Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

not2sharp

not2sharp

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 29, 1999
Messages
20,409
I just manage to catch the latest Inadiana Jones movie and I though I should warn you of what you are in for. This latest outing demonstrates yet again that whatever talent Lucas once had is now long gone. It is a horribly mismatched movie that tries to carry the pacing and look of the original, utilizing plenty of CGE and all of the tired old gags, in place of solid writing and casting.

Ford and Allen, are among my favorite actors, but acting talent cannot overcome being horribly miscast as far younger versions of themselves. They come across as a couple of seniors having the kind of senior moment that usually concerns the family to great consternation. Kate Blanchet is amazing and wasted on a meaningless paper flat caricalture. What are you supposed to do with a weird saddistic dominatrix in a family film?

The rest of the film is about Indiana knocking down cardboard Nazi-like-non-Nazis like a full ten frames of a pins falling during a bowling tournament. Then there are plot laspes everywhere; either the movie was twice as long and edited with a pair of scissors in five minutes or less, or somebody droped the master script and lost a bunch of pages. Either way, there are at least a dozen supporting characters and plot devices that are introduced, only to drop after the one scene, and never to be heard from again.

If mindless action, stale gags, and CGE turns you on, then this is the one to see; but, if you want a rational story served up with your movie entertainment, go elsewhere because you are not going to get it here.

n2s
 
Well I read a review in our newspaper and it was not that bad... Any kind of knife used in this movie?

David
 
The main knife seen in the movie is an Italian-looking switchblade carried by Shia LeBouff(sp??). Then there are the swords used by Cate Blanchette.

I had a fairly good time watching it. I was not expecting much, after reading some of the reviews it got, but I have seen far, far worse movies than this. I still feel the first movie, Raiders of the Lost Ark, is the best of the lot. The one I least liked was the second one, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

Yes, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull often borders on the extremely ridiculous, even for the fantasy-laden Indiana Jones series. The violence and chases are cartoon-level.

Many critics are carping about Harrison Ford being too old, but acting-wise, he seemed to do all right. It's a fair bet that in the movie, Indiana Jones is not yet 65 or so years old, like Ford actually is.

I actually liked Cate Blanchett as a villain; I had not seen her in a villainous role before, and would be curious to see her in other such roles in future movies. She has the intense, angular look for it.

All in all, at least I felt entertained for the 2 hours it lasted, and I could briefly forget about all the crap going on in the world for a while.
Jim
 
I liked it. It was kind of like Die Hard 4: good for what it is. It's not up to the standards of Raiders or Last Crusade (my favorite), but it was very entertaining. Harrison Ford was great (don't think he's ever not great), Cate Blanchett was evil, and that Shia kid was surprisingly good, compared to many of today's young actors. I think it would have been better if they kept to a Biblical or ancient myth or story.
Overall, it was good. But, like the newer Star Wars, it wasn't nearly as good as the first ones.
Also, some of the CG was over-the-top. We get it, ILM, that you can do big frickin' explosions and monsters. Episode Three and Jurrasic Park tought us that, but Indiana Jones don't need none of that.
Switchblade pictured prominently.
In Consensus: I liked it, and I'll buy it when it comes out. Not up to snuff with Raider or Last Crusade, though.
Anybody have any info on the Halo movie with Peter Jackson/Weta Workshop? Seen the Arms Race video, and I'm pretty sure it's coming out in '09, but otherwise, no nothing.
 
I liked it, classic Indy, loads of fun - half wild myth/legend/hearsay, half factual! The plot gets silly, but its Indy, it always is, thats what makes it so much fun.
Good actors, Indy was portrayed as an older man like he is, all in all it was very enjoyable, brought me back to my youth watching the older movies.
Not quite as good as 1 and 3 though, but what did you expect? It'd be incredibly difficult to come close to those movies!
 
went last night with the wife and grandkid and it kept a 5 year olds attention, no small feat. personally i liked it very much, it's what i expected it to be, goofy and fun. I also liked the ending. it was much better than temple of doom but not quite as good as the last crusade. hey don't open a beer can and expect champagne and you'll be entertained.
 
I have to say I somewhat agree with not2sharp...it wasn't near as good as the other ones previously made. I think that there just wasn't as much work put into it as the original 3...regardless of that if you are an Indiana Jones fan I would still go see it as it's really pretty good compared to other movies that have come out this year.
 
Saw it today, overall found it entertaining not as good as 1&3 better than 2. I agree with the editing issues was real obvious at times and I think the subject matter was a little to like X-Files.But I think Spielberg carries more of the ball on this than Lucas.
One question I am not a reloader so I don't know the answer to this but does smokeless gunpowder have metal in it?
 
Chiller2 said:
One question I am not a reloader so I don't know the answer to this but does smokeless gunpowder have metal in it?
Click to expand...

No. Smokeless powder is made primarily of acid washed nitrated wood pulp, with a few additives like graphite thrown in.

TR Graham
The Glocksmith
 
Saw it when it came out. Not horrible and not great. Don't want to give anything away but the acting was okay and some things were definitely over the top but overall I think it was meant to keep in the spirit of the Indy films and be fun and entertaining, which I found it to be. The crystal skull thing was different/strange but I kind of liked it. Ford looked his age. Personally, I thought they would have just went with what the Batman genre did and just start over or do a movie based on a flashback and then flash forward to Ford remembering and solving the "mystery" after years or something to that effect. Maybe next time if they decide to pass the torch.
 
No. Smokeless powder is made primarily of acid washed nitrated wood pulp, with a few additives like graphite thrown in.
Click to expand...
I was asking because because early in the movie he is trying to find something magnetic and he is using gunpowder thrown in the air to reveal its direction.And I didn't think gunpowder had any metal in it.
 
That would not work. Throwing iron filings might, if it's a very strong field.... Doesn't he have a compass???

Oh well, you can't expect anything Hollyweird produces to make sense.
 
i havent seen it yet, can someone please tell me what the caddy shack gophers is all about, one of my friends said something along those lines and would not tell me anymore...
 
I had a good time watching it, like the man said, don't open a can of beer expecting champagne. The biggest problem for me is that Indy traditionally goes after real legends and this was a fake legend. Took some of the pressure off them -- they made it up as they went along. But that's part of what left everyone feeling the editing was off. There couldn't be a coherent movie when there was no coherent rationale for the story itself.
 
Chiller2 said:
I was asking because because early in the movie he is trying to find something magnetic and he is using gunpowder thrown in the air to reveal its direction.And I didn't think gunpowder had any metal in it.
Click to expand...

Well, you were right. And not having seen the movie myself, I was wondering why you asked that question. Thanks for clearing it up.

TR Graham
The Glocksmith
 
My opinion seems to be the concensus here. Considering my eight year old sat quietly throughout the flick, I would have to say it was what it was meant to be. . .entertaining. BTW, was there ever a time that refrigerators, sorry, iceboxes, were lead-lined? (Or blast-proof for that matter?)
 
Saw it yesterday with a lady friend and her two kids. Now I'm going on 42 and grew up with the original Iniana films and all I hjave to say is we were all thoroughly entertained.

The story was a bit ... different.. with the origin of the skulls , but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

Yea it was cliche and a lot of the same old same old for Indiana Jones films but at least it was consistent with the other two , as in traveling to a far off place , not getting killed several times and some good laughs thrown in for good measure, they even dusted Margot Kidder off !




I'd see it again in a second.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
I had a good time watching it, like the man said, don't open a can of beer expecting champagne. The biggest problem for me is that Indy traditionally goes after real legends and this was a fake legend. Took some of the pressure off them -- they made it up as they went along. But that's part of what left everyone feeling the editing was off. There couldn't be a coherent movie when there was no coherent rationale for the story itself.
Click to expand...

It was loosely based on a theory of Atlantis (and of course, Cortez and the city of gold is a well founded legend), and there was a crystal skull found recently that nobody has any idea how was made. The other stories were only very loosely based on real legends too. Either way, to me, it still had all of the classic Indy ingredients: Fighting fascists, Myth/legend/heresay, a tiny amount of truth, Disney-esq choreography, awesome cheesy Indy jokes. It all made for good entertainment.
 
A) The existing crystal skulls are no mystery... they have rotary tooling marks on them; modern items, not antiquities.

B) It's Karen Allen, who was MUCH cuter than Margot Kidder, and not insane.

I liked the overall story. I felt fine straying from Christian mythos into more new-age stuff. Having said that, there were several scenes that were just too much. Previous Indy films had various types of magic, and unrealistic stunts, etc, but usually the stunts were in the "highly improbable, but technically possible" vein. What follows are four bits that I found technically impossible, and just trashed my suspension of disbelief.

**************SPOILERS*****************

A) Any person inside of a metal box that is flung through the air for half a mile or more is not going to live to walk away. The initial acceleration and eventual deceleration would be enough to break most, if not all, of the bones in his body.

B) Swinging through the trees like Tarzan? Please. I could have accepted a single swing, but not swinging from vine to vine fast enough to keep up with the jeeps.

C) There is no way in hell that 2 jeep-like vehicles driving through unimproved jungle are going to be stable enough to stand on for long, much less to practice fencing.

D) Three times over a waterfall in a duck and having it still float after the first two? Yieee.


If only there was someone there to curb the excesses of the writers, this could have been a great movie. As it is, it's only a pretty decent flick.:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top