# Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull [spoilers]



## Goodsport (May 7, 2008)

After a 19 year wait (both in-story and in real life), the fourth movie of the Indiana Jones series hits theaters on Thursday, May 22. 


-G


----------



## Goodsport (May 7, 2008)

Here's a compilation of the movie's trailers and TV spots to date.

While bits of some scenes repeat from one spot to the next, bits of new scenes are also revealed with each subsequent spot.


*Movie trailers*


Trailer #1
Trailer #2


*TV spots*


Spot #1
Spot #2
Spot #3
Spot #4
Spot #5
Spot #6
Spot #7
Spot #8
Spot #9



-G


----------



## Goodsport (May 10, 2008)

> _Here's a compilation of the movie's trailers and TV spots to date.
> 
> While bits of some scenes repeat from one spot to the next, bits of new scenes are also revealed with each subsequent spot.
> 
> ...





Trailer #3


-G


----------



## Mark (May 10, 2008)

Thanks for doing this, Goodsport!


----------



## Goodsport (May 10, 2008)

Mark said:
			
		

> Thanks for doing this, Goodsport!




Glad to help, Mark! 


-G


----------



## Goodsport (May 15, 2008)

> > _Here's a compilation of the movie's trailers and TV spots to date.
> >
> > While bits of some scenes repeat from one spot to the next, bits of new scenes are also revealed with each subsequent spot.
> >
> ...





Spot #10


-G


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 15, 2008)

I was in need of some action from Dr. Jones, so I watched Temple of Doom.

Man, I'm excited for this one.


----------



## fba827 (May 15, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I was in need of some action from Dr. Jones, so I watched Temple of Doom.




Short Round: Hang on lady, we going for a ride!
Willie: Oh... my... God! Oh my God... Oh my God... Is he nuts?
Short Round: He no nuts, he crazy!


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 15, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I was in need of some action from Dr. Jones, so I watched Temple of Doom.




Really? I always thought that was the weakest one.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 15, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Really? I always thought that was the weakest one.




Yeah, that's the general consensus.  Probably because it's so different from Raiders and Crusade.  I can't entirely explain why I like it.  Probably because it _is_ so different from Raiders and Crusade.  Wouldn't say it's my favorite, though; I like them all pretty equally.


----------



## Agamon (May 15, 2008)

Having seen Raiders maybe twice and each of the others once each at the theatre, I've watched all three in the last week getting ready for the new one.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 15, 2008)

I wonder what happened to shorty round?  I could understand why Indiana Jones forgot about Willie, but why would Indy Drop Short Round (who supposally became an archaeologist) as a Side Kick in exchange for Shia LaBeouf's loser want-to-be Fonzy character?


----------



## Amellia (May 15, 2008)

As far as I can tell, there's a lot more Shia LeBeouf than there was Short Round. Shia has a much larger role, whereas Short Round was relegated to little quirky sidekick with an occasional (if hilarious) one-liner. LeBeouf appears to be much more integral to the plot.

I think there's other reasons why they're using him and not a Short Round type, but I will keep my theories to myself.


----------



## fba827 (May 15, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> I wonder what happened to shorty round?  I could understand why Indiana Jones forgot about Willie, but why would Indy Drop Short Round (who supposally became an archaeologist) as a Side Kick in exchange for Shia LaBeouf's loser want-to-be Fonzy character?




Because Short Round had to leave Indy & Willie to go help Mikey search for One-Eyed Willie.


----------



## Megaton (May 15, 2008)

I hear some people complain about LaBeouf, but I kind of like the idea of a character called Mutt who looks like that. I have a feeling I'm going to like this movie a lot in spite of any naysayers.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 15, 2008)

Amellia said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell, there's a lot more Shia LeBeouf than there was Short Round. Shia has a much larger role, whereas Short Round was relegated to little quirky sidekick with an occasional (if hilarious) one-liner. LeBeouf appears to be much more integral to the plot.
> 
> I think there's other reasons why they're using him and not a Short Round type, but I will keep my theories to myself.





Yeah, he may have been quirky, but that was when his character was like 10 years old.  This new movie takes place when Shorty Round would be around 30 and well into his own Archaeological career.  Sure, LaBeouf's character is integral to the plot, but couldn't they at least give Dr. Short Round a cameo?


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 15, 2008)

Megaton said:
			
		

> I hear some people complain about LaBeouf, but I kind of like the idea of a character called Mutt who looks like that. I have a feeling I'm going to like this movie a lot in spite of any naysayers.



We complain about LaBeouf because we don't like him.  




			
				fba827 said:
			
		

> Because Short Round had to leave Indy & Willie to go help Mikey search for One-Eyed Willie.



He did save Indy from Pirates in the Adventures of Indiana Jones comic..


----------



## Amellia (May 16, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> We complain about LaBeouf because we don't like him.





Speak for yourself.  I like Shia LeBeouf. I agree, Megaton. I think I'm going to just forget all the naysayers and go with an open mind, prepared to enjoy myself, and I suspect I probably will.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 16, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> I could understand why Indiana Jones forgot about Willie, but why would Indy Drop Short Round (who supposally became an archaeologist) as a Side Kick in exchange for Shia LaBeouf's loser want-to-be Fonzy character?



Well, he is the Karen Allen character's (ah, found it: Marion Ravenwood's) kid.


----------



## Knightfall (May 16, 2008)

Amellia said:
			
		

> I think there's other reasons why they're using him and not a Short Round type, but I will keep my theories to myself.



C'mon, it's obvious. The kid is obviously going to turn out to be Indy's son.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 16, 2008)

And why can't Short Round be Indy's Son?


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 17, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> And why can't Short Round be Indy's Son?




Because Willy's best friend adopted him (wtf?)


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 17, 2008)

I am certain there is a dialogue quote from the original movies that would serve well to demonstrate how I feel about the next movie, but I can’t think of one.

“I hate snakes…”

No….


----------



## Goodsport (May 18, 2008)

There's now less than a week to go for the 19-year wait to end! 


-G


----------



## RangerWickett (May 18, 2008)

Keep your hopes down. George Lucas is involved, there is CG in the movie, therefore it will suck.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 19, 2008)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Keep your hopes down...




Have you seen the South Park episode where the boys try (and fail) to prevent Speilberg and Lucas from making a special edition of "Raiders" which ends with a send up the opening of the Arc?


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 19, 2008)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I am certain there is a dialogue quote from the original movies that would serve well to demonstrate how I feel about the next movie, but I can’t think of one.
> 
> “I hate snakes…”
> 
> No….




Are you sure it isn't a scene which shows where you think every print of the film should be sent?


----------



## jaerdaph (May 19, 2008)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I am certain there is a dialogue quote from the original movies that would serve well to demonstrate how I feel about the next movie, but I can’t think of one.
> 
> “I hate snakes…”
> 
> No….




"We named the dog Indiana"...


----------



## thalmin (May 19, 2008)

I'm really Jonesing to see this movie.

C'mon. Someone had to say it sooner or later.

OK, I'll go away quietly.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 19, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Are you sure it isn't a scene which shows where you think every print of the film should be sent?




Ah, but that's just it. I don't know if this is gonna be so bad most everyone in the audience will melt*, or if it will be as fun as punching Nazi's in the face over and over. I won't know until we open it... I mean, until I see it.



			
				thalmin said:
			
		

> I'm really Jonesing to see this movie...




"He choose.... poorly."





*Or as bad as having Eric Noah rip my heart out and sacrifice it to the dread goddess, 4th Edition in some cavern under WotC.


----------



## Krug (May 19, 2008)

Just watched *Raiders of the Lost Ark* and thought it was really a piece of perfect cinema. The elements that were in place (Jones' phobia, his rival who is a mirror image of him, the superb set pieces) made it hard for the sequels to ever top the first.


----------



## Amellia (May 19, 2008)

Indy has premiered at Cannes, and most of the critics are actually saying it's really good! The reviews range from "Awesome!" to "Really good fun," and every so often there's a "Meh, this is just more of the same." I don't really see how that last one is a bad thing... wasn't the whole fear that they'd change Indy too much and it wouldn't have the same awesomeness as the original trilogy?

I was trying to reserve judgement/anticipation, so as not to be disappointed, but it looks like people are actually really liking it, so YAY. I can officially get psyched now.


----------



## D.Shaffer (May 20, 2008)

And the deluge of 'Documentaries' about the crystal skulls begins. *sigh*

Remember when History and Discovery had actual history and science shows?


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 20, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> And the deluge of 'Documentaries' about the crystal skulls begins. *sigh*
> 
> Remember when History and Discovery had actual history and science shows?



I Raise.

I remember the first year of Discovery Channel before any of the others came about when it's line-up was still almost entirely those great classic National Geographic programs and the old BBC documentaries from back when they actually did a documentary instead of a drama.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 20, 2008)

Raiders is my all time favorite, saw that sucker more times than Star Wars.  Temple has grown on me over the years, still the weakest because of screaming Willie.  

I like Shia LeBeouf, think he is a good choice to carry on the future of the franchies.


----------



## GlassJaw (May 20, 2008)

I saw an advance screening this week.  I won't reveal much yet for those that haven't seen it but I was definitely disappointed.  I thought it was the weakest of the 4 movies.


----------



## Krug (May 20, 2008)

Finished watching the original trilogy. *Temple of Doom* is quite bad; the middle passage is mostly played for laughs, particularly the dinner scene. The mine chase goes on for far too long as well.

But *The Last Crusade* redeemed the bad taste left in the mouth by the second. Great chases, nice character interaction, and just lots of fun.

Glassjaw: Boy it must be quite bad if it's worse than Temple of Doom!


----------



## Arnwyn (May 20, 2008)

As long as he doesn't break his hip, I'll probably be okay with it.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 20, 2008)

I've never got the Temple of Doom hate.

I mean, sure its not as good as the others, but its still a good, fun movie. In the end, that's really about all I ask for from Indiana Jones. Anything more is a bonus.

And I can't say I'm THAT surprised with any disappointment concerned Crystal Skull. This definitely is going to have a case like the Star Wars Prequels here expectations reach a dangerous level for many people. Course, in this case, if its terrible one can't just blame George Lucas, since Spielberg and Ford were supposed to be holding out until it was 'perfect' to do it.


----------



## frankthedm (May 21, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> D.Shaffer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, way too much fluff in so many of the current shows.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 21, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Yeah, way too much fluff in so many of the current shows.



Yeah a great example are many of those new "prehistoric creature XYZ" shows.  They spend so much effort on turning it into a drama and providing plot, narrative, conflict.  When it could be spent on actually imparting information rather than just watching some talking head interact with rubber animal heads and CGI beasts.

Anyone know if there's a way to find out what the show line-ups were back in the day?  Cause I'd really like to acquire many of them for the future when my own children can see something better than the drivel being produced at the moment.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 21, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> And the deluge of 'Documentaries' about the crystal skulls begins. *sigh*
> 
> Remember when History and Discovery had actual history and science shows?




I can't agree more. This is why I stopped watching the History channel years ago. 

Well, this and the superabundance of WWII shows.


----------



## Amellia (May 21, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Yeah a great example are many of those new "prehistoric creature XYZ" shows.  They spend so much effort on turning it into a drama and providing plot, narrative, conflict.  When it could be spent on actually imparting information rather than just watching some talking head interact with rubber animal heads and CGI beasts.





Yeah, exactly. If I want drama, I'll go watch Heroes. If I want a documentary, I want a DOCUMENTARY. Yeah, I miss the old Discovery Channel. Too bad it's such a thing of the past... hopefully all the "retro" interest these days will result in some of those great old documentary shows being released on Blu-ray or something, digitally enhanced. Some of them had astonishingly beautiful footage.


----------



## Mistwell (May 21, 2008)

Discovery still has some fantastic shows. Deadliest Catch, Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, Survivorman, and the award winning (and amazing) Planet Earth.

If anything, Discovery has gotten MUCH better with time, not worse.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 21, 2008)

Just wait until the Myth Busters decide to do the Indiana Jone's myth special as a tie in to the Indiana Jones crazy (most likely right before the dvd special edition collector's set of all 4 movies is released).


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 21, 2008)

Some things on the History Channel are still good.

Well, one.

The Universe is probably one of the better shows on TV.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 21, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Discovery still has some fantastic shows. Deadliest Catch, Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, Survivorman, and the award winning (and amazing) Planet Earth.



Deadliest Catch and Survivorman aren't bad, but Planet Earth is the only one that can compare with the old classic discovery programs.



> If anything, Discovery has gotten MUCH better with time, not worse.



Did you ever actually see Discovery before the decline set in though?  When did you start watching discovery Channel?  The first two years of programing in 85 and 86 were incredible, full of classic greats.  You could probably extend the good years out to 88 or 89 but by 90 Discovery was definitely on a downhill stretch.


----------



## Villano (May 21, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Just wait until the Myth Busters decide to do the Indiana Jone's myth special as a tie in to the Indiana Jones crazy (most likely right before the dvd special edition collector's set of all 4 movies is released).




They actually did that one already.  Surprisingly, they found you can't swing across a pit with a whip, but you can melt a Nazi's face off with a bright enough light.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 22, 2008)

Villano said:
			
		

> Surprisingly, they found you can't swing across a pit with a whip, but you can melt a Nazi's face off with a bright enough light.




Really? I would have thought it was the other way 'round. I did see the one where they made a psuedo-arc. 

What about light-sensitive traps, soft-clay pressure plate traps, spinning blade traps, ripping someone's heart out and them not dying right away, surviving all the damage Jones suffered in Raiders and drinking Tibetian and Frenchmen under the table? Is the proven, busted or probable?


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 22, 2008)

Villano said:
			
		

> you can melt a Nazi's face off with a bright enough light.




I wonder how much the re-constructive surgery cost Torry.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 22, 2008)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> drinking Tibetian and Frenchmen under the table? Is the proven, busted or probable?




BUSTED


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 22, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> I wonder how much the re-constructive surgery cost Torry.



Unless brainwashing was involved, I call shenanigans anyway!


----------



## Mistwell (May 23, 2008)

I saw it last night (no spoilers).  

I thought it was good, but not great. Good enough. It was fun. A bit too over the top for me, and the CG was a bit too gratuitous at times, and the cutesy stuff was often unnecessary, but overall I had fun, and that is my main criteria for saying a movie is good.

Now for the spoilers, I'll just post part of Roger Ebert's initial reaction:



Spoiler



Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Say it aloud. The very title causes the pulse to quicken, if you, like me, are a lover of pulp fiction. What I want is goofy action--lots of it. I want man-eating ants, swordfights between two people balanced on the backs of speeding jeeps, subterranean caverns of gold, vicious femme fatales, plunges down three waterfalls in a row, and the explanation for flying saucers. And throw in lots of monkeys.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 23, 2008)

Saw it yesterday. I'll start with the short and completely spoiler-free version reaction:

This really is an Indiana Jones movie! Whereas most of the Star Wars prequels had the name, but didn't really feel the same (to me, anyway), this does. This is very much a continuation of the series. It's a lot of fun, and if it doesn't do anything new with the character, well, did we really expect or even want it to?

It's not _Raiders of the Lost Ark_. (Every review of this movie is required, by law, to say that.) I'm not sure yet if it's even _Last Crusade_. I'm not sure if I'm prepared to say it's "better" than _Temple of Doom_, but it's certainly more _fun_. If you liked the previous movies in the series, I highly recommend it...

With two very important caveats.

1) The "Oh, come on!" quotient of this movie is higher than the others. I don't mean things like supernatural devices that melt people's faces. I'm talking about scenes that are silly and/or over the top, scenes where you think "Even a star in an action movie shouldn't be getting up after that," or where you think "Okay, that's just dumb."

They're only a few scenes--not _nearly_ enough to ruin the movie--but they'll bother some people.

2) The biggest problem that some people are going to have with this movie--and yes, I include myself--is the underlying conceit. What do I mean by this? Well, the underlying conceit of the prior three movies was, in essence, "Magic and religious mythology are real."

The conceit of this movie is different. I can't go into any further detail without some spoilers. 

[sblock]The movie goes a little far in the direction of sci-fi for my tastes. I don't mind the movie implying that aliens exist. But did we need to see them? Did we need to see the flying saucer, or actually have the aliens defined as "interdimensional beings"? It was basically that one step too far that somewhat soured the ending of the movie for me.

I fully understand why they did it. Historically, and in the pulp of the era, the Nazis had a fascination with the supernatural. During the 50s, the fiction was all about aliens, and the Soviets (and the U.S., for that matter) were studying psychic phenomena and the possibility of alien life. So it does fit, especially if you consider the IJ movies as an attempt to recreate the pulp of the eras in which they were set; in fact, in that case, they almost _had_ to. But it still rubs me the wrong way a little.

(Oh, and my "Oh, come on!" moments, mentioned above? Refrigerator, monkeys, Tarzan, waterfalls. If you've seen it, you know what I mean.)[/sblock]

But that said? I can get over it. Because the bottom line is that this was a damn fun action-adventure movie. Because damn if Harrison Ford didn't slip back into the roll like he'd never left it. (And this from someone who feels that all of his performances for the past decade or more have been largely dead inside.)

