Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - 6 years on

Wedwood

Few movies have provoked such division among movie goers as KOTCS did in 2008 and since, with only The Phantom Menace probably vying with Indy IV for that 'honour'.

Hatred of this movie probably 'crystalised' after South Park mercilessly lampooned the movie with their 'Lucas raped my childhood' episode, which set the tone for much of the subsequent commentary on the movie. In effect, it became 'cool' to hate this movie.

Four things have been frequently cited as the reasons why:
1. Mutt Williams
2. 'Nuking the Fridge'
3. Swinging with monkeys
4. Aliens (or inter-dimensional beings)

However, when you compare these scenarios to the earlier movies, there are many just as outlandish pieces, though none have incurred the wrath of the fans as the KOTCS ones did.

To illustrate:

1. Mutt Williams - Willie Scott/Short Round. All annoying sidekicks, but Temple of Doom's pair are tolerated.

2. Nuking the Fridge - Jumping out of a crashing plane (which had just skimmed off a mountain) on a life raft, which subsequently slides off a cliff into rapids. (Temple of Doom again)

3. Swinging Monkeys - Monkey Nazi Salute/Monkey whispers into villian's ear where Indy is located in Cairo (Raiders)

4. Aliens - Ghosts (Raiders)

All the above are equally preposterous, but while in the earlier movies they were embraced as part of the movies, the same type of scenes were ridiculed this time around.

6 years on, as the film now recedes into the past, from this vantage point much of the criticism of the movie looks childish or even spiteful.

It's probably true to say this was a movie made out of it's time, given that 19 years had elapsed between Last Crusade and Crystal Skull and it suffered because of it.

That doesn't make it a poorer film, but more an indictment on the film-makers that the world had changed by the time they eventually got around to making a sequel that perhaps should have been made in the early 90's.

Interestingly, many of those who slaughtered KOTCS are now lobbying for the now 71 year old Ford to don his fedora for a fifth and final installment.

Chris_Heilong

I liked the movie and felt it was classic Indy, South Park has a lot to answer for but at the same time that 'Tarzan Scene' which may have been a popular film in the time period this film was set in just should not have been there. Anyway I guess people wanted mysticism and not Science fiction.

endacl

I checked it out again last weekend. Still didn't like it. On the other hand, if it was released 20 years ago I'd probably love it. Indiana Jones and Star Wars have one significant thing in common AFAIC. The were originally released at a time when I was the perfect age to 'get' them. They were a part of my big-screen childhood, at a time when we didn't have a VCR. If I wanted to see them, I had to hope that one of the five (later six!) TV channels we had would show them around xmas. I loathe the new SW efforts, and hated the Crystal Skull. But that's because I saw them as a grown up, colored by a childhood nostalgia for the franchise. I made a similar comment on a SW thread some time ago. If I saw the Indiana Jones movies now for the first time, I'd have to admit that, with the exception of Crusade, they're really not very good. Same with SW episodes IV-VI.

I still love them though. Just not the new one. It arrived to late for me. Not the film's fault!

tommy2bad

I think the difference was that the first 3 movies captured the aesthetic and themes of the serial movies of the 40's that they emulated. KOTCS failed to do so because it used themes and tropes that belonged to a generation raised on X files.
And yes I get that it was using 50 tropes but they jarred with the Indiana Jones 40's feel and we picked up on that rather than seeing it as a move on from the previous setting.

It's not a bad film, just not an Indiana Jones film. KOTCS might have worked better with a new cast, using Harrison Ford the way Connery was used in the Last Crusade, as a counter to the main lead. Would have rebooted the franchise too creating a new lead to carry the thing into the next movie.

FlashD

@OP: If you think these four 'outlandish pieces' are KOTS downfall then you are mistaken. The fans would have forgiven the 'outlandish pieces', if it wasn't for the clunky script, the poorly developed characters, the feeling of going through the motions, the overuse of CGI, the ill advised genre change from action adventure historical fantasy to science fiction & bloody aliens

Look, this has been discussed to death at this stage, nothing's changed, KOTS is still a sh*te movie. Although in saying all that, I did enjoy the first 20 minutes of KOTS which does manage to capture classic Indy, and showed that Ford still has it although a bit slower.... Spielberg & Lucas were the ones who fell asleep on this one!

