I think it's better than people are making it out to be too.

 

I would say that it's not as bad as some critics make it out to be, it just isn't really that great either..... And, the ending just seems like Spielberg's taking the p!ss to be honest.... -_-

 

Frankly, after finally seeing this, I think on a whole the endless people on the net (especially on the imdb) who have slated this, need their head examined. Before seeing it I said I would ignore the negetivity, but I admit when I went to see it I fully expected to be hugely dissapointed, and to my delight I thought it was excellent. In a way it was probably a good thing in that sence. Overall, it ticked all the right boxes for me for a classic saturday action-adventure. It was extremly entertaining and great fun on a whole. Indy was never some thought provoking masterpiece. All it was was excellent entertainment. This was no different, and was alot better than the 2nd and it could very well be argued on par with the 3rd (although personally I think the 3rd was better, mainly because of Sean Connory).Most of the criticism seems to be coming from fanatics who had convinced themselves it was going to be better than the first three so were obviously going to be dissapointed. In general their criticism is focused on trivial things. Yes, I fully accept the ending was silly, but take that away and it is a great action adventure. There was a little too much dependence on CGI but that was always going to be the case. It is the year 2008, not 1981 - things are bound to change, and films just are not made in that way anymore, especially blockbusters. People need to accept this and that the new Indy was always going to be diffferent (in the same way Die Hard 4 was, although obviously that was nowhere near as good as this) If you ask me alot of people went to see this film with the intention of picking out all the faults and holes which is ridiculous. You could do that with all the films. There is endless things people could complain about in the first 3, plently of unrealistic scenes that could be picked apart endlessly. Luckily, before seeing this, I re-watched the original 3, because I had'nt seen them in ages, and thankfully, because I think alot of people have some completelly different memory of them. This film fitted in perfectly with the original three imo, and I never expected it to surpass any of them, but it most certainly did for me, well 'The Temple Of Doom' anyway.

 

As expected it has been a massive Box Office smash. It made almost as much, in 5 days than Die Hard 4 did in TOTAL, and it is estimated it it heading toawards $450m mark already. And it has actually been getting pretty positive reviews from critics, with 80% on Rotten Tomatotoes last I checked. Overall I thought it was great fun and think the level of negetivity is completelly unjustified IMO. Roll on Indy 5

Frankly, after finally seeing this, I think on a whole the endless people on the net (especially on the imdb) who have slated this, need their head examined. Before seeing it I said I would ignore the negetivity, but I admit when I went to see it I fully expected to be hugely dissapointed, and to my delight I thought it was excellent. In a way it was probably a good thing in that sence. Overall, it ticked all the right boxes for me for a classic saturday action-adventure. It was extremly entertaining and great fun on a whole. Indy was never some thought provoking masterpiece. All it was was excellent entertainment. This was no different, and was alot better than the 2nd and it could very well be argued on par with the 3rd (although personally I think the 3rd was better, mainly because of Sean Connory).Most of the criticism seems to be coming from fanatics who had convinced themselves it was going to be better than the first three so were obviously going to be dissapointed. In general their criticism is focused on trivial things. Yes, I fully accept the ending was silly, but take that away and it is a great action adventure. There was a little too much dependence on CGI but that was always going to be the case. It is the year 2008, not 1981 - things are bound to change, and films just are not made in that way anymore, especially blockbusters. People need to accept this and that the new Indy was always going to be diffferent (in the same way Die Hard 4 was, although obviously that was nowhere near as good as this) If you ask me alot of people went to see this film with the intention of picking out all the faults and holes which is ridiculous. You could do that with all the films. There is endless things people could complain about in the first 3, plently of unrealistic scenes that could be picked apart endlessly. Luckily, before seeing this, I re-watched the original 3, because I had'nt seen them in ages, and thankfully, because I think alot of people have some completelly different memory of them. This film fitted in perfectly with the original three imo, and I never expected it to surpass any of them, but it most certainly did for me, well 'The Temple Of Doom' anyway.