Because all told, this really is an Indiana Jones movie, and that's really all I asked of it.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 23, 2008)

I saw it at today's matinee.  Very fun movie, and definitely a worthy addition to the series.  I thought it was better than Temple of Doom, on par with, but just a hair behind Last Crusade.

It has the same classic Indy structure -- a short action sequence at the beginning that introduces a villain and at first seems unconnected to the rest of the story (but ties in later), Indy at the university, the arrivial of the messenger with the new quest, travel to a far-off land and transition from professor to adventurer, twists, turns, betrayals, chases, and 



Spoiler



eventual triumph


.

I thought a few of the chase scenes (the jungle one, particularly) went a little too long, one or two stunts were a bit over the top, there were some special effects that broke suspension (as they first reveal the graveyard I go: "nice model!"), and the probably went just a step to far with the ending ... but I do like how they tied a bunch of ancient history and myths with some '50s pulp and modern urban legends.

And the easter eggs from prior films were just great, 



Spoiler



as was the Indy-Marion relationship.



I enjoyed it; I'm just sad that Harrison is getting to oold to continue to do these ... 'cause the hints dropped about OSS missions during WWII would probably make for some great Indy films!


----------



## mmadsen (May 23, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 1) The "Oh, come on!" quotient of this movie is higher than the others. I don't mean things like supernatural devices that melt people's faces. I'm talking about scenes that are silly and/or over the top, scenes where you think "Even a star in an action movie shouldn't be getting up after that," or where you think "Okay, that's just dumb."
> 
> They're only a few scenes--not _nearly_ enough to ruin the movie--but they'll bother some people.



That is a serious understatement.  The "Oh, come on!" quotient was pegged at 11.

Also, could someone explain the magnetic gunpowder, please?  I don't want to spoil anything, but I kept thinking, this is a ruse, right?


----------



## Mistwell (May 23, 2008)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> I saw it at today's matinee.




There is one major spoiler in your review.  You might not even know it is a spoiler, but it is, and it's a big one.  You should spoiler-tag it.


----------



## delericho (May 23, 2008)

Saw it this afternoon.

As a consequence of "The Phantom Menace", I absolutely refused to raise my expectations for this film. I was hopeful, but really not expecting much.

I hated it. It was much worse than even the worst elements of "Temple of Doom". (A film I actually quite like, but it is the weakest of the original three by quite some way.)

For me, the biggest problem was the overuse of CGI. Frequently, it seemed like scenes were built merely to show off the pretty pictures they can now build, without pause for building solid characterisation, a sane plot, or any real sense of tension. And every plot twist was obvious a mile away. 



Spoiler



(Gosh, it turns out he's Indy's son! I _never_ would have guessed!)



Basically, for this film, they should have set the technology aside, and gone back to basics. Anything they couldn't do with a stuntman should have just been left out. Oh, and ditch the goofy elements such as 



Spoiler



the kid's ability to Tarzan his way through the jungle faster than a speeding car. And anything involving aliens.



Still, never mind. Fourth entries in series are rarely any good: "Batman & Robin", "Lethal Weapon IV", "The Phantom Menace", "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace", "Alien Resurrection", "Highlander: Endgame", "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" season 4, "Angel" season 4...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 23, 2008)

I had a ton of fun.

Any other detailed thoughts of mine are actually pretty well summed up in Ari's post.

My ONLY disagreement on that end is...[sblock]I like the alien angle. Yeah, I know...I'm that one guy. But I enjoy that kind of stuff. The whole climax felt like it was made just for someone like me that loves that kind of thing. [/sblock]


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 23, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> There is one major spoiler in your review.  You might not even know it is a spoiler, but it is, and it's a big one.  You should spoiler-tag it.




Really?  If you say so.  I'm not sure I'm seeing it.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 24, 2008)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Really?  If you say so.  I'm not sure I'm seeing it.



 It took me some looking, but I THINK I see what he means.

[sblock]I believe he's referring to your mention of Marion. That's the only thing I can see as slightly spoilerific, and while its not that bad...I guess some people could be bothered by knowing she was in it ahead of time.

But if it ain't that, I gots no idea.[/sblock]


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 24, 2008)

Well, I'll hide that then, but it's been pretty widely reported (on page 2 of this thread no less), and the opening credits are a dead giveaway, so I hardly see that as a spoiler.


----------



## Mark (May 24, 2008)

Nice cameo in the crate. 


And 



Spoiler



"I'm getting a bad feeling about this" was a nice line-cameo.


----------



## Wik (May 24, 2008)

Honestly, I didn't like it.  Here's a pretty big list of what it was I hated:

[sblock=spoilers!]
*  Indy survives a nuclear attack.  I groaned at this part, and seriously considered leaving the theatre.  A guy who wore a fedora to the theatre did, at this point.

*  Aliens?  I like the idea of hinting towards aliens at the beginning, but to have them be the focus of the movie?  Nah.  And why, oh WHY did we have to see the damned aliens?

*  I always figured the story should be set towards achaeology.  In this movie, he's using his archaeology to get to a non-arch. goal.  Not a fan, there.  Also, and this one took me a while to get but it nagged at me until I realized it - in the other films, we have Indy following archaeological rules.  Granted, he's no real archaeologist, but the IDEA of the story is based around that.  In this movie, he's following pseudoarchaeological rules.  In fact, the premise of the movie is pretty much the premise of the book "Chariots of the Gods", which is the PROTOTYPICAL Pseudoarchaeological book!  It's a minor point, but I'm an anthropology/archaeology nerd.  

*  The monkeys in a jungle were so bad, that my girlfriend couldn't stop laughing.  ANd not in a good way.  What was with a Tarzan Shia LeBoeuf?  

*  Psychic Russians, for some reason, ruined it all for me.  
[/sblock]

There were some parts I loved.  The motorcycle chase (with the student at the end), the jungle scene, and whatnot.  I enjoyed picking up on the anachronisms that were deliberately put in (like how the Russians had a DUKW, an american amphibious jeep... much like the original WW1 churchhill tank, of which only 6 prototypes were ever made, appearing in arab hands in the Last Crusade).  Fire Ants = Cool.  But most of it just had me rolling my eyes, and wishing I was anywhere else.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 24, 2008)

Saw it this afternoon.  And I really liked it despite going pretty far afield.

[sblock=spoilers!]
"Indy survives a nuclear attack.  I groaned at this part, and seriously considered leaving the theatre.  A guy who wore a fedora to the theatre did, at this point."-Wik

@  I agree there, they went massively overboard with the nuke thing.  They could have even kept the 'survive teh nuke' incident but done it less ridiculously.  Often the test structures were built at a distance well outside the thermal bloom but still close enough to be knocked down.  And while they went massively overboard the fridge scene had _some_ basis.  At all those above ground test sites the single most survivable object in or around a common American home was the refrigerator.  Which would often be found intact even with the rest of the house collapsed around it, but they used to built fridges a LOT more strongly than they do now.

"Aliens?  I like the idea of hinting towards aliens at the beginning, but to have them be the focus of the movie?  Nah.  And why, oh WHY did we have to see the damned aliens?"-Wik
@  As soon as I heard it would involve a crystal skull I knew it would involve aliens.  They're just too connected in pop culture for anything else.  And the way it involved them was largely as I expected but in a way it was fitting.  At the time they were dealing with there was a big hysteria on about the UFO phenomena and how they tied things together made a fitting, if at times campy, plot element.

"I always figured the story should be set towards achaeology.  In this movie, he's using his archaeology to get to a non-arch. goal.  Not a fan, there.  Also, and this one took me a while to get but it nagged at me until I realized it - in the other films, we have Indy following archaeological rules.  Granted, he's no real archaeologist, but the IDEA of the story is based around that.  In this movie, he's following pseudoarchaeological rules.  In fact, the premise of the movie is pretty much the premise of the book "Chariots of the Gods", which is the PROTOTYPICAL Pseudoarchaeological book!  It's a minor point, but I'm an anthropology/archaeology nerd."-Wik
@  Can't bring any disagreements there.  It was very much pseudo-archaeology, and a direct rip-off of CotG.  They jump straight from one implausible bit to another, but it was done with enough flair and humor for me to accept it as what it was.  Including a not so subtle dig at the issues in prior Indy movies.  

"The monkeys in a jungle were so bad, that my girlfriend couldn't stop laughing.  ANd not in a good way.  What was with a Tarzan Shia LeBoeuf?"-Wik
@  QFT, the monkeys and the Tarzan part were the worst part of the movie, just ridiculous.

