70 minute analysis of "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull"

[Neil]

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull

Needless to say, it finds problems!

[AcesandEights]

Oooh, just in time for Christmas! I'll give it a look.

[Neil]

Oooh, just in time for Christmas! I'll give it a look.

Of course some people will think it's being too picky, but none-the-less it is quite funny at times :)

Personally, I think I feeling are well know about this film, I think it pretty much hits the nail on the head... The film is OK, but has too many flaws.

[bassman]

I didn't find it as funny as the videos for the Star Wars prequels. It was also mainly petty complaints. Most of the time I was thinking, "Really?....you're going to complain about that?". One that springs to mind is murder. I mean....really? Is that something you took away from the first three films? He's really reaching for things to complain about...

[AcesandEights]

I didn't find it as funny as the videos for the Star Wars prequels. It was also mainly petty complaints. Most of the time I was thinking, "Really?....you're going to complain about that?". One that springs to mind is murder. I mean....really? Is that something you took away from the first three films? He's really reaching for things to complain about...

Well most 'bitch lists' ultimately veer into pettiness (see all the ones posted on these boards, they're all a little petty at times) and if they did 70 minutes, well hell you know it's going to have t be petty right off the bat. I think it's part of the entertainment value and part trying to justify the negative premise they've set.

[bassman]

There's no doubt that the fanboy bitch list is surrounded by pettiness, but if you're going to make a list(70 minutes, no less), at least have more valid than invalid arguments. Most of what this guy complains about isn't a real argument, just arduous nitpicking.

In short, the flick isn't perfect. None of the Raiders films are. Get off your high horse and at least TRY to enjoy it. They're mindless adventure films!!

That was always Kingdom's largest obstacle - Fans expected and wanted it to fail....

[shootemindehead]

I dunno. I agreed with a lot of what he had to say. Over all, it's a stupid and unnecessary film.

But, really, 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is the only truly great Indiana Jones film. The rest could never have been made an nobody would have missed them.

[Neil]

They're mindless adventure films!!

'Mindless?' Really? I'd actually suggest they're quite intelligent really... Sure the plots aren't super-complicated, but the film making and story telling is done so well that it just makes the films look simple, which I don't think they are.

-- -------- Post added at 09:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 AM ----------


I dunno. I agreed with a lot of what he had to say. Over all, it's a stupid and unnecessary film.

But, really, 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is the only truly great Indiana Jones film. The rest could never have been made an nobody would have missed them.

I'd have missed II & III... Especially II. :)

[EvilNed]

That was always Kingdom's largest obstacle - Fans expected and wanted it to fail....

And it did. It was boring and dull, a pretty big problem for an Indiana Jones film.

But to be honest, I really dislike Part 3 as well. The one with Sean Connery. That's the one where the silliness begins that creeps into Part 4. So I don't think it has so much to do with the times, but rather that Spielberg and Lucas shifted focus after Part 1 and 2, which are the only good ones.

[Neil]

And it did. It was boring and dull, a pretty big problem for an Indiana Jones film.

But to be honest, I really dislike Part 3 as well. The one with Sean Connery. That's the one where the silliness begins that creeps into Part 4. So I don't think it has so much to do with the times, but rather that Spielberg and Lucas shifted focus after Part 1 and 2, which are the only good ones.

I'd agree III is the least of the original trilogy IMHO. That said, it still has some excellent sections. eg: The fight on/in the tank is brilliant!

[AcesandEights]

It was boring and dull, a pretty big problem for an Indiana Jones film.

I agree on this point.

Though, I always thought Last Crusade was quite good, bordering on great when you factor in the Ford/Connery chemistry and tête à tête.

Temple of Doom has some classic moments, but was very much a gross out thrill ride and I didn't go for the gross out angles, even as a kid, so that left me with just some whip and coal car action.

[bassman]

'Mindless?' Really? I'd actually suggest they're quite intelligent really... Sure the plots aren't super-complicated, but the film making and story telling is done so well that it just makes the films look simple, which I don't think they are.

Perhaps "mindless" was a poor choice of words. IMO, these films have always been about pure entertainment. Sure, they're well made and written, but at the end of the day they're just silly adventure films made for the audience to sit back, switch off, and enjoy the ride. What set these films above the rest is the combination of great direction and wonderful chemistry between the cast. I don't think we would be discussing them now if it weren't for Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg.

While I understand that Kingdom has it's bad moments and I certainly understand some of the complaints, I just still feel that perhaps people are being TOO hard and kinda amping up the negative reaction because Kingdom is one of those "25 years later" sequels. As we've discussed before, I believe that many of the complaints made against the film can also be found in the original three films. Kingdom certainly could have been better and I do wish some things were done differently, but I just feel that the changes to the "indy style" and negative portions aren't as prevalent as some people make them out to be. In fact, I would say it's one of the better "25 years later" sequels. It definitely could have been worse.

Back to the review, I just felt like this guy was stretching it out too much. The Star Wars reviews were better executed and more of a real review rather than mostly petty complaints. And I'm not just going against this review because I like Kingdom, as I also enjoyed the Star Wars prequels for what they were.

[Danny]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/vg90793_stoplikingwhatidontlike.jpg
THIS THREAD.


It was based on pulp serial adventures of the 40s and 50's. It was meant to ba a popcorn adventure series before that term was viewed with the same scorn as a racial slur. They are ALL cheesy and stupid, they are ALL entertaining to different people for different reasons. deal with it. we out.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/1294675015244-1-1.gif


*also, i laughed at him jerking off and destroying a tv with the force of his cum, aside form that really boring video i could only sit through half of.

[Neil]

It was based on pulp serial adventures of the 40s and 50's. It was meant to ba a popcorn adventure series before that term was viewed with the same scorn as a racial slur. They are ALL cheesy and stupid, they are ALL entertaining to different people for different reasons. deal with it. we out.I'm afraid 'cheesy and stupid' comes across as not really understanding how good these films (the originals) really are... Sure they make it look effortless, but that's purely because how well made they are...

That said, as regards content, there has to be some grounding in believabilty and in fairplay in the writing. If it steps too far, then the audience will cry 'foul'. And IMHO the original, and also the two sequels to some degree, basically achieve this. Yes, there's outlandish action, and even the suggestion of supernatural events, but it manages to keep the audience onboard by not 'cheating' so much as to break the leap of faith the audience is willing to make to enter Indie's Universe..

IMHO

[AcesandEights]

Yes, there's outlandish action, and even the suggestion of supernatural events, but it manages to keep the audience onboard by not 'cheating' so much as to break the leap of faith the audience is willing to make to enter Indie's Universe..

Purposeful pun?

Took about 3 minutes to mock up, but this is my take:

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b205/DougOBrien/LeapOfFaith.png

[Danny]

I'm afraid 'cheesy and stupid' comes across as not really understanding how good these films (the originals) really are

level of cheese and level of quality are not mutually exclusive. it IS a silly, cheesy series. that doesnt mean its bad at all. I think people have gotten so used to that being a last resort detrimental insult online that people forget its just a descriptive term to these kind of flicks.

[bassman]

Yes, there's outlandish action, and even the suggestion of supernatural events, but it manages to keep the audience onboard by not 'cheating' so much as to break the leap of faith the audience is willing to make to enter Indie's Universe..


It's much more than a suggestion, imo. The first three films are straight forward, no bones about it, no questions asked, supernatural in nature. And they're not subtle about it in any way. I mean....Ghosts coming from an ancient piece of stone and having the ability to melt/explode one's head, black magic with the ability to rip out hearts as the person still lives, and a cup that provides ever lasting life? I guess it all depends on the viewer's opinion, but I see nothing more believable regarding the artifacts in the first films compared to Kingdom. In fact, visitors from outer space are probably the most believable supernatural thing in the series. Much more so than ghosts, powerful tablets, curses, and magical friggin cups, imo.

As I said, it's all down to each viewer's individual opinion but I really am baffled whenever I hear people say the artifacts and supernatural occurances in the first three films are somehow more believable than extraterrestrial life visiting the earth....

[Danny]

As I said, it's all down to each viewer's individual opinion but I really am baffled whenever I hear people say the artifacts and supernatural occurances in the first three films are somehow more believable than extraterrestrial life visiting the earth....

one they saw as a child and it retains the fond nostalgia of such a viewing, the other is seen with cold, stark adult eyes. same shit different day makes a big difference. especially when its post phantom menace and associated with the old bullfrog of skywalker ranch.

[Neil]

level of cheese and level of quality are not mutually exclusive. it IS a silly, cheesy series. that doesnt mean its bad at all. I think people have gotten so used to that being a last resort detrimental insult online that people forget its just a descriptive term to these kind of flicks.

Maybe so, but unless you explain it, simply describing something as "silly and cheesy" doesn't seem to set the bar very high.

The first Indiana Jones films is wonderfully crafted flick, and IMHO the two sequels aren't too far behind really.

-- -------- Post added at 09:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------


It's much more than a suggestion, imo. The first three films are straight forward, no bones about it, no questions asked, supernatural in nature. And they're not subtle about it in any way. I mean....Ghosts coming from an ancient piece of stone and having the ability to melt/explode one's head, black magic with the ability to rip out hearts as the person still lives, and a cup that provides ever lasting life? I guess it all depends on the viewer's opinion, but I see nothing more believable regarding the artifacts in the first films compared to Kingdom. In fact, visitors from outer space are probably the most believable supernatural thing in the series. Much more so than ghosts, powerful tablets, curses, and magical friggin cups, imo.

Maybe so, but it's more subtle than that. It's the nature of the leaps of faith expected: how many hoops the audience is expected to jump through, and how far they are apart. Believing in a holy relic, is single jump. Believing in an evil black magic power, a single jump. And with both of those, to me they seem fairly self contained and do'able. I can swallow those leaps of faith to join Indi in his Universe.

Jumping a truck onto a tree, with a f*cking inane grin on your face, for no real reason, KNOWING you and all your loved ones will be fine, is daft, and a hoop to far (for me). Jumping into a freezer, being blown 3 miles through the air, driven by a radioactive blast, again, is a hoop too far for me. Swinging through (CGI) trees, balancing on pairs of moving cars zooming through (CGI) forests... etc etc etc... Lazy writing IMHO, and smacks of cheating the audience.

Again, this is all my opinion, and nothing more than that. For me each film is worse than it's predecessor, but IV is a good few steps down in quality. Still entirely watchable, but none-the-less a good step down.

[Danny]

Maybe so, but unless you explain it, simply describing something as "silly and cheesy" doesn't seem to set the bar very high.


what bar? what does that statement actually mean? maybe ive spent so little time on the imdb forums but you either like a movie or you dont cheesy is a descriptive for type of content, not level of production or narrative quality. it doesnt mean good or bad. big mommas house is cheesy, its baaad, indiana jones is cheesy, its great.
Again, you seem to think its some derogatory monikor to be applied to a movie to express some form of distaste with it. That might be how a lot of folks see it in the same vein as thinking 'hipster' or 'casual' is an insult to ones character, but being cheesy is not a bad thing.

[shootemindehead]

I'm afraid 'cheesy and stupid' comes across as not really understanding how good these films (the originals) really are... Sure they make it look effortless, but that's purely because how well made they are...

That said, as regards content, there has to be some grounding in believabilty and in fairplay in the writing. If it steps too far, then the audience will cry 'foul'. And IMHO the original, and also the two sequels to some degree, basically achieve this. Yes, there's outlandish action, and even the suggestion of supernatural events, but it manages to keep the audience onboard by not 'cheating' so much as to break the leap of faith the audience is willing to make to enter Indie's Universe..

IMHO

As regards "Cheese", there's not much of the utter stupidity in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' (I'm actually watching it now on Irish TV), that exists in 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade'. Speilberg and Lucas just got it so bloody wrong and then kept getting it wrong from there. 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' was also great in keeping the stupid "comedy" to an absolute minimum and the film works terribly well for it. In fact, the first two films are the only ones I can watch nowadays. The others are putrid, although I did enjoy the last one when I saw it. Or, at least TRIED hard to enjoy it. I've now come to the conclusion that I actually don't like it.

I loved the fact that 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' was a dark and somewhat nasty story. It was great and a worthy sequel. Unfortunately, while no. 2 was good, no. 3 was bloody awful. Apart from the great idea of having Connery as Jones' father, everything else got neutered and littered with some of the most lame and inane "comedy" moments this side of a Rob Schnieder film. De derpy derpa derp.

The sheer brilliance of the first film, though, is never going to be topped. Everything just fell into place.

-- -------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------


one they saw as a child and it retains the fond nostalgia of such a viewing, the other is seen with cold, stark adult eyes. same shit different day makes a big difference. especially when its post phantom menace and associated with the old bullfrog of skywalker ranch.

I've never bought this as an excuse for bad film making. Also, I saw the Last Crusade as a child (sort of) and still thought that was a pile of shite. I also saw 'Return of the Jedi' as a 10 year old and could still determine that it was by far the lesser of the original trilogy. If I'd seen the "new" Star Wars prequels 30 years ago, I would have still thought something wasn't right.

The same goes for Indiana Jones and the whateverthefeckitscalled. It just wasn't that good a film, no matter at what time it's seen.

[Neil]

As regards "Cheese", there's not much of the utter stupidity in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' (I'm actually watching it now on Irish TV), that exists in 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade'. Speilberg and Lucas just got it so bloody wrong and then kept getting it wrong from there. 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' was also great in keeping the stupid "comedy" to an absolute minimum and the film works terribly well for it. In fact, the first two films are the only ones I can watch nowadays. The others are putrid, although I did enjoy the last one when I saw it. Or, at least TRIED hard to enjoy it. I've now come to the conclusion that I actually don't like it.

I loved the fact that 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' was a dark and somewhat nasty story. It was great and a worthy sequel. Unfortunately, while no. 2 was good, no. 3 was bloody awful. Apart from the great idea of having Connery as Jones' father, everything else got neutered and littered with some of the most lame and inane "comedy" moments this side of a Rob Schnieder film. De derpy derpa derp.

The sheer brilliance of the first film, though, is never going to be topped. Everything just fell into place.

I enjoyed some elements of III. The opening section was glorious if I recall correctly...

[shootemindehead]

Aye, the opening was quite good, but it went downhill rapidly from there.

[EvilNed]

I agree with shootem' here. Part III sucks. The scene that sums it up nicely is the part where Sean Connery takes his umbrella and scares a bunch of birds into flying into the german fighter plane. Come on. What the fuck. What theeeee fuuuuck.

Nope, Part 1 and 2 are the only one's that are worth it. Part 3 and 4 can bite me.

[Neil]

Aye, the opening was quite good, but it went downhill rapidly from there.

Fair enough. I still like bits of it :) Indiana... let it go.

[AcesandEights]

I agree with shootem' here. Part III sucks. The scene that sums it up nicely is the part where Sean Connery takes his umbrella and scares a bunch of birds into flying into the german fighter plane. Come on. What the fuck. What theeeee fuuuuck.


I know, right. A prop plane taken down by a flock of birds...whoever heard of such a thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike)?

[EvilNed]

Did you watch the scene? Are you telling me it's somehow an accurate depiction of reality? My jaw dropped last time I saw it.

[Neil]

Did you watch the scene? Are you telling me it's somehow an accurate depiction of reality? My jaw dropped last time I saw it.

Doesn't seem that bad :)
PzE6-WZtOi4


...and surely this scene makes up for it :)
agFP9-3Fea8

[EvilNed]

I just puked a little bit in my mouth. Thanks Neil.

[Neil]

I just puked a little bit in my mouth. Thanks Neil.

Lol!! At least the second clip must have made up for it a bit - Truly great action sequence :)

[krisvds]

Bah. Crystal skull is far from a great film. Precious few genre movies are also great 'films'. Arguably only Raiders deserves that. But, come on you haters, Crystal skull was good fun. the opening area 51 scenes are fantastic as is the motorcycle chase sequence. Hell, I even liked the nuke the fridge moment. The only thing that I didn't enjoy was all that crappy CGI during those jungle scenes. Yuck.
(That Tintin film is still better IMO, there's some great use of CGi in that film)

[Neil]

(That Tintin film is still better IMO, there's some great use of CGi in that film)
Still not seen it :/

[bassman]

an accurate depiction of reality

These words and Indiana Jones should never mix.....

[EvilNed]

These words and Indiana Jones should never mix.....

No, you're right. But there's far fetched and then there's nuking the fridge.

[AcesandEights]

No, you're right. But there's far fetched and then there's nuking the fridge.

Though we may disagree on the particulars, I think we agree where it matters most.

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/295/1/e/nuke_the_fridge_fail_by_ben300-d31990e.jpg

[Danny]

No, you're right. But there's far fetched and then there's nuking the fridge.

kalima...kalima...

[AcesandEights]

kalima...kalima...

You act like you've need seen psychic surgery performed on a docu :p

[EvilNed]

Though we may disagree on the particulars, I think we agree where it matters most.

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/295/1/e/nuke_the_fridge_fail_by_ben300-d31990e.jpg

That's New Vegas, right? Good show. Infact, better than F3 if I do say so myself... But I digress.

Kingdoms and Crusade still suck my balls.

Would I be willing to give a fifth film a chance? To be honest, I would probably not bother watching it. Sad, but true. Exact same thing happened with Star Wars, really.

[Neil]

Though we may disagree on the particulars, I think we agree where it matters most.

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/295/1/e/nuke_the_fridge_fail_by_ben300-d31990e.jpg
OMG! That's classic!

[bassman]

No, you're right. But there's far fetched and then there's nuking the fridge.

If the Indy series ever "jumped the shark"(the inspiration for the "nuked the fridge" saying), it was done long before Kingdom, tbh. Jumping from an airborne plane, slamming into a mountain, skiing down said mountain, off a massive cliff, slamming into a river, then falling down a massive waterfall with three people and nothing but the protection of a 1930's water raft is well above the "jumping the shark" level.

Not to mention this fellas' particular surgical skills....

KBIdcUxdgo0



I have to agree with Danny when it comes to the supernatural and action set pieces of Kingdom. They're ragged on because they're not seen through nostalgic eyes like the original films. The new kid on the block is always given the hardest time...

[shootemindehead]

Your correct. There are a lot of OTT things in the Indy series. But, the fridge thing is just way too far for loads of people. I thought it was really dumb when I first saw it and it took me right out of the film. It was too much of a FFS moment.

The scene from Temple of Doom, believe it or not, I only saw in it's entirety very recently. Until then I thought that Mola Ram was pulling a fast one for his believers. In this instance, I actually prefer the cut version to the uncut version.

Still though, I'm not sure that people would be willing to forgive the fridge thing, even if Kingdom of blah was a better film. There are just too many bad steps in the film.

CGI...I'm looking at you!