Indiana Jones and Crystal Skull - should I bother?

mike65

RTE are screening all three indy sequels today, I've not seen Crystal Skull but am well aware of its reputation, is it like, bad or just not as good but still worth watching if there's nothing better on?

Pacifico

It is a ****ing awful film!

Richard Dower

It's sh*te!....first was and always will be the best!

seniorolaighin

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sad Professor

If you are a fan of the previous films then you should watch it and decide for yourself. I was very disappointed with it but I still think it's worth watching. I may give it a second watch myself.

The Recliner

My take on it is that it is not a terrible film but it is most definitely not an Indiana Jones film

If you can seperate Indiana Jones and your feelings for the franchise from the movie then it is watchable, if you can't then you will hate it

I hated it the first time I saw it because I had such high expectations, it was more bearable on a rewatch

smcgiff

There have only ever been three Indiana Jones movies - simples.


However, if you think of the Crystal Skull movie as a fan fiction (albeit with the actual actors and producers involved) production, set your expectation really low, you'd enjoy some snippets.

Beware, once seen it's very hard to unsee

krudler

Theres some good sequences, but heres a reason "nuking the fridge" has replaced "jumped the shark" in tv and movie lingo

mike65

I think I'll pass

Mickeroo

Watch it sure, it's bad but its nowhere near the worst film I've ever seen.

KilOit

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/1mrx

Pretty much

krankykitty

It's not known as Indiana Jones and the Golden Zimmerframe for nothing!!

ziedth

Easily the worst film I have ever seen Mike stay well away.

I've said it before in here but I still feel rage when I think of the Monkeys.......... Why?!!!!!!

Richard Dower

krudler wrote: »

Theres some good sequences, but heres a reason "nuking the fridge" has replaced "jumped the shark" in tv and movie lingo

This is true! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbrzQMbTYZM

DOC09UNAM

Jesus god no, without doubt the worst cinematic experience i have ever had.

Liamario

I hate that fat crap George Lucas with a passion and the existence of this movie only supports my hatred for him.
As a stand alone movie, it's not the worst.
As an Indiana Jones movie, it's an abomination.
One word...

Aliens

MagicMarker

It's not that bad, I watched it on a plane and found it enjoyable enough, but then, I was on a plane!

I'd give it a chance if I were you anyway, sure you can always turn over if you don't like it.

mike65

Monkeys and

Aliens

The worse this film gets the more I may not be able to stop myself watching it :pac:

irishh_bob

its only marginally worse than the temple of doom , doom being rendered awfull alone by the fact that kate capshaw ( old sleeping with the director excuse ) and the little chineese guy ) from the goonies ) were in it

Owen

ricero

dont mind the fridge bit thats not stupid its when shia lebouf is swinging through the trees like ****ing tarzan :mad:

sonic85

meh. its not a good film but seems to me people take films like this personally! i love the indiana jones series and was very disappointed when i saw this in the cinema but it wont stop me watching it again! watch it OP and decide for yourself

saintsaltynuts

The first half an hour was great but then it gets really bad.**/5

ziedth

ricero wrote: »

dont mind the fridge bit thats not stupid its when shia lebouf is swinging through the trees like ****ing tarzan :mad:

+10000,

And did I mention the monkeys........

Sad Professor

I've no issue whatsoever with the

alien

plot-line. It is perfectly in line with the matinee serials and pulp adventures of the 50s. What I do have an issue with, however, is:

1) The CGI - it's overused, completely out of place and fake looking. I mean, how the f**k did that monkey/tarzan sequence ever make it into the final cut? Hell, how did it even make it into the script?!

2) The slapstick humour doesn't work. The previous films had a certain amount of this, but there was a balance which is sadly lacking here. There's never any real sense of danger and threat. The villain is a joke. I love Blanchett but she's just hamming it up in this.

3) The crappy script. The story is mostly fine imo. It just wasn't written properly. It's easy to blame Lucas for this, but I blame Spielberg.

It all just comes down to bad directing. Spielberg can't do these films anymore. He never got over the negative reaction to Temple of Doom, which for all its flaws is still a very enjoyable movie that at least tried to do something darker and different. But he approached The Last Crusade and this as if they were comedies.

Part of what made the previous films work was that Indy was always failing, always getting the crap beat out of him, always barely surviving, but doing so in a spectacular fashion. You laughed at how things went so terribly wrong for him, but you never laughed at him. In KOTCS, Indy is far too passive at times, especially during the third act, and Spielberg makes Indy the butt of too many of the jokes. It's as if Spielberg forgot the whole spirit of the character.

Worst film I've ever seen? Not a chance. There is far, far worse. Most disappointing film I've ever seen? It's definitely up there.

fryup

when even the RTE guide gives it 2 out of 5 stars...you gotta wonder is it worth watching

quickbeam

I'd go with the majority here and recommend avoiding too.

MagicMarker

Can someone tell me why no matter what settings I choose on my NTL and TV, the movie (and the RTE logo) is still cut off at the sides?

Goodshape

MagicMarker wrote: »

Can someone tell me why no matter what settings I choose on my NTL and TV, the movie (and the RTE logo) is still cut off at the sides?

I assume you have a wide screen TV? Are you sure you've gone though all the settings on NTL? As far as I recall (not in front of the box atm) there's a 'TV Type' setting, or similar, that can be switched from 4:3 to 16:9, or fullscreen to widescreen.

Sounds like you've it set to 4:3 on a 16:9 tellybox.



Also... ****e film. Watch it to find out how ****e if you've nothing better to do and have already had your proper Indy fix this holiday season.

MagicMarker

Goodshape wrote: »

I assume you have a wide screen TV? Are you sure you've gone though all the settings on NTL? As far as I recall (not in front of the box atm) there's a 'TV Type' setting, or similar, that can be switched from 4:3 to 16:9, or fullscreen to widescreen.

Sounds like you've it set to 4:3 on a 16:9 tellybox.



Also... ****e film. Watch it to find out how ****e if you've nothing better to do and have already had your proper Indy fix this holiday season.

Nice one, changed the setting, restarted the box and all is well.

pixelburp

I have to say, I still find it kinda funny that in some peoples' eyes,

Aliens

was a step too far in a series that had, as a recurring theme, the notion of God as a legitimate entity who appeared as zappy SFX. Smacks of double standards really. Why are

aliens

such a ludicrous proposition & cause for OMGs, and yet a vengeful Old-Testament god is less so? It does lead to me to the thought that Crystal Skull is a victim of internet-fanboy-nostalgia syndrome (coupled with the fanboy Shia LeBeouf backlash). Even South Park got in on the act of lambasting the 4th Indiana Jones movie as some kind of crime against cinema.

You know what? I enjoyed Crystal Skull. It had some great action moments, decent one-liners and was miles more enjoyable than Temple of Doom. I thought RTE's decision to air the 3 Indiana Jones sequels, one after the other, was quite canny because against Temple of Doom, Crystal Skull is a masterpiece. Sure it possibly missed the mark by about 10 years, but enjoying the movie for what it is, it's nowhere near the cinematic travesty some would try and convince you it is.

and that's speaking as a fan of Indy too. Temple of Doom can fook off and die, but Crystal Skull had me enjoying myself for about 2/3s of its running time.

smcgiff

Nah I enjoyed Temple of Doom for what it was. Not a patch on Raiders of course.

I watched KOTCS on RTE and I've come to the conclusion that if you could somehow edit out the Shia scenes it would be much better.

Nothing against Shia as such, it's not his fault he is neither Marlon Brando or Tarzan.

More so than the other films this movie was a cartoon. I don't actually mind the fridge scene, in comparison to the tarzan sequence, in fact all the jungle chase scene. And yeah Cate Blanchette character was beyond parody.

The first half hour was identifiable as Indy, the rest was filler.

gothicus

If you have seen Raiders of the Lost Ark you have seen the best if Indiana, except for the missing Sean Connery character in said film

sonic85

hadnt seen this for a while until this evening and its not that bad. a lot of overreaction going on. its entertaining

L31mr0d

It's not actually that bad. I will admit my expectations where high, which initially but a bad taste in my mouth.

But I've since rewatched the entire quadrilogy and Crystal Skull slots in pretty well in terms of quality.

Skerries

the first and third films are canon, the other two don't exist as far as i'm concernered

Ridley

Oh I don't think the

Interdimensional Beings From The Space Between Spaces!!

are Crystal Skull's problem even if I would have prefered more ambiguity with

the saucer

. And I like Crystal Skull.

*Too many main characters
*Awkward dialogue at times
*CGI where there's no need
*Undermimed villain who can't/doesn't back up her claims (and is mocked for it in LEGO Indiana Jones 2)
*Underused ideas/elements

Red Scare forcing Indy out of home; Indy needs more from life than just the adventure; the oversized animals were a leftover from development said to be caused by El Dorado/Akator; the collapse of the Akator temple; the graveyard fight; the Jungle Cutter...

It does homage the previous films better than, for example, Die Another Day which is another film that I think has a strong opening before the confused questions of why certain decisions were made crop up.

Mr.Nice Guy

I thought it really soured the legacy of the previous three. I blame Lucas for the fiasco. The guy is a one-trick pony imo.

Handsome Bob

Is the intro of

Aliens

really that far fetched given the mystical artefacts that we come across previously in this franchise? I haven't seen it in full yet, I saw the first 40 mins or so last night before going out and I quite liked it. Didn't like the constant references to Indy being an old bastid though. :pac:

fryup

an utter mess of a movie

OTT cgi and cheesy dialogue

shame on you Harrison Ford for agreeing to do this, its not like you needed the money or anything

ricero

the 3rd one with sean connery is the best purely cause sean connery is in the film. also like the fact river pheonix plays a young indy at the start. i hated the 2nd one that Chinese kid was very annoying

iMax

The fridge scene/sequence was in the original script for Back To The Future, they removed it because they were afraid kids would lock themselves in fridges.

The scientific theory behind using that sequence held up as the fridge is heavy lead lined insulated steel that seals & would offer (Marty McFly) the most protection from the 1.21 jigowatts (great scott) needed to send him BTTF...

Don't really mind the movie, would prefer if they excised the monkey scene, but other than that, it's pure hokum.

pixelburp

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I thought it really soured the legacy of the previous three.

I don't see how it sours the legacy to be honest; they're still there, still just as enjoyable on their own terms (bar Temple o' Doom) and to be honest, if the 4th movie represents Indy's retirement then it's a lot more dignified than the horrendous "old indy" segments that appeared in the "Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" TV show.

Hell, I'll go one further and suggest that Crystal Skull neatly book-ended the franchise by telling us what happened after the events of Raiders. Reintroducing Marian was a nice touch and the film was strongest when Indy & her were together, bickering away like in the 1st movie.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I blame Lucas for the fiasco. The guy is a one-trick pony imo.

Ah yes, that was the other fanboy bandwagon I forgot to mention in my first post: the George Lucas hate I don't think Crystal Skull ever stood a chance given that by then Lucas had eroded all good-will from the geek / nostalgia fanbase Crystal Skull was aimed at.

He may have become crazy with money, but be fair to Lucas, he & spielberg came up with Indy as a nostalgia trip in the first place - remaking all those classic 30s adventure stories for modern audiences.

Sad Professor

There's far too much Temple of Doom hate in this thread. When I was younger it was probably my favourite of the trilogy, and I would still consider it the second best. The film has so many brilliant and unforgettable sequences. The mine cart chase, the rope bridge showdown. I never had any issue with Capshaw or Short Round. They play off Ford really well. His frantic pleas to Capshaw during the spike room sequence are hilarious. This was really Ford at his best.

Mickeroo

Sad Professor wrote: »

There's far too much Temple of Doom hate in this thread. When I was younger it was probably my favourite of the trilogy, and I would still consider it the second best. The film has so many brilliant and unforgettable sequences. The mine cart chase, the rope bridge showdown. I never had any issue with Capshaw or Short Round. They play off Ford really well. His frantic pleas to Capshaw during the spike room sequence are hilarious. This was really Ford at his best.

Was just about to say the same thing myself, I remember Temple of Doom more than any of the others from when I was a kid, possibly because the ripping out peoples hearts scarred me for life :P but I think it holds up pretty well, don't see it as greatly inferior to 1 and 3 at all.

Watched the last crusade again yesterday and I actually think it's better than Raiders.

Mr.Nice Guy

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't see how it sours the legacy to be honest; they're still there, still just as enjoyable on their own terms (bar Temple o' Doom) and to be honest, if the 4th movie represents Indy's retirement then it's a lot more dignified than the horrendous "old indy" segments that appeared in the "Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" TV show.

Hell, I'll go one further and suggest that Crystal Skull neatly book-ended the franchise by telling us what happened after the events of Raiders. Reintroducing Marian was a nice touch and the film was strongest when Indy & her were together, bickering away like in the 1st movie.



Ah yes, that was the other fanboy bandwagon I forgot to mention in my first post: the George Lucas hate I don't think Crystal Skull ever stood a chance given that by then Lucas had eroded all good-will from the geek / nostalgia fanbase Crystal Skull was aimed at.

He may have become crazy with money, but be fair to Lucas, he & spielberg came up with Indy as a nostalgia trip in the first place - remaking all those classic 30s adventure stories for modern audiences.

I welcome nostalgia as much as anyone and I was excited to hear Marian was returning but the bad outweighed the good. Even Shia LaBoeuf said so earlier this year at the Cannes Film Festival:

“I feel like I dropped the ball on the legacy that people loved and cherished…If I was going to do it twice, my career was over. So this was fight-or-flight for me.

