Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[Dogg Thang]

First pic of Harrison Ford as Old Man Indy is out - http://www.indianajones.com/community/news/news20070621.html

Considering the state Ford was in last time I saw him (I think it was being interviewed about Star Wars a few years ago), that doesn't look half bad. What do you reckon?

[D J Kix]

:o

A lot better than I was expecting..

[EDDIE M0NS00N]

I keep forgetting that theres an Indy 4 on the way. Maybe because I heard it as what I thought was a rumor about 6 yrs ago, so its just gone over my head.

I am really looking forward to this. I love the Indy films & Harrison is looking good & will no doubt look better with a bit of slap on. He still works out & is in good shape for his age.

I just hope it isnt gonna be a SW Phantom Menace type of dissapointment when its out.

[Prophet Hero]

I think it'll at least be filmed 'properly' with Spielberg in the director's seat. AFAIK Lucas is just one of the people working on the script.

After the last three SW films if they ruin this Indy film then my childhood really will be destroyed.

[PhilG]

AFAIK Lucas is just one of the people working on the script.

I really want this to be good. My concern is this ^.
Apparently Oscar winning writer/director Frank Darrabont (The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile) wrote a script that Spielberg loved, but Lucas didn't. Now Lucas is helping to pen it instead so it could go seriously awry because of Lucas' massive ego :mad:

Let's hope not - I'd love it to be ace. On the plus side Ford looks good in that picture, and the fact that it's set 15 or so years after The Last Crusade helps account for his minor aging (considering he's over 60 now).

[in5ane]

Damn, long old wait til 2008 tho :(

[bash]

I just cant see how this will be as good as any of the other 3 movies. We all know GL is shit but Speilberg hasnt been as godlike as he used to be in my eyes either! :(

Indy is part of my childhood so I want it to kick ass but I smell money over love in all these movies. So many others sequels have raised my expectations only to leave it bruised and bloodied. SW, Matrix, Blade Trinity, Aliens, Predator, I could go on and on.

Lets hope this is the exception but I'll wait for real reviews next year before raising even the slightest interest.

[Angry the Clown]

Now Lucas is helping to pen it instead so it could go seriously awry because of Lucas' massive ego :mad:


As always with the Indy films, it's Lucas' story... or partly his story. The writer they went with in the end was David Koepp who delivered the draft they're shooting, and rumour has it his draft steals bit from the previous Jeff Nathanson and Darabont attempts that Lucas rejected. I don't rate Koepp highly as a writer at all and his hiring quickly became my chief concern about the outcome of the film.

The cast is good, but I truly hope it ends up good enough to have justified making after all these years. Last Crusade ends so nicely with them riding off into the sunset.

[Mercian]

Fantastic news! The only thing that concerns me - 'Shia LaBeouf' :(

[figflair]

Fantastic news! The only thing that concerns me - 'Shia LaBeouf' :(

Agreed! Is he in everything these days? I liked Even Stevens but in films he is just being cast as 'annoying comedy sidekick' a la Rob Schnieder in Judge Dredd. ***shudders***

Having watched the trilogy again recently, I thought Last Crusade was just stupid and annoying. Too many far out moments like meeting Hitler and the whole cup of Christ bit. Just a bit too far fetched for me. And yes, I know it wasn't a documentary. :D

[Dogg Thang]

Wasn't exactly like the first two were realistic. But I agree that Last Crusade was missing something. It seemed light, without substance. I still enjoyed it mind you.

[Nisa]

The whole Cup of Christ bit is no more far fetched than the demons coming out of the Ark and melting the Nazi's faces at the end of Raiders. Personally I love Last Crusade, Sean Connery is brilliant as Indy's dad and the tank chase is one of the best action set pieces ever.

My hopes aren't particularly high for Indy 4 though, Ford is old, Lucas can't seem to write a decent script these days and Spielberg seems more interested in doing "serious" films like Munich rather than the summer event stuff he's well known for (although if it turns out decent it'll probably be due to Spielberg's input rather than anything else).

[prinnysquad]

Raiders did have that darker side that makes it the standout fave for many when they see the trilogy again as an adult. Denholm Elliot as a bumbling Nigel Bruce-style buffoon was the achilles heel of Last Crusade as far as I'm concerned.

The news on the script is all bad. You take a superb scriptwriter then give his script to Georgey Boy, who, surprise surpise! rejects it. He drafts in a puppet writer with precious little credibility in his CV of by-the-numbers blockbusters. Hey Presto! You've got another potentially sacrilegious defamation of a classic franchise.

Lucas should be hung drawn and quartered if he skanks up the good name of Indy. He's evolved into a truly terrible filmmaker. I wouldn't let him near any more sacred cows ever again.

I expect a CGI 'extravaganza' with lots of wacky 'for the kids' moments and a cringeworthy script, when we should be getting a slightly dark action thriller aimed at an intelligent audience.

[buster_broon]

Fantastic news! The only thing that concerns me - 'Shia LaBeouf' :(

only seen him in 2 movies and they were both very watchable

Constantine and Disturbia

he looks okay in transformers

[wonderboy]

I thought the script was written by David Keopp ? Who wrote Spiderman and
whos's writing Spiderman 4 ?

http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm0462895/ (http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm0462895/)

Wonder if they'll be using a lot of CGI Indy ? Or will Harrison Ford do his own
stunts again...

:)

[Prophet Hero]

? Or will Harrison Ford do his own
stunts again...

:)

Ford only performed the horse riding sequences. Otherwise it was Brit stuntman Vic Armstrong (he doubled in all three movies).

[Ajay1986]

I dont think Shia LaBeouf will be that bad his new film Disturbia doesnt look that bad.

lol didnt realise Buster beat me to it.

[EDDIE M0NS00N]

I expect a CGI 'extravaganza' with lots of wacky 'for the kids' moments and a cringeworthy script, when we should be getting a slightly dark action thriller aimed at an intelligent audience.


This is what worries me about Lucas' involvement.
I agree it should be darker & aimed at us adults slightly more.

[jezzace]

I disagree. The great thing about the Indy films is whilst they had intelligent themes like religion, it never stopped forgetting that it is just Boys own fun. If films try to be dark most of the time they just get confusing like the third pirates and spiderman films.

However, the Indy films (well the 1st and 3rd one) may be pure entertainment but they were about complex stuff. I'm hoping that they can provide a decent story and loads of fun, instead of just a lot of stuff that happens like in temple of doom. If they go too dark it will alienate kids and I fell in love with these films as a kid I would hate for another generation to miss out. I have faith that Spielberg and co. can find the right balance, after all its these kind of films spielberg does better then anyone else.

[prinnysquad]

I would say though that the first Indy definitely had a dark side, as well being a Boys Own yarn. You can have fun and adventure without tacky gags and bumbling sidekicks. Look at Where Eagles Dare, a pure Boy's Own actioner.

As a kid I enjoyed the action and the awe-inspiring mystery of the Ark mythos.

By 'slightly dark' I don't mean turn it into a brooding, deadly serious tome. I mean, retain some maturity in the dialogue and set pieces. Bring genuine pathos into the script, so we care for the characters during scrapes with death, as well as enjoy watching the set pieces. In Raiders, there was real anxiety in the truck-chase sequence, as well as being hugely entertained.

I worry that Lucas with turn it into a light hearted, hollow film, that entertains but doesn't spellbind. I want an Indy film that dominates your thoughts for days after you watch it, rather than one where your enjoyment of it starts to dissipate the moment you set foot outside the cinema, like the war of the worlds remake that koepp scripted.

[Prophet Hero]

I think it might be okay.

There's no way the film would have gone ahead without Lucas onboard. Yet despite Spielberg being a bit of a 'yes-man' when it comes to his friend I think the pair might be able to come up with some magic.

Spielberg might have gone off-track as a whole but he can still come up with some thrilling sequences. Needless to say Lucas is no longer to be trusted on his own.

[Magnakai]

So they really, really are making this then? Good lord, it was supposed to come out not long after Fate Of Atlantis.
Well, excellent then! Hopefully this won't be another Episode 1...
It'd be hard to see how it could be, to be honest.

[nonny]

I just watched all three Indy movies back to back the other day because my girlfriend has never seen them, it was enforced viewing (she is only 22 mind, Im 33 so its not her fault).

She loved them and its hard not to love them all. They all have the right mix of humour, action, romance and complexity that has made the series a standout. Yeh they all have their dark moments but they are pretty tongue in cheek if you ask me.

This could be great, with lucas' involvement though I sincerely hope Speilberg doesnt give him too much influence. Fingers crossed all round then.

[DANGEROUS]

This film will rule, and damn Ford ain't looking as bad as expected.
You know Speilberg and Ford will pull something special out the bag.

[prinnysquad]

This film will rule, and damn Ford ain't looking as bad as expected.
You know Speilberg and Ford will pull something special out the bag.

Hopefully a one way ticket to the Siberian salt mines with George Lucas' name on it....at least til the film's wrapped.

[ascender]

That pic of Ford was superb, how anyone can't be looking forward to it after that, I don't understand.

As for Lucas, I'm hoping Spielberg keeps him on the straight and narrow. I'm assuming he and Ford wouldn't have agreed if the script was another Phantom Menace.

[ascender]

And the new film will be called.....

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL

[dataDave]

And the new film will be called.....

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL

Are you taking the piss?

[bash]

Is that a modern day Indy on an adventure to nick Damien hursts £50million peice of art before anyone else then?

[Number45]

Confirmed on www.indianajones.com. Rumours that he is aided in his quest by He-Man are yet to be confirmed. :ph34r:

[Daragon]

Sounds like a case of "The George Lucas Strikes Back" (see what I did there?). Each of the SW Prequels originally had a very decent sounding name, but for some reason George poo-pooed them all and went with soppy "I want these movies to appeal to 5 year olds" titles.

I agree that this sounds more like a He-man adventure than an Indy one.

[dataDave]

*sigh*

[Dogg Thang]

Thing is, does anyone really believe they're going to be able to recapture the Indy magic? If the film doesn't live up to the originals, I can't see the name mattering a damn. If it does, I'll forgive any title.

[Prophet Hero]

The title is naff of that there is little doubt (I suppose the Da Vinci Code put paid to the hunt for any more Jesus-related artefacts).

However, I have more faith in this than the new Star Wars films (the downside is that of course my expectations are higher). If nothing else Spielberg's presence should at least ensure the film is competently directed, and hopefully not too blue-screen intensive.

[ChrisF]

He-Man sprung to my mind when I heard the title too. Shame :(

As for it recapturing the magic of the original. I doubt that tbh. It needs to try and distance itself from the likes of Tomb Raider too.

[Big Seany]

Crystal skulls rock. Read up on them. Plus Mastodon do a song called "Crystal Skull" - I would love to see Indy whipping the frig out of some nazis with that playing in the background.

[Bleeders]

Right on :thumb: or 'Blood & Thunder'.

[ne0star]

I must admit I really hope this works, but i'm still not sold on how well it will fit in with the other 3.

Thats another perfectly boxset ruined!

I have to say the title doesn't make me immediately think of He-Man? Whats the story with that?

[ChrisF]

He-Man because of Castle Grey Skull.

[Daragon]

He-Man because of Castle Grey Skull.

Actually, a Crystal Skull sounds like some sort of artifact you'd find in a Saturday morning kid's cartoon show. You could say based on your assumption that a number of movies would remind you of he-man, simply because the word "skull" features in the title.

Lucas wants this movie to appeal to kids as well as adults which is a shame as I see it being too restricted as to what it can achieve, something that the orginal movies certainly wouldn't have suffered from - you'd have to be as negligent as the MCcanns to show anyone under the age of 9/10 or so the original movies. Probably the reason as to why there's no religious artifact this time.

[ChrisF]

Actually, a Crystal Skull sounds like some sort of artifact you'd find in a Saturday morning kid's cartoon show. You could say based on your assumption that a number of movies would remind you of he-man, simply because the word "skull" features in the title.

Calm down fella. I'm just saying thats why it reminded me personally of it.

[Big Seany]

Come on girls, lets stop moaning about the title and explore how ace the film could be, all thanks to crystal skulls and that. Check out this link below - the skulls are linked with Atlantis, Knights Templar and all kinds of other cool shit. Also, the bit that particularly rocks the bells for me is when you put one of them into the liquid and it disappears. And one of them is called the Skull Of Doom. If I ever go back to being a heavy metal singer, I am going to call my band Skull Of Doom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_skull

[ne0star]

He-Man because of Castle Grey Skull.


Lol :)

I don't think the title is any more/less cheesy than any of the others. It fits in quite nicely.

No matter what happens i'm getting advanced preview tickets to this. I don't think they would have done it unless they had the right story to tell, its taken them years to get it off the ground.

The one thing I really hope though is they don't use it as a launch pad to some modern spin off.

[dataDave]

I checked out that wiki skull reference a few weeks ago actually.

I can't pull myself away from the full size pic of that skull. It's even set as my desktop bkg. I'm drawn to it for some weird reason and usually stare at it whilst drinking my coffee every morning.

I used to be into gemstones as a lad (girly I know), so maybe that has something to do with it.


Actually, a Crystal Skull sounds like some sort of artifact you'd find in a Saturday morning kid's cartoon show.

One of them was featured in an episode of MASK.

These certainly are fascinating artifacts.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Crystal_skull.jpg

[Adam Stone]

Crystal skulls rock. Read up on them

Have to agree mate. I've been reading up on them ever since i was able to read. I think they are very unique and compelling, almost mystically bound by some ancient black magic.

Maybe i'm just sad, but i really do think their history is fascinating and - if the films is based around these - then my excitement has suddenly become unbearable. Absolutely love these classic films, lets hope they pull this off aye.

[giogi]

I think the film will be excellent LaBeouf is a fine actor who will support Ford's dry wit excellently.

The Skull thing works for me. And the link that Big Seany posted is a really good read, fascinating and you can see how it fits into people's desire to see and Atlantis movie - title would have been too obvious if it was called Indy and the Fate of Atlantis etc.

What is amazing is that they were sculpted over 100's of years.

[Wil]

Sounds like it could be a good Indy story - Atlantis, Mayans etc. Let's just hope the film doesn't end with an 100+ year old Indy travelling the mid-west US in a beat up old van desperately trying to make a buck conning gullible American's into thinking his crystal skull has some kind of 'spooky' power.

[Lebowski]

the people moaning about the title must have forgotten that one of the films was called the Temple of DOOM! you cant get much more Saturday morning cartoon sounding than that title, and its a fantastic film.

[Nisa]

New poster looks really good, very Temple of Doom.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35015

[ne0star]

New poster looks really good, very Temple of Doom.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35015

Yeah that poster instantly transferred me to 1985! Excellent stuff. This could be the film event of next year for me if they nail it.

George Lucas can't direct for toffee but my god he can come up with cool characters.

[Leon Ahoy!]

I've only just seen the title. It really is bad :scared: ... Too much of a mouthful. It should have been more catchy.

Oh well, I guess it was chosen because of the story, but someone should have said " That sounds really crap "

I hope the movie is great. :)

[peeveen]

I don't like the poster much ... Indy looks like he's forgot to put his false teeth in.

[spagmasterswift]

Some new Vanity Fair pics.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/1654/cuar01windianajones0802pa1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1645/cuar02windianajones0802ts8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/3595/cuar03windianajones0802ba1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[dvdmike]

Wow may have to pick that up that mother/son pic is so damn cool

[spagmasterswift]

Vid of the photoshoot here...

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/video/2008/indianajones_video200802

[D J Kix]

Three more pics:

http://www.dtheatre.com/read.php?sid=4331

[nonny]

The more I see the more I am liking this... Ford is actually looking pretty good for his age in those.

[Daragon]

Not sure what to make of the Cate Blanchet (sp?) photo - a little too "dominatrix" for my tastes. I'm sure it would suit some actresses, but not her I don't think.

[jezzace]

Trailer has been leaked, but a better quality one should become available somewhere later today. Anyways:
Indiana Jones and his wacky Stunt-o-Rama (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35616)

Simply looks like everything I wanted. As soon as the music kicked in I was sold. Nostalgia wins the day!

[Number45]

Awesome. That's one of those few musical scores that sends shivers down my spine whenever I hear it.

Can't wait for the HD originals too. :happy:

[Dogg Thang]

Looks great although the trailer would make me echo Daragon's comment above. Blanchett looks out of place for some reason. Either she has a look from a different age (though LaBeouf fits perfectly) or the hair just doesn't suit her face leaving her look very fake. Something just doesn't work with her for me.

But the trailer looks great. I'm quite looking forward to old man Indy.

[jezzace]

New hi-res trailer: Indiana Jones and the stannah stairlift (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/indianajones.html;_ylt=AsY7qv8MSH6wl3g1GC6bw55fVXc A)

So excited for this now.

[dvdmike]

This and Batman make me a happy 2008 :)

[Herbalizer]

Fantastic trailer, took me back to my youth.
:wub:

[Number45]

Blanchett looks out of place for some reason. Either she has a look from a different age (though LaBeouf fits perfectly) or the hair just doesn't suit her face.
Just watched the HD trailer and you're right, she doesn't seem to fit. The hair definitely plays a part, but I also think the lips don't look right for that period - daft as it sounds I always imagine women from that time with really full, red lips. Like Dr. Schneider (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm972134656/nm0233145)from The Last Crusade.

[dvdmike]

Its right for the time frame http://www.retro-housewife.com/images/avon-ad-1950l.jpg
I think she looks good for a mad russian alien freek

[Ajay1986]

http://www.davestrailerpage.co.uk/

So you dont have to stream it off Yahoo.

[buster_broon]

the bit in the warehouse strikes me as the same place where the ark was sent to be stored

looks good, i did giggle when he swung into the front of the lorry and crashed through the front, as its those moments thats makes indy great

[buster_broon]

Can't wait for the HD originals too. :happy:

wow wow, have they been given a date?

i always watch the bit in raiders where he is in the map room, music loud, on dvd it looks great, on hd or blu ray it will be just immense

always gives me goosebumps

[Number45]

Sadly not. They'll probably announce them all for HD-DVD (Along with Star Wars) just to spite everyone. :lol:

[dvdmike]

They look great in HD

[Dogg Thang]

The American flag and CG pants in the US version is absolutely hilarious. Especially the US flag. Nothing like a bit of patriotism to get the Americans into the cinema. Needless to say, it isn't in the international version.

[dvdmike]

Free Hat

[nonny]

I have to say, after being really worried about ressurecting Indy that trailer just made me moist.

[SuperDanX]

WOW! only found out about the trailer at the weekend! WOW! :thumb:

[Rossco]

Just seen the trailer! YAS!! :D Bring it on Indy!

[spagmasterswift]

Final Poster - poor Ray, LOL!1

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/8602/kotcsfinalposteroy6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Big Seany]

LOL he looks like a proper herbert in that titfer. Not that I would say it to his face, mind.

[Dogg Thang]

I completely thought that was Dom Deluise.
http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/09/23/image32257f29-647a-44bf-8d12-8a6a00aa87ad.jpg

[Big Seany]

I thought he looked a bit like an early 90s WWF Sgt Slaughter, when he was down with General Adnan and the Iron Sheik. Oh and can I just say, the titular crystal skull looks wank in that poster.

[Dogg Thang]

Heh, you said titular.

[Big Seany]

Heh heh - heh heh - yeh! Titular! Heh heh! Heh. That rules. Heh heh!

[DavidH]

This thread has gone a bit quiet, looking forward to seeing it after watching a trailer on the PS3 the other day.

MS are doing 5 Indy 360's (competition open to US residents only surprise surprise)

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news/news-1069-Want-to-Win-an-Indiana-Jones-Xbox-360?.html

they'll be worth a small fortune on ebay

[Dogg Thang]

It has been getting some less than enthusiastic reviews but it's pretty much a guaranteed hit, isn't it? It's not like any of our generation won't go to see it. I think the trailers look great and I'm totally there. Dude.

[CMcK]

I'm not convinced by the trailers for Indy 4. For me the biggest problem the makers face is that people in Europe and the US had probably never seen much HK cinema which has stunts that make Hollywood blush.
I think the original Indy flicks look quite tame next to equivalent Jackie Chan films from that era. OK Hollywood stuff has better production values but would never allow a star turn to drop himself from a clock tower!

Having said all that I will go to see Indy 4 and hopefully it'll be a decent nights entertainment.

[Dogg Thang]

It probably won't be as funny as Airplane either.

[Malc]

I'm looking forward to the new Indie. Anyone know what time period the new one is set? Maybe the cold war now?

[Dogg Thang]

Yeah, the bad guys are Russians this time out so I'd say you're spot-on.

[Mayhem]

Mid 1950s I believe.

[SuperDanX]

I cant wait! Better not be shite though. Had my doubts about it until i saw the trailer and i was sold, so to sum up, be good!

[prinnysquad]

I couldn't remember seeing any Lucas-esque kiddie-funnies in the trailer so maybe that's an encouraging sign.

[Daragon]

Shia la bore is in it, that in itself is enough to lower it to kiddie-funny level. The 12 year old girls watching probably won't like him being stabbed :(

On a similar note, I just found out that 2 of the 3 films of the original trilogy recieved a PG rating - how the **** did that happen? Are faces exploding/melting/setting on fire supposed to be child friendly?