FunLover18

This is to the Indy franchise what Die Hard 4.0 is to DH franchise.

On it's own it works but it doesn't fit in with the aesthetic of the originals. It's too 'clean'.

Also, one tame monkey ratting Indy out to the Nazis is not comparable to a wild troop teaching a stranger to swing from vines at a speed that allows him to catch up with those jeeps .... C'MON!!!

I agree about the aliens/ghosts thing though. Which is more believable aliens infiltrating ancient human society or an immortal knight guarding the holy grail for centuries ...

FlashD

FunLover18 wrote: »

Which is more believable aliens infiltrating ancient human society or an immortal knight guarding the holy grail for centuries ...

Neither

..... but you have lost the point of the Indy franchise, its not what seems the most believable, it is what has the most mystery. The franchise is based on the mystery of foreign cultures, beliefs and all the stuff that goes with religion based on Earth.... not science fiction!

There is no mystery behind the Crystal Skull, it actually actually exists and yeah, its a piece of quartz with no power. The others have been recorded as existing and may or may not be still out there.

stoneill

Amy Farrah Fowler was right.

endacl

stoneill wrote: »

Amy Farrah Fowler was right.

redbaron_99

It was one of the worst movies I've ever had the displeasure of watching. And I was a big fan of the first three movies. It really exploded many of the myths surrounding Lucas and Spielberg. Christ, that scene with the monkeys... Ugh

whisky_galore

I know it's not indended to be a documentary but the fake CGI animals and scenes annoyed me...that and swinging off vines and somehow managing to catch up to speeding jeeps.

I will rewatch the earlier ones, but KOTCS only when there's absolutely bugger-all on.

Adamantium

Set No 5 in the 30's, 40's.

Kyle Chandler as Indiana Jones. Recast.


Everything on KOTCS looked like a film set. There was a scene at the start where Indy is revealed for the first time in 19 years and they're supposed to be standing outside at sundown at Area 51 and it looks so artificial and a lot of the film that washed out look. Kaminski is it? The same guy who lit Schindler's list and Saving Private Ryan? Hardly the guy for Indy, is it Speilberg?

Frank ****ing Darabount had a script for Indy 4, turned down by George Lucas, because he sure knows good writing when he sees it. I'd imagine Lucas looks at a script, much like a dyslexic looks at a sentence. Muddled and not being able to appreciate and look at it thoughtfully.

Honestly that ride off into the sunset in Last Crusade? Nazi's beat (well you know what I mean). Perfection.

razorblunt

I don't mind the Nuking the fridge, like you said it's silly but so were the previous three, I had even forgotten about the monkeys but I do remember facepalming but my issue with the film is mostly to do with Shia Laboef, I can't and couldn't look past him in this.

The aliens and interaction with said were too much. Someone mentioned its mythology over science fiction and I think that hits the nail on the head.

Oafley Jones

My main take away from George's movie is John Hurt's character is modeled on Lassie.

Staplor

I still remember the day I saw this film. The Sex and the City movie was on at the same time, I remember laughing at the men going with their ladies to see that. When KOTCS was about half way I realised those men had gotten the better film.

CatInABox

I can forgive anything in a film, so long as it's a good film.

KOTCS was not a good film.

TheIrishGrover

No. Everyone who defends this film are wrong. Fact!

Nah, seriously though. I just thought it was a very poor film. I don't think it fitted with the others at all. It was like a ghost writer finishing off a series of books after the creator had died (Wait for it Thrones fans...). All the elements are there but it just doesn't work. Ford did get old, but, what're ya going to do? Nothing you can do about that. But the stunts were stupidly OTT and the CGI was shockingly bad (What happened ILM? did all you talent go to Weta?). The humour was gone. The characters became unlikeable. And I know it seems stupid to find a problem with aliens when we happily accept the Arc or the Holy Grail but, for me, it just didn't fit. I can accept an archeologist searching for the Arc and The Holy Grail, not as some source of power but simply as a religious artifact. I cannot accept an archeologist looking for aaaalllliiiieeeennnnsssssssss (woooooooooo). The chase near the start was fun but that's about it. Other than that I don't think it has any redeeming qualities and certainly should not be considered as anything but a cash grab.

