Merged: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

there is a movie and music section here now just so ya know

 

Can't wait for it. Already got the soundtrack and official movie t-shirt.

 

I'm going to the Thursday evening show after picking up my son from school. I'm trying to temper my enthusiasm b/c if I get too pumped up then there's no way the movie will be able match my expectations.

 

Planning on seeing it, but I'm not expecting it to be that good. Hopefully it proves me wrong.

 

Plan on going to see the movie on sunday. Liked the other 3 movies, so I hope this one is as good.

 

Cannot wait for this movie!

 

I'm afraid of one thing... that the subject and style is now old. That it has become a fabric of pop culture in America and that therefore it will be treated with reverence becoming not an Indiana Jones movie, but a kitsch wink and nod towards Indiana Jones movies.

In other words, I think it will be so involved in itself, it will end up being a campy joke of itself.

 

im hearing pretty good reviews so far.

 

Have you heard that of this movie, or just expecting it?

 

no i haven't really heard anything about it... i just started expecting it the minute I saw Shia LeBouf was involved, and the costume they put Catte Blanchett in it.

 

I hope you're wrong

 

I hope Q is wrong too but that is something I have heard from someone who saw it. He was on Attack of the Show and said that its essentially a campy joke of itself. But he also said that its a fun 2 hours if you take it for what its worth.

 

Some fan comments from the movie....

Posted by: dorrah on May 22, 2008 at 01:55:05

first! saw midnight show and it was amazing!!!



Posted by: Doolini on May 22, 2008 at 01:55:27

Too much CG.
Shia swinging with the monkeys = stupid.
Sword fight in the jungle car chase was rediculous.

Great opening sequence though.

Indy: "It told me to" WTF!!!!?



Posted by: Ben Lynch on May 22, 2008 at 02:08:14

Modern audiences want inward journeys, and while Harrison Ford was quite right in saying it's a film strictly for audiences, not for the critics, I fear they've underestimated the audience.

It was an exciting, impossible romp, the cinematography was excellent. The film's music was pretty ordinary and some of the visual effects looked like a storm.

All in all, I think Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull suffered from the same stale taste as the Star Wars prequels: too many eggs, not enough heart and with nothing for the imagination.



Posted by: Steve on May 22, 2008 at 02:11:52

Sure, it was over the top in parts, but what else would you expect from Indy? Just let your logic go, sit back and enjoy the ride!



Posted by: saladdin yudono on May 22, 2008 at 02:13:02

It's a fairly o.k. movie.
Great first half and 50's settings.
I wish Indiana was 35 yrs young forever.
Too much time in the jungle.
I really hated the 'family' adventure tone of the movie.
George Lucas should try other fx houses other than his own and make something original.
It's about time Steven Spielberg made 'Interstellar'



Posted by: Shane on May 22, 2008 at 02:22:08

Beginning was slow and cludgy until the warehouse scene. Middle of the movie as good as any other Indy film. End was just so out of this world (ahem) and confusing that it ruined the movie for me.

Not sure how much George Lucas had to do with this, but he's done the same thing to the Indy franchise with this film that he did to Star Wars with Episodes 1,2 & 3 - kiddified them.

Indy 1,2 & 3, no matter how stretched they got, were at least still bound in great storytelling rooted in a form of reality.

Sorry - 2 out of 5 stars for me.

Regards,
Shane.



Posted by: Travis on May 22, 2008 at 02:22:19

Yeah, some parts were over the top... But it's Indy, and if you look back to the previous three films, they had their over-the-top moments too...
Mutt swinging through the trees was a bit much, but the alien bit was cool, and for those who said it wasn't believable (like my roommate), was the ending to any of the Indy films really that believable?



Posted by: martin on May 22, 2008 at 02:27:21

hey guys if theres no fx in this movie the new generation of audiences will not admire indy and i thought it was amazing but this film is not for the critics this film is for the people who loved indy since the raiders



Posted by: Wall*E on May 22, 2008 at 02:27:24

John Hurt and Ray Winstone were completely wasted in their roles



Posted by: heofilms on May 22, 2008 at 02:30:38

Besides the special effects, it was so-so. The story was slow and uninteresting. Yeah I understand the time era issue and of course I have been waiting for a while for this film to come out but I didn't want "THIS" film to have been made. Unlike the previous three, this one was a little hard to believe the over-the-top moments. It was great to see Karen Allen though! I score it a 5 out of 10, 10 being awesome. But what do I know, I only saw it twice...



Posted by: Luke on May 22, 2008 at 02:31:51

didnt have the punch the original 3 had. They went 2 decades looking for a script and this was the only thing they could come up with? like c'mon. Harrison Ford and Shia Lebauf did a good job but thats about it. Sorry Spielberg but this wasnt your best

6/10



Posted by: Spider Jerusalem on May 22, 2008 at 02:32:55

Great film it was and INDIANA JONES FILM!!!! If you haven't seen the first three then shut the hell up because you need to know just what Indy is about and that is over the top nutty fun. You whine for it and then when it gets here you want to bash it because it's not what "YOU" wanted...get over it and enjoy a great film.



Posted by: Ray on May 22, 2008 at 02:35:28

it wasnt no raiders but it was still a jones film....not 2 shabby



Posted by: Luke on May 22, 2008 at 02:36:11

yo spider, people are entitled their opinions if they dont like it then too bad. Just because Indian Jones is in it doesnt make it a good film. Its got to have a plot and spectacles and it didnt really do the best job with that. If you liked it thats great but dont bash other peoples opinions.



Posted by: mooser on May 22, 2008 at 02:36:25

It's indy 4 and its out nuff said quit nit picking



Posted by: raider on May 22, 2008 at 02:40:59

loved every single moment except shia swinging with the monkeys

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=45353

 

bah I wish I woulda read Maynard's post 20 minutes ago. I just bought tickets for tonight on Fandango!


BTW isn't Fandango like the greatest thing ever invented?

 

If you want to see a movie to analyze it to death, go watch some independent film. Indy 4 was exactly what I expected, a nice popcorn movie to just sit back and enjoy, which is essentially what the whole series was meant to be and what it wants to emulate (the old 30's/40's movie serials/adventure flicks).

 

man who is shia labeuf's(or whatever the hell his name is) agent. that individual is freakin amazing at their job. dudes career is en fuego....and he isnt exactly an undeniable talent...like paul newman or jack nicholson, back in the day.

 

Beats me but he fits the role of confused young-adult nicely. I still thought he was a little miscast in the 50's biker kid but he put up a decent performance so it's all good.

Spoiler

Hard to believe he's Indy's son.

 

Saw it last night. Was a fun movie, really enjoyed it. My son halfway through the movie said "This is the greatest movie ever!!!!". It was an Indy movie and I enjoyed it at that.

 

Gotta say I walked away a bit disappointed. There were too many unrealistic moments in the movie. I know that every Indy movie has its share of unrealistic moments, but nowhere near as extreeme as this movie. It was a decent Indy flick IMO, but there were really 2 things that stood out to make me not want to watch it again.

Spoiler

The friggin Tarzan scene was way over the top IMO. That does NOT belong in an Indy movie, AT ALL! Other than that my biggest gripe was the story line. I thought I was watching E.T. there for a little while. What's with the alien storyline in the late 1950's? I didn't like that at all.

 

Well if you were disappointed then it must not be that great. Seeing how you put that ONE movie up as your fav all time action flick.

 

whatchyou talking about willis? Rambo? Did I say all time favorite? LOL

 

that's what scares me... i am really looking forward to this movie, but rarely agree with the learned critics reviews. Iron Man was an exception though. i thought it rocked and so did most reviewers.

 

I have to say it took me a good 15 minutes into the movie to quit thinking about how old Indiana Jones looked. I started thinking about his age with every punch and fall he took.

 

funny my 11yr old niece looked at me and said thats kinda dumb(referring to the.. ALIENS ) and she loved the other Indy films.

i had the exact same feelings.
i thought the movie was fun but i didnt enjoy the plot and the CGI.

