Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[Qrazy]

My deal is that I thought this was the place to counter IMDB and RT's sometimes retarded forums with actual cinephiles but instead the forum is exalting a movie where a fat kid runs around with chocolate on his face with a monkey (Speed Racer) but seems to decry a movie (IJ4) for having the same slaptick bullshit (monkeys, prarie dogs) but much less of it. :crazy:

You see the problem is that all these movies are god awful terrible (haven't seen any of them but I still feel good about saying this)... so really everyone is arguing about which is the worst of the bunch... it makes more sense when you think about it this way.

[Qrazy]

My boss is an attorney. He has a brother who is a film critic. I should compare their respective sanities one day.

Do it now please, I need closure.

[Sven]

farmers tend to be sane.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Pop Trash]

monkey and fat kid with chocolate fit in with the aesthetic of speed racer, but perhaps not of indy (since i haven't watched it.)
Yes because the "bad dates" monkey in Raiders never happened...

[Qrazy]

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

Well the ones I know in real life. They're very grounded. Har har.. ho hah.

[Pop Trash]

How many monkeys do the movies in bold have? Otherwise, how am I to know how good they are?
One movie has a donkey that eats a bunch of candy, gets a sugar high, and proceeds to drive a racecar around a dayglow track for an hour.

[Grouchy]

I dunno in my experience lawyers tend to be even more insane than critics... let's say farmer... farmers tend to be sane.
Huh, didn't you just watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre? If there's one thing to be learned from that movie...

[Spinal]

Fuck off. Why don't you go participate in the yearly consensus of 1966. I'm curious to find out if you like Au hasard, Balthazar or Persona better. Or perhaps you can be involved in a discussion re: if Je Tu Il Elle could be read as a lesbian version of the Brown Bunny. Or perhaps the influence of Godard or Warhol on the ideas behind Southland Tales. Oh wait you thought it sucked...

Stop right now. There will be no telling people to 'fuck off'. You are way off-topic and taking things way too seriously. Please consider this a warning from a moderator of this forum.

[Grouchy]

Stop right now. There will be no telling people to 'fuck off'. You are way off-topic and taking things way too seriously. Please consider this a warning from a moderator of this forum.
Be careful, Pop, or you won't fit in with the message board jet set.

Please consider this a warning from a cool guy in this very cool forum.

[Spinal]

Be careful, Pop, or you won't fit in with the message board jet set.

Please consider this a warning from a cool guy in this very cool forum.

I've got to read more slowly. At first, I thought this was addressed to me and that you were calling me 'Pops'.

[Grouchy]

I've got to read more slowly. At first, I thought this was addressed to me and that you were calling me 'Pops'.
Now THAT is funny stuff.

In your ear, mister.

[Pop Trash]

Be careful, Pop, or you won't fit in with the message board jet set.

Please consider this a warning from a cool guy in this very cool forum.
Apparently I missed the memo that said you have to love Speed Racer and hate IJ4 and Southland Tales to post in Match Cut.

[Sxottlan]

Apparently I missed the memo that said you have to love Speed Racer and hate IJ4 and Southland Tales to post in Match Cut.

Might have more to do with your adversarial tone. That and trying to reinforce your opinion by pointing out what critics thought of one movie over the other, which I don't think has worked since... well, ever.

[number8]

This dogmatic idea that fun, populist, eye-candy kids movies can never have any artistic cinematic merit has got to go. What's wrong with cinephiles these days? Ugh.

[Qrazy]

This dogmatic idea that fun, populist, eye-candy kids movies can never have any artistic cinematic merit has got to go. What's wrong with cinephiles these days? Ugh.

I think the general response has more to do with the individual films. No one is pissing on Close Encounters of the Third Kind here.

[number8]

I think the general response has more to do with the individual films. No one is pissing on Close Encounters of the Third Kind here.

I'm not really saying anyone here is, but I ended up with that conclusion after reading such ridiculous claims as to how Match Cut isn't elitist enough because a lot of the people here rightfully enjoyed Speed Racer, as if somehow the fact that it's bright colored and have spastic kids and monkeys rendered the film unfit to receive high esteems, therefore justifying looking down upon the people who liked it.

Really, I can just as easily say that people who don't like Speed Racer are imbeciles who don't have the sophisticated taste, perceptive eye or the film knowledge to appreciate how ahead of its time Speed Racer's palette is in tandem with its radical ideas, which obviously boasts more Warhol influence than Southland Tales. But I'm not a raging asswad.

[Qrazy]

I'm not really saying anyone here is, but I ended up with that conclusion after reading such ridiculous claims as to how Match Cut isn't elitist enough because a lot of the people here rightfully enjoyed Speed Racer, as if somehow the fact that it's bright colored and have spastic kids and monkeys rendered the film unfit to receive high esteems, therefore justifying looking down upon the people who liked it.

Really, I can just as easily say that people who don't like Speed Racer are imbeciles who don't have the sophisticated taste, perceptive eye or the film knowledge to appreciate how ahead of its time Speed Racer's palette is in tandem with its radical ideas, which obviously boasts more Warhol influence than Southland Tales. But I'm not a raging asswad.

Yeah well no comment really since I haven't seen either but based on word of mouth/reviews/trailers/etc I think I'll probably come away from both feeling about the same... mostly disappointed but impressed by a few set pieces (this is how I usually feel with most summer blockbusters unless they're very good). Southland Tales I won't see because it looks awful and Donnie Darko was a complete piece of crap.

[Ezee E]

This thread is about as entertaining as IJ IV.

[Pop Trash]

This dogmatic idea that fun, populist, eye-candy kids movies can never have any artistic cinematic merit has got to go. What's wrong with cinephiles these days? Ugh.
You're right. I liked IJ4 too! But really...I actually wanted to see Speed Racer for that reason but I just don't think it worked. It was way too long to be just mindless popcorn fun for one thing. The last hour just got extremely samey with one race after the other. I don't think Speed Racer is in the same league as say Ratatouille, which is more in line with what you are talking about.

[Spinal]

This is not the thread in which we discuss Speed Racer.

[Pop Trash]

This is not the thread in which we discuss Speed Racer.
I think it's fair game to discuss how one mindless popcorn fun movie (IJ4) gets trashed by a lot of peeps on here...while another mindless popcorn movie (Speed Racer) gets it's own banner. That's fair.

[Raiders]

I think it's fair game to discuss how one mindless popcorn fun movie (IJ4) gets trashed by a lot of peeps on here...while another mindless popcorn movie (Speed Racer) gets it's own banner. That's fair.

Nobody has made a great IJ4 banner. If someone does, it would likely go up. I don't choose the banner based solely on the film being great.

[lovejuice]

I think it's fair game to discuss how one mindless popcorn fun movie (IJ4) gets trashed by a lot of peeps on here...while another mindless popcorn movie (Speed Racer) gets it's own banner. That's fair.

i don't know why you keep comparing them. these two mindless popcorn fun movies are totally based on different aesthetic principles. i love SR, haven't watch IJIV, but if it contains anything that makes me love SR, i will definitely hate it. because i love bug bunny, doesn't mean that anything which makes bug bunny great can be applied to spirited away. imagine if Batman or Indy shouts "yippy-kayay mother fucker," and yet that line works like a charm for another action hero.

[Pop Trash]

Nobody has made a great IJ4 banner. If someone does, it would likely go up. I don't choose the banner based solely on the film being great.
Eh...I don't think it should go up. It's not like I loved either film. I liked IJ4 a little more than Speed Racer but hopefully other summer blockbuster fair (perhaps Wall-E and the Dark Knight) will be better. If it means anything to you, I really like your annual film lists, even if the placement of some films I disagree with. Peace.

[Spinal]

P.S. Fuck Speed Racer


Sane people (i.e. prof. critics) disagree with you.


I don't really want to fit in anywhere that thinks Speed Racer is a better film than Southland Tales. Thanks.