GAAman

razorblunt wrote: »

I don't mind the Nuking the fridge, like you said it's silly but so were the previous three, I had even forgotten about the monkeys but I do remember facepalming but my issue with the film is mostly to do with Shia Laboef, I can't and couldn't look past him in this.

The aliens and interaction with said were too much. Someone mentioned its mythology over science fiction and I think that hits the nail on the head.

This! When he drove in on his bike I burst out laughing, looked like he was auditioning for the village people!

brevity

The red letter media review (I go on about these guys a lot, but I really enjoy their videos) highlights the faults with this movie.

They boil it down to the fact that too many people wanted to have input into what was in the movie. That the script and the characters are written terribly and, what we all knew, Ford is too old.

krudler

Awful film, there's two things I like about it: the opening credit sequence with the cars racing, and the scene where Indy is in his office talking about his dad and Marcus and just loses himself in thought for a minute. It's one of the most human scenes of Indy in any of the films.

the "everything wrong with" video demolishes it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3dKqTjZO4

krudler

Adamantium wrote: »

Set No 5 in the 30's, 40's.

Kyle Chandler as Indiana Jones. Recast.


Everything on KOTCS looked like a film set. There was a scene at the start where Indy is revealed for the first time in 19 years and they're supposed to be standing outside at sundown at Area 51 and it looks so artificial and a lot of the film that washed out look. Kaminski is it? The same guy who lit Schindler's list and Saving Private Ryan? Hardly the guy for Indy, is it Speilberg?

Frank ****ing Darabount had a script for Indy 4, turned down by George Lucas, because he sure knows good writing when he sees it. I'd imagine Lucas looks at a script, much like a dyslexic looks at a sentence. Muddled and not being able to appreciate and look at it thoughtfully.

Honestly that ride off into the sunset in Last Crusade? Nazi's beat (well you know what I mean). Perfection.

I can totally get behind this, now granted I'm all for Hollywood leaving beloved franchises the hell alone but if they were ever going to recast Indy then Chandler would have beeen perfect, he's nearly pushing 50 but doesn't look it at all either.

Adamantium

krudler wrote: »

I can totally get behind this, now granted I'm all for Hollywood leaving beloved franchises the hell alone but if they were ever going to recast Indy then Chandler would have beeen perfect, he's nearly pushing 50 but doesn't look it at all either.

I know it's sacrilege to say this, but he'd a better Indy than even Ford at his height and an infinitely more capable, more infinite charming actor.

A better Indy than Indy.

Don't get me wrong, I love the hell out of Ford, but this'd be hell of a moment to do something, a broader vision

I normally hate people suggesting fan castings and I never do it, but damn he'd actually make the character better.

To put it another way, If Chandler was playing Indy, I'd forget Ford ever played the character at all. That's got to be the dream of recasts.

Tordelback

I like Crystal Skull a lot - I even enjoyed the 13 minute precis above, not to mention the re-looped version afterwards! There's no denying its many faults and shortcomings (although I'd argue many are true of Temple of Doom and Last Crusade too) but what it gets right it gets right, and I admire its attempt to be a sequel to Raiders, and to the TV series, rather than just 'No. 4'. Anyway, the whole thing is justified by "They weren't you, honey", which is a great line and one of Ford's best deliveries in any film.

OU812

Apart from the monkey scene, it's alright. But I think all the movies have something I don't like in them.

Nuking the fridge is the original way Marty McFly got back to 1985. It was abandoned in favour of doing the return trip by delorean/lightning storm because they were afraid kids would lock themselves in refrigerators. I guess the lock technology had moved on by the time KOTCS came out.

The main problems with Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Die Hard etc having modern sequels are these:

• Film making/effects have moved on and are not suited to these type of films
• The cast/crew have aged considerably
• Audiences expect much more bang for their buck these days. (Movies open with the tag "blockbuster" before earning it).

And the biggest problem is that these movies originally came out in our formative years, since then our own life experience has formed them into classics far above the standard they should rightly hold.

Tipsy McSwagger

Adamantium wrote: »

I know it's sacrilege to say this, but he'd a better Indy than even Ford at his height and an infinitely more capable, more infinite charming actor.

A better Indy than Indy.

Don't get me wrong, I love the hell out of Ford, but this'd be hell of a moment to do something, a broader vision

I normally hate people suggesting fan castings and I never do it, but damn he'd actually make the character better.