[SuperDanX]

Because they came out before the world felt the need to use sentences like 'contains mild comic violence' FOR THE PROTECTION OF OUR INNOCENT CHILDREN :rolleyes:

[wakka]

On a similar note, I just found out that 2 of the 3 films of the original trilogy recieved a PG rating - how the **** did that happen? Are faces exploding/melting/setting on fire supposed to be child friendly?


Because kids don't have to subsist solely on a diet of sugary cartoons and sanitized sitcoms?

I saw the Indiana Jones films when I was very young and I thought the face melting/heart tearing out etc was awesome, it didn't worry me in the slightest. It's all pretty fantastic anyway, there's no particularly dark themes at play, and I genuinely think that it deserves 'parental guidance'. 12 would be retarded - are you saying a bunch of ten year old boys wouldn't think that the heart tearing scene was ****ing badass? ;p

[Dogg Thang]

I can't remember what age I was but the melting nazis in the frst one freaked the bejesus out of me. A couple of years later, I loved it but that first time was too much for a child of whatever age I was.

Turns out I'm going to see this new one on Tuesday. I'm really looking forward to it.

[Malc]

I've seen enough adverts for this damn film now!

[SuperBeatBoy]

They acually cut Temple of Doom in the uk to get a PG rating. The heart cutting was slightly cut in the UK version.

Also the new film has a 12A rating and thankfully not a PG. So loads of good combat and probably violence involved. Cannot wait. :)

[JazzFunk]

^Wonder if the new re-release of Temple Of Doom is uncut this time around???

[Daragon]

Because kids don't have to subsist solely on a diet of sugary cartoons and sanitized sitcoms?

I saw the Indiana Jones films when I was very young and I thought the face melting/heart tearing out etc was awesome, it didn't worry me in the slightest. It's all pretty fantastic anyway, there's no particularly dark themes at play, and I genuinely think that it deserves 'parental guidance'. 12 would be retarded - are you saying a bunch of ten year old boys wouldn't think that the heart tearing scene was ****ing badass? ;p

How much darker can u get than Nazism and the Occult?

[JazzFunk]

Anyone seen a bootleg of this yet? I'm off to see it with my bro on the big screen, but the adverts make it look a bit CGI-heavy. Still can't wait, though. :)

[Malc]

I've heard that they're trying to do everything as real as they can with as little CGI as they can.

[JazzFunk]

^I hope so. Indy's more about raw action and I always go 'meh' when I see a polygonised actor getting thwapped about against an overly beautiful polygon background, it just sucks the magic away for me.

Gah, I must sound so bloody old!

[Malc]

I'm with you Jazz; once the Matrix came out and done CGI well, loads of other films got on the act and it was special effects galore. But now, new films seem to be going the opposite way; which is good.

[SuperDanX]

At the end of the day another persons opinion of anything, be it films, music, or games means very little to me, what matters is do i like it? That said reviews are coming in, Ign 5/10:( The Guardian, 2 stars:( oh dear..

[Malc]

Wait for Empire's review, or some more reliable magazine's opinions.

[Matt]

It's Star Wars Ep 1 all over again! It's likely a decent, enjoyable film in it's own right. Just it's pedigree and 20 years has distorted all sensibilities.

[Strider]

Wait for Empire's review, or some more reliable magazine's opinions.
Empire and Total Film are notorius for being caught up in the hype and scoring films far higher than they actually deserve, only to drop the scores when the DVDs are finally out.

To be fair though, they're both more reliable than Heat magazine

[Strider]

Shia la bore is in it, that in itself is enough to lower it to kiddie-funny level. The 12 year old girls watching probably won't like him being stabbed :(

On a similar note, I just found out that 2 of the 3 films of the original trilogy recieved a PG rating - how the **** did that happen? Are faces exploding/melting/setting on fire supposed to be child friendly?

Spielberg's films are always getting lower ratings than you'd expect them to. Jaws, Temple of Doom, Jurassic Park and so on.
With Jurassic Park he allegedly took the relevant people from the BBFC to Hawaii in order to discuss the certificate.

Spider-Man 2 and the Lord of the Rings franchise are another example of big-budget films that received lower certificates than what they might have otherwise got if there wasn't so much money involved.

[Daragon]

I agree with that statement, but IJ touched on some very adult themes like I mention - nazism and the occult being 2.

Schindler's List you wouldn't take an 8 year old to watch for example but it's not THAT much different to RotLA or LC.

[ne0star]

All i'm looking for from this is a couple of hours fun driven entertainment. As long as the pace is right, and I have a good laugh I will be more than satisfied.

I really don't see why anyone would want to pick the bones out of it. I think its pretty much accepted that its not going to be another 'raiders of the Lost Ark', but neither were the other two sequels. This one also has the up hill struggle of trying to to replicate what is now regarded as one of the milestones of 80's nostalgia.

I enjoyed reading the reviews over at ainticool which I think is more along the lines of how I will view this.

Can't wait!

[MJ]

My film tastes seem to match Cinema Blend's Josh Tyler reviews. They gave this 3.5/5:


I went into Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ready to dispense with the silly notion that Harrison Ford was too old to play Indiana, and walked out uncomfortable with the certainty that now the best way to describe Dr. Jones is not as dashing or daring, but as feisty. Anybody who’s any kind of an Indiana Jones fan (and who isn’t?) will no doubt find fun in this final chance to see Harrison back in the hat, but it’s hard not to wonder if we might not have been happier in the long run with Indiana Jones as a mythical figure somewhere off in the distance, never aging, never changing, and living solely for the rush of adrenaline that comes with adventure. The idea of a fourth Indiana Jones movie is better than the reality, and a few years from now I guarantee fans will find themselves more likely to re-watch Temple of Doom than to revisit this entertaining, yet past its prime Indy entry.
http://www.cinemablend.com/reviews/Indiana-Jones-and-the-Kingdom-of-the-Crystal-Skull-3160.html

[nonny]

Hmm doesnt sound to good does it.

Its Indy though and based on that its a must watch if even for me to form my own opinions on the film. Not liking the apparent over use of CGI though, especially given the previous Indy films were all about him getting way in over his head and coming out the other end the worse for wear... much like the Die Hard films I guess.

[Malc]

By the sounds of it Spielberg has said he would seriously consider making a 5th indy if fans really like this new 4th one. Sounds good; he should go all the way and make 6 films, like the Star Wars series.

[spagmasterswift]

Are you trying to start some shit?

[MonkeySteve]

Going by the AICN and Empire (4*) reviews, I'm confident that I will enjoy this. With any film of this magnitude or expectation there will always be those that are disappointed, but from what I've read if you go into just hoping for a fun, action packed Indy film, you'll be happy.

Sure, holes will be picked, but let's face it, you could pick holes in the first three; nostalgia just has a way of making them seem untouchable (don't get me wrong, I love them!)

[SuperBeatBoy]

Most of the criticisms seem to be aimed at the cgi bits. As much as i love the standard raw visual flair, i can certainly look past the cgi shinanigans. I'll just have to wait and see.

I remember Last Crusade had a thorough beating by critics alike when it first came out. I really enjoyed it, but i was probably age 8 or 9 when it did. But i still like it to this day.

[Dogg Thang]

I enjoyed Last Crusade at the time too but, watching it as an adult, it was easy for me to see why it was criticised. It's like Indy Lite. Raiders still holds up as well as it ever does, except as an adult, I couldn't help wonder if Indy was a bit of a pedo given Marion's age. Oddly, Temple of Doom was far better to me as an adult than it was when I was a child. Not really sure why.

If this hits the level of Last Crusade, for all its flaws, I'll be happy. Actually, even if it's close I'll be happy. Or just a half decent movie. But if it's cack, the nostalgia of the older movies won't really be an excuse like it was for poxy old Jar Jar. When something is shit, it's just shit.

But, hey, it has all the ingredients. Yeah, I don't want crappy old CG in it (and there is no reason for it whatsoever when you have a filmmaker as good as Spielberg and the budgets he can raise) but all I'm expecting is an Old Man Indy romp and that's all I need really.

[SuperBeatBoy]

Temple of Doom got alot of bad reviews at the time aswell. So i really wouldn't bother taking note of them till you see the film for yourself. I just hope that happens to be the case.

[Malc]

Are you trying to start some shit?

If you're talking about me, then no.

I'm heard it on a report from the Cannes film festival.

[Number45]

I'm pre-emptively rating this 11/10. </fanboy>

There's actually a nicely written mini review on the BBC at the moment from that Cannes coverage. At least Spielberg was in control on this one and not Lucas.

[prinnysquad]

*PHEW*


If Look-ass was in charge, it'd be shitsville.

[Miguel007]

Lucas has already been spouting about Indy 5 with Shia Laboeuf playing lead and Harrison Ford having a role similar to Sean Connery.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/a96267/george-lucas-explains-indy-5-plans.html

[SuperDanX]

Yes i read that too, 'the phasing out' of Ford to be replaced by this tit labouef. This would result in the end of the world as we know it imo. Boo to that.

[MonkeySteve]

What's everyone got against LaBeouf? Admittedly I've only seen him in Transformers, but he was good in that. I wouldn't want him to replace Ford as the star of the films, but the bashing he's taking at the moment seems way OTT.

[CMcK]

LaBeouf seems to be quite a promising talent and I reckon he could lead a franchise easily.
Where is it all going to stop? Maybe they'll do 6 parts ala the other well know Lucas franchise.

[Dogg Thang]

Well I saw the film this evening. Quick version - meh, it's okay. There's not really much of a story. Indy is just old. I was happy to find out Marion was in it and yet, watching it, I really wished she wasn't in it - she was rubbish, only served to refer to the first movie and made Indy worse.

Oddly, like really oddly, LaBeouf kind of saved the movie for me in ways. The opening I felt just didn't really come together, and I felt a little embarrassed for Ford (he wears old man pants). Things seemed really forced. But then they sent in the Beef and there was life in the movie.

But there are some good action bits, some great lines here and there. I really liked Broadbent in his brief role. I didn't find the movie too CG heavy at all (though just one single shot I could have done without). There's definitely stuff to enjoy here and it could have been a lot worse. I think it's easily my fourth favourite Indy film - and, after the 19 years (or whatever it is), to lump it in with them at all has to be a good sign.

[Leon Ahoy!]

Yes i read that too, 'the phasing out' of Ford to be replaced by this tit labouef. This would result in the end of the world as we know it imo. Boo to that.

:lol: Shia LaBeouf as the new Indy.

I've occasionally seen him in that kids show, where he's the star. He reminds me of a young Lee Evans. He looks and behaves quite geeky - which suits the characters he plays.

In no way... has he come across as a great actor, a possible action star, or a straight actor.

