Pissed at Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Haters [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

Drewza89

05-22-2008, 07:30 PM

SPOILERS, obviously.

Just as I posted in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull thread, I cannot believe the amount of hate that this movie is getting. You guys that have issues with George Lucas need to leave it at the door. I too hated Star Wars Episodes 1-3, but I didn't bring that mindset with me when I went to see Indy. I thought they did an incredible job of re-creating the magic of the original Indy trilogy. The transition to the 50's was very well done. Most importantly, it felt like an Indy movie. For those of you calling the alien stuff unrealistic, look at the other Indy movies! All of the movies have supernatural elements, dammit! How is the alien plotline any less unrealistic than having the Ark of the Covenant melt Nazis? I'll agree that it was ridiculous when Mutt turned into Tarzan in the jungle, but come on! Take the movie for what it is - ENTERTAINMENT. It's not supposed to be an ultra-realistic masterpiece. Just leave your mind at the door and enjoy it.

The only problem I have with it is that they slightly copied Stargate (1994). Other than that, I had one hell of a good time. 9/10

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATED 5/26/08

Now that I have had time to reflect upon the movie, I can now say that I'm not angry at those of you who didn't enjoy the movie because of the alien plotline. I too found some things ridiculous (invincible refrigerator, vine swinging, surviving multiple waterfalls, etc). But I didn't let the questionable plot or other ridiculous actions in the movie keep me from enjoying it. The movie did for me what it was intended to do: entertain. I still think that some of you need to lighten up a bit, though.

I am now rating it 8/10. It's still better than Temple of Doom.

And guys, please go easy on George Lucas. He may have become a money-hungry ruiner of franchises, but just remember all of the good things he gave us in the past. :)

Dragula

05-22-2008, 07:41 PM

Asa_Phelps

05-22-2008, 08:37 PM

I get what you're saying bro - it's one thing to go into a movie completely neutral and not like it. But it's entirely different when your opinion of the film is grounded on an initial estimation that a) there is no way they can re-create the magic of the original Indy, b) Lucas is associated with it so it's going to be train wreck or any other pre-conceived notion.

I didn’t hate the movie. I hated certain aspects of the movie and the alien thing was one of them. It’s true that the Ark or the Holy Grail are in a sense just as supernatural but religious artifacts have different connotations than little green men and therefore come off as less ridiculous. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not an advocate for religious symbols in movies and I own the X-Files series on dvd, but Indiana Jones and aliens just don’t go together no matter what kind of archeological origins the space men have.

And you’ll garnish little sympathy whinnying about ‘haters’.

thedudeman69

05-22-2008, 08:37 PM

You do realize people are allowed to have opinions...

Yeah, but this board hypes every big summer blockbuster to the max, says that they are all pissing their pants excited for it, and then they go and see it then they come back and rant on the message boards about how it didn't fit their expectations.

Drewza89

05-22-2008, 08:39 PM

You do realize people are allowed to have opinions...

Did you even read my post? I'm mad at people who don't like it either because of their hatred for George Lucas or that they think the movie is unrealistic. If they didn't enjoy it, that's fine with me. Just don't hate on the movie for ridiculous reasons.

JohnLocke2342

05-22-2008, 09:52 PM

My girlfriend and I loved it. I would have to say that the original trilogy are my favorite movies of all-time. Indiana Jones was my childhood and I seemed to love them more with age. I saw it again today and I saw it at midnight. Both times there was a fun, happy audience, cheering, yelling, and laughing along with everyone else. I also saw a lot of different people. Old couples, families, little kids, teenagers, older teens, and A LOT of single 30-40 year olds. At both showings people loved it and people hated it.

It's obvious to me that people are either going to love or hate this film. It's a different Indy movie. There's the unusual amazon setting, when we're used to deserts/temples/open, dry, middle eastern landscapes. There's the older, more fragile, worn down Indy. There's the increased CGI. There's an alien plot, replacing the religious, powerful artifiacts. I really don't think that anybody's opinions will ever persuade me or change my views on the film. We all have our own opinions. If you hated it, that's ok.. and if you loved it? That's just as ok too. I had a blast at this movie.. I took nothing too seriously and enjoyed the hell out of it. Indy felt like Indy to me... no matter what.:cool:

KcMsterpce

05-22-2008, 11:51 PM

I'm pissed at the Crystal Skull lovers.

After that, all I see in your original post is a list of some of my favorite "argument enders".

I hated that movie.
I don't see many people hating on it here.

It's not just about not liking aliens.

It's hating:
bad supporting characters
horrible dialog
beyond slapstick "humor"
CGI everything. CGI backdrops, lens flare, sunlight, vehicles, plants/trees, animals (fuck that fucking shit), yadda yadda... it has none of the organic, real-life setting that made the others so rich in environmental detail
Seriously, WTF was up with the animals again?
sitcom-styled family bickering bullshit
wtf is so funny about scenes like the motorcycle in the library? And the kid asking Indy a question? Or the not-quick-sand and Indy stopping to start giving a lecture while he's dying. Never mind the "rope" bit. And how it goes on forever while he's sinking... to HIS DEATH.
The action scenes just all of a sudden happen, in ways which don't mix/mingle and flow with the story. They all were just tacked on.
Weak lead "bad guy"
Poor Ray Winstone's character was just a fucking headache
Entire sequences didn't need to exist in this flick. Like, the atom bomb. WHAT the motherfucking FUCK?
Tarzan? Huh?! Friendly attacking monkeys?! Don't even get me started on the CGI-ant world.
Every time there's a riddle or clue, Indy just figures out what's going on within 30 seconds. There's no challenge. It doesn't feel like Indy is unsolving clues and mysteries... it's Indy putting "A" together with "Z" because the movie provides exposition without innovation.
I don't even mind how the religious theme of Indy over the last three doesn't really play out the same way here. Won't go into that for fear of giving spoilers.

