PDA

View Full Version : It's not the years. It's the mileage


Black Knight of Keno
02-22-2008, 05:19 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPTJ4v6KPrg

First the Nazis, now the Soviets. When will the thrill end?

The movie is apparently taking place 19 years after the Last Crusade in the year 1957. After a nice hiatus from adventuring, Indy is whipped back into action to find the Crystal Skull, which is also wanted by Soviet agents.

Hilarity will no doubt ensue

Pho3nix
02-22-2008, 05:30 AM
Old news is old.

Nevertheless, epic.

Monkey Mania
02-22-2008, 02:06 PM
The trailer was edited to hide something.

jon_hill987
02-22-2008, 06:09 PM
HD Download:
link (http://downloads.paramount.com//mp/indianajones/trlr1/IJ_KOTCS_trailer1_720p.mov)

Black Knight of Keno
02-22-2008, 06:40 PM
Old news is old.

Nevertheless, epic.

Except that now they have a release date; May 22, 2008

acdcfanbill
02-22-2008, 06:55 PM
It seemed to me to have a lot of cgi in it, I hope Speilberg doesn't let Lucas muff it all up.

El Sitherino
02-22-2008, 06:58 PM
I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I don't understand that complaint. At least when it comes to Indy. The series has always been ILM's excuse for trying out interesting Special Effects ideas. Raiders was a huge SFX experiment.

StormHammer
02-22-2008, 08:28 PM
I'm still a bit dubious about this fourth outing, but if they've retained the humour and action of the others in the series I'll probably enjoy it.

When it comes to CGI effects, they work best when they're not obvious. Too many movies lose some of the immersion factor due to poorly realised CGI, or making characters do things that stretch the bounds of credibility. It's a bit jarring if you can point at the screen and say 'that's the CGI bit'. Sometimes less is more.

I do hope this will be the last movie in the series.

jon_hill987
02-23-2008, 04:42 AM
It seemed to me to have a lot of cgi in it, I hope Speilberg doesn't let Lucas muff it all up.

I have read that CGI was restricted to use in backgrounds, all stunts and explosions etc. have been done with traditional effects to match the look of the previous films.

BongoBob
02-24-2008, 03:38 PM
Looks good.

Guess I should finally get around to watching the first three >.> <.<

*runs*

Commander Obi-Wan
02-24-2008, 09:57 PM
Nostalgia.

Jeff
02-24-2008, 10:40 PM
Looks good.

Guess I should finally get around to watching the first three >.> <.<

*runs*o.O How have you never seen any Indiana Jones movies? Thats like on the same level as never seeing any Star Wars movies. I can't believe such people even exist.

BongoBob
02-25-2008, 04:08 AM
Well, my dad bought the trilogy on DVD a while ago, but I never got around to watching them. I'll probably watch them all in a marathon session next weekend or something.

Ray Jones
02-25-2008, 07:12 AM
never seen any Indiana Jones moviesIs that correct phrasing and such at all? Looks like there's a ton of spelling errors and assorted grammatical cruelties in there. :confused:

Pie™
05-22-2008, 08:16 AM
Saw it last night. It was OK, but the writing was pretty bad at times. It's more like Temple Of Doom than Last Crusade and Raiders, which disappointed me. Ford doesn't seem to have aged a day though. :)

Jeff
05-22-2008, 12:24 PM
I saw it last night as well. I really liked it but it usually takes a bit for the imperfections of movies I think I will like going in to sink in. Raiders is still my favorite, I can say that much. Some of the lines weren't the greatest, and the whole alien thing was a bit weird. I'll still probably see it again.

Datheus
05-22-2008, 04:01 PM
Is that correct phrasing and such at all? Looks like there's a ton of spelling errors and assorted grammatical cruelties in there. :confused:It is. Is the confusion coming from subject verb agreement? The subject isn't a person--it's a brand with multiple movies. Think of it as "have never seen any movies." Also note that "have seen" is just a different conjugation of "to see" (as compared to "saw").
Saw it last night. It was OK, but the writing was pretty bad at times.The writing is just as corny as the other movies. I think a lot of people have fuzzy, nostalgic memories of the movies. My girlfriend made me watch the original three last month because she is that way. Parts of them were physically painful to watch.

