Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I saw the movie Friday night and really enjoyed it. I am a huge fan of this whole series and thought this was a worthy part of the "set". >>Just remember they're meant to feel like the old serial short films from LONG ago and go with it.<< Absolutely. I thought the inclusion of aliens was perfect -- if this had been a 1930's serial that continued into the 1950's, sci-fi and saucer men were at their cinematic zenith during this time. It made perfect sense that a 50's-era Indy would be dealing with commies and flying saucers. On the downside, I felt that this was more confusing than the previous three films. "Raiders", "Temple" and "Crusade" all did a much better job of featuring a key scene where we a. Learn what treasure we're after this time b. Learn what powers said treasure holds c. What's at stake if the bad guys get there first In "Crystal Skull" it was all pretty convoluted in terms of who was after what. That said, there are some dandy chase scenes, and lots of funny one-liners. I hope they make another where they do, "pass the hat".
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Thought both Mac and the Russian broad should have died much more horrible deaths.<< I have to agree. Considering the melting faces in "Raiders", Mola Ram plummeting into the waiting jaws of crocs in "Temple" and the guy who turned into Charlie Watts at the end of "Crusade", the baddies met their ends relatively low key ways in this film. I also wish the bad guys had been a little more brutal. Indy usually gets beat up pretty good by the bad guys before getting even. Maybe placing Mutt in more jeopardy would have done that.
Originally Posted By SuperDry I saw it at midnight on opening day. I thought it was above average and enjoyable, but not fantastic. The types of action scenes, and some of the effects and ideas, were groundbreaking 20 years ago, but now just run-of-the-mill. I did almost seem to be National Treasure III in some parts. [Spoilers follow, so skip to the last paragraph if you haven't seen it] <<< I enjoyed the bomb site scene but it didn't really serve any purpose at all. >>> I really enjoyed that scene, for several reasons. First of all, I recognized it for what it was even before the mannequins were shown. I got all excited in the theater and said "It's Survival City!" to the people I was with, who knew what I was talking about but had this look about them, "So SuperDry, you know the name of that city?" But I digress. And then for the most part, the blast itself was far more realistic than how atomic explosions are typically portrayed in movies. For example, the notion that people and objects close enough will see the flash, and then almost immediately be burnt to a crisp in a flameless manner, and all in total silence, is much closer to the real thing than what is normally shown with a mushroom cloud at a distance along with an instant explosion sound, despite being far away. But then the follow-up shot of the street from above looked like it was just a miniature set with debris blown over it from off camera by a big blast of air from a fan, which it no doubt actually was - it was nowhere near depicting the force of an actual atomic explosion. But I realize that I'm geeking out way too much on this point. One thing that bothered me throughout the film is that they had the faces lit just a bit too much. You could almost visualize where they had lights and/or reflector panels just outside the field of view of the camera. I found it to be very distracting, as when they were, say, in a car chase, it made me think of the camera and all the lighting rigging just out of view, rather than being immersed in the story. To sum it up, I thought it was an average to above-average, but not outstanding, action movie. Plus, it was just plain fun to have Indy back.
Originally Posted By DAR I saw it again last night. The only thing I really don't like is that Mac's character is too one dimensional other than that it was still great. I do have to ask even though it's a movie, but would a lead lined refrigerator save you from a nuclear blast? Which I was cracking up when it flew through the air. <<I have to agree. Considering the melting faces in "Raiders", Mola Ram plummeting into the waiting jaws of crocs in "Temple" and the guy who turned into Charlie Watts at the end of "Crusade", the baddies met their ends relatively low key ways in this film.>> It was very light PG-13 compared to even the other films.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Entertaining movie, YES. A classic like the first three, NO.<< See, this is the problem I have with these discussions. Raiders was a classic. Last Crusade was a pretty dang good flick. Temple of Doom? I liked it and own it because it's an Indiana Jones movie. But replace it with a stand-alone movie with different characters - it's not very good. People saw these movies as kids, and now, dozens of movies like Spiderman or Batman Begins later, they expect to be wowed the same way they were when they first saw them. I've long argued that the Star Wars prequels aren't as good as the original trilogy, but that they're much closer to them than people think or give them credit for. I'd argue the same thing here. This was an Indiana Jones movie. You're just more forgiving of the flaws in the first three movies because of nostalgia and an expectation that they're great films. The snake scene in the new movie? It's just as silly and cheesy as the scene in Temple of Doom with Kate Chapshaw running around from animals as Indy and Shorty play cards. Some of the silly one-liners? How are they different than something like "Nazis, I hate these guys." The likelihood of Indy surviving the nuclear explosion in Crystal Skull? Have you seen the mine chase in Temple of Doom? The answer: They're no different. These are essentially the same movies. But people let their love and nostalgia of the first three erase the flaws. That's a good thing but then they're overly critical of the new ones, and act as if the first ones were perfect cinema.