I could go on.

How about the GOOD things:

Harrison Ford
The end credits

therealjohng

05-23-2008, 12:47 AM

The best part of Indy 4 was the BB teaser that played before it. The movie sucked. It wasn't entertaining. It's The Beard's worst movie by far. Fuck this movie. Fuck Lucas. Fuck Spielberg. Fuck Ford. I'm glad my friend let me in for free. God what a fucking god awful fucking horrible piece of shit movie this is. Lucas should just go give the rest of his earnings to USC so he isn't allowed to produce movies anymore. I can't believe they released such a shitty movie.

sirdizzy

05-23-2008, 02:37 AM

So I liked the movie, it was pretty fun but oh my god I can see and understand the hate for it. After the movie all I could think is what crackpot decided Aliens, Communists and Indiana Jones is a good idea. I was waiting for Predator to come jumping out in a few of the jungle scenes. Most of the movies had lots of elements of the supernatural mixed around plenty of action and an overall blockbuster feel but Crystal Skull took it to a new level. Seriously the best idea they could come up for a fourth Indiana movie was aliens, communists and Shia Lebouf. Nineteen years to pull out of the hat Aliens and communists.

So the movie was good, the action was fun, it had that very Indiana Jones feel to it but the story was so freaking ridiculous that I am still shaking my head an hour later. Really all the script rewrites and all the time spent into hashing out a story and they came up with Aliens and communists.

ApatowFan

05-23-2008, 02:41 AM

Wow that is a lot of hate coming from both sides, and to think Indy moves are all about spreading joy. I have to say that in my opinion this was the weakest of the movies for various reasons; the plot was unconvincing/not thought-out, the action a little too fantastical/unbelievable, the escapes too far fetched. With all that said it was entertaining, does it live up to the hype/wait/other three movies no but it does provide some mind-popping visuals and the return of one of the most iconic characters of all time. Could it have been better of course but was it dreadful or a disgrace to its predecessors no.

Natty

05-23-2008, 06:25 AM

JohnLocke2342

05-23-2008, 01:53 PM

I know it was stupid coming to this thread but:

SPOILER WARNINGS PEOPLE!

I know the thread starter put one at the top, but I skipped his post, observed his rating and looked to see why some people didn't like it, I didn't think there would be anything too revealing.

u didnt think there would be anything too revealing? Explaining why you hated a movie is only possible when u put in examples and the parts/scenes u hated. A Spoiler warning for a thread like this is ridiculously unnecessary.

BanksIsDaFuture

05-23-2008, 02:05 PM

The best part of Indy 4 was the BB teaser that played before it.

So very, very true.

Although I think the Australia and Eagle Eye trailers were pretty great too.

Natty

05-23-2008, 05:16 PM

ridiculously unnecessary.

:D

I was expecting stuff like this:

CGI everything. CGI backdrops, lens flare, sunlight, vehicles, plants/trees, animals (fuck that fucking shit), yadda yadda... it has none of the organic, real-life setting that made the others so rich in environmental detail

Not Stuff like this:

And how it goes on forever while he's sinking... to HIS DEATH

And if there was to be stuff like that, I would have expected a spoiler warning. However, I have now seen the movie and know that I interpreted it in the wrong way and the craziest thing is, while I was watching it, I was thought to myself for a second 'I bet I'll go back to that thread and someone wouldn't have liked what I said about the spoilers, I guess it was kinda stupid'.

KcMsterpce

05-23-2008, 10:40 PM

And if there was to be stuff like that, I would have expected a spoiler warning. However, I have now seen the movie and know that I interpreted it in the wrong way and the craziest thing is, while I was watching it, I was thought to myself for a second 'I bet I'll go back to that thread and someone wouldn't have liked what I said about the spoilers, I guess it was kinda stupid'.

I'm big into not posting spoilers, and that "...to his DEATH" bit is about how one would not stop to lecture while in a state of mortal peril, when time is of the essence.

But I wondered where the spoilers were being mentioned when you posted earlier. I started looking at past posts - and mine especially because I tried to be ambiguous with what bothered me UNLESS you saw the movie - and then read this. That's pretty funny.

dellamorte dellamore

05-24-2008, 01:15 AM

This movie just gets me more excited for what will be one of the best movies ever made , TDK , Indy will pale in comparison .

Hey , i agree , Eagle Eye looks like a winner , Lab can redeem himself with that pic , because from what i've seen , yes , he will be excellent in that film .

Natty

05-24-2008, 05:31 AM

But I wondered where the spoilers were being mentioned when you posted earlier. I started looking at past posts - and mine especially because I tried to be ambiguous with what bothered me UNLESS you saw the movie - and then read this. That's pretty funny.

