Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull


raptorcrew2002

Recommended Posts

^I loved the movie, but I wouldn't go that far. There were some minor flaws, but overall I thought it was great. I really didn't mind the Alien parts, but I agree that they could have made the ending a little better.

 

Heck, it was 10 times better than any of the newer Star Wars. (That last statement was for Wes.)

 

Here's my order:

Raiders of the Lost Ark 10/10

Temple of Doom 9.8/10

Last Crusade 9.8/10

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull 9.5/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I really liked it. I have a vast fascination with ancient Mayan history since one of my favorite books deals with the ideas in the new Indy film. Though I didn't care for the style of the movie and the over saturation they applied to the film, I really enjoyed watching the movie. Unfortunately it was not Indiana Jones to me (though Harrison Ford really pulled a good Indy image) and it was much more over the top than the others. Still, I liked it and recommend seeing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was an "enjoyable" summer movie. Some of the things seemed far fetched, but it is an Indy movie, so I kind of new that would be the case. It seemed like he always knew where to go, and they didn't really explain that too much. It's almost like this movie should have been a bit longer to help explain things. If you're a fan of the series, then go see it, but don't expect a masterpiece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw it and thought it was joyless and pretty boring. The action sequences lacked any oomph, probably due to overuse of really bad CG. Seriously, the jungle truck chase/shia spiderman crib was SO bad. I just didn't care...It felt like it was going through the motions, like the elements were there for it to be good, but it kept messing it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also felt like they tried to cover up a lot of the bad CGI with motion blur and dust. And I could never get over the fact that everything seemed to be on a sound stage. I just could never be immersed in the film and feel like it was actually happening. Though, I still liked it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tons of anamorphic flare too. And shutter streak. Ugh.

 

It's weird, the opening shots in the desert were shot really well. But everything after that felt so...fake.

 

I really think Lucas and Spielberg should not be allowed to do CG, or at least for anything important. Action sequences, NO. Animals that exist in the real world, NO. And if you're going to make the big reveal at the end be an alien, at least make him look a little bit better than something from a 1994 episode of Unsolved Mysteries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw it last night and pretty much agree with you, Wes. The whole movie felt awkward to me, like it was forced. It also seemed as if each scene was written by a different team of writes, who had no communication at all with the writes of the scenes before and after. The first three movies are just so .. cool .. but this really let them down. (OK.. So Temple Of Doom is a bit - ugh - but Raiders and Crusade are fantastic).

 

Cameron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(though Harrison Ford really pulled a good Indy image)

 

Considering the man was responsible for creating that iconic image in the first place, I think it would be pretty difficult to fail at continuing the "image."

 

 

 

I saw it last night, and enjoyed it. I didn't go in expecting to be blown away, because in fairness to Steven and George, it's a pretty tall order to match the greatness of the first three after something has been in hibernation that long. Over time, audiences "mature" and become pretty wise to movie-making. And with that, the expectations become impossible to match. For me, seeing a childhood favorite back on screen was worth my nine bucks.

 

Take away the lame-a$$ monkey swinging and pathetic green screen car chase through the jungle, and you've still got a pretty solid movie that stuck to the original formula. Say what you want about the alien factor, but it corresponded to the time period just like all the other stories have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me for a second and tell me what this whole 'Nuking the fridge' thing is about?

 

Indy stumbles into a nuclear bomb testing ground, and shoves himself in a lead lined fridge and escapes the blast unharmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I just thought of something, and now I'm curious. Had M. Nigh Shyamalan actually accepted the opportunity to write (as it was said he was spoken to about the possibility years ago), or co-write the script, does anyone think it would've benefitted?

 

Personally, I would like to have seen him collaborate on the script. His writing alone isn't "Indy style," but he may have been able to bring a little something extra to help add a little suspense to the story. It was mentioned by some to have felt a bit "forced" or predictable, and I agree to an extent. I'm with stingrock23.....an extra 30 minutes that helped give the story a little more depth could have worked for me. Lose the chase scene, and give us something to think about instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I can't imagine M Night's version would be any better. His writing is really heavy handed, I don't think it would mesh with the IJ style. I would be really interested to see the draft of the script Frank Darabont wrote, but Lucas rejected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's My Review -

 

Go see it, get an opinion for yourself. Don't go by what everyone else is saying. But if you're going to go see it thinking its going to top the original three movies, you're very much mistaken.

