I think I can saw this with a resounding GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!????????

The first scene's acting and dialogue was horrible... but then it redeemed itself with the chase scene.

And then got good again... then bad again... then good again... then Lucas is on crack and Speilberg merged it into Strange Encounters.

Also the first scene seemed so digital to me.. the skies seemed painted in for some reason. It makes me long for the good ol' days before CGI.

It makes me sad to say this... but it was even worse than Temple of Doom.

Heck the first scene felt like a bad cut scene from a video game.

BLARGH.

I wasn't really planning on seeing this, but that is really sad to hear

I heard they spent a quarter billion dollars on this....which is double the amount of the first three's budgets combined. I think the excessive cash and CGI make the filmmakers a little lazy and lose their creative touch a bit.

(see also:

Star Wars I-III combined budget = $360million
Star Wars IV-VI combined budget = $70million

Yes its partly due to inflation...but A New Hope was made on a measly $10 million dollars. Thats so unheard of)

...worse than Temple of Doom? O.K. high brow, what the heck was wrong with Temple of Doom? Or is there some old thread ripping that film apart that I should go search for?

I enjoyed Temple of Doom - but you have to admit it was the worst of the 3.

It was the best for me in the sense that I caught the spark, the energy that Spielberg had making it. I think, filming his future wife, he introduced a certain personal quality to the film that makes it, for me, the most spirited of the series...

I always thought the first was the best.

I may have been too harsh by saying "even worse"...

The best scene in the new one was by far the motorcycle chase because it was well done, witty, and involved no CGI (that was noticeable) and was just a classic chase scene akin to the old movies.

The new film had it's moments... I thought the A-bomb scene was hilarious - but my friend thought it was too over the top.

I also enjoyed the killer ants...

But as a whole... I was pretty disappointed with it. SW Episode 1 - ish.

I think that first scene really ruined it for me. Completely cheeseball and some horrible writing, acting, and direction. It got better - thank god - but that first scene really set the tone for me.

Now the very beginning of the film (the credit sequence where they are racing the Army trucks) was very well done and ripped out of American Graffiti.... I had high hopes right there.

But the moment after he put the hat on and the super overdone DI-ed look and the horribly bad dialogue... OY. That just set the tone for the film in my head that - oh lord this isn't going to be good.

Well, you haven't spoiled anything for me and I'm looking forward to seeing it myself. It opens tonight where I am...

I hope not. That's why I put the spoiler alert - to avert people from reading it that haven't seen the film yet... as I know that I was avoiding everything under the sun about the film before I saw it. I barely even saw the trailer.

Ha ha, I scan the ending before I read a book. I hate suspense...

Chris, you are right on. I could not believe how much I disliked the film. I went in with an open mind and ready to accept that the film had flaws. I was ready to see an entertaining popcorn flick. As I walked out, I felt as though my intelligence had never been more insulted, especially considering that the film was made by intelligent people. It was cheesy, tried too often to be cutesy with nods to Raiders and so on, but my God the excessive CGI is what did it for me. I didn't mind the sci-fi plot at all, but the execution was just terrible. The dialogue.... there are just no words. Marion Ravenwood was made into a ridiculous caricature. And Indy.... Is it just me, or did Harrison Ford NOT feel like Indy in this movie? I'm not sure what it was, but there was definitely something off. Since I watched all three films this week, the contrast between those and Crystal Skull was probably even more noticeable. On a more positive note, I have to say that Cate Blanchett made for an excellent Indy villain and of all the film's characters (even Indy himself), she felt the most like she could have appeared in one of the first three films. I also loved Shia LaBeouf. Weirdly enough, he felt more like Indiana Jones than Indiana Jones. I was most interested in his character. The motorcycle chase is indeed the best sequence of the film (though the mandatory snake sequence was absolutely hilarious, I have to admit), it is not only because the stunts felt real (no CGI) but because of Shia's presence. I am not at all opposed to the rumored film series starring his character. Of course, I'd be even more enthusiastic about it if George Lucas isn't involved... Yeah, I blame him for the crapiness of the film because I really hope that Spielberg hasn't lost it, though Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull definitely feels like it could be a symptom...

I wrote this to a friend on myspace after he asked me what I thought:


Face it, George Lucas made one good movie: Star Wars A New Hope. And even then, that movie is the weakest link out of the original 3 star wars movies.


Im sure we all remember how George Lucas brought back Star Wars and made them biggest pieces of crap in movie history comparable to the great Plan 9 from Outerspace. Did those movies make a lot of money? Yes. But only becaus the name "Star Wars" was tagged onto it. If they had not had that name, The Phantom Menace would habe flopped.


Such is the case with Indiana Jones. First and foremost, we know tha t George Lucas is a CG ***** and goes to bed with it every night. I don't know why Steven Spielberg even bothered to listen to him, considering the very first shot of the movie involves a gopher that becomes a reoccuring comic relief.


