Temple was more pure action and Crusade more character; this film does not know what it wants to be. There are two things done right; the fistfights, and the feeling of tomb exploration. Those parts were on the money. All in all, entertaining. Just not Indy-level of entertaining. It's a high bar. 3/5
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 07:41
|
|
|
Very enjoyable, Harrison Ford has aged well. Lots of great action scenes, too. My major gripe is how this film is "visually" different to the others. Obviously 2008 Special Effects are different to those from 1980, but why bother with obviously fake CGI animals that add nothing to the story and deter from the original "feel" of the film. I do not understand this CGI & Special Effects at all costs approach we see in blockbusters these days. If the special effects had been a little more understated, I'd be inclined to give this another half-a-star, as it stands, 3/5 for an entertaining return to the Indiana franchise; but a film that does not stand up to the others. DNQ fucked around with this message at 12:49 on May 23, 2008 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 12:30
|
|
|
I enjoyed most of this film, but as someone mentioned earlier there were many parts of it that jarred you out of the experience. Without going into spoilers which have been covered repeatedly here, the main flaws of this movie are: - There's no tension. AT ALL. When there was tension, it was broken in the exact same manner every time (usually someone getting punched) - The villains weren't really that compelling. Cate Blanchett could have been used much better than she was in this film (which wasn't much once they hit the jungle) - Elements that shouldn't have been in this movie were in this movie. I didn't mind the nods to older movies, but they stuck out like Stan Lee in a Marvel movie. Indy's hat rolls over to him in the breeze? It happens like THREE TIMES. I give this movie a 3/5, but it would have gotten at least a 4/5 if the ending sequence wasn't so over the top.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 13:52
|
|
|
While watching this movie, I was for the most part entertained, so I can't really complain all that much. But I'm going to anyways. The refrigerator survival was a big sticking point to me at first. Coming so early in the movie, I felt like they were going for a suspension of disbelief MUCH greater than previous entries in the series. Little did I know just how far they were willing to go from that. The Waterfall. Ok. I can go with this. They've had similar things in the past to bits like this. Yeah, it's unlikely that they would survive in real-life, but I'll let it pass.... wait... three times? No. Bullshit. This part doesn't get a pass. The vine swinging. Shia LeBoef IS spiderman! Tune in next week! What. The. gently caress. And it didn't even look good either. It seemed like something they tacked on at the last second. loving aliens? Really? I mean, I realize that the previous entries had things that were supernatural, but they were always based on religion - not sci-fi and I think that that line is really one that this series shouldn't have crossed. In addition, I didn't get the point that all of it was heading towards. They were chasing... something.. and then they're at a temple... and then.. wait, what? Why is this happening? What's going on? I am so loving lost. I dunno - I'd recommend seeing this, but go to a showing with a big crowd to let the energy of the crowd get you in a better mood or something. If you go to see this with a small crowd or see it alone, you'll spend half the movie throwing popcorn at the screen screaming "BULLSHIT!" 2/5.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 14:58
|
|
|
Saw it last night at a free screening, which was full. Far too many previews of superhero movies. As soon as I saw the CGI gopher in the beginning, I smelled trouble. When they brought those things back a couple more times, compounded with the swinging on vines, the fridge surviving an atomic blast, the overuse of waterfalls and the cheesy CGI everything, the plants in the jungle hitting Shia's character in the balls and oh God the wedding scene where the hat blows to Shia, the movie was ruined for me Way too much cheese. Enough to challenge the Star Wars prequels. The acting was fine; I particularly liked Indy's reaction at Marion. Everyone was pretty good, though Cate Blanchett dropped her accent a couple of times and isn't a very menacting villain. In fact, the Russians aren't menacing at all. Maybe that's why Indy seems to be fine with helping them at every turn. Sure, in every previous movie he gets captured and escapes, but at least Indy shows some reluctance to helping the Nazis The waterfall scene is a perfect example of what's wrong with the movie. There