Black Knight of Keno
05-22-2008, 04:22 PM
Parts of them were physically painful to watch.
The pain no doubt came from being pussywhipped, since the movies are epic.

@Anyone thinking of posting an "epic fail" image: I don't mean epic fail. Epic

Pie™
05-22-2008, 07:40 PM
Well, Temple Of Doom is full of cringe-worthy moments as well, but Raiders and Last Crusade are still good. :) The last five seconds of Crystal Skull were brilliant though. xD

MrWally
05-22-2008, 10:56 PM
Hmmm.... 79% on Rotten Tomatoes.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indiana_jones_and_the_kingdom_of_the_crystal_skull/

That's a pretty good score.... Much higher than I would have expected O_o

Feanaro
05-23-2008, 02:00 AM
That movie had George Lucas written all over it.......... I'm so mad I wish that movie was never made.

leXX
05-23-2008, 04:25 AM
If it's more like Temple of Doom, then I'll wait for the DVD. :/

Pie™
05-23-2008, 08:15 AM
That movie had George Lucas written all over it.......... I'm so mad I wish that movie was never made.
Yeah, like the entire sequence with

Shia Leboeuf and Cate Blanchett fencing on the cars, especially when he got all those sticks hitting his nads and when he started swinging through the trees with all the monkeys after him. I mean, what the hell? :/

boinga1
05-23-2008, 11:17 AM
I hated this movie. I don't understand why
they chose aliens as the plot device instead of something religious. I guess they were going for more of a "modern myth" with this one, but I really didn't like the aliens. The scene with the flying saucer felt like something I'd expect from Stargate. I thought the CG, especially the aforementioned sword fight, was at times jarring; the lighting and bloom kept changing between shots. I enjoyed the opening sequence until Harrison Ford got in the refrigerator. Parts of the film throughout were decent, like the fight with the greasers and the subsequent motorcycle chase. It probably doesn't help that I don't like Shia LeBouf or greasers in general. I honestly wish they had gone a completely different direction with this and have the Russians find the Ark of the Covenant (anyone else notice it made an appearance?).

I guess I would give it two stars out of five. I don't like the movie, but it had a few redeeming scenes.

ET Warrior
05-25-2008, 01:25 PM
I wrote up a blog review about this movie, I shall post it here. It has spoilers in it, so be warned.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of OMGWTF!?!?!?

So I'm sure many of you are aware of a new Indiana Jones movie that has recently been unleashed upon the unwitting masses. I myself have been anticipating this movie very much: I mean, it's not like George Lucas has ever taken a classic trilogy and very nearly ruined it by adding to it...

Despite my reservations, I figured we'd be ok here, I understood that the reason the Star Wars prequels had such horrendous dialog and included scenes that very much should have been cut was because George Lucas is George Lucas and nobody wanted to tell him no. But here, Steven Spielberg is involved, so I imagined he'd be able to keep things under control with a few well timed "NO! BAD GEORGE"'s. WARNING: There be spoilers ahead. Continue to read at your own risk.

Let me begin by saying that had this NOT been an Indiana Jones movie, I very possibly would not be writing a negative review of it. If you are able to distance yourself from the originals, you may not leave the theater feeling like somebody went back in time and punched childhood you right in the face.

Further, if you think Star Wars: Episode 1 is a good movie then you'll probably be happy, this movie had a VERY prequels feel to it. (Not a compliment)

Also, Harrison Ford is still Harrison Ford and he still kicks ass as Indiana Jones, even if he is almost a thousand years old. And I actually thought Shia Leboeuf's character was pretty good. The acting throughout was very acceptable, although the main antagonist was pretty (really) lame.

The most notable problems of this movie can be narrowed down to four specific parts. One involves an atomic bomb, one involves monkeys (and Tarzan style vine swinging), there is an issue with a car and a tree (which is the least offensive of the four) and the other is basically the ENTIRE ENDING.

