comment #1

Leonardcoenbrothers says ...

Wow. Didn't see that coming.

comment #2

arch451 says ...

It blowed the first time I saw it (this weekend). I don't need to see it a second time...ever.

comment #3

JapAdapters says ...

Yeah, it was only half as predictable as the KING KONG "rethinking."

I was half-okay with the movies first half, but found the second half complete dog crap. I'd say unbelievably bad, except I remember the STAR WARS prequels all too well.

comment #4

gruver1 says ...

Here I am being feeling pissed off because I'm being once again asked to explain the vagaries of movies and reactions to same, so here we go again...listening? (a) Life is a fluid, moving train and nothing is carved in stone, (b) some movies gain and others lose upon reflections or second viewings, and (c) anyone who says "no, no, no...the first reaction is the ONLY valid reaction from the time you write it until the end of time" is a boring dogmatist -- someone who needs to seriously rethink things and let the air in. (Yes, leonardcohenbrothers and JapAdapters -- that means you.) Indy 4 faded the second time, and that's the damn truth of it. Some films uptick, other films maintain, others sink. Maybe the Bible gains upon reflection, and perhaps the Koran doesn't. Then again I've watched Tremors maybe ten times, and got something new out of it each time.

comment #5

Rich S. says ...

I find that as Lucas continually lowers the bar, his earlier films gain by comparison. I didn't think much of Temple of Doom upon its release, but now I think it's okay. However, Last Crusade has slipped for me, though I admire Connery's performance and byplay with Ford.

I walked out of Crystal Skull thinking it wasn't good, but wasn't as bad as I'd feared. But it's slipped badly in the 48 hours since. I think the nostalgia factor carries you for a couple of hours, but then you start actually thinking about what you saw and, well, yuck.

They all seem like pale imitations of Raiders, which at this point almost feels like it was made by someone else.

comment #6

Zimmergirl says ...

The check cleared, though, right? Wink wink.

comment #7

JapAdapters says ...

"anyone who says "no, no, no...the first reaction is the ONLY valid reaction from the time you write it until the end of time" is a boring dogmatist -- someone who needs to seriously rethink things and let the air in."

Name one movie you saw the first time and thought "God, that was one of the most ridiculous, lazy-minded, and bloated piece of shits I've seen in a long time" and later decided you liked, and I'll give you this point.

Otherwise, I'll stick to my 'If I despised the movie, I'll never like it' philosophy, which is quite a bit different than reconsidering a movie you didn't like, but saw SOME value in.

comment #8

/3rtfu11 says ...

Maybe you'll like "The Color Purple" if you ever catch it on cable? They show it every year.

comment #9

JHRussell says ...

"Name one movie you saw the first time and thought "God, that was one of the most ridiculous, lazy-minded, and bloated piece of shits I've seen in a long time" and later decided you liked, and I'll give you this point."

Jappy, you have set an almost impossible standard here, but a movie that comes to mind for me is MOULIN ROUGE...really disliked it the first time, and a second viewing about a year later I had a complete turnaround on it...

I am sure there are others, just none popping into my head...

Regardless, Jeff's point is very valid.

comment #10

BTS says ...

Brutally bad for me. I thought they should have dressed up 3 of those little CGI groundhogs in bowties and had them seated in the back pew of the church during the wedding, hugging and giggling as the preacher says "You may now kiss the bride".

Honestly -- would it have felt out of place...at all??

comment #11

Movie fan09 says ...

you walkout of this movie and weigh all their collective accomplishments and blindly formulate an opinion.

you have to think precisely why they wanted to do it.
for fun.
pure and simple.
It's origins are pulp, so I'm sure that's the thing they all liked about it the most.
the idea that you could work on a movie and push the boundaries of believability and create some good escapism.
isn't why we go to the movies in the first place?

a lot of you may think-
"but why wasn't it like Raiders?"
my guess is they have less to prove with this one.
Steven and George are pretty accomplished and their places in american cinema is firmly established.
They did their James Bond movie-probably why the first one turned out so good-and now they're back to see what they have left.

comment #12

Movie fan09 says ...

*are firmly accomplished

comment #13

JapAdapters says ...

At least MR -- which I also dislike, but don't despise -- was trying to do something different. Experimental movies are a little different, IMO, than tent pole action movies.

comment #14

Le Samorai says ...

Crystal Skull is plain awful, end of story. There is, in my feeling, no creativity in front or behind the camera at all. Ford is terrifically flat; it's like he's forgotten how to play Indy after 20 years. Not to spoil or anything, but the scene with Lebouef swinging on the vines? Come ON. Spielberg and Lucas are out of touch and should be put out to pasture, where they can cash their royalty checks in perpetuity.

comment #15

MattyC says ...

Mr. Blood Vessel-

Sorry, but no.

Your argument is the same trite, lazy BS trod out by the Lucas apologists after each of the SW prequels failed.

"They're just having fun! They're for kids! Anyone who says otherwise is a crusty old complainer!"

They should have done this movie for half the budget, lean and mean. Instead, as is Lucas' wont, we got bloated and safe.

If that's what you prefer, then kudos.

comment #16

Breedlove says ...

I enjoyed the first half of the movie, right up through the motorcycle chase, and then thought the rest was complete dogshit. One of Spielberg's worst films ever. The last 30 minutes or so is like a straight-to-video 'Mummy' sequel.

Also agree with Jeff's post - what's the big deal with changing your mind? I would have probably liked Indy too if I saw it at a big hyped-up premiere in Cannes. I change my mind about movies all the time. He writes honestly, from his gut.

comment #17

Bocephus says ...

It was fun garbage, sure, but that doesn't mean I ever need to see it again. It doesn't sit well in the mind and I imagine the second viewing would be awful. You've already had all this time to go over in your head how bad certain parts were, and the second time it is all right there for you to see.

Animal cutaway shots only work when they are spontaneous. Like the kittens playing near the beginning of Herzog's Nosferatu. The kittens were there while he was filming, so he filmed them, and it was good. It doesn't work when you cut and paste some garish, unconvincing, CG groundhog FOR NO REASON. There is no comedy rule which states that things are funnier if you see a groundhog watching them. It makes no sense. If they had showed up at different parts of the movie, it might have been a good gag. Like Indy could reach for his hat during a fight, and he puts a CG groundhog on his head instead! Or when Ray Winstone double crosses Indy for the twelfth time, he pulls a CG groundhog out of his pocket instead of a gun!

The only animal that you can reliably count on for funny, meaningful reaction shots are monkeys. But even the monkeys in the new Indy film were fake.

comment #18

Ray says ...

See, I told you Jeff.

I am glad you saw it again a second time, because I was supremely disappointed that you gave the film a "pass" in your initial review.

comment #19

markj says ...

I agree with Breedlove that the first half of the film was fun but the second half was a letdown. The action was pretty uninspired by Spielberg standards, which is weird as he can usually be relied upon to provide the goods, even in an otherwise lacklustre effort (Lost World, anyone?). The CG gophers seemed to have wandered in from another movie altogether, Winstone and Hurt were given nothing to do and it seemed as though somebody had drugged Karen Allan - all she did was stand around and smile. The basic idea of the macguffin for the movie was fine but it was a step too far to actually show us the alien at the end, especially in an unconvincing CG close-up. Definitely the weakest Indy film then, but miles ahead of 90% of other blockbusters. And isn't it incredible 33 years on from Jaws that Spielberg is still king of the box office? Pretty amazing.

comment #20

Jay T. says ...

SPOILER WARNING...

I actually enjoyed the film right up to the point that Shia starts swinging from the vines and magically catches back up with the chase, not to mention being helped out by his new monkey friends. That was a major turning point when the film went from far-fetched to fucking ridiculous. Of course, it got even worse when Karen Allen drove the car over the cliff and used a tree to lower them down to the river. I mean... who thought that was a good idea? It reeks of Lucas and I can't believe Spielberg actually filmed that shit...

comment #21

Kristopher Tapley says ...

It's atrocious. No matter how many times one sees it.

comment #22

JapAdapters says ...

I stronly disagree that this movie was better than 90% of other blockbusters. Only SPIDERMAN 3 jumps out as a big summer movie that was significantly worse.

Also, who cares that Spielberg is still "king of the box office" 33 years later? Now, if he's made a movie as GOOD as JAWS 33 years later, THAT would be something!

comment #23

FNG says ...

Good one, Zimmergirl. I was thinking the same thing.

JW, Uncle Sumner didn't fork over enough this time?

comment #24

Monument says ...

I really wanted to like this movie, and I did in a way, but I think it was more a feeling of nostalgia than true enjoyment of the film. It is by far the worst of the Indy films, it's way too self referential, CGI'd to death, and though Spielberg directed it, this film has Lucas' fingerprints all over it.

And I'm really getting tired of the Janusz Kaminski blown out highlights crap, he's becoming something of a one trick pony.

comment #25

McSuperfly says ...

Overall I enjoyed it simply because for large chunks it felt like an Indy film. Some of the sequences worked like gangbusters - the opening (sans groundhogs) and the motorbike chase spring to mind - and could easily have been from the other films.
That said, it is by FAR the worst of the series and I have a funny feeling when i see it for a second time I'll like it much much less.
The Tarzan sequence and the drive over the cliff into the tree were two of the worst sequences I've ever seen in a summer blockbuster. I was literally cringing in my seat when I watched those bits. To me, summer blockbusters don't get any worse than The Mummy Returns and those sequences could easily have been straight out of that.
It's funny, because when people ask me how I found it, I come over pretty negative about the whole film, even though in the hours after seeing it I was pretty much digging it.
Maybe I've just come down after the two-hour nostalgia rush.
Whenever I heard Spielberg saying he was making it for the fans, I can kind of believe that. because i can't see how post Minority Report, post Munich, post war of the Worlds and even post Jurassic Park he could actually have decided that the Tarzan moment was a good idea.

comment #26

mattn says ...

I really don't get all the hate for this film. Maybe people's expectations were set too high, but by my watch this is the *fourth* film of a series. Exactly what did people expect it to be?

By comparison, in these other series we have as #4:

James Bond -- Thunderball

Star Wars -- Phantom Menace

Batman -- Batman and Robin

Superman -- Superman IV, Quest for Peace

Well, you get the idea. Maybe my expectations were more modest.

I thought this film was at least entertaining. It was hardly original, but just imagine the caterwauling if it didn't have all the "Indy" elements. It had a few good scenes, and maybe a few clunkers too (although I thought the swinging on the vines was just silly, not risible), some humor, no horrible performances (I thought Ford was actually awake, which he hasn't been for a few years) and an ending that if overly sentimental was a nice coda to the series.

comment #27

actionman says ...

I enjoyed the film while watching it I look forward to seeing it again. Maybe not in the theater, but I'll certainly pick up the DVD. It was silly fun, just like the original trilogy was. Maybe it was a little too silly at times (the one part I hated was the vine swinging) but it pushed all the nostalgic buttons for me and I loved the alien mythology.

comment #28

Richardson says ...

The big problem to me was that Lucas and/or Spielberg forgot how to do a Macguffin properly. Raiders of the Lost Ark has *one* scene:
"Hey, you ever hear of the Ark of the Covenant?"
"Sure, from the Bible, right?"
"yeah. Could you find that for us?"
"Okay."

'Temple of Doom'? One scene talking about the stones, and a little coda where he says, "They're valuable, they mean fortune and glory for me." [Oh, wait, now that Young Indy is canon -- Pancho Villa??? -- he's already famous and should be rich as well.]

'Last Crusade' - "Go find the Holy Grail and your father." Boom, done.

This movie had FORTY FIVE MINUTES of exposition about these boring stupid fucking crystal skulls. And, at the end of the movie, the crystal skulls make less sense than any of the aforementioned artifacts.

comment #29

Richardson says ...

On the other hand, people bring up the groundhogs and the swinging on vines, which is a total of six shots in the entire movie. Five seconds or less of screentime.

And I don't care what anybody says -- the first gag involving the groundhogs, the Paramount mountain dissolving to the groundhog hill, that made me laugh. The movie had a few good moments of self parody [saying to Marian that none of the other women he ever met were her was another one].

comment #30

Spacesheik says ...

I can't believe Lucas, Ford and Spielberg turned down dozens of scripts for over a decade or more and agreed on this piece of drivel, choppy, badly plotted and lacking in tension; a lightweight, cartoonish family flick.

I aint even going to talk about Karen Allen and the Lowering Bush sequence. I promise I won't I won't talk about Shia 'Tarzan' and the commie-hating monkeys who managed to storm a moving convoy.

Remember the earlier flicks, you could *see* Indy in exotic locales where the movie was shot like Sri Lanka, Morocco, Venice etc - here he wanders from one studio set to another, surrounded by CGI - it doesn't even look like they went on location to shoot this flick.

And what the hell happened to the John William's score or lack there of?

This is Steven Spielberg's worst film. It makes THE LOST WORLD look like fucking BATTLESHIP POTEMPKIN.

comment #31

Stephe96 says ...

The movie started out bad (groundhogs?! the fridge gag?!?! the ridiculous 'get out of the library' line!??!?!) and grew steadily worse. In fact, I thought it was so terrible after seeing it once that I'm wondering if a 2nd viewing might at least elevate it to "Maybe it didn't suck as bad as I thought" status. I guess if I'm braced for the unforgivably stupid parts (like the fact that Indy basically stands there at the end and stares at special effects for what felt like at least a half-hour), maybe I'll be able to appreciate some of the less-stupid parts a bit more.

comment #32

Breedlove says ...

Richardson, couldn't agree more about the exposition and the Crystal Skull. I started to fall asleep when they stood around talking about the fucking Crystal Skull for 20 minutes. It was boring, it didn't make any sense, the actual prop itself looked like a piece of plastic...the whole concept was a flop.

Also thought the lack of location shooting was a major problem. The whole movie looked like it was shot on a soundstage or somewhere in Southern California.

comment #33

p.Vice says ...

This is exactly what I've been talking about folks... Jeff doesn't write a "review" but a "reaction" which seems subject to change at will (or at least pending the balance in the HE checking account). I agree with his point about life being a fluid experience and opinions developing over time, but seriously, this is less than 2 fucking weeks and already we're getting a retraction! What does it say, Jeff, that you're so easily impressed on initial viewings by films that down the road you have little praise for? For all I know you'll probably be dissing Che if/when it hits theaters.

On a different note, my take on Crystal Skull was probably not all that different than most... but then I watched Raiders and Temple over the weekend and really, Crystal Skull isn't that far off the mark in regards to what the series had already established. All of the films are pretty jokey and silly, the banter is usually a bit forced, and they bounce around from setpiece to setpiece with barely a nod to character development or thematic introspection to string them together. I think it's safe to say that any of the other IJ films would probably be met with similarly mixed enthusiasm as well were they to be released now.

comment #34

CinemaPhreek says ...

I have the same opinion now as I had while the credits rolled: they blew it. It's not horrible, it's not terrible. Divorced of being part of both the Indiana Jones franchise and the Ford/Lucas/Spielberg oeuvre it's passable, but only for a film intended for 12 year olds (or perhaps even 10).

A few moments here and there would raise your expectations that it was about to take off, then it would stumble and I found myself trying to hold off negative thoughts in order to give the film a fair shake. But then the number of bad calls kept piling up. The final straw was the complete waste of both Blanchett and Allen. Blanchette didn't have anything to do for the last half of the film. While Allen gave some embarrassing line readings right out of community theater. Plus, where the hell was that Marion spunk?

I will disagree that films can improve on second viewings: I was not that impressed with GO when I saw it in the theater, but when it showed up on HBO later I grew to like it so much I got the DVD.

comment #35

Breedlove says ...