My deal is that I thought this was the place to counter IMDB and RT's sometimes retarded forums with actual cinephiles but instead the forum is exalting a movie where a fat kid runs around with chocolate on his face with a monkey (Speed Racer) but seems to decry a movie (IJ4) for having the same slaptick bullshit (monkeys, prarie dogs) but much less of it. :crazy:


Fuck off. Why don't you go participate in the yearly consensus of 1966. I'm curious to find out if you like Au hasard, Balthazar or Persona better. Or perhaps you can be involved in a discussion re: if Je Tu Il Elle could be read as a lesbian version of the Brown Bunny. Or perhaps the influence of Godard or Warhol on the ideas behind Southland Tales. Oh wait you thought it sucked...


One movie has a donkey that eats a bunch of candy, gets a sugar high, and proceeds to drive a racecar around a dayglow track for an hour.


Apparently I missed the memo that said you have to love Speed Racer and hate IJ4 and Southland Tales to post in Match Cut.


You're right. I liked IJ4 too! But really...I actually wanted to see Speed Racer for that reason but I just don't think it worked. It was way too long to be just mindless popcorn fun for one thing. The last hour just got extremely samey with one race after the other. I don't think Speed Racer is in the same league as say Ratatouille, which is more in line with what you are talking about.

You are not making any real comparison between the two films. You are baiting people. Stop crying foul.

[Raiders]

I blame this on George Lucas. Who's with me?

[Kurosawa Fan]

I blame this on George Lucas. Who's with me?

Me.

[Pop Trash]

I blame this on George Lucas. Who's with me?
George is fun to blame for the ills of the world. Just don't drag Spielberg into the mix.

[Sycophant]

I blame this on George Lucas. Who's with me?I am!

For a moment, I forgot what thread I was in. The "this" could have been world hunger or the AIDS epidemic and I still would've been game.

[Wryan]

Nobody has made a great IJ4 banner. If someone does, it would likely go up. I don't choose the banner based solely on the film being great.

Hey now. I did design Roger Thornhill running away from the Sarlacc pit wearing Indy's fedora. If that doesn't deserve some kind of recognition, I don't know what does.

[Fezzik]

I blame this on George Lucas. Who's with me?

"I'm with you too." (c. Luke Skywalker, 1983).

There were scenes in IJIV that made me wonder how Lucas had drugged Spielberg and taken over directing duties for a few minutes, and snuck in some of his pet scenes. It had his fingerprints all over it...though one of my least favorite scenes in the movie (Indy in the fridge) was, as pointed out previously, all Spielberg.

[Ezee E]

I wonder what the draft by Darabont was like.

[Sycophant]

I wonder what the draft by Darabont was like.Long?

[Grouchy]

I wonder what the draft by Darabont was like.
I've been wondering this too. It skipped Indy's son and had Indy's long lost brother instead. I read on Wikipedia they rejected it mainly on the ground that the villains were still Nazis instead of Soviets. I'd read it.

[Rowland]

Surprisingly boring... oh well. The first three are significantly superior.

[Robby P]

I'll agree with the majority. This was an awful movie.

[rocus]

While I was watching it, I thought that if this was any 14 year old's first Indy they would wonder why so much fuss about a National Treasure rip off.

[KK2.0]

Late to the party as usual.

I didn't hate Indy4 but i'm also disappointed, i have to agree with EvilShoe that the film felt neutered and ended up more like the lost Mummy episode than Indy.

Cute homage to Marlon Brando's The Wild One when Shia appears.


I blame this on George Lucas. Who's with me?

Me! Me!!

I can almost see the exchange:

Lucas - "Let's add CGI Gophers! LOL"

ILM drone - "As you wish, master"

[SirNewt]

While I was watching it, I thought that if this was any 14 year old's first Indy they would wonder why so much fuss about a National Treasure rip off.

I got the same vibe.

As for Lucas. Shall we prepareth the hooks of repentance and torch of cleansing?

[monolith94]

Hey now. I did design Roger Thornhill running away from the Sarlacc pit wearing Indy's fedora. If that doesn't deserve some kind of recognition, I don't know what does.
Link? Because that sounds awesome.

[Sycophant]

Link? Because that sounds awesome.http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=37337&postcount=25

[SirNewt]

http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=37337&postcount=25

awesome

[Bosco B Thug]

There's something bubbling underneath the surface of this one... I'm not surprised at various writers' attempts to extract something out of its clever self-reflexivity. There are striking considerations of the new era the series takes place in now: the depictions of youth, the use of knowledge for intimidation, the very pettiness of the quest, the occasional sense of vulnerability allowed its Commie villains (i.e. the drag race in the awesome opening credits, Blanchett's admirably emotive performance). The film also seems to be striving to distill the very nature of the Indiana Jones films, what with its plot points concerning academia and adventure, and the revisions and referrals to history (the adventure seems to amount to little more than an opportunity for Spilko and Jones to horde knowledge and combat their principles towards discovery, at the expense of the remains of cruel conquistadors and humble natives).

But yeah, otherwise the movie just isn't very good. Silly, inane, too glossy, and the end is the definition of anti-climactic predictability. I hate to say it, but the movie could've used some... stronger violence? Ray Winstone's last scene is mind-bogglingly strange. And the whole movie is just another victim of the CGI age.

[Grouchy]

I spent yesterday night playing poker with friends and I spoiled some of the ending of Indiana Jones without even noticing, just making a casual comment. Specifically the fact that it has CGI aliens. One of them felt like strangling me with his bare hands.

Then I tried to make it up for him by explaining that it wasn't very good. Didn't work.

[Qrazy]

One of them felt like murdering me with my bare hands.

Then I tried to make it up for him by explaining that it wasn't very good. Didn't work.

The mechanics of that act are mind boggling.

[Grouchy]

The mechanics of that act are mind boggling.
I forgot to mention my friend has mental powers, like Jean Grey.

Okay, fixed it.

[Beau]

I liked it, actually. It is riddled with problems, but I suppose I dug the ridiculous cartoon tone of the endeavor, as well as the myriad of visual jokes, and Spielberg's use of the frame. That climax, though - I must agree. The worst in a franchise that is known for good climaxes.

[transmogrifier]

Yeah, the climax is just plain dumb. The nominal bad guy gets killed for wanting to gain knowledge, Indiana just sorts of stands around, and Winstone switches sides 57 more times. And then it splices in some lost Mummy Returns footage.

Ugh.

[Beau]

To be honest, I had no qualms about the climax the first time I saw the movie. However, after hearing some arguments, seeing some of the original films again, and re-watching Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I came to notice how structurally messy that final stretch really is...

[KK2.0]

I think 'cartoony' is a good description of Indy4

[megladon8]

Eh...it was okay.

Too much CGI. Ray Winstone was completely pointless. Terrible writing. Implausible, even for a movie world where the impossible has happened.

Though it succeeds in recreating the incredible sense of wonder and impending doom that the last films had.

It's a mixed bag, but I'd say there's more positive than negative (though not by much).

[Dukefrukem]

Thinking back on it after a few months, I'm remembering more negative than positive.

The motorcycle chage was definitely one of the positives i remember.

[Rowland]

Yeah, the motorcycle chase was good, and the sequence beginning with the chase in the Area 51 warehouse up to the nuclear blast is one of the summer's best (ignoring the cg gophers), but otherwise... blech. So looooong.

[Morris Schæffer]

Though it succeeds in recreating the incredible sense of wonder and impending doom that the last films had.

I thought it kinda failed in this regard as well although seeing Indiana Jones unearth precious artifacts and discovering (happening upon?) lost civilizations is still more memorable than Benjamin Franklin Gates doing the same. Damning with faint praise no doubt, but there's nothing to rival the spine-tingling map room and Peru sequence from "Raiders" or the disovery of the Knight and finale of "Crusade."

[MadMan]

After revisiting Temple of Doom I still think that its the worst of the series. I'm going to actually be re-seeing Indy 4, so I'll be able to look at it without being at a midnight showing full of die hard fans of the series.

[Spun Lepton]

Lucas on the phone with Spielberg.

L: "Steven, baby, this new Indy script by Darabont that you and Harrison were raving over? This is a piece of crap."
S: "What's up, George? What did you want to see?"
L: "This whole Roswell thing is just not right. Plus, where are the monkeys? I specifically said I wanted vine-swinging monkeys. Also, why is the skull an ARTIFACT? I should be an actual alien skull. Also, I need to see a scene where Indy is looking up at a nuclear explosion, this is 1957, after all."
S: "George --"
L: "I mean, what kind of hackneyed script is this? Why didn't you and Darabont use any of my ideas?"
S: (covering the mouthpiece) "Because your last good idea was Vader, and you even managed to fuck that up..."
L: "Pardon me?"
S: "Nothing, George, nothing. Go on, what else do you want to see?"
Harrison: "Can I get off the line now, I've heard all I need."
S: "Sure, Harrison, talk to you lat --"
L: "Quicksand! There needs to be a scene with quicksand."
S: "There is a scene with quicksand, George."
L: "Nah, nah, the way it works right now, the scene actually forwards the story. No, no, it needs to be pointless humor, like the campfire scene in Temple of Doom."
S: "George, Temple of Doom was garbage."
L: "TEMPLE OF DOOM IS THE BEST INDY MOVIE! How can you say that, Steve?"
S: "It was the one you had the most say on, yeah."
L: "What's that supposed to mean, Steve?"
S: "Fine, George, we'll do it however you want. Fine."
L: "Damn straight we will. We're bringing in MY guy to rewrite this abomination you call an Indiana Jones script. He's going to FIX it. You'll see. Trust me, Steve. Trust me."
S: (dialtone)
L: "Steve? Harrison? Anybody? .... Shia ... ??"

[Watashi]

This movie will rule harder than anything ever in the history of time.

http://www.meikathon.net/roflmao/facepalm4.jpg

[Dead & Messed Up]

Lucas on the phone with Spielberg.

L: "Steven, baby, this new Indy script by Darabont that you and Harrison were raving over? This is a piece of crap."
S: "What's up, George? What did you want to see?"
L: "This whole Roswell thing is just not right. Plus, where are the monkeys? I specifically said I wanted vine-swinging monkeys. Also, why is the skull an ARTIFACT? I should be an actual alien skull. Also, I need to see a scene where Indy is looking up at a nuclear explosion, this is 1957, after all."
S: "George --"
L: "I mean, what kind of hackneyed script is this? Why didn't you and Darabont use any of my ideas?"
S: (covering the mouthpiece) "Because your last good idea was Vader, and you even managed to fuck that up..."
L: "Pardon me?"
S: "Nothing, George, nothing. Go on, what else do you want to see?"
Harrison: "Can I get off the line now, I've heard all I need."
S: "Sure, Harrison, talk to you lat --"
L: "Quicksand! There needs to be a scene with quicksand."
S: "There is a scene with quicksand, George."
L: "Nah, nah, the way it works right now, the scene actually forwards the story. No, no, it needs to be pointless humor, like the campfire scene in Temple of Doom."
S: "George, Temple of Doom was garbage."
L: "TEMPLE OF DOOM IS THE BEST INDY MOVIE! How can you say that, Steve?"
S: "It was the one you had the most say on, yeah."
L: "What's that supposed to mean, Steve?"
S: "Fine, George, we'll do it however you want. Fine."
L: "Damn straight we will. We're bringing in MY guy to rewrite this abomination you call an Indiana Jones script. He's going to FIX it. You'll see. Trust me, Steve. Trust me."
S: (dialtone)
L: "Steve? Harrison? Anybody? .... Shia ... ??"

The Darabont script was awful. Someone actually says, "I remember when adventure used to have a name." Also, David Koepp is Spielberg's guy.

:)

...what I thought the film really lacked was any sense of genuine antagonism. Say what you will about slightly bland villains like Mola Ram and Donovan, but they were genuine villains with distinct perspectives on the treasures they seeked out. Spalko is too complacent, kind, and cooperative.

[Spun Lepton]

The Darabont script was awful. Someone actually says, "I remember when adventure used to have a name." Also, David Koepp is Spielberg's guy.

(*plugs ears*) LA LA LA LAAALAALALALAAAA!!! Can't hear yooouuu!!


...what I thought the film really lacked was any sense of genuine antagonism. Say what you will about slightly bland villains like Mola Ram and Donovan, but they were genuine villains with distinct perspectives on the treasures they seeked out. Spalko is too complacent, kind, and cooperative.

I can agree with this.

I've also agreed with most of the mild-to-bad opinions. Indiana Jones seems out of place in the story. There are some seriously clunky lines of dialogue. The quicksand scene, (I know it wasn't technically quicksand, but you know what I mean), was pointless and not very funny. Making the skull an ACTUAL skull was just ridiculous. The scene with the monkeys left me wondering "WTF?" The aliens didn't have the same sense of awesome, wondrous power that the Ark and the Grail had.

Temple of Doom is still the worst of the bunch.

[Dead & Messed Up]

(*plugs ears*) LA LA LA LAAALAALALALAAAA!!! Can't hear yooouuu!!



I can agree with this.

I've also agreed with most of the mild-to-bad opinions. Indiana Jones seems out of place in the story. There are some seriously clunky lines of dialogue. The quicksand scene, (I know it wasn't technically quicksand, but you know what I mean), was pointless and not very funny. Making the skull an ACTUAL skull was just ridiculous. The scene with the monkeys left me wondering "WTF?" The aliens didn't have the same sense of awesome, wondrous power that the Ark and the Grail had.

You had me...


Temple of Doom is still the worst of the bunch.

And you lost me. Doom has a strong beginning and superlative ending, with a saggy middle. Crystal Skull starts strong and declines and declines until it's just embarrassing.

[Mysterious Dude]

I just read through this thread. It is hilarious. I can't believe I completely ignored it until now. It almost makes me regret that I don't see more shit movies.

[Spun Lepton]

And you lost me. Doom has a strong beginning and superlative ending, with a saggy middle. Crystal Skull starts strong and declines and declines until it's just embarrassing.

I didn't much care for either, so it doesn't really matter which one is better.

Skull might only be getting higher marks for being a little fresher in my mind, but I watched Doom again a few months ago. The mine cart race and the bridge are the only two parts of that movie that I really enjoy. Slogging through all the other awful stuff to get to it just made me appreciate it more than I might have otherwise.

Crystal Skull on the other hand, is so light-hearted that it may as well have been called Indiana Jones in Candy Land. It keeps a nice pace, but there are so many relatively minor misfires, that by the end you're just left wondering what the hell they were going to pull out of their ass next.

[Scar]

You know, I actually laughed rather hard at the 'ground hog reaction shot' to the rocket sled.

[lovejuice]

just watched it for the first time. disappointing. disappointing. disappointing. so this is where spielberg finally come to? i agree with someone that ARK is about judaism, DOOM hinduism, GRAIL cristianity, and now we have freaking scientology! this is more an adaptation of disney land's indiana jones ride ala pirate of the caribbean than actual sequel.

Crystal Skull starts strong and declines and declines until it's just embarrassing.
indeed. the beginning is quite promising with the red paranoia and the atomic bomb. i like how retro it is while at the same time the setting is clearly more advance than in the previous films.

it's not her fault, but blanchett is a weak villain. her esp ability is introduced but not properly integrated into the story. the ending is just meh. come to think of it, this movie is full of unexplained stuffs like this. (two ninjas in the grave. the indigeneous people in the ruin. who the hell are these people?)

aside from tarzan shia, the jungle fight is kinda fun. not as fun as any fight scenes in the original still.

again what really piss me off is how devoid of any deeper meaning this movie is. is it a comment to our modern age of comsumerism? like spielberg is giving all of us a middle finger.

[Morris Schæffer]

How can the mine cart chase, made in 1984, look more real than the jungle chase circa 2008?

[Dead & Messed Up]

How can the mine cart chase, made in 1984, look more real than the jungle chase circa 2008?

I dig the jungle chase (Shia excluded), but one huge reason is that the mine cart chase took place in the dark, so the lines separating optical elements were more difficult to discern. Additionally, the jungle chase was doing more unrealistic stuff, especially with its monkeys and cliffside.

Even then, I'd reserve effects criticism for the slapdash alien/UFO effects at the end, which are not only poorly-executed but poorly-conceived and poorly-designed.

[Ivan Drago]

Do you remember the scene with Indy in the refrigerator? IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!!!