 

The original movies were all made in the 1980's when computer technology was just starting to take shape. The older movies all had to be made with sets and the actions scenes really had to be made believable. When seeing the Temple of Doom you really considered, Hey, Maybe this Temple REALLY does exist! Or seeing Indiana Jones find the Ark for the first time...

 

But living in the 2000's, you have access to incredible computer technology that allows you to create scenes without having to leave your desktop. This movie does play in a lot of CGI, which is a disappointment when compared to the old Indiana Jones films. I was so used to amazing set designs, instead of CGI. But something I did read on the Internet was that Lucas NEVER once made Indiana Jones, Mutt Williams or any of the other characters CGIed. All of the stunts you saw in the movie were all actually performed in front of a green screen. To me, that's impressive when you look at the scenes where Mutt Williams is Sword Fighting the Russian. But the point I'm trying to make here is that the new film does still incorporate a lot of what the old films had going for them. And at the same time, putting a twist on things to "spice it up." Many people have said the beginning of the movie was the most incredible. Sadly, I must agree. As the film went on it lost more and more of its luster.

 

But the story stands on its own. Yes, it is much more far fetched compared to the past Indiana Jones films. I said to myself that the old films were almost believable in regards to the Ark, the Grail and so on.

But You can NOT compare this movie to the old films. In my opinion, they are two COMPLETELY different things and stand on far sides of each other.

 

But this new film is much more "unbelievable." The movie was very odd and how it revolved around extraterrestrial beings from other planets. The story made much more sense to me since Ive seen Close Encounters of the Third Kind. But if you haven't seen this movie, then the story will seem WAY out in left field.

Go look it up and read the plot - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Encounters_of_the_Third_Kind

 

Overall, I thought the movie was great. The special effects were very well done and I found the acting to be incredible also. I loved Shia LeBeoufs Character in the movie and found his personality to be one of an Indiana Jones film. Although the film wasn't like its Counterparts...it really showed that Harrison Ford really does show you that you're never too old to kick ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoted from Wikipedia.org

 

[quote]Effects

Stunts involving vehicles were shot on location in Hawaii, while CGI was used to add plants to the forestProducer Frank Marshall stated in 2003 that the film would use traditional stuntwork so as to be consistent with the previous films.[69] CGI was used to remove the visible safety wires on the actors when they did their stunts (such as when Indiana whips on to a lamp).[17] Timed explosives were used for a scene where Indiana drives a truck through a wall, which was dangerous because one explosive did not set off and landed in the seat beside Ford.[70]

During filming, Steven Spielberg estimated 30 percent of the film's shots would require CG matte paintings,[66] which contributed to the total 450 effects shots, which also include monkeys, army ants, the infinite warehouse crates, the flying saucer, the City of Gold, its gods and the atomic explosion. Spielberg initially wanted brushstrokes to be visible on the matte paintings for consistency with the effects of the previous films, but decided against it.[19] The script required a non-deforested jungle, but this would have been unsafe. Visual effects supervisor Pablo Helman (who worked on Spielberg's War of the Worlds and Munich) traveled to Brazil and Argentina to photograph elements that were composited into the final images.[71]

[/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, Ryan. Except I find the Ark, Grail, and the magic rocks to be pretty far-fetched too. ...Not so much the items themselves, but for what they do.

 

Thank You! But I find the Ark, Grail and Magic Rocks to be more believable then extraterrestrial life...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the Ark, Grail, and rock storylines were all conceived from combinations of myths, lore, and Biblical writings. Yes, even the rocks, and the ancient people who worshiped them were based off a culture that existed centuries ago in Peru ( or so the History Channel tells me ).