I was ok with the first part of the movie, up until Mac betrays Indy. I just did not care enough by that point. (considering it was only 10 mins into the movie).


And, as George Lucas does, the film immediately becomes a series of short scenes all loosely connected to try and blind the audience to one simple fact: We don't have much of a plot.


Anyways, I don't want to write a novel, so I'm going to jump to the end:

I was cool with the Alien thing. I was digging it. The throne room with the crystal skeletons was actually kind of ominously creepy. UNTIL! All the skeletons joined into one alien that looked like the piece of crap they gave us at the end of Shyamalans "Signs." Then the entire Mayan Temple proceeds to collapse in a CG spectacle reminiscent of the Halo 3 video game trailer.


I realize this is a Spielberg film, but it seems like George Lucas held so much sway over how the project came out. Even if George didn't become so involved, this is pretty low on the scale for Spielberg.


The original Indiana Jones (Raiders and Crusade especially) had so much depth and pacing bundled WITH action and spectacle, that they were the most amazing thing to watch.


In short, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull gets a D+

I think the movie tried too hard to be too much. Such is the expectation of a "IV". I hope they had more fun making it than I had watching it. Yawn!~

Saw it last night. I'm in the "gah, why?!?!" camp.

I went in with high hopes for a good Indiana Jones movie. I wasn't expecting a masterpiece. I wasn't even expecting something as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark (the best of the four, in my opinion). I just wanted something that would have the "feel" of an Indiana Jones movie. But for me, this movie was lacking that.

The goods:
-The motorcycle scene that everyone's mentioned. I loved how it began (Indy telling Mutt to punch the college guy), and the chase, and the conclusion with Mutt smiling at Indy, and Indy frowning (a reference to Last Crusade).

-The cemetery scene. This WAS an Indiana Jones movie moment. The creepy lighting, the cool action, Indy crawling through cobwebs and through nooks and crannies. And, "Don't touch anything." I loved every moment of this.

-The ants were pretty cool. And, any scene of Indy fighting the Ruskies in general.

-Mutt and Indy had some great scenes together. I enjoyed the one of them walking through the Peruvian town, talking about school, life, etc.

-There were probably others, but I can't recall them right off the top of my head.

The (major) bads for me:

-As someone stated, Marion's caricature performance. I think they went TOO far with the motherly role. She wasn't a bad ass anymore...just a nagging mom. Some nagging would have been great, and even lightened the mood. But not to the extent that they had in the film. And I really expected her to smack Indy when she first saw him. That would have been great, and perfect for the character.

-Jon Hurt/Ox's Character: WTF?! I thought he was a waste of screen time; he was like the living, walking version of the Grail diary, only not as cool.

-The general chemistry of Marion/Indy: This just seemed ... off. Maybe 20+ years hasn't been kind to their chemistry. Just seemed like their reconciliation was forced too quickly in the story, so that they could cram a wedding in the end to tidy things up with a bow. But do you blame the chemistry, or do you blame the writer(s)?

-Did they forget what movie they were making? I expected a little alien aspect, simply because of the area 51 stuff. But jeebus, to make that the crux of the plot was painful for me. I read that they were going for the whole sci-fi B movie aspect of the 50s. Oish...way to destroy a perfectly good formula/mood created by the original three movies. The crystal skull concept could have been pulled off in any number of terrestrial based ways, with a nod to the alien influence.

-Worst of all, the pacing: I agree with Forsaken on his comments of Raiders and Crusade. Both had awesome pacing, with just enough story points and calm moments worked in so that you could catch your breath. This movie just took a good scene (Mutt fighting the villain on the ducks) and added way too much extra to it (including the friggin monkeys...who the hell greenlit THAT idea), killing the pace. That's just one example of how many scenes could have been trimmed down, and the movie would have benefited. That's actually my main gripe with Temple of Doom, too. Pacing.

Okay, I feel like a horses arse for writing that much. So I'll just leave it with this:

Where this movie was good, it was awesome. Where it was bad, it really brought everything down for me. BUT...I'm going to give it a second chance when I watch it on DVD. It may not redeem itself completely, but maybe a few months of debating it within my own mind may change my opinion a little.

Right now, my ranking (best to not-the-greatest):
Raiders
Crusade
Doom
Close Encounters of the Crystal Skull

This message has been edited. Last edited by: cobra_commander,

Most of everything that's been said here echoes things I've been telling my friends. This film was truly disappointing for many reasons: the general quality was down (the monkeys? really?), character development was terrible (John Hurt's character received absolutely none), and the tone was completely off. But the thing that got to me the most was the plot: Indiana Jones is not a science fiction film, and by the end of Indy 4 it was nothing but science fiction.

As I wrote to a friend (there seems to be a theme of film buffs trying to explain away this film):


"Good movie, bad Indian Jones movie. Strayed WAAAY too far into science fiction — Indiana Jones has ALWAYS been about adventure with the supernatural. This film just tried to completely alter the formula, and I think it monumentally backfired. You can't take an established character and mythos and then introduce something completely (pardon the pun) alien — the audience (meaning me and everyone I saw it with) will reject it, which in turns destroys the suspension of disbelief. How do you go from Arc of the Covenant, Ancient Sankara Stones, and the Holy Grail, to supermassive flying saucers and interdemensional aliens?