I'm not sure what you mean here, 'the spoilers being mentioned earlier' were in the first post, which I said that I skipped reading. I skim read your post before seeing the movie and then posted the complaint but as I said I don't really understand what you saying - what is funny?

LordSimen

05-24-2008, 07:18 AM

hoojib127

05-24-2008, 07:27 AM

Asa_Phelps

05-24-2008, 01:24 PM

I'm just pissed at people who seemed to be surprised about

***SPOILERS***

The fact that there are aliens in the film. Well, duh, it's Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls. Do some research.

I wasn't surprised it ended up being aliens. I was surprised that they chose aliens. As in why would they make it about the Crystal Skull if it leads to aliens. Are aliens the last greatest archaeological mystery left to uncover in the late 50s or something? No. They were just trying to re-created Raiders except it's the Russians instead of the Germans and an alien artifact instead of a religious one.

LordSimen

05-24-2008, 01:31 PM

I wasn't surprised it ended up being aliens. I was surprised that they chose aliens.

Why wouldn't they? What's wrong with aliens? You're willing to accept magic face melting nazis, but not aliens?

This is something that completely baffles me. I read reviews for this film of people complaining that the film is unbelievable and lacks a level of realism. Then these same reviews will complain about there being aliens instead of religious magic.

So, wait, let me get this straight, it's more real if the end result is magic instead of aliens? That doesn't make sense, at all.

They were just trying to re-created Raiders except it's the Russians instead of the Germans and an alien artifact instead of a religious one.

That doesn't sound like Raiders at all. Try again.

Asa_Phelps

05-24-2008, 04:11 PM

This is something that completely baffles me. I read reviews for this film of people complaining that the film is unbelievable and lacks a level of realism. Then these same reviews will complain about there being aliens instead of religious magic.

So, wait, let me get this straight, it's more real if the end result is magic instead of aliens?

Yes, exactly. Certain religious artifacts which have been around for thousands of years and have gained a mythical notoriety through collective legends are easier to swallow than little green men from space. Why is that surprising? But it's not just that. It's the fact that Indy and aliens feels like two genres colliding together that shouldn't be.

As far as levels of realism, my only issue was the jeep scene and I think even then it was because it was just too much on top of everything else. It was Marion's cardboard preformance driving the jeep, the fact that the tree managed to place them so perfectly in the water and as if that's not enough the damn thing snaps back to get the bad guys. Come on!

That doesn't sound like Raiders at all. Try again.

Jones surmises that the Nazis seek Ravenwood because he possesses the headpiece to the Staff of Ra, a key artifact essential in pinpointing the Ark’s resting place within the city. His colleague Marcus Brody explains that, according to legend, the power of the Ark can make any army invincible.

In 1957, Colonel-Doctor Irina Spalko eads a convoy of Communist Russians infiltrating a military base in the Nevada desert called Hangar 51, where they force Indiana Jones to lead them to an object he had previously studied . . . The Soviets believe the skull is from an extraterrestrial life-form, holding great psychic power. (Psychic power which they will use to control their enemy)

Yeah, that doesn't sound at all similar.

KcMsterpce

05-24-2008, 04:44 PM

Haven't seen it yet, but I was fully expecting extreme reactions, since it's a belated sequel to a beloved film series. The Godfather III Syndrome strikes again. : ? Too many people, subconsciously or not, buy into the hype of these movies to the extent that they already have the entire movie formed in their heads before they've seen a frame of it. And, of course, nothing they can see can match those mental visions. I happened with "Godfather III," the Star Wars prequels, "The Two Jakes," "Hannibal" and "Red Dragon," etc., and will likely continue throughout time. Many people still despise "Temple of Doom" as well; do they think this is even worse or something?

Yeah, uhm... I really fucking hate this argument.

Godfather III is not a very good movie.
The prequels are NOT good movies.
Indy IV is not a good movie. On its own merits. I don't like any of them, but it has nothing to do with my "subconscious" predisposed notions. It's about how it failed to provide the amount of quality that it could have provided.

As an "Indy" movie yes, it falls short.
As pure entertainment, disregarding it as "Indiana Jones"... it still fails.

Please don't toss that bullshit argument about "Your expectations were too high," or "it could never live up to the legacy"...
Actually, I was 99% sure it wouldn't live up to the other Indy movies. I was JUST looking for some fun and adventure. I didn't get that, either. What I got was a parody of movie greatness.
At least it was better than THE LOST WORLD.

Cop No. 633

05-24-2008, 04:56 PM

Fucking Christ... I'm sick of these stupid fucking rants. Oh my God, somebody didn't love the movie you did! Grow up people. Nobody will ever universally like a film. It's impossible.

This is just as bad as people getting angry that the mediocre Cloverfield movie didn't get a mountain of praise from everyone. Get over that shit.

I'm sick of people saying movie goers are just "hating on a movie" even after the person gave their reasons for not liking it. What is so illegitimate about that? If somebody didn't like it, then who cares? You did! That's all that matters.

