Mostly positive, some mixed - but on the whole more balanced than what you'd find on fanboy havens like the nightmare of Aintitcool, and it's ilk...


http://www.theraider.net/news/fullstory_indy4.php?id=808

Critics are all well and good, but the only way you're gonna be able to make up your mind is to see the flick yourself.

Just three more days... (down here anyway)

Yep - I HAD planned to attend the first showing on opening day Thursday, but now I just found out I have to drive my mother in law to the airport ( yes, a pleasure trip) so maybe sometime Thursday or Friday.

It's still looking good , still VERY eager to see this one.

In a nutshell Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is neither disappointing or entirely satisfying. For people who have been waiting their entire lives for another Indy flick, people like me, might find it a bit underwhelming. But there is still plenty to enjoy and a few moments to treasure. KOTCS is well-worth seeing.

The story picks up in 1957, and we find Indiana Jones and company on a race against the Russians to find a crystal skull, which will lead them to a lost city made entirely of gold somewhere in the Peruvian jungle. Whoever restores the skull to its rightful resting place inside the city will gain control over its mysterious powers.

Along for the ride this time are Shia LaBeouf as Mutt Williams, an adventurous, hot-headed young greaser and his mother, Marion (Karen Allen from Raiders), Mac, Indy’s long-time sidekick and John Hurt as an insane professor obsessed with finding the crystal skull the lost city. Heading up the Russians is the enigmatic Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), also obsessed with the lost city and all its secrets.

As I said, there’s plenty to enjoy with KOTCS; most notably the action sequences, which are exciting and original, from the opening warehouse escape sequence, to a spectacular chase through the jungle. Now Spielberg has said that the CGI stuff mixed in with the real stuff would be about 30/70. This is a bit of an exaggeration, I think. It’s probably more like 50/50. Fans of the old fashioned models and miniatures of the original Indy trilogy will be disappointed to find them replaced by state-of-the-art digital effects. The CGI gives the movie a grander scope than in the others, but it also detracts somewhat from the fun, one of the reasons this one doesn’t work quite as well as the others. The action sequences themselves are wonderfully shot, Spielberg’s long, smooth  tracking shots make a welcome change from the frenetic, unfocussed, handycam styles of modern action movies.

What’s ultimately disappointing with KOTCS is the characters. One of the best things about the original Indy trilogy was how quickly and efficiently it was able to establish and use good, memorable characters without slowing up the plot. Here, it feels as though the filmmakers chose to do either one or the other; keep the story moving or take the slow things right down to establish the characters. They took the high road and kept the plot rolling so what we end up with is a mish-mash of half-established and underused characters, this is especially true in the case of Spalko and Mac. Both of them have strong and interesting premises, but nothing ever comes of their potential. The way their stories are wrapped up are very standard, which is basically how I felt about the entire last hour of the movie. It’s pretty much what you’d expect, nothing particularly surprising or inspired, which is unforunate considering the endings of the first three films.

Another disappointing aspect was the story itself. This will probably wind up being a personal thing, but I thought introducing the idea of aliens into the Indy universe is a little farfetched. KOTCS goes a little too far out of the realm of realism. Of course this is something that the Indy movies are known for. It’s not exactly within the realm of realism that people keep living after their still beating hearts are ripped out of their chests and Crusade-period knights certainly don’t live for hundreds of years protecting a bunch of cups, but these story ploys are bought without hestitation. Aliens and creatures from other dimensions, on the other hand, are a little tougher to swallow. Maybe I need another viewing or at least a few more hours to really let it sink in, but I just didn’t buy it.

The bottom line is, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is more right than wrong, but there’s more wrong than I was expecting. It’s a little bit of a downer compared to the other three Indy movies. But we must ask ourselves: did we really expect Spielberg and Lucas to reach the same fantastic heights for a fourth time? Is it reasonable to except one brilliant film after another after another? Lightning striking twice is rare enough in Hollywood, three times is practically unheard of and four times, virtually impossible. And it’s not like this is a bad movie, far from it. It’s a fantastic adventure movie filled with magic and wonder and adventure, just missing that little extra something that made Indiana Jones something special. Still, KOTCS is a bucket load of fun that’s bound to charm and amuse audiences. 8/10.

The lighting is what ruined it for me. It was unbelievably harsh. It constantly kept me in check that I was watching a hollywood film.