is no difference in the execution or reacting of the characters with each subsequent waterfall. The entire point is spectacle. Another example is The FBI/CIA guys interrogating Indy. They show up at the beginning of the movie and then disappear. Why was time wasted on this, especially when they say menacingly that they will be keeping an eye on Jones Indiana Jones is a man out of his own time, both in-movie and relatively speaking. He belongs in the thirties as a younger man- it's still fun to see Ford wear the costume, but there's a sense of loss as well: he's slowed down and his enemies seem to have as well. But outside of the film, he's also been hobbled by the script, which unfortunately is catering to cheap laughs, unnecessary spectacle and CGI, and inconsistency. There could be a great Indiana Jones movie with a great script. This just isn't it. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 18:35
|
|
|
NOT A REVIEW (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 19:38
|
|
|
Lets be blunt here, this is a terrible movie. A terrible, cheesy, sci-fi movie that just happens to star a lost Indiana Jones who has to follow Magneto around the jungle for a couple of hours. I say this with a fair amount of reluctance since I never thought it would be possible to say those words about an Indiana Jones movie. Sure, "Temple of Doom" was the crappiest Indiana Jones movie, but it was still a good movie overall. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is just a horrid and contrived mess of lovely one-liners and over done CGI. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" came out in 1981 and somehow despite being made 27 years ago, its special effects were actually better than what we end up seeing in this latest installment. The CGI is completely obvious and in your face from the goddamn prarie dogs to the swinging monkeys, not to mention the CGI aliens. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" had face melting, exploding Nazi goons..."Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" has psychic aliens, wait sorry, psychic "dimensional visitors". The pinnacle of the ridiculousness of this premise is that Indy himself, a man who has witnessed the power of the ark, seen a Hindu priest rip beating hearts from men, and used the holy grail to save his father, actually scoffs at the plot when it is revealed to him. Ugh! I could go on and on about this, but other reviewers have bascially hit all the points I could bring up. 1/5.0
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 21:21
|
|
|
Comedian Doug Benson puts it very well in his blog. "Harrison Ford isn't too old to play Indiana Jones, but George Lucas and Steven Spielberg are too old to make Indiana Jones movies." Spielberg and Lucas seem to have partially forgotten how to make an Indiana Jones movie. A big chunk of the film was done in front of a green screen, which works for "300" but didn't work for any of the Star Wars prequels, and certainly doesn't work for Indiana Jones. It was incredibly disappointing to see so much CG in this. Even the whip is CG in some scenes for gently caress's sake. One can try and justify the heavy use of CG by saying that it made Spielberg's vision able to come true. But his vision came true in The Last Crusade and it only looked absurd--but still very memorably--once, when people melted. That film was amazing. Spielberg and Lucas absolutely poo poo on what could've been amazing. The stunts may not have been even one-quarter as spectacular in any of the other movies as they are in this one, but they didn't need to be. All the right elements were there. The cast was perfect and incredible. The stunts were good (when they weren't in front of a big green screen). And there were some really good scenes. The ants almost carrying the hat away, the shadow of Indy putting on the hat, and of course Indy in the sand pit refusing to grab the snake. However, the elements weren't properly used. Spielberg's love affair with lens flares and the bright, blurry backlighting he's been using in all of his latest films--I don't want those things in an Indiana Jones movie. They don't work here. The Last Crusade was so good because everything fit together so well. The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, meanwhile, doesn't fit much of anything together. Threads are left hanging (As it has already been asked, WHY THE HELL WOULD THEY KEEP HELPING THAT ONE GUY? Did I doze off when they addressed this?), suspension of disbelief is really, really tested (I don't need to give examples of this), and what made the old Indy movies so special is ruined by CG. It's too fake, but worth seeing for some cool scenes. It doesn't hold a candle to Last Crusade or Raiders, and barely beats Temple of Doom (which also had promise, but was also ruined, except by Kate Capshaw that time), but I was still entertained for the most part. Still, it was a HUGE let-down considering what they could've done with the franchise. 