If the three scenes were removed, and the ending rewritten, then I probably would have liked this movie. That's actually the most painful part, is that there were some parts of the movie that were very much Indiana Jones, and very much awesome, so it hurt even more when it was bad. (There are more rotten moments than the four I listed, they're just the ones that really stick out).

Overall I felt like I was on a roller coaster of agony. I was continually taunted with glimpses of joy and entertainment worthy of the name Dr. Jones, and as soon as I began to forget my earlier sorrows I was plummeted into greater depths of misery. George Lucas needs a new personal assistant to follow him at all times, and Falcon Punch him if he even MENTIONS Star Wars or Indiana Jones.

I am sure that some of you reading this disagree, and actually liked Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Killing my Soul, so feel free to explain how that is possible. (Perhaps you were actually watching Iron Man, and just got confused?)

Pie™
05-25-2008, 01:41 PM
I pretty much agree with your review, the mentioned tree-scene made me die a little on the inside (especially the self-satisfied grin on her face afterwards), and the awesome scenes were way too short and far between. After heavy discussion with the guys I saw it with, we pretty much concluded that the main flaw is
Indy never being allowed to kick ass on his own after the 15 first minutes. He's being dragged down by Mutt (who isn't as annoying as we had predicted)and Mac and Marion, which we felt were both totally unnecessary to the plot. The part about Marion being kidnapped and showing up just felt incredibly forced and pointless, and it would have worked better without the subplot between her and Indy. John Hurt was great as Ox though, even though I don't understand why he had gone back the first time he reached El Dorado. Was it because he didn't realize he had to remove all the stone-faces from the pillar?

Jeff
05-25-2008, 02:24 PM
John Hurt was great as Ox though, even though I don't understand why he had gone back the first time he reached El Dorado. Was it because he didn't realize he had to remove all the stone-faces from the pillar?I think that is why, because Indy says something like "you figured that out in your cell didn't you"

Pie™
05-25-2008, 03:06 PM
I think that is why, because Indy says something like "you figured that out in your cell didn't you"

Seems like he gave up a little too easily after that undoubtedly long and very dangerous journey then.

Mike Windu
05-25-2008, 09:27 PM
This movie was ludicrous.

That being said, I enjoyed it for the ludicrous romp that it was. I haven't seen other Indy movies but I do hope they're a bit more tied down in realism than this.

I give it an 8/10 for being an absurd movie?

I thought Shia wasn't that bad. The acting between Harrison and the love interest were at times hammy. And some of the lines are just lines to be said.

Case in point, when Indy speaks a line while sitting between two Russi guards who do nothing but stare, and then proceed to get beat up.

Other problems with the movie include:

A nuke, a fridge. I thought the alien thing was silly but I was willing to forgive it. The ending was lame, especially with the "knowledge thing." The tree car scene and the vine swinging are absurd. It made me laugh, but for the wrong reasons.

Also, the CG is dumb in this movie. Some animals are clearly CG and not even there for any other reason other to be CG. [Timon]

That being said, other times the CG is great. Like one look at a waterfall scene, whereupon my friend asked "Where'd they find that?" to which I replied "It's CG. You think that's air you're breathing now?"

TiE23
05-26-2008, 06:49 PM
Pa-sha. I just got back from the theaters and I must say I loved it. Save the vine swinging, I thought every moment was awesome. It's hilarious how protective so many people are getting here, I'd love to see what your movies would have been like instead. I'd suggest you'd better shut up and accept the new Indiana Jones movie, or just sit in silence, angry at life and it's inability to give you a "better" Indy movie.

Seriously, think about it. Without all the crazy sh*t that happened in this movie, it'd just be another Jason Borne-esqe movie with a fedora and whip. You have to appreciate the zany crap because that's what gives it flavor and makes it interesting. If it was realistic, fight scenes would only last a minute because someone would either get shot or the fighters would collapse from exhaustion.

If going by the community's definition of what's cool, you're really shooting yourselves in the foot here.

The giant rolling boulder? Totally unrealistic.
A laser beam shooting out a simple crystal to reveal the location of the Ark? That even possible?
A sealed room full of snakes? How do those things eat?
Dragged behind a truck at 40 mph? Dude, his skin would start coming off.
Melting faces? Does skin melt?
Using a giant metal disc as a shield? What are the freakin' chances?
Falling to safety through a few awnings? No way.
Ditching a plane just to kill three sleeping people? Dude, just ****in shoot them!
Using a river raft to sled down a mountain? Okay, that's ridiculous.
Just happening to stumble in on a problem in a village with missing children in the middle of ****ing no where, discovering a long death evil cult, and killing their leader, freeing the children, and saving the day? HOLY CRAP!
Monkey brains... Bull f*cking sh*t.
Pulling a heart from a guy and lowering him into some strange always hot lava that never cools down, perfect to deep fry victims in? Do you even know how volcanoes work?
A climatic fight on a rock crushing machine? Riiight.
A trick door in a fire place? A chair that shows a spiral stair case? Only in Goosebumps.
A motorcycle, fully fueled and ready to go in a large wooden box? What?
Somehow traveling through hundreds of miles of German country side on a motorcycle in a single scene cut? Dude, do you realize what Germany was like in war time, ever scene The Great Escape?
Walking into Hitler and getting a book signature? LOL!
Giant circular blades somehow embedded in the wall without any conceivable way to make them pop out, spin, and decapitate any one? That's just stupid.
A painted bridge? One inch of change and the illusion would be lost!
An earthquake that only affects a single room, busting open huge holes in the floor? How is that even possible?
Holy water? Wow, you should really think about removing the bullet first before healing that gunshot wound.

The list goes on and on.

Say that this movie was stupidly unrealistic? Shut the **** up you nit-picking hypocrite and enjoy it. This movie is going to make countless 10 and 12 year olds around America want to see the originals, bringing back that childhood wonder for a new generation.



Sorry for the dickery (and liberal use of **** and ****), but it's how I feel about this negativity. Also, I'm positive that I'm going to get some back-lashing for this, but that's okay, this is my opinion and to each his own.




Edit: (Please note that this 'hate speech' isn't directed at anyone personally, though on retrospect it seems like ET could be the only receiver of my ills, I didn't intend this. I spent over half an hour writing this post and I had to go to work so I only scanned the previous posts and really only read ET's review, assumed it was the general opinion [though ET does seem to have the largest opposition to this movie, and not just "simple little things" like most of you here], and made this general statement. So sorry, ET, it's honestly nothing personal, and even though it seems like it really was, I assure that it doesn't sour my view of your opinions and I hope you can understand my feelings.)

Mike Windu
05-26-2008, 07:17 PM
We've all said that the movie is decent. Except ET.

But nobody lives through

a bloody nuke (lol IG)

And the "I'd love to see what your movies would have been like instead" :lol:

We're not film makers. They are. We as the audience decide if they blow at their jobs.

MrWally
05-26-2008, 10:51 PM
Just saw it today, on the whole I liked it, and like most people here I did have some qualms, but honestly I agree with TiE, the series has never been the most realistic, so when it comes to that argument I'd have to disagree, however...

I totally agree that throwing in Aliens instead of working with a religious symbol or concept kind of took away from the feel of the film. And as for the nuclear explosion scene, it wasn't so much the fridge that got me but the fact that he went flying in a fridge hundreds of feet in the air, landed, bounced back up, landed again, and rolled on the group only to simply walk out unharmed from the fall. I think they could have kept the concept of the lead-lined fridge, but have changed his escape from the town or at least lowered the severity of his fight through the air. And yes, the swinging through the jungle with the monkeys kind of made me lose it, I feel as if that could have been altered slightly as well, but on the whole I agree with TiE and thoroughly enjoyed the movie.

But yes, Harrison Ford totally sold Indiana Jones to me, there were scenes were it seemed as if he hadn't aged a day.

Commander Obi-Wan
05-26-2008, 10:53 PM
Man, I've seen in twice. Personally, I thought it was fine. Albeit, the vine swinging and fire ants were a bit much but I felt everything else belonged in an Indy movie. All the movies had some thing to do with supernatural phenomenons and what not. So, really the deal with the aliens didn't really bother me.

milo
05-27-2008, 12:20 AM
Wow I really need to see this movie so I can read these bloody spoiler tags.

Feanaro
05-27-2008, 01:46 AM
TiE, first off I respect your opinion, but you seem extremely angry that people don't like this movie as much as you do. As for your long list of "unrealistic" moments from the original trilogy, I'm just gonna spout off a few that really aren't all that unrealistic.

Big Boulder...........Ever been to the mountains?
Sealed room of snakes.......snakes can eat snakes.........
falling through awnings.......I've done it and lived to tell the tale
Monkey Brains......ever seen Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern(he's the man by the way)
Climatic rock crushing scene.......I do that on the weekends when I'm not jumping out of a plane on a life-raft

Okay, so maybe some of them are not possible at all. But one thing that all of the things you listed off compared to the major complaints that ET gave(and I totally agree with) was that they are all FUN! They're exciting, cool, and are just really amazing things that can happen in movies. Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the crystal Skull's climatic parts weren't fun(at least to me). They lacked the Indiana Jones feel and at times felt like they were afterthoughts. Like

"hey, let's add groundhogs to this part, It'll be cute. We'll just put that in after the shot with our amazing CG along with the background and train and that truck."
"So, basically everything but Harrison?"
"Precisely."

Some people will really like this movie, some will hate it. I loved parts and hated parts. I have been an Indiana Jones fan my whole life and this movie absolutely broke my heart. It had amazing potential and really did have some of the greatest Indiana Jones moments but horrible story, dialog, and moments ruined the experience for me. Though the best thing about this movie was bringing back the signature punching sounds......classic.

ET Warrior
05-27-2008, 01:54 AM
I'd love to see what your movies would have been like instead.I wouldn't have made another Indiana Jones movie.

My primary complaint isn't a lack of realism, Indiana Jones is all about suspension of reality. My complaint is that this movie is not the same kind of unrealism as the originals. Where the originals were shrouded in mysticism and bad assery, this movie was shrouded in stupid and OMGALIENS

Almost every single scene of the movie fails utterly.

El Sitherino
05-27-2008, 09:49 AM
How are aliens any different than religious mumbo-jumbo?

They're not, because they require the same lack of reality. If anything I find an alien-based mystery more believable than the a god box melting a nazi's face off or the holy grail healing Sean Connery.
I'd mention Temple of Doom, but you people set on being closed off to entertainment.


Perhaps you've outgrown Indy. I hear National Treasure's good.

Pie™
05-27-2008, 10:15 AM
Perhaps you've outgrown Indy. I hear National Treasure's good.

Shut your filthy mouth! :mad:

Mike Windu
05-27-2008, 12:12 PM
I hear National Treasure's good.


I LOL'd. :)

El Sitherino
05-27-2008, 12:17 PM
I LOL'd. :)

I must admit, I did too.

Meh, so you didn't like the new Indy, more copies for me to buy.

I got exactly what I expected from an Indy film. Even if it was new, about Russians, Crystal Skulls, and Extra-dimensional beings.

Samuel Dravis
05-27-2008, 12:48 PM
Meh, so you didn't like the new Indy, more copies for me to buy.

I got exactly what I expected from an Indy film. Even if it was new, about Russians, Crystal Skulls, and Extra-dimensional beings.QFT, Sithy. Q. F. T. The new movie is great fun and definitely Indy.

MrWally
05-27-2008, 06:46 PM
How are aliens any different than religious mumbo-jumbo?

I agree with you completely for the most part and I thoroughly enjoyed the film, but I have to say that aliens are completely different than religious artifacts. Religious artifacts used in the original trilogy are founded not only on actual historical texts, but they are held in high regard by millions, if not billions, of people around the world. It didn't seem quite the same to me for them to make up an entirely new concept that totally diverged from the feel of the original series.