I had fun watching it because, come on, it was still Spielberg and Ford. But I left the theater a bit sad and angry at Spielberg and Lucas. It feels like they just didn't really care that they were radically altering a franchise that so many people love; there's no way they didn't see the negative reaction (and there's been quite a lot of negative reaction) coming.

I was really hoping Spielberg had the power to offset Lucas' tendency to destroy beloved franchises. He didn't."


The alien plot subverts the rest of the plots: is the supernatural element really just science fiction elements disguised? In the scope of a supermassive interdemensional flying saucer, do the original three films even matter?

I predict (and hope for) a mass movement by Indy fans to deny this film canon status (think the Alien films after Aliens or Superman films after Superman II). For the rest of my life I'll be forced to suppress knowledge of this film in order to enjoy the original trilogy — that's the true sin.

I also have to say that I've always been a fan of Temple of Doom. Granted, it's the least of the trilogy, but I think it's unfair to in any way compare it to the travesty of Indy 4. In fact, I motion that we don't mention this film in conjunction with the true Indiana Jones films — don't even compare them in list form. It's degrading to an absolutely wonderful film Trilogy.

This is really sad news...but isn't it kind of what we were expecting all along?


I think Temple of Doom is right on par with the rest of the trilogy. Now that I think about it, I remember enjoying it more than The Last Crusade. Maybe its because I watched it when I was 10-11 and it made a HUGE impression on me. I'm not exaggerating when I say I couldn't sleep for a couple days. That scene with the collapsing room with spikes is just so epic and intense and awesome. Scenes like that just can't be found in any recent adventure films.

Yes, I had the same experience with Temple of Doom — watched it as a kid, and loved it. Still do.

I read somewhere else that the inclusion of giant flying saucers and aliens causing commies to explode is about as stupid and out-of-place as if the knight at the end of Crusade had busted out an AK-47 and shot at Indy. Personally, I think it's about as utterly misplaced as if the knight had turned into MC Hammer, jumped on a unicorn, and fought Megatron over Belgium.

Yes, that is how uncomfortable and angry aliens and flying saucers in an Indiana Jones film made me.

Eh, I dunno, I didn't think it was that bad. Sure, there were some really (really) bad/unnecessary parts, but overall I found the movie entertaining on it's own. Calling it a travesty might be a bit much.. I'd rather watch this than any of the Star Wars prequels any day.

But I'm curious, what makes aliens so much more out-of-place than removing a human heart with your bare hands, or the presence of god melting someone's face? I just don't really get your argument.

Why is it easier to accept a religious artifact causing someone's head to explode, but not an alien? If the acting or story is a problem, I get that, but I don't understand the commotion about a UFO in a series that has already had immortal knights, the arc of the covenant, melting Nazis, voodoo, bare-handed heart surgery, magical incantations that cause rocks to burn, and a divine cup that heals bullet wounds.

Maybe I just lump aliens in as "supernatural." But if anything, wouldn't a "science fiction" concept be more believable (theoretically placed in the realm of science) than a "supernatural" concept (generally the unexplainable)?

If you think about it, the film is still dealing with religion, only it's the religion of a different culture, so it's really not all that different than the subject matter of the others. The only difference is, in this religion (Mayan?), "god" is revealed to be aliens, while in the first film, the Judeo-Christian "god" was a golden box filled with light. Both caused cranial combustion.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bware,

I know supernatural elements are used heavily in the original trilogy, but it they were always used in a very gritty and pseudo-realistic fashion. Raiders may have been unrealistic, but it suspended my disbelief in such a masterful way.

It may have to do with the fact that all the supernatural events in the original trilogy revolve around primitive, ancient supernaturalism. (Holy Grail, Witch Doctors, The Ark). So the advanced, futuristic supernaturalism used in the Kingdom of The Crystal Skull just doesn't fit into the established formula.

Perhaps they were trying to redefine the supernatural themes for a newer generation?

This sums it up for me pretty nicely:
http://www. chainsawsuit. com/index. shtml
"this is not indiana jones to me. indy is about unearthing some artifact that awes you by still existing. whatever power it may also have is secondary; the rush comes from the thought that we are lucky to be seeing this. that's why the ark was a great relic to find, and so was the grail."

Thats a review someone sent me. Indiana Jones is about FINDING artifacts that MIGHT have existed.

We already know for a fact that crystal skulls exist, and their supernatural powers are up to modern imagination.

But objects such as the arc, that myth/legend (whatever you wanna call it) has been around for thousands and thousands of years. So when Indiana finally pulls it out of the stone box, it is awe inspiring. Then when the priest is opening it, we're on the edge of our seats, trying to see inside before the camera lets us.