To put it another way, If Chandler was playing Indy, I'd forget Ford ever played the character at all. That's got to be the dream of recasts.

Just no

TheIrishGrover

OU812 wrote: »

Apart from the monkey scene, it's alright. But I think all the movies have something I don't like in them.

Nuking the fridge is the original way Marty McFly got back to 1985. It was abandoned in favour of doing the return trip by delorean/lightning storm because they were afraid kids would lock themselves in refrigerators. I guess the lock technology had moved on by the time KOTCS came out.

The main problems with Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Die Hard etc having modern sequels are these:

• Film making/effects have moved on and are not suited to these type of films
• The cast/crew have aged considerably
• Audiences expect much more bang for their buck these days. (Movies open with the tag "blockbuster" before earning it).

And the biggest problem is that these movies originally came out in our formative years, since then our own life experience has formed them into classics far above the standard they should rightly hold.

This gets trotted out by apologists for everything from crystal skull to the star wars prequels and The Simpsons and all kinds of things but it never holds up. If that was the case then looking back at Raiders or Empire for example would change our opinions of those films. We would see them on two levels: The nostalgic level that harks back to our initial viewing as kids but we would also see them on a more "grown up" analytical level and see these flaws that we missed when we were kids. Of course there are flaws in these films too but I don't think anyone can say that the difference in quality in story structure, dialogue, editing, pacing etc between Raiders and Crystal Skull is down to nostalgia. Having watched Raiders at Christmas (as you do) it is still a lean, well scripted, coherent piece of film-making that is still a fun and funny watch.

ziedth

It's definitely the closest I have come to walking out of the Cinema. The only film that even came close to disappointing me as much was the phantom menace and allot of that was the trailer looked so good. The Phantom menace in my opinion is a better film.

The monkeys/Tarzan scene to me anyway was just pure cringe. I actually broke into tears in my eyes laughter when they attacked the Nazis for no reason.

I can certainly agree with the point in the OP but that being said I don't think I'll ever come out of a film more disappointed again.

whisky_galore

ziedth wrote: »

It's definitely the closest I have come to walking out of the Cinema. The only film that even came close to disappointing me as much was the phantom menace and allot of that was the trailer looked so good. The Phantom menace in my opinion is a better film.

The monkeys/Tarzan scene to me anyway was just pure cringe. I actually broke into tears in my eyes laughter when they attacked the Nazis for no reason.

I can certainly agree with the point in the OP but that being said I don't think I'll ever come out of a film more disappointed again.

They were Russkies.:pac:
Still, you can't beat the NSDAP for a good baddie.

krudler

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

This gets trotted out by apologists for everything from crystal skull to the star wars prequels and The Simpsons and all kinds of things but it never holds up. If that was the case then looking back at Raiders or Empire for example would change our opinions of those films. We would see them on two levels: The nostalgic level that harks back to our initial viewing as kids but we would also see them on a more "grown up" analytical level and see these flaws that we missed when we were kids. Of course there are flaws in these films too but I don't think anyone can say that the difference in quality in story structure, dialogue, editing, pacing etc between Raiders and Crystal Skull is down to nostalgia. Having watched Raiders at Christmas (as you do) it is still a lean, well scripted, coherent piece of film-making that is still a fun and funny watch.

Exactly, there's no comparison between Raiders and Crystal Skull, one is a perfectly honed superbly made action adventure and the other is a cynical, rushed feeling half arsed attempt with no soul.
Look at the truck chase in Raiders, it's still one of the best action sequences ever, the pacing, the editing, how it's shot, the music, perfection. The jungle chase in KOTC is an editing mess, the geography makes no sense in it and it's full of atrocious greenscreen and poor comedy.

OU812

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

This gets trotted out by apologists for everything from crystal skull to the star wars prequels and The Simpsons and all kinds of things but it never holds up. If that was the case then looking back at Raiders or Empire for example would change our opinions of those films. We would see them on two levels: The nostalgic level that harks back to our initial viewing as kids but we would also see them on a more "grown up" analytical level and see these flaws that we missed when we were kids. Of course there are flaws in these films too but I don't think anyone can say that the difference in quality in story structure, dialogue, editing, pacing etc between Raiders and Crystal Skull is down to nostalgia. Having watched Raiders at Christmas (as you do) it is still a lean, well scripted, coherent piece of film-making that is still a fun and funny watch.

