Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull Discussion Thread (Spoilers)

[FQRizzo]

Personally I didn't get the whole stones thing in Doom. Well, no... didn't get sounds like I'm dumb as dishwater, I mean it did NOTHING for me. Some small village lost their rocks... meh... And aside from heart-ripping, what DID they acheive? ToD, for me, has the weakest, tenuious plot out of any of them. Yes, including Skull.

Thw atom bomb sequence, IMO, was there simply to demonstrate the times the film was set, the climate of fear and to show the audience that the setting had moved on. A very dramatic way to do it too.

While I agree with you that TOD had the weaker plot there was a point to them stopping Mola Ram from getting the stones. Wasn't the big deal that if they united all the stones they could control the world yada yada...

 

[IrishJedi]

Still working on my "review". 2,000 words already. I am going to do some trimming and editing and one last draft before it's posted.

 

[DarthNeil]

Still working on my "review". 2,000 words already. I am going to do some trimming and editing and one last draft before it's posted.

Just make sure that it has a definitive thesis...

 

[Darklord Dave]

It's funny, I agree with a lot of what Dusty said, but still came away with a completely different feeling about the film.

Originally Posted by SideshowDusty
I think it's the free passes some people are giving it due to it having the 'Indiana Jones' brand that's getting under some peoples' skins... not 'hate' of a mediocre-at-best film. It's almost as if they/we feel tricked in a way. If this film did not have the Indy brand attached, many people 'defending' it would be tearing it to shreds - or simply ignoring it - similar to something like, say, 'The Mummy Returns' (yeah, I said it - another 'enjoyable film if you check your brain in at the door'):

I enjoyed "The Mummy" even though it was a rip off of Indy. I would not have enjoyed KotCK if they'd tried to introduce a 60 year old adventurer and we had no back-story on him. There is baggage, expectations and love for Indy from the past 30 years - you can't decouple that from the new film.

1) The characterizations are really weak - I felt nothing for any of them, least of all any type of real suspense. With good/re-watchable films - I STILL feel suspense, no matter how many times I've seen them.

Here I'd agree about the suspense. You rarely feel like any of the situations are ones that Indy won't be able to get out of. Although the opening seemed like overwhelming odds. But Indy isn't Jason Bourne - that's not really what I go to these movies for.

As for the characterizations - Indy's pretty well established, but we get to see a new side of him - like his change of attitude when he learns Mutt is his son. Spalko and Mutt that need the most development and they are done fairly well I thought. Spalko is kind of a cartoon villain, but she has distinctive characteristics, such as the sword and mind reading. I would have liked to see the other Russians fear her for the mind reading - there's a missed opportunity there. Mutt has a lot of little character moments - combing his hair when he's nervous, blustery attitude just like Indy, etc. I don't feel cheated and ended up liking him a lot.

2) The simple adventure plot (something that stands out so prominently in other Indy films - and other good action flicks) has been bloated beyond recognition. See POTC3 for another overdone plot that takes away from the film as a whole.

I would agree that they explain things a bit too much, but this one is no more or less bloated than any other of the Indy plots (except Raiders which is a masterpiece of streamlined story-telling). In both ToD and LC Indy must go here to learn something, then go somewhere else to act on it and the goal changes as the stakes are raised.

3) It's filled with 'filler' CGI stunts that don't add anything to the story... nuclear blast, prairie dogs, vine swinging, etc. - which, if you really think back, most of the other Indy films don't have that filler - pretty much every stunt and effect - no matter how ludicrous - led to the ultimate goal, which is one of the reasons why they are so highly thought of, not only just for their 'fun' factor...they were tightly written and directed.

I didn't really have a problem with the CG effects, although I can see where some might. As I've stated previously, the atomic blast and the saucer rising are iconic images for me and perfectly reflect what I think are the strengths of the film's temporal setting.

I agree with the vine swinging - too over the top - but the action set pieces are on par with those from the other films.

4) The dialog is stilted and unnatural for most of the film. Not to mention the lighting and sets.