[MadMan]

I still stand by my opinion that this is a good movie. And no I won't explain myself any further, or offer any more defenses. I enjoyed it, damnit, that's all that matters :P

[Dead & Messed Up]

I still stand by my opinion that this is a good movie. And no I won't explain myself any further, or offer any more defenses. I enjoyed it, damnit, that's all that matters :P

Despite my problems with the late-film developments, I certainly don't hate the picture. Harrison Ford does a great job, I loved seeing Karen Allen (one note, but so damn cheery!), and three great action sequences were tucked away in there: the campus chase, the warehouse chase, and the jungle chase.

There's something delightful to me about the way the skull is bouncing from person to person in that jungle chase, and, sooner or later, everybody ends up in everybody else's car. Additionally, it's just terrific action, well-organized, funny ('cept for those monkeys), thrilling.

[Morris Schæffer]

I dig the jungle chase (Shia excluded), but one huge reason is that the mine cart chase took place in the dark, so the lines separating optical elements were more difficult to discern.

That's a valid point I suppose.

[D_Davis]

I didn't see very many movies last year, but this one was definitely one of the very worst of those that I did see.

It was the very definition of "phoned in" in every way imaginable.

[Spinal]

I didn't see very many movies last year, but this one was definitely one of the very worst of those that I did see.

It was the very definition of "phoned in" in every way imaginable.

I'm guessing that if you had seen 50 more films from last year, this still would be one of the worst.

[D_Davis]

I'm guessing that if you had seen 50 more films from last year, this still would be one of the worst.

I'm inclined to agree.

[Pop Trash]

I'm guessing that if you had seen 50 more films from last year, this still would be one of the worst.

I saw about 50 films last year and this would probably come out around 25. I'm basically with MadMan about this movie. It entertained me and that's that.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I watched it again. It isn't enough for me to know I disliked it - I had to go back, watch it, and try to parse what wasn't working, why it wasn't, and what the team was doing differently from the previous films that hurt this one.

Here are my conclusions:

MYTHOS:

Point 1: The Ark, Grail, and the Sankara stones (to a lesser degree) are all based on genuine religion and some vague sense of history. It’s all bullshit, to be sure, but there’s a foundation present, and a reasonable effort to stay true to that foundation. The Ark’s in the bible. Fertility stones are common. But crystal skulls have none of that history, and the story here cobbles together a lot of disparate elements: Mayan head-flattening, the Nazca Lines in Peru, crystal skulls (none of which have been proven authentic). This may not matter to less discerning viewers, but it’s bothersome when a professorial guy like Indy doesn’t point out how little sense this makes.

Point 2: The film gives hints to the supernatural force being “saucer men from Mars.” The Nazca Lines as a marker reinforce that. And as much as I hate seeing the alien at the end, it’s a somewhat logical conclusion…until Oxley insists they’re interdimensional beings who come from “the space between spaces.” Time at the end shouldn't be spent clarifying what's going on - it's supposed to be a logical conclusion.

STAKES:

It isn’t until deep into the picture that the extent of the skull’s powers are presented and defined. This information arrives right before the skull probes Indy’s mind, as Spalko explains total control over the minds of men. Compare this to the Ark, whose stakes are explained immediately, or the Grail, whose immortal powers are explicated by Donovan at his party. Even the Sankara stones are introduced dramatically – the ruined village is proof positive of the stones’ powers.

STORY MAP:

Temple of Doom has a simple plot, clearly defined: get in, get the stones, get out. The other two Indy films compensate by presenting the viewer with a “story map.” Story maps are incredibly useful for both orienting the viewers and directing the action. The original has Indy literally write on a chalkboard, so we understand: staff of Ra, headpiece, location of the Ark. Crusade gave us two. One for the path to the canyon of the crescent moon, one that overviews the three challenges Indy must face. Crystal Skull…doesn’t. What it has is a series of half-baked riddles that are generally solved right before they happen, rendering their potential for mystery and direction inert. And even when they’re solved, they’re awfully abstract. They sound like the predictions of Nostradamus – they could mean anything.

DEUS EX MACHINA:

One of the biggest problems with the skull is its ability to counteract a number of threats that face the heroes. Fire ants on the way? Use the skull. Natives getting restless? Show them the skull. Indy needs exposition? Skull. There’s a moment in the jungle where Mutt swings the skull into somebody’s face. Hiding the artifacts in the previous films generates mystery and reverence. There’s way too little of that here. Which leads to my next point.

DRAMATIC REVEALS:

Of which this film has few. The first shot of the skull is matter-of-fact. Indy removes a cloth, and it’s there. No creepy, choir-chanting theme to announce it. No single shot displaying the artifact in all its glory. It’s simply there. That’s no fun. Smaller reveals disappoint as well. When Indy finds out he has a son, there’s no pause or moment for reflection, no sense of his world-view adjusting. He stares for a half-second and says, “Why’d you let him quit school?” Boo.

THREATS:

The two human antagonists, Mac and Spalko, are played ably by Ray Winstone and Cate Blanchett. I do not fault the actors, but rather the story. Because there’s little to Mac other than his tendency to double-cross. And after he does that (twice!), Indy still insists on palling around with him. But that’s nothing compared to how much he aids Spalko. Despite the occasional effort to kill one another, much of their time involves Indy translating or explaining something for Spalko. Even at the end, when he should be fighting her influence and power more than ever, he’s willfully translating the Mayan that Ox is speaking. Why isn’t he telling her to drop dead? Conversely, why isn’t he warning her? There’s nothing for anyone to gain by putting the skull back. Here's what he's doing: trying to explain a pre-determined action set piece.

...

Those are the big offenders, anyway.

[megladon8]

THREATS:

The two human antagonists, Mac and Spalko, are played ably by Ray Winstone and Cate Blanchett. I do not fault the actors, but rather the story. Because there’s little to Mac other than his tendency to double-cross. And after he does that (twice!), Indy still insists on palling around with him. But that’s nothing compared to how much he aids Spalko. Despite the occasional effort to kill one another, much of their time involves Indy translating or explaining something for Spalko. Even at the end, when he should be fighting her influence and power more than ever, he’s willfully translating the Mayan that Ox is speaking. Why isn’t he telling her to drop dead? Conversely, why isn’t he warning her? There’s nothing for anyone to gain by putting the skull back. Here's what he's doing: trying to explain a pre-determined action set piece.


This particularly bothered me.

What a terribly written movie.

[Dukefrukem]

Great points D&MU and I agree with all of them. The best scene of the movie is the motorcycle scene.

[Morris Schæffer]

Whoa, Shia LaBeouf really layin' on the honesty.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/45112

[Adam]

Whoa, Shia LaBeouf really layin' on the honesty.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/45112

I think his movies are lame, but I've never been able to hate LaBeouf as much as I want to. He should shut up, though, because no one's forcing him to sign onto all these shitty films he's been in and they've made him millions of dollars

[number8]

I don't think he's ever complained about having to be in them, so it's not like he's whining about them. He always admits a movie sucks after the fans have spoken. If Indy 4 is generally thought of as a successful sequel, I don't think he'd be saying shit. He seems more glad than anything that he can go out and say "Transformers 2 was a piece of shit" and know that the majority of people would back him up.

[Grouchy]

I don't think he's ever complained about having to be in them, so it's not like he's whining about them. He always admits a movie sucks after the fans have spoken. If Indy 4 is generally thought of as a successful sequel, I don't think he'd be saying shit. He seems more glad than anything that he can go out and say "Transformers 2 was a piece of shit" and know that the majority of people would back him up.
But it does beg the question of why he feels the need to collect millions of dollars from shitty blockbusters instead of earning less (and still living like a fucking prince) with movies he believes in.

[number8]

I think he's just really enamored with Spielberg, who's pretty much the main reason he agreed to do Transformers. Spielberg practically threw Shia at Bay.

