'Indy Jones & Crystal Skull' review *SPOILERS!*

[rushgoober]

I've never been as gaga over the original Indy movies as many seem to be. Mind you, I've seen them several times and thoroughly enjoyed them, but they were never up there for me say with the original Star Wars trilogy or the LOTR trilogy.

 

That said, I really liked this one. I wasn't crazy about the ending, and of course you have to completely suspend disbelief to be able to accept thousands of bullets missing, Indy surviving a nuclear blast, his son becoming Tarzan, a swordfight while straddled between two jeeps in the jungle, people surviving three drops from waterfalls, etc., etc. Then again, the Indiana Jones movies ALWAYS had that kind of ridiculousness to it.

 

Basically, if you accept that a lot of impossible things are gonna happen and that's just part of the fun, then you might enjoy it.

 

I really didn't have overtly high expectations of this, so I was able to enjoy it. An all-time classic? Nah. Fun? Definitely...

[The Owl]

Best description for this movie I have heard so far.

 

If it were a "National Treasure" or "Mummy" (Fraiser franchise) movie it would have been the best in those franchises.

 

 

But as an Indy Movie.....................?

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's pretty much right

[Jeff S]

Great movie...some of you sound like nerds...

 

What were you expecting? Sounds like some of you already were convinced it was going to be bad no matter what...

[Stormtron]

We're all on a message board for Rush, the nerd insult doesn't work.

[GhostGirl]

QUOTE (Storm Shadow @ May 26 2008, 08:28 AM)

We're all on a message board for Rush, the nerd insult doesn't work.

Seriously.

 

I'm a self-professed nerd. Doesn't bother me in the least.

 

Also, if expecting a movie to be good makes me nerdy, so be it.

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (GhostGirl @ May 26 2008, 10:32 AM)

QUOTE (Storm Shadow @ May 26 2008, 08:28 AM) We're all on a message board for Rush, the nerd insult doesn't work. Seriously.   I'm a self-professed nerd. Doesn't bother me in the least.   Also, if expecting a movie to be good makes me nerdy, so be it. Big fat ditto!     There are those who think that George Lucas has lost it due to the fact that he so horribly bungled the Star Wars prequels and there are those who will (imho) sycophantically love anything that he trowels out simply because it has his name on it and (again, imho) deliberately make themselves overlook how crappy it really is. I really did hope that IJATKOTCS would be good. The first thing that alarmed me was learning that Frank Darabont (go on IMDB and read his credentials if you don't know who he is) had written an Indy script which Spielberg loved and tried to get Lucas to shoot, but Lucas hated it and demanded to go with his own vision, which as you can see is not getting great reviews.   Couple that with the fact that Lucas took a golden opportunity in the Star Wars prequels and so thoroughly f*cked it up that they're practically unwatchable and it's not a big stretch to say that Lucas is entering Uwe Boll territory.

[GhostGirl]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ May 26 2008, 10:58 AM)

QUOTE (GhostGirl @ May 26 2008, 10:32 AM) QUOTE (Storm Shadow @ May 26 2008, 08:28 AM) We're all on a message board for Rush, the nerd insult doesn't work. Seriously.   I'm a self-professed nerd. Doesn't bother me in the least.   Also, if expecting a movie to be good makes me nerdy, so be it. Big fat ditto!     There are those who think that George Lucas has lost it due to the fact that he so horribly bungled the Star Wars prequels and there are those who will (imho) sycophantically love anything that he trowels out simply because it has his name on it and (again, imho) deliberately make themselves overlook how crappy it really is. I really did hope that IJATKOTCS would be good. The first thing that alarmed me was learning that Frank Darabont (go on IMDB and read his credentials if you don't know who he is) had written an Indy script which Spielberg loved and tried to get Lucas to shoot, but Lucas hated it and demanded to go with his own vision, which as you can see is not getting great reviews.   Couple that with the fact that Lucas took a golden opportunity in the Star Wars prequels and so thoroughly f*cked it up that they're practically unwatchable and it's not a big stretch to say that Lucas is entering Uwe Boll territory. Amen.   The Frank Darabont thing is HUGE. It's awful to imagine how great that movie could've been.