Exactly right, Spacesheik. Didn't see your post until I posted.

comment #36

bb says ...

We came out of the movie me hating it, one friend so-so and another feeling like he liked it. After two beers at the Frolic room we had all so thoroughly destroyed every idiotic piece of this rubbish that we all agreed we hated it.

SPOILER!

Not really but just in case. My favorite part of the movie was how it defied convention and had the temple self destruct in the end while the villian's greed causes him to fill his pockets with treasure instead of running away. Never saw that one before.

Has there ever been an ancient temple that didn't self destruct?

comment #37

Richardson says ...

"Has there ever been an ancient temple that didn't self destruct?"

I'm not going to say the movie made sense, but I don't think the temple did self destruct. I thought that the temple was a UFO, and that the portal opened, and then the temple went through it, into another dimension. The "space between space".

Also, I'm pretty sure that every single Indiana Jones movie has had one or more characters undone by their own greed, so I don't think even Spielberg thought they were breaking new ground. [The Nazis, especially Belloq, wanting the power of the ark without respecting it; what's his name diving off the bridge after the stones; Ilsa reaching for the grail...]

comment #38

Chris Willman says ...

In defense of Wells being allowed to change his mind:

This is a definitive glass half-full/half-empty movie. I saw it at the first Sunday morning press screening, too soon to really hear any reaction out of Cannes. You're going in having only heard the bad buzz of the exhibitors' screening. When the first half or so proves surprisingly fun and efficient, there's a certain momentum created that makes you think/hope this movie is going to beat the odds, and even as the movie bogs down in the later going, you're still willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

But the benefit of the doubt tends to fade as you sit with a movie. For the first half of the film, I was thinking B+. When I left the screening room, I was thinking B. Three hours after leaving, I e-mailed friends that it was a B-. Right now, just having watched the earlier installments in the intervening week and a half, I'd probably go with C+.

All of which is to say, it's easy to say "I knew it sucked from the very beginning" when you're seeing a film on opening day having already read 10,000 bloggers' opinion of it and probably being prepared to dislike it from the word go. But when you're at a premiere screening, and you're the type of person who actually hopes movies will be good, and a movie does have a fair amount to recommend it, it's not always easy to see the bigger and badder picture immediately. In a perfect world, we'd all have relaxed deadlines and a second viewing.

And if you say you always know what your firm reaction to a movie is on first viewing and it never changes in the hours or years to come, you're either a liar or not much of a cineaste.

comment #39

Arran says ...

Haven't seen it a second time, but I get the feeling I'd be with Jeff on this one. The first time I was entertained but had a vaguely unsatisfied feeling about the whole thing. This would likely just be magnified second time around.

comment #40

Richardson says ...

I'm hoping Jeff will also retract his previous opinion of 'Recount', that it was balanced, nuanced, and showed both sides.

comment #41

Spacesheik says ...

A few weeks ago Wells posted about how this movie was tracking better with older folk and I was hopeful, but apparently us older folk were in denial because let's face it, we go into this thing hoping to love it but as the movie unfolds we realize it aint so good...when we leave the theater we keep it to ourselves because knowing we were played for suckers - by the second day we realize the flick really was lackluster and terribly mediocre, to say the least.

So I don't blame Wells for changing his mind, he was into the Cannes-Indy-premiere-mode high.

Lackluster is the kindest thing I can say about the flick. No edge, no grit, it didnt get the blood pumping, no rousing sequences or music -- just blah...

What happened to Indy scouting areas, examining clues and figuring *showing* us exposition or plot details (i.e. Wall of the Souls) instead of scenes like the one in the diner with Shia and Ford - that was one deadly scene, even with the combing-hair-with-Coke gag.

Where were the booby traps in the film? Even LAST CRUSADE had a few at the climax. This flick had *none.*

Why was Indy so eager to cooperate with the villain? Why did he spend most of the movie in 'observer mode' while others did stuff? Was Harrison Ford really that bored with the role?

The dark temple sequence looks like the graveyard set they used for 1976's THE OMEN with a few extras thrown in - where was the scope in the film, the transition scenes from location to location (i.e Indy riding an elephant in Sri Lanka) etc?

It was obvious the John Hurt character was originally written for Sean Connery in Henry Jones mode - Connery was smart to turn this down.

Damn this was one lazy piece of filmmaking - Spielberg really blew it on this one - I am positive Stephen Sommers would have done a much better job with this sort of material.

As for George Lucas...his fingerprints are all over this flick (prairee dogs, Tarzan Shia, Shia getting hit in the nuts while fighting on a moving jeep etc). With this movie George Lucas officially turned into Rick Berman.

Frank Darabont is laughing his arse off someplace.

comment #42

DavidF says ...

Maybe it's because we've all seen these movies for 20 years but Richardson's depiction of how the other movies have handled exposition its not accurate.

Raiders had the scene with the government guys, then had Marcus warning Indy about the Ark's power, then Belloq's whole "it's a radio, to god!" thing.

Doom had several bits about what the stones were (not ever really explaining them), including the backstory about the Thugees being interrupted by the dinner banquet scene.

Anyway, Skulls was a fun enough film, but not great. I didn't mind the vine swinging but I do agree that Indy didn't DO very much during the third act. Given his Rockwellian nature, I thought it was fun to see Spielberg's take on the 1950s, especially at the start. The mini car race was very Lucas, on the other hand.

It's interesting, given how much Spielberg has talked up the "old school" nature of the film, how people are bugged by the CGI. The prairie dog (not a groundhog) was a bit cheesy but , on the other hand, I thought the ants were great.

Having just watched the other 3 again, I'd still rank it about Temple of Doom which has a few great sequences but at least as many clunky ones. And since Lucas was the one who wanted to make that film "darker" I guess it's easy to blame him for just about every problem with these films and our lives in general, isn't it?

The man was right that you are bound to disappoint people. So much so that whether the movie is ACTUALLY disappointing seems besides the point.

comment #43

mutinyco says ...

I agree. First half is great. Second half isn't.

The only thing, however, is that I'm unconvinced that Spielberg/Lucas were actually trying to make a "good" movie. I think they were literally trying to make a big-budget version of a bad 1950s B-movie sci-fi/adventure. There were so many intentional gaffes (cheesy lighting, camera breaking the 4th wall, etc.) that the movie was essentially a Brechtian commentary on modern blockbusters and where they came from. And where they came from was CRAP.

comment #44

Richardson says ...

"It was obvious the John Hurt character was originally written for Sean Connery in Henry Jones mode - Connery was smart to turn this down."

I don't think even Lucas would've been stupid enough to have the plot be that Connery is kidnapped by the villains *again* and Indy has to save him *again*. I also don't think he would've had Indy's father marry Marian and become the stepfather to his own grandson.

However, having seen the movie, I am less sure that Lucas or Spielberg would think that was a good idea than I previously was.

I'm kind of shocked that Connery had such a bad time on 'Extraordinary Gentlemen' that he couldn't even be coaxed out of retirement to appear in the final [no spoilers] scene of the movie. That's where he should've been (that would *almost* justify how stupid and obligatory that scene was). I have this bad feeling that Connery must be really close to death.

comment #45

Spacesheik says ...

Having said all that, the biggest failure of the film was not properly setting up the basis for a Mutt Williams franchise - Shia was decent enough but he was a one dimensional character - a punk in Marlon Brando mode, who can swordfight.

Compare that to the Shia in TRANSFORMERS, his role in INDY 4 was a glorified cameo.

Remember when LAST CRUSADE came out? And we saw River Phoenix in that prologue, he had the Harrison Ford mannerisms, the physicality, the charisma - we would have shelled out good money to see him in a prequel spin off, but who is going to shell out 12 bucks in this day and age to see a MUTT WILLIAMS spin off?

The movie didn't just not do justice to the Indy franchise it actually managed to kill off another franchise-in-waiting simultaneously.

comment #46

Richardson says ...

"Raiders had the scene with the government guys, then had Marcus warning Indy about the Ark's power, then Belloq's whole "it's a radio, to god!" thing."

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean. I'm saying, there's *one* scene -- with the government guys -- which delivers all the backstory about the Ark, which is the MacGuffin of the film. The other two scenes to which you refer are not backstory or exposition regarding the Ark, they are scenes showing the different reactions that the characters have to the Ark. That's what a MacGuffin is supposed to do -- it's the thing that the people in the movie are interested in. The audience is interested in the characters and how they react to the MacGuffin, not the MacGuffin itself.

"Doom had several bits about what the stones were (not ever really explaining them), including the backstory about the Thugees being interrupted by the dinner banquet scene."

'Doom' I fudged a little bit because, you're right, there is very very little exposition about the stones themselves. But exposition about the Thugee cult, the villains of the movie, is not the same thing as exposition about the MacGuffin -- the dinner banquet scene has nothing to do with the Shankara stones.

There are really only two beats of the movie that talk about the stones -- the nighttime scene on the cliff with Indy and Short Round where he says "fortune and glory" and the bit where he shows Willie that fabric. that's it. That's all we need to know about the stones.

Compare that to lengthy sequences where they learn the history of the different crystal skulls and that information is presented to the audience as if it is supposed to be interesting in and of itself (on top of which, there is no distinction between how the different characters react to the information). It's a horrible misuse of the principle of the MacGuffin.

comment #47

Rich S. says ...

Funny on how no one has commented on what a heel this movie makes Indy out to be. I guess they painted themselves into a corner with the ending of Raiders, but facts are facts.

Indy alienated his mentor because he romanced and then dumped the mentor's teenage daughter. The couple begrudgingly reunites because Indy becomes involved in Abner Ravenwood's life's quest, and Marion has the necessary pieces of the puzzle. But then they fall in love again and realize that it's their love that's more important than even the Ark of the Covenant.

But then, after Raiders, Indy dumps Marion AGAIN, this time just before the wedding. I could be wrong, but I thought she said that Mutt was born 3 months later. 6 months pregnant and neither Marion nor Indy knew it?

Then he basically ignores/avoids her for twenty freakin' years. Never mind the fact that he lives/works in the same damn town the entire time. And she's the love of his life. And his experiences in Last Crusade show him the value of family.

Hell, Indy makes Superman in Superman Returns look like the Father of the Year.

comment #48

Roman says ...

I completely disagree. The second time was BETTER for me. I was able to relax and enjoy the spectacle of it all.

Also, they only thing I blame Lucas for is for forcing the screenplay on others and making them accept it. And after, Lucas denied Duranbot's scrpit they really had no choice. Most blame goes on Koepp though.

comment #49

p.Vice says ...

Let's not forget Darabont's words on the subject, which shed considerable light on the final film considering the script is undeniably the weakest element in play:

"The short and simple version of the INDIANA JONES 4 situation is that after more than a year of working closely with Steven Spielberg developing the story, I had completed a screenplay that Steven loved and was hoping to shoot in July of this year. However, George Lucas had issues with the script and slammed on the brakes in order to rework the material himself. There is talk of enlisting another writer. Given that George is the producer, but even moreso because of their long and close friendship, Steven is deferring to George in this situation."

comment #50

dangovich says ...

Haven't seen it yet, but the mere mention of CGI prairie dogs is troubling.

comment #51

bar62 says ...

I enjoyed the Crystal Skull because it reminded me of my first time at Raiders Of The Lost Ark, when I hid under my seat, while I watched fearfully, as a huge rock rolled off the screen and into my seat. I only wish my son could have had that experience. The movie could have been more exciting, and because it didn't make me scream and yell with fear as Indie did years ago, I predict SATC will crush it this weekend.

comment #52

Hallick says ...

If I were Spielberg, I'd do ALL of my movies with George Lucas from now on, if only for the fact that nobody's going to blame me for one single thing wrong with my film because the crap would be all George's fault. Seriously, Lucas deserves blame, but way too many people are overlooking the fact that Spielberg never had to go ahead and make the movie like this, and thus for doing so anyway, he deserves just as much derision for the results. Not that Lucas is just a fall guy here, but come on...

comment #53

berkguru says ...

all of you are focking dorks for even going to see this crap movie in the first place

comment #54

insidah says ...

God, I haven't seen it yet but everyone here is so fucking negative about this movie. It was meant to be a fun ride, right? If it fails at that, I'll be shocked.

P.S. Temple of Doom is one of the greatest action adventure movies of all time. Period.

comment #55

twicks says ...

I don't object when people change their opinions of films, books, music, etc. over time. Lord knows I've felt differently about movies that I saw in the theater when I've caught them on cable or DVD a year or two later.

But when someone does a general about-face on something in under a week, that makes me think their opinions aren't very firm (and therefore, trustworthy) to begin with.

comment #56

Richardson says ...

What's weird about it is, he did an about-face after seeing the movie and said that it's not that bad, and he no longer hates Spielberg as much as he did... then, when everybody else weighs in and says "Actually, it sucked, and I *like* Spielberg," he jumped back on the bandwagon.

I can accept an opinion changing within a week upon a second viewing, but when it seems like the change is just because everybody has now told you what to think, it doesn't feel right.

comment #57

Jay T. says ...

I have to agree that I can't believe anyone said this was better than Temple of Doom. Really????!!!!

comment #58

Richardson says ...

Jay - I still can't believe there are people who say that 'Last Crusade' is better than 'Temple of Doom'.

comment #59

K. Bowen says ...

There's no peril. There's no dread or gravity. The script has no wit or flair. A couple of the action sequences are outstanding, but a couple not as much. The film isn't a total disaster, but the script is.

The film also doesn't linger well at all. I went from a low C leaving the theater to a D. Now, I have to remind myself of the film's good points to maintain that opinion, because it really doesn't sit well. It's too easy to focus on the groundhogs and such in retrospect.

I think it's fine that Jeff changed his position, assuming it's an honest reaction, which I think is completely plausible. I think one thing that the handlers did really well on this film was follow the Da Vinci Code model to a T. By doing so, they implicitly raised a comparison. When Indy didn't seem as disastrous as DVC, it seemed like a triumph. It beat the spread, and got better reviews than it deserved. Good marketing for a pretty lousy film.

comment #60

Monument says ...

Richardson, the Last Crusade is better than Temple of Doom, primarily because of the absence of Kate Capshaw, she killed that movie single-handedly.

Even so, Temple of Doom is far and away better than Crystal Skull.

comment #61

Richardson says ...

I think 'Last Crusade' is a second-rate knock-off of "Raiders" that nobody would care about if it didn't contain one of Sean Connery's best performances ever. Unfortunately, whenever Connery isn't in the movie, Harrison Ford is on auto-pilot, a sad presage of this movie's Indy. (sorry, "Henry". I forgot that nobody can call him Indy anymore.)

'Temple of Doom', on the other hand, has one of Ford's best performances (among other things I like about it). It's not fair to blame your problems with the movie on Capshaw -- she plays the role perfectly. The fact is, the character is meant to be annoying (according to the dialogue in the movie). She's supposed to be the shrill, annoying tagalong woman from a serial adventure movie. If Willie hurts the movie for you, it's the fault of the writers who wrote her that way, and even the director who agreed to film it, but it's not Capshaw's fault that she played the role that well.

(I like her in it; if they had tried to replace or one-up Marian, I don't think Indy would be as likable, but I love their relationship in a meta sort of way, where they clearly don't like each other at all, and yet both of them assume that they're going to have sex.)

comment #62

bents75 says ...

Damn, there is nothing but hate going on here.

I think Raider is untouchable, but you're all f***ed in the head if you think this film is radically worse than Temple of Doom or the Last Crusade.

So far I've read complaints cgi animals, improbable stunts, and too much exposition. What summer movie are we talking about again?