2.5/5.0 I just need to get this off my chest...I mean, aliens? Really? Aliens. You're serious? You're gonna use aliens in an Indiana Jones movie? A different kind of Cold War plot wouldnt've worked? Why not make the aliens a legend, or change the scene where the saucer takes off and the alien burns Cate Blanchett's eyes out to something not so supernatural? Then, have a little hint of something supernatural at the very end, just to tease a little bit? Plus, Sean Connery not showing up in this one is almost as bad as Marlon Brando not showing up in The Godfather Part II.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2008 00:29
|
|
|
You know what movie I kept thinking of when I saw this? National Treasure. Riddles in dead languages, Mayan temples, the City of Gold (although this one is in South America), vast treasure that the protagonist doesn't really seem to care about, gun-toting goons following the protagonist around so he'll lead them to the treasure so they can steal it... anyone? Now, granted, Harrison Ford is way better as the protagonist than Nicholas Cage, the riddles here tend to be somewhat more understandable than the 1960s Batman ("drop 3 times" or whatever the line is, right before they go over a waterfall... I WONDER WHAT HAPPENS NEXT), and there's no "we have to steal the Declaration of Independence TO SAVE AMERICA" scene in Indiana Jones. And maybe it's more that National Treasure ripped off the first couple Indiana Jones movies after Nicholas Cage got done breaking into the National Archives. But still, this is not the kind of movie you want to be compared to if you're making a 4th installment of one of the biggest series of all time. That said, it's a perfectly serviceable adventure movie. Harrison Ford still has it, Shia LaBeouf is surprisingly not bad despite being in danger of falling into a pit of stereotype for the first half of the movie, and the special effects look fine with the notable exception of the prairie dogs. The ludicrous plot and the characters' amazing ability to get out of any situation without so much as a scratch is pretty much just going along for the ride. 3.5/5 edit: Sean Connery makes a photo appearance, at the very least. The Ark from Raiders also makes a fairly obvious cameo.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2008 03:07
|
|
|
If I was seeing this alone I might have walked out. The movie makes no sense at all. You already know the entirety of the plot within 10 minutes of the movie because the entire thing is a rehash of a stupid origin of life/pyramid theory that everyone has heard. I have never had this particular complaint about this movie before: the CGI is ugly and noticable. Tiny plot points in the movie don't connect and leave you with a million Whys. If you want stupid mindless fun see Speed Racer. 2/5 I gave it more than a 1 because you kind of have to stay to watch it just to see if it gets as bad as it seems it will, and it does.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2008 03:20
|
|
|
I just saw it an rather enjoyed it. There were a few plot holes and over-the-top stunts but nothing that really ruined it to a great degree. All Indiana Jones films thus far have required ridiculous suspensions of disbelief, and this one is no different. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2008 05:01
|
|
|
Too much CGI, not enough realism. OK OK, its a summer action movie, it's not supposed to be too serious but c'mon, Indiana deserved better than this. Although it's still better than half the other movies coming out this summer, I kept having flashbacks to National Treasure and the X-files movie. Especially when near the end they come across various artifacts and then the temple disintegrates with the space saucer blasting into hyperspace or whatever. Shia Lebouf is laughably bad in his Marlon Brando phase, but I'm glad there was some humor in the film. Also Russians in Area 51? In 1957 the only thing out there at Groom Lake was a U-2 training grounds and nuclear testing, not some supersecret gov't warehouse. Of course I'm nitpicking now so I'll shutup and give it a rating of 3/5.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2008 08:09
|
|
|
First off, I have to complain about Blanchett's accent, which she repeatedly dropped at the beginning of the film, to the point where I assumed she was actually a British woman who had been abducted by Russians and turned. Until she was explained by the CIA (well, sorta, what happened to her being psychic?), I assumed that there would be some sort of plot twist involving her terrible accent job, but as the movie progressed it seemed to be less of a problem (although she was also in the movie much less). I guess my attitude is that it was a decent enough movie, but not one I'd ever consider owning on DVD unless I'm forced to buy all 4 on BR when they eventually get released. And for some reason I kept thinking that the movie was somehow like being on the Indiana Jones ride at Disneyland. It just felt... hollow. Still 3/5