[Mysterious Dude]

I know nobody cares, but this has got to be the worst cinematography Janusz Kaminski has ever done. I'll keep it brief:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/Isaac3159/crystal1.jpg

So I'm pretty sure that's the sun somewhere behind those clouds, so what is lighting that commie bitch's face from the front, and why isn't it also lighting that guy on the right?! It looks like they were each photoshopped into the picture from different photos.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/Isaac3159/crystal2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/Isaac3159/crystal3.jpg

And dammit, if you're both looking right at each other, shouldn't you be lit from the same source of light? This lighting is almost as bad as Johnny Guitar.

[Irish]

Moar screenshots plz.

This is good stuff.

[megladon8]

I was too busy noticing how much this movie sucked to notice that the light sources were inconsistent.

[Qrazy]

I was too busy noticing how much this movie sucked to notice that the light sources were inconsistent.

And they were too busy focusing on cashing in on a franchise and raping our childhoods that they forgot to set up the lights properly.

[Rowland]

That whole sequence looked like it was shot Lucas-style, with the actors surrounded by blue/green/whatever screens, so the lighting was probably achieved (poorly) in post.

[Spinal]

It's good to know that this film sucked in more ways than I had previously realized.

[Ezee E]

That whole sequence looked like it was shot Lucas-style, with the actors surrounded by blue/green/whatever screens, so the lighting was probably achieved (poorly) in post.
This. And it was.

[Dukefrukem]

Can someone explain that to me? Why wouldn't they just shoot this scene outside a warehouse? Easier?

[number8]

Scheduling, I'm guessing. If I recall correctly, all of Cate Blanchett's scenes were on a bluescreen soundstage. So you only need her to come in for a couple of days and you can shoot all her scenes in one place.

[Mysterious Dude]

I was too busy noticing how much this movie sucked to notice that the light sources were inconsistent.
I think I noticed it because that was the first scene that was on when I flipped channels to it, and my first thought upon seeing it was: "This looks like shit." In fairness, most of the rest of the movie was not as blatantly bad as that scene.

It is bad in so many ways, though. I'm pretty sure the heroes survived the film through pure dumb luck. You've got four people in a car with no roof and a truck runs over it, and not one person is hurt? Four people are at the bottom of a pit, which fills with water and projects them onto a bunch of jagged rocks. Again, no injuries? But of course, the commies are extremely unlucky (or, perhaps more likely, God hates them) and are always getting eaten by carnivorous ants or sucked into a vortex.


That whole sequence looked like it was shot Lucas-style, with the actors surrounded by blue/green/whatever screens, so the lighting was probably achieved (poorly) in post.The one movie I kept thinking of was Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. There's one chase scene in a jungle and I couldn't shake the feeling that there was no way they were really in a jungle (and I can't recall ever having that problem with, say, Jurassic Park, even though it wasn't always a real jungle in that movie, either).


Scheduling, I'm guessing. If I recall correctly, all of Cate Blanchett's scenes were on a bluescreen soundstage. So you only need her to come in for a couple of days and you can shoot all her scenes in one place.That doesn't surprise me. It did seem to me that Cate Blanchett, in particular, was getting "special" lighting. I thought maybe it was intentional, to show how evil she was, or something. But a schedule conflict makes more sense.


Moar screenshots plz.

This is good stuff.
:D I didn't watch the whole movie; I was flipping back and forth between this and the Family Guy Christmas episode (which, by the way, was also unspeakably terrible). But if you insist, I'll do one more scene:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/Isaac3159/crystal5.jpg

This is the other really blatantly bad scene, where the lighting is inconsistent (compare Harrison Ford's face to Shia LaBeouf's) and ignores the lighting clues within the scene:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/Isaac3159/crystal4.jpg

Is that not the sun in front of them? So why does it appear to be lighting them from the back in the other shot?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/Isaac3159/crystal6.jpg

Oh, I guess the sun is behind them, after all. My mistake.

[number8]

That's horrendous.

[Irish]

I'm pretty sure the heroes survived the film through pure dumb luck. You've got four people in a car with no roof and a truck runs over it, and not one person is hurt? Four people are at the bottom of a pit, which fills with water and projects them onto a bunch of jagged rocks. Again, no injuries?

To be fair, in the first film Indy gets hot in the shoulder, doesn't bleed, and gets dragged under a truck for several hundred yards. In the second film, he jumps out of an airplane in a life raft with two other people, falls several hundred yards onto a snow covered mountain, slides down it and off a cliff and into a moving river ... with no injuries.

This is why I never had a problem with the lead-lined refrigerator that saves his life in this film. It's the same sort of tongue in cheek silliness that has existed throughout the lifetime of the character.

Great screenshots and great catches on the lighting. I'm not sure I ever would have noticed that. Almost makes me want to watch that movie again.

[Morris Schæffer]

It's good to know that this film sucked in more ways than I had previously realized.

The textures are kinda flat too and there was some slowdown during certain scenes. ;)

[Mysterious Dude]

To be fair, in the first film Indy gets [s]hot in the shoulder, doesn't bleed, and gets dragged under a truck for several hundred yards.I'll defend the truck scene: at least there was a real person under that truck. It wasn't Harrison Ford, but it was easier for me to accept that a person could do that.

I won't defend Temple of Doom.

[Irish]

I'll defend the truck scene: at least there was a real person under that truck. It wasn't Harrison Ford, but it was easier for me to accept that a person could do that.
True.


I won't defend Temple of Doom.
:D

[balmakboor]

I haven't seen it for so long that I can't remember, but wasn't there a scene in The Bourne Identity where he plunges down a spiral staircase; riding a villainous henchman's dead body like a magic carpet; taking aim at, shooting and killing enemies as he falls; and landing without a scratch? I was re-reading something by Robin Wood last night and that's how he described it. Hated the movie myself and have no interest in taking another look.

My point though is heroes go through shit that defies physics and come out without a scratch when they should've been bloody messes all the time. Seems silly to be critical of an Indy Jones movie -- of all movies -- for doing so.

[Dukefrukem]

I'll defend the truck scene: at least there was a real person under that truck. It wasn't Harrison Ford, but it was easier for me to accept that a person could do that.

I won't defend Temple of Doom.

Then of course there's also this;

lbrzQMbTYZM

[balmakboor]

Then of course there's also this;

lbrzQMbTYZM

That's a great moment. If it had only been in slow motion and scored with Pink Floyd, it would've been perfect.

[Dukefrukem]

That's a great moment. If it had only been in slow motion and scored with Pink Floyd, it would've been perfect.

What's worse? That scene or this shot following it.

http://videogum.com/img/thumbnails/photos/twmoat_indiana_jones/nuke.jpg

[Dukefrukem]

And just to rub it in...

http://videogum.com/img/thumbnails/photos/twmoat_indiana_jones/whip.gif

[Qrazy]

I haven't seen it for so long that I can't remember, but wasn't there a scene in The Bourne Identity where he plunges down a spiral staircase; riding a villainous henchman's dead body like a magic carpet; taking aim at, shooting and killing enemies as he falls; and landing without a scratch? I was re-reading something by Robin Wood last night and that's how he described it. Hated the movie myself and have no interest in taking another look.

My point though is heroes go through shit that defies physics and come out without a scratch when they should've been bloody messes all the time. Seems silly to be critical of an Indy Jones movie -- of all movies -- for doing so.

Yeah but there are limits to the suspension of disbelief and I'd also argue that the best action films show their protagonists getting injured (Die Hard, Oldboy, Kill Bill, Johnny To films, etc). I believe Bourne actually did limp away after that staircase incident.

[Qrazy]

What's worse? That scene or this shot following it.

http://videogum.com/img/thumbnails/photos/twmoat_indiana_jones/nuke.jpg

That shot is wonderful, it's the scene that lead up to that shot that sucks.

[Qrazy]

Then of course there's also this;

lbrzQMbTYZM

Hs8D6zwQhxs

[Dukefrukem]

Hs8D6zwQhxs


LOL

"Aliens and Fake Russian accents"

I had never seen that before. Thanks.

[balmakboor]

And just to rub it in...

http://videogum.com/img/thumbnails/photos/twmoat_indiana_jones/whip.gif

Jesus. Even the editor slept through this one.

[Melville]

I haven't seen it for so long that I can't remember, but wasn't there a scene in The Bourne Identity where he plunges down a spiral staircase; riding a villainous henchman's dead body like a magic carpet; taking aim at, shooting and killing enemies as he falls; and landing without a scratch? I was re-reading something by Robin Wood last night and that's how he described it. Hated the movie myself and have no interest in taking another look.