LordSimen

05-24-2008, 05:08 PM

Yes, exactly. Certain religious artifacts which have been around for thousands of years and have gained a mythical notoriety through collective legends are easier to swallow than little green men from space. Why is that surprising? But it's not just that. It's the fact that Indy and aliens feels like two genres colliding together that shouldn't be.

Genres aren't colliding because Indy has always been a mishmash of genres to begin with. Nowhere does it say that Indy is a FANTASY movie. It's an action adventure movie, and can have elements that range from science fiction to fantasy.

And how is magic more logical than aliens? Aliens makesense. Aliens have more chance of being real, have more chance of actually being something that could happen. I don't understand how there's a shit ton of space out there and that we're the only fucking smart beings on the planet earth is more believable than a box that can melt nazi's faces. Aliens have more of a chance of realism than magic ever will, if you ask me.

And it ESPECIALLY doesn't make sense when dealing with the Crystal Skulls. The most common theory behind them is the theory of space aliens. The theory of magic connected to the Crystal Skulls is a direct result of the theory of aliens.

Jones surmises that the Nazis seek Ravenwood because he possesses the headpiece to the Staff of Ra, a key artifact essential in pinpointing the Ark’s resting place within the city. His colleague Marcus Brody explains that, according to legend, the power of the Ark can make any army invincible.

In 1957, Colonel-Doctor Irina Spalko eads a convoy of Communist Russians infiltrating a military base in the Nevada desert called Hangar 51, where they force Indiana Jones to lead them to an object he had previously studied . . . The Soviets believe the skull is from an extraterrestrial life-form, holding great psychic power. (Psychic power which they will use to control their enemy)

Those don't sound like the same movie at all. When did the Nazis kidnap Jones to find their piece? Never in Raiders, that's for sure.

EDITED: I felt my original post was too mean, so I toned it down.

LordSimen

05-24-2008, 05:27 PM

I think it's funny about how people are arguing about the validity and/or history of the crystal skulls.
Look no further than the WEIGHT of crystal. That skull would have been too heavy to carry around like a plastic prop.
Also, during the jungle sequence, there's a part where the skull - while in the bag - gets tossed out into the hands of Blanchette, and you can see that it is OBVIOUSLY a sack stuffed with weightless filling.

I think we should argue how strong everyone is, carrying this humungous skull of crystal before arguing about the origins and myths of the skulls themselves (which, from what I recall, never look like an alien head).

Point well taken. :p

KcMsterpce

05-24-2008, 05:29 PM

ElderPredator

05-24-2008, 05:51 PM

Can't we all just......get along? :)

P.S. Cate Blanchett was so friggin' hot in that movie that it was almost ridiculous.

Natty

05-25-2008, 08:00 AM

P.S. Cate Blanchett was so friggin' hot in that movie that it was almost ridiculous.

Totally agree! She can terrorise me anytime she wants!;)

Asa_Phelps

05-25-2008, 08:54 AM

Genres aren't colliding because Indy has always been a mishmash of genres to begin with. Nowhere does it say that Indy is a FANTASY movie. It's an action adventure movie, and can have elements that range from science fiction to fantasy.

I'm not a huge Indy fan but I do know that originally Lucas purposed a fourth film called 'Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men From Mars'. Apparently it was a piece of shit. An unconfirmed 1995 draft showed up online ten years later, and the story involved an alien artifact which continuously changes possession between Indy, Russian badguys, and aliens from another planet. Wow that sounds familiar. I wonder why it took them ten years to get a script everyone liked. They must've been perfecting its awesomeness because it totally sounded like the next best adventure for Indy.

And how is magic more logical than aliens? Aliens makesense. Aliens have more chance of being real, have more chance of actually being something that could happen. I don't understand how there's a shit ton of space out there and that we're the only fucking smart beings on the planet earth is more believable than a box that can melt nazi's faces. Aliens have more of a chance of realism than magic ever will, if you ask me.

You're reading me all wrong dude. What I'm saying about the reception of aliens versus religious artifacts pertains to general views. I'm giving you examples of why people might be shocked that it was aliens because that's what you commented on in your original post.

So I do agree with you that if a person is willing to believe that a chalice exists which belonged to Jesus and it brings eternal life then why not believe that there is life on other planets. But over-all you're going to have more people willing to believe the religious crap than the alien crap. Not to mention they weren't even from space in this movie, they were from an inner-dimension. Aliens. From another dimension. WHAT?

Those don't sound like the same movie at all. When did the Nazis kidnap Jones to find their piece? Never in Raiders, that's for sure.

I was speaking about concept not plot. Let me give you a better example.

It's after WWI. America's greatest threat is the Nazis. In 1929 you've got the establishment of the Vatican. 1936 (The year in which Raiders takes place) Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo meets with Hitler. Christianity is high on the radal. So the movie combines these elements. When the Nazis finally get the power of the Ark, it's too much for them and their faces melt.

It's the 1950s. The Cold War. America's greatest threat is the Russians and suspicion of communism. In 1947 you have the infamous Roswell crash. 1952 the US government opens up Project Blue Book to judge whether or not UFOs pose a threat to the Sates. Extraterrestrial life is high on the radar. So the movie combines these elements. When Spalko finally gets the power from the aliens, it's too much for her to handle and she's sent to another dimension.