He's 22 now. Maybe in 10years, or so, he'll look more rugged etc... For now, I think it's a joke for anyone to suggest he should take over from Harrison Ford.

Surely.. there is someone suited to the role?

[Stuart Smith]

In no way... has he come across as a great actor, a possible action star, or a straight actor.

Have you seen Transformers? Disturbia? A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints? They were LaBoeuf's three major releases last year, and he was a superb actor in all three, comfortably carrying the lighter moments in Transformers, and measuring up entirely to playing a young Robert Downey Jr in Saints.

He's a lot younger than Harrison Ford was when he did the original Indy films, but based on what I've seen him in so far, certainly shouldn't be dismissed on his acting merit, not at all.

[SUMIRE]

Great fun family film, enjoyed it :)

[Magnakai]

I saw it last night at a midnight showing.

My verdict? It's a great, over the top romp. It's not perfect, and I'm sure people will find plenty to complain about, but it does a lot of things very well. If they'd trimmed down 25&#37; or so, I think it would've been a lot more memorable.

[Magnakai]

I didn't find the movie too CG heavy at all (though just one single shot I could have done without).

This.

I hate to dwell on niggles, but this shot (you'll know what it is) drove me absolutely nuts.

[Malc]

I'll wait a few weeks untill I see this film as it's allways crowded in the cinema at the first week or so of it being shown.

I wait with anticapation to see the CGI "shot" that people are complaining about.

[Rossco]

Don't you prefer going when it's busy? Better atmosphere. As long as it's not full of ned twats that are talking on their mobiles or shouting n laughing! :lol:


also, didn't realise this was even out! Need to start going to the cinema more often!

[Malc]

I find that this:


full of ned twats that are talking on their mobiles or shouting n laughing!

is normally the case.

[Rossco]

:lol: Fair enough.

[SuperBeatBoy]

I thought it was great. Just as good as the previous one, could have done without all the cginess, like the cliff face etc. Like i predicted, the press reviews were the same with regards to the previous films. All negative or average, but great fun movies nonetheless.

[importaku]

Saw this tonight, i enjoyed it a lot. If you don't do expecting the moon on a stick it won't dissappoint you.

I was expecting the worst after hearing the bad reviews, but it was worth seeing.

[NekoFever]

Normally I'm all about seeing big action films in the cinema, but when I saw this I kept thinking that it would sound better at home because the sound system in the cinema sounded awful. All bombast with no clarity. Plus not only would be PQ be better on Blu-ray at home, but it would actually be straight and in focus.

Local fleapit hate aside, it wasn't bad. Some of my fears were valid - a few too many Lucas/Spielberg "wouldn't this be awesome!" moments ("swinging with the monkeys" is the new "jumping the shark") - and I felt it went a bit too supernatural compared to the others. Obviously there was a lot of mythical stuff in the previous films, but this one couldn't explain it away as elegantly as something like the wrath of God or the cup of Christ. You could come away from those ones and know what you just saw, but I didn't get that feeling here.

Still worth seeing, though. I thought the amount of time it spent in development hell would have killed any potential that it had.

[Dezm0nd]

Never seen an Indiana Jones film before and saw this last night, it's ridiculous fun apart from one scene :) I liked it

[Oh_Mutants]

Never seen an Indiana Jones film before and saw this last night, it's ridiculous fun apart from one scene :) I liked it
Watch Raiders Of The Lost Ark! Do it. Now. :thumb:

[Matt]

Found is all a bit dull I'm afraid. Lacked the hijinks of the previous affairs. I'm not a big fan of the series, they mean very little to me other than being enjoyable romps, so I went in expecting nothing more than entertainment.

Sure it had a few moments, but nothing great and very little I'd even class as "good". I liked the jungle car chase, though the swinging with the monkey bit was pathetic. Indy has always been grounded in something approaching realism, in that he was never a superhero, if that makes sense. That one bit came out of nowhere, the character had shown no similar ability beforehand. Felt REALLY out of place.

Yet the whole plot was hocum. I bought the religious aspects of the previous films. The McGuffin in this could have been spiritual. For it to go the way it did... it didn't sit right with me.

So I'm afraid this done nothing at all for me. At least with the Star Wars prequels I wanted to go back to the cinema again to rewatch and take in the spectacle....

[ezee ryder]

Just got back from watching this and I have to say I was rather disappointed. There were some good scenes and a few laughs but overall the story a mess, I mean why the hell did it involve aliens?! Very very disappointing :(

[Matt]

Anyone get the impression the John Hurt character was basically a cut down role from something originally written for Sean Connery before he decided not to appear?

There were too many characters in it, and surprisingly little character development.

[SuperBeatBoy]

Sean Connery has been retired for quite some time. Which is why he wasn't in it. Your expecting character developement in an Indiana Jones movie with a script co-written by george lucas?

[Matt]

Actually for the longest time they hoped to get him in the film. Retired? Never Say Never Again (sorry!). Quite possible the Hurt role was planned for Connery.

Lucas had the story. The script went through a lot of good writers. I don't get the Lucas hate these days. The guy gave many of us an amazing childhood. Without him the language of cinema would be far poorer.

All the principles had to agree the story, so blaming it on Lucas is unfair.

[Leon Ahoy!]

Have you seen Transformers? Disturbia? A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints? They were LaBoeuf's three major releases last year, and he was a superb actor in all three, comfortably carrying the lighter moments in Transformers, and measuring up entirely to playing a young Robert Downey Jr in Saints.

He's a lot younger than Harrison Ford was when he did the original Indy films, but based on what I've seen him in so far, certainly shouldn't be dismissed on his acting merit, not at all.

You'r opinion is that LaBoeuf is more than a comic/lightweight actor. I can't agree.

An actor has to suit a part - and he simply couldn't be an "Action Hero" ... As much as you may see him as potential Action Hero material, most people would say "Get a reality check"

I have nothing against him - just bad ideas.

[Dogg Thang]

I don't get the Lucas hate these days. The guy gave many of us an amazing childhood. Without him the language of cinema would be far poorer.

Very true. Young Lucas, with the help of many talented people, changed the world of film and gave us amazing experiences. Old Lucas, however, gave us Jar Jar and midichlorians. The hate, as far as I can tell, is squarely directed at old Lucas.

And Leon - have you actually seen him in the movie or are you talking shit for the hell of it?

[Matt]

Midichlorians were AWFUL. The Force needed to remain spiritual, not a bloody blood infection! Yes I'm sure such an advanced galaxy would be able to explain everything scientifically; I don't care, that idea ruined The Force for me.

FWIW I still think JarJar served the same purpose C3PO did in the originals. If we didn't have him in the originals and was added to the prequels, he'd be getting panned. The world is a much more dour place, there's a lack of wonder and everyone is cynical. If I was 5 when I watched Ep1 I dare say I'd have liked JarJar.

I was talking about Indy earlier, and I'm going to get slammed for saying this, but I actually enjoyed National Treasure 2 more than this film! NT2 seemed to have more.... adventure.

I'll get my coat....

[Dogg Thang]

Well I haven't seen the NT films but... Nic Cage? Surely that alone makes it pants?

I see what you're saying about Jar Jar and I agree about the role but not about the execution. I don't think original C3PO is a pain in the ass. I think Jar Jar is. As for whether C3PO would be a pain in the ass if transplanted to the prequels, well, the answer is a huge 'yes', as seen in Ep2. But I don't think that's because of the role itself, just the execution.

Someone (whether it was a bright young Lucas or someone he worked with) had a great talent for character comedy in the original films. Someone else (old Lucas?) didn't seem to have that talent 20 years later.

So... are you saying I should check out the National Treasure films?

[SuperDanX]

Im pretty sure Sean Connery has not retired, not that thats got much to do with all this. Just for the record.

[Matt]

Well I haven't seen the NT films but... Nic Cage? Surely that alone makes it pants?

So... are you saying I should check out the National Treasure films?

Well I've seen both films once and found them enjoyable fluff. They're Indy-lite at best, but for me better than Indy 4. They know they're fun films and play up that element.

None of this is a glowing endorsement, but they're watchable!


SuperDanX, Connery is "officially" retired, I think LXG done him in!

[jezzace]

I thought it was great, probably better then temple of doom. Nowhere near the level of greatness as the other two, but then it was never going to be another raiders, was it? Solid entertainment at its best though.

[Dogg Thang]

SuperDanX, Connery is "officially" retired, I think LXG done him in!

Last I heard he was quite ill.

I went out and bought a great Indy Lego set today. It's the opening sequence to Raiders with the idol and the boulder. It rocks.

[SuperDanX]

Retired? ill? Oh no! Thats terrible news:(
(apoliges for going off topic)

[Matt]

He's getting on. I'm sure that's it now as well. If Spielberg and Lucas couldn't temp him back for a short cameo with, at a guess, a huge pay packet and a great working atmosphere, nothing will.

[Dogg Thang]

Yep, I'd say you're right. A cameo would have been nice although it would have probably taken away from some of the bits that I really bought in the movie - the early scenes with Indy and Broadbent. And they packed enough references of the old movies in without him.

What the hell happened to Shortround?

[Matt]

Yes! That would be a character worth bringing back!

Screw a Mutt spin-off, I want The Continuing Adventures Of Short Round :D

[Team Andromeda]

Just come back from watcing this load of tosh . Oh my GOD its bloody sh8t . Stick with Drakes Fortune , its feature a better scrip, is better acted and is a far more Enjoyable experience . Dear god I can’t believe whats happened to the series . Geroge I admire what you've done over the years , but its time to retire

[Matt]

You really have to blame the director I think. The flow of the previous films was missing.

[Dogg Thang]

I'd be with Chain on this. Now, I think the problem was ultimately the script, which is incredibly disjointed so blame would lie with whoever wrote that final draft but Spielberg had to put it all together and he is the captain of that ship. A lesser director would have had no choice but to shoot what he was told. Not Spielberg.

[prinnysquad]

Did the Spielberg/ Lucas monkey reject an earlier script by a really well-respected writer/director? Frank Darabont or someone?

Edit: he seems to blame Lookass for the shitness of things:

http://www.cinematical.com/2007/04/18/frank-darabont-says-he-confronted-lucas-over-his-indy-4-script/

[Matt]

Lucas rejected that script apparently. Still, it would have been the same story, and most likely the same action set pieces. Spielberg, Lucas and Ford would have decided on key action sequences and the flow of the film before getting someone to work on the script, I'd imagine they had a full treatment.

[Dogg Thang]

If Lucas was vetoing scripts them that would pretty much lay the blame at his feet. The script they shot was pants. Yeah, it would have had same story elements and I'm sure the set pieces probably came from many different drafts but that screenplay was directionless and disjointed.