My point though is heroes go through shit that defies physics and come out without a scratch when they should've been bloody messes all the time. Seems silly to be critical of an Indy Jones movie -- of all movies -- for doing so.
He shoots one guy, whom he knows the location of prior to jumping, and he uses the dead body to cushion his fall (which is only about three stories), and he limps away afterward. The spectacle of the scene is more impressive because the film is grounded in a feeling of reality. Also, it's an example of Bourne's mad skills. In Crystal Skull, nothing feels spectacular because there's no sense of reality: everything's far over the top. And the characters survive by sheer luck. Everything feels weightless in the goofiest way. Not that that's necessarily bad, but it's nothing like Bourne, or even like Raiders.

[balmakboor]

Yeah but there are limits to the suspension of disbelief and I'd also argue that the best action films show their protagonists getting injured (Die Hard, Oldboy, Kill Bill, Johnny To films, etc). I believe Bourne actually did limp away after that staircase incident.

I think part of the fun of Indy movies is that there is no limit to the suspension of disbelief. They are like Roadrunner cartoons. I actually don't mind that refrigerator bit one bit.

[D_Davis]

It's good to know that this film sucked in more ways than I had previously realized.

I'm pretty sure we will discovering new ways in which this film sucks for many, many years.

[D_Davis]

Remember - this movie was actually made.

[balmakboor]

He shoots one guy, whom he knows the location of prior to jumping, and he uses the dead body to cushion his fall (which is only about three stories), and he limps away afterward. The spectacle of the scene is more impressive because the film is grounded in a feeling of reality. Also, it's an example of Bourne's mad skills. In Crystal Skull, nothing feels spectacular because there's no sense of reality: everything's far over the top. And the characters survive by sheer luck. Everything feels weightless in the goofiest way. Not that that's necessarily bad, but it's nothing like Bourne, or even like Raiders.

Fair enough. I'm not defending Crystal Skull btw -- other than maybe in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way. I thought it was horrible and looked like crap and some of the reasons listed in this thread probably had at least a subliminal influence on my thinking it looked so terrible.

I was being truthful with my "like Roadrunner cartoons" comment though.

[Irish]

That shot is wonderful, it's the scene that lead up to that shot that sucks.

Except now Indy has cancer. :cry:

[Dukefrukem]

I think part of the fun of Indy movies is that there is no limit to the suspension of disbelief. They are like Roadrunner cartoons. I actually don't mind that refrigerator bit one bit.

That's a bunch of bull. I realize the plot of all three are based around mythical stories, but it's the plausibility that was injected into the movies that makes them fun. KotCS doesn't have five minutes of what all three previous movies had.

[balmakboor]

That's a bunch of bull. I realize the plot of all three are based around mythical stories, but it's the plausibility that was injected into the movies that makes them fun. KotCS doesn't have five minutes of what all three previous movies had.

I'm not sure why you'd say it's bull when I said "part of the fun," but whatever.

Want to know what I found to be the stupidest moment in the four Indy movies? The scene in the cave in Last Crusade where the stone bridge is invisible until the camera moves a little bit. Yeah, I know, it's a visualization of a "leap of faith," but really, come on now.

[Mysterious Dude]

I haven't seen it for so long that I can't remember, but wasn't there a scene in The Bourne Identity where he plunges down a spiral staircase; riding a villainous henchman's dead body like a magic carpet; taking aim at, shooting and killing enemies as he falls; and landing without a scratch? I was re-reading something by Robin Wood last night and that's how he described it. Hated the movie myself and have no interest in taking another look.

My point though is heroes go through shit that defies physics and come out without a scratch when they should've been bloody messes all the time. Seems silly to be critical of an Indy Jones movie -- of all movies -- for doing so.
The difference, to me, is that in Crystal Skull, the heroes were hardly even trying to survive, and they survived anyway. In your example in The Bourne Identity and even in the leap from the airplane in Temple of Doom (I know I said I wouldn't defend it), the hero survives through his own ingenuity, even if we know the scene is impossible.

In Crystal Skull, Indy and co. are ascending a staircase to escape from the chamber which is destroying itself, and every step on the staircase gets destroyed as soon as the last person steps off of it. And when they are in the pit and water is lifting them to the top, they don't even have to work to save themselves -- the water just lifts them up and sets them down on the jagged rocks. And then, when a huge spiral of debris is floating in front of them, Indy is just standing there, watching. He doesn't have to protect himself at all. The debris doesn't hit him, because God loves him.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm not sure why you'd say it's bull when I said "part of the fun," but whatever.

Want to know what I found to be the stupidest moment in the four Indy movies? The scene in the cave in Last Crusade where the stone bridge is invisible until the camera moves a little bit. Yeah, I know, it's a visualization of a "leap of faith," but really, come on now.

Bad choice of words; I'll let Isaac's explanation speak for me.

[Spinal]

Let's not point to Temple of Doom as an example of plausibility and internal logic.

[[ETM]]

Let's not point to Temple of Doom as an example of plausibility and internal logic.

This.

Two words - raft landing.

[Dukefrukem]

;309084']This.

Two words - raft landing.

The way they shot that scene, looks very believable.

[Irish]

The way they shot that scene, looks very believable.

o.O

Canvas bottom raft ... 100+ yard fall ... ice covered snow? No broken bones.

(If I had more time, I'd make that into a proper haiku)

[Dukefrukem]

o.O

Canvas bottom raft ... 100+ yard fall ... ice covered snow? No broken bones.

(If I had more time, I'd make that into a proper haiku)

What i meant was, how we watched it. Ignore physics. Watching the scene it looks like the draft very gently is floating to the ground.

[[ETM]]

Canvas bottom raft ... 100+ yard fall ... ice covered snow? No broken bones.

Mythbusters have in fact tested several variations and determined that there was no way to survive that at all.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Let's not point to Temple of Doom as an example of plausibility and internal logic.

As long as we can point to it as an example of awesomeness.

[number8]

As long as we can point to it as an example of awesomeness.

I will.

[Morris Schæffer]

The way they shot that scene, looks very believable.

Totally! And that to me is very important. If at least it looks convincing, then I'm going with the flow. And it did look like the parachute-like nature of the raft broke the fall a bit.

[megladon8]

I have no problems believing the raft scene because it didn't break any of the internal logic of the film(s).

If Indy had, in the few seconds before the plane crashed, MacGyver'd the raft together using push-pins and his socks, that would be a load of bullshit.

Internal logic is a wonderful thing.

[Dukefrukem]

Wait, the fridge scene could actually work in real life (http://www.blastr.com/2013-2-12/insane-nuked-fridge-scene-indy-4-could-actually-work)? I may need to give Indy4 another chance.

[transmogrifier]

Wait, the fridge scene could actually work in real life (http://www.blastr.com/2013-2-12/insane-nuked-fridge-scene-indy-4-could-actually-work)? I may need to give Indy4 another chance.

If that was the only thing you found wrong with that movie, then you weren't watching closely enough.

[Rowland]

That entire sequence was one of the only things I actually liked about the movie, nuked fridge included.

[Dead & Messed Up]

In five years, the chief economic export of the USA will be snarky, unfunny, overlong breakdowns of movie minutiae.

Maybe three.

[Sycophant]

Yeah, the first several minutes of Crystal Skull make up the best part of the film. It's actually a stunning sequence.

I watched the movie this summer. It has all the worst habits of a late-entry sequel, being made up mostly of repurposed sequences, gags, and ideas, drowning in its own self-referentiality, but not interested in breathing air. The setpiece in the graveyard is nonsensical in the worst way, and there was a lot of nonsensical murder, which is the worst kind for my heroes to be committing.

Doesn't help that whenever your villain shows up, you say to yourself "Oh, yeah, she's in this movie."

I'm glad I finally saw it. Having watched it shortly after rewatches of Raiders and Last Crusade, I'm not sure it's all that much more fumbling and silly than the third film. All the Indiana Jones films are silly, mind you, but I'm pretty sure Raiders is the only film that has much going for it (though, admittedly, I need to revisit Temple of Doom). In a lot of ways, Crystal Skull's weaknesses are amplified weaknesses of its immediate predecessor.