LordSimen

05-25-2008, 04:01 PM

It's after WWI. America's greatest threat is the Nazis. In 1929 you've got the establishment of the Vatican. 1936 (The year in which Raiders takes place) Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo meets with Hitler. Christianity is high on the radal. So the movie combines these elements. When the Nazis finally get the power of the Ark, it's too much for them and their faces melt.

It's the 1950s. The Cold War. America's greatest threat is the Russians and suspicion of communism. In 1947 you have the infamous Roswell crash. 1952 the US government opens up Project Blue Book to judge whether or not UFOs pose a threat to the Sates. Extraterrestrial life is high on the radar. So the movie combines these elements. When Spalko finally gets the power from the aliens, it's too much for her to handle and she's sent to another dimension.

Nothing you've stated there is the same thing. What's your point, again?

Servo

05-26-2008, 05:59 AM

It's like I've said before, George Lucas has stated in an interview that Indiana Jones was basically X-Files before there was X-Files. It's supposed to be typical for him to run into these kinds of things (heck, the third installment was supposed to take place in a haunted mansion). The whole alien-inspiring-cultures theory is hardly a new one. It's actually extremely typical in pseudo-sciences.

Audiences are rolling their eyes because Lucas chose to the use the alien pseudoscience theory with this particular installment...19 years after we've followed Indy through more mythical/ancient archeology as opposed to the more mystical new age whacked out pseudoscience. The two do go hand-in-hand, but when dealing with cinema it's different...it becomes a huge departure and seemingly "outside of the mythos". They could've gone after the Spear of Destiny, and whoever gets impaled with it unleashes some kinda great catastrophe and it would've be fine, typical Indy.

The premise is simillar to Raiders in the sense the "Indy looks for artifact that is also sought out by evil foreign empire who seeks it to take over world"...but that's the exact same premise as Crusade, too. And it worked, and to me that's a typical Indy big screen adventure. Temple of Doom is the biggest departure from the three of them, and everybody hates that movie (even Spielberg).

Special effects are so commonplace and they're so easy for today's filmmakers (ESPECIALLY Spielberg) it's a little hard to wow us with the "big climactic light show". In fact my biggest gripe with the film is that they didn't use the actual locations outside of New Haven and Nevada, as opposed to Raiders where they actually had to shoot in Cairo. But I guarantee if Raiders were made today Spielberg's and Ford's old asses wouldn't venture out to Egypt but instead stay within the comforting confines of a Hollywood studio (I think they learned that having diarrhea while shooting an action film is no fun - even though it did inspire one of the greatest moments in cinema).

We don't go to these films for something completely new and original, we go for the nostalgia and the excitement. If you felt that, well, mission accomplished. If not, then I think you should really just take a second gander when it comes out on DVD. I know people will shit all over that comment but I had a long argument with a friend of mine who told me it was completely awful...he's since changed his mind. I feel like people need to lay off the Mutt swinging from vines rant. Seriously, compared to the other films, that's incredibly nit-picky. I can go back and find little nit-picky moments throughout the whole trilogy that are just as fantastical and unbelievable.

miguel_montes

05-26-2008, 08:52 AM

I have no problem with Indiana dealing with aliens. He is an archeologist with a specialization ON THE OCCULT. So alien civilizations and other dimensions don't seem out of his field.

And I'd rather have a movie about pseudoscience than about pseudoreligion mumbo-jumbo. Indiana Jones is more of a scientist than a priest.

fooknasty

05-26-2008, 11:08 AM

Ok, here we go.

First of all, having Indiana Jones deal with religious artifacts that possess supernatural power is grounded in a more movie style realism than aliens. Now, I didn't have a problem with the entire alien theme of the movie, until the very end. WTF, that was ridiculous. I could go into detail, but it is pointless. The entire ending was way off base.

Secondly, the movie IMO, didn't feel like an Indiana Jones movie. Ford didn't seem all that into the movie, especially with his overacting in certain scenes. (I.E. the beginning). Ford looked and moved around on screen like every bit of 65 years old. Their were glimpses of his ass kickery, but not enough.

Thirdly, WAY too much CGI. The whole movie seemed to be just engrossed in over the top, very poor CGI. Not an Indiana Jones movie my friends.

And finally, I will just chunk this together, the dialogue, supporting cast, and direction (spielberg) of this movie were all just piss poor. I could barely understand what the fuck Ray Winestone was saying half the damn time. There were too many blatantly cheesy lines all throughout the movie.

IMO, it doesn't get a free pass just because it says Indiana Jones on it, which it seems so many people of this board have done.

Well, because other Indiana Jones movies dealt with elements of the supernatural than automatically aliens will be OK to add into the series. Are you freaking kidding me? Even if you believe this, it doesn't make up for all of the technical garbage that went wrong with this movie.

tbone

05-26-2008, 11:15 AM

Its not that I hated the movie I'm just being honest -- and the truth is that the movie doesn't live up to what came before. Some of the magic was gone, the script wasn't as sharp, the villains were bland and the action nowhere near as exciting. This is a movie that had it not been for the other movies most people would just call your standard action/adventure movie.

EZM22

05-26-2008, 11:20 AM

Just saw this movie last night, a 7/10 for me. Fine entertainment, and nothing more.