"Psychic Russians, for some reason, ruined it all for me."-Wik
Actually I interpreted it differently as one of the most entertaining parts of the movie.  At the time depicted both the US and CCCP were engaged in attempts to utilize what have been termed "psychic weapons/perceptions."  And it was ridiculous, patently so, but we were so intense any potential weapon no matter how nonsensical could NOT be ignored.  And I took away from it that she had absolutely she herself didn't have any such powers, it was all in her head.  And her fate was supreme irony as she was destroyed by the powers she had not possessed before and wished to gain.
[/sblock]

The motorcycle chase was great, despite how ridiculous the ants scene got (fire ants are small as are most army ants and if you are mobile they will NOT manage to kill you) it was still great fun.  The anachronisms were strangely mixed.  

They had what they called a "duck".  But it was not a DUKW as you'll note it was smaller with only 4 wheels and a single rear axle.  Nor even the GPA Ford's amphibious Jeep that never reached production.  From what I saw it was in fact not the duck but the GAZ-46, a genuine Russian vehicle made in imitation of the Ford GPA.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 24, 2008)

> (fire ants are small as are most army ants and if you are mobile they will NOT manage to kill you)




It's sort of in the same category as them talking about "giant vampire bats" in _Temple of Doom_, when in fact what they showed were large but harmless fruitbats.

There _are_ ants as big as those shown in the movie. And they've been known to carpet entire swathes of jungle, killing everything in their paths.

OTOH, some of the behaviors they showed--like the ants forming "pillars," climbing on each other to try to reach prey--are traits of much smaller ant varieties.

So while most of what they showed (with the possible exception of carrying a full-grown body, no matter how numerous they might be) is possible for ants, it's not all possible for the _same_ ants.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 24, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> It's sort of in the same category as them talking about "giant vampire bats" in _Temple of Doom_, when in fact what they showed were large but harmless fruitbats.



@  There are ants as big as those shown in the movie but most are small colony ants and only a very few species of swarming ants are that size.
@  The one species of swarming army ants that big I know of are African, not South American.  And while they are destructive they only kill things that can't move OUT of their path.  A thing that only happens to mammals above the size of a housecat if they're immobilized.  Even human frequently encounter such ants and survive by moving faster than them, very few medium to large size mammals don't.
@  Some behaviors like climbing they showed are in the repetoire of army ants but like you pointed out only much smaller ant species.
@Most of what they showed is possible for ants at least theoretically, no ant species shows all of the traits from the movie.  And even if they did, it's basically unheard of for any human not rendered immobile to ever be killed by ants.  Barring the heavily poisonous ones like the Bulldog ants of course but they're poisonous because they're largely solitary.  Humans move faster than even the fastest real army ant swarm and can maintain that speed for sufficient time to escape.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 24, 2008)

Oh, I wasn't arguing that it's an impossible scene (albeit no more impossible than many similar ones throughout the series).


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 24, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Oh, I wasn't arguing that it's an impossible scene (albeit no more impossible than many similar ones throughout the series).



Nope plenty of similar scenes, and I realized what you were saying.  For the most part I just flew along because they were cool scenes and that's what I'd come to see.  The last, best Indy movie.  Only exception really was the Nuke test scene.  But I still had to call it out.


----------



## Mistwell (May 24, 2008)

My wife's review of the film, though the ending gets cut off a bit:

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/435021


----------



## Mistwell (May 24, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Well, he is the ______________kid.




Guys...seriously.  This is one of the bigger spoilers for the movie.  The female lead is intentionally not shown in the previews for the movie.  The female lead does not appear until a reveal in the movie.  Who the younger lead is the child of is also saved for a reveal.  These are spoilers.  Either hide the spoilers in the tag, or wait until more people have seen the movie.  Be polite.  Just because you know this information, or recognize the significance of an actor name in credits or something, doesn't mean most people do.


----------



## Darrin Drader (May 24, 2008)

Without getting into the minutia, I'll just say that I found it thoroughly enjoyable. I went in knowing a little more than I wish I would have, thanks to some spoilers that leaked in through the seams of pop culture over the last 24 hours, so I was expecting 



Spoiler



aliens, and Marion's reappearance. I was not expecting the nuke testing. As implausible as it was, I thought it was absolutely brilliant to include it. And for the record, I was digging on the aliens. I mean after Molla Ram extracting someone's beating heart with his bare hand in Temple of Doom, no scifi/fantasy trope is too out of this world for the Indieverse.



On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is Raiders and 1 is AVP Requiem, I give it a solid 8. I can't wait to own it so I can watch it over and over.


----------



## Hammerhead (May 24, 2008)

Is AVP: Requiem that bad? Because I liked the first one. 

The ants were cool, but seemed to draw a lot of inspiration from the scarab swarms in the Mummy (who were way more badass).


----------



## delericho (May 24, 2008)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> Is AVP: Requiem that bad?




No. There are a whole load of films that are much, much worse. Even sticking to the 'geek films' genre (that is fantasy/sci-fi, but also includes such things as Indiana Jones and James Bond), there are the suck-fests that are "Species III", "Highlander II", "Star Trek V" and either of the "Dungeons & Dragons" movies.

I would argue that the scale would be better calibrated with "Species III" and "Highlander II" at 1, and with "Raiders of the Lost Arc" and "The Empire Strikes Back" at 10.

I would then place "AVP:Requiem" at 5, and "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" at 4. The only other film I've seen in the cinema this year was "Cloverfield", which I would give a 2 (I really didn't like it as a film, _and_ I suffered motion sickness as a result. And it was still better than "Species III").



> Because I liked the first one.




For what it's worth, I enjoyed "AVP: Requeim" rather more than "AVP". (One of the friends I went with liked the first one more, and the second said he thought they were about equal.)However, the film I _want_ to see is Aliens versus the Predator, versus those marines from "Aliens"... and it really isn't that film.


----------



## coyote6 (May 24, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> My ONLY disagreement on that end is...[sblock]I like the alien angle. Yeah, I know...I'm that one guy. But I enjoy that kind of stuff. The whole climax felt like it was made just for someone like me that loves that kind of thing. [/sblock]




I agree; I thought it was very pulpy (though with a modern twist). 

[sblock]The modern twist is, of course, the extradimensional rather than extraterrestrial bit. Pulps were full of stories with aliens, and the 1950s was the golden age of science fiction, no? Consider how many '50s movies used aliens as a stand-in for Communists in various ways; I thought it was entirely appropriate that an Indiana Jones story set in the '50s involve Communists and classic gray aliens.

I liked it, except for the refrigerator bit -- that was overdone. OTOH, recent action movies pretty much all do that sort of thing (Live Free, Die Hard, for instance). It's the zeitgeist, I guess. As I told my buddy, "It's been 18-19 years -- he gained a lot of levels, and a lot of hit points." [/sblock]

I was kind of hoping they'd refer back to the FBI agents at the end, and call one of 'em "Agent Mulder".


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 24, 2008)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> (though with a modern twist).
> 
> [sblock]The modern twist is, of course, the extradimensional rather than extraterrestrial bit.[/sblock]




Actually... Apparently not so modern.

[sblock]Some of my friends who are far more into pulp than I am have assured me that the notion of "extradimensional" visitors has its roots in pulp as well. While it wasn't that common in the 50s--most of the aliens of the time were interplanetary--it was pretty common in earlier years of pulp sci-fi.[/sblock]


----------



## horacethegrey (May 24, 2008)

Here's my thoughts after watching this here flick.

I liked it. It was a rock 'em and sock 'em pulp action extravaganza that I've come to expect from the man in the hat.

But... it did not wow me or move me in the way _Raiders _or _Last Crusade_ did (can't say much for _Temple of Doom_, since it's been ages since I've last seen it). This movie doesn't inspire any passion nor any sense of wonder from me, which is a shame.

It's nothing to do with the cast, whom I thought by and large were okay. Ford was good, and has a great time portraying an elder Indy. I thought Shia LeBouf was fine as well, and it's great to see Karen Allen once again. John Hurt was a hoot, but Ray Winstone was largely underused. The best of the bunch for me though, was Cate Blanchett. Is it strange that I find her hot even when portraying a crazed soviet bitch?  But, this movie goes to show how much I missed the presence of Denholm Elliot (RIP) and John Rhys Davies.

My biggest problem would have to be some of the digital sets they used. Really took away from the reality of it for me. Another problem were the stunts, which looked over the top rather than inspired. [sblock]As for the big reveal of interdimensional aliens? Lame. I always preferred the mystic angle when Doctor Jones is involved. Was Spielberg channeling Close Encounters when he thought of this? [/sblock]

So there you have it, while I thought this movie was by and large okay, I'll not rush to watch it again.