I saw TP the first time it came out in the cinema, I loved the fact they were revisiting the story, but hated the movie. When it was re-released, I went to see it in 3D with a mate & his six year old. Mate & I were discussing (in hushed tones) how crap it was, when I looked at his son who was utterly agog at the movie. Came out & he proclaimed it to be the best of the lot (saw the others on DVD). It's down to the age you are when you see them. The others are far from classics, great movies, yes, but not classics.

Actually, I'll give classic status to the first in each series as the sequels are cash ins.

Fight club is a classic, sunset boulevard is a classic, Snow white is a classic, Casablanca is a classic, Return of the Jedi - nope, Last crusade, nope...

krudler

About them being more for kids these days, well that's a cop out, all the previous films are family friendly too, with a bit of an edge to them and some pretty dark moments like a lot of PG films in the 80's were. But they still worked on a level where everyone could enjoy them, look at the big comedy moment of Raiders, Indy shooting the Arab swordsman, huge crowd reaction to that on release, the big comedy moment in KOTCS is Shia swinging on vines and catching up with trucks bombing through a jungle (which now has a magic clear road going through it) it's utter nonsense, I remember someone going "ah for FCUK sake!" at the screen during the show I was at and he was damn right, the whole place groaned in embarassment at it.

I hated how artificial the whole film looked too, it's all digitally graded, loads of greenscreen (badly done at that) and doesn't feel like an old school adventure film at all bar the chase through the college campus which was actually pretty good since it was done practically. Like the opening, it's done really well, real cars on a road, then we cut to the inside of the army base and it's clearly a soundstage with bad a bad background. And we're expected to believe that NOBODY in the base saw all these random people get out of a truck with civilians and stroll into a place with all the US's most closely guarded secrets? an alien is just being kept in a box? what? was the script to this knocked out over a lunchbreak?

FunLover18

OU812 wrote: »

The main problems with Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Die Hard etc having modern sequels are these:

• Film making/effects have moved on and are not suited to these type of films
• The cast/crew have aged considerably
• Audiences expect much more bang for their buck these days. (Movies open with the tag "blockbuster" before earning it).

Not necessarily.

For one thing, I don't really understand the first point. Technology has advanced not gone backwards so I don't know how you argue that these types of film (action/adventure?) can't be made the same.

The cast and crew aging, shouldn't really be a problem either. KOTCS wasn't bad because Indy was old, it would have been a bad film no matter how old he was. I think the main problem with age is audience expectation (which is perhaps what you meant) in that the longer you leave a sequel the more time the audience has to think up their own ending for the character, but even then if done right with good writing it can be done right. Writing is the main problem, you need to have a writer who knows the main character, because the actor isn't enough, as proven by the Die Hard franchise. I really do struggle to believe that Willis is playing the same character in 1 and 4.

The final point is probably one I could agree more with the problem is that it's the younger audiences who want more which is a shame because it shouldn't be them that studios are aiming these films at. Hollywood is under the delusion that a sequel these days needs to be bigger and louder (in fairness Indy didn't fit into this category really because the first three all followed the basic formula; ToD is actually on a lower key to the other 2), when I don't really think that's the case and it will eventually lead to the franchise imploding on itself, eg. Raimi's Spider Man.

Dirty Dingus McGee

I loved it and couldn't understand the negative reactions to it.Complaining about the far fetcheness of an Indian Jones film is a bit pointless.If they were realistic he would have been killed about 50 times in the first 3 movies.The nuking the fridge bit was classic, all those people worrying about nuclear war back in the 60's and all they had to do was jump in the fridge.

OU812

FunLover18 wrote: »

Not necessarily.

For one thing, I don't really understand the first point. Technology has advanced not gone backwards so I don't know how you argue that these types of film (action/adventure?) can't be made the same.

They're done digitally on huge green screen stages & are too "clean" with very little practical effects. The action adventure genre should be shot practically, obviously not everything can be done that way, but the majority of it can.