I agree that people are allowed to have opinions, and I can understand if someone didn't like the film. What annoys me is that here in Peru, every single critic has blasted the film to no end; the funny thing is, if you read all their reviews, they all criticize the film for the exact same thing. Seriously, it's like they all got together, agreed on one point of view and then xeroxed their own articles.

The movie does have flaws: it's sometimes way over the top; sure, what Indy film isn't (you're not supposed to take it seriously) but that waterfall scene, while fun, was a bit much; there are way too many supporting characters that take the focus off Indy himself (with a little rewriting, the character of Ox didn't even have to be here); the villains weren't that big of a presence to be threatening (though Cate Blanchett looked sexy as hell); and even suggesting that Mutt will take Indy's place is a very, very bad idea (no offense to Shia LaBeouf, he did alright, but no one can replace Harrison Ford).

Reviewers here, however, have all centered on the same points, some of them which I find just complaining for the sake of it:

- Too much CGI: If you have the technology, why not use it? They're complaining that the end is just one big light show... now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the climax of Raiders also one big special effects light show, with the Ark opening and melting all the Nazis? If anything, the climax here reminded me of the first film.

- Aliens: I can buy the aliens. Considering Indy once messed with the power of God, aliens aren't so bad. Besides, Spielberg seems to have a fascination with extraterrestrials, so it makes sense.

- "Unbelieveable" action sequences: Like I said before, the waterfall scene was a bit much, but I went with it, because that's what Indy is all about: over-the-top fantasy action. They worked in the context of the film. The extended chase through the jungle was awesome, and seriously, stop bitching about Mutt and the monkeys; you're seriously going to whine about a three-minute vine-swinging scene, but the the fact that Indy escapes a nuclear blast inside a fridge didn't bother you?

- Harrison Ford is too old: For a guy in his sixties, Ford handled the action scenes pretty well. How come no one said the same thing about John McClane, Rambo, or Rocky when their newest entries came out?

And finally, the one thing that reviewers here seem to loathe is the pretty lousy way Peru is portrayed. I have to agree, it's pretty bad: Nazca looks nothing like the real thing, I couldn't understand why Mariachi music was playing throughout the entire scene, and the "Pancho Villa" exchange was dumb. But the theater I was in just laughed and shrugged it off: who expects geographical accuracy from a Hollywood picture anyway? They have a track record for giving lousy portrayals of Latin American countries. Expecting realism from a film series that has included aliens, the power of God, chilled monkey brains as a delicacy, underground mine cart rides, booby-trapped temples, ripped-out hearts, and people not getting a scratch from falling from three waterfalls is asking for too much, wouldn't you say?

Besides, they only spend about 12 minutes of screen time in Nazca, so who really cares?

I think the problem with the film is that people have too high expectations. The Indy films have always been over-the-top popcorn adventure movies, nothing more, and this one hasn't changed the formula at all. There is just no way the film could live up to the hype unless you were expecting a fun blockbuster; that's all.

Nowadays, with the Internet, the sense of wonder and expectation is lost. Scripts get leaked, footage gets leaked, photos and trailers are everywhere and everyone knows everything about the film months before it opens. That I think is the problem with this film.

But still, it was a fun adventure movie and an okay way to spend two hours in a theatre. And, Harrison Ford is still Indy no matter what; that's all I could ask for from an Indiana Jones movie, to be able to turn my brain off and enjoy myself.

Asa_Phelps

05-26-2008, 11:48 AM

Audiences are rolling their eyes because Lucas chose to the use the alien pseudoscience theory with this particular installment...19 years after we've followed Indy through more mythical/ancient archeology as opposed to the more mystical new age whacked out pseudoscience. The two do go hand-in-hand, but when dealing with cinema it's different...it becomes a huge departure and seemingly "outside of the mythos". They could've gone after the Spear of Destiny, and whoever gets impaled with it unleashes some kinda great catastrophe and it would've be fine, typical Indy.

These were my thoughts exactly. It's what I say to people about Stephen King movies; some of them are bad simply because their content is more plausible and accepted when you're imagining it while reading the book. Once you see it on screen, some believability is lost.

I also didn't have too much of a problem with the alien thing until the end like others on here are saying. The way the chamber with the alien skeletons looked, the way the flying saucer took off and then disappeared and that really bad exchange of lines between Indy and Ox. So I think it was just a combination of subject matter and execution. I gave this film a 5 originally but it has since moved up to a 6/10.

miguel_montes

05-27-2008, 05:50 PM

Just saw the movie and LOVED IT! Make no mistake, this is an "Indiana Jones" movie.
A lot of haters don't like Indy 4 because it's new. Had this film been shot right after Indy 3, people would love it today.

Concerning the implausability of some scenes, the haters have to remember that countless other scenes in the other movies are just as implausible. Why don't you have a problem with them? Because you've grown used to them, and learned to love them for what they are.

I also believe a great part of the haters are grown people that were young when the other movies were released, so since they are more mature, they tend to not like fantastical movies. A young person has a more open mind and therefore accepts the movie better.

A lot of Indy fans aged faster than Indy himself.

KcMsterpce

05-27-2008, 07:51 PM

A lot of haters don't like Indy 4 because it's new. Had this film been shot right after Indy 3, people would love it today.