Too much exposition? Boring? What are you all, 8 years old? Whoever said the story explains too much should be ashamed of themselves.

If the film had no exposition you'd be complaining about that instead.

Nothing but a bunch of 'ful of shit' Monday morning directors here.

comment #63

lawnorder says ...

First off: Crystal Skull sucked ass. Aside from a few classic Spielberg moves and compositions it had nothing to offer. It was two plodding hours of lame exposition, crappy sets and complete boredom. I can't even tell you what they wanted the fucking skulls for at the end of the day. Even though many of you hated it, I thought the refrigerator scene was the best moment in the film. It felt classic Indy - the rest of it, completely lackluster and phoned in. Oh, and Harrison Ford still has it, but he wasn't served by the film at all.

I go crazy when I read people trashing on Temple of Doom and comparing this piece of shit to Temple. I've always felt Temple was best of the Indy series -- I loved that it was darker and more macabre, and for my money's worth still the best ride of them all. I rewatched them all recently and Temple was the only one that held up. It's still a technical marvel and gets the adrenalin pumping. It's a fucking insult to compare Crystal Skull to Temple of Doom. It's like suggesting Never Say Never Again was equal to or better than Goldfinger! I will rip the hearts out of out of any motherfucker who disses on Temple of Doom. That's when Spielberg was still a filmmaker and not so "reborn" PC tool who CGs the guns out of E.T.

comment #64

bents75 says ...

You'd think Indy's son turned out to be Jar Jar Binks.

comment #65

Jack Lint says ...

Temple of Doom holds up surprisingly well over time, far more than Last Crusade (still the weakest in my opinion).

The last half hour of Doom has some of the best material in the entire series (the mine cart chase, the bridge scene). And it occurred to me after seeing Skull, it's the only sequel where the climax doesn't feel like a retreading of Raiders. "Oh, we've come across an ancient, mystical power that will suck the life from those who don't respect it." Doom is the only film that tries to attempt something different with the series, and I respect that.

Skull is at least as good as Last Crusade. I was honestly surprised how much of it I legitimately enjoyed. The only parts I really had problems with were the Shia's Tarzan moments, the sword fight on the car, and Marion driving onto the tree (otherwise, that sequence was damn fun).

LeBeouf will be the inevitable whipping boy for this film (Lucas aside), but I thought he was fine. Blanchett was really enjoyable, and Karen Allen confirms that her absence is what really hurt the other sequels.

comment #66

Jack Lint says ...

Temple of Doom holds up surprisingly well over time, far more than Last Crusade (still the weakest in my opinion).

The last half hour of Doom has some of the best material in the entire series (the mine cart chase, the bridge scene). And it occurred to me after seeing Skull, it's the only sequel where the climax doesn't feel like a retreading of Raiders. "Oh, we've come across an ancient, mystical power that will suck the life from those who don't respect it." Doom is the only film that tries to attempt something different with the series, and I respect that.

Skull is at least as good as Last Crusade. I was honestly surprised how much of it I legitimately enjoyed. The only parts I really had problems with were the Shia's Tarzan moments, the sword fight on the car, and Marion driving onto the tree (otherwise, that sequence was damn fun).

LeBeouf will be the inevitable whipping boy for this film (Lucas aside), but I thought he was fine. Blanchett was really enjoyable, and Karen Allen confirms that her absence is what really hurt the other sequels.

comment #67

Jack Lint says ...

Whoops. Apologies for the double post.

comment #68

Richardson says ...

"Too much exposition? Boring? What are you all, 8 years old? Whoever said the story explains too much should be ashamed of themselves."

I think you'd have to be 8 years old or less to think that multiple scenes describing and detailing the crystal skull are interesting in and of themselves. I'd prefer that that time had been spent on developing any or all of the four new characters, or the two returning ones. I'm sorry that finding the crystal skulls boring is so out of bounds for you. I'm sure you must've loved this movie because, if you're interested in watching people talk gobbledygook about crystal skulls, you'd have to be satisfied with this.

comment #69

Richardson says ...

"Even though many of you hated it, I thought the refrigerator scene was the best moment in the film."

I liked it fine, but when it happened, I was hoping that would be the worst moment in the movie, as opposed to the highlight.

comment #70

Richardson says ...

"So far I've read complaints cgi animals, improbable stunts, and too much exposition. What summer movie are we talking about again?"

I suddenly got it -- you're trying to knock 'Iron Man', aren't you?

If you are, you should probably let it go -- that's a movie that actually devoted time to the characters. If they had spent forty minutes detailing the power supply that Tony Stark created, and how incredibly powerful it is, and how everybody wants it because it's powerful, you might have a point -- but it didn't, so you are missing the actually reasons people didn't dig on 'Skull'.

comment #71

Jeffrey Kunze says ...

I can't believe Ebert gave Crystal Skulls three and a half fucking stars. What an overly nostalgic old man.

I can't help but think this film would have been considerably better if it was just Spielberg and Darabont working without Lucas up their ass (but then again, Darabont's The Mist, which I just watched, was so bad that maybe he has lost what magic he had as well).

The worst part about the film was, as I think somebody else mentioned in another post, the fact that Indy had fucking four sidekicks he carried with him in the second half. Mutt, Marion, John Hurt and Ray Winstone, whatever the fuck their characters were named. This was so tacty and annoying, like Spielberg/Lucas couldn't decide who to make Indy's sidekick from different scripts so they just threw them all in. There was just not enough room to house them all, I don't know how masters like Steve and George didn't realize this.

And I could see Hurt's role replacing the Sean Connery spot. It would have made sense (without the connection to Marion).

I wonder what Jett thought of Indy IV........why didn't you mention what he thought Wells?

And let me just say, once again, that as with Star Wars, Lucas sat on this franchise too, too long. Can anyone think of a sequel that was very well done after such a long, long time since the last?

Indy 4 is about ten years too late, sad but true...

comment #72

Richardson says ...

"Mutt, Marion, John Hurt and Ray Winstone, whatever the fuck their characters were named."

They were "Ox" and "Mac". I remember that because every character had a nickname... except for "Henry Jones Junior", who is rarely called "Indiana" at all. Which just felt weird.

"Can anyone think of a sequel that was very well done after such a long, long time since the last?"

"Color of Money" is the longest wait between sequels where the result is still at least watchable, as far as I know.

comment #73

p.Vice says ...

Richardson, are you really DZ in disguise?

comment #74

Tim says ...

Okay, I'm gonna get all Sergio Leone on you for my review. Here goes:

THE GOOD

1) Indy's intro. Loved the hat rolling onto the ground and then him coming to pick it up and put it on - with the silouhette and all. Pitch perfect.
2) The opening action sequence in the military warehouse. Great fun.
3) Harrison Ford. I thought he really brought the charisma again. Good to see him do that for the first time since... since... Indy 3?
4) The University motorcycle chase. Thought that was really cool from starting a fight with the Soc's and Greasers to riding through the university buildings.
5) The back and forth between Indy and Marion. Not great but fun to watch again.
6) Liked the Roswell intrigue and angle at the beginning... then it got bloated.

THE BAD

1) Indy's sidekick TRIPLE CROSSES him?!!! Come on. Indy ain't that dumb.
2) Too many people! By the end of the movie, Indy is carrying around a morass of characters (Mutt, Marion, Mac, Ox). I wanted to see INDIANA JONES save the day, not INDIANA JONES carpooling with 80 people through the jungle.
3) The CGI. Distracting for me. Too often it reminded me of The Mummy. When a Z-level Indy movie reminds you of an Indy movie, you're in trouble.
4) The lighting. (This is truly film geeky but) the first 3 had the same Director of Photography (Douglas Slocombe, now 95 years old). He gave the films a real warmth, glow and old-time glamorous vitality. I've never liked Janusz Kaminski (the D.P. on this one) b/c he always does the same thing with the beams of white light surrounding every character like their angels. Too much white! Makes things look artificial.
5) Car chases. Too many of them. We've seen it so many times before in this trilogy so it really became stale by the time of the car chase through the jungle toward the end.
6) John Hurt. Him. His character. His mumbling and quoting. His dirty hair. I was praying that he was really just the same character he played in Alien and that at any minute, a creature would burst forth from his stomach, rendering him useless, dead.
7) The cockamamie storyline with the crystal skull. Huh? The Ark of the Covenent and the Holy Grail were worthy. This was more on a par with the rocks in Temple of Doom, which I think help kids in Sri Lanka find their parents. Liked the Roswell idea in the beginning but by the end it was this gigantic, muddled, alien mess and I still don't know what the hell happened. Did the saucer suck up a good script along with everything else?
8) Too much exposition in the middle 45 minutes. One of the hallmarks of the first 3 was giving complex exposition while keeping things moving. This one slowed to a halt for a solid half hour in the middle without any set piece to kick it in the ass.