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2008 08:20
|
|
|
Im absolutely disgusted with what they did with Indiana Jones. George Lucas should be put on trial for cinematic crimes against humanity. Aliens? Really?. I want the two hours of my life back. On the level of gigli. Theoretical Score: -10000/5 Actual Score: 1/5
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2008 19:34
|
|
|
Not that I liked the original trilogy all that much (especially Temple of Doom...ugh) but I think this was the best of Indy movie yet. I don't really know why -- maybe because it fully embraced it's own comic-book ridiculousness and just focused on cool action sequences and fun. And I, for one, really like the alien angle 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2008 00:08
|
|
|
Pros: -Harrison Ford can still play Indiana Jones, and play him well. -I actually LIKE the idea of going with an alien mythology, as they've existed for longer than Judeo-Christian mythology. Done well, it could have been pretty awesome. However... Cons: -They spelled too much out with the aliens. Why did Oxley have to explain that they were interdimensional beings? Why did the skeletons have to move? Why did we have to have a close-up of an angry CGI alien? Were the alien corpses really necessary? They didn't seem to serve any purpose other than proving "hey, aliens exist, and here's a corpse so the audience doesn't have anything left to their imagination." -Mac. I hate it when someone switches allegiances that often in a movie. At a certain point it stops becoming surprising and starts becoming tedious. -Mutt. I guess he was alright for most of the movie, but he really shouldn't have been a greaser. Most of the theater I was in started laughing when he first appeared out of the mist on his bike; he really looked out of place in that outfit. -The least-intimidating villains I've seen since Home Alone. -The groundhogs and monkeys really reeked of post-Empire Lucas to me, and instantly annoyed me. Overall I'd give it a 2.5/5. I want to see more Indiana Jones movies because Harrison Ford can still play him well as an old man, but I wish Lucas and Spielberg would let someone else take creative control.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2008 17:08
|
|
|
This movie was a triple agent on fun. or did it lie about being a double? 2/5 I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2008 03:46
|
|
|
Loved it. Took all of the quirks of Indy and the rollicking action that we expect in an Indy movie and populated it in a very hokey 1950's red scare universe. The macguffin of the skulls and El Dorado wasn't as strong as the Ark of the Covenant, but it was stronger than the Sankhara Stones and about on par with the Grail, really. Ants were an unexpected surprise and really helped to hearken back to those 50's B-movies, and were a good compliment to the aliens as well. 4/5, had a very fun time watching this movie.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2008 07:31
|
|
|
I thought it was fantastic. I went into it expecting a good popcorn flick that wouldn't poo poo on my childhood and it completely blew away my expectations. The plot had a few holes maybe but I didn't really care, there was plenty of BANG BANG PEW PEW and there were all the right Jones lines. I got exactly what I came to see. The dynamic between Jones and Mutt was very well done, it didn't feel as contrived as I was afraid it would. 5/5
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2008 14:00
|
|
|
I enjoyed the film, and the most enjoyable part was definitely Harrison Ford as Indy. After so many years it might be awkward or stiff, but it was really as if he never left. All those crappy Harrison Ford movies melted away and Indiana Jones was standing onscreen from the first second. And for that (and the amazing first act), this movie gets my vote. Unfortunately the ending (especially everything in the room with the skeletons) was ridiculous. I didn't like the aliens as a MacGuffin in this movie, the Christian artifacts were a much more enjoyable and (somehow) believable thing to chase. There was a lot of over-the-top stuff in the movie, but most of it was so fun that I didn't mind. The only one that made me groan and say "why?" was the tarzan swing sequence. Overall, it's hard to judge a movie you see as an adult versus one you loved as a child, because your brain works so differently. But I think that kid Me would have loved this movie, so I have to give it a thumbs up. Better than Temple of Doom, not as good as the other 2. But Indy, Marion and that first act were all great and worth going to see. One last fun adventure with an old friend. And if there were missteps along the way, they weren't enjoyment-ruiners for me. Let yourself relax and enjoy the over-the-top, exciting, silly adventure of it all, and you will have fun. If, however, you want to nitpick it, there are plenty of things there for you to point out. I, however, had a great time and I will go back to see it again this week. Pros: INDIANA loving JONES! Marion, the first act at the warehouse and Shia was decent (although not really necessary to the story). THAT Music! Cate Blanchett was a decent villain - better than Mola Rom, not as good as Belloq. Cons: the MacGuffin was ridiculous and the ending scene with the poorly done CG alien and spaceship was just moronic. Also, Ox and Mac were pretty much non-entities and should have been eliminated and replaced with Sallah. 4/5 (bumped up from 3.5 because, come on! It's Indy!) And remember what George did to your Star Wars memories and thank God that Spielberg didn't do the same!!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2008 20:58
|
|
|
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Dogshit. This was like American Graffiti meets the X-Files. A really lovely episode of the X-Files. I felt insulted that Lucas expected me to suspend my disbelief as much as required. There's so many times I wanted to throw my soda at the screen and yell, "Bullshit!" By the end of this movie the only thing that would've redeemed it would've been Cate Blanchet naked or Shia getting killed. Not the character, but that lovely actor. Also, I swear to God if Shia takes over the role of Indiana, I will hunt down George Lucas and beat him to death with the tattered memories of my childhood. 1/5
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2008 02:46
|
|
|
Wow, I guess I did see the same movie as everyone else. When I read the first reviews by Aatrek and Liquorehead, I was actually kind of psyched to see this movie. It sounded like it was a lot of fun and in line with the rest of the films. I have no idea if they got to see a different cut of the movie where the ending wasn't one of the worst things I've ever seen in cinema, but I'm still shocked by what I saw. I let the refrigerator survival thing go because it was kind of amusing and it showed a pretty nice mushroom cloud. For a while, the movie actually looked promising, although the complete lack of blood following repeated punches to the face (except when it fit the scene, apparently) was kind of annoying. The chase scene through the Amazon jungle was cool, regardless of the stupid vine swinging and monkey fight. However, the ending was, well, disgusting. I can't believe that George Lucas thought it was a good idea to use an idea that people have been spouting in conspiracy theories for decades. You've gotta be loving kidding me. ALIENS?!?!. Come on!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2008 03:23
|
|
|
I paid twelve bucks or Spielberg and Co. to poo poo in my mouth. My intelligence was kicked in the dick nary 10 minutes in when Indy survives an atomic bomb detonation by getting inside a lead lined refrigerator and hurled a mile through fallout. If you pretend he dies at that point like a rational human being then you can imagine the rest of the film as his death dream. The CGI was awful, the set design was created by junior college theatre dropouts, and the conspicuous dungeon lighting was more improbable than it's ever been. Top it off with terribly cheesy fights/chases and you'll be wishing you were watching Iron Man for the second time instead. Avoid. Avoid. Avoid. Please. 0/5
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2008 06:29
|
|
|
Saw this last night. The first half of the movie totally kicks rear end; it's mostly well-done, and feels like an Indy film. The second half, however, is truly out there. Like everyone else is saying, you have to suspend a lot of disbelief. I can do that, however, but there's one glaring premise of the whole movie that sums up everything that's wrong with it: it's basically trying to tell you throughout the whole film that HEY THIS IS SET IN THE 1950S OKAY?! For example; the cold war climate, flying saucer hysteria, the nuclear testing (did anyone else catch that RIGHT IN YOUR GODDAMN FACE Atomic Café reference?), the letterman jackets, the greasers, the slicked back hair, all of it. It feels like with every idea pitched to them, Lucas and Spielberg said, "yes but how can we relate it to the 50s?" It really felt like a huge gimmick, and an overarching theme of the movie itself. Way too much emphasis. Did