The lighting and sets were designed to look very much like a movie - as were previous Indy films. And any script that Lucas has a hand in will have some cringe-worthy dialogue - but I can't think of an instance here where it took me out of the film.

I honestly believe that these are some of the reasons why the positive reviews are mostly lukewarm at best ("aaaawwww, it's Indy and Harrison, we can't be too mean!"), and the negative reviews are pretty darn negative.

Personally I LIKE the plot of interdimensional 'aliens' - it's different and cool. I DO NOT like how it was explained/shown and littered with way too much exposition. It's like they picked a plot that most people have no idea about, and realized halfway through that not many people in the audience would know the Crystal Skull myth, so they threw all kinds of stuff in there to 'strengthen' it. You don't have that problem when you pick a 'MacGuffin' (god I hate that word) that is more familiar, such as the Holy Grail. Even the magic stones from Temple of Doom were much more easily explained. And even then, part of the lure of past Indy films is the UNEXPLAINED. Don't beat the audience over the head with reasons and explanations - just do it, but make it good!

I also wish they had explored Area 51 more in-depth - love the whole conspiracy angle, which they really did nothing with, and I also wish that the whole opening segment had more to do with the plot as a whole. In essence, what the heck did they need that 'alien' body for anyway? It had absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the film! Same with the nuke.

BTW, I just watched the first half of TOD last night, which I also hadn't seen in at least 5 years (probably more like 10), and dang do I love that part when they're stuck in the room with the lowering ceiling and Indy's trying to get Willie to pull the lever and she's flipping out about all the bugs "SHUT. UP." ... "NO, your OTHER right" ... and he sticks his fist through the hole at her. I was rolling There was absolutely nothing like that in KotCS. The closest thing was the snake scene, but even then I couldn't laugh because all I was thinking about was, "Why doesn't he just use his whip?" I guess maybe he didn't HAVE his whip, but they how come he had it later to try to save Mac?

Anyway, I'm glad some people are enjoying it, which is the whole reason I didn't want to get into it before more people had seen it. But I just can't enjoy it Went in having read NO reviews, no spoilers, no nothing, with very low expectations, and when a film doesn't even reach those, well, there's nothing else I can do - I've already given it the best chance it's gonna get from me.

Why? Last time I checked this is a fan board, nothing official. If I'm not allowed to express my opinion as a 'fan', well now, that would really suck. I still love Indiana Jones right up there with the OT Star Wars. I still LOVE all the product we're getting, and I still respect and admire both Lucas and Spielberg - maybe not for creating a great film this time around, but definitely for creating the series as a whole and what they've been able to make out of it - CULTURAL ICON is a pretty awesome result!

(and... girl not dude )

Regarding the opening and it's importance to the plot - the fertility idol had nothing to do with the rest of Raiders, the Chinese artifact had nothing to do with the rest of ToD and the Cross of Cornado had nothing to do with LC. But here the Russian raid of Neverland propels the story forward by making Indy a person of interest for the FBI and introduces Spalko and her goals, just as the Idol did for Belloq in Raiders.

Aside from Raiders, I don't think any critics have gushed over an Indy film. It's always been a guilty pleasure because Raiders bought so much credibility for the creative team and the character. But I don't think ALL the favorable reviews are the result of rose colored glasses either. This film was as enjoyable and well crafted as many of the large fantasy movies we're seeing nowadays. Perhaps the negative reviews are more colored by unreasonable expectations more than anything else?

 

[IrishJedi]

I depise it when people choose to assume the motivations and reasoning behind those who "defend" a movie that they hate. Try looking in a mirror.

 

[Darklord Dave]

I depise it when people choose to assume the motivations and reasoning behind those who "defend" a movie that they hate. Try looking in a mirror.

It's just as bad as telling people who didn't like it that they "just didn't get it."

 

[IrishJedi]

It's just as bad as telling people who didn't like it that they "just didn't get it."

I hate that throwaway conclusion from the otherside as well. They're both strawman debate tactics.

The occasions where the majority of people who dislike something "just don't get it" are ultra, ultra rare. In fact, one of the only ones (as far as movies) that comes to mind is A.I.

 

[icruise]

Originally Posted by SideshowDusty
If this film did not have the Indy brand attached, many people 'defending' it would be tearing it to shreds - or simply ignoring it - similar to something like, say, 'The Mummy Returns' (yeah, I said it - another 'enjoyable film if you check your brain in at the door'):

You're probably right that some people are being influenced in a positive direction because it is Indy and they want to like it. But it's also true that the people savaging the movie are doing so precisely because it is an Indy movie. They feel betrayed because it wasn't up to their sky-high expectations. There's no way that a generic adventure movie that wasn't an Indiana Jones film would engender the kind of hostility I've been seeing. So it works both ways.

 

[IrishJedi]

You're probably right that some people are being influenced in a positive direction because it is Indy and they want to like it. But it's also true that the people savaging the movie are doing so precisely because it is an Indy movie. They feel betrayed because it wasn't up to their sky-high expectations. There's no way that a generic adventure movie that wasn't an Indiana Jones film would engender the kind of hostility I've been seeing. So it works both ways.

Amen.

 

[Viking28]

Saw it......walked away feeling it that it was just ok..... But for me what got me was thinking that they have been going back and forth on the direction of this movie for so long and they picked this.
I can understand why some hate it and some love it, but for me its neither. But in the end it reminded me of one of those movies of the 80's that tried to cash in on the whole Indy thing.

 

[JoeSweden]

One thing I loved in the movie was during the chicken race at the warehouse, when Ray Winstone tries to convince his driver that Indiana isn't bluffing .
"You don´t know him! YOU DON'T KNOW HIM!!"

 

[The Josh]

You're probably right that some people are being influenced in a positive direction because it is Indy and they want to like it. But it's also true that the people savaging the movie are doing so precisely because it is an Indy movie. They feel betrayed because it wasn't up to their sky-high expectations. There's no way that a generic adventure movie that wasn't an Indiana Jones film would engender the kind of hostility I've been seeing. So it works both ways.

Very well put.

 

[Bonehead15]

Saw it finaly today and I enjoyed it a lot.


I don't think it was an oscar worthy movie or anything but it was very enjoyable. The plot was a little week but in the end it did entertain me.

I will admit it was probably the weakest Indy film but the expectations for this movie were so high I don't think there was no way it could live up to the hipe, just like Episode 1.

 

[sueworld]

Went and saw a late night screening of the latest Indy film on Friday night as all the daytime performances were already sold out.

Hmmm, I sort of liked it. I don't know if it was just me, but it felt like quite a 'hollow' movie. As if it was made to hit certain 'targets' as it went along.
I thought the kid playing Indy's son (lord who didn't see that one coming a mile off!) was okay, but the lapses in even the slightest piece of logic when applied to the action sequences was quite astounding! And don't even get me started on Indy surviving a nuclear explosion just because he was inside a fridge!!

I liked the chase sequence where Indy gets in and out of the car chasing them, whilst on the motor bike. Simple idea, but well done. It wouldn't have been out of place slotted into the first movie, really.

I didn't mind the 'aliens walked the earth' storyline, as it seemed very fitting to set against the 1950's backdrop, but I really didn't like the payoff with the 'evil Russian' commander (again it didn't make much sense, we want to give you a big present, err, what a messy death?) and the very cheesy ending in the church.

Dear Mr Ford seemed to playing it on auto pilot, but the rest of the cast were...okay.

To sum it up, I still feel that If I want to see a really good Indy film, then I'll go and watch the first one again. Still can't be beat it after all this time. A simple tale stylishly told, and with some great supporting characters, and wonderful, 'simple' action sequences that held you attention throughout.

To sum up I liked Indy 4, but didn't love it, which is a shame.

 

[icruise]

I had a thought about that "present" line when I was watching it for the second time. When Indy is translating what Oxy is saying as he conveys the alien's words, it goes something like this:

Indy: He wants to thank you. He wants... (noticeable pause) He wants to give you a big present.

That pause, and the rather lame "big present" line makes me think that Indy may have been intentionally flubbing the translation, and that the alien, through Oxy, was more specific about the consequences of this "present." (Either that, or Indy realized its consequences on his own.) You'll notice that as soon as Indy said the line, he backed away from the skeleton. He knew that something was about to go down. It would be interesting if Indy had sort of tricked Irena into accepting the gift.

 

[Michael Crawford]

You're probably right that some people are being influenced in a positive direction because it is Indy and they want to like it. But it's also true that the people savaging the movie are doing so precisely because it is an Indy movie. They feel betrayed because it wasn't up to their sky-high expectations. There's no way that a generic adventure movie that wasn't an Indiana Jones film would engender the kind of hostility I've been seeing. So it works both ways.

No. If this wasn't an Indy movie, and had the same elements, it would have been utterly destroyed by everyone. Seriously, put Brendan Fraser in these same situations, and the hate would have been universal. The only thing saving this mediocre movie from being ravaged by everyone is that it IS Indy, a character that engenders much love, and much forgiveness.

 

[The Josh]

No. If this wasn't an Indy movie, and had the same elements, it would have been utterly destroyed by everyone. Seriously, put Brendan Fraser in these same situations, and the hate would have been universal. The only thing saving this mediocre movie from being ravaged by everyone is that it IS Indy, a character that engenders much love, and much forgiveness.

No, I would say you are totally wrong Mike. If Fraser did some of this stuff and it came out the same I would like it (I did like The Mummy movies). This was a good Indy flick not a great one but a good one.

 

[icruise]

No. If this wasn't an Indy movie, and had the same elements, it would have been utterly destroyed by everyone. Seriously, put Brendan Fraser in these same situations, and the hate would have been universal. The only thing saving this mediocre movie from being ravaged by everyone is that it IS Indy, a character that engenders much love, and much forgiveness.

Nonsense. It probably would have been forgotten. Nobody would be writing diatribes about it on the internet. That's the difference.

I do tend to agree that Indy is the saving grace of the movie, in the sense that it would have been little more than a mediocre adventure movie without him. But there's no way that people would have responded with the hate that I'm seeing.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Interesting notion - if this had been a Rick O'Connell movie would it be liked or disliked more?

I think I would have to agree that it would be more forgettable.

 

[Brent72]

Star Wars and Indiana Jones are my two favorite movie franchises of all-time and as such Lucas and Spielberg are two of my favorite filmmakers. I went into this movie wanting to love it and with a completely open mind despite much of the criticism I've been reading on message boards. All I can say is that I thought it was absolutely HORRIBLE!!! I just watched National Treasure 2 last night and didn't think I could be much more disappointed by a movie and then I see this today and it felt like deja vu. It was just plain flat from start to finish. There was never any excitement or any sense of danger. The CGI(which I am never against in any movie) felt completely out of place in an Indy flick. The desert chase which started out good just got ridiculous with Shia straddling two cars(and getting hit in the nuts a few times) and then moving on to CGI swinging monkeys and killer ants. The attempts at humor all felt forced and the actors just seemed like they were going through the motions. Cate Blanchett is a great actress, but she was laughably bad as a villain. Karen Allen was given nothing to do and as a result her being there was basically useless(aside from setting up the schmaltzy ending). John Hurt was so annoying that I literally wanted to throw my soda at the screen. Finally, and I never thought I'd say this, but Harrison seemed like he was just phoning it in as Indy. I know he's 20 years older, but he just wasn't "there" this time around. He had the hat, the whip and the jacket, but it wasn't Indiana Jones as far as I'm concerned. Very disheartening.

As much grief as Lucas gets for the prequels, I can honestly say that they look like The Godfather Trilogy compared to Indy IV. I'd rather watch The Phantom Menace on a continuous loop for the rest of my life than having to sit through Indy IV again anytime soon. At least that movie felt like a Star Wars movie at times. This didn't feel like Indy at all and I'm now wondering how things would have turned out if they made the Darabont script that Spielberg loved, but Lucas wouldn't approve. Makes you wonder what could've been.