Originally Posted By PJ82858 When Cate's character spoke, all I could think of was Natasha (of Rocky and Bullwinkle fame). Overall, I thought it was a really fun movie.
Originally Posted By hightp I saw the movie yesterday with my 12 yr old son, and the only thing I could think of was that after 19 years, this was the best script they could come up with? I really thought the story would have been better suited for a Saturday night 'Sci Fi Channel Movie Original'. I could take the 'refrigerator survives atomic blast', and the 'blow the poison dart backward from the pipe', but why did the 'crystal skull artifact, cut from a single piece of quartz' which should have weighed 20-30 lbs come across as a light plastic prop, with crumpled tinfoil inside? If they had treated it like it was real, then it would have looked more believable, but whenever it made an appearence, it just looked like a prop. Maybe I expeceted too much, but I think after 19 years, the movie would have had a better story.
Originally Posted By FiveBearRugs I wonder if that poison dart trick would work, lol. It seemed to work in "Young Sherlock Holmes" and various Bugs Bunny shorts. I saw this today for the second time, albeit with different people, and I did see the picture of Sallah on the mantel. I wasn't sure if it was him and Indy or him and Willie Scott though. I think I saw a picture of her on the wall. Ah, and I saw the continuity goof that my friend pointed out: When Mutt bangs the table, the mustard falls over. When it cuts to Indy, the mustard is standing up. When it cuts back to Mutt and the table, the mustard is laying down again. If memory serves me right, this is the first Indy film where the object du jour was already found and was used for almost the entire movie.
Originally Posted By hightp Another thing that bugged me was that the villian seemed to meet the same type of fate as in the previous movies. The bad guy wants the artifact for it's power, then when he (or she) gets it, they can't handle it and die. All Indy really has to do is wait around and pick up the pieces. I guess it's Deja Vu all over again.
Originally Posted By christiemarsh88 The ending ("Knowledge was their treasure") was a little hokey. But the beginning and everything else leading up to the ending was so good, that it all kind of evened out to a good movie. I'm with brotherdave: It's better than Temple of Doom, but not quite as good as the other two.
Originally Posted By Moon Waffle Have seen it twice now and really enjoyed it. Even more the second time. The only thing I really didn't like was Shia swinging through the vines with the monkeys. Cringe-worthy. But the rest of it...I loved it. Good, popcorn-eating fun. Just like the others.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Speaking of monkeys... I found the CGI monkeys and the CGI groundhogs very fake looking. Pulled me right out of the scene. What's the deal here? I saw 'I am Legend' recently and thought all the CGI animals were incredibly obvious and fake. Herd of deer, lions et al. Very obviously not in the scene. Anyone else notice this? I thought this stuff was supposed to be getting better.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Anyone else notice this?<< Yep. CGI is best used with a LOT of restraint. To me, watching Spider-Man flying around in those films was like watching a video game. I also thought the CGI detracted a bit from the chase along the cliff in the jungle. Compare that with the amazing truck chase in the original Raiders -- which is still heart-stopping all these years later and looks so much more authentic.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I saw 'I am Legend' recently and thought all the CGI animals were incredibly obvious and fake.<< Not to mention the vampire zombie undead people that never for a minute looked real. They could have been VERY scary with just some great makeup on actual actors.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>They could have been VERY scary with just some great makeup on actual actors.<< It's the line from Jurassic Park that I always quote about George Lucas and Jar-Jar Binks: "You were so obsessed with whether or not that you could, you didn't stop to think if you should!" That's how I feel about half the CG I see. CG, as evidenced by films like Lord of the Rings, can be used with great effect. But what made the Lord of the Rings work so well was a deft combination of CG, miniatures, set design, location shooting, and makeup work. They didn't throw the actors against blue screen all day and then just CG whatever they wanted. The poor actor who played the lead Uruk started getting into makeup at *midnight* to be ready to shoot at 8AM.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn So are the Crystal Skull creatures really aliens? ... or are they actually the same creatures that Ezekiel witnessed in the Book of Ezekiel, Chapter 1 of the Bible? They possessed great knowledge that was passed to Ezekiel.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn The whole "joining together of creatures" thing at the end and the looking up into the light reminded me of The Dark Crystal.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Did anyone pick up on the Han Solo quote: "I've got a bad feeling about this" just before the skull creatures came to life?
Originally Posted By dshyates "... or are they actually the same creatures that Ezekiel witnessed in the Book of Ezekiel, Chapter 1 of the Bible? They possessed great knowledge that was passed to Ezekiel." Mark, is everything you see filtered through a biblical lens?
Originally Posted By brotherdave >>Did anyone pick up on the Han Solo quote: "I've got a bad feeling about this" just before the skull creatures came to life?<< I did and thought of Han Solo immediately. Of course, I might be wrong, but, isn't that line in every Star Wars movie, just spoken by a different character???
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn <Mark, is everything you see filtered through a biblical lens?> No. I figured since the first movie (Raiders of the Lost Ark) had a biblical entity, this one could as well.
Originally Posted By JazzCat We finally saw this movie today and while I liked some of it, most of it really sucked. I so enjoyed the simplicity of the special effects from the 80's movies but thought the overdone computer graphics were horrible! Shia LaBeouf is okay so I have no negative comments on him although I hope they don't start making "Mutt Williams" movies. I never did like the chemistry between Harrison Ford and Karen Allen. The two things I thought were the worst parts of the movie were the "Tarzan scene" (Mutt [stupid name] swinging through the forest) and the alien aspect; just downright ridiculous! Besides that, the crystal skull looked like plexi-glass filled with cello wrap. I guess I would give this movie a thumbs down. No wonder Sean Connery declined to be in it. He's got too much class to be associated with such an outrageous storyline.
Originally Posted By JazzCat Re: post 97 Don't forget that "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" was also Biblical in nature. How much more Biblical can finding the challis of Jesus be?
Originally Posted By friendofdd >>>or are they actually the same creatures that Ezekiel witnessed in the Book of Ezekiel, Chapter 1 of the Bible? They possessed great knowledge that was passed to Ezekiel.<<< If I remember correctly, the creatures described in this reference are considered by many Bible scholars to be angels called cherubim. I see nothing in the description, which is rather amazing and frighrful, that is similar to the crystal skulls. It seems to me the skulls are patterned after descriptions of aliens, by those who claim to have seen them, commonly called "the grays."