I think the audience is pretty intelligent. I think they know when you’ve made (slop). And I think if you don’t acknowledge it, then why do they trust you the next time you’re promoting a movie…We [Harrison Ford and LaBeouf] had major discussions. He wasn’t happy with it either. Look, the movie could have been updated. There was a reason it wasn’t universally accepted….We need to be able to satiate the appetite. I think we just misinterpreted what we were trying to satiate.

And on Spielberg:

I’ll probably get a call. But he needs to hear this. I love him. I love Steven. I have a relationship with Steven that supersedes our business work. And believe me, I talk to him often enough to know that I’m not out of line. And I would never disrespect the man. I think he’s a genius, and he’s given me my whole life. He’s done so much great work that there’s no need for him to feel vulnerable about one film. But when you drop the ball you drop the ball.

He also criticised his own performance and I wasn't keen on him in the movie but I admire his honesty. I recall an interview where Lucas acknowledged that he wanted to take the series in a new direction (ie the bullsh*t one dimensional direction he can only do) and so yes I do regard Lucas as mainly responsible for the awfulness of it but I accept Spielberg should have reined him on his crap notions. Ultimately I feel it tarnished a great trilogy. I can accept mystical elements and spirituality but aliens? Wouldn't surprise me if Lucas would like to introduce some sort of Matrix concept in another adventure. It turns out Dr Jones all along was just a character in a video game played by the little brat Anakin from The Phantom Menace.

pixelburp

Sad Professor wrote: »

There's far too much Temple of Doom hate in this thread. When I was younger it was probably my favourite of the trilogy, and I would still consider it the second best. The film has so many brilliant and unforgettable sequences. The mine cart chase, the rope bridge showdown. I never had any issue with Capshaw or Short Round. They play off Ford really well. His frantic pleas to Capshaw during the spike room sequence are hilarious. This was really Ford at his best.

I dunno, having seen it again, airing on RTE, the first thing that popped into my head whilst watching it was actually how boring the 2nd film is - certainly I feel there's a big dip in the middle while Indy & pals go trekking across India and nothing happens (other than the "hilarious" scenes with Capshaw freaking out). Sure, there's no denying the mine / rope-bridge sequences are classic, but all that comes before was just so ... dull?

And as for Capshaw & ShortRound, there I think we have to politely disagree A ditsy blonde & spunky kid? Jesus, why not include a rascally dog while we're at it? The inclusion of ShortRound just seemed like such a cynical attempt to hit the kids' demographic. Maybe on their own, taken individually they were OK characters, but combined together Capshaw-ShortRound were like some kind of prototype JarJar

Oh and yes to whoever said it, arguably Last Crusade was better than Raiders

pixelburp

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I welcome nostalgia as much as anyone and I was excited to hear Marian was returning but the bad outweighed the good. Even Shia LaBoeuf said so earlier this year at the Cannes Film Festival:

Oh don't get me wrong - I don't think Crystal Skull was on a par with Last Crusade or Raiders, and there's no question it was an opportunity missed considering the talent involved, but I also think there's no question that there was an exaggerated hate campaign directed at that film that wasn't / isn't justified.

MagicMarker

The Last Crusade is far better than all the others imo.

jpm4

pixelburp wrote: »

I dunno, having seen it again, airing on RTE, the first thing that popped into my head whilst watching it was actually how boring the 2nd film is - certainly I feel there's a big dip in the middle while Indy & pals go trekking across India and nothing happens (other than the "hilarious" scenes with Capshaw freaking out). Sure, there's no denying the mine / rope-bridge sequences are classic, but all that comes before was just so ... dull?

And as for Capshaw & ShortRound, there I think we have to politely disagree A ditsy blonde & spunky kid? Jesus, why not include a rascally dog while we're at it? The inclusion of ShortRound just seemed like such a cynical attempt to hit the kids' demographic. Maybe on their own, taken individually they were OK characters, but combined together Capshaw-ShortRound were like some kind of prototype JarJar

Oh and yes to whoever said it, arguably Last Crusade was better than Raiders

I think if anything Raiders has aged less well than than the other 2....you can't beat the intro to Raiders but after that it feels boring in several places to me. The ending has not aged well and feels anti climatic to me now (Indy doesn't do anything!). Doom is definitely the pick of the bunch for the action sequences, but Crusade has the action plus Connery is so definitely the best overall for me.

Exclamation Marc

I thought it was a fun enough film.

I mean nothing was ever going to live up to the original trilogy but what Ford does as a 65 year old in it was pretty impressive, and just seeing the fedora back on screen is good.

There was decent fist fights and some fun action scenes. If you can turn off the logical part of your brain its enjoyable enough.

I know any idiot can review a film (including me ) but a Metascore of 65 shows its not the worst film in the world.