Indiana Jones KOTCS

zAbbo

I'm going to hold off seeing this, there have been lots of mixed reviews and the added hype of it being an Indy movie will probably leave me disappointed.

Peteee

I'm in two bits over this. Some bits were great and some were terrible.

The McGuffin itself was fine. It fit the '50s theme perfectly

(The originals were throwbacks to the cliffhanger serials of the '30s, so it makes sense that this is a throwback to the b-movies of the '50s). I have no beef with the plot, and the ending I thought was genuinely wonderous. As for being unrealistic... well magic cups with the fountain of youth is hardly believable either.

The action, at times

Especially the first car chase, the bit with the blow dart and the bit in the last temple

are great, and are classic indy.

The rest of the action is CGI bollox. I cant get over how over used and (Some of the time)poorly implemented the CGI was. For a director who is usually very good at using effects (Jurassic Park etc) he really botched it here. The CGI action scenes are very poorly paced and badly shot and edited, with little tension, and excessive over the top-ness

monkeys... seriously. Going over the waterfalls, ramping a car on top of a tree to get down to the river... need I even mention the Fridge?

The originals were never that over the top (The worst I can see is the ToD riding the raft down, but then I've never liked that bit) action wise because someone had to actually do the stunts.

Also, for the people who bought us ET, Close Encounters, War of the Worlds and Star Wars, the Aliens looked a bit naff.

Of course, some of the effects in the originals were piss poor, but for some reason it never really mattered, because the stunts were very real. Indeed, meant to be piss poor given the serial nature piss take that the OT is, and maybe the poor CGI is a piss take on 50's B-Movies.

In fact the whole movie gets the B-Movie schtick down perfectly (To the UFO's, Comic book villain commies with terrible accents, Poorly matted effects shots etc) and so really it succeeds in the same way the originals did of the serials of the 30's

Also there wasn't enough 'peons being decapitated by swirling blades/sticks etc' in this at all

What makes it worse is that we were all told it would use minimal CGI, when this is patently not true. The scenes that dont use it are very well done and how it should have been done. If its Lucas' doing then... well **** you Lucas. If it was Spielbergs then he should be ashamed.

Harrison Ford was pretty good I thought, looked old, but in great shape, and everyone else was fine.

Theres a few nods to the older films, but the humour never matches the originals.

The cinematography (Kudos to Kaminski for aping the look of another cinematographer while simultaneously updating the look to the 50's, and some great spielbergian camera flourishes), Music and set design were all top notch.

Overall, enjoyable enough, but poorly implemented indy movie.

jayteecork

That opening shot of a CGI gopher was lamentable.

And why on earth were a bunch of mid-50s schoolkids driving around in a car from the 20s?

Really hated this movie, couldn't wait for the end.

faceman

Peteee wrote: »

The originals were never that over the top (The worst I can see is the ToD riding the raft down, but then I've never liked that bit) action wise because someone had to actually do the stunts.

Sorry i must disagree on that one point. Everlasting life out of wooden cups, magical invisible paths over bottomless pits, an christian ark that contains er, angels that turn into demons that kill you unless you close your eyes, removing the heart without surgery, rafts over a cliff, planes without pilots.

Lets be honest, whether the Indy films are good or bad, its ALL over the top!

Zulu

Pish, posh, hearts can be removed with out even using a hand - have a look over in PI.
As for the rest of it: wood is a proven anti-carsonegenic, the path was clearly painted, the pit was just deep! I mean come on...

..anyway we can sit around here all day pointing fingers and playing the blame game, but we all know the movie was pure pantaloons!

MooseJam

Peteee wrote: »

The originals were never that over the top (The worst I can see is the ToD riding the raft down, but then I've never liked that bit)

mythbusters did that and it turns out it's plausible

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

can't wiat to see them testing the surival rate of people trapped in fridges during a nuclear explosion

JCDenton

Mr.S wrote: »

having never seen a Indy film (dont hurt me please ), i thought it was interesting.

It wasn't bad, it was good - the scenes where good, a little to much CGI for my liking but still alright - its just the whole aliens thing didn't really fit in.

Also, i was told Indy films where all about mystery and solving clues etc, this didn't really have any of it, they where basically on a little quest to give back the blokes scull.

To me, it was like a wacky version of National Treasure 2 meats the Minority report (thoes weird future predictors having to work as a team)

7/10!

To me - this is the best review yet.

Waaaay too many people in this thread have rose-tinted sunglasses welded to their faces and didn't get the film they wanted.

For someone who hasn't seen it before - without preconceptions - it's a "good film".

Seen this last night and really enjoyed it. Apart from Kate's really bad ascent!