ET Warrior
05-27-2008, 07:43 PM
At least the religious or mystical business in the originals had context. The aliens in this movie were completely arbitrary, given no explanation, given no purpose. Why were the alien skeletons in those ruins? Why was one skull missing from the set? How come reattaching the skull made the skeletons all join together into a single fleshy alien? Why would they give the person who returned the skull a gift that makes your eyes burst into flames? How come the ants avoid the skull? Why is it "magnetic" for non magnetic metals, but only if it isn't covered by a bag? How do they know that they're extra-dimensional aliens and not from space? I could go on here, and that's just the stuff that directly relates to the skull and the aliens. I don't mind that it isn't realistic, but they never gave any kind of explanation for ANY of it. The rest of the movie fares no better.
I don't really care if you like it or not, but I do love how important it is to insult people who dislike a movie that you like. :dozey:

TiE23
05-27-2008, 10:26 PM
Why would the Ark of the Covenant melt people's faces? : P

ET Warrior
05-27-2008, 10:45 PM
While not given an explicit reason, the entire movie centers around the idea that the Ark is an artifact of great power, and Indiana knows that they need to keep their eyes closed, and not look at it no matter what. There is at least an indication of understanding, and attempt to explain it without actually explaining it.

IG-64
05-28-2008, 01:55 AM
We're kinda going all over the place with the spoilers here, but I'll use a spoiler tag anyway.

My review:

Just got back from seeing it. First of all, this movie had bad parts. However, unlike some people, I have the ability to ignore these parts and enjoy the good stuff. In fact, watching my sister immediately say the whole movie was lame, start bashing George Lucas, and list the parts she didn't like as soon as she left the theater, was possibly more cringe-worthy than anything in the movie itself. What annoys me more is the attitude that, because I enjoyed the movie, I maybe was even too ignorant to notice the fact that some things were perhaps not exactly physically possible, or that the plot didn't have that clear of a focus some of the time, or that there were gratuitous CG prairie dogs, or that there were some bad lines, or a scene where the kid and monkeys were swinging through trees like Tarzan, or that there were more shots to the nads than should be allowed in an above-G movie, or that-- screw it, you get the picture. But what did I just say? I said I enjoyed the movie. I enjoyed it because it was fun, and cool, and even some parts had some of that classic-y action-y feel I haven't gotten from a movie in a long time. I liked the characters, and the action, and the visuals. And maybe it didn't make a lot of sense, but a link between the crystal skulls, mayans, nazca lines, el derado, and aliens? Hey, why the hell not?
As soon as I saw that yes, they went there, I went with it. Which is why I didn't cringe when the flying saucer came out of the ground. In fact, I thought that was actually pretty neat. Why? Because if you're going to do aliens, don't make up some half-assed alien crap; do aliens, with long heads, and big eyes, and flying saucers. To me, that made it so much more acceptable, because it's the mystery I'm familiar with. And I liked the nazca lines, and the room with the crystal skeletons, and the giant killer ants, and all of that stuff that I thought was fun and neat. Maybe they did go too far when the CG alien came alive and killed Cate Blanchett, but you know what? I can live with it, and I won't let that ruin the rest of it for me. Because the rest of it was good.
It wasn't a masterpiece. I went in expecting something better than temple of doom, but not as good as the last crusade or raiders of the lost ark, and that's exactly what I got. I knew it wasn't going to reach the mystique of those 2 movies that I like so much, but that's because they were just different. They're still old-school and creepy and awesome and badass (and it would take a whole 'nother couple of reviews to explain why.) I knew the new movie had to do something like aliens and Mayans and all of that stuff, because what else is left? When you think about it, those are legitimate mysteries too. Yes, even the aliens. But all of that still didn't matter to me, because it's Indiana Jones, of course its going to be a good experience regardless. So instead of being critical or comparing, I sat back and enjoyed myself, and I'm glad I did.