~Zack~

Quoted from Zack The lighting is what ruined it for me. It was unbelievably harsh. It constantly kept me in check that I was watching a hollywood film. ~Zack~

Isn't that kind of the point? Considering the other Indie movies are like the crown of cheesy Hollywood adventure films? And that's not an insult. It's just what it is. It's a Hollywood adventure movie, not an artsy independent film.

Just got back from my second viewing, and I have to admit that it was a lot more enjoyable the second time around. All of the things that bugged me most, Indy surviving a nuclear blast, the outlandishness of the interdimensional beings didn't seem as big of a deal as the last time around.

Maybe it as an expectations thing. Second time in, I knew what I was going to get and was able to enjoy what was there more. It felt like a really bad, cheap and cheesy 50's sci-fi flick. Enjoyed it a lot more ;D

Quoted from Elmer It's just what it is. It's a Hollywood adventure movie, not an artsy independent film.

Exactly! Sadly, it looked like an artsy independent movie(with a very big budget). It just seems like they spent way too much time on the lighting and they completly overdid it.

~Zack~

George Lucas: "Let's put aliens in it!"

Spielberg: "No, george.  No more aliens, you've had six movies to do aliens I think-"

George: "NO! ALIENS!  I WANT ALIENS!"


Seriously, it was ridiculous.  I can, however, say that I was entertained, and I would recommend that all the Indi fans go see it.  Just know, that when God melted off the Nazi's face in raiders of the lost arc, it was not even close to being the most ridiculous thing to happen in an Indi movie.

Oh, and me, the ants WERE awesome.

WARNING SPOILERS

Just got back from the theater and I must admit that Indy 4 is very entertaining. A great rollercoaster ride with plenty of action and humor (Mutt: Are you like 80?") plus some great visuals (the mushroom cloud looked friggin' awesome - as did the waterfalls). I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the lighting, anyone who has seen the first three Indy movies knows that the lighting in the fourth instalment is an absolute match with the other three.

I also like how they paid tribute to both Denholm Elliot and Sean Connery without it going all mushy - it was done very subtle.

The action is way over the top (surviving a nuclear blast and 1 2 3 waterfalls) but it works anyway because that is the premise for the Indy movies. Shia does a good job as Mutt (great word play that name is) but Ford again owns the show. It was really good to see him back in that role. Like Chism, I wasn't blown away by the other characters like Mac and Spalko, as "bad guys" they didn't really nail it properly. Bringing back Karen Allen was a good move, it set up a couple of good scenes with Indy. I'm still trying to figure out why John Hurt accepted the role as Ox, cos' in my mind that was the absolute weakest character of them all (even though the character in itself plays a major part in the story). But I can live with all that cos' Harrison was simply THAT good.

There are a couple of scenes where the dialogue is used as heavy exposition and that did disappoint me a little (being the great writer that I am ;)), but the only thing that really rubbed me the wrong way was the aliens. Idunno, it just doesn't seem very Indy'esque. It lacked that mythologic feel to it that the previous movies had (plus that plot has been done before in various movies - Stargate anyone?).

Anyway, this movie is really really good, a worthy chapter (end?). Not as good as Raiders, better than Doom and probably just as good as Crusade.

PS: Loved the little trick they pulled in the end where the wind blows the hat over to Mutt and Indy snatches it up right as he is about to put it on - There's only one Indiana Jones!

Best. Indy. Ever.

I thought it was absolute garbage.

A complete lack of character development, a superhuman Indy, a plot with no payoff, an unmenacing villain, an annoying supporting LaBeouf, ugly and unexciting CGI, plain old idiotic sequences (vine swinging, Peruvian ninjas), and completely unmemorable characters.  And this is INDIANA JONES we're talking about, one of the most memorable characters of all time.  The chemistry with Marion was a pale shadow of Raiders and half of Indy's lines fell flat.  The CGI destroyed any entertainment value that the action might have had and the characters ruined the rest, not to mention the most boring climax this side of Pirates 2.  

I thought it was the hugest disappointment since Episode One.    

Fun...but disappointing. The entire movie felt..off...even Ford didn't seem to be the same Indy we knew. Was it the script?  Everyone knows the major reason for the long wait between films has been Lucas' insistence that the movie WILL include aliens, despite Ford and Spielberg turning down that idea several times. I didn't mind the alien angle, but there were moments like the head of the Marcus Brody statue ( odd this would be a joke after the sweet nod to his passing earlier) that were just flat.

