Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Iron_Giant said:

I feel like I’m sticking my neck out for no real good by saying this, but I enjoyed a lot of the inventiveness or neat touches  in KOTCS—Area 51, the nuclear test town, the graveyard, the man-eating ants, the way the jungle blade sliced through the jeep... yes, the alien stuff at the end was out of place and the jungle chase CGI was too obvious. But to write off the whole movie is a bit much. Especially after a decade of lather-rinse-repeat superhero shit we’ve been force-fed by MCU, I’d much sooner have Indy 5 than Avengers 6 or 7 for summer movie fun.

There are good things about it for sure.

Having seen the alternate story treatments, the story filmed was definitely the best of the bunch.

I'm still disappointed with it, but it could easily have been SO much worse!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Iron_Giant said:

 

 

I’m with mstrox on this one. The flying fridge was clever and it was inventive. It was FUN to watch, not least because it was rooted somewhat in the realm of plausibility. And when the fridge finally came to a stop, it was banged-up and dirty. And when indy came tumbling out, he actually looked like he took a painful ride in a fridge, FFS. You could actually believe it happened.

 

It was not plausible at all that Indy survived the impact with the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

It was not plausible at all that Indy survived the impact with the ground.

And then there was a gopher!

 

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

Not to justify one wrong with another, but was Indy's escape from the plane in Temple of Doom really any better?

Yes! At least that one was plausible enough to make the Myth Busters investigate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Not to justify one wrong with another, but was Indy's escape from the plane in Temple of Doom really any better?

 

There's a great difference between impossible and implausible (however unlikely). But yeah, the plane escape isn't among the good ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of the issue with the Temple of Doom incident is that its quite an extended shot, and then they slide down the hill with it, and then they fall down the gorge. Its not impossible to include such a ridiculous beat, if your editing is such that its completely "drowned" in the energy of the film, but here its like a setpiece all by itself.

 

Again, not trying to make a right out of two wrongs: I really don't care for Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mstrox said:

I think it was less plausible than Indy getting dragged behind a truck relatively unscathed, but more plausible than people's faces melting off because they looked at something.

 

When it comes to magic (or God, as some would say), everything's possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

I really hope they get back to basics with the next film, and acknowledge the reality of Indy's age.

 

I'm not very hopeful.

 

Indiana Jones as a trilogy had such a good ending in The Last Crusade. Now, you can always make another one and say "well, that was a prank ending, now here's the real one." But when that movie is Kingdom of the Crystal Skull...

 

And now another one? Nope. I just don't need another Indy film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indiana Jones is an exquisite opportunity for a James Bond approach.

The potential is nearly limitless, so why bother limiting the number of movies?

Real shame that they waited so stupidly long that Ford can't do many of them anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

I'm not very hopeful.

 

Indiana Jones as a trilogy had such a good ending in The Last Crusade. Now, you can always make another one and say "well, that was a prank ending, now here's the real one." But when that movie is Kingdom of the Crystal Skull...

 

 

How does a fourth (or fifth) movie make the end of TLC a "prank ending?"  Did they not really escape the temple and ride away on horses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mstrox said:

 

 

How does a fourth (or fifth) movie make the end of TLC a "prank ending?"  Did they not really escape the temple and ride away on horses?

 

There's something to be said for riding into the proverbial sunset (and staying there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be an odd-man out, and say despite its problem, I quite enjoyed KOTCS. I think it's an entertaning adventure film anyway. Its biggest issue is the overreliance on CGI, and even then that doesn't bother me as much as it should. The first half is pretty solid too. I'm looking forward to the fifth film. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:

Its biggest issue is the overreliance on CGI, and even then that doesn't bother me as much as it should. The first half is pretty solid too. I'm looking forward to the fifth film. 

 

I will never, never hate on a film if all that's wrong with it is just production value.

 

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has plenty of narrative issues, along with production woes and is just an unnecesary movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, like with many things in life, it’s all relative. No one would survive in a flying fridge, fair enough. But if the script required you to, it helps with the suspension of disbelief if you can see some consequences from such an outrageous stunt. With Indy, we do; we always do: he always looks like he’s been put through the wringer, and that’s half the fun of watching his ridiculous adventures. I just wish filmmakers would try a little harder in other blockbuster properties to make it seem like there are consequences—whether it’s after being punched in the face or after a 40-story building comes down. I’d even settle for some dust or a few rips and tears in superman’s suit after he busts through reinforced concrete walls at 150mph. Iron Man’s suit obeys no laws of earthly physics in how it comes apart when Stark is done burning hundreds of gallons of whatever (stored who knows where) after skyrocketing 40,000 feet in the air in a blink...

 

sorry, MCU, for dumping on you so much today, but I guess I’m realizing how checked out I am after a decade of superheroes. Because eveything is TOO fantastical, there is no point in an emotional investment in the story. There’s no satisfying payoff when someone gets their due at the end, because it was just too make-believe silly in the first place.

 

and hence why I’m spending so much time defending KOTCS and Indy 5. Because I crave stories in the vein of the old spielberg &lucas, when you knew it was a movie, but you could still enjoy the ride because the ride was more real. (Alien crystal skulls notwithstanding.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

I will never, never hate on a film if all that's wrong with it is just production value.

 

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has plenty of narrative issues, along with production woes and is just an unnecesary movie.

 

I don't usually mind plot problems as much. I just enjoyed KOTCS for what it was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first third of KOTCS is actually solid, and it feels right in line with the tone of the original 3 (barring some wonky dialogue, but that's Koepp's fault -- he ain't no Tom Stoppard).

 

It all falls apart badly once they leave the US. It's practically on life support for about 50 minutes, with scene after scene of lazy, boring exposition, moving from one obvious soundstage to another. It's painfully obvious all the exteriors were shot in the safety of the Universal backlot, further entrenching the idea that the film was just a lazy cash-grab.

 

And yes, the cinematography is atrociously distracting and (bizarrely) gets worse as the film goes on. The overdone colour grading and bloom throughout the jungle sequence looks fucking awful. It's rather strange, because KOTCS doesn't look anything like Kaminski's usual work, which generally has a far grittier, grainier texture that would've suited the Indy series just fine if he toned down his more stylised lighting choices. So I can only assume this was a deliberate attempt to approximate Slocombe's photography? If so, what an unmitigated failure. You can't even tell they went to the trouble of shooting animorphic on old-school lenses because the whole film is scrubbed cleaner than the Star Wars prequels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Quintus said:

Pretty much. But the trademark dry Indy wit in the dialogue is way off and stands out like a sore thumb. Those were the early warning signs.

 

HF was completely out of character and coming off like a buffoon running around asking to use the phone in the nuke town. Then he mispronounces nuclear. It's just bad writing and directing, with Ford failing to sink back in the role. Meanwhile, he did a good job as old Han Solo several years later. He was in rare form channeling his early 80sness there. I was stunned. But everything went wrong with KOTCS, so. Such a missed opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Margo Channing said:

Why'd they think it was a great idea to see an elderly adventurer? Reminds me of that I Still Dream of Jeannie tele movie from the 90s, it didn't work having Barbara Eden as mutton dressed as lamb.

 

I dunno. I've always really liked it when heroes are allowed to age. Can't really place why. It kinda humanizes them in a way, knowing that they got to live and grow and change as the years went by. Or perhaps it is just getting to see these characters at different points in their life? Kinda adds another layer to things. I don't know. I'm incoherently rambling as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cerebral Cortex said:

 

I dunno. I've always really liked it when heroes are allowed to age. Can't really place why. It kinda humanizes them in a way, