Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[cabbageboy 0]

I am torn on this one. It's probably without a doubt the worst in the series, since it has certainly the worst storyline with the alien crap in the jungle and all. What is this, Alien vs. Predator? However, it was a much better film from a character standpoint. Indy's relationship with Mutt, reuniting with Marion, the hilariously weird on and off relationship with Mac, Oxley's crazy ramblings. The characters and actors carry this film since the story certainly doesn't.

 

Cate Blanchett is pretty much the worst villain in the series, cheesy and bad Russian accent, scripted to do ludicrous and unrealistic things, etc. And yes, Mola Ram does crazy and unrealistic stuff in T of D but he was also a satanic madman so it fit better.

 

The first part was exciting but felt like it was missing something, and that was Karen Allen. Anyone else feel that way? Once she got into the movie it was like the entire movie sprung to life and you get the easy chemistry with her and Ford.

 

This is probably a *** movie, whereas the original series has two movies I'd put at **** (Raiders, Crusade) and T of D at ***1/2.

 

[NYU 0]

This is the one summer film that everyone wants to see

 

I would classify that as The Dark Knight, but to each their own.

 

Again, I felt the generational gap was too big for the movie to have such a stellar opening weekend. I was obviously wrong

[RepoMan 0]

The Russian Communist Party is not happy with the film

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

I'm not really into seeing it to be honest. I turned down going last night to sit home and watch TV. I just don't feel good about this movie...and since I wasn't an over the top indy fan to begin with...nostalgia isn't going to take me anywhere.

[RepoMan 0]

I'm not really into seeing it to be honest. I turned down going last night to sit home and watch TV. I just don't feel good about this movie...and since I wasn't an over the top indy fan to begin with...nostalgia isn't going to take me anywhere.

 

If your not that big an Indy fan, I wouldn't pay $9 to see it.

 

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

That's kind of where I am on it. I don't have a problem waiting till it hits HBO or one of those channels.

[Anakin Flair 0]

The Russian Communist Party is not happy with the film

 

That's the funniest thing I've ever read.

[Coffin Surfer 0]

Fun movie, more enjoyable than Doom but more than a few steps behind Raiders and Crusade. I didn't mind the alien and sci-fi elements since that was a part of the 50s mythos and pop culture just as the wierd Christian relics were a part of the Nazis mythos. All the 50s homage stuff was well done and really gave the movie its identity.

 

Really liked the opening action sequence. Ford and Shia snooping around old tombs, running from KGB, and exchanging wisecracks was great stuff that really made the movie for me. Disappointed by the lack of Karen Allen as others pointed out, she just didn't have enough to do. Hurt's character annoyed me too, a waste of a fine actor. The Soviets lack the evil stigma of the Nazis or the Cultist though Blanchette was surprisingly hot(the butch military look is just what she needs) and did what she could with a confusnig paper thin character.

[CBright7831 0]

This is the one summer film that everyone wants to see

 

I would classify that as The Dark Knight, but to each their own.

 

Again, I felt the generational gap was too big for the movie to have such a stellar opening weekend. I was obviously wrong

The sad thing about The Dark Knight is a lot of moms with kids 13 years and younger will not take them to see TDK because its "too scary/dark/PG-13/etc."

 

I'm not judging ANY family's decision on what to take the kids to see, but the first two movies I ever saw in movie theaters were Batman and The Last Crusade - both PG-13 films.

 

*Yet these families will take them to see KOTCS - a PG-13 film

 

**I should also note that the third movie I ever saw in theaters was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - which was rather dark (compared to the others) but was still PG.

 

I'm seeing this movie tonight.

[Boon 0]

It was okay- definitely a few steps behind the rest, but true to the Indiana Jones form. I marked out when the first punch was thrown and the terrible slapstick sound effect was there. It was belligerently over the top, but then again, so were the originals.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

According to Vanity Fair from a couple of months ago (Harrison and Shia were on the cover), Lucas said in the interview that he actually wanted to make KoTCS following LC back then, but Harrison and Steven hated the story.

 

I think Harrison only agreed to finally doing it because he hasn't had a hit since What Lies Beneath.

 

By the way,

with this alien story, Mulder and Scully might as well have shown up.

 

[Guest Smues]

Saw it on Friday and was entertained. Not on par with the first three movies, but enjoyable well enough. The sci-fi stuff was a decent enough shift from the cult stuff I suppose. I only really had two complaints.

 

1. Shia LaBeouf was in the movie.

2.

Shia LaBeouf being Indy's kid. Oh FUCK NO. The first thing I thought when I saw him in the trailer was (well second thing, first was OH FUCK NO HE'S IN THE MOVIE GOD DAMNIT) please god don't let him be Indy's kid. I really really really really hope they don't try making Indiana Jones movies with him as the star.

[Mik 0]

I sort of enjoyed this but it really lost me at the end.

 

I've never been a big fan of

alien themes.

 

I liked Shia..."What are you like 80?" and the ants scene was pretty dope... but meh. 6/10.

[Smartly Pretty 0]

What's wrong with Shia LaBeouf?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Saw this movie on Saturday. I thought it was entertaining and good for what it was. The sci-fi elements didn't really bother me...I mean, past movies had a guy's face melting, a crusader "ghost", and the Ark of the Covenant destroying stuff, so I felt like this was a natural extension of that. I don't think it was a "great" movie, nowhere near as good as the first two movies in the series, but probably better than Last Crusade.

[cd213 0]

I saw this last night and thought it was a great movie. It wasn't the best in the series, but it had stiff competition as the rest of the series were 3 1/2-4 star movies, and this I would give 3 stars to. I had heard that Shia LaBeouf was the worst part of the movie, but after seeing it, I thought he was very good. I don't see all the hate as he actually has talent. The only thing I can think of is the whole, he's a popular young actor, so let's hate on him because of that. He's a good young actor and his chemistry was very good with Harrison Ford. Karen Allen was a great addition, as she was only added to round out her storyline, but it was a great addition non the less. John Hurt, I thought was very good in his part, as he is great in everything. I really didn't mind the

alien

being the skull, as that has always been the idea behind many of the worlds creations, the pyramids, the ruins in different countries, etc. The only thing I didn't like was Speilberg being Speilberg.

Not everything has to have a fucking spaceship.

The idea could have been executed without

the ship, just have beams coming out of the eyes.

I know this will be the first movie I see more then once in the theater.

[dubq 0]

Saw this movie on Saturday. I thought it was entertaining and good for what it was. The sci-fi elements didn't really bother me...I mean, past movies had a guy's face melting, a crusader "ghost", and the Ark of the Covenant destroying stuff, so I felt like this was a natural extension of that. I don't think it was a "great" movie, nowhere near as good as the first two movies in the series, but probably better than Last Crusade.

 

Count me in on that. I don't see the gripe with the

"alien"

element, and I liked the idea that

what we think are aliens from another planet, are actually beings from another dimension - the ship isn't actually a ship, but a device to travel through dimensions, etc

. It was a nice twist in the series, IMO.

[godthedog 0]

meh. the same sort of aging gesture to a fading formula that 'live free or die hard' did last summer, except 'die hard' did it much better by not sentimentalizing itself so heavily. good god that shit was schmaltzy.

 

shia lebouf has quickly become my favorite thing about otherwise crappy mainstream movies, and this was no exception. not a great actor, but very likable and has a schoolboyish charm that makes him naturally interesting to watch--reminds me a lot of john cusack.

 

my absolute favorite part of the whole indy franchise is the interminable car chase scene midway through 'raiders', and this movie's equivalent of that was just awesome--perfect action sequence that not only refused to end, but steadily got more and more ludicrous, and not afraid to let you laugh at it. i was afraid it wouldn't be able to hold up on the action quota, but i was very wrong. also contained the only line of the movie that harrison ford delivered well: "BIG DAMN ANTS."

 

the 'wrath of god' equivalent that took up the latter third of the movie was retarded.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Yeah, that car chase was wonderful. The sort of musical cars thing they had going on was brilliant, and it was the only time in the movie that John Hurt actually didn't look embarrassed to be doing his part, just because the whole movie was elevated to slightly farcical adventure for those 10 minutes or so. I really wish he had a name other than "Ox" too. I think the other characters said that 2 or 3 times as much as anyone else's name.

 

Fucking CGI monkeys and swinging through the jungle, though. That and the

big stupid alien

were face-warmingly terrible.

[godthedog 0]

and don't forget the prairie dogs. what the hell.

 

i will admit i liked the monkeys though. even though it reminded me of that part in 'the lost world' where the teen girl has to use her gymnastics skills to save the group.

 

 

[RepoMan 0]

and don't forget the prairie dogs. what the hell.

 

That was the most useless use of CGI ever. They couldn't get real prarie dogs for the shot?

 

[luke-o 0]

Saw it last night. Loved it up until the end.

 

An ark that melts faces, I can buy.

 

Drinking from the cup of Christ for eternal life, I'll but at a push

 

Interdementional beings is bullshit

 

Someone needs to proof read George Lucas' stories sometimes.

[dubq 0]

The Russian Communist Party is not happy with the film

 

That's the funniest thing I've ever read.

 

Wow, you'd think they'd know the difference between science fiction and actual history. Fuckin' commies.

 

 

..and I still don't get why it's so hard to buy the plot of this movie. I'm thinking that people are only acting this way because they wanted something that was fantastic as Raiders was when it first came out - impossible - and because everyone is ready to drop the gloves and bitch to no end whenever George Lucas does anything. Still, they got their $126M at the box office this weekend, so expect another sequel down the road.

[godthedog 0]

..and I still don't get why it's so hard to buy the plot of this movie. I'm thinking that people are only acting this way because they wanted something that was fantastic as Raiders was when it first came out - impossible - and because everyone is ready to drop the gloves and bitch to no end whenever George Lucas does anything. Still, they got their $126M at the box office this weekend, so expect another sequel down the road.

 

lucasberg painted themselves into a corner with that one by holding so close to the 'raiders' formula of "exposition--big action scenes--supernatural extravaganza where the characters get lost in all the paranormal forces." when you do a finale that's so obviously supposed to be a placeholder for the original "wrath of god" finale, you're inviting the comparison. by its own standards, the ending is a huge disappointment. the effects are lame, nobody gets the contours of their body fucked with in an interesting way that we haven't seen before, and it rips on earlier ideas of spielberg that just don't belong there. did anybody seriously go "oh, SHIT" at that ending?

 

if you look at 'temple of doom', it suffers from many things, but a lack of a "wrath of god" finale isn't one of them. the ending just isn't meant to be compared to 'raiders', it doesn't work the same way. instead of taking some chances and possibly breathing some new life into the franchise or giving the fans some surprises, lucasberg took the most ballless, soulless way out they could: they gave us the same damn ending, when it wasn't even as good the second time they used it in 'last crusade'.

 

the whole ancient story that sets the plot in motion is fine--it's just a mythical macguffin that works as well as any other. in theory, it works pretty nicely as a tribute to the cold war b-movies of the 50s. they could use the legend of some gigantic radioactive water buffalo for all we care, as long as the execution is good. the execution just wasn't good.

[RepoMan 0]

Saw it last night. Loved it up until the end.

 

An ark that melts faces, I can buy.

 

Drinking from the cup of Christ for eternal life, I'll but at a push

Interdementional beings is bullshit

 

Someone needs to proof read George Lucas' stories sometimes.

 

 

I really don't get the logic behind that statement. Maybe just b/c I'm agnostic, but I think the

Interdementional beings

seems the most plausable my comparison. The thing that bothered me the most about Kingdom is

is that Indy and crew survived going over three waterfalls

.

 

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Why do people hate Shia LaBeouf so much?

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

"Not quite a hunk, not quite a nerd - Shia LaBeouf!" - Homer Simpson.

 

Caught the movie tonight but had to go to one of the earliest evening showings (6:45) due to having other plans / work at 12am. Too many kids (though most well behaved) and some jerk brought her infant daughter with her and of course she kept crying. Why are you bringing someone that young to this movie and why didn't you just go to the "for parents with young children" screening to spare the rest of us? A lot of times we couldn't even hear her crying over the score (and she was several rows away) but the odd time we could hear crying and the parent elected NOT to walk out of the theatre it was annoying.

 

Anyway, to the movie - I loved it and all, but wow was that so much more f'd up than I would have expected. I half expected to see Chewbacca and the Millennium Falcon at the end. I also didn't realize everyone - from old Indiana to young Mutt - would be so impervious to any ill effects from falling down three waterfalls. But like I said, it was a fun movie and a great way to spend 2 hours.

 

 

[Scroby 0]

I kinda find it funny that people's main compliants about the movie is the lack of realism. Weather it be the

Alien

storyline or the CGI or the Ants/Parie Dogs, but I don't understand why. It's a movie..when has Indiana Jones ever been based on realism? Whocares if the storyline is a little out there or if there's CGI? Does it really make that much of a differance? I've always seen the Indiana Jones films as fun, funny, somewhat over the top action films and when you look at the Crystal Skull, it's really no different from the other films when it comes to the type of story/movie that was made.

 

Though I will give people one thing to complain about...and that's the monkeys. More so

attacking the Nazi vechicle only after the swinging scene

thats really the only thing that bugged me about the movie. Other than that, it was quite good.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

I hear what you're saying and agree, which is why I enjoyed the film, but that didn't make it any less wacky.

 

Now had it been an adaptation of the (non-canonical) comic where an adult Short Round finds the remains of Hans Solo and the Milennium Falcon...

[ChrisMWaters 0]

Scrooby...

you mean KGB, not Nazis, right? I mean, I know it's easy to think "Nazis" with an Indy movie...but this was set long after WWII...