Call me Mr. Optimistic. Amidst the early rumblings from those who had seen the film pre-release I continued to remain positive and upbeat. The new Indiana Jones film just had to be good. We had all waited so long. No amount of trepidation could keep me away from opening weekend and Saturday afternoon found me at the very front of the line in an hour long wait to get in to see the return of a hero from my youth.
Good things come to those who wait…sometimes. This is not one of those times.
I want to say first off that I can certainly understand why someone could go and see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and enjoy it. I won’t beat you up for that. I too enjoyed aspects of the film knowing full well that I went in to the theatre with my Indy-colored glasses on. But even viewed through the lens of nostalgia I felt that the film was a let down in ways that continued to become more apparent after the film was done and it had time to simmer in my mind. Spielberg, Lucas, and company wanted to recapture the magic. I truly believe their intentions were good. Unfortunately the only place they succeeded in recapturing that magic was in the classic poster illustration by Drew Struzan.
The following review will, of necessity, contain some spoilers:
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull wasn’t all bad. My initial thoughts were that I enjoyed seeing it in the theatre and that I would give it a 2.5 out of 4 stars…that number dropped after I walked away and thought about it for awhile. The opening sequence, a nod to American Graffiti, seemed to be a promising start. The film makers succeeded in capturing a real 50’s vibe that was later enhanced by soft focus and a color palette that really made the opening quarter of the film a thing of beauty. Even here at its strongest point, the film was somewhat weak. Gone was a big slam-bang opening scene…or perhaps it was just tempered by the fact that we saw most of it in the trailers. The build up seemed slow, Indy’s entrance was nothing to write home about, and from the very beginning I found the villain a bit dubious. And yet I had hope. Early scenes, especially the terrific bomb testing scene, indicated that there could be a cold war storyline building that had potential. That, like so much else in the film, went nowhere.
It is hard to pinpoint what went wrong with the film unless one lays the blame entirely on the screenplay. I would like to believe that Indy 4 failed to deliver because it has just been too long in the making, but the reality is that the story we are given is not one that would have held up 25 years ago, let alone today. Cold war aspects of the film like communist paranoia and the threat of Russian attack were hinted at and were dangled temptingly in front of the viewer only to be watered down or ignored completely as the film went on, replaced with a plot line that has been done to death too many times on television shows and in films: Area 51.
One of Indiana Jones’ strengths in all three films was the writer’s ability to take historical/archaeological ideas and wrap them in a spiritual/mystical essence that gave interest and depth to the story. These films inspired decades of archaeologists and brought home the idea that spending one’s life digging in the dirt could be exciting and fun. What possessed Spielberg and Lucas to move this out of the realm of historical fantasy and into the realm of science fiction is beyond me, but the very second I realized that this would be the direction the film was going I felt a groan building inside of me. Even this could have been played to an advantage by the filmmakers, however, if they had just written a worthwhile script.
Gone is Indiana Jones’ natural cynicism and bravado, instead replaced by what felt like a watered down version of all that we’ve grown to love and associate with these films. And I don’t blame Harrison Ford or any of the other actors. It would be easy to say that Harrison Ford was too old to play this role, but I don’t really buy that argument. Even with what he was given to work with I felt that Ford did an admirable job of injecting the charm and wit of this iconic character into the film. He just wasn’t given anything to work with. This film had so much potential and I feel like Spielberg and Lucas did nothing to tap into that potential. Instead they spent much of the film giving obvious nods to the other movies they’ve made (including a Han Solo line that I have to admit made me smile). When the most memorable moments of a film are those moments that remind you that this is just a movie, the movie is not well done.
Karen Allen’s reprise of the role of Marion Ravenwood was a disappointment of colossal proportions. Within minutes of her appearance she goes from being the feisty, spunky character that made Raiders of the Lost Ark a classic film, to being a simpering, love-struck cookie-cutter caricature of herself. Even recent acting phenom Shia LaBeouf couldn’t save this film from feeling like a weak imitation of itself. Don’t get me wrong, the actors did a fine job with what they were given…they just weren’t given a script with any meat to it.
One of the people I went with, James, mentioned afterwards that he felt like the violence, etc. one expects from an Indiana Jones film was toned down. He suggested, and I think rightly so, that the studio was trying to make a film that nostalgic adults could take their kids to. One expects a fair number of scenes that push the envelope of comfort with an Indiana Jones film. In Indy 4 the absence of such scenes are glaring. There were moments when they began to follow a path that made you think, ‘oh boy, this might be too intense for the kiddies’ and then they would pull back. It is not that I have an particular interest in seeing face-melting scenes on par with what they did in Raiders, but it is indicative of the watered-down nature of this film that they did not pursue moments like this in the same way they did in the previous three films.