THE UGLY

1) The monkey scene. Shia swinging with all the monkeys through the jungle on the vines. I really couldn't believe what I was watching.
2) The groundhogs. Cutting to them was such an obvious "this one is for the kids" move. Unnecessary. Lazy. Dumb.
3) The refrigerator. At first, I thought the scene with him in the nuclear explosion town was really cool. The Cold War setting was interesting. Then, he got into a lead lined refrigerator and catapulted for miles, clanging and smashing on the desert rock only to finally land... AND BE PERFECTLY FINE! Well, except for the radiation exposure that's sure to prevent Indy 5.

ALL IN ALL

So, the nostalgia of it was fun and it wasn't a terrible movie, BUT the more I think it over, the more of a comedown I'm having. I don't know what happened. I'm guessing they were so eager to finally get it done that they overlooked the Lucas-ification of it. There was a recent Vanity Fair article about the long road to making Indy 4 and the biggest obstacle (by everyone's admission) was Lucas. He was adamant about a specific storyline he wanted. I'm thinking Speilberg and Ford finally just gave in. God do I hate George Lucas' bloated guts.

I know, I know - high expectations. But if you can't have high expectations for this movie, then what can you have high expectations for? I think that's a copout. If you can't deliver, don't do it.

2 stars out of 4. And I fear that may be generous when I look back.

comment #75

Jeffrey Kunze says ...

Richardson - "Color of Money" is the longest wait between sequels where the result is still at least watchable, as far as I know.

I concur.

Nice review Tim.

comment #76

D.Z. says ...

I couldn't hate possibly Indy 4, because it's too pathetic to hate. It's like sitting through rotting leftover storyboards from Stevie's and George's older films.

JapAdapters: As much as I was annoyed by Jackson's Kong, at least it delivered what I expected of it. [Albeit too much of it, but still...]

"Name one movie you saw the first time and thought "God, that was one of the most ridiculous, lazy-minded, and bloated piece of shits I've seen in a long time" and later decided you liked, and I'll give you this point."

I'm guessing it was Cold Mountain.

"I stronly disagree that this movie was better than 90% of other blockbusters. Only SPIDERMAN 3 jumps out as a big summer movie that was significantly worse."

I disagree, since I understood the story for Spider-Man 3, and the villains had more depth.

Rich: "I find that as Lucas continually lowers the bar, his earlier films gain by comparison. I didn't think much of Temple of Doom upon its release, but now I think it's okay."

Temple of Doom was before The Fall. [I.E. Howard the Duck.]

"Funny on how no one has commented on what a heel this movie makes Indy out to be."

Actually, I was thinking the same thing. You'd think that Spielberg and Lucas would learn, after Singer used the same idea in Superman Returns...

mattn: "Maybe people's expectations were set too high, but by my watch this is the *fourth* film of a series. Exactly what did people expect it to be?"

We expected it to be better than the SW prequels.

Richardson: "I'm kind of shocked that Connery had such a bad time on 'Extraordinary Gentlemen' that he couldn't even be coaxed out of retirement to appear in the final [no spoilers] scene of the movie. That's where he should've been (that would *almost* justify how stupid and obligatory that scene was). I have this bad feeling that Connery must be really close to death."

According to wikipedia, he apparently had a kidney tumour removed, so I don't blame him for bailing out on this one.

"Jay - I still can't believe there are people who say that 'Last Crusade' is better than 'Temple of Doom'."

Who would you rather sit through? Henry Jones or Shortround and Willie?

"I think 'Last Crusade' is a second-rate knock-off of "Raiders" that nobody would care about if it didn't contain one of Sean Connery's best performances ever."

It's also got an attractive Indy girl, a cool temple, and fun chase scenes.

"The fact is, the character is meant to be annoying (according to the dialogue in the movie). She's supposed to be the shrill, annoying tagalong woman from a serial adventure movie. If Willie hurts the movie for you, it's the fault of the writers who wrote her that way, and even the director who agreed to film it, but it's not Capshaw's fault that she played the role that well."

Fine, but we came to see an Indiana Jones movie, not a Willie and Shortround movie.

Hallick: "Seriously, Lucas deserves blame, but way too many people are overlooking the fact that Spielberg never had to go ahead and make the movie like this, and thus for doing so anyway, he deserves just as much derision for the results."

I agree, but I guess he'd rather just get it done than try to argue with George.

lawn: "I will rip the hearts out of out of any motherfucker who disses on Temple of Doom."

I don't hate it. I just think it needs less gimmicks.

Jack: "LeBeouf will be the inevitable whipping boy for this film (Lucas aside), "

I doubt it. He's not annoying like Lloyd and Christensen.

Ironically, though, it wasn't the cliff scene or even the fridge scene which bugged me as much as when Shia combed his hair while facing a sword. As Richardson pointed out, it's stupid expositions like that which felt the most forced for me.

comment #77

D.Z. says ...

Jeffrey: "I can't believe Ebert gave Crystal Skulls three and a half fucking stars. What an overly nostalgic old man."

He's still recovering from surgery, so I'm giving him a break right now.

comment #78

Leonardcoenbrothers says ...

Has anybody out there read the Darabont screenplay? I know Moriarty at AICN says that he's read all of the versions but its been hard to come by. I'd love to get my hands on it and see how it's different from what ended up on the screen. He and Spielberg spent a year working on it and both loved it, but Lucas tossed it out. I know Darabont isn't always on his game but I'm betting his version would have made the better movie.

comment #79

Richardson says ...

"Richardson, are you really DZ in disguise?"

Wow -- I must be doing something right if P Vice says I'm doing it wrong...

I responded to two points that a person had made several posts up, so I included the quotes so that he would know what I was responding to. It's a bit different than nonsensically responding to snippets of every single post which has been made in one post that nobody can possibly read, and contradicting myself as I do.

I'm glad he chimed in to show his standard level of idiocy. Short Round and Willie are the main focus of 'Temple of Doom'? Awesome. Keep it up DZ. Are you still trying to prove that 'Crystal Skull' is doing worse than 'Phantom Menace' did?

comment #80

Richardson says ...

"According to wikipedia, he apparently had a kidney tumour removed, so I don't blame him for bailing out on this one."

Dammit, DZ, you got me worried. It says that he had that tumor removed more than a year ago. If he were in ill health recovering, we'd have heard something by now. And he probably would've said that he wasn't up to making an appearance, rather than saying he was "enjoying retirement."

I would give him credit for not doing it because the script is bad, except that it was still a big jump up from 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen'. And half a dozen other pictures he did do.

comment #81

Adonis says ...

Once again: She drives... off... a.. cliff. With a smile on her face... into a tree, the impact of which barely jolts any of the non-seatbelt wearing group.

It's god-awful, shark-jumping stuff.

I can't imagine seeing it again... unless heavily drunk. Or because I was promised sexual favors.

comment #82

Richardson says ...

For whatever reason, that part didn't bother me much. It seems in league with the vehicular physics of the previous three movies. Same kind of dumb fun.

comment #83

Jeffrey Kunze says ...