 

As for the extraterrestial thing, it still worked for me. They took the Roswell thing, which was an actual event for the time period the movie was based on, merged it with Crystal Skulls, which actually exist (though not in the same form as in the movie), and worked a *plausible* work of fiction from it. Heck, even the animal lines in the ground (which are real) remain unexplained, so anything's possible.

 

Personally, I really liked the line, "just like a broom to their footsteps (or something like that)." It was clever, and thoughtful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, many ancient cultures had one deity in common that was described as having an elongated skull, one who taught them advanced techniques beyond the their time. In almost every advanced ancient culture, there appears a similar great wise man matching Kukulcan's appearance. The Egyptians called him Osiris, the Inca Viracocha, the Aztecs Quetzalcoatl, and Mayans Kulcutan. This deity arrived and disappeared. Some have speculated alien activity may be involved.

 

All I'm saying is that the movie is based off ideas and myths that are along the same lines as the ark, stones, and cup. One may seem more bizarre than the other but theres are stories behind each one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the extraterrestial thing, it still worked for me. They took the Roswell thing, which was an actual event for the time period the movie was based on, merged it with Crystal Skulls, which actually exist (though not in the same form as in the movie), and worked a *plausible* work of fiction from it. Heck, even the animal lines in the ground (which are real) remain unexplained, so anything's possible.

 

I do agree with what you have to say. The point I was making is that you can't compare this movie to the other three. I honestly think this one stands by itself. It was really unique how they pulled the Roswell crash into this and tied the crystal skulls together. I was excited to see it, and I was pleased with how it came out. It just doesnt compare to the others...

 

Really, I need to go see the movie again and gather my final thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happened to enjoy Indy myself, although I will be the first to admit that it is different from the first three films. Although I hear a lot of people saying how "weird" the movie was and I think, "Were the first three movies not weird?" People getting their faces exploded, Eternal life from a cup, People getting their hearts ripped out of their chests for ritual sacrifice and living? But I digress. I think that the whole legend mixed with the supernatural formula has worked very well for these movies, even if that comes in the form of alien skulls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I don't know, I just thought this movie was "meh". It was missing that thing... what is the thing? I don't know, but it was what made the other three Indy movies incredible. I agree with you guys on how the plot can't really be compared to the others, but I thought it ditched the "archaeology-ish" feel the others had for more of a sci-fi feel. But the movie was still enjoyable, I liked it, but it wasn't quite on par with the others.

 

But that's just my opinion, go see the movie for yourself and see how you like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have avoided putting my opinion out for this one, but the movie has been out long enough. All I have to say is I’m glad there is not much more of my childhood left for Lucas to rape.

 

The first 3 Indy more basically dealt with or around religion, or religious beliefs. This one, GRRR.

 

Beginning of the movie Indy says put your hands down you’re embarrassing me, then follows by literally directly assisting the enemy in its goal. The whole nuke the fridge part… Marion, man I really wanted to see her land some punches, denied!

 

The whip, the signature this is an Indy movie. 1 Time, 1. Revolver..? I suck at writing, hey that’s not what I do but I could have come up with a better story written in water colors and crayons.

 

George Lucas. Maybe he didn’t get the memo or what, but damn George. This guy has got to be very stuck on himself!

 

The other part that really ticked me off was the cgi, and the embarrassing cgi at that. It sucked and was some of the lowest quality I have seen in a long time.

My personal opinion for this film is this. It looks slapped together, it looks like it was rewritten most likely daily during shoots, and the outcome was a quality/story on par with an Allan Quatermain movie.

 

Damn you George Lucas!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This movie reminds me of Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow, Im not saying its the same plot and stuff, but the CGI and effects look very similair in coloring, heck if Indy was any darker in color I'd be watching Sky Captain.

 

For me the movie was great but like everyone else says, it doesnt compare with the others. If you want any more insight on this movie go see it yourself, I honestly (not comparing it to the other movies) thought it was actually quite good and loved the non stop action in it, though yes I am sad he barely uses the whip, I wanted to see him whip someones leg and break it or something I dont know, but yes it is missing that finese from the first 3 but as a movie alone it is quite enjoyable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/