I should probably end this. I feel like I have said a whole lot of nothing in what is becoming a very long review. My disappointment with the film is what kept me from rushing home and doing a review right away. Even now I can only give it a half-hearted effort and in that I am no better than those who foisted this poorly done trip down memory lane onto a public who waited decades for the return of one of the greatest film characters ever created. Spielberg and Lucas were in an unenviable position to be sure. It would have been hard to make a film that lived up to everyone’s expectations after such a long period of time. I guess I would feel much better about it if I felt like they tried. Instead they filmed a script that was weaker than most, if not all, of the Indiana Jones knock offs that have come our way over the past 20 years. With the talent pool of writers that exists today I feel like this is a bit of an unforgivable sin. There is no reason this film couldn’t have been a success.
Yes it has and will continue to make millions of dollars and yes it can be argued with a moderate degree of success that this is still a fun movie, but for me it was a film that dragged at times, was mildly exciting, and then became more and more ridiculous and disappointing the more I thought about it afterwards.
I would love to talk more specifically about this film in the comment section with those of you who have seen it. I promise not to beat up anyone who may love this latest incarnation of Indy’s adventures. In fact I may be beat up by some of you for not liking this film more, and believe me that is okay. I can certainly see reasons to like the film and valid arguments are present in some of the positive reviews I have read. And keep in mind that I was not one of the naysayers going into this weekend’s viewing. I believed! No, I won’t beat you up, however I will most likely grouse and gripe as this movie was no where near what I hoped it would be.
I won’t be buying this film to add to my Indiana Jones collection, and that alone gives a pretty good summation of how I feel about the finished product. You don’t have to take my word for it. All things being what they are I am still glad that I saw this in the theatre (and even more glad that I only paid $5 for it) and do believe that the big screen is the best place to see Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. If you are going to see it anyway, find a matinee showing and do so, Indiana Jones was made for the big screen. Perhaps my review will temper your expectations to the point that you will leave the theatre thrilled with the experience and shaking your head wondering just what happened to my judgment. That is okay. For now I wait for the next big popcorn flick of the summer and hope that it performs more on par with Iron Man than with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
For a more detailed review of the plot, and what went wrong with it, I encourage you to stop by Cameron’s site and read his review as well.
I feel exactly the same way. Part of what I loved about the other movies was that while the plots had a bit of the mystical about them (i.e. pulling the still-beating heart out of someone’s chest), they were at least believable. I felt like I was watching Indiana Jones and the National Treasure of X-Files. What they showed of the contents of the first box had me worried, the first sight of the skull, well.. it was all downhill from there. I knew I was probably going to be disappointed when I saw it, but I never expected to be so let down.
My husband and I saw this on Saturday. I, too, was more than disappointed. Once the portal to another dimension opened, they completely lost me.
After I had a little time to think about it, I found other flaws. Indy was not the Indy I remembered. Sure, he had a sarcastic line or two, but the Indy I remembered was a wisecracking, smart-mouthed hero who made you feel that he was in completely reckless control. And I loved it. This Indy was more tame, less funny, and more uncertain of himself, it seemed.
There is still part of me that can’t really believe that this was a Spielberg/Lucas production. I mean, seriously, Spielberg and Lucas! Two of the greatest filmmakers of our generation, and this is what they give us.
And like you, I could have bought into the science-fiction aspect of the story if, and that is a big IF, it had been handled right.
Yeah, I was disappointed. I won’t be buying this film, either. Suddenly, I have a strong desire to watch the earlier films, if for no other reason than to cleanse my mind of this one.
I too was disappointed for the reasons Carl and Cameron outline n their reviews. However, I am glad that I saw the film. Perhaps it is because I enjoyed the first three films so much and was determined to like this one (at least parts of it).
Saw this on Sun, and, maybe because I’m not a huge Indy fan, I enjoyed it. It isn’t spectacular by any stretch of the imagination, and it is too long. But it is okay.
I won’t be going to see it again though, I don’t think I’d even be bothered to watch it if it was on the telly, so I guess I didn’t think all that much of it.
Just trip on over to my blog and see. I saw the movie yesterday. Although I still love Indy, this movie just didn’t do it for me. Sorry, but the whole Alien thing was just too much. Completely out of place. HATED the storyline.
I actually liked Karen Allen. She is still feisty, and will always be the best Indy leading lady.
I though Shia was wasted on this role. His character was just so sullen and frankly, dull.
My son and I saw Indy 4 at a 12:01 opening night showing. We’d heard a few rumblings about it not being so great, but went in with an open mind. Both of us walked out with mixed feelings.
We had smartly watched the first three the week prior. THIS was a gigantic help. We saw how cheesy the originals were (especially 2) and felt that Lucas was trying to capture that same feel with 4. Lucas has never been known as a strong writer, especially dialogue; he’s an IDEA man. His movies that shine have usually been reworked by better writers (Empire Strikes Back).