"I can't imagine seeing it again... unless heavily drunk. Or because I was promised sexual favors."

I'd see it again for a mediocre BJ, but nothing short of that...

comment #84

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "Short Round and Willie are the main focus of 'Temple of Doom'?"

The film's more about saving them than getting the treasure.

"Are you still trying to prove that 'Crystal Skull' is doing worse than 'Phantom Menace' did?"

Do I need to prove it anymore?

"If he were in ill health recovering, we'd have heard something by now."

He doesn't need to be in ill health. That kind of procedure probably takes a lot out of you.

comment #85

Stephe96 says ...

The jeep in the tree...the waterfalls...the Tarzan monkeys...the damn refrigerator scene. Hell, I've seen Yosemite Sam cartoons with more plausible gags.

Another thing I've noticed: nobody is really raving over this movie, are they? Even the positive reviews are along the lines of "Well, a lot of it is bad, yes..but I still had a good time." I wonder how the word-of-mouth will affect the second weekend.

comment #86

Chris Willman says ...

"At first, I thought the scene with him in the nuclear explosion town was really cool. The Cold War setting was interesting. Then, he got into a lead lined refrigerator and catapulted for miles, clanging and smashing on the desert rock only to finally land... AND BE PERFECTLY FINE!"

I agree. And yet, to be fair, most everyone loved "Iron Man," which has a nearly identical moment, when Downey launches himself out of the terrorist breeding ground and drops out of the sky with a thud in the desert sand... a landing which would render any mortal's pulpy dead body unrecognizable. Naturally, he comes out of the destroyed iron suit with nary a limp. So why no hate for "Iron Man"? (Oh yeah, because about three quarters of it is still pretty good.)

comment #87

Adonis says ...

Oooh, someone earlier brought up The Lost World, i.e. Jurassic Park 2:

Anyone remember that that movie was going along fine... and then Jeff Goldblum's black daughter beat up Velociraptors with a gynmastics parallel bars routine?

Wow, it's amazing how bad that was. And yet that poster was right: Indy 4 does make Lost World look like Battleship Potempkin.

comment #88

Adonis says ...

Chris,

That was the very first thing I said to my girlfriend leaving the theatre about Iron Man! I went, 'What the fuck? ' Just shoots hundreds of feet in a metal suit which crumples like a small plane on impact, and Downey just stands up... :)

comment #89

D.Z. says ...

Adonis: "and then Jeff Goldblum's black daughter beat up Velociraptors with a gynmastics parallel bars routine?"

Been a while since I seen it, but I guess Stevie's a closet Gymkata fan.

comment #90

knightrider76 says ...

Here's my two cents:

1) The film had a horrible story (blame Lucas) and a horrible screenplay (blame Koepp). But one thing struck me that left a smile on my face: SPIELBERG CAN STILL DIRECT. The guy is still a master at composition and staging. The opening sequence, the bike chase, the jungle chase...all spectacularly directed. And it's a mark of a good director to make the most out of his cast (Ford, LeBeouf and especially Blanchett in particular.

2) Karen Allen annoyed me. She had a useless part coupled with horrible acting. Definitely a weak point. Underdeveloped character. I mean, so was Blanchett's part in retrospect, but Blanchett pushed the acting to pulpy campy levels it was delicious to watch her.

3) What's up with the CGI monkeys and the CGI prairie dogs??!?!?

4) ALIENS DO NOT BELONG IN AN INDIANA JONES MOVIE. Enough said.

Anyways, again, excellent direction by Speilberg.

comment #91

messiahcomplexio says ...

As for a movie that improved for me on second viewing. Count me among those who were left cold by the big lebowski the first time around, only too catch it on cable years later and grow to love it.

As for Indy...

From my perspective, you might as well called it, Indiana Jones and the quest for peace. Bad bad bad.

Direction was almost a career worst for spielberg. The opening with the kids driving along side the army trucks was great, then the direction just seemed to get lazier and lazier. The framing got sloppier, the editing got choppier, the exposition got more tedious. It was like watching a sprinter try to run a marathon. The movie just seemed to run out of gas.

And they kept reminding me of stories I'd actually have liked to see. Indy in World War 2. Sweet!

Indy on a trip down the amazon, awesome.

And that double, triple agent stuff with the side kick was truly lame.
And Karen Allen was awful! "I have know idea what's going on, so I'll just, smile", she seemed to be thinking!

still ranks ahead of aliens 4, superman 4, and batman and robin to me, so its got that going for it, which is nice.

comment #92

gruver1 says ...

Wells to those who are under an impression I flipped my position: What I said yesterday is that it went down in estimation upon the second viewing. I didn't do an about-friggin'-face -- I said it felt like less of a film the second time. The English language does provide for exactitude if you choose to use or interpret it correctly. That seems to be a burden and a problem for some of you.

Here's part of what I said in Cannes....

"It's a superficial thrill ride, this movie -- more of an out-and-out comedy with thrills than a solid adventure thriller with sly, wink-wink humor, which is how I always regarded Raiders of the Lost Ark.

"[This is] certainly okay or good enough, but Indy 4 doesn't have the stuffings of a great adventure film. I didn't go into this thing expecting something by Euripides, but it would have been that much better if they'd faked just a little personal or thematic weight -- the old traditional "who I am and what I really need" stuff -- and thrown it in for good measure.

"Truth be told, a lot of the action is outlandish. But that's the fun of it also.

"My ideal version of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull would be (a) just as beautifully shot, choreographed and CGI'ed as the film everyone just saw, but (b) grittier and snarlier with a stronger investment in good old classic machismo.

"Alas, Spielberg & Co. have decided, as far as (b) is concerned, on a lighter, more frolicsome tone -- lots of eye-filling thrills and acrobatic derring-do but with an almost cartoonish emphasis on slapstick goofery. (Although this is delivered with great snap and panache.)

"The tone is a little less 'classic Indy' and a little more (this dates me, I realize) Tom and Jerry.

"It's a very high-energy, high-gloss, big-whoosh entertainment and enjoyable as hell for everyone except the crab-heads. That said, the truth is that I'm partly one of those crab-heads. I wanted more than what I was given. Maybe the word for my attitude is 'greedy' or 'demanding.'

"Bottom line: it's not the equal of Raiders of the Lost Ark or, frankly, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. (The more times I watch that film, the better it seems.) But it's better than Temple of Doom, and that, at least, is a welcome thing."

comment #93

lar8 says ...

Take it easy Wells. I for one am glad you came around, because man was I disappointed by Indy 4. The SW prequels all look like they were made in a candy store, and so did this.

No grit. No balls. The comedic elements used to be a release after an attack of dread (as was mentioned before). Now Spielberg assumes that Indy is a slapstick comedy with some action pieces and a macguffin thrown in to tie things together.

Ford showed up, came to play and was given nothing. Damn Spielberg for caving to Lucas on even making this pile of crap. They forgot what set apart Indy from other CGI-fests. What a letdown.

comment #94

Adonis says ...

You know what I find really ironic? Remember when Wells said that fighting and violence needs to be more "realistic" and "gritty" in a post last week? And then quoted Harrison Ford?

Well the violence in Indiana Jones is about as farcical as it comes.

comment #95

Richardson says ...

""Are you still trying to prove that 'Crystal Skull' is doing worse than 'Phantom Menace' did?"

Do I need to prove it anymore?"

DZ, I would *love* to see you keep trying.

Here, this should help you:
'Indiana Jones' 5 day total [Thurs - Mon]: $151,958,445
'Phantom Menace' 5 day total [Wed - Sun]: $105,661,237
adjusted for inflation, 1999 - 2008: $133,878,969.88
'Phantom Menace' 6 day total [Wed - Mon]: $147,666,178.20

So, now, please continue to try to justify your previous statement that (1) 'Crystal Skull' was doing worse business than 'Phantom Menace' (you actually compared it to 'Mission: Impossible 3' grosses), and (2) that 'Indy' wouldn't gross more than $180 mil, total, worldwide.

comment #96

Richardson says ...

Sorry, that 6 day total was adjusted for inflation (because DZ always says "No, you have to adjust for inflation" even though he doesn't know what it means or how to do it). The unadjusted 6 day total for 'Phantom Menace' is $116,542,509.

comment #97

Bocephus says ...

"You know what I find really ironic? Remember when Wells said that fighting and violence needs to be more "realistic" and "gritty" in a post last week? And then quoted Harrison Ford?

Well the violence in Indiana Jones is about as farcical as it comes."

That's because the press junket interviews for this film were full of out-right lies. Classic bait-and-switch, we were promised a good old fashioned Indy romp, a tribute to pulp serials, and what we got was a Stephen Sommers movie. Crystal Skulls was just Raiders of the Lost Ark with ugly coats of Star Wars Prequel and Kaminski Haze painted on.

comment #98

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "'Indiana Jones' 5 day total [Thurs - Mon]: $151,958,445 'Phantom Menace' 5 day total [Wed - Sun]: $105,661,237
adjusted for inflation, 1999 - 2008: $133,878,969.88"

Phantom Menace was also released on fewer screens than Indy 4.

"that 'Indy' wouldn't gross more than $180 mil, total, worldwide."

It still costs $250 million with its budget and P+A, so unless it doubles that money next weekend, I'll technically be correct.

comment #99

Richardson says ...

DZ - I'm not letting you get away with that lie. I'm just going to cut-and-paste your original statement, to show conclusively that you are not only wrong, but are the worst kind of wrong -- a fucking idiot who can't ever admit that he was wrong. Which is amazing, because you have never posted a single thing on this website which was accurate. The problem is, you always try to weasel your way out of what you said so that you can pretend you weren't wrong.

Here are a few choice quotes which I'm sure you will now claim are correct due to some interpretation of the words which doesn't involve English:
"If Rambo 4 can't make the big world-wide bucks it used to, the same will be the case for Indy 4. The last Die Hard had to be about hackers for people to care."
"I'm wrong here, and yet it's already doing worse than Phantom Menace?"
[what will the movie gross?]
"I imagine $180 million, and that's being generous."
"It might be a smaller fanbase than SW, but theoretically, we should be seeing numbers in the direction of Phantom Menace, not MI3."

And also:
"Technically, adjusted for inflation, the least popular in the series would be Attack of the Clones. And even The Last Crusade would kick its arse, if you use modern-day totals."
'Attack of the Clones' adjusted to 2007 = $354,890,087.34
'Last Crusade' adjusted to 2007 = $341,435,488.50

Every one of those statements is completely anti-factual bullshit. Please PLEASE continue to defend them -- I seriously love reading your posts, because I (limited by the fact that I have a human brain) am consistently astounded by how much you bend to avoid simply saying, "Yeah, I was wrong."

You'd think somebody who's wrong 100% of the time would be used to admitting it once in a while.

comment #100

Richardson says ...

"Phantom Menace was also released on fewer screens than Indy 4."

I also love the fact that you chose to compare it to 'Phantom Menace' and 'MI 3', and when I point out that it's beating 'MI 3' you say, "Oh, that's because it was a different weekend" and it's beating Phantom Menace "because it's on more screens."

You're the person who chose to make the comparison, and to compare them inaccurately in order to prove Indy is a failure. I'm just pointing out that, even by your own standard [and, yes, I maintain that saying that if a movie doesn't have the same opening day grosses as the 5th most successful movie of all time, it's a failure, is a warped standard], the movie is not a failure.

I know that you will respond to this, and I know that your response will be hilarious, yet I am on the edge of my seat because I have no idea what idiocy will come out of your fingers next.

comment #101

Richardson says ...

And, yes, I realize that MDOC actually meant net profit when he said gross, which is inaccurate though reasonable within the parlance of our times. But the term was defined within the question, where "Da Vinci code grossed $217 mil". So, if you were going to use the dodge that you meant net, not gross, you should've said it at the time.

Sorry, I just didn't want you to waste your time flailing in that direction.

comment #102

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "If Rambo 4 can't make the big world-wide bucks it used to, the same will be the case for Indy 4."

That still technically stands as accurate.

"The last Die Hard had to be about hackers for people to care."

And that's relevant, because...?

"I imagine $180 million, and that's being generous."

That's not worldwide, though.

"Technically, adjusted for inflation, the least popular in the series would be Attack of the Clones. And even The Last Crusade would kick its arse, if you use modern-day totals."
'Attack of the Clones' adjusted to 2007 = $354,890,087.34
'Last Crusade' adjusted to 2007 = $341,435,488.50"

Last Crusade grossed $480 million.

'"and 'MI 3', and when I point out that it's beating 'MI 3' you say, "Oh, that's because it was a different weekend"'

MI3 cost less money relative to its gross than Indy 4, but was still considered a disappointment. Indy 4's a helluva lot more expensive, and hasn't bridged that gap.

comment #103

Richardson says ...

If you have to qualify your statements after the fact in order to bridge the gap between them and accuracy, then the statements were inaccurate to begin with.

"That still technically stands as accurate."

I love you, DZ. Promise me you'll never try to think or learn or anything. You're perfect. It's just *reality* that's wrong.

"And that's relevant, because...?"

I left it in the quote to complete your thought because it's *that* ridiculous.

"That's not worldwide, though."

Oh, in that case, you WERE right. Indy couldn't possibly make *another* $25 mil in the US.

"MI3 cost less money relative to its gross than Indy 4, but was still considered a disappointment. Indy 4's a helluva lot more expensive, and hasn't bridged that gap."

That has nothing to do with the direction of the numbers. If you had wanted what you said to mean what you're saying now, you should've said it then.

Nice try, though. You have yet to disappoint.

comment #104

Richardson says ...

I'd also like to point out that *you* brought up the idea that the third Indy movie had significantly outgrossed the fifth Star Wars movies to show that, even though that was the only Indy movie which had outgrossed any Star Wars movie, it was there for reasonable to compare 'Crystal Skull's grosses to 'Phantom Menace', the #5 movie of all-time.

Fine. I'll abandon the point; it is *totally* reasonable to compare the two as you were. You have won that point, and been allowed to set the standard by which 'Crystal Skull' is a failure, at least for this conversation.

Since I already proved above that 'Crystal Skull' is outgrossing 'Phantom Menace' in every measureable way, YOU ARE STILL WRONG.

I love that I can count on you to not let this go; you still haven't admitted that 'Transformers' was a hit because you predicted it wouldn't be.

comment #105

D.Z. says ...

Um, I've said TF was a hit plenty of times after it was established as such.

comment #106

Richardson says ...

last week you were talking about how Michael Bay had made a mistake with 'Transformers' by casting a non-star (and comparing it to Michael Bay casting a movie he was never attached to).

comment #107

insidah says ...

who cares about box office - the movie is a creative failure. word of mouth will kill it in two weekends. it will not live to have a good reputation once the hype has died down. we will always have raiders, doom and crusade. this movie will never be canon as far as i'm concerned. it belongs on some dvd rental shelf with that shitty young indy series...

comment #108

twicks says ...

And Jeff, I don't think Lucas is entirely to blame here...from what I've read, his contributions were the "Atomic Age" '50s stuff (one of the few things that worked about the film). And he insisted on the crystal skulls/aliens, which I don't have a huge problem with.

I blame Spielberg for insisting on bringing Marion back and failing to rekindle any sparks or emotional heat...and Ford, for never really getting back into his "Indy" groove. I was surprised at his poor performance, especially when most of the reviews seemed to single him out for praise.

comment #109

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: I said Prince of Persia, not TF.

comment #110

opopol says ...

Hundreds of links of london jewellery in stock,Free Gift Wrapping,Complete links of london jewellery collection,including necklaces,bracelets,earrings.

comment #111

affiliatesreview says ...

really good post :) Thank you
Best regards!
----------------
Free pc games
Affiliate review