[Choose/the/light]

I thought it was a pretty cool movie

[DiscipleofLerxst]

QUOTE (Storm Shadow @ May 26 2008, 08:28 AM)

We're all on a message board for Rush, the nerd insult doesn't work.

GOSPEL!!!!!

 

FREAKIN' GOSPEL!!!!!!

[goose]

QUOTE (Choose/the/light @ May 26 2008, 01:37 PM)

I thought it was a pretty cool movie

Saw it today, and I'm with you. I went in with the lowest of expectations and my twelve year old daughter, which made every godd part of the film special. To me, it was standard Indy Jones fare, complete with drawn-out chase scenes, implausible fight scenes, and a bit of history thrown in. It is what it is - and this installment was much better than the second, Temple of Doom nonsense.

 

 

 

Spoiler alert!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some have complained about the alien thing, but as a kid I was a Chariots of the Gods fan, so I enjoyed this. The ending was hokey, but wasn't the ending in the original "Ark" equally absurd? The "Crusade" ending certainly was. I didn't find extraterrestrail phenomenon as displayed any less unbelievable than the silly power of God stuff they sold in 1 & 3.

 

The scenery was great, the villain is fun to watch ( ) and Harrison did what he was supposed to do. I'd recommend it to anyone with a sense of reason regarding this genre - suspend your disbelief and enjoy the ride!

 

[nimagraven]

You have a point with that. I watched Ark the other week, when I got to the end I was like, "Well, what was the damn point in that then?"

 

You know, I was having an argument with my friend who was adamant that he saw a documentary with Spielberg on Saturday saying he didn't want to do it. I had to explain over and over that the film was in development hell for 20 years cos the script never satisfied both men.

 

He still didn't believe me. Oh well.

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (goose @ May 27 2008, 12:25 AM)

QUOTE (Choose/the/light @ May 26 2008, 01:37 PM) I thought it was a pretty cool movie Saw it today, and I'm with you. I went in with the lowest of expectations and my twelve year old daughter, which made every godd part of the film special. To me, it was standard Indy Jones fare, complete with drawn-out chase scenes, implausible fight scenes, and a bit of history thrown in. It is what it is - and this installment was much better than the second, Temple of Doom nonsense.       Spoiler alert!!!!                   Some have complained about the alien thing, but as a kid I was a Chariots of the Gods fan, so I enjoyed this. The ending was hokey, but wasn't the ending in the original "Ark" equally absurd? The "Crusade" ending certainly was. I didn't find extraterrestrail phenomenon as displayed any less unbelievable than the silly power of God stuff they sold in 1 & 3.   The scenery was great, the villain is fun to watch ( ) and Harrison did what he was supposed to do. I'd recommend it to anyone with a sense of reason regarding this genre - suspend your disbelief and enjoy the ride!   QUOTE I went in with the lowest of expectations   To enjoy this movie that's what you pretty much have to do. I refuse to lower my standards for anything ever.   QUOTE but as a kid I was a Chariots of the Gods fan   Which was written by Von Daniken when he was serving time for fraud! Personally I don't trust con men.   This to you is reasonable?! Ooookay, bud.

[Presto-digitation]

You're totally missing his point, which is to say that the premise was suitable.

 

Given the other film's otherworldly qualities....ghosts and lighting from mythic box that melt faces and explode heads; ancient knight guarding mythic cup, etc....this doesn't seem that out of the realm of the believable.

 

In fact we're probably MORE likely to have that kind of encounter than stumble across some ancient dude guarding an unproven-to-exist cup that contains the power of eternal life.

 

 

Dontcha think?

Edited May 27, 2008 by Presto-digitation

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ May 27 2008, 11:11 AM)

You're totally missing his point, which is to say that the premise was suitable. Given the other film's otherworldly qualities....ghosts and lighting from mythic box that melt faces and explode heads; ancient knight guarding mythic cup, etc....this doesn't seem that out of the realm of the believable. In fact we're probably MORE likely to have that kind of encounter than stumble across some ancient dude guarding an unproven-to-exist cup that contains the power of eternal life. Dontcha think?

What I find cute is that most people who believe in UFOs and space aliens consider themselves to be reasonable. However, if you go and examine the "evidence" of aliens visiting Earth critically, logically, and reasonably (like I have), you find that the "evidence" is, at best, anecdotal, and those who choose to believe in aliens are basically doing so from the standpoint of faith. When you have solid, incontrovertible evidence of the existence of aliens I will listen to your arguments.