There were some good things about Indy 4: the car chase scene, the nod to Raiders in the Area 51 warehouse, the reunion with Marion (though I hated her acting), Cate Blancett – period, the hand-over of the franchise to Shia LeBeouf (a talent that will bring the younger crowd)….
But, I’ll definitely agree with most of your assessment. The edge was gone, many balls were dropped and it seemed like the worst aspects of both Spielberg (the grandiose overdo) and Lucas (poor dialogue & cheesiness) were on full display (and I only say this as a massive Lucas fan).
Stephanie: It isn’t that I didn’t like Karen Allen and I thought it was fun that she was able to do some adventure stuff, but her almost instantaneous swooning over Indy was just not true to her character in my opinion. I wanted them to get together and I didn’t want an entire movie of them fighting, but I just found their reunion to be hollow.
Fence: Not a fan of Indy!?!!? The horror!!! 🙂
Mary: I was determined as well, which was probably why I was able to at least enjoy it as it was playing itself out even if that was a false enjoyment that didn’t last the length of my walk out to the parking lot.
Nicole: The sad thing was they could have written a story that made sense of Indy not being as reckless because of his age. They could have played into that whole thing and also could have really treated the whole alien storyline with a degree of cynicism that would have made it work, but instead they played it straight and played it dull.
Asara: I could not agree more. The overall storyline went downhill very quickly. I don’t mind the whole idea that aliens came down and had some influence on early history. Despite being overdone I still find it an interesting theory and an interesting concept for stories, but it just wasn’t an Indy story.
Tasses: The cheesiness, or what I would call the pulp nature of these shows, is part of what makes them fun. The problem is that for that pulp aura to work it still has to be a decent story, and the first 3 had this in various degrees, Raiders of course being the strongest. But even the weakest one, which was Doom in my opinion, was still a solid adventure tale with some meat to the story. This one just didn’t have that. It is interesting what you say about Shia because my interpretation of this was that they were not handing the reigns to him and that this is the last hurrah for this franchise. I interpreted the interruption of his putting on the hat as a nod to the audience that ‘no, junior was not taking over’. I am hoping that is the case anyway. We all need to realize that this was a fun franchise and that we should allow it to go away with some critical reviews (overall it is getting positive reviews) and a good box office and just let it go. It won’t be Indy without Indy and there are all ready too many (some good, some bad) Indy clones out there with more to come.
That’s too bad. And from what I hear you are not alone. I really liked the first 3, even the Sean Connery one. Maybe I’ll go see Iron Man instead.
Chris, Iron Man is a winner, if you have to pick one or the other it would be Iron Man all the way. However, as much as this one disappointed me I still think folks who are Indy fans should see this in the theatre (just find a cheap showing), not to run up the box office but because movies like this (even poorly written ones) are made for the big screen. And there are certainly moments in this film that were fun just because of what they were (the bomb testing moment being one of them).
Well now..I think all the actors did just fine with what they had… to me the problem was the story and the writing of the screen play.. and too much special effects.
I love Harrison, he can do no wrong! But ya can’t give what they don’t give ya to work with. I still can’t believe that Lucas and Spielberg oked this script. It is nothing like the other Indy movies, and AGE had nothing to do with it. I think I can see now why Connery passed on the movie.
I love Harrison (I already said that I know) and I WILL buy the movie, because I buy everything Harrison is in.. simple as that. I enjoyed the movie.. but I sure didn’t love it and I know Harrison is capable of doing more than they let him.. and SCI FI? Come on … gimme a break.. there was never any SCI FI in Indian Jones!! If this was an attempt to merge Indiana Jones with Hans Solo.. they sure screwed it up.
Harrison is capable of excellent movies at his age.. and they blew it by not giving him a good movie to do for this farewell of Indiana Jones. I’m surprised he did it, even if they did pay him millions to do it.. but part of me is glad he did… if only they let him BE Indy.
Deslily, I agree totally. I think this all came down to having a very poor script to work with…or at least their execution of the screenplay. Who knows, it could have been an excellent screenplay that just got ripped apart during the filming. Either way it was a weak story that undermined everything they tried to do with this film. I really liked Harrison in this but he truly wasn’t allowed to be Indy…not even an aged Indy, which could have been a great story. Instead his part was written more like Indy-lite! As were many of the other characters. None of them had the time or the good story foundation to be able to flesh out the characters. Instead fans are insulted by the assumption that we will all flesh out Indy and Marion on our own…that is lazy writing.
I actually saw the sci fi as more of a nod to E.T. than Han Solo and even that seemed self-serving and wrong to do with an Indy movie (I did love the “I have a bad feeling about this” line…I saw Han Solo all over that). The sci fi was a bad idea, but even that could have worked if it was written differently and was allowed to be more mysterious and not turn into an ‘aliens are among us’ story. The movie just unraveled the more it went on.