An example: Die Hard, filmed in the late 80s & "John McClane" ties a firehose around him & jumps off the roof that's been raked with machine gunfire & explosions. A stuntman actually did that & we "lived it". Die hard 4 "John McClane" jumps onto a jet fighter. It gives nothing to the movie, we didn't believe it was possible & it made the character less believable. Up to that point, it was a softer Die Hard with a Sober John McClane. It jumped the shark (to use a TV reference).

I've said this many times before, but this should have been Die Hard 4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B1bXeNUWGc

krudler

OU812 wrote: »

I've said this many times before, but this should have been Die Hard 4

Agree, hell The Last Boy Scout is the best Die Hard sequel that isn't a Die Hard sequel.

FunLover18

OU812 wrote: »

They're done digitally on huge green screen stages & are too "clean" with very little practical effects. The action adventure genre should be shot practically, obviously not everything can be done that way, but the majority of it can.

An example: Die Hard, filmed in the late 80s & "John McClane" ties a firehose around him & jumps off the roof that's been raked with machine gunfire & explosions. A stuntman actually did that & we "lived it". Die hard 4 "John McClane" jumps onto a jet fighter. It gives nothing to the movie, we didn't believe it was possible & it made the character less believable. Up to that point, it was a softer Die Hard with a Sober John McClane. It jumped the shark (to use a TV reference).

I see your point but they still do do things practically, eg Die Hard 4 the jeep stuck in the lift shaft was done practically. I agree that Indy 4 looked too clean, but it's because they chose to use green screen and effects. The technology is not at fault it's the people who chose to use it.

I agree on 16 Blocks, great film!! Very underrated.

Ryaller

Personally, I loved it at the time and I still do. Certainly, Crystal Skull had its flaws, but it doesn't deserve the snowballing legacy of hate that it's developed. If anyone's bored, here's a piece I wrote last year defending Crystal Skull:
Haters Gonna Hate

OU812 wrote: »

And the biggest problem is that these movies originally came out in our formative years, since then our own life experience has formed them into classics far above the standard they should rightly hold.

Exactly.

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

This gets trotted out by apologists for everything from crystal skull to the star wars prequels and The Simpsons and all kinds of things but it never holds up. If that was the case then looking back at Raiders or Empire for example would change our opinions of those films... Of course there are flaws in these films too but I don't think anyone can say that the difference in quality in story structure, dialogue, editing, pacing etc between Raiders and Crystal Skull is down to nostalgia. Having watched Raiders at Christmas (as you do) it is still a lean, well scripted, coherent piece of film-making that is still a fun and funny watch.

I see your point, but the problem here is that you've picked two movies from our formative years that do hold up.

gandalf

IMHO the biggest problem with Crystal Skull is Shia Laboef. Once he appeared on the screen the film was ruined for me!

the_monkey

FunLover18 wrote: »

This is to the Indy franchise what Die Hard 4.0 is to DH franchise.

On it's own it works but it doesn't fit in with the aesthetic of the originals. It's too 'clean'.

Also, one tame monkey ratting Indy out to the Nazis is not comparable to a wild troop teaching a stranger to swing from vines at a speed that allows him to catch up with those jeeps .... C'MON!!!

I agree about the aliens/ghosts thing though. Which is more believable aliens infiltrating ancient human society or an immortal knight guarding the holy grail for centuries ...

Yes, but the thing is the problem with KOTCS is mixing the concepts, Indy is not SciFi ... it never was.

Indy is supernatural but in a more "traditional" way - religious based stuff.


I like Sci Fi , and classic ghost horror- but not them mixed !

Just like I love steak and custard - but together ??? No way ..

Some SciFi films with Aliens are great- but this doesn't belong in an Indiana Jones film - he's an Archaeologist lets stick there.

Sorry if point was allready made, I haven't gone through every page.

tommy2bad

the_monkey wrote: »

Yes, but the thing is the problem with KOTCS is mixing the concepts, Indy is not SciFi ... it never was.

Indy is supernatural but in a more "traditional" way - religious based stuff.


I like Sci Fi , and classic ghost horror- but not them mixed !

Just like I love steak and custard - but together ??? No way ..

Some SciFi films with Aliens are great- but this doesn't belong in an Indiana Jones film - he's an Archaeologist lets stick there.

Sorry if point was allready made, I haven't gone through every page.

As I said earlier I think the switch to sifi was because they had moved from the forties to the fiftys and they were reflecting the mood of the genres asociated with the decades. It might have worked if 'Son of Indy' had played a more central role i.e. Indy as side kick instead of the other way round.

What about fish fingers and custard?

Tom.D.BJJ

KOTCS sucks donkey dick

the_monkey

Tom.D.BJJ wrote: »

KOTCS sucks donkey dick

Best post here !!!

Sums it up perfectly

+100000000000000000

Theboinkmaster

Wedwood wrote: »

Few movies have provoked such division among movie goers as KOTCS did in 2008

What division everyone thought it was a piece of sh!t, and still do

jpm4

Aside from everything else that has been said, the film is full of pointless characters played by great actors who were clearly just delighted to be in an Indy film. Why is John Hurt in this movie?

Also, there is no sense of Indy fighting on his own against overwhelming odds like in the other 3 films - no truck or tank scene. There is no reason to want to be the character anymore which was 99% of the appeal of the original movies.

Corholio

jpm4 wrote: »

Aside from everything else that has been said, the film is full of pointless characters played by great actors who were clearly just delighted to be in an Indy film. Why is John Hurt in this movie?

Also, there is no sense of Indy fighting on his own against overwhelming odds like in the other 3 films - no truck or tank scene. There is no reason to want to be the character anymore which was 99% of the appeal of the original movies.

These are great points and sums up my thoughts on the film better than any rambling paragraph on it.

Tipsy McSwagger

Indy used to be a badass who would shoot a bad guy dead and not care one bit. In KOTCS he is just an old confused man hanging out with an old confused man (John Hurt), a boring ex lover he hasn't seen in years, a double agent who switches sides so often old Indy would have just shot him and an annoying son. The film has too many meaningless characters and even worse it's not one bit dark or has any sense of dread.

Mr Freeze

Wedwood wrote: »

All the above are equally preposterous...

I don't think they are any where near as preposterous as anything in Crystal Skull.

Anyways, even if I agreed with you OP, and let those issues pass, the mere presence of Shia Lebeouf is enough to destroy the film. (he can kill any film actually).

Crystal Skull has no amazing action sequence either, I still get a huge kick out of Indy & a horse vs a tank, Indy fighting his way along the Nazi Trucks, Indy on the rope bridge, and countless other great scenes in those 3 films.

Indy v's an Ant Hill does't come close i'm afraid.

Best thing to do is assume, Indy IV never happened.

Giruilla

All of the coolness was removed from Indy in cyrstal skulls. I don't think he directly kills anyone for the entire film.
Its all slapstick punches instead slick shooting a guy in cold blood who was challenging him to a sword duel.

The main problem was there was virtually zero tension for the entire movie. Especially with Marion's stupid f*cking grin on her face as they're being chased through the jungle by russians.. are we supposed to believe the characters are in danger here?

Also, the whole film looked like it was shot in the inside of a studio.. Lucas thinks as long as the backgrounds look realistic he can fool the audience.. the fundamental problem for me with cgi - and was the same with star wars - is lighting. Its so subtle, but he just can't get it perfectly right. Characters faces too bright compared cgi background, shadows not in the right places or too dark, artificial light just too low and bright. It looks cheap. For me this just makes the scenes hard to look at. There's no problem with a few cgi scenes here and there, but when the lighting in the entire film is wrong, its a chore to look at and take seriously.

beauf

I watched it a while back and can't remember most of it. Says it all.

ollie1

6 years ago thats mad doesn't feel that long ago at all :eek:

Looper007

One of the big disappointments of my cinema going life, as I was a big Indy fan as The last Crusade was my first cinema experience that I remember. I had high hopes for the Crystal skull but mention of shia labeouf had me very worried.

Looking back on it, it's not the total disaster I once held it as. But it's still a huge disappointment, LeBeouf as Indy Jnr pisses me off to this day, come on Speilberg there must have been better choices out there. The amount of CGI was off putting (CGI goffers) as was the villain (love me some Cate but this wasn't her greatest moment) Ray Winestone and John Hurt were wasted. The whole Alien storyline didn't work

Harrison Ford was still great as Indy, and Karen Allen was great too. I always strike it from my memory as I want the Indy trilogy to be as perfect as it was. Ford deserves a better send off then this.