[MakeHaste]

*CAUTION, THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS POST*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, to say first off, I thought the movie was great.

 

But, it did have a few faults. I will say that the whole psychic thing was kinda a stretch and wasn't nessecary, and that the story line was a little rushed in my opinion.

 

I also heard from many people about the whole alien thing was too much for ol' Indy to take. While I thought so at first, expecting maybe a quest for the "real dead sea scrolls" or something to that effect, I believe that it was ultimatley an good choice to make the plot around aliens.

 

first of all, this Indiana Jones takes place in the fifties, which makes me think of Communism, High School, Cars, Greasers, UFO's, Nuclear Families, and Music, which was all covered in the movie. I think it hit home on all of those topics with, showing how Indy would have been in those days, how old he was, and what his attitudes were. Choosing to have aliens wouldn't have worked if the film took place in the 30's or 40's, but it fits perfectly in the 50's.

 

Furthermore, I believe that Raiders wouldn't have worked if the movie was made any earlier than it was actually made, and that Crystal Skull couldn't have worked in the eighties, like all the other Indy films (no pun intended). I think people tend to forget that and write it off as another attempt at Lucas and Spielberg trying to put aliens in movies and trying to get more money.

 

I have the same philosophy for movies as I do music, as that the artist doesn't create a work of art for anyone else but himself, meaning that Lucas/Spielberg made this movie because they wanted to continue and make another Indy film, and just hoped that everyone would like it. In fact, Lucas predicted that nobody would like it, and he was right. But I do like it, so there.

 

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ May 27 2008, 10:36 AM)

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ May 27 2008, 11:11 AM) You're totally missing his point, which is to say that the premise was suitable. Given the other film's otherworldly qualities....ghosts and lighting from mythic box that melt faces and explode heads; ancient knight guarding mythic cup, etc....this doesn't seem that out of the realm of the believable.  In fact we're probably MORE likely to have that kind of encounter than stumble across some ancient dude guarding an unproven-to-exist cup that contains the power of eternal life.  Dontcha think? What I find cute is that most people who believe in UFOs and space aliens consider themselves to be reasonable. However, if you go and examine the "evidence" of aliens visiting Earth critically, logically, and reasonably (like I have), you find that the "evidence" is, at best, anecdotal, and those who choose to believe in aliens are basically doing so from the standpoint of faith. When you have solid, incontrovertible evidence of the existence of aliens I will listen to your arguments. QUOTE and those who choose to believe in (the stories of the Bible) are basically doing so from the standpoint of faith. When you have solid, incontrovertible evidence of the existence of (Jesus; God; all these religious symbols) I will listen to your arguments.   We're dealing with faiths in different things and with a couple tweaks above that becomes evident.   When you can show something that suggests that elements such as the ark, the actual 10 Commandments, and the grail and all its supposed powers actually existed outside the text of the Bible (just a tad biased), then I will listen to your argument that those plots are more plausible.   Even if one could positively conclude they exist as actual "artifacts" (they've never been proven to have existed...still), the notion of the spirits flying from them and making people's face's melt, or that some living ancient knight (?) guards the cup of Christ and if you drink from it, you will have eternal life, is just as fictional as whatever you're seeing in the newest Indy film.   I'm neither a UFO freak nor a Christian...so I've no bias either way. And while I think religious artifacts are a fascinating premise (I loved the plots from Raiders and Crusade), the notion of these things and their "powers" as shown in the films are just as implausible and fantastical as the belief in other life forms.   Indy films have always dealt with the otherworldly and supernatural.

Edited May 27, 2008 by Presto-digitation

[workingcinderellaman]

I don't have a huge problem with the space alien thing in the movie. What I have a problem with is how elaborate the whole thing was. In the first one, (Raiders) you don't see the hand of God or Moses, It's just lightning and wind and stuff. It's mystical. And most of the movie was Indy stealing things and getting in fights with Nazis. The mystical stuff didn't consume the movie like the aliens in the Crystal Skull. I liked the movie but I would have done the alien thing differently if I were directing it.