[Matt]

They all approved the script, they're all to blame. The direction could have been better, the pacing was off - these are the responsibility of the director and editor. There were only a few clanging lines of dialogue.

[Dogg Thang]

they're all to blame.

Let's agree to that. Still, could have been much worse, eh?

[buster_broon]

Just back from watching it and it was great

better than Temple of Doom, but not as good as the other two movies

Connery had retired and they tried to persuade him out of retirement for this movie, but he didnt budge and apparently it worked well as they had to re-write part of the story for the better

the only part i thought was awful was the monkey swinging section - just awful

when i saw the trailer months ago and most of it was in the warehouse, all i wanted was a small part for the Ark of the Covenant and i wasnt let down

lovely to see it there, i'm sure its now been in all 4 movies, just cant place it in Temple of Doom

[Dogg Thang]

Was it in Last Crusade?

Have you seen Temple recently? Watching it as an adult had me placing it easily above Crusade.

[buster_broon]

Was it in Last Crusade?

Have you seen Temple recently? Watching it as an adult had me placing it easily above Crusade.

yeah - when they go into the caverns from the library floor (X marks the spot)

its on the wall as he passes by and makes a comment about it (as the music plays in the background)

The wife hadnt seen any of them and i had (lucky me) to get her upto speed on them, so i got her to watch the uncut Jpn version (monkey brains)

glad i did as he was laughing her head off with the snake bit

[Matt]

Let's agree to that. Still, could have been much worse, eh?

Absolutely. Should have been better though.

The reason I get defensive of this point is, just as I was around the time of the Star Wars prequels, I'm sick of the Lucas hate. He's done more for film than most appreciate, he's revolutionised the art in many fields, has an incredibly fertile imagination and is evidently very intelligent. If any of us can accomplish 1&#37; of what he has, we'd have done very well:thumb:

[Wil]

I'll give you that he's helped (though having lots of money) raise the art of sound and FX to what it is today but I'm afraid that, to my mind, he hasn't actually made a good flick since Empire and Raiders in the 80s (and I quantify 'made' by actually having the 'Lucasfilm' logo at the start). FX do not a good film make, people make a good film and, going by his films, Lucas knows diddly-squat about directing people.

[Matt]

He done more than sound and FX though. He's revolutionised the theatres we go to watch films in. He pushed Stereo and DNR in to the first Star Wars when there was very few screens that used it. He pushed Surround Sound, and set screen quality standards. He's employed highly creative people and given them what they need to take the "art" further.

He's made a lot of money because he's earned it.


By all accounts, as you say, he can't direct people, but that's never been his thing. What he like are the technical approaches. Look at the original Star Wars and compare it to other films of that year. Ignore the SFX, and look at how he composes the scenes and the films flow. He's a very good editor, and a great eye for composition.

I won't argue about his later film quality, that's subjective. Personally I think he's far too easy a target - he raised the bar so far, it was inevitable his films would be unable to live up to everyone's hopes and dreams. I have no problem people disliking his films, it's the seemingly out and out hatred of the man I don't get.

As we've seen here, he's being blamed for Indy 4 being a bit pants, conveniently ignoring the fact Spielberg was ultimately responsible. Personally I only really like Jaws, feeling the rest of his films are over-rated and having little resonance with me. I wouldn't insult him though, you have to respect someone who has achieved as much as he has.

[Wil]

Well, isn't that exactly what I said? Lots of technical advances but that doesn't actually make a great film. I'd say that he probably had to work harder on the editing and directing in '75-'76, making Star Wars, precisely because of the lack of technology.

Lucas may have raised the bar for film technology but not for making good films.

Sorry - thread going off track now.

[Dogg Thang]

Lucas pretty much invented the blockbuster with Star Wars, which I would say is a contribution far beyond just the technology. What he did with Star Wars and the creative forces he brought together for that and the next films was something that pushed film well beyond where it had ever been before.

But then, years later, he shat all over that many times which I think is where the hatred comes from. The prequels were crap by any standards. In fact, had they not had the Star Wars legacy keeping them afloat, I think they would have been ridiculed far more than they were and would have been lucky to make it beyond a dvd release. They are fundamentally flawed.

But Lucas didn't direct this Indy film. Spielberg did. We know Spielberg is one of the most talented directors of our time, if not ever. We also know Lucas, for all his amazing contributions (and they are amazing) can balls up a film something awful. So I think I can understand why it's pretty natural to lay the blame at Lucas rather than Spielberg.

But, ultimately, this was Spielberg's film. He's the director.

[crazytaxinext]

Well, I'm gonna go against the current direction of the thread and simply say I enjoyed it, probably setting it just above Temple but comfortably below the other two. I can understand some of the complaints like the OTT way the ending is handled and the unnecessary over abundance of CG but I was perfectly fine with everything till Marianne showed up. I reckon its there when they started to get carried away. Some of the complaining though... reminds me of the Doctor Who and Top Gear threads. Like some people forget its a piece of fun entertainment and nothing more.

[gizmo1990]

Absolutely loved it. Feel sorry for you if you didn't really.

Some absolutely incredible set pieces, great storytelling and direction by Spielberg, just a great rollercoaster of a film. Essientially, exactly what a Indiana Jones film should deliver.

[ne0star]

I loved this! Talk about reliving your childhood for a couple of hours. Its a no better / worse sequel than Doom and Crusade for me.

The thing is they were attempting to imitate 80's film making so it was never going to be oscar material.

I did think there were possibly too many characters. I didn't see a lot of real point in the John Hurt character as Indy pretty much figured it out from his notes, so I think it would have worked better if he had simply never been found.

The thing is apart from the jokes I never looked at Harrison Ford being any older. In fact if they had gone and based it back in the 40's I would have been none the wiser. He ticked every box from the action you expect from an indy film.

Some of its a bit silly even for an Indy film. The whole Snake / Rope thing was a bit pants. I would have rather he just used his Whip, and the Tarzan sequence made me cringe a bit.

All I need now is the entire set on blu-ray, a case of largers, and a couple of chinese meals!

[SuperDanX]

Just seen it and thought it was pretty good, easily as good as the worst of the previous three, i thought the pacing was off for the first part of the film and the plot needed far to much in film explanation for an Indiania Jones film, but other than that it was very enjoyable. Didnt notice any shoddy cgi myself? I could obviously see when cgi was being used but the one particular instance that some people found jarring completley eluded me, anyone care to point it out? Indy being old wasnt a problem and i even thought that Lebouef chap or whatever his name is? was ok, after calling him a 'tit' a couple of pages back. Jolly good all round and sexy Russian chicks FTW.

[Brats]

I thought this was an incredibly muddled film. Most of the actors did fairly well with the bad script and awful direction (this has to be Spielberg's worst directed film ever) apart from Karen Allen who was just plain bad - like some dotty old grandma they'd dragged out of some care home and thrust in front of the camera.

The only thing that carried the film along for me was that it was obvious the cast had a great time making it and that shone through. Apart from that though, it is difficult to recommend. There weren't any really bad set pieces - just a swathe of average ones with bad pacing and poor editing. There were a couple of editing bits when Indy used his whip that were so poorly edited they actually made Ford look older than he is in real life. And the fight with the Russian amongst the ants was so long and so bleeding obvious, I had to double check it was Spielberg directing (usually the master of the lean concise action scene).

So much of it felt like the Star Wars prequels: Overuse of CG (what the hell happened to 'we're going to make it as close to the original films as possible'?), simple plot made unnecessarily overcomplicated, wasted actors, bumbling heroes who win out more by luck than by skill and bizarre 'videogame-like' pacing.

And what the hell happened to the character of Indy? Okay he may be old - but in the previous films at least he was a hero. In this things tend to happen round him, not by him. The best bit in the film was when he and Mutt entered the graveyard and the crypt. It was the only part of the film that felt close to the original films and wasn't coated in CG (and was all the better for it).

If I'm going to blame anything, it would be the CG. I believe that this is Spielberg's first film where whole scenes apart from the actors were created using CG only. Jurassic Park may have pushed CG, but only the dinosaurs themselves were not real. I think this technique of shoving actors in a blue room and letting the special effects guys add in the scene later make the real directors of the film the special effects team, and not the director. Peter Jackson had it right for LOTR when they used models and physical effects wherever it was possible to do so.

And there were more plot holes in this film than there were ants. Can anyone answer the following:

The big 'reveal' at the end was that the city was not full of gold, it was full of knowledge -and yet how come the Russians already knew that - having never seen the actual crystal skull (and therefore make the link between it and the Roswell alien) or the city itself?
How did the explorers from the 1600s nick the skull in the first place when you needed the skull to get through the door to the final chamber?
When they replaced the skull, the room started spinning and the seven beings became one - but why wasn't it like that before the skull was nicked and the seven skeletons were complete?
Why did the KGB let Marion send a letter with a riddle to her son and ask him to find Indy? They already knew wher Indy was (they were on the train before Mutt showed up) so why didn't they just nab the riddle and kidnap Indy?
Or if they wanted Indy to lead them to the skull, why did they try to grab them both in the first place? Why not just follow them discreetly?

[CMcK]

I saw Indy 4 on Sunday evening. It's pretty poor in many respects. Aforementioned plot holes, poorly developed characters and underused actors. The little Lucas-isms like the reappearing Meerkats and little 'comedy' moments are awful.
A new low point in the series which is worse than Temple of Doom IMHO.
Hard to believe Spielberg put his name to this.

[Dogg Thang]

How did the explorers from the 1600s nick the skull in the first place when you needed the skull to get through the door to the final chamber?


I feel like such a tit for not spotting this one. That's quite funny.

I agree with much of what you say although, for Spielberg's drawn out action sequences, wasn't there one in Jurassic Park 2 with a dinosaur, a big pane of glass and a vehicle that went on for something like 45 minutes? It may not have been 45 minutes but it felt like that. Still, from a director of Spielberg's ability, we would expect much better.

[Brats]

I agree with much of what you say although, for Spielberg's drawn out action sequences, wasn't there one in Jurassic Park 2 with a dinosaur, a big pane of glass and a vehicle that went on for something like 45 minutes? It may not have been 45 minutes but it felt like that. Still, from a director of Spielberg's ability, we would expect much better.

I think you're thinking about the big T-Rex scene in Jurassic Park 1. I agree it was long, but each 'part' of the scene was very taut and masterfully directed (despite the annoying kids).

Jurassic Park 2 was a big let down, despite some great scenes.

[prinnysquad]

Wasn't there a bit in the second JP where the trailer was hanging over the cliff, and only a cracking piece of glass prevented the wifey from falling to the rocks below?

[Big Seany]

Going to see this tomorrow night! Can't wait. I only go to the cinema once in a blue moon, y'see. Will be buying a big bag of blue M+Ms and will thoroughly enjoy those even if Indy is gash.