 

Erm, you're missing the point here. Completely.... Indiana Jones was conceived as being a celebration of all these 40s and 50s "Cliffhanger" movie serials... This was always what Spielberg and Lucas intended... So, this meant that the stuntwork had to be as 'real' as possilbe to keep in line with the nature of these serials... The original trilogy certainly had that feel about it, the fourth does not... Saying "they dont make films like that anymore" is just a lazy argument tbh... CGI has its place, in science fiction films, but not in Indy, it's just not in keeping with the whole idea of celebrating the Cliffhangers;Spielberg and Lucas have become lazy over the years, they've frankly forgotten how to make the sort of film which was their trademark, too obsessed with the "new toys" to actually make great cinema. Lucas totally fukked up his own legacy with that horrendous "Star Wars" trilogy, and now, Spielberg is in danger of making the same mistake with Indy... Spielberg and Lucas are quite frankly just trading on their names now, not making the truly great cinema blockbusters they were once capable of, the whole plot of "Indy 4" just seems cobbled together from old episodes of X-Files or Twilight Zone tbh, that ending is just an utter p!ss take, almost like Spielberg doing a pastiche of his own "Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind", terrible.....

 

Contrast this with the back-to-basics approach to the "Batman" films from Chris Nolan.... Tight, with some real stunts, some CGI sure, but not a complete over-abundance of it... I have far more faith that "The Dark Knight" is gonna come along and absolutely rip Indy apart.... "Iron Man" also, for me, was a better film, making very good use of its CGI... "Iron Man" however, again, is a different approach, technology is part of its very make-up... Indy is supposed to be, and was, a far more organic sort of blockbuster.... In fact, a far better idea would have been to do a sort of "Batman" approach with Indy... Take it back-to-basics, a new actor, new director, new ideas...... It worked wonders for Batman... A pity Christian Bale is too busy with those films, I reckon he'd make a brilliant Indy for a new generation.... Perhaps Matthew Fox...?

 

"Temple of Doom" only really sucks because of the irritating support characters..... :P

Contrast this with the back-to-basics approach to the "Batman" films from Chris Nolan.... Tight, with some real stunts, some CGI sure, but not a complete over-abundance of it...

 

yeah and regarding the couple of batman (and robin) films before the new Nolan films - they should have left the camp to the 1960s shows...the catwoman is this weeks guest on BBC Four just after Sound of the 70s at about 7.35pm :lol: :lol:

 

http://www.batmangiftideas.com/adam%20west%20and%20burt%20ward,batman%20and%20robin%20merchandise%20and%20collectibles,batman%20costumes%20and%20toys2.jpg

For me the original was the best after seeing this, it had more action and suspense, I wouldn't say the new movie grabbed me, but there were moments in the film that were good and moved nicely with some great action scenes and Harrison at 62 in an Indy movie was a bit laughable in some places. This film remains 3rd best of all the Indy movies for me, with Raiders as first, Crusade 2nd, and last was the awful Temple Of Doom. I love the Indy franchise, George Lucas is already writing for a 5th movie, with Shia taking the lead, and cameo appearances from Harrison.

George Lucas is already writing for a 5th movie, with Shia taking the lead, and cameo appearances from Harrison.

 

Great, so no chance of any new, fresh ideas then..... -_- Indiana Jones needs someone to take the bull by the horns and take it in a different direction, as I say, Nolan has worked wonders for "Batman", Sam Raimi did a very solid job of "Spiderman", Bryan Singer did a good job of updating "Superman"... Pity J J Abrahms is too busy with "Star Trek" actually....

This film remains 3rd best of all the Indy movies for me, with Raiders as first, Crusade 2nd, and last was the awful Temple Of Doom.

 

Yeah, third is about right tbh.... I was about 10 or 11 when "Temple of Doom" came out and I loved it at the time... But it seriously does NOT hold water over 20 years on.... Whereas the other two films certainly do... "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is a film I can still absolutely enjoy, it has some of the best action/stunt sequences ever committed to film IMO, an area somewhat lacking in the new film... "Kingdom..." for me, has a good opening hour, but is badly let down in the second half by a frankly dreadful final half hour... And, well, villain-wise, Cate Blanchett seemed like she was having a lot of fun, and she did that whole "stern, sexy dominatrix" thing going on beneath the surface, but sinister she was NOT, nah, the Commies were pretty useless as villains tbh.... Certainly nowhere near as creepily sinister as the Nazis in "Raiders...", I didn't spend the whole film thinking "hey, that lead Nazi's a bit of alright....." :lol: :lol:

 

Better than "Raiders of the Lost Ark", are you kidding me...? :mellow: I've been watching these films for years, I grew up with this stuff, and honestly, I can say that this film is BADLY let down by an over-reliance on CGI as opposed to real stunts which were the main strengths of the original films, that and the fact that the scripting is pretty weak.. Plot and script wise, it's nowhere near as good as "Raiders..." or "...Last Crusade", although, it has to be said, "Temple of Doom" doesn't really age well at all... Nah, I'd put it about third, slightly ahead of "Temple of Doom", but nowhere near the league of "Raiders.." or "...Last Crusade"....