El Sitherino
05-29-2008, 12:27 AM
At least the religious or mystical business in the originals had context. The aliens in this movie were completely arbitrary, given no explanation, given no purpose. Why were the alien skeletons in those ruins? Why was one skull missing from the set? How come reattaching the skull made the skeletons all join together into a single fleshy alien? Why would they give the person who returned the skull a gift that makes your eyes burst into flames? How come the ants avoid the skull? Why is it "magnetic" for non magnetic metals, but only if it isn't covered by a bag? How do they know that they're extra-dimensional aliens and not from space? I could go on here, and that's just the stuff that directly relates to the skull and the aliens. I don't mind that it isn't realistic, but they never gave any kind of explanation for ANY of it. The rest of the movie fares no better.
I don't really care if you like it or not, but I do love how important it is to insult people who dislike a movie that you like. :dozey:

Or maybe you don't know about the Crystal Skulls and that the alien theory is it's most popular explanation. Hence the movie having aliens.



Anyway, yes religion has a lot of believers, but in all honesty I bet there are as many people that believe in aliens as there are people that believe in Jesus.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with what makes a good movie. Wah, so it had aliens. It could have been worse, they could have used the gays. Those are popular in the media aren't they?
And they do like crystals, remember Liberace? I bet if he was goth, he'd have a bunch of Crystal Skulls.

As well, by the look of the things some people didn't understand. Apparently you didn't pay attention.
I was intoxicated as all hell and was able to comprehend the story. Extra-dimensional beings rather than your ordinary interstellar travelers. The secrets about the skull and the flame burst were all in the readings of the legend. If anything I'd say the riddles and puzzles in the movie were more challenging than the first, or at least that's what I gather by the people saying there were plotholes where there was explanation

Black Knight of Keno
05-29-2008, 03:32 AM
Sithy, dude, spoiler tags have been invented. As the thread starter I have to remind you that there may still be people around who haven't seen the movie who are checking this thread while wanting to stay pristine. That goes for the rest of yous as well.

As for the movie, I went to see it yesterday and I thought it was quite good. It was completely unnecessary to uncover the Indy hat and whip from naphthalene, but now that they did, they didn't botch it completely. Despite the aged Harrison Ford and the forcing of some characters into the storyline without really any reason, it still felt like an Indianan Jones movie. And even if you didn't like it, I bet it still beats the original rumored story where Natalie Portman is Indy's daughter and taking Harrison's place in the story -shudder-

Sivy
06-09-2008, 07:52 AM
Overall I really liked it. i know a lot of people don't like the sci-fi aspect of the film. but it represents the period of time of which it is set. they had to set it in a time which is believably for Harrison Ford's age. They also needed something to replace the Nazis and cold-war Russians are the obviously choice. So the late 40s is really the only time they could use. And at that time, just after the Roswell incident, Sci-fi was very much in the public eye.

the tarzan bit was a bit silly though.

Darth Groovy
06-18-2008, 07:18 AM
Once again, this is being posted from the eyes of the average movie goer, I am not a professional critic.

Despite Harrison Ford's imminent old age, it is just too damn hard not to like this latest installment of the Indiana Jones saga.