you ever notice or care that Raiders was set in the late 30s, specifically? Probably not. I think once that Marion was introduced, things went downhill. Just like the droid factory scene in Attack of the Clones, the monkey sequence was obviously an idea in post-production that George thought up while he was on loving meds or something and decided to put in at that moment. Basically the thing had just enough story but way too much action. If they took out a lot of the action and turned the ending down a notch, things would have been just right, and hey! You would have shaved off about 20 minutes, which the film really could have used. All in all, though, much better than any action film I can remember for the last ten years or so. 4/5. Edit: Shia Whatever was better than I expected, but still is an awful, awful actor. His facial expressions pretty much amount to "surprised," "concerned," and "angry." Someone should tell George to gently caress off when they're casting the drat movie. Short Round had more range. Tron Paul fucked around with this message at 07:20 on May 27, 2008 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2008 07:16
|
|
|
The only thing I can say after thinking about this for a couple of days is: Aliens make sense. Just don't think of this film as the last in a quadrilogy, think of it as the first in a new series. A handover from Henry II to Henry III both physically and thematically. The first trilogy were 30's action flicks, with some Nazi Obergruppenführer as your Fu Manchu or Red Baron, always searching for godlike powers in ancient artefacts. But the new film is a 50's B-movie and what were most 50's B-movies other than thinly veiled red-terror allegories with spacemen. Having the commies meet their movie counterparts in a search for knowledge in an ideological war rather than power like the Nazis is so bright I can barely believe George Lucas came up with it. I really hope the pull Shia in for sequels (actually, I secretly hope they wait another 10 years until Shia is in his 30's), then hopefully people will look back on Indy 4 as a transition rather than a strange epilogue. Other than that. Cons? What everyone says about the jungle jim swinging scene is true. It's glossy and nasty and OTT. Also the ending is so overwrought you'd kill for a director's cut. In fact, a few nice slices here and there and you have a film on par with Raiders. Bring on the fan edit. 4/5 serotet fucked around with this message at 13:57 on May 27, 2008 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2008 13:50
|
|
|
Well it's not a bad movie per say, it just wasn't that great either. I was enjoying myself up until the end when the alien mothership or whatever took off. I mean really, that has no place in an Indy movie AT ALL. I even thought that the mythos surrounding space aliens helping human civilizations could have been very interesting if done right, but like I said it was completely ruined by the ending. Oh, Indy getting married to Marrion doesn't fit in very well with the Indiana Jones character, it was pretty annoying. Also, unlike some people the CGI didn't really bother me that much. What bothered me was the liberal ammount of loving bloom they put in the picture, I mean drat it was like I was watching the movie through a filter of the sun or something. 3/5
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2008 14:26
|
|
|
Pros: -Harrison Ford is still Indiana Jones and has plenty of badass moments -Several good action set pieces -Nobody is anywhere near as annoying as Willie or Short Round -The 1950s Cold War scenario with 1950s B-movie homage stuff had a lot of potential and worked well at times Cons: -It seemed like the pacing was off, it didn't flow very well and kind of ran out of gas at the end -Some scenes were just beyond stupid Mutt swinging on vines like Tarzan with a bunch of CGI greaser monkeys comes to mind -The whole betrayal sub-plot was dumb and didn't contribute anything -Some of the special effects were surprisingly shoddy -Seemed to be doing a bit too much recycling of past Indy movies for its own good I give it a 3/5. Better than Temple of Doom but worse than everything else.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2008 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
Was a good Indy flick overall. The most common criticism I've heard is about the aliens but I'm not sure what's so hard to deal with when you've had god's power in an ark, stones with magic power and heart ripping, and a 700 year old knight guarding Christ's holy grail. The "friend" agent guy just got annoying quickly. Shia did a pretty good job, and I'm not really a big fan of his. Just like the others, good mindless fun. I just prefer Nazi's to Russians. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2008 04:22
|
|