Maybe it was impossible to live up to expectations, but after Episode 1 , I knew we had to keep expectations LOW...still overall the movie delivered , just didn't hit a homerun as often as it should have.

Saw the new Indy on Thursday and I loved it. Considering I hadn't seen any of the others all the way through I didn't know what to expect, but was a decent flick. Just a question. Was the inclusion of "saucer men" a homage to the uproduced script saucer men from mars script written a few years ago which was rumoured to be the new Indy movie?

Quoted from RobertSpence Saw the new Indy on Thursday and I loved it. Considering I hadn't seen any of the others all the way through I didn't know what to expect, but was a decent flick. Just a question. Was the inclusion of "saucer men" a homage to the uproduced script saucer men from mars script written a few years ago which was rumoured to be the new Indy movie?

Not quite. The main reason it's taken 19 years to get another Indy movie was that Lucas has always insisted that the next movie WOULD include aliens, which Ford & Spielberg had turned down numerous times. So all the drafts over the years have had that connection.

Sorry to bring up an old thread, but I finally got around to seeing this last night, in Blu-Ray.

I was not impressed at all, and actually, a bit disappointed.

Like others said, I agree that the characters were rather weak this time around, and that includes Indy. Didn't like Shea's character at all...very irritating. Karen Allen looked terrible, but I actually did enjoy her role...one of the few highlights.

The FX were a huge disappointment for me.  Very few things looked real. Most scenes were so obviously shot on a set, and the backgrounds just didn't work.  I know this had a budget north of $185 Million, but I just have to wonder how much of that went to the star power vs. the actual effects.

It also had a "small" feel to most of it, even though there was a huge cast of extras and really big set pieces. I don't know what triggered this, but I felt it throughout.

Story was my biggest issue though. I really didn't even get it. It just seemed like these Russians were everywhere all of a sudden, searching for this crystal skull that didn't seem to really do much, when it was all said and done. I didn't have a problem with the alien angle at all, but the way it looped from set to set just didn't seem to work for me.

I actually found myself routinely looking at the run time, as I was bored and ready for it to end, which obviously is never a good thing.

Shea swinging through the vines was ridiculous, as was the entire jungle sword fight thing.  Going over 3 huge water falls with no damage was downright silly.  And, Indy getting blown to freedom in a fridge was comical (what happened to the other fridges in the fake city?).

I'm glad it did so well, but I think it would have no matter what the film looked like. I'm also sure adding Shea to the cast drew in many new fans, which was a smart move for sure.

Disappointing for an Indy movie and by Indy movie standards probably made this out to be worse than it really was in my mind.  I have no interest in seeing ti again though, so that does say something.

Quoted from Dreamscale I actually found myself routinely looking at the run time, as I was bored and ready for it to end, which obviously is never a good thing. .

I think the biggest problem from a writing point of view was the structure. Indy was always ahead if the Russsians in the film, so there was no tension.

If you compare it to the first film, you'll see that in that one Indy was always fighting the odds and constantly having to overcome obstacles...in this he was either well ahead or having to overcome artificial obstacles (the nuclear bomb) which were resolved with luck or without effort.

You had the same problem with Lucas's last film...Star Wars.

Just seems to have forgotten the very basics of dramatic storytelling which were the lynchpin of his earlier films.

I saw this on my birthday (which is when it came out) a couple of years ago. It's definitely not as good as Raiders or The Last Crusade, and Cate Blanchett made a weak villain, but it was still enjoyable. That moment when Indy's dragged out of the boot, stoops to pick up his hat, and turns round...he's a truly iconic character.

The fridge thing was a bit ridiculous, though. I remember enjoying it at the time, but it does take the tension out of the rest of the film a tad - this is a man who can survive a nuclear blast by climbing into a fridge and being thrown hundreds of feet through the air. If he can come through that unscathed, then do the baddies really stand a chance?

It was probably worth it for a good bit of nostalgia for anyone who was around for the first ones, and I'm sure they had fun making it. I hope they don't bother with Indy 5, though. I also hope that, aside from horror, people have the good sense to leave classic '80s franchises where they are. I have a horrible image of a Back to the Future (one of my favourite films) remake with Zac Efron playing Marty McFly...why is it so horrible? Because it could so easily happen.