I have to be careful in this review as that it is too hard to spoil. So for that reason, I must be brief. I had heard a great deal of yocals pan this movie, but I chose the critic's take. And it was pretty hard to keep me away from this movie as Indiana Jones has become synonymous with star wars as a right to my childhood heroes. I had heard many rumors over the years about various script re-writes and what not. The finished product came out nicely. Happily all of the elements that made the last three movies are fully in tact. The time line of this movie pits Indy in Roswell New Mexico during the late 50's. We are in the hight of the cold war, and the red menace. Cate Blanchett, presents a remarkable and fun roll as the Russian Villian Irina Spalko. Hot on the trail of a mythical crystal skull which has some certain extraordinary powers. Due to spoilers, I will not elaborate on this. Indy is found captive by said russians, after a daring escape, Shia LaBeouf (Mutt Williams) brings him back into the fold. We are told that Indy spent some time in WWII fighting the Nazis. Indy is also facing the end of his tenure as professor of archeology. Mutt Williams brings him back into the fold, and it is not long where Indy reunites with Karen Allen (aka Marion Ravenwood) and looks DAMN good for her age. We are also following a college who is portrayed by John Hurt as "OX" Oxley who seems to know more about the mystery of the Crystal Skull than anybody. All of these people are fun to watch. Jones acknowledges his old age to Shia LaBeouf but that does not stop him from getting into several fist fights and car chases that made the series so popular. Another thing that made the last film so well was it's attention to detail on the time line. This movie also captures that well. Watching Karen Allen and Ford together again after Raiders is a real treat. But this film, makes it hard for you to hate the villian as Cate Blanchett is just so damn good at what she does. The movie is a 2 hour spectical of eye candy, humor, and action. There is literally nothing missing from this latest episode of Indiana Jones other than, I personally wanted to see John Rhys-Davies reprise his roll as Sallah, but gladly the CGI, and story are not drowned by CGI. All the charm of any Indy movie is here. Far off lands, fancy discoveries, token chases and fist fights....all are here. And of course without spoiling the movie. There is the big reveal at the end which did not leave me disappointed at all. It is every bit as fun as all of the previous Indy movies and should not be missed by any fan of the series. I give the movie 4 out of 5 stars for being able to pull it off as nicely as they did. All those yocals are crazy....Indy still rules!

Pie™
06-18-2008, 07:37 AM
Ooops... (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=186550)

:P

Mike Windu
06-18-2008, 11:22 AM
In b4 da merge.

This movie was junk. Enjoyable junk, but junk.

PR-0927
06-18-2008, 02:17 PM
So I had never seen any Indiana Jones until the end of last week and the rest of this weekend (watched the first three). It's pretty sad, I know...

Spoilers throughout the next few paragraphs, so...yeah, spoiler tags.

Anyways, I just saw the newest one yesterday. I liked it. I really did. I thought it was absolutely humorous like the last three, and unlike most, I ENJOY the concept of extraterrestrial or extradimensional beings.

Maybe it's just because I'm fascinated by a possibility for life outside of Earth, but I love the concept of aliens coming to Earth (especially when they do very kind things such as teaching irrigation and farming techniques - how helpful!). I tend to enjoy all things alien, and hope there are aliens, even if they do destroy humanity or Earth.

I also found myself seeing that the story presented "COULD" actually be believable - the whole alien thing actually "COULD" happen. Makes sense for that civilization being all advanced and all, LOL.

All hail Harrison Ford.

- PR-0927

Mace MacLeod
06-18-2008, 10:55 PM
Indy's still Indy after all these years. Yes, it has its share of "Yeah, that would SO happen in real life..." moments, but it still packs more entertainment than 99% of movies that come out nowadays. IMHO, if you'd rather concentrate on the fact that the windshield and machine gun on the hood of the Good Guys' amphib-o-jeep keep popping in and out of existence during the jungle car chase than just enjoy the chase scene in all its goofy glory, you've gone to the wrong movie. That being said, with Harrison Ford's age, it's a lot harder than it used to be to suspend your disbelief, especially when we're asked to swallow: a) Indy going toe-to-toe with a Russian commando-type who's about thirty years younger, six inches taller and about 75 pounds heavier. Trading punch after punch with this guy for more than about 1 second...? Riiiiiiiiight...

b) I'm sorry, but the fridge thing was just too far out there. I mean, c'mon...

c) The FBI is sweating Indy and his University Dean about possible commie connections, while failing to notice the Russian Spies hanging around the same campus. Who the hell runs that FBI Field Office, Chief Wiggum?

But I can forgive those things just for having Karen Allen back in this one. Some of the old magic, right there. And I liked the ending at least...She was BAD! Okay?! BAD! The nice-guy alien(s) weren't going to let the BAD person get the superpowers, okay?! Get it?!All in all, it's a shade down from the old trilogy simply for the fact that now everyone in the movie acts like they know they're in an adventure movie and they're mugging to the camera a bit, but at its core, it's still an Indiana Jones movie and worth seeing on the big screen, unlike the other 99.999% of movies made since the last one.