Concerning the implausability of some scenes, the haters have to remember that countless other scenes in the other movies are just as implausible. Why don't you have a problem with them? Because you've grown used to them, and learned to love them for what they are.

I also believe a great part of the haters are grown people that were young when the other movies were released, so since they are more mature, they tend to not like fantastical movies. A young person has a more open mind and therefore accepts the movie better.

I call bullshit on all of this.
That's not my feelings on this movie at all. Please don't go putting words into my mouth.

I hate it on its' own terms, and I didn't even go in thinking of it as an Indiana Jones movie.

I'm glad you liked the movie, but my dislike towards it would be the same if it was released years ago. Think of SUPERMAN IV versus the first movie. That's how far this strayed. For me.

Don't know why anyone would be pissed that someone hates the movie you love (I mean this thread title, not you), but what I hate is when people write off anothers' opinion with bullshit excuses that have nothing to do with why I hate it.

I will admit when I think a movie should be better but I didn't like it because I grew out of it, or any of those excuses above. This isn't one of those times.
I liked SHOOT'EM UP, and if it was close to that caliber of movie making, I'd be happy. CRANK is fucking awesome. That's "brainless action/adventure" done right. Once again, IMO.

AaronisMe

05-28-2008, 02:25 AM

Who cares if someone doesn't agree? I don't see why people are so hung up with Rotten Tomatoes this, Ebert that, JoBlo hated this, etc. In the end, it's all about how you felt when you saw the movie. Screw the critics and just decide for yourself if you liked it or not. And don't be mad if people hated it. I wouldn't rely on anyone to agree with me to bolster my justification for liking it. I mean, I enjoyed Spider-Man 3 but hated Transformers. So, I was on the opposite end of the spectrum last summer. Good on you for finding something you enjoyed at the cinema. I'll just stick to the local Landmark and see the Fall and wait till July 18.

I agree thedudeman69. It's kinda like what Scott Mosier said in the Clerks II documentary. Everyone pissed pants excited about this movie. Then, when it came out, the opinion was divided. At the end of the day, it's just a movie. Not use getting all Palestinian/Israeli on each other over the merits of Louis Stevens vine-swinging.

AaronisMe

05-28-2008, 02:26 AM

Jig Saw 123

05-31-2008, 11:28 AM

I personally loved Crystal Skull, of course not more than the original but I still loved it. I don't know why people hate on the alien twist in this film, it went perfectly well because it still held that religious connection that all Indy films held. The only problem I felt with this film was the movies villain, I felt she wasn't evil enough, she was more on Indy's side most of the time and she didn't seem like much of a threat. I don't mind Spielberg trying something new with the series, I actually hope more sequels are made with Indy and Indy Jr. Yet I don't know what they could possibly do next, but knowing Lucas and Spielberg I'm sure they have a couple ideas up their sleeves. ;)

Indydan13

06-07-2008, 02:04 AM

I agree that we've all grown up faster than Indy.

Bad Dialogue:
"I'm Like a Bad Penny, I'll always turn up."
Last Crusade

"Come on Dr. Jones, no time for love"
Temple of Doom

The dialogue of the series hasn't changed much. It is campy, corny, cringy; but that is the experience.

OK, Mutt sucked ass. I can't defend him. His character should have been much older and not played by Speilberg's lasted boy-toy.

I did not hate Temple of Doom.

Spalko wasn't that evil, but then again her character wasn't supposed to be. She wanted the skull more than she wanted Jones dead. Dovchenko, though, he was a bad ass.

I could understand Mac's every word. Ray Winstone is a beast.

The Monkey's sucked, but so did the one from Raiders...

Not as bad as people say, but nothing we can say will change that. I personally feel that it is new, it is different. Yes, something non-religious was used. For shame! The first three took place in the 30s and mimicked 30s adventure films. This took place in the 50s and mimicked 50s B-movie alien flicks. I love the idea of Aliens. Enough with the religion being stuck down our throats already. Aliens are way more likely to exist than the Ark shooting out flames of Anti-Nazi matter. It is a scientific probability. In order to have life, a planet must be a certain distance from it's sun, like ours. So inter-dimensional beings with Psychic powers is not so bad or world crushing. Plus, the Saucer was a cool throwback.

I don't expect to change anyones view but hopefully both sides will CHILL THE FUCK OUT! You don't need to give a Fuck You to Spielberg and co., at least they tried. I mean, with shit like Jumper, Never Back Down, License to Wed, Step Up 2, and other Bullshit movies coming out, it is nice to see Hollywood Royalty step up to the plate. They've all gotten older, so deal with it. If Kubrick were alive today, I'd highly doubt he would be as good as his work in the 70s. However, lovers of Indy 4 also need to chill. The movie made an assload of cash, making it a financial success. You obviously loved it and that's all that matters. Quite frankly, it is just nice to be able to have a discussion on the finest franchise in history without having to reminisce on old times...

FLAME_ON

06-07-2008, 03:36 AM

OK, Mutt sucked ass. I can't defend him. His character should have been much older and not played by Speilberg's lasted boy-toy.

I'm just going to throw this out there... Ryan Reynolds should be Indy's son. I think the guy has the very same suave, wit, charisma, confidence, and charm as Harrison Ford. Plus the man has the looks to be to be extremely handsome and yet he can pull off a tough, rugged look (The Amityville Horror, Blade 3). And he's got enough skill in acting to pull off a role such as this. I agree his reputation is more of a goofy, pretty-boy, ladies man... but I'm sure if you gave him a role such as Indy's son it would open the doors for a bigger, more respectable celebrity. I maybe imagining just a Indiana Jones replacement all together but since they're going with the son legacy, Reyolds could fill that too. Even though I didn’t have much of a problem with Shia, I think Spielberg might have been a little too spontaneous with his decision to cast him and put someone in shoes they can’t fill. I don't know though so don't ream me here... I'm just throwin' it out there. And for visual purposes, I cooked up this picture:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll240/flameon22/ReynoldsIndy.jpg

miguel_montes

06-07-2008, 05:05 AM

Ryan Reynolds is too old to be Indiana Jones's son.

But he would be a good Harrison Ford replacement (God forbid). Him or Nathan Fillion.

DarthWade

06-08-2008, 12:43 PM

I really loved this movie. I didn't think I would (when it was first announced my first thought was "ah, it's too late...") but I really enjoyed it.

Yeah there are parts that are a bit over the top, but all the movies have that. It's not like any of them are super-realistic anyways. They follow the old serial formula so you should expect some outrageous parts. I don't mind the alien plot either...so far we've had the Ark (the ten commandments), the stones, and the holy grail - it's not too much to accept an alien plot - at least that's how I feel.

The image of Indy walking up the hill in front of the nuclear blast was beautiful. Very nice image - one that I'll remember for a long time.

It was a decent good-bye to Indy.

ScaryFreak1827

06-15-2008, 12:42 AM

I really enjoyed this and thought it was just good popcorn fun. Seeing Ford return as Indy is worth the ticket price alone and Karen Allen is an added bonus. Shia was actually pretty decent as well and the action scenes were exciting. Not getting all the hate....

Indydan13

06-15-2008, 12:57 AM

Ryan Reynolds is too old to be Indiana Jones's son.

But he would be a good Harrison Ford replacement (God forbid). Him or Nathan Fillion.

He's not too old. If you figure, Indy has been "active" since the twenties. He may have had a illegitamite kid or two.

BTW: Nathan Fillion as Indiana Jones would be perfect....

LordSimen

06-15-2008, 01:12 AM

I just saw the movie and I have to say I'm even more confused as to it's haters now that I've seen it. It's a great indy movie.

ApocalypseWhen

06-17-2008, 01:44 AM

To all those people who are saying that we would have been disappointed no matter what it turned out like, I say that I truly tried to like this movie, I really did. I tried to keep an open mind to things, not have too high expectations, I wasn't expecting the greatness of the 80s films because let's be honest, Harrison Ford is pretty damn old for an action hero. I tried to keep away from anything that might spoil the story for me beforehand, so I was completely unaware of the alien plot, all I knew was that it involved a Crystal Skull and communists.

At the beginning of the movie when the Communists open the crate marked Area 51, I hoped to God, Shieva, Buddha, whoever, that it would just be a small subplot for the start and that we would get into the real action once that was out of the way. As just that, it would have been a nice little nod to the mentalities of the 50's...how naive I was in the powers of the Beards.

Saying that the use of aliens is acceptable since it's not really realistic to have spirits come out of the Ark of the Covenant is like saying you might as well have laser shooting dinosaurs thrown in. Why not, it's Indiana Jones, it's not based on reality. Let's have him travel back in time and fight a cognitive Sun. The point I'm making here is that the whole Alien mythology completely misses the point of the Indiana Jones series. We know somewhat about the relic or whatever that he's looking for before the movie gets into full swing, so when it's finally revealed we're in awe of everything because we realize how much it means to Indiana Jones to find it and actually have it in his clutches. In Crystal Skull, it was just some skull that he needed to return for some ill-thought out reason. I enjoyed large portions of the movie, even Mutt, but at some point you have to realize that suspension of disbelief should be just that, not sitting in your seat clutching your temples saying "Wait, I'll enjoy this more if I suspend my disbelief...SUSPEND DAMN YOU!!"

a7xfan

06-17-2008, 09:16 AM

none of the indy's were that well made, but they still kicked ass, just like this, i thought it was great.

miguel_montes

06-17-2008, 09:16 AM

The point I'm making here is that the whole Alien mythology completely misses the point of the Indiana Jones series.

And does that, how...? What do you think is the point of the Indiana Jones series?

ApocalypseWhen

06-17-2008, 09:53 AM

I guess what I was trying to say is that in the original trilogy, Indy is always looking for something, so it plays out as a sort of mystery as to if he'll find it or not and what will happen. In Crystal Skull, he already has the thing that he's looking and the origin of it was revealed in the first 5 minutes of the movie. I guess I was a bit harsh saying that it doesn't fit in with Indiana Jones, but what I really am pissed at was how poorly handled it was. In the other movies you never for a second doubted what was going on because it was handled so well and so logically that you just went with it. With Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I had a very hard time suspending my disbelief over a lot of things, and really would have preferred if they maybe had kept the alien plot as a kind of mystery until it's revealed at the very end...I also could have done without the flying saucer and formed alien, but maybe that's asking to much from alien happy Spielberg.