[Jack Aubrey]

I'm afraid I got carried away in this thread.

 

I didn't mean to start a whole big thing, I basically only have a problem with two points. The first one being that people are "lowering their expectations/standards" in order to enjoy this movie. All I'm saying is that in the case of an Indiana Jones movie people shouldn't have to do that! We should have high standards where this movie is concerned and those standards should be met! 90% of what I've read and heard says that they're not. When you consider that this movie is produced by Steven Spielberg and directed by George Lucas having to lower one's standards in order to enjoy it is just flat-out wrong. I have tried, but I just can't get over that.

 

The second one is the whole UFO angle. My non-belief in UFOs is basically irrelevant. I've seen several movies about them that I like a great deal, but when it comes to Indiana Jones, none of the first three movies dealt with aliens, they dealt with the realm of the mystical, and more importantly, it works damned well in the context of the Indiana Jones movies! When you have something that is working for you and is so closely identified with what has become an iconic character, then why change it?

 

That's all I'm saying. If you want to like this new movie, more power to you. As for me, I'll just re-watch the first three, enjoy them, and cherish all the good memories that I have associated with them.

 

End of rant.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Jack Aubrey

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ May 27 2008, 07:27 PM)

I'm afraid I got carried away in this thread. I didn't mean to start a whole big thing, I basically only have a problem with two points. The first one being that people are "lowering their expectations/standards" in order to enjoy this movie. All I'm saying is that in the case of an Indiana Jones movie people shouldn't have to do that! We should have high standards where this movie is concerned and those standards should be met! 90% of what I've read and heard says that they're not. When you consider that this movie is produced by Steven Spielberg and directed by George Lucas having to lower one's standards in order to enjoy it is just flat-out wrong. I have tried, but I just can't get over that. The second one is the whole UFO angle. My non-belief in UFOs is basically irrelevant. I've seen several movies about them that I like a great deal, but when it comes to Indiana Jones, none of the first three movies dealt with aliens, they dealt with the realm of the mystical, and more importantly, it works damned well in the context of the Indiana Jones movies! When you have something that is working for you and is so closely identified with what has become an iconic character, then why change it? That's all I'm saying. If you want to like this new movie, more power to you. As for me, I'll just re-watch the first three, enjoy them, and cherish all the good memories that I have associated with them. End of rant.

They weren't aliens, they were inter-dimensional beings.

 

 

[Stormtron]

Are they going to space? No, they're going to the space between spaces.

 

Only modern day George Lucas could've wrote that shit.

[Presto-digitation]

[Stormtron]

Excellent review. I agree with everything, I just can't write it that well.

[GhostGirl]

QUOTE (Storm Shadow @ May 28 2008, 08:36 AM)

Excellent review. I agree with everything, I just can't write it that well.

Ditto that, man. Excellent job.

 

Oh, and I wanted to show you guys the only reason this movie was really fun for me.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/RushBabe/0522081831-1-1.jpg

 

Move over, Mutt. Indy's two new sidekicks....

[Presto-digitation]

QUOTE (GhostGirl @ May 28 2008, 08:46 AM)

QUOTE (Storm Shadow @ May 28 2008, 08:36 AM) Excellent review. I agree with everything, I just can't write it that well.  Ditto that, man. Excellent job.   Oh, and I wanted to show you guys the only reason this movie was really fun for me.   http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/RushBabe/0522081831-1-1.jpg   Move over, Mutt. Indy's two new sidekicks.... That's a great pic..!

[goose]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ May 27 2008, 09:27 PM)

All I'm saying is that in the case of an Indiana Jones movie people shouldn't have to do that! We should have high standards where this movie is concerned and those standards should be met!

Then you must hate the first movie, a film in which an average strength archaeologist/professor can simply push huge stones out of tombs in order to escape, can interact with thousands of snakes and escpae without a bite, can outrun dart guns, evade bullets, and on & on...

 

Jones movies are pure fantasy, and are much easier to accept when you're 12, 13 or 14. That's why i went with kids, so i could enjoy it for what it is through their eyes. Every Jones film has been ridiculous...and ridiculously fun (except for number 2, which in my book really was number 2!).

 

My only standard for this genre is entertainment value, and I thought it had it, warts and all.