Well it has been about 6 years since I last saw Raiders of the Lost Ark and I can barely remember what it's even about!

 

It is miles better than Temple of Doom though.

Well it has been about 6 years since I last saw Raiders of the Lost Ark and I can barely remember what it's even about!

 

"Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" basically has the same plot as "Raiders...", only "Raiders..." doesn't have the monumentally stupid sub-"X-Files/Close Encounters" finale, and it has much better baddies too.... "Raiders..." also has that brilliant opening sequence with the massive boulder almost crushing Indy in the cave, legendary....

 

"Raiders..." was a highly influential film, it pretty much set the standards for all action/adventure films that have followed it, no "Raiders....", no Lara Croft, no National Treasure, no Relic Hunter, no Mummy, etc, etc.....

"Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" basically has the same plot as "Raiders...", only "Raiders..." doesn't have the monumentally stupid sub-"X-Files/Close Encounters" finale, and it has much better baddies too.... "Raiders..." also has that brilliant opening sequence with the massive boulder almost crushing Indy in the cave, legendary....

 

"Raiders..." was a highly influential film, it pretty much set the standards for all action/adventure films that have followed it, no "Raiders....", no Lara Croft, no National Treasure, no Relic Hunter, no Mummy, etc, etc.....

 

I agree... when I first saw Raiders, it just blew me away, its effects set the standards, I had to go and see it again after I saw it the first time and I was just a kid a couple of weeks back BBC1 run all 3 films seeing Raiders made me feel like a big kid again, it just remains a classic in my book and simply walks over The Crystal Skull. The ending of the Crystal Skull was a bit predictable, as I knew a saucer was going to come out of the ground, it just had to, with all the aliens in the chamber.

 

Cate Blanchett with her awful Russian accent made me cringe all the time, they could have had Famke Janssen for the role.

 

If I had to rate the Crystal Skull out of 10 it would have to be 6/10.

 

.

 

If I had to rate the Crystal Skull out of 10 it would have to be 6/10.

 

Pretty much my rating for the film as well tbh.....

 

It was better than people were making out

 

i went to see it the other day and thought it was pretty good although yes the ending was weird and did kinda ruin it

 

overall 7/10

 

not bad

Jesus christ on a bouncing cross i was disappointed, it's like thinking a girl is about to kiss you only to suprise you by kicking you in the bollocks..... i mean the first 3 were far fetched enough (you know with God and that) but this just takes the p***... Speilberg and Lucas must of gone under a process which in the medical proffession is known as snooker loopy.

Its not as bad as you're all making out. I thought it was quite good

Its not as bad as you're all making out. I thought it was quite good

 

No, it's pretty bad considering the formidable talents of those involved in making the film, Spielberg and Lucas appear to be merely living off their reputations these days, and it's especially disappointing when we know that Spielberg is an exceptionally talented director who has surely outgrown this sort of thing anyway (as films like Schindler's List, Munich and Amistad attest, heck, even Minority Report is a more mature film than this with some quite exceptionally executed set-pieces).... You're just not being honest, or actually comparing it to "Raiders.....", which is still THE landmark film of this particular genre, KotCS just doesn't come close to touching it.....

 

http://www.canmag.com/images/front/lucas/indianaposter3.jpg

 

Anyone looking forward to/going to see?

 

Well the reviews weren't all that good ,so I didn't see it.A couple of my friends did see it and said there was nothing special compared to the earlier Indiana Jones flick.Yes Harrison Ford as usual does stand out.

This is my fave film of this year. The ending was ok, but the rest of the movie was phenomenal, I loved the earlier movies and they definitely did the series justice! :D

 

 

ALSO, Shia LeBeauf is my new sex symbol. :rofl:

Edited June 15, 200817 yr by Tyler

George Lucas is already writing for a 5th movie, with Shia taking the lead, and cameo appearances from Harrison.

 

:o :o :o :o :o

 

:w00t:

 

This is my fave film of this year.

 

Oh come on Ty, I dont really see how this can be anyone's favourite film of the year... Well, unless it's about the only film they go to the cinema to see in 2008.... Frankly, I thought it was nowhere near as good as "Iron Man", and only slightly better than "National Treasure 2", and it certainly does't hold a candle to "Raiders of the Lost Ark" or "Last Crusade"...

 

I reckon you'll change your mind once you see "The Dark Knight" or the New "X-Files" film, both of which will blow everything out of the water this Summer.....

 

 

I think I'll wait until It comes out on Dvd before I bother watching It, Cinemas are incredibly expensive these days haha