Originally Posted By wonderingalice <<and the guy who turned into Charlie Watts at the end of "Crusade",>> *LOL* And too true! (Poor ol' Charlie Watts... He looked about 70 back in the '60s. ;-) I failed to mention the nuclear bits... Loved them too. Being a Vegas gal, I too knew immediately what it was... Well, at least the moment he tried turning on the water in the house and nothing came out. The 'fridge was another of those "suspending belief" moments... First, there's that thing about becoming trapped inside those old appliances with the latches. Second, it never opened until after he stopped flying, tumbling, blasting, etc... how convenient! ;-) And thanks for mentioning the mine chase, SD... I'll remind Mr. Alice of it - to compare with the crew surving the three waterfalls.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I do have to ask even though it's a movie, but would a lead lined refrigerator save you from a nuclear blast?<< No, but it would keep the milk fresh. Like all the Indy movies, you do have to suspend disbelief and enjoy the ride. For example: In Temple of Doom, would three people survive falling from an airplane in an inflatible raft? Unlikely, but it's a funny, almost plausible idea. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, when Indy hitches a ride aboard the U-boat, why didn't it submerge for the long haul to the secret island? Like the old adventure serials that these films are based upon, imagination trumps reality, and that's okay.
Originally Posted By wonderingalice ^^Exactly! Ya just have to wrap yourself around it and enjoy the fantasy trip for a couple of hours - let the "heroes" be "heroes."
Originally Posted By dshyates I really don't see how the aliens are any more far fetched than the bolts of lightening blasting people to goo coming out of a "devine' gold plated footlocker. And The snake for a rope scene. It really felt like Lucas directed that one. It was so....um....bad. And Karen Allen's plastic surgery has left her with a goofy simpleton look.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <And Karen Allen's plastic surgery has left her with a goofy simpleton look.> Funny you should mention that. Karen Allen was featured on CBS This Morning, and there was talk about plastic surgery, and she said she's not had any. She seems like a neat person. I thought she was the weakest link acting-wise in 'Indy 4'. But I blame some of that on Spielberg too.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I thought she was the weakest link acting-wise in 'Indy 4'. But I blame some of that on Spielberg too. >>> Quality is always a management problem.
Originally Posted By X-san Case in point..Natalie Portman. INCREDIBLE actress (and all around hottie!), George Lucas just totally ruined her.
Originally Posted By sun-n-fun First, I have never seen an Indy movie all the way through. - GASP DH and I thought this one was OK, I came out thinking it was way too much like National Treasure 2. My boys (12 and 9) loved it. I think it is entertaining but not great.
Originally Posted By Tiggirl I fully enjoyed this movie. It was just what an Indy movie should be. A fun sumer flick with adventure, a few laughs and Harrison Ford. My two minor irks with the movie were I thought the first half of the movie had too much of the "Wink wink! Nudge nudge! Indy's older than the last time we saw him. Isn't that funny!?!" And the whole... Tarzan segment seemed weird and out of place. But other than those two minor quibbles I thought it was a really fun movie and was quote pleased with it. ~Beth
Originally Posted By X-san ***I thought the first half of the movie had too much of the "Wink wink! Nudge nudge! Indy's older than the last time we saw him. Isn't that funny!?!"*** Totally excellent point, IPB. I felt the same way.
Originally Posted By christiemarsh88 I loved it. In another 19 years, I don't think people will distinguish between Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and the "original" movies. I think it will eventually take its place as a classic, as much as the others. And that was the mark I was hoping they could hit. I certainly think they did.