----------



## Darrin Drader (May 25, 2008)

Man, I really had no problem with the CGI. I didn't feel that it was overly used or overly obvious. I also think that when you compare it with the effects that were done the old fashioned way in the original movies, these looked better.

To each their own, I guess.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 25, 2008)

Back to the subject at hand...

I just saw IJ&KCS. It was fun. Raider's is still best, but this was good. One of the best scenes in the movie was the bit with Jones and Mutt in the dinner. I missed Sallah, though. I wonder if this means the Jones movies and Close Encounters are all in the same world? And I wonder what else is in that warehouse? And who knew the janitor from SCRUBS was really a hard-case FBI agent.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 25, 2008)

I forget ... were the aliens in Close Encounters Greys?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 25, 2008)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> I forget ... were the aliens in Close Encounters Greys?



*Nods* If I remember correctly there was the one really tall one with the long arms and a bunch of children sized ones.


----------



## babomb (May 25, 2008)

I agree with every complaint in this thread so far. That said, overall I liked it.


----------



## Falkus (May 25, 2008)

I just back from watching it. Fun film and I enjoyed it, though I agree that were a few aspects that were a little over the top.


----------



## Acid_crash (May 25, 2008)

7.54 out of 10 for me... good movie, not as good as Iron Man, but good nonetheless.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 25, 2008)

I agree with most of the complaints, and can't really say if I liked it or not. It was more... "medium". I am not sure if it was a movie I had to see in the theatre, but well, I did. 

Considering the "over-the-top" parts, I was reminded of Die Hard 4 - it was still the same characters, and still a similar story concept, but the action was over the top. 
(The comparison with the heroes getting a few more levels and hitpoints absolutely fits.)

What I also didn't like was that the "archological mystery" was a bit to explicit. But on the other hand, it's not really like the other movies were different. I guess my acceptance for mystical bits is different then my acceptance for 



Spoiler



aliens


.


----------



## Brutorz Bill (May 25, 2008)

Just saw this last night.  Movie was ok, but left me feeling a bit*meh* overall.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 26, 2008)

Eh. The only reason I'm glad I saw it is because it makes me feel better about my storytelling ability. The movie's story was terrible. Without a coherent, meaningful story, who cares if the action or special effects were any good?


----------



## RangerWickett (May 26, 2008)

I figure if anyone is reading the thread by this point, they don't care about spoilers.

Act One is about the Soviets going to amazing lengths in order to break into a US military base on US soil in order to steal the corpse of a Roswell alien, who is very magnetic.

Things that do not matter at all to the movie?

1. The alien corpse. Sure, they drag it out to the jungle of Peru for an autopsy, but they don't do anything with it. If they hadn't gotten it from the military base, the Soviets wouldn't have been any worse off.

2. The magnetism. Aside from cluing Indy to the location of the skull (because apparently these are special magnets; even Mutt knows that gold isn't magnetic), nothing else is affected by the magnetism.

If either of those things had been worked into the plot somehow, I would've been happier. But they weren't. Sloppy writing. 

(Maybe bullets fired at Indy are deflected by the magnetism; or if the Roswell corpse had had some special defense against alien death rays or something. I dunno. They could've come up with something.)

Admittedly, the action sequence for the get-away was kinda cool. The nuke was ridiculous, but eh, I could accept it.


Act Two is about finding the crystal skull itself. All it consists of is running away from Commies (a good scene), going to a Peruvian asylum and finding a map on the floor (fair enough), and then exploring probably the lamest tomb out of the entire series. And some people come out of nowhere to attack, but they have no point. There's no trap, no puzzle, no real tension. Ooh, there's a scorpion, but . . . it doesn't do anything. It's a boring act.

Then the end of the act is, I suppose, getting away from the Commies. Ridiculous, but fun enough. Lots of groan-worthy moments. Tarzan? Monkeys? Crotch shots? Driving onto a tree? Ugh. And Marion looked like she did a few too many drugs, since she was completely unconcerned about the danger around her. 


Act Three? Well, before we get to the aliens, let's consider the crazy Indians. Where did they come from? They show up, they are scary, and then they run away easily and are shot to death. Rather pointless. 

The huge CG tower key that they open by draining it of sand? Interesting, sure, okay. But come on, give me the drama.

Oh, look, the Commies have them at gunpoint. How are they going to get out of this? Well, in Raiders, when everything was bleak, they were saved by knowing how to resist the power of the Ark. In Temple, Indy called upon the power of Kali. In Last Crusade, Indy let the old guy be foolish and choose poorly. Sure, in all of these situations, Indy doesn't save the day himself; magic saves him because Indy realizes not to meddle with powers beyond him, while the bad guys decide to meddle.

Here, though? Why the hell does Indy even want to return the crystal skull? He has no motivation. Apparently the skull telepathically told him to, but aside from mental domination, he has no reason to do so. He should've dumped the damn skull off a cliff and said, "Screw you, ruskies!"

And when he does take the skull back, the Commies just get torn to bits, while CG spins around them at high speed, and the people survive by . . . running away. Wow, that's heroic.

There are so many faults in this movie's story. It really needed some overarching thematic point. Instead it was like a bad D&D game by a GM who didn't have enough time to prep before the session. Fun from time to time, but forgettable.

Raiders was about not delving into powers that should be left alone. Last Crusade was about healing and the danger of obsession, as any good grail story should be. (Temple of Doom was sloppy, and I can't figure out its point.)

What could this one's theme have been? Well, it's during the cold war. It could have been about the danger of power without checks and balances. It could have been about how paranoia can destroy someone from within. It could even have been all gung ho patriotic about the power of free-will and capitalism over the unified front of communism. Instead, it seems to just be . . . fan fiction.

I think I've spent more time thinking about this movie now than the actual creators did. (Hooray for my own hubris.) I don't ever intend to see this movie again.


----------



## The_lurkeR (May 26, 2008)

I agree with what you said RangerWickett, this movie was extremely sloppy. To be brief, I give it a _generous_ 4 out of 10. But there's really no rewatchability value for this film.

Saw it yesterday afternoon. Although I felt burned by Lucas with the awful Star Wars prequels, I thought Spielberg and Ford would help mollify Lucas and give us a decent movie. Unfortunately I was wrong.

- I didn't mind the macguffin being of alien origin, but like Wickett said, nothing else about it or the storyline made much sense.

- Way too much lazy CGI, it really seems to have made them lazy directors/producers. Could they really not afford to use a real warehouse and crates? (or prairie dog?!)

- Far far too cheezy. They try to top the fun action of the originals by dialing everything up to 11, and it's just awful. Let's see... flying refrigerator, prairie dogs (straight out of Caddy Shack), crotch shots, monkeys, tarzan?!? What were these writers thinking?
OK we open this scene with this big heavy machine slowly chopping a path through the jungle for our convoy... what's that? too slow?... you're right, screw it! Let's blow up that machine and start racing these duck cars through the _(previously impermeable)_ jungle at 50 MPH! Whoo!!
Hmm... I don't know, somethings missing... aww yeah how about some friggin' monkeys and tarzan swinging? Sweet!!
Hey guys -- listen to this -- saw this great thing on a cartoon where driving off a cliff the car lands on a tree to cushion the fall, then -- get this -- springs back and smacks  the villain... haha yeah that's great! Hmm... ok next, what could be better than one big silly waterfall survival? Eh that's been done... wait, how about 3!!! Yippee, where's our checks?

With all the fake sets, sloppy plotting, and cheeze, there was just no real drama. It's like watching someone else play a bad arcade game... sure there's lots of action and special effects, but there's no point to it. There was no meat to this film.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 26, 2008)

I do not want to over think this movie but after seeing it I could not help realize how the timeline had so much to do with the movie, my pulp and occult of the 30's became the Sci-Fi UFO's and the Red Scare of the 50's and I just did not like it!  Yes, aliens had a start in pulp but they would have been better going Atlantis or Lovecraft.  

Just lacked something.  

Rating: 6.5


----------



## coyote6 (May 26, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Actually... Apparently not so modern.
> 
> [sblock]Some of my friends who are far more into pulp than I am have assured me that the notion of "extradimensional" visitors has its roots in pulp as well. While it wasn't that common in the 50s--most of the aliens of the time were interplanetary--it was pretty common in earlier years of pulp sci-fi.[/sblock]




Yeah, I just saw a comment to that effect on Erik Mona's blog, and he knows way more about the pulps than I do.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 26, 2008)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> Yeah, I just saw a comment to that effect on Erik Mona's blog, and he knows way more about the pulps than I do.




Heh. Erik was actually my main source on that comment as well.