I certainly don’t blame you for wanting to buy the film when it comes out…I wanted all the Star Wars prequels just because I love Star Wars even though I found the first two abysmal (I did like the third one despite its manifold problems).
Now more than anything I am wanting another Indy sequel to undo the travesty of this one. I look at what Stallone did with Rocky Balboa…that film was an amazing tribute to the franchise and was so well done…and wish that every other film maker that wants one more hurrah with their franchise would take the time to put together a good story. How hard can it possibly be?!?!?
LOL they won’t do another.. they fought hard to get this one done. I don’t think Spielberg wants to do another. But they seem to be doing what the old Star Trek did.. Every other movie is a good one. Of the three other indy movies 1 & 3 were good.. 2 was “iffy”. They could have done half this movie with Marion and INdy fighting each other and I would have loved it more! She didn’t do “love sick puppy” well.. or rather, it didn’t fit her character at all.
And somebody please tell me what the hell was all the Caddyshack prairie dog stuff about? I wondered for a bit if I was in the right movie!!
And you are right, Deslily, 2 was a so-so film but even it had a tremendous amount to like about it, especially if you compare it to this one. At least in 2 Indy was allowed to be Indy. It was silly, very silly at times…or maybe campy is a better word…but this film was just so lifeless a lot of the time.
I really liked Peter Traver’s review of Crystal Skull for Rolling Stone. I think he more adequately shares our disappointments, especially in regards to what could have been for Indy and Marion. The whole tragedy of the years they spent apart could have been an excellent subplot to this…that is really the problem with so many of these franchise that start as little more than popcorn flicks (albeit well executed ones)–they rarely have the courage to grow the characters and after all this time it looks like the boys were more interested in making a watered down kid friendly movie then producing a true tribute to the character.
I hope they don’t do another one, this was painful enough. 🙂
I saw it with my wife on Saturday. It was one of only a handful of films I thought the pair of us could stomach at our 15 screen multiplex (that says a lot in itself).
As we were walking in I said to her – “It’s an Indiana Jones movie, you know what you’re getting, it will be practically impossible to mess it up.” I figured they’d had enough time since the last Crusade to come up with a really decent script which would honor the Indie franchise. How wrong I was.
I agree with you Carl. Indie’s success has always been the melding of archeology with the mystical/spiritual. The whole SF slant on it just failed miserably (this coming from a SF writer).
I thought the whole opening sequence looked cheap and tacky – you could literally see where the set ended and the backdrop began, and then after that the story and characters lost out to over-the-top effects and outrageous stunts that just had me thinking “They all read this script and bought in to it?”
Don’t get me wrong, the Indie movies have always had outrageous stunts, but the kind of stunts that had a gritty realism about them and, I dare say, stunt doubles actually did. This was too much and too unbelievable to take me along for the ride.
I lost it at the fridge. After that, I was just killing time.
Stuart: Actually the bomb blast was a great metaphor in the film, that was the spot when the entire plot, such as it were, blew up in everyone’s face. 🙂
And you’re not alone. I honestly didn’t think there was any way you could screw up an Indiana Jones movie either. I figured it would be more of the same old same old and I was actually excited about that…after all, it was Indiana Jones!!! Oh how I wish it would have been more of the same.
that’s what everyone wanted Carl.. and expected! “More of the Same”… I had heard years ago that Jeffrey Boam who did the screenplay for “the last crusade” had a script years ago that they turned down .. they never said why, and considering what they wound up with I wonder what Boams script was like??
That would be interesting to come across, Deslily. In some ways I would love to hear whether or not the script that was filmed was anywhere near what was actually written, but the more money this film makes the less likely we will find anything out. It will be considered a “success”.
“I feel like I have said a whole lot of nothing in what is becoming a very long review.”
I think there’s a whole lot of folks who are in the same boat – Every conversation I’ve had about the movie has degenerated into a long rambling apology for not liking it. But the bottom line is it just wasn’t a good movie. I wanted to like it in the worst way, but I couldn’t – there are fan films (lots of them) that have better plots AND better scripts. The parts of it that DID capture a little of the old spirit just made me mad – it could and should have been so good!
Thanks for giving ma a place to vent my angst, hopefully it’s out of my system now (my wife is grateful, too – she’s REALLY tired of hearing me moan and groan about it!)
Amen brother! I was disapointed in the movie. I wanted to love it, but it didn’t have any excitement to it. I so agree with you on the movie being a tease, it kept starting to become an Indy movie, then pulling back. I also didn’t buy the sci-fi curve. It was weak, with a hurry up and end it, the movie is too long feeling to the end.
Oh, I’ve got your long and rambling right here! That’s all this movie deserves because that’s all it delivers.
I hardly know where to begin with this debacle.
Well, when the Paramount logo faded into a prairie dog mound we were being warned! They certainly did make a mole hill out of a mountain.
There was only one use of the whip that I can even remember and that’s because the one good joke in the whole movie has been rammed down our throat for a year in all the tv promos and movie trailers. Half of my Indy memories involve that darn whip and he could have just left it at home because he never used it.
I wasn’t old enough to watch the first Indy movie. It was just too graphic and violent for me. THAT’S WHAT MADE IT GREAT! Indy is not a kids movie! It’s for adults. There is supposed to be just the right amount of blood. This movie didn’t have hardly any blood. The only blood I remember was the poor re-make of the scene in Raiders when Indy fights that big German guy by the air plane while Marion was actually in real danger. Just about the time when you think the German is going to win Indy unloads 4 or so really hard punches on the guy and slows him down a bit. That’s what they tried to do by the giant ant hill but even that scene ended a little goofy. That was the only scene in the whole movie that I thought was too much for kids under the age of 11 or so. When I was growing up I had a lot of friends between the ages of 12-14 who’s parents wouldn’t let them watch Raiders. When I go watch Indy I want blood. I don’t want gore, or guts, that’s not what the first 3 movies gave us.
I was just over at IMDB. Did you know that Raiders won 4 Oscars! Temple won 2 Oscars! Crusade won 2 Oscars! Hello! All three of the Indy movies were great in comparison to this crap. I dare say this movie won’t even get mentioned in the next Oscars. What is there to mention? The most you can do is just give John Williams another award for selling the score to everyone again. They should give Williams the “How to spot a sucker” award. That’s the only part of the movie truly enjoyable. The fact that you get to hear one of the best original music scores ever written second only to Star Wars maybe.
Oh, and let’s talk about special effects. Hey, Lucas, some of us still like pyrotechnics you know! Don’t you guys remember watching the specials on network tv in the ’80s talking about how they did all the special effects? Ford used a double for all that crap too so don’t say he’s too old for ‘that’ kind of movie anymore. I swear Lucas just wants to shoot everything in front of a blue screen these days. That’s fine with Star Wars when none of the crap in that world exists anyway but come on, blow something up for real would you?
Oh, and the villains. What a waste of paper that part of the story was. I have no idea what any of them were after anyway. At the end Blanchett just wants wisdom or knowledge or some crap like that. Indy is supposed to be about evil people wanting power and the good people wanting to support their local museum. After watching Indy you are supposed to find your local archaeologist and ask him how many people he has killed this year. You are supposed to actually think archeology might be a fun job.
Why in the world did this movie take place in America for more than 20 minutes? Seriously, Russians just kind of running around in and out of America without anyone noticing and yet Indy gets accused of being a Russian supporter, well, only for 5 minutes anyway as some dude we only see once makes some mention of how big of a hero he was in some war. What’s up with that? Indy isn’t a soldier and especially a war hero. He’s a dude with a habit of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting stuck doing something he’d rather skip but now can’t just walk away from because ultimately he just can’t let the bad guys destroy something important. Whether it’s something of great power or historical importance or something as simple (well not simple) as the children of a dying tribe. In a lot of ways you could say Temple was the best of the 3 movies. The adventure was about those three stones but the moral of the story was how children bring life into a community.
When you go see an Indy movie you are expecting a visit back to a certain genre. It’s a genre that Lucas and Speilberg created! It has impossible but not ridiculous. It has blood but no gore (ok maybe just a little gore). It has action but loads of story. It has humor but NO comedy. And for god sakes it does not have for any reason sci-fi!
Sheesh!
Oh yeah, and let me just say. I really truly believe that Lucas needs to hang up his moving making gloves.
He is completely done. He should never make another movie as long as he lives.
He has had two really great ideas and has only delivered 6 out of 9 movies well.
His head has gotten too big for his pen.
Well said James. I couldn’t agree more.
And again, Carl, I agree with you. The Caddyshack prairie dog inserts were so juvenile and out of place in an Indy movie.
The first time it might have been forgivable as just some misplaced humor. But they did it to death, and when it’s not funny the first time, it sure ain’t funny the third or fourth time.
Just appalling.
I saw it last Friday and wrote about it as well.
I feel like it could have been so much better had they dropped either the Russians or the Central America pieces. I could really have seen a Temple of Doom type story where Indy helps out the Mayan descendants. They could have kept the alien stuff even.
James: I’m not sure you are being very clear about how you feel. Are you saying you didn’t like it? 😉
ha, good comments, and you were right–I think your comment is longer than my post! All the problems you mentioned were there in spades and many more besides. This movie was so far from what made the first 3 enjoyable that the more I think about it the less I want it to be classed in the Indy oeuvre. I think you are spot on with your criticisms of the film. Cracks me up that you wrote so much though…making up for all the posts you miss? 🙂
Melanie: I’ll be coming over to check out what you had to say.
Carrie: I really wanted to like it too. I was one of the ones defending it before the movie came out and now all I can do is shake my head and walk away.
Ken: you are indeed correct, sir, it really was a poorly done film. It wasn’t good by film standards let alone passionate Indy fans’ standards.
Carl thanks for such a thoughtful review. I haven’t decided whether to go and see it yet, but was interested in what one of our best film reviewers over here said, which was that the more you had invested in the film as an Indy fan the more disappointed you were likely to be. He then went on to say that it wasn’t terrible, so damned with faint praise all round.
It’s disappointing to hear that it wasn’t very good, but I hadn’t been planning to watch it in a theatre anyway – I should probably pass along your review to friends who are.
Would you believe that I’ve never seen any of the Indiana Jones movies? I know I’m missing out but I had a feeling that this latest installment wouldn’t be the best place to start. Glad I went to see Prince Caspian instead. I loved Reepicheep!
I too am a big Indy fan and spent much of my teenage years salivating over Harrison Ford in a fedora, but I felt that for the most part you hit the nail on the head with your review.
I didn’t like the science fiction spin on the script felt the same way about Karen Allen’s role – first she’s yelling at him about leaving, then she’s smiling like a teenager in love. I also don’t understand the appeal of Shia LaBeouf – I really could think over numerous actors who would have fit the role better.
Having said that, I thought the action sequences were good and there were some funny one liners in the film and all in all I still have a crush on Indy. I will be adding this one to my Indy collection, but will probably watch the third movie with Sean Connery when I need an Indy fix.
OH, and even though I was a bit dissapointed in this movie, I still found it leagues better than that train wreck of a movie last year, Pirates of the Carribean 3. I have the first two movies, but REFUSE to add the third movie to my collection. It was just horid!
Yes on the gophers, and also..
Shia LeBoeuf as Tarzan! Woo!
Give me a break.
My son saw it on opening day. He was quite excited and had educated himself on the previous Indiana Jones movies …
He hasn’t said a word about it to me – which is highly unusual. Then again it is finals time at school.
I had no burning desire to see this one. Maybe riding the ‘indiana jones’ ride at Disney World took a lot of the glamour of the original movies away for me. But mostly, I remember the time and place and life happenings that i was experiencing when i saw the first two. Now I’m in a different place …I cannot imagine the two ‘time periods’ reconciling themselves.
thank you for the thoughtful review, cv
l.b.
I went in hoping for the best, and was sorely disappointed. This wasn’t the movie i waited 20 years to see. Excellent actors handed a lack-luster and directionless script. They did their best, but, my god! you take John Hurt and make him a babbling idiot with a fetish for holding things (crystal skulls). What a waste! Shia Lebouf playing Tarzan with the monkeys was the last straw for me. I enjoyed it as a pleasant way to waste a couple of hours, but, after it was over, i went and bought a ticket and saw Iron Man again.
SG: John Hurt was indeed a complete waste, I hope they paid him well. I’m disappointed they killed him off in the first Hellboy movie, I’d like to have seen him in the sequel. And yes the Tarzan bit was over the top even for a pulp action adventure film.
Lady Blue: I’m sure those who didn’t grow up with Indiana Jones and just recently watched the others might find this one really entertaining. It was a bitter disappointment for so many of us who waited. I still find the others, especially Raiders, the kind of film that has to be revisited every so often…but then I am a big re-watcher of films.
Asara: 🙂
Stephanie: I agree, there were some really enjoyable parts of the film. Too bad they didn’t blot out the memories of the bad moments. I said that I wouldn’t beat up anyone for liking this film and that is because I know there are films I really like that others abhor…Pirates 3 is one of those. It has some pretty messy scenes and weird pacing at times, but I really, really enjoyed it. You’ll forgive me, no doubt.
Ladytink: What?!?!? 🙂 That is surprising but I am even more surprised when people admit they have never seen any of the Star Wars films. That seems very unreal to me.
Nicole: I do suggest seeing it, even if you wait until DVD. Despite its disappointment I think fans have to see it. And after all this negative hype it will certainly seem much better to you than it would have if you had seen it right away.
Bride: I didn’t think it was terrible at first either…but the more I thought about it afterwards the worse I felt about the whole experience.
I don’t know if I can forgive that one Carl! 😉
If you cannot forgive I am thinking you’ll just have to erase this conversation from your mind and pretend it didn’t happen. If it is any consolation I did really like both Pirates 2 and Pirates 3 and yet I have not felt compelled to go out and buy them nor have I seen either one since seeing them in the theater. Perhaps that will help soften the blow.
I continue to maintain that everything wrong with the new Indy flick can be summed up in one word. And that word is ‘aliens’.
No. No no no no no.
My husband, a die-hard Indy fan, was looking forward to this for MONTHS. MONTHS. And yet, I had to comfort him as he cried himself to sleep at 3 in the morning on opening night (yes, we went to see it at 12:01 am).
Lucas & Spielberg will forever be on my sh*t list for that!!
OK, so he wasn’t really crying. But y’know!!
It’s been a while since I’ve seen him so upset about pop culture.
Wow, I am certainly glad that I didn’t camp out for the midnight showing of this one…there might have been blood shed in the theater if that were the case. Tell your husband he has my deepest sympathies! 🙂
Thanks for the honest review; a couple that I’ve read have clearly just got over excited and will regret their words in a week or two. The more I read about the film, the more determined I am not to see it. I’ll preserve the others intact. 🙂
I’m in a minority I imagine – I don’t like Indiana Jones at all. *grin* The Boy finds this most aggravating, and tried to make me watch Raiders of the Lost Ark at the weekend, insisting that I couldn’t possibly have watched it properly when I first saw it. Bless him.
I am however, probably going to play the Lego Indiana Jones game on the Xbox…*chuckle*
Okay that’s it, I’m skipping this one. I think I’ll just rent the for sure academy winner, Rambo. I heard there is a little blood in that one.
I can HEAR James writing.
And I heard people saying at work the cost of tickets is ten bucks. Ten bucks?!! Do the movie reels run on gas? or corn?
Tom: I was so glad that I was able to catch this on one of the $5 shows, Tom. The more prices go up the more we are going to be forced to be selective on the shows we see. Ultimately I see rising prices hurting the film industry.
Quixotic: I could say that not liking Raiders is positively unAmerican…but that wouldn’t mean anything in your case! 🙂 I still have to shake my head in sadness. 😉 I too will be playing the Legos Indy game. Those Lego games are fantastic.
Stormfilled: No problem, have to call them as I see them. In the end this is just my opinion which most critics don’t seem to agree with, so maybe your friends will end up loving it.
Interesting. I have a feeling I’ll enjoy watching the movie, but that, like you, I’ll find it disappointing. The particular problems you note are ones that make me shake my head… watering down and neutering the characters and their tendencies should have been such an obviously poor choice on their part. It was the over-the-top nature of those things that made them so good in the first place.
My husband and I went to see it, and I have to be honest, I was disappointed in the alien aspect as the X-files covered all that territory (ad nauseum I might add), but overall, I enjoyed it. I’ve been thinking about it all week; why did I enjoy it and so many others not? And I think it’s because I’ve only enjoyed the Indiana Jones movies. They’ve never been great films for me, just fun, adventurous ones. And that’s how I went into the Crystal Skull film – expecting fun and adventure, and that’s what I got. Many people commenting here are right, that some plots fizzled out – what happened to the nuclear bomb plot? how about that fascinating box the Russians kidnapped him for? I’d like to have seen how that tied together – and did anyone notice the accidental bumping of the ark in the opening scenes? Yet, by the end, I loved the archaeological feel of the movie. It was interesting how the aliens tied together with the ancient civilization, which is a theory i have heard thrown about over the years. So, it was an Indiana Jones movie. Sorry to the husband who cried in the comments above, I didn’t think this one was that bad, either. I will say, though, that compared to Iron Man, I enjoyed Iron Man much more – it was darker, and Robert Downey Jr got to go to a dark place inside himself and find redemption. and it was funny, too. That one we’ll be buying on dvd!!
So let’s hope The Dark Knight lives up to all our expectations!!!
Susan, as I said, I certainly see that there were enjoyable parts to this film but it just was so poorly executed. At the core you are right, these are just fun, entertaining movies, but Raiders changed the landscape of adventure movies in a similar way to what Star Wars did for sci fi movies and as such it is the standard bearer for the films that followed and this one is no where near the quality of storytelling that Raiders is…and the travesty of it all is there is no excuse. It is the same people making the films and there is no reason after two decades that there should be so many unresolved plot threads and silliness in this movie. It can be fun, funny, over the top without being goofy and watered down like this one turned out to be. And I too like the idea of aliens tying into ancient civilizations…there are all kinds of fun theories about that, but it just wasn’t handled well in this film. Like everything else it had too much of a ‘been there, done that’ feel and I would have liked to see them do something innovative like they did when they released Raiders to the big screen. It certainly isn’t the end of the world that this was no masterpiece of adventure filming, but it is ridiculous that such a high level of talent would find this an acceptable finished product to release for public entertainment.
Carl, it’s entertaining to read a negative review from you, you certainly have a nice way of saying somehting sucks. I don’t like sequels, especially for movies I really love. I saw the second Indy movie, but wished I hadn’t. I loved the original Star Wars film, but the later sequels just drained off the energy. The two Matrix sequels ended up adding nothing to the original.
Why can’t movie makers just accept their hits without trying to cash in on them. I always go to sequels expecting the same greatness, and that’s really unfair. As I have gotten older I’ve learn to go to movies with no expectations. I hate even see too much from a preview. It’s best not to have any good or bad prejudices when going into the theater.
I have no plans to see this movie, but it would be fascinating to read reviews of it from people who had never seen the first three movies.
I think that is certainly true alot of the time, Jim, but I think there are exceptions. I think the second X-Men film and the second Spiderman film are far superior to the first. I think Empire Strikes Back is the greatest of the Star Wars films and other than them damn Ewoks I really like Return of the Jedi.
I think it is really sad that we as the movie going public can’t expect sequels to be great. After all, authors can write fantastic trilogies with each book being equally strong…why can’t film writers and directors do the same thing? I think part of the problem might be that many film makers approach the subject with the idea that they are only getting one shot so they poor everything into that first film rather than starting out with a good strong story arc to spread between two or three films.
I don’t know, just a theory. I do think it is ridiculous that we cannot get good second and third films out of every money making franchise.
I think there are a number of factors here to consider. Art versus entertainment, commercialism, characterization, and so on. Most readers and movie goers want good entertainment. Movie makers want to make money. If they knew how to make hit entertaining movies on every try, all movies would be blockbusters, but they don’t. I think all great movies are accidents of art.
The difference between a movie and a book is the number of cooks in the kitchen. The average person likes movie sequels and book series because they love the characters and have an invested interest in them. That doesn’t mean the stories will be consistent. Movie makers are greedy, hoping to cash in and make big honking piles of money, so they try to give people what they want – continuing characters in successful stories.
But I think that’s a mistake. I think what people really love is startlingly new and novel experiences – that’s what blows them away. Fans make the mistake thinking they can rekindle such an initial experience with a sequel.
When I saw The Matrix I was blown away. Ditto for the first Indiana Jones movie. We all go back to the sequels hoping to be blown away again, but it doesn’t happen. What we really want is another movie that’s new and novel and that surprises us artistically. If a sequel succeeds, like in The Empire Strikes Back, it’s because it has new features. But even it would have been better if it had been totally novel and new.
I think some fans of movies and books are happy to live with the comfortable, so they choose authors that write book series. This seems especially true of mystery and fantasy genre, and it’s getting that way for the SF genre. But I think if you really want entertainment excitement you have to gamble and constantly try new stories hoping to find those story novas that burst on the scene.
You are certainly correct about the greed of Hollywood, but I think we as consumers let them off easy by going out to spend money on every film that comes out, be it the next great work of art or the next steaming pile of crap. I realize there are many hands in the pot, but at the heart of any film, especially a successful franchise film, it is the creator. Lucas and Spielberg certainly have all the say in what goes in to their films and they have no excuse to not hire brilliant writers and do something well. Sure, a sequel may not capture that same initial and new magic, but there is no reason…or let me rephrase that and say no LEGITIMATE reason why they cannot come up with a good solid story without huge gaps and story threads that remain unresolved.
I don’t feel quite the same way as you do about sequels. I certainly think the story that needed to be told through the original Star Wars films was strong enough to be told across three films and other than an individuals taste regarding whether they liked the more silly aspects of each film, the story of the main characters and their quest was very good and worthy of the 3 film treatment. I also don’t fault people for wanting to tell epic stories in novels….to a point. I think better editing and more planning would allow writers to tell stories in 2 or 3 books vs. 11 or 12, but that is just me. I know others like long epic tales.
Comfort is certainly part of that, but I wouldn’t equate that with a lack of desire for something new. Talented authors and film makers make us care about the characters they create. That is where the magic of connecting with books and films comes from. I like novel and new experiences as well, but I am more than happy to revisit old friends, via book or film, as long as those characters are treated with a degree of respect rather than put in watered down, weakened stories that don’t serve anyone.
I think a balance between discovering new stuff and rekindling old friendships in one’s entertainment, like one’s relationships, is a good thing and is not bad. It only gets bad when people accept whatever garbage is being fed to them and feel compelled to like it just because of their affection for the characters/stories/authors/film makers/etc.
I liked this movie when I saw it, but after walking away, I realized that there wasn’t much to it. In my opinion, they managed to not screw up the movie completely, but didn’t quite live up to the other movies. I hope they don’t do more sequels. I don’t see them getting better, sadly. Honestly, the sci-fi part didn’t bother me too much, since really, the original movies had supernatural elements to them as well. I dunno, it fit okay for me. I’m extremely picky about my movies, so the fact I didn’t mind this one kind of surprised me!