[abigsmurf]

I saw it and thought it was mostly fun although the worst of the four films. CG groundhogs and monkeys were poor choices but the other action scenes were quite fun. Biggest dissapointment was the aliens stuff. Indiana Jones is Fantasy, not Scifi and the ending in particular felt horribly out of place in the series.

Not as bad as I was fearing but not a classic. Decent popcorn movie

[MonkeySteve]

I think you're thinking about the big T-Rex scene in Jurassic Park 1. I agree it was long, but each 'part' of the scene was very taut and masterfully directed (despite the annoying kids).

Jurassic Park 2 was a big let down, despite some great scenes.


Wasn't there a bit in the second JP where the trailer was hanging over the cliff, and only a cracking piece of glass prevented the wifey from falling to the rocks below?

Yep - JP2 had a T-Rex pushing the trailer off the cliff face, with Julianne Moore stranded on a cracking pane of glass. I wasn't too impressed with the film as a whole, but that scene had good tension.

As for Indy, saw it last week and wasn't blown away, but it was still an enjoyable romp, what I look for in an Indy film. The monkey scene was a ******* joke though.

[bash]

I saw this yesterday and its as good as any of the others IMO.

I welcomed the sci fi aspect, the whole 50's Roswell/Inca thing was a blast and very much in the classic B-movie vein. It reminded me of an old skool film or an episode of TinTin.

No bad thing IMO, go see it now if you havent already.

[Dogg Thang]

Yep - JP2 had a T-Rex pushing the trailer off the cliff face, with Julianne Moore stranded on a cracking pane of glass. I wasn't too impressed with the film as a whole, but that scene had good tension.

Yeah, that's the scene I was thinking of. I remember it going on and on and on...

[Brats]

Aye, it did a bit. I'd put Lost World and Crystal Skull as Spielberg's two big action flops.

Can't see how anyone could say this was 'as good as' Raiders. They are leagues apart in every department, especially pacing in which Raiders is virtually a masterclass (aside from a slight wobble in the Cairo section).

[dataDave]

What a total load of wapness this was. omg.

Went to see this and Iron Man this weekend, I wasted not only &#163;14 but about 6hrs of my life. Cheers.

[Dogg Thang]

Wapness? I'm not up on WoW speak but I take it this is a bad thing?

You didn't like Iron Man?

[prinnysquad]

Yeah, that's the scene I was thinking of. I remember it going on and on and on...

I actually thought that was the best scene in the film. It didn't rely on CGI too much, had good tension and was the type of scene that wouldn't have been out of place in the first film. The rest of JP2 was a bit gung-ho and overused chase scenes.

[Fei Fong Wong]

Was gonna post everything I hated about this movie but someone already summed up my thoughts so perfectly on another site that I'll just post his list with some more I added.

What I hated:

The alien and his stupid spaceship.
Mutt - who was actually one of the only good things about the film - becoming Tarzan in a second, and befriending a pack of monkeys who then attacked some Russians.
Cate Blanchett being psychic but never actually displaying her powers, not even once.
A car driving off a cliff, landing on a tree and then that tree bending down to dump the car in the river, where it drives off, leaving the tree to snap back and attack some Russian.
Marion - who drove said car - pretending she either meant it to happen, or actually meaning it to happen, which is even more stupid.
The absolute, unbearable lack of anything resembling tension in any of the scenes in the film.
The fact that the first 20 minutes were fun, and then it all fell apart.
Wasting John Hurt, Cate Blanchett and Ray Winstone for shit.
The lack of anything religious in this film, when (real) religion is the cornerstone of the Indiana Jones series.
Indiana Jones' attack moves being limited to diving on top of a group of people.
Awful CG Gophers.
Awful painted backgrounds.
A flying refrigerator escaping a nuclear explosion
A fight with a Russian that lasts far too long, and then his battered body getting carried off by Giant Red Ants into a big hole.
A terrible CG hat being carried by some Giant Red Ants.
Jim Broadbent losing his job for no reason, and then getting it back for no reason.
Marion grinning and simpering her way through every scene she was in.

Needless to say, I didn't enjoy it, but I guess it will appeal to some nonetheless, otherwise why do films like Transformers get made.

[Daragon]

I thought the rather touching references to Denholm Elliot and Sean Connery's characters was well done - other than that, the movie didn't have the same appeal the last 3 did. It was just too corny, too over exaggurated or too dull. Big names completely wasted, a lack of proper action sequences, ALIENS! (religious artifacts are one thing, but where is the hardcore evidence that aliens ever existed?).

Ray bleedin' Winstone? Where the **** was John Rhys Davis?

[Dogg Thang]

(religious artifacts are one thing, but where is the hardcore evidence that aliens ever existed?).

Is this sarcasm?

I think Shortround would have given a nice twist to the Winstone role.

[Big Seany]

Went to see this tonight. Was aiiiight.

[EvilBoris]

Saw it last night ,I'm not a massive Indy fan but I thought it worked well.

[angelx]

I thought the rather touching references to Denholm Elliot and Sean Connery's characters was well done - other than that, the movie didn't have the same appeal the last 3 did. It was just too corny, too over exaggurated or too dull. Big names completely wasted, a lack of proper action sequences, ALIENS! (religious artifacts are one thing, but where is the hardcore evidence that aliens ever existed?).

Ray bleedin' Winstone? Where the **** was John Rhys Davis?

I don't see the fascination with Ray Winstone, terrible cockney actor who ruined the Henry XIII Tv show, and after that terrible Beowolf trailer were he says "I am here to kill your mostaaaah!" just awful. He's like vinnie Jones, cool I guess to the masses but cant act for toffee ( I will give him Nil by Mouth though...):rolleyes:

[Mercian]

Saw this last night and found it to be quite enjoyable. I decided beforehand to go in expecting the worst as I'm a massive Indy fan, and for me the first trilogy is untouchable.
Fei Fong Wong has summed up what could be considered most of the weaker elements of the film, so I'll concentrate on what I enjoyed about it: The jocks/greasers fight and motobike chase through the college, Indy and Mutt at the tomb (with blowpipe death FTW), swashbuckling through the jungle, Ray Winstone's character, signature fight with the big russian holding a chain, suprisingly...Shia Lebeouf

[prinnysquad]

To be honest, the stuff I've seen him in, he isn't that bad. There's plenty of more objectionable young actors around.

[Big Seany]

I liked Shia, thought he played a great part and was very likeable. Karen Allen was crap. The story was waaaay too far fetched. I hated the CG gophers, saw them and thought "uh oh". But overall as I say it was aiiiight.

[Daragon]

Did anyone else pick up on how utterly inconsistent Cate's russian accent was? In the scene her character was introduced in, she kept dipping back into english I would have actually sworn the character was some sort of double agent or something, had I not known what the character's name was.

Her dialect coach might have been a good investment, but she really needs to work on that accent.

[Big Seany]

I actually found the Blanchett character quite attractive at times.

[Daragon]

I thought she was rather hot in her completely OTT outfit, wig and rapier, but that's beside the point.

She just couldn't retain her accent for toffee.

[Dogg Thang]

I can't help wondering if she was constantly being asked to tone the accent down. She can do accents, the Russian accent is fairly easy and would have got away with being quite cartoony in a film like this and she was being paid a hell of a lot more than toffe so I can't imagine it should have been much of a problem for her. And yet, as you say, it drifted all over the place. Might have been the direction more than the actress.

[Brats]

I thought the last scene with her in was rubbish. Not a patch on exploding heads or melting faces.

http://www.theraider.net/films/raiders/gallery/makingof/mo_77.jpg

[Brats]

And CG insects are crap compared to the real thing;

http://indianajones.ugo.com/images/heroes/willie-scott.jpg

[Dogg Thang]

Totally agree on both counts.

I got the big Making Of book today. It covers all four films and was written by the guy who did the recent Making Of Star Wars book, which I thought was utterly fantastic and, for a film that has been talked about so often and for so long, was very revealing. The Indy book covers four films to its one so won't cover the details I guess but should hopefully still be a good read.

[dataDave]

Shia Lebeouf would have made a great Anakin Skywalker if he was even into acting ten years ago, IMO - the films would have still been wank mind.

[Dogg Thang]

Just flicking through the book, there are a few interesting things that jumped out. One was a series of drawings of Toht, the German who got the symbols burned into his hand in Raiders. The drawings show a cyborg arm that turns into a machine gun. It seems this came from Spielberg but Lucas thought it was too far-fetched so it went. Seems to suggest that the more outlandish things don't always come from Lucas.

Then getting to Crystal Skull, there's a whole big paragraph on just how strongly Spielberg felt about making everything real, shooting on-location, doing practical stunts and not using CG. Haven't read more of that yet but I was left wondering what the hell happened to that.

The last thing that stood out on a flick through was an excellent concept painting that depicted the very end of Crystal Skull, specifically Spalko getting blasted by the alien ray thingy before vanishing off. Unlike the movie, which just had glowing lights, this piece has the face peeling away. Sure, it's a rip of Raiders but it looks fantastic and would have had some balls at least.

Seems like a good book. Looking forward to going through it in detail.

[cavalcade]

A dreadful film. For all the reasons stated by everyone else who hated it.

Soulless. Poorly scripted. Badly acted. Dreadful. CG that wouldn't look out of place on Babylon 5.

After this and Phantom Menace, I'm writing to my local MP. Midichlorians were my lowest point. This is higher than that, but still depressingly bad.

[El Leone]

Saw it last night, found it disappointing.

[Bydo]

Saw it last Friday - totally agree with people's comments here - it just didn't deliver! :(

Hell, you know what, put me down for a Blu-ray when it comes out all the same. :D

Don't think that Alex from the Apprentice liked it either, as much to the delight of my girlfriend, he was in the cinema with us.

[bash]

Don't think that Alex from the Apprentice liked it either, as much to the delight of my girlfriend, he was in the cinema with us.

I guess that means he got fired at some point then?

[rmoxon]

I liked this to be honest. The dialogue was perhapse a bit lacking and a lot of the action sequences were retreads of previous indy movies only with added Alien silliness But it was well made, and fun enough over all.

The fact is that even though it wasnt spectacularly original, there was nothing really bad about it either. Its basicaly just another Indy movie, and IMO there is nothing wrong with that.

[Brats]

It isn't though. The previous three movies were all:

Heroic - there was very little herosim in this film - success was more by accident than by design
Full of real stunts - Where's the excitement when it's all been filmed in a blue room?
Based around some ancient artifact that exists in scripture or folklore
Gory for a film that can be seen by children - whether it be melting faces, exploding heads, people getting minced by stone rollers or having their hearts pulled out - a bit of CG fire in the eyes is rubbish by comparison
Well paced
Set in the thirties, with a real nasty baddy in the Nazis. The fifties and the Russians just isn't the same for an Indy film.
Not full of plot holes
Not full of CG


This isn't an Indy film. There are three Indy films and one spin off ala Caravan of Courage that will probably be disowned in a few years time.

