It was great.
*ignores negative comments about the film*
It was great.
*ignores negative comments about the film*
I liked it. Some things could have been better, but I can live with how it turned out.
Bad movie. Horrible movie. Not a single redeeming quality throughout the entire thing. I liked the first three, but this one was just trash.
People condemning this film while mindlessly praising the older ones are forgetting that the early films were, for all their understated brilliance, often utterly absurd and whimsical too.
Angry ghosts live in the Ark of the Covenant and can make Nazi heads explode!
Or how about...
The Holy Grail can heal mortal wounds using Jesus Magic, and it's guarded by buzz-saws and a thousand-year-old Crusader who speaks modern English!
The latest film manages to almost exactly capture the same spirit and storytelling as the early ones. Again, it has some basis in historical reality - the geoglyphs, crystal skulls, and ancient art depicting technological marvels being controlled by non-humans. These all exist in the real world. Just as the pre-WWII films included the Nazis' search for supposedly-powerful Christian artefacts, the new Cold War film plays on the investigations into parapsychology, and the hysteria over flying saucers, that were alive and well during that era.
In each of the Indy films, we're expected to believe and accept that history and religion was influenced by genuine supernatural powers - the Ark, the Grail, the Stones and Rites of the anachronistic Thuggees in Temple of Doom. Crystal Skull is *no* different in that regard - except that we're shown and told much more about the 'supernatural power' in question, with less left up to our own interpretation.
It was inevitable that people would piss and moan about this film. There's no real way that it *could* have been made as successful as its predecessors; the old movies are obscured by nostaligia and sentimentalism; for many people, they're more like a myth or a concept that a simple series of motion pictures. By sticking to the "formula", the fans haven't been given too much that's new; but if they'd gone in a different direction, the very same people would be pissing and moaning about how "waaaah, they changed everything and murdered my childhood."
So, to summarise my opinion of the film, rather than just my opinion of the reaction to it:
Character moments? Check. Great to see Ms Ravenwood back again, and to be reminded that Dr Jones is indeed a respected academic. Good to hear that he had some official involvement in the Second World War; that adds some real colour to his character. As before, we have a typically one-dimensional villain, but one played very well by Cate Blanchett, a woman who can do no wrong.
History and fantasy? Check. Plenty of both, used pretty well. As described earlier.
Action and adventure? Smurf-tons. Some nice set-pieces, some great homages to the earlier movies without being a dumb tribute-fest.
Absolutely brilliant, yet not always serious, capturing of the socio-political climate of the '50s, too.
For once, I actually agree with something George Lucas has said: with a movie like this, people start expecting the Second Coming or something, and complain with undue bitterness when they aren't treated to an experience that exceeds the wildest dreams they're capable of dreaming. And nowhere is that more true than on the internet. Give your average internet minion a ten-pound gold nugget, and the first thing he'll do is write a profanity-laden diatribe about how it's too damn heavy.
If you go to see Crystal Skull, remember what you're watching, and why you're watching it. Remember the cackling Gestapo madmen of Raiders. Remember Short Round's antics, the ponderous treks through the Indian forest, and the pointlessly gruesome banquet at the palace in Temple of Doom. Remember Indy killing dozens of men - Nazis, Turks, Americans, Arabs - with no moral or legal compunctions whatsoever. Above all, remember that these films are flights of fantasy, unashamedly and unreservedly, that take ideas and images from the real world and play with them. If you think the older films are utter perfection, works of cinematic art unrivalled in their scope and beauty, the defining works of your life - then you're in the wrong 'mental place' to enjoy Crystal Skull. If you think the early movies were damn good fun, action-packed and over-the-top, yet riddled with humour and character as well - then you're got your head screwed on right, and you're perfectly poised to appreciate Crystal Skull for everything it has to offer.
I don't get what people are harping about. I watched the other 3 films before going to see this one, and this one was no more absurd than any of the previous three. Seriously, I think people just need to get their heads checked. It felt EXACTLY like an Indiana Jones movie to me.
THE JACKEL
add me, PSN: ljkkjlcm9
Big D hit the nail on the head with that one
its as farfetched but amusing as the earlier 3
addmittedly, i didnt like the ending as much as i wished (it seemed a bit of a cop out really) and the UFO was too cliché, but it was still a great film!
Nice post, D.
It bugs me when people say that a new movie 'ruins' the old ones. The old movies haven't changed! They are still as good as they always were and always will be, and you can watch them whenever you want.
Proud to be the Unofficial Secret Illegal Enforcer of Eyes on Final Fantasy!
When I grow up, I want to go toBovineTrump University! - Ralph Wiggum
I never saw the first 3 Indiana Jones films. I thought this movie was silly, but entertaining enough. Glad I didn't pay for my ticket though. Probably wouldn't watch it a second time if I could help it.
Cate Blanchett is a goddess, btw.
I didn't even realize it was her until the credits. Then I felt like an idiot because the lips totally give it away. >_>Originally Posted by Miriel
The problems I had with the movie stem from it being absurd to the point of being ridiculous. I'm sorry but (SPOILER)Indy surviving a nuclear explosion because of a lead-lined refrigerator? No, sorry. The other three movies may have been absurd but this one was just over-the-top outrageous.
Ontop of that, I had a serious problem with the dialogue. I could not get behind it no matter what I did. It reminded me of the last three Star Wars movies: Bad. Cate Blanchett had horrible accents. Yes, accents as in multiple. She had three or four different ones and they came in at completely random times.
Harrison Ford is old and it showed in this movie. All of his action scenes seemed to be slowed down, which made them unbelievable. I like him as an actor, but I didn't like him at all in this movie.
And the plot. Yeah, I get that it dealt with things that can be found in this world and that the majority of the stuff in the movie was based on some real life historical reality. However, it didn't feel like an Indiana Jones plot to me. I can get behind the Ark of the Covenant, but I can't get behind the storyline behind this movie.
Contrary to popular belief, atomic blasts don't simply vapourise everything in the vicinity. There's also a massive wave of compressed gas, which can indeed fling heavy objects. The most unbelievable part of that scene, for me, was (1) him surviving the acceleration and deceleration of that kind of 'transport', and (2) the lack of a lethal radiation dose from emerging so close to the explosion.
The former isn't so bad in light of Temple of Doom, where the heroes use an inflatable raft as a parachute, and aren't killed by the fall, or by the laws of physics making the raft invert, dropping them to their, er, dooms.
Also, there's the scene in Last Crusade where Indy's dragged along a metal road behind a truck. If anyone tried that in real life - without wearing steel pants - their clothes and flesh would be shredded in seconds. It's completely implausible, but we as an audience forgive that kind of thing due to it being awesome and heroic.One of my best friends is Ukrainian, so I'm used to hearing the accent - and Cate did a decent job. It's not perfect, no, but damn good for an Australian actress.Ontop of that, I had a serious problem with the dialogue. I could not get behind it no matter what I did. It reminded me of the last three Star Wars movies: Bad. Cate Blanchett had horrible accents. Yes, accents as in multiple. She had three or four different ones and they came in at completely random times.
If you've ever heard actual 1950s teenagers speak, it would become apparent that they actually did say some pretty ridiculous things then...
Besides, Last Crusade had - as mentioned before - a French Crusader with perfect modern English. Indy should've had to speak to him in Latin, Frankish, Occitan - something like that. He'd definitely be fluent in Latin, at any rate.It only seems 'slow', I think, in comparison to other modern films. In contrast to the older Indy movies, there's a lot of action in this one, and the pace is pretty rapid.Harrison Ford is old and it showed in this movie. All of his action scenes seemed to be slowed down, which made them unbelievable. I like him as an actor, but I didn't like him at all in this movie.
So it is okay for the movie to be above and beyond the point of absurdity because the other three were? Sorry, I don't accept that as an excuse. That's like saying it's okay for a movie to be bad because, hey, Ed Wood made bad movies too! It doesn't work that way. Movies should always try to strife to be good and different. I don't want to see the same movie over and over again.
When I mentioned the nuclear explosion, it was for reason A, as you pointed out. And it wasn't heroic at all. It was Indy trying to save himself, nobody else had their lives on the line. That isn't an example of heroism at all. Again, simply because the other movies featured over-the-top action scenes, it gives the writers no right to make this one completely over the top and unbelievable.
I have also heard the Ukrainian accent as well, from a wide variety of people. Her's did not sync up with theirs at all. And, again, it skipped in several places and she went back to her Australian accent.
Still, you were maintaining that this movie was bad and the others were good - I'm claiming it's consistent with the established 'rules' of the movies, and that the things it's criticised for are in fact no more far-fetched than what we've already seen across the series.
I never said the old ones were good. I said that they were absurd but more believable than Crystal Skull. I also said that the other three had a more archaeological feel to it. This one is, at the very core, a movie about aliens.
I don't really care much for the Indiana Jones series as a whole.
I completely agree with this statement. Every single one of the movies was absurd.
They were more believable? I can't agree with that at all. The Ark having magic that killed every person except for them because their eyes were closed? A guy who can pull the heart out of a person, and they're still not dead? Seriously, Indiana Jones was NEVER believable.
Also as stated before, this movie was made to look like the old movies, unlike the Star Wars movies that were far graphically and visually superior. They received criticism for that, so they kept this movie looking like the old ones. The action was no slower paced than those movies were.
And finally, if you didn't like the earlier movies in the series, I see no reason why you would like this one. But honestly people, it was another Indiana Jones movie, totally and completely. If you honestly think it was different, please go back and watch the old ones, because you must have something confused. Oh and they weren't aliens, they were just from another dimension. I suppose that makes them "Aliens" but they're not aliens as we usually refer to them. I guess my question to all of you is, what did you want it to be? There really wasn't much ground left to cover in terms of unrealism. And finally, they originally intended to make 6 Indiana Jones movies when they made the first one... so if this one was too absurd (which I don't understand at all) be glad that there aren't 2 more as well.(though there may be eventually lol)
THE JACKEL
add me, PSN: ljkkjlcm9
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