----------



## Trickstergod (May 26, 2008)

The movie was flawed on a number of levels and it didn't stand on it's own - the relationship in the movie? Doesn't work on it's own, there's no chemistry, no heat. 

Anyway. I give it a 5. It had it's moments, but that's about it.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 26, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Guys...seriously.  This is one of the bigger spoilers for the movie.  The female lead is intentionally not shown in the previews for the movie.  The female lead does not appear until a reveal in the movie.  Who the younger lead is the child of is also saved for a reveal.  These are spoilers.  Either hide the spoilers in the tag, or wait until more people have seen the movie.  Be polite.  Just because you know this information, or recognize the significance of an actor name in credits or something, doesn't mean most people do.



*shrug*

Sorry, d00d. This has been so widely reported in a number of _mainstream_ newspapers - multiple papers in just my area alone (hell, I haven't even seen the movie yet, and don't read silly entertainment/fan sites) that this is simply _not_ a spoiler.

Just because you don't know something widely reported, doesn't mean most people don't.


----------



## Villano (May 26, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Guys...seriously.  This is one of the bigger spoilers for the movie.  The female lead is intentionally not shown in the previews for the movie.




I haven't seen the movie, yet, but I assume you are referring to 



Spoiler



Marion Ravenwood


, right?  I've seen her in the TV commercials.  I had no idea that her introduction is supposed to be a surprise in the film.  

Granted, I knew about her from early reporting of the film, but I do hate when trailers do stuff like that.  I've even seen trailers where they show the villain's death!


----------



## Trickstergod (May 26, 2008)

Villano said:
			
		

> I haven't seen the movie, yet, but I assume you are referring to
> 
> 
> 
> ...




She was supposed to be a surprise at first, but Lucas apparently changed his mind and said she was in the film at Comiccon last year. She hasn't really been a surprise since then.

And doesn't she also show up on some of the promotional posters?


----------



## Fast Learner (May 26, 2008)

She has been in preview trailers. Least. Spoiler. Evar.


----------



## Villano (May 26, 2008)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> She has been in preview trailers. Least. Spoiler. Evar.




Actually, I'd say that Palpatine turning out to be the Emperor in Revenge of the Sith is probably the "least spoiler ever".  I mean, even if we didn't know that for 20 yrs, the guy was practically Simon from the "Pit of Ultimate Darkness" sketches on Kids in the Hall.  I half expected him to end every sentence by pointing to himself and yelling, "Evil! Evil!"


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 26, 2008)

Nah, Anakin becoming Darth Vader is the "least spoiler ever"


----------



## Silver Moon (May 26, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Nah, Anakin becoming Darth Vader is the "least spoiler ever"



Anakin.....becomes Darth Vader?   Damn, now watching that movie won't be any fun for me at all!!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 26, 2008)

Villano said:
			
		

> Actually, I'd say that Palpatine turning out to be the Emperor in Revenge of the Sith is probably the "least spoiler ever".  I mean, even if we didn't know that for 20 yrs, the guy was practically Simon from the "Pit of Ultimate Darkness" sketches on Kids in the Hall.  I half expected him to end every sentence by pointing to himself and yelling, "Evil! Evil!"



 Course, there was hilarity attached to this in which so many people on the internet were working out theories on how he couldn't POSSIBLY be the Emperor.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 26, 2008)

I once got in trouble for spoiling the end of _Cool Runnings_ (The Jamacan Bobsled Team movie). I hadn't seen the movie when I spoiled it. I had watched the Olympics.

[sblock]They lost[/sblock]


----------



## Mistwell (May 26, 2008)

I really find it hard to believe that people didn't like this film based on believability factor.

Did you not see the prior movies?  Did you not see the surviving plane crash on raft scene?  The surviving submarine trip on top of submarine? The removing beating heart from person, person living to be consumed by lava, with removed heart bursting into flame on said lava death? The magic potion that doesn't just mind dominate you but actually makes you believe in a different deity and speak their language? The face melting ghosts from the box, but only if you look at them?

I mean come on guys, the prior movies have something impossible happen about every 15 minutes.  The refrigerator and Tarzan scenes and semi-alien bugged you relative to all those other scenes in prior movies?

Sorry, I think you've been bitten by the nostalgia bug.  Had this movie been the first rather than the most recent to have come out, you probably would have loved it.  But because you've built the movies up to be something they never were to begin with in your mind, the new one suddenly seems not believable...but somehow you forgot that none of them ever were.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 26, 2008)

Na... I think the least spoiler ever award goes to any movie based on  biblical event.


----------



## Starman (May 26, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Did you not see the prior movies?  Did you not see the surviving plane crash on raft scene?  The surviving submarine trip on top of submarine? The removing beating heart from person, person living to be consumed by lava, with removed heart bursting into flame on said lava death? The magic potion that doesn't just mind dominate you but actually makes you believe in a different deity and speak their language? The face melting ghosts from the box, but only if you look at them?




Yeah, except that all of those save the submarine and the "face melting ghosts" come from what is almost universally agreed to be the weakest entry amongst the first three movies. A lot of people loved _Raiders_ and _Last Crusade_, but detested _Temple of Doom_ precisely because of the over-the-top nature of much of it (well, and Kate Capshaw). 

The scene with the Ark at then end of _Raiders_ works precisely because it has been built up throughout the movie as a Holy Object With Awesome Powers TM and we didn't have anything too groan inducing in the rest of the movie. The submarine hitchhiking may cause an eye-roll, but is easily forgotten because the movie as a whole is incredibly awesome. 

For me the problem with _Crystal Skull_ wasn't believability, anyway, it's that the movie just felt very uneven. There were just some bad scenes that had me wanting to shout, "Really?" at the screen - the ridiculous looking gophers, Shia doing his Tarzan impression, Karen Allen looking like she was smoking dope, far too much of showing the aliens instead of making it more mysterious, Indy relying more on someone else to piece together the clues rather than figuring it out himself, driving the truck of the cliff and smoothly landing in a tree which neatly bounces back and knocks some Commies off the cliff. Those are just some of the biggest things that bothered me. 

I went in to the movie with expectations fairly low, but I still came away disappointed. I didn't expect anything close to _Raiders_; I did expect to be more entertained than I was.


----------



## megamania (May 26, 2008)

Trickstergod said:
			
		

> She was supposed to be a surprise at first, but Lucas apparently changed his mind and said she was in the film at Comiccon last year. She hasn't really been a surprise since then.
> 
> And doesn't she also show up on some of the promotional posters?





at least no one has suggested his real name isn't Indiania.


----------



## Villano (May 27, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Course, there was hilarity attached to this in which so many people on the internet were working out theories on how he couldn't POSSIBLY be the Emperor.




To be fair, I think a lot of people were trying to figure out how Yoda, Obi-Wan, Mace Windu, and every other Jedi in the universe could stand right next to the guy and not sense that he was evil.  I mean, the guy was sworn in as Chancellor wearing a "Kiss Me, I'm Evil" t-shirt.  Honestly, I was almost expecting them to take a cue from the old Dark Horse *Dark Empire* series and reveal that the Palpatine in the senate was a clone.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 27, 2008)

Villano said:
			
		

> To be fair, I think a lot of people were trying to figure out how Yoda, Obi-Wan, Mace Windu, and every other Jedi in the universe could stand right next to the guy and not sense that he was evil.  I mean, the guy was sworn in as Chancellor wearing a "Kiss Me, I'm Evil" t-shirt.  Honestly, I was almost expecting them to take a cue from the old Dark Horse *Dark Empire* series and reveal that the Palpatine in the senate was a clone.



 Exactly.

So many people were looking for subtlety or something like that when it was just plainly obvious. Sure, there wasn't the rampant Lucas hate that pervades Geekdom like it does now, but it wasn't as if he suddenly stopped being mysterious. Beyond one major twist, everything was pretty much exactly as it seemed with Star Wars and, truthfully, most of his things for that matter.


----------



## Mistwell (May 27, 2008)

Starman said:
			
		

> Yeah, except that all of those save the submarine and the "face melting ghosts" come from what is almost universally agreed to be the weakest entry amongst the first three movies. A lot of people loved _Raiders_ and _Last Crusade_, but detested _Temple of Doom_ precisely because of the over-the-top nature of much of it (well, and Kate Capshaw).




That response, to me, just serves to further reinforce that you are in denial about the prior movies.

I am rewatching them all right now, and every single one has so many impossible, outrageous, over the top scenes that the listing could go on for days.  It's paced at about every 15 minutes you get an impossibility.  And for you to try and deny that is the case and pretend it has something to do with just one particular movie is a crock.  Go back and watch them, looking for impossibilities, and you will almost constantly see them. 