[Qrazy]

Wait, the fridge scene could actually work in real life (http://www.blastr.com/2013-2-12/insane-nuked-fridge-scene-indy-4-could-actually-work)? I may need to give Indy4 another chance.

Did you not actually watch the video? They said the scene as it plays out couldn't happen.

[Dukefrukem]

If that was the only thing you found wrong with that movie, then you weren't watching closely enough.

Hehe no. CGI monkeys, fire ants and lots of gopher shots.

[Scar]

Did you not actually watch the video? They said the scene as it plays out couldn't happen.

Didn't they say the only thing they got wrong was the fridge over taking the vehicle?

[Spun Lepton]

That entire sequence was one of the only things I actually liked about the movie, nuked fridge included.

Agreed! After hearing all about it and then seeing it, I thought, "Eh, that seems like a fine Indy-type scene." But, then it was just downhill from there.

[Scar]

After re-watching it, I found it entertaining, at least somewhat. The least of the Indy movies, but not an abomination.

[transmogrifier]

I hate the movie, but had no problem with the fridge thing because it fit the universe within which it was contained. I'm much more lenient concerning set pieces in action films in this regard. When it comes to actual plot mechanics, like character motivations, how and when characters come to know things, that sort of thing, I'm much pickier. (for example, a serial killer paying for a pizza delivery with a bloodied note, just so the film had a reason for the pizza delivery guy to be suspicious, which I saw recently)

[Dukefrukem]

I re-watched this tonight- the first half isn't all that bad. It's the second half that's REALLY bad, pretty much everything after the introduction of Karen Allen. But overall, the synopsis itself would be fine if you can ignore:

1. The Nuke scene
2. The Weird graveyard scene
3. The pointless quicksand scene
4. The awful jungle monkey and ant scene
5. 3 times the waterfall scene
6. The awful CGI ending

Everything about the crystal skull, and Eldorado and tracking down Oxley is quite good. There is a lot of subtle dialog that adds to the mystery. The casting is fine, it's just those scenes above that really bring down the "adventure" experience.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I like the ant scene. I like when they all start climbing on top of each other toward Spalko and she squishes one between her knees. And when the Russian guy screams and the ants go right down his throat. The waterfall scene isn't great, but I kinda love how they all basically get out of the water and brush themselves off and get on with it. Almost fell to our watery graves three times, no bigs.

But yeah, most of those beats feel awkwardly deployed.

[Winston*]

It's hard to get outraged about this film ruining the Indiana Jones series since rewatching the other ones and realising the series was already well ruined by this point.

[Watashi]

Rereading this thread is weird. I can't believe I was defending this trash.

Oh, and poor Barty. He tried so hard to believe this film would be the savior of cinema.

[Spinal]

Rereading this thread is weird. I can't believe I was defending this trash.

I'm insulted that you thought I would like this movie.

[MadMan]

I still like every movie in the series. I regret nothing.

[Morris Schæffer]

I still like every movie in the series. I regret nothing.

Love the first three though one is the best. The fourth is ok, i could name a shit ton of movies that are worse, but i'm genuinely pissed off about how they brought back Karen Allen and thought it was some kind of masterstroke that no one saw coming. That whole family dynamic that hangs over the film is like a slice of cheese that's been forgotten in an old closet and is discovered hundreds of years later. Putrid!

[Ivan Drago]

To this day, I still feel bad that I saw this before Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade.

[megladon8]

It's hard to get outraged about this film ruining the Indiana Jones series since rewatching the other ones and realising the series was already well ruined by this point.

Huh?

[Irish]

He's saying, I think, that a majority of Indiana Jones movies suck.

He's not wrong.

Great character, great actor, bad direction, bad stories.

[Winston*]

He's saying, I think, that a majority of Indiana Jones movies suck.


That is what I'm saying. First one is incredible, though.

[Irish]

That is what I'm saying. First one is incredible, though.

Agreed.

[Skitch]

That is what I'm saying. First one is incredible, though.

Please. That ending is so boneheaded it fits right in with Doom and Crusade.

[Winston*]

Please. That ending is so boneheaded it fits right in with Doom and Crusade.

?

[megladon8]

Crusade is the best one.

[Irish]

Crusade is the best one.

You have chosen ... Poorly.

[Watashi]

Temple is the best, but all three are top-notch.

[megladon8]

I see wut you did thar.

[Winston*]

I genuinely don't understand how anyone could think the first wasn't the best. Last Crusade is a hollow attempt to recreate Raiders with the addition of an irritating Sean Connery performance, and Temple is stupid, ugly and racist with weightless cartoonish action sequences.

They have both have good bits, because Spielberg is a great director, but they are not good movies.

[MadMan]

This page makes me sad.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The first three are all pretty awesome. The fourth one isn't nearly as good, but it's hard for me to hate, since the films never aspired to anything beyond being the best possible version of cheesy old adventures. And I thought Connery was charming, not irritating.

[Skitch]

Crusade is the best one.

I agree, but I think all of the first three are a blast.

[Watashi]

Winston has spoken. The beloved and critically-acclaimed Indiana Jones trilogy are not good movies.

Time to log off and move along.

[Dead & Messed Up]

http://s38.podbean.com/pb/613e8adf17b5a2e708112efa2cf211 bb/53a77543/data2/blogs29/385061/uploads/the-incredible-hulk-1977-20080619001858405-000.jpg

[Winston*]

Winston has spoken. The beloved and critically-acclaimed Indiana Jones trilogy are not good movies.

Time to log off and move along.
How dare I stand alone against the unanimous critical acclaim of Temple of Doom and Last Crusade. What an iconoclast I am.

[Grouchy]

The hell...? None of the first three Indy movies deserve to be called "bad", although Doom is my personal favorite.

[Dead & Messed Up]

http://www.excitingworldtravels.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/hitchhiker.jpg

[Irish]

The hell...? None of the first three Indy movies deserve to be called "bad", although Doom is my personal favorite.

Temple of Doom deserves to be called bad. It's got a handful of excellent set pieces, but the rest of it, almost the whole of it, is pure shit.

Edit: Oops, didn't mean to come on that strong. Misread your post a bit. *cough*

But, uh, yeah, not a good movie in my mind.

[Dukefrukem]

Frankly, I love all 3, but Meg is right, Crusade is by far the best.

[Skitch]

I love so much of RotLA, but that ending....ugh. CLOSE YOUR EYES! Because everyone knows not looking will save you from Ark ghosts/demons/whatever.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I love so much of RotLA, but that ending....ugh. CLOSE YOUR EYES! Because everyone knows not looking will save you from Ark ghosts/demons/whatever.

I mean, it probably doesn't hurt, as a way of demonstrating your lack of Ark-lust, but we're talking about J to the Hovah. You figure God is omniscient enough to know that Indy and Marion aren't all up in his business.

[Irish]

I love so much of RotLA, but that ending....ugh. CLOSE YOUR EYES! Because everyone knows not looking will save you from Ark ghosts/demons/whatever.

Eh. I think it's a scene that grows weaker on subsequent viewings but it's just fine the first few times around.

The movie heavily foreshadows the ark's power almost right from the start, so at some point the audience needs to seem that. What better time than the climax of the film?

Jones' foreknowledge isn't explained within film, but it's easy enough to assume he knows what to do because he's an archaeologist and a scholar. (In fact, he's the only character in the film who demonstrates working knowledge of the ark and the mythology surrounding it).

If you want to get more esoteric, there's a couple of ways to interpret that whole "close your eyes" business: (1) That you're willfully demonstrating a denial of specific knowledge and knowledge of God (as to seeking out knowledge you're not supposed to have, eg: the Tree of Life, etc) and or (2) that it's a form of supplication -- that you're not so arrogant as to believe that you could look upon the face of God and go unharmed.

Anyway, it makes more or less sense within the larger context of the film.

[Morris Schæffer]

Crusade is the best one.