 

I saw it and it felt like an Indy movie. I don't see the unbelievable stuff being anymore unbelievable than the stuff in the previous movies. I'm a big Indy fan so I could nitpick many things, but overall I thought it fit with the series.

 

yes you did say that!!!! And i wasn't going to mention the name of the movie to spare the embarrassment.

 

I don't remember saying "all time favorite" but I did like it alot for the action. (maybe more so for the special effects) Um, you didn't spare me the embarrassment BTW Did you really not like that movie? I liked it much more than Indy 4!

 

Leave it to the film major to get it exactly right... Just saw it tiday, and IMO, while enjoying, it was exactly what Q said. It was almost a Bruckheimer movie (ie- thin plot, weak-especially supporting- characters, lots of action.) There were, in the course of the movie, only three scenes that removed my SOD (suspension of disbelief):'Testing/Fake Town', 'Tarzan' and '3 Go Down'. All three were in the movie only b/c they could. That is, the people at LucasFilm said, "Yeah, we can do that."

Now that I think about it, that's probably why I don't like the 2nd Indy movie as much as the 1st or 3rd one- too many times where my SOD is interrupted. I'd rather not see it and be wondering how they got out of 'X' scrape, then to see it and it be totally unbelievable (within the context of the movie.)

All in all, for what it was, it was good. It could have been great, tho.

 

Nothing can be possibly as over the top as the scene where a guy gets his heart taken out of him in Temple of Doom.

 

Yes, you're probably right, but that was 'plausible' within the context of the movie. It wasn't, IMO, something that made you stop and think, thereby pulling you right out of the fantasy. When it happened, you went right along with it.

It's a hard thing to explain, since every movie goer's experience is different from those of their fellow compatriots. But one thing that's never fun for anyone is getting knocked out of the story by the movie. That's what makes bad movies bad (see: Episode I, II, and III). And that's why I was a little disappointed with Indy 4 (and 2). There were elements and moments in the movie that 'woke' you from the fantasy, destroying the illusion and cheapening the experience. *Sorta like sobering up in the middle of a paper bag blackout.* Sometimes, you just don't wanna wake up.

 

Damn Commies

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080523/film_nm/russia_indianajones_dc

 

I went into it expecting a cheesy action flick. Thats what it was and so i thought it was pretty good.

Don't try and compare it to the other IJ movies. You just can't.

 

I thought the film was pretty mediocre. I mean, it wasn't horrible or anything and it's worth watching... But definitely did not stand out in my mind..

 

In a sense, Spielberg and Lucas succeeded with Indy 4. The point of the Indiana Jones series was to provide an homage to the cheesy action adventure flicks of the 1930's and 40's and they did just that.

 

R U Serious?? I wonder what they think of the Bond films(and Mr. Moore)... Old people trying to hold on to old glory. So very sad. Yet, at the same time, so very funny.

 

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls (no spoilers, please)

Personally, I enjoyed it. Does it measure up to the first three? Well, not quite. On a scale of 1 to 10, if Last Crusade was a 9, Temple of Doom an 8.5, and Raiders of the Lost Ark a 13, this was about an 8. The action scenes hold up pretty well, and the plot is interesting (I won't go too into detail to avoid spoiling it for anyone), if not quite as engrossing as the others. I also like that they brought back Karen Allen, who was by far the best female lead in the series (of course, Ilsa died in Last Crusade, and bringing Willie back would have made no sense, so the options were admittedly limited).

The biggest problem, I think, is the villains. While I appreciate that they wanted to be realistic in setting the movie in 1957, 18 years after Last Crusade (and not trying to bull**** us about Harrison Ford's age), the fact remains that Nazis just make for better movie villains than the Soviets. I don't really know why, but they do.

The other problem was that some of the George Lucas cutesiness shows through in a couple scenes in the form of cute animated animals. A minor flaw, but a noticeable one.

Anyway, it's the weakest link in the series, but still, it's a good movie, and you won't come out saying "man, I'd have just as soon set $7 on fire and saved myself two hours." And these days, that's saying a lot.