> The scene with the Ark at then end of _Raiders_ works precisely because it has been built up throughout the movie as a Holy Object With Awesome Powers TM and we didn't have anything too groan inducing in the rest of the movie. The submarine hitchhiking may cause an eye-roll, but is easily forgotten because the movie as a whole is incredibly awesome.




The submarine is a TYPICAL scene for all three movies, not abnormal.  Are you seriously trying to defend these movies as believable and the non-belivable moments as just minor aberrations in the one movie you didn't like as much or easily fogotten scenes in movies you did like? Come on now, that's just not a defensible position.  It's fine that you like some and didn't like others, and it's fine that you didn't like this newest movie, but it's simply not credible to say that Raiders or Crusade were "believable" movies.



> For me the problem with _Crystal Skull_ wasn't believability, anyway...




Then I wasn't responding to you, since my whole post was to those who didn't like it based on believability.

Though the Tarzan scene, to one extent or another, is in all the movies (that was the joke...that his dad always does that, in an unbelievable way.  The number of swinging on stuff to travel scenes in the prior movies is nearly uncountable).  Nor is the driving truck off the cliff scene in any way different from all the other movies...there are far less likely scenes in the prior movies.  

Right now in the copy of Crusade I am watching an enemy boat just exploded between two other boats because they were perfectly timed to let the good guys get through, but the enemy boat get squeezed and somehow EXPLODE due to the closing boats, only to have yet another enemy boat be boarded at high speeds, timed perfectly to be crushed by the spinning turbine blades of a bigger boat, only to be rescued at the perfect moment by another good guy boat.  And that is what just happened to be on at the time I am typing this message.  I recall later there will be a scene where an armed unoccupied bi-plane is detached from a blimp, a crash, crashing an enemy plane into a tunnel and amazingly having that plane's cockpit continue to race down the tunnel for a sigh gag, and finally the crashing of another enemy plane using an umbrella and birds.  Earlier there were about 10 impossible motorcycle crashes similar to the chase scene you were referring to in this new movie, followed by a chance meeting with Hitler, who autographs the diary that leads to the holy grail, said grail retrieved while fleeing nazi's armed with tanks traded for in the desert in exchange for a single car, etc... 

The movies are FILLED with impossible scenes.  You're in denial if you think they were not.


----------



## Krug (May 27, 2008)

Found it all right, and not great. Didn't like most of the CGI moments, though I thought the 



Spoiler



nuclear blast scene


 was highly disturbing and at least, was sorta new. The chase scenes were great, though the duel was just too silly. 

It's based on pulp adventures, and it's just about making the next great escape or cliffhanger. It didn't have me rolling my eyes back as much as *National Treasure* for sure.


----------



## mmu1 (May 27, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> That response, to me, just serves to further reinforce that you are in denial about the prior movies.




Sorry, but _you_ strike me as the one in denial here, not Starman.

The original Indy movies, while filled with impossible action movie moments, were at no point as over the top as Crystal Skull. 

It's a matter of scale and degree - jumping out of an airplane in a life raft, surviving a trip on the deck of a submarine, riding around in mine carts or fighting on top of a tank just aren't quite in the same league (either in terms of outlandishness or outright silliness) as surviving a nuclear explosion, the jeep/tree/three waterfalls bit, or Mutt and his monkey army. 

On top of that, the movie is _full_ of lesser moments that make you cringe, because they'd have left 35 year old Indy gasping in pain and holding on for dear life, but his 50-something alter ego seems to be able to shrug them off. They're out of character, and they add up.

It's similar in a way to what happend with the Pirates of the Caribbean movies - in the first (and best) one you have tons of crazy and impossible stunts, but it's not until the 2nd and 3rd one when they decide to turn things up to 11, and you don't just get zombie pirates and insane swashbuckling, but 10-minute rides on waterwheels, teleporting halfway around the world to Singapore, a goddess of the sea, and sword fights on the yardarm of a ship going in circles around a giant whirlpool.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 27, 2008)

I demand everyone stop denying that they are in denial about whether or not they are denying to be in denial.

Ow.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 27, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I demand everyone stop denying that they are in denial about whether or not they are denying to be in denial.
> 
> Ow.




You did not just say that.


----------



## D.Shaffer (May 28, 2008)

In general, I liked the movie. It was fun, and while I dont think it topped the list of Indie movies, I think it does deserve to be listed with the others.

That said...I absolutely HATE ancient astronaut theories.  For the most part, I find them as a way to demean other cultures (No way THOSE people could have done that, must have had someone teaching them).


----------



## Krug (May 28, 2008)

Time for Indy's bikini wax: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r87wJ1QmyYw


----------



## Fast Learner (May 28, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> That said...I absolutely HATE ancient astronaut theories.  For the most part, I find them as a way to demean other cultures (No way THOSE people could have done that, must have had someone teaching them).



Agreed, that massively culturalist (and racist) thing pushed so heavily by von Däniken in the 60s and 70s is perhaps a "fun" idea, but the reality is that ancient peoples created _truly amazing_ things, again and again. We should indeed be in awe, not because aliens built the Egyptian pyramids, but because ancient peoples with comparatively primitive tools did, just as they did the figures on the plains of Nazca and many other wonders. Props to our ancestors, people!


----------



## RangerWickett (May 28, 2008)

Eh, I'm okay with the premise that some ancient people worshiped, say, a single alien who came to earth and decided to live it up. The humans built all the stuff; it's just that the secret is that the alien had awesome psychic powers and by reuniting its skull and its body you can claim that power for yourself.

But if you have a dozen aliens in South America, then you've got to explain why there aren't any aliens anywhere else. The theory falls apart, unless, say, they used the Ark of the Covenant to annihilate the aliens and drive them off our planet. 

How would I have done the movie? 

Well, it's the 50s, so you have Roswell and fears of aliens. You have Communists and lots of paranoid fears. However, the one thing you cannot possibly do is have a living alien on screen. The aliens are gone, but their power lingers. I mean, God doesn't make a personal appearance at the end of Raiders, Shiva doesn't wave her many hands and say hi at the end of Temple, and Jesus doesn't give Indy the thumbs up after he picks the right Holy Grail. This is mythic archaeology; it's about things from the past, long lost, whose power cannot be safely grasped by modern men.

So our premise is this: 

The Russians, doing research into parapsychology, want to steal the corpse of a Roswell alien for study. They get it, and discover that its skull is crystalline, but is shattered from the crash, useless. However, this cues them into the search for another, historical crystal skull, one that was revered and kept preserved for thousands of years.

We ultimately find El Dorado, the City of Gold (yes, actual gold, dammit! none of this 'their treasure was knowledge' b.s.). It's okay, we're going to destroy the whole place.

Now our theme that we're going for is that paranoia will destroy you. There is no room in this theme for another father-son story like we had with Last Crusade, so we ditch Shia LeBeouf, but we keep Marion in. See, we need friends of Indy's so that he can become paranoid of them, and then overcome that paranoia in order to save the day.

I'm not quite sure how the story plays out in total, though. These things don't write themselves.


----------



## John Crichton (May 29, 2008)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Eh, I'm okay with the premise that some ancient people worshiped, say, a single alien who came to earth and decided to live it up. The humans built all the stuff; it's just that the secret is that the alien had awesome psychic powers and by reuniting its skull and its body *you can claim that power for yourself*.



That's not how it worked.  One cannot claim the power as was shown the movie.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 30, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Na... I think the least spoiler ever award goes to any movie based on  biblical event.




Actually, no.  That would be _Titanic_.

[sblock]The ship sinks.[/sblock]


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 30, 2008)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Actually, no.  That would be _Titanic_.
> 
> [sblock]The ship sinks.[/sblock]



 LIES


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 30, 2008)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Actually, no.  That would be _Titanic_.
> 
> [sblock]The ship sinks.[/sblock]




It doesn't _sink_. It almost crashes into Earth, though.

Don't _any_ of you watch Dr. Who? I mean, really...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 30, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> It doesn't _sink_. It almost crashes into Earth, though.
> 
> Don't _any_ of you watch Dr. Who? I mean, really...



Well, I know who doesn't - too many fellow Germans. The show apparently wasn't a success here.  
[/off-topic]


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 1, 2008)

I've just come back from seeing #4 and (apparently unlike many people here) I loved it.

I'd avoided this thread and so the reveal about Mutts mum was great, as was his parentage. I like the way that Mutt presumably also chose to name himself after the family dog (nice nod to #3). I loved the action scenes, the chases, the double and triple crosses and the denouement.

I still place Raiders first (of course), but I put this on a par with Grail, personally. The utter drek which is Temple of Drek comes so far below the others that it is dead to me. The last time I tried to watch it I turned it off halfway through when it became clear it was actually a 'Short Round' film which included Indiana as comic relief and someone to be saved.