It's a legitimately great adventure flick. It actually has some of the same family dynamics as the last one but what a world of difference. The chemistry between connery and ford is outstanding.

but raiders for the win!

[Dukefrukem]

I knew there was a post in this thread that explains why Raiders isn't the best in the trilogy. And this is it.


Well, no. It's an old screenwriter's joke that Raiders is a movie where the hero matters jack shit. You take Indy out of the movie, the Nazis would still end up with their faces melted off. In a way, Crystal Skull actually uses the same device. Indy isn't active at all--you take him off the story and the Russians either can't find the Incan temple or they do and get blown into another dimension. Both of these are the adventures of a perfunctory character, unlike in Temple of Doom and Last Crusade.

[Qrazy]

I don't see anything wrong with that at all. These are films about archeology and thus history, and any given human is swept along in the tidal forces of history. We don't have much control so why should Indy's actions have much of an effect beyond the specific (saving Marion)?

[number8]

I had to look up why I said that, since it's apparently a 6 year old post. I was replying to E saying that Raiders and Crusade were better than the other two because the stakes were higher since the artifacts would allow the Nazis to rule the world. I was correcting him by pointing out that the Ark of the Covenant would not help them at all.

I don't actually mind Raiders' conclusion.

[Irish]

I was correcting him by pointing out that the Ark of the Covenant would not help them at all.

But nobody knows that until the end of the story.

When he and Indy brief the FBI agents at the beginning of the movie, Marcus says something about how "an army who carries the ark before it is thought to be invincible."

There's your stakes.

[Grouchy]

There's even a Big Bang Theory episode revolving around that whole "Indy doesn't matter" thing. It is, in a way, proof that a script can work perfectly well even if it has a big flaw in its construction.

[number8]

Well, yeah, of course there were stakes. They're nazis.

[Ezee E]

Fun discussion. I'll say that both Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade have action pieces that modern summer movies completely lack, which is originality and their own stories. The Last Crusade completely uses its surroundings, has its own stakes, and can be understood. No shaky cam there.

[Gittes]

Reading through this thread kind of makes me want to revisit The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Some of its notorious excesses and peculiarities have settled in my memory as more fun than egregious, and they seem very much of a piece with the rest of Spielberg's eccentric romp.

Given the distaste expressed here and in so many corners of the Internet, I feel vaguely ashamed. :)

[Dukefrukem]

I re-watched this tonight- the first half isn't all that bad. It's the second half that's REALLY bad, pretty much everything after the introduction of Karen Allen. But overall, the synopsis itself would be fine if you can ignore:

1. The Nuke scene
2. The Weird graveyard scene
3. The pointless quicksand scene
4. The awful jungle monkey and ant scene
5. 3 times the waterfall scene
6. The awful CGI ending

Everything about the crystal skull, and Eldorado and tracking down Oxley is quite good. There is a lot of subtle dialog that adds to the mystery. The casting is fine, it's just those scenes above that really bring down the "adventure" experience.

This was TNT or some shit as I was browsing today, and I am even willing to remove 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 from my list above, and as long as they shoot onsite and not in a studio, the movie could be an OK watch. But damn, that jungle monkey scene....

[Irish]

You deserve some kind of award for watching this movie so much. Seriously. Holy shit.

Crystal Skull has gotta be up there with Phantom Menance in Grade A, fan-based clusterfucks.

[Dukefrukem]

You deserve some kind of award for watching this movie so much. Seriously. Holy shit.

Crystal Skull has gotta be up there with Phantom Menance in Grade A, fan-based clusterfucks.

I do not disagree. I just deeply want this movie to be good. I want it to not exist in this form. I'm fine even with the mythology.

It's that damn jungle scene man.

[Dead & Messed Up]

There's fun to be found in the film, but what nixes it is that Indy doesn't really care too much about the Skull. This is a guy that's desperately wanted artifacts his whole life: the Cross of Coronado, the Ark, the Sankara Stones, the Grail ("I can reach it!"). In this film, the Skull commands his interest (if not his passion) up until it "asks" him to return it, to which he says... yah, okay. Which makes the film a story without much of an engine. That's much more troublesome than the occasional lapses in taste that produced deus ex monkeys and a final-act alien that's about as intimidating as an ET plush doll.

[transmogrifier]

There were a lot of things to hate in the film, but the worst is Winstone's character.

[Skitch]

You have to be kidding. The correct answer is Mutt Williams. MUTT. WILLIAMS.

[Pop Trash]

I feel about Indiana Jones IV about the same way I feel about Spider-Man 3. I don't think either is a great film, but not nearly as shitty as the CW. I do think Star Wars Eps. 1-2 suck as much as their reputation suggests (episode 3 is tolerable but I lump them all together as a piece and kinda wish they never happened...or at least never happened as they are).

[Dukefrukem]

Episode 1 gets a lot of hate because of Jar Jar but the story arch is fine. And it has the best light-saber battle in the franchise.

[Skitch]

Episode 2 is the worst of the three. Even with Jake Lloyd, Jar Jar, and everything, Episode 2 is still worse.

[Pop Trash]

Episode 1 gets a lot of hate because of Jar Jar but the story arch is fine. And it has the best light-saber battle in the franchise.

The Jake Lloyd/little kid audience pandering is too much for me. Plus the overall CGI and design (which looked dated even at the time) and how wooden even the good actors are.

[Mysterious Dude]

I think The Phantom Menace may be my favorite of the prequels. It felt the most like a Star War movie. I use the word "favorite" loosely, though. I haven't seen any of them in years.

[Ezee E]

Phantom Menace was such a drag that it gave me mediocre expectations for the latter two movies. Easily the worst. I'll never watch it again.

Attack of the Clones is probably just as bad, potentially worse, but won't have the burden of ruining the expectation I had.

[Dukefrukem]

I admit, expectations can be everything sometimes, but I don't remember coming out of the Phantom Menace and thinking it was so bad I'd never watch it again. and I agree with Issac it feels most like a Star Wars movie compared to the other two.

[Ezee E]

I admit, expectations can be everything sometimes, but I don't remember coming out of the Phantom Menace and thinking it was so bad I'd never watch it again. and I agree with Issac it feels most like a Star Wars movie compared to the other two.

The pod racing is the only thing I like about it.

[transmogrifier]

I rewatched all three last year for some reason and The Phantom Menace IS the best, though that is very relative. Jar Jar Binks is the worst comic relief character ever (it may not be technically true, but it feels true) but at least the rest of the movie has a clear structure and some okay set pieces. Attack of the Clones is one of the worst movies I've seen for every possible reason - structure, acting, dialogue, plot etc.

If anything, the third one gets off lightly because of the low expectations derived from the first two. The climatic showdown between Obi Wan and Anakin is abysmally conceived and executed, for example.

[Ivan Drago]

I liked The Phantom Menace when I was a kid and still do. The only things from it that bother me are Jake Lloyd's acting and midi-fucking-chlorians. Attack of the Clones is by far the worst.

I honestly think The Hobbit movies are worse than the Star Wars prequels.

[Ivan Drago]

To this day, I still feel bad that I saw this before Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade.

Also, this still applies. :(

[Pop Trash]

I admit, expectations can be everything sometimes, but I don't remember coming out of the Phantom Menace and thinking it was so bad I'd never watch it again. and I agree with Issac it feels most like a Star Wars movie compared to the other two.

Oh I remember being stoked by the whole experience back in '99. I think it took me awhile to admit it kinda sucked. Plus there was always that "oh this is just the first one THE NEXT one will be better" which didn't exactly happen. I remember rewatching it (or at least some of it) on cable around 2010 and I was basically like "why did I ever like this?"

[Dukefrukem]

I rewatched all three last year for some reason and The Phantom Menace IS the best, though that is very relative. Jar Jar Binks is the worst comic relief character ever (it may not be technically true, but it feels true) but at least the rest of the movie has a clear structure and some okay set pieces. Attack of the Clones is one of the worst movies I've seen for every possible reason - structure, acting, dialogue, plot etc.

If anything, the third one gets off lightly because of the low expectations derived from the first two. The climatic showdown between Obi Wan and Anakin is abysmally conceived and executed, for example.

I expect the fabric of time to fold over on itself any minute.