[rmoxon]

It isn't though. The previous three movies were all:

Heroic - there was very little herosim in this film - success was more by accident than by design
Full of real stunts - Where's the excitement when it's all been filmed in a blue room?
Based around some ancient artifact that exists in scripture or folklore
Gory for a film that can be seen by children - whether it be melting faces, exploding heads, people getting minced by stone rollers or having their hearts pulled out - a bit of CG fire in the eyes is rubbish by comparison
Well paced
Set in the thirties, with a real nasty baddy in the Nazis. The fifties and the Russians just isn't the same for an Indy film.
Not full of plot holes
Not full of CGThis isn't an Indy film. There are three Indy films and one spin off ala Caravan of Courage that will probably be disowned in a few years time.

Umm, Well I completely disagree, as i said the only real negative thing about the film IMo is that it tries to do what has been done before in the series.

The indy films have never been about Heroism, infact i remember my Ex actualy telling me she hated them becuase she finds every character in them to be "selfish and nasty". You could actualy argue that this film has MORE heroism if anything, as they set out to save someone as apposed to just trying to find an artifact at the start of the story.

Stunts are stunts where ever you do them. but most of them were NOT done on a bluescreen anyway. The producers even made a big deal while they were making the film about how it was being made mostly the old fashion way.

Crystal Skulls really do exist and the mythology presented in the movie is near enough correect, but just as unproven as that of the holy grail or power of the Ark. Get your facts stright before you complain about a film.

I agree it wasnt gory, but I didnt really see anywhere where it seemed like it had been tamed down for kids.

As for pacing, I think you should go back and watch The Temple Of Doom again, I think you will find this is much better paced than that. In fact as much as I like temple of doom (still my least favorite of the four mind) its pretty much a mess.

There were plot holes?

And there was like two obvious CGI shots/sequences in the movie... both were pretty well done imo.

Did you even see this film?

[Matt]

There were plot holes?

Come on you can't be serious?!?!

:rofl:

[rmoxon]

Come on you can't be serious?!?!

:rofl:


umm, yes.... are you?

[Daragon]

It isn't though. The previous three movies were all:

Heroic - there was very little herosim in this film - success was more by accident than by design
Full of real stunts - Where's the excitement when it's all been filmed in a blue room?
Based around some ancient artifact that exists in scripture or folklore
Gory for a film that can be seen by children - whether it be melting faces, exploding heads, people getting minced by stone rollers or having their hearts pulled out - a bit of CG fire in the eyes is rubbish by comparison
Well paced
Set in the thirties, with a real nasty baddy in the Nazis. The fifties and the Russians just isn't the same for an Indy film.
Not full of plot holes
Not full of CG


This isn't an Indy film. There are three Indy films and one spin off ala Caravan of Courage that will probably be disowned in a few years time.

And what spinoff was that? Other than some books and the Young Indy TV show, there wasn't anything else.

[Dogg Thang]

No, he's talking about this film.

And plot holes? The film was full of them. There was a list of a few earlier (possibly by Brats).

[rmoxon]

I wouldnt worry his post seemed to have been written in some drug enduced stupor. None of it made much sense to me.

How would you even do an Indiana Jones spin off? are any of the other characters intresting enough besides possibley his son, now we know he has one ?.

[rmoxon]

No, he's talking about this film.

And plot holes? The film was full of them. There was a list of a few earlier (possibly by Brats).

Well I cant be bothered going back and finding it, though i did just check out moviemistakes.com

Crystal skull has 68 listed mistakes so far, though only three of them are said to be plot holes.

Raiders of the lost ark has 99 mistakes, and it has alot more than 3 plot holes.

Course its a new movie, so maybe more will be posted in time for crystal skull, but seems like no matter how many mistakes it has, I'm guessing that fact alone cant make it any worse than the other movies.

Last crusade has 160 mistakes apparently.

[Dogg Thang]

It's quality, not quantity that counts. For example, did you not wonder how Indy and Broadbent got their jobs back?

[Daragon]

Oh lol, I thought he meant an ACTUAL spin-off, you know, like Caravan of Courage was an ACTUAL spin-off of Star Wars and not an official part of the canon (as far as I know)

[rmoxon]

I actualy thought he got a different job or somthing, but never throught that hard about it to be honest. But then I can't even remember why he lost it in the first place.

But anyway Indy movies have always been basicaly comic book films anyway, right down to him having almost two seperate indetites and costumes. They arent suppose to be taken seriously, ridiculous things happen throughout all the films. By plot holes I thought youd mean somthing that spoilt the enjoyment of the film.

You know like the deus ex machina type crap from van helsing when people appear out of nowhere swinging from ropes despite being outside with nothing for the ropes to hang on too. Or how Transylvania horses are suppose to be able to out run anything but then despite having massive head start the wearwolf guy magicaly appeared in front of them.

[SuperDanX]

Plot holes, shmot holes, whats it matter? Its an action adventure romp not a complex thriller, suspention of disbelief is where its at, a lot of you are looking at it way, way to deeply. Its an okay film.

[Dogg Thang]

You don't have to look at it deeply to know he lost his job at the start, Broadbent resigned, and then they both had their jobs at the end for no apparent reason. That's not depth. That's simply the story as presented. With a hole.

Being an action adventure romp should not excuse thoughtless writing.

[rmoxon]

Ive remembered, he didnt get his job back, he got a better job, he was the head of the university or somthing.

So there.

Not sure about Broadbent though, did he even get his job back?

If he did, its possibley cause indy hired him?

Or maybe they just let him come back seeing as indy was back?

[Matt]

Plot holes, shmot holes, whats it matter? Its an action adventure romp not a complex thriller, suspention of disbelief is where its at, a lot of you are looking at it way, way to deeply. Its an okay film.

Every film needs to hang together on some semblance of Logic. Often a film has plot holes, and if you're noticing them while you're watching the film, it's a sign that it's a bad film.

Skull makes very, very little sense. Each area lets down the viewer.

Start off basically. Indy is a hero. In previous films, he went out and fought evil. In this he's a bystander. Whenever he gets in to a fight, it's normally external elements that save the day - his son, some monkeys, whatever. Maybe this is the filmmakers way of showing his age, so I'll let that slide.

Logic just isn't in this film. In previous Indy films, however far fetched, it makes sense. With this, what do we have? Indy helped at Roswell, so the Russians want him to locate the remains in the hangar. Why him? Why not someone who actually knows where in the hangar it is? Or someone with a clipboard listing content?

No, they march in to the most top secret military establishment in the country with seemingly little to stop them. And produce Indy to help them.

So why is Ray Winstone there? As a bargaining chip to make sure Indy does what he's asked? Given his allegiances, pretending he's a hostage makes no sense at that point, unless they know Indy will escape and then Winstone will be useful. But if they think Indy is that much trouble, they'd either fully restrain him (ie. not give him gun powder and have him running around unbound), or just use someone else.

Now, are we to believe they wanted Indy to escape once they had the alien body? I ask, because everything that happens thereafter makes no sense if they don't. They keep tabs on him in expectation that he'll receive a cryptic letter from his son that only he'll be able to understand, that will lead to the missing crystal skull.

So... they purposefully let him him escape? No. Because he ends up escaping in to a nuclear test site with a bomb going off. Which he then escapes by climbing in to a lead lined fridge, which is flung, what say a mile away from the blast zone? Tumbling, travelling very fast, crashing and rolling numerous times. And he just jumps out! That's plain silly beyond the "everyman hero" silliness of the past films.

But ok, the Russions planned that? Because if not, everything that follows makes no sense.

Unless it's a startling coincidence that he gets the letter and ends up hunting for what the Russians want. OK I'll buy that - it's a coincidence. Other films have suitably contrived coincidences holding them together.

So off he goes on a little adventure, which I'm afraid lacked the previous epic feeling the other films carried.

He finally gets the skull, only to be caught again. This time the Russians have him stare in to it's eyes for... what exactly? He doesn't learn anything. John Hurt is there for all the exposition. You could lose the Hurt character, have Indy learn the secrets needed, and off he'd go. But that's not a plot point, that's just a way to make the story better.

I won't mention the "psychic" Russion who does NOTHING psychic all film.

The biggest plot hole - well that's easy. He gets to the tomb and needs the skull to open the door. This is the skull that an explorer stole 500 years ago or something. So if you need the skull to open the door, how did the explorer open that door 500 years ago to retrieve the skull in the first place? Answers on a post card to the following address.

And then what happens? Some alien mumbo jumbo which makes no sense. Suddenly it's a portal to another dimension. Or something. Cate wants to know everything. This is the woman who returned the skull, which presumably the aliens had wanted. Her payment? She dies? Well thanks a lot, bet she wishes she hadn't bothered.

These are aliens who, by my calculation, had sat there in that room as crystal skeletons for 3500 years (2000BC they landed, 1500AD skull stolen, something like that) before the skull was stolen. They were quite happen just doing nothing it would have seemed. Suddenly they get the skull back and want to go home? Why? Why not BEFORE the skull was taken. They had plenty of time to pack...

Oh yes, all that gold and treasure outside the throne room. Why is it there? The aliens wanted it, artifacts of the human civilisations. Must have been important to them. So important they put it in a place it will be immediately destroyed when they want to go home.

While that's happening, Winstone is grabbing as much loot as he can, ignoring everyone else fleeing. He has a chance to escape but is greedy. OK fine, I'll buy that. But then Indy has him on the whip, all Winstone has to do is put a little bit of effort in to and he'll escape. Pull with his arms, push with his feet? No **** that I'd rather get sucked in to the interdimensional vortex opening up behind me. This is a character seemingly motivated by greed and nothing more - the last kind of character who'd choose death.

I could go on, but I think this covers the key points. Add dull action sequences and I think it's a rather poor film.

[rmoxon]

Chain, none of that is really plot holes, youre just saying why the film shouldnt be taken seriously.... plus maybe you should have added spoiler tags for people who havent seen the film?

Anyway as I said earlier, Indy is more heroic in this film than in the others really (besides maybe temple of doom) becuase he actualy sets out to rescue someone. In raiders he only inadventently stops the nazis becuase hes looking for the ark himself self really (i know hes asked to go, but its archelogical curiosity that gets him), its not like he stops the bad guys himself is it?, same in the last crusade really.

As for all the Alien stuff i agree it was a bit far fetched but also based largley on real ideas behind the crystal skulls.

Ray Winstone was there becuase you always need a character to betray the lead in this type of film and make a secene more dramatic, dont you know that?

And i thought the action scenes were pretty good myself, though like i said already, very simular to the ones from previous movies.