I like the fact that in #4 Indy is the top man again; he is the hero, not the sidekick or anything else. I also loved the interplay between him and 



Spoiler



Marion


.

Cheers


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 1, 2008)

While it did well at the boxoffice, it seems that the women got thier revenge this weekend. Only one week at number 1 for Indy and company.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jun 1, 2008)

While I agree with RangerWickett that the writing could have been tighter (particularly with the whole alien corpse aspect -- there's that old saying in writing: if you mention a gun in the beginning, it better go off by the end), I also agree with Mistwell that it is unfair to harp on the implausibilities of Crystal Skull while giving a pass to the ones from the previous films. It's funny that people seem to have issues with the Tarzan swinging and the monkeys. I didn't even blink about those things (in fact I thought they were funny). Maybe it's because we've seen both in previous films; I mean, Indy swings everywhere (I guess it's fine when it's a bullwhip instead of a vine?), and there was that monkey from Raiders that seemed particularly bright. 

Overall I thought this was a pretty fun movie. It wasn't the best of the series certainly, and some of the elements weren't to my taste (I would also have preferred to not see the aliens or their ship, and I would have liked to see Indy doing more of the ass-kicking instead of Mutt), but it was still good for an afternoon's entertainment.

I don't really go by ratings systems myself, so I'll just give it a dagger up:


----------



## Someone (Jun 1, 2008)

Suffice to say, the good parts are those copied and pasted from previous films (and thus completely foreseeable - who didn't know the bag tough guy was for a gruesome death after he and Indy beat each other while on some improbable location?) The new parts were bad, all of them.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 10, 2008)

Just saw it last night. I found it... adequate. Definitely the worst of the four, and _vastly_ inferior even to Temple of Doom, it was still all right.

I found myself bored through a surprising amount of it, and found that much of the first half was better than much of the second half. Even John William's socre was uninspired compared to the previous movies.

The cinematography and motion picture 'style', though, was fantastic and they made sure it really felt like an Indiana Jones movie. And while I thought the music wasn't as good as it could have been, there were still great moments, including the little musical riffs during the sequences that showed things from movies 1 and 3, such as when 



Spoiler



the ark made it's cameo appearance, when Marion was first shown, and when they showed the picture of Henry Jones Sr


. Cool stuff.

So mediocre, and I don't think I'd care to ever see it again (unlike Temple of Doom, or even Star Wars Ep II or III), but it was good enough when I saw it.


----------



## Corathon (Jun 10, 2008)

I saw it Sunday. I'd rank it above Temple of Doom, but below Holy Grail. Raiders is the best of the 4, of course.

The "science-fictional" trappings of this movie were quite different from the "fantasy" trappings of the previous 3, but that didn't bother me. Indiana Jones is very Pulpy in feel, and that's what Pulp is like -  a genre melting pot.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 11, 2008)

Villano said:
			
		

> To be fair, I think a lot of people were trying to figure out how Yoda, Obi-Wan, Mace Windu, and every other Jedi in the universe could stand right next to the guy and not sense that he was evil.  I mean, the guy was sworn in as Chancellor wearing a "Kiss Me, I'm Evil" t-shirt.  Honestly, I was almost expecting them to take a cue from the old Dark Horse *Dark Empire* series and reveal that the Palpatine in the senate was a clone.




Jedi don't have the ability to "Detect Evil"?


----------



## Orius (Oct 31, 2008)

Just saw it earlier, and time for my commentary.  Going to add spoilers anyway, since they're in the thread.

It was pretty good.  It still felt like Indiana Jones, even though it got bumped to the 50s.  But I have no problem with that, Harrison Ford's in his 60s now, and trying to pretend he's only a few years older than he is in _The Last Crusade_ would be ridiculous.  Besides, the 50's B-movie angle Lucas decided to go with here works.  And Russians worked nearly as well as Nazis for the bad guys.  

Kudos to the various reviewers and publicity that didn't spoil the fact that 



Spoiler



Mutt is Indy's son.


  I wasn't surprised at all when that was actually revealed, since it seemed pretty obvious anyway, but it was good that the fact wasn't trumpeted beforehand. 



Spoiler



And it also sets things up to possibly continue the franchise with him, with perhaps hints to that end at the end of the movie when the old fedora rolls to his feet.


  Who knows?

Favorite scene would have to be the sand pit, definitely.  Indy starts by



Spoiler



telling Marion to get off Mutt's back for quitting school, then after learning Mutt's his son, he screams, "Why the hell didn't you make him finish school?!  Then Mutt rescues them from the pit with a big ass snake.  That is kind of silly when you think about it (that snake would have been damn pissed), but I laughed my ass off when he turned around and they show the snake for the first time and then he tosses it to Indy.



And Mutt as a nickname is itself interesting given [sblock]the end of _The Last Crusade_:



> "That's his name, Henry Jones, Jr."
> "I like Indiana."
> "I named the dog Indiana"
> "You are named after the dog?  Ha hahaha!"



[/sblock]

So the 



Spoiler



Ark of the Covenant is stashed in Area 51.  Why am I not surprised?  I dunno, it does kind of weaken the end of _Raiders_ a little bit, you know lessening the whole impact of the Ark being placed in a non-descript box and being buried deep in some unknown warehouse somewhere (plus everything about Area 51 is ridiculous; I suspect the American government uses it as a red herring, since all the conspiracies about it make it absolutely useless for said conspiracies).  But when Irina commented about all of America's sercets being stored there though, and the score gives us a cue using the Ark theme, I was expecting the Ark to show up.



Only thing that was really really dumb 



Spoiler



was nuking the fridge.  Yeah, I don't care how much lead is in that thing, there's no way Indy's going to survive a blast at ground zero, and then live long enough to growl at kids in a museum in the early 90's.


----------



## Orius (Oct 31, 2008)

horacethegrey said:


> [sblock]As for the big reveal of interdimensional aliens? Lame. I always preferred the mystic angle when Doctor Jones is involved. Was Spielberg channeling Close Encounters when he thought of this? [/sblock]




You know I was watching the commentaries on the DVD, and the whole 



Spoiler



aliens angle was Lucas' idea.  Spielberg wasn't keen on the idea, haven gotten his fill from Close Encounters and ET.  So then Lucas decides on making them "extradimensional", and hearing Spielberg describe it, it sounded like he went along with it to humor Lucas.



The whole 



Spoiler



"aliens built the foundations of human civilization" idea is ridiculous to me, but I don't mind the way it was handled here.  Besides, the whole scene where the skeletons blur into the one live alien who then stares into Irina's face and then fries her brain with psychic powers was pretty good.





RangerWickett said:


> (Temple of Doom was sloppy, and I can't figure out its point.)




I think it was Lucas' reaction to the divorce he was going through at the time.  He admits the whole dark feel of the movie probably reflected his feelings at the time.  And look at the plot: it's all about an evil cult worshipping an evil death goddess who rips out people's hearts and steals their children.  

Yup, divorce.  

I've been waiting for _years_ for the opportunity to opine that _Temple of Doom_ is an allegory for divorce.


----------



## Felon (Oct 31, 2008)

I loved Temple of Doom because it showed that Indy could have adventures that weren't just cookie-cutter retreads of the first movie. Then we got Last Crusade, which was a retread, and Crystal Skull, which was a retread.

What the heck is wrong with using ancient astronauts as a plot device, rather than taking yet another stab at retrieving some holy artifact? Indy is a pulp hero, folks. In the pulp world, pseudo-scientific and mystical phenomena  exist side-by-side. Think Johnny Quest.

What didn't work for me was the increasingly-overexposed Shia LaBeouf cast in the role of a tough, prettyboy greaser punk. He injected not a droplet of personality into it, he was completely unconvincing in his stunt scenes, and I never for once felt he had any idea how to use that switchblade. Round peg, square hole. The kid's born to play the goofy twerp.


----------



## fba827 (Oct 31, 2008)

I saw IJ and KotCS (I'm too lazy to type all that out) on an airplane a week ago.
Mind you, it's a little hard to _fully_ immerse yourself in a movie on a plane what with distractions as people in front of you tilt their seat back on top of your long legs, and wierd headphones that have static and what not.

I liked it for the character moments: seeing how Indy has grown physically and mentally over the years, seeing how he interacts with his former love, and seeing how he interacted with the new character Mutt.

As for the plot and movie itself, I don't know, it just didn't excite me like the other Indy movies have.  I never once felt drawn in to it, or felt concern as to what the outcome would be.

So, the character moments were the only saving grace for me in the movie making it watchable, but not re-watchable.


----------