MooseJam

JCDenton wrote: »

For someone who hasn't seen it before - without preconceptions - it's a "good film".

It's number 4 how can you not have preconceptions ? if you have to have not seen an indy film to find it good then it's a monumental failure

monkeyfudge

faceman wrote: »

magical invisible paths over bottomless pits

Wasn't the bridge just painted to perfectly match the background of the cliff face so as to give the illusion of an open chasm with no way to cross? I don't think it was actually supposed to be invisible.

As for the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull I only got around to it yesterday... I felt a little silly going into the cinema wearing my usual trilby though... people probably thought I was a huge Indiana Jones fan or something...

I enjoyed it a lot. And I'd definitely rate it well above The Temple of Doom, which I was immensely disappointed with when I saw it in the cinema as a kid. I'd probably put it on par with The Last Crusade if the plot had have been more solid. I never much cared for The Last Crusade either as I found the comic relief father to be a bit irritating.

I did have very, very low expectations going into this film though... I think everyone is over doing it on being critical on the use of CGI. Compared to most big blockbusters these days it has very little and still relies on a lot of good stunt work even in scenes that are CGI heavy. I thought the car chase in the rain forest was fantastic and the sword play was very well done. And it should probably also be noted that Cate Blanchett is one of the best screen villains I ever seen... She's every bit as smart and physically capable as Indy.

Oh and monkeys are great CGI or otherwise.

My main problem with the plot is that it doesn't seem to amount to much at all in the end... they don't actually stop the soviets from achieving anything. And the whole sequence in Hanger 51 was pointless... why did they need the alien corpse exactly? It didn't serve any purpose at all.

Ray Winstone's character seemed a bit pointless as well... And was a bit of a cliché.

There was also a horrible bit of editing near the end that I found frustrating and really took me out of the film. When Winstone's character turns on them yet again in the alien chamber, we cut to Blanchett's character entering the chamber then in the next instant all her soldiers are already in the chamber somehow.

And while we're on the subject of the chamber how exactly did the conquistadors steal the crystal skull when it was in a chamber that requires you to have the skull in your procession in order to open it, not to mention you have to demolish an obelisk beforehand to get near it.

Argh... all those things piled up at the end to make it an irritating experience for me.

But still overall I found it very enjoyable and it's definitely the best summer blockbuster I've seen in a long, long time.

Sherifu

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Wasn't the bridge just painted to perfectly match the background of the cliff face so as to give the illusion of an open chasm with no way to cross? I don't think it was actually supposed to be invisible.

Exactly. It could be seen from sideview. It was a painted bridge.

constitutionus

well, went to see it yesterday and i enjoyed it !

after all the comments here and on the radio i was worried it'd be awfull and while not perfect it wasnt as bad in my eyes as temple of doom.

yes the CGI is annoying and it does lag in the middle and at times if feels very star war-sies ,

WTF was all that stuff with the monkeys and prarie dogs? it was almost ewok territory

and some truely stupid stuff does happen even if it did look lovely

but i thought they captured the feel of the times and the mutt character worked for me and all the stuff about the skull made sense to me

i first heard about them on the old arthur c clarkes mysterious world series way back in the eighties and they were running with the aliens theory too so i wasnt as surprised as some people seem to be

all in all a good rolicking film thats more enjoyable than not and proof positive for me is its the first film ive finised me popcorn in in ages. in fact one thing i have to say is it pretty much hits the ground running so go to the jax before hand if you have to go and are waiting for a dull moment.

im not a huge indy fan put still. not bad

L31mr0d

constitutionus wrote: »

i first heard about them on the old arthur c clarkes mysterious world series way back in the eighties and they were running with the aliens theory too so i wasnt as surprised as some people seem to be

you also wouldn't of been surprised if you'd watched

The Mysterious Cities of Gold

as a kid.

iMax

Mr.S wrote: »

having never seen a Indy film (dont hurt me please ), i thought it was interesting.

I would love to hear what you think of the original trilogy. If you live in Dublin, I'd be happy to loan you my set for a review

Josiah Bartlett

Good movie, well nearly good, loved the indian quirky jokes. Mutt (shia lebeouf) is great in it. I think a spin off with him would be good. zany at the end and reeks of Lucas. Probably 6.5/10

jayteecork

This whole "Nuke the Fridge" thing is getting huge on the internet.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nuke+the+fridge

monkeyfudge

jayteecork wrote: »

This whole "Nuke the Fridge" thing is getting huge on the internet.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nuke+the+fridge

Yeah... because that's that most far fetched thing to happen in all 4 films, is it?

Ardent

This film was the stinker I predicted it to be from the trailers. 1/10 from me. Found myself cringing all the way through. Spielberg and/or Lucas have well and truly lost it (did Lucas ever have it??).

I'm giving it 1 for the scene with the

quicksand and the snake

, at least that made me laugh.

Pigman II

Indy 4 is a great addition to the series and you are all morons. That is all.

Eglinton

Ardent wrote: »

This film was the stinker I predicted it to be from the trailers. 1/10 from me. Found myself cringing all the way through. Spielberg and/or Lucas have well and truly lost it (did Lucas ever have it??).

I'm giving it 1 for the scene with the

quicksand and the snake

, at least that made me laugh.

1/10 from me to. I agree fully with all the previous criticisms. Just to add - I really disliked the fact that nothing seemed to be set on location; in contrast to the previous three. All studio and CGI.

Awful, awful, awful storyline. All of my friends hated it.

Spielberg and Lucas should stop making films and instead provide funding to new emerging talents.

Futurism

Pigman II wrote: »

Indy 4 is a great addition to the series and you are all morons. That is all.

I agree,great film.If I'm being perfectly honest I thought it was better than raiders of the lost ark.

Tusky

Futurism wrote: »

I agree,great film.If I'm being perfectly honest I thought it was better than raiders of the lost ark.

:eek:

Karl Hungus

Futurism wrote: »

I agree,great film.If I'm being perfectly honest I thought it was better than raiders of the lost ark.

L31mr0d

jayteecork wrote: »

This whole "Nuke the Fridge" thing is getting huge on the internet.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nuke+the+fridge

I think that scene was needed though as it set the tone for the rest of the movie. After that I pretty much sat back and expected absurdity and actually enjoyed the movie.

I really think people are viewing the original series through rose tinted glasses. Sure Raiders was a landmark movie but the following sequels where sub par at best. I can't even sit through Temple of Doom its that bad, the pacing is off and the sidekicks are irritating. Plus people who are saying the mystery in this movie wasn't as big as the Holy Grail or Arc of the Covenant... are you serious?

uncovering the fact that aliens played a part in or was in contact with ever ancient civilization on the planet isn't big enough for you?

How much bigger can you get?

Like faceman has said, I think we have been over saturated with

alien and religious

mysteries, heck, the atrocious

National Treasure 2 had the city of gold story also

. If they had uncovered another

religious

treasure people would be yawning at the repetitiveness.

BlitzKrieg

Plus people who are saying the mystery in this movie wasn't as big as the Holy Grail or Arc of the Covenant... are you serious?

uncovering the fact that aliens played a part in or was in contact with ever ancient civilization on the planet isn't big enough for you?

How much bigger can you get?

I think you misunderstand, the yawn factor over the

aliens

is because its blatant what it is from the first 15 minutes to the very end, not because

oh my god aliens

but because there is no development of what they stand for. Sure we know he is chasing the grail and the ark in the previous films but alot of flesh and deviation put onto those before their finales which actually add more even up to the final moments.



Dont get me wrong, I enjoyed the film, but it does have problems, alot of which it shares with the temple of Doom.

L31mr0d

CuLT wrote: »

The Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail are iconic,

a crystal alien skull is not.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I think you misunderstand

I was refering to this. People seem to think

the crystal skull

was equivalent to the Holy Grail and the Arc of the Covenant when its not even the point of the movie. The mystery and treasure was

El Dorado not being a city of gold but a place where aliens buried their spaceship while they went around the civilizations of earth collecting artifacts

Karl Hungus

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Actually lol'd Karl . I enjoyed it but I wouldn't put it near as good as 1 or 3. I quite liked the Alien theme , 7/10 for me.

BlitzKrieg

L31mr0d wrote: »

I was refering to this. People seem to think

the crystal skull

was equivalent to the Holy Grail and the Arc of the Covenant when its not even the point of the movie. The mystery and treasure was

El Dorado not being a city of gold but a place where aliens buried their spaceship while they went around the civilizations of earth collecting artifacts

Well they never played up the city of gold mystery

when you start in area 51 you are clearly saying *ALIENS!*

smcgiff

Those that are of the opinion that the negative comments are coming from those viewing the original three with rose tinted glasses are completely wrong. I would easily re-watch (and have done) the first three movies today. IV leaves me cold. I'm actually reading the official book at the minute and while including most of the dialogue as it happened in the film there's far better quips included in the book!

This may be a decent film in comparison to what comes out in your local cinema in any given summer, but for those of us that spent the last 19 years (I'm in my 30s :eek:) waiting for this movie it's a disappointment.

And believe me I get no pleasure from saying this - far from it.

It was a bit like bigging up a gorgeous ex girlfriend you dated 19 years ago to your friends, but when ye all meet her 19 years later, and the years haven't been kind it's a downer*

*purely an analogy mind!