[Dogg Thang]

What Chain said.

If you guys are happy with a collection of scenes rather than a story, that's fine. You're the ones who are better off and I wish I could be the same. But a movie of this size, actually of just about any size, I don't see why I shouldn't expect a good script regardless of genre.

[Matt]

Yikes! Sorry, spoiler tags added.

Mate they are all plot holes - events in the film that make no logical sense. As I've said, a film doesn't have to be taken seriously and can just entertain, but this als apart as you're watching it.

And remember I'm the guy who passionately argues that Bad Boys 2 is a brilliant film :D

Winstone, like Hurt, served no real purpose and didnt help propel the story along. You can view them as either underwritten or unnecessary characters.

[Matt]

What Chain said.

If you guys are happy with a collection of scenes rather than a story, that's fine. You're the ones who are better off and I wish I could be the same. But a movie of this size, actually of just about any size, I don't see why I shouldn't expect a good script regardless of genre.

Yes, more power to you if you enjoyed it. I'm jealous:thumb:

[rmoxon]

You like bad boys 2?

Guess I dont even have to argue with you then, anything you so is quite obviously rubbish as that film has more plot holes than Martin Lawrence has made bad films. :p

Anyway a plot hole is a hole in the plot, such as say, there is a scene with a character, and then in the next scene with the same character you arent sure how they got to where they are now or somthing.

All the things you described werent plot holes, some of them were silly events, but i think they were probabaly suppose to be, fact is it actualy made sense why they happened within the story, even if it didnt make sense to you that they were wrote into the movie in the first place.

[Matt]

Anyway a plot hole is a hole in the plot, such as say, there is a scene with a character, and then in the next scene with the same character you arent sure how they got to where they are now or somthing.

No that's a continuity error :p

[rmoxon]

No that's a continuity error :p

No a continuity error is when, say, a background prop is in one shot, and then two seconds latter its missing from the scene. Continuity errors dont usualy have much of an impact on the actual plot and most films usualy have hundreds of them

[EvilBoris]

There are plot holes then there is just nit picking, because you can.
I don't know how anyone can claim that the aliens were far fetched, because an immortal knight guarding the Holy Grail and the Arc of the Covenant weren't....

[Dogg Thang]

I had no probem with the subject matter.

[Daragon]

Ive remembered, he didnt get his job back, he got a better job, he was the head of the university or somthing.

So there.

Not sure about Broadbent though, did he even get his job back?

If he did, its possibley cause indy hired him?

Or maybe they just let him come back seeing as indy was back?

If you remember back to the film, Indy was made assistant dean at the end of it, which must mean that Broadbent's character took over as head dean when Marcus Brody died.

[Matt]

There are plot holes then there is just nit picking, because you can.
I don't know how anyone can claim that the aliens were far fetched, because an immortal knight guarding the Holy Grail and the Arc of the Covenant weren't....

I'm not nit-picking. If someone can explain away the plot holes I've pointed out, I'd like them to do so.

And the Grail plotlie worked because it was in keeping with the established Indy logic - if there's really an Arc, there would likely be a Grail.

[Matt]

No a continuity error is when, say, a background prop is in one shot, and then two seconds latter its missing from the scene. Continuity errors dont usualy have much of an impact on the actual plot and most films usualy have hundreds of them

I was still talking about film logic, hence the Continuity - as in Film Logic Continuity errors, which were what you were talking about.

I'm the last person here to get in to a conversation about Continuity Errors, I've fixed them in all my films:thumbd:

My point still stands - the film makes no logical sense at all.

And don't bad mouth Bad Boys 2, it's an unrecognised Classic :thumb:

[rmoxon]

An error is somthing that exists but is wrong. If somthing is missing from the plot then it dosent exist, hence it is a plot hole, not an error.

Considering Bad Boys 2 is just one giant error though i think we better just stop right now before i write a 600 page rant about its horrible existence.

[Brats]

The indy films have never been about Heroism, infact i remember my Ex actualy telling me she hated them becuase she finds every character in them to be "selfish and nasty". You could actualy argue that this film has MORE heroism if anything, as they set out to save someone as apposed to just trying to find an artifact at the start of the story.

You're talking about the beliefs of the hero, not his actions which is what I'm talking about. In Raiders, Indy goes of singlehandedly after a convoy of Germans on a horse and wins out. In this he rides on the back of a motorbike ridden by someone else, flukely gets blasted away from a explosion, seems to do bugger all during the big chase scene and walks blindly into quicksand. Some hero.


Stunts are stunts where ever you do them. but most of them were NOT done on a bluescreen anyway. The producers even made a big deal while they were making the film about how it was being made mostly the old fashion way.

Get real. Being literally pulled along a real road by a real moving truck is somewhat different from being in a studio and falling from a blue box onto a blue crash pad.

And the Director said about not using CG but it turned out to be bollocks. CG nearly all the way.


Crystal Skulls really do exist and the mythology presented in the movie is near enough correect, but just as unproven as that of the holy grail or power of the Ark. Get your facts stright before you complain about a film.

Wrong. Crystal Skulls (as made by ancient civilisations) do not exist and have been proven to be 19th century fakes. Get yout facts straight, etc.....


I agree it wasnt gory, but I didnt really see anywhere where it seemed like it had been tamed down for kids.

So the previous film were gory and this wasn't - but it hasn't been tamed down. WTF?


As for pacing, I think you should go back and watch The Temple Of Doom again, I think you will find this is much better paced than that. In fact as much as I like temple of doom (still my least favorite of the four mind) its pretty much a mess.

temple of Doom is a wonderfully paced film. Quentin tarrantino quotes it as Spielber's best directed film. The things that let it down are the shrieking of Kate Capshaw.


There were plot holes?

Loads of them as opposed to continuity erros as others have said. yes it's an action film, but it should still 'work' within it's own universe. If John MacLean suddenly sprouted wings and flew around in die Hard 4.0, we'd all be crying bollocks. just because it is an action film, doesn't give it an excuse for crap storytelling.


And there was like two obvious CGI shots/sequences in the movie... both were pretty well done imo.

Even the prairie dog at the begiining was CG. It's a prairie dog. They live all over the US. There are millions of them Yet instead of using a rea one, they use a Cg one. If you didn't notice that far more of the film than two sequences were CG, that explains an awful ot.


Did you even see this film?

I did, but clearly you fell asleep in your viewing.

[Brats]

There are plot holes then there is just nit picking, because you can.

Not at all. It spoils my enjoyment of a film when I see that the writers can't be bothered to address major non-sensical issues and just hope that the audience will be too dumb to notice.


I don't know how anyone can claim that the aliens were far fetched, because an immortal knight guarding the Holy Grail and the Arc of the Covenant weren't....

I haven't got a problem with the aliens at all. It's the things that make no sense that spoil it.

Given that the baddies main drive was something that they could not possibly have known in the first place, that kind of casts a question over any of their actions, no? Even in a film like this, you need to believe in the characters just a little bit. Just looking nasty isn't enough, you need a reason to feel their evil.

[EvilBoris]

Why was it they couldn't of known it? (Perhaps I missed something as I was busy enjoying the film :P)

Why did the film have to show or explain all the actions/effort made by that woman to find out what she knew? They cleraly explained what it was that she could do even if they didn't show it more than once.

[Matt]

An error is somthing that exists but is wrong. If somthing is missing from the plot then it dosent exist, hence it is a plot hole, not an error.

Considering Bad Boys 2 is just one giant error though i think we better just stop right now before i write a 600 page rant about its horrible existence.

So you're explaining an error now. Thanks for that, I know what one is. And I'm arguing the plot is full of logical errors.

I write quite a bit, I've some screenplays I work on as an aspiring film maker. Every scene must make sense, every scene must drive the plot forward in a logical manner. I know a lot about structure and form, and I'd be embarassed if I wrote something that falls apart so easily.

This film was full of holes. If you don't want to see it, fine, I'm not going to keep going over the points. TBH I can't understand why you refuse to see these problems, even if you didn't see them at the time, on reflection they're monumentally obvious; failing that I've outlined some key ones.

I stand by my statement, the film makes no logical sense. And beyond that, the execution leaves a lot to be desired - which is entirely Spielberg's fault.

Some people can still enjoy the film, flaws and all; some of us can't. As I say, more power to you if these things don't bug you. Just don't say they don't exist:rolleyes:

[rmoxon]

Wrong. Crystal Skulls (as made by ancient civilisations) do not exist and have been proven to be 19th century fakes. Get yout facts straight, etc.....

temple of Doom is a wonderfully paced film. Quentin tarrantino quotes it as Spielber's best directed film. The things that let it down are the shrieking of Kate Capshaw.



Umm, Crystals skulls are real.... I think you should probabaly take a trip to the British Musem... I'm not sure why you seem to think they are fake when people still study them, but even if they were fake the mythology and speculation behind them was acuratley used in the film (to an extent)..... My facts are stright thank you very much.

And Lol, What does Quinten Tarantino know about pacing?, All his films are completely scattershot and the pacing is the worst aspect of them all (besides Kill Bill Vol 1, which is actualy a really well made film all round). Plus after the atrosity that was Death Proof he has no right to act like an athority on anything, never mind cinema. Temple Of Doom isn't a well paced film at all, its all over the place. Trarantino was probabaly talking about the actual direction of the scenes. It does have some really well filmed action sequences (mine kart sequence, bit on the bridge at the end), and looks really good in places.

Rest of what you said was just laughable rubbish really (how a CGI prarie dog would ruin a film for anyone is beyond me) so I cant even be bothered to reply to it. You just seem to be making alot of silly stuff up to be honest.

[EvilBoris]

Wasn't the one in the british museum discovered to be a fake?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7414637.stm

[rmoxon]

Well that one possibley is, but what I originaly meant was that the mythology and speculation behind them was presented relativley correctly in the film.

One of Brats many poor excuses for critisism of the film was that crystal skulls arent like the Ark or the holy grail, I was just saying that the Myths about crystal skulls are real. Not made up by the writers of the film, so theres not alot of difference really.

[Matt]

Oh yeah and Chain, I find your will power remarkable if youre an aspiring writer yet you can still sit through the horrible 2 hours of constant whiney headache inducing dialogue that is in Bad Boys 2 without feeling embaressed enough to off yourself. You deserve some kind of medal.


Why? It's a great, mindless, big budget action film. It has faults - like the seemingly tacked on tribute to Police Story, TBH that whole Cuba bit could have gone. Yet it's still a great film. As I've said elsewhere, if that shoot-out with the camera rotating between rooms had been done by Woo, the fanboys would have creamed themselves. It's also got a fantastic car chase, one of the best I've seen. And then there's another car chase with dead bodies coming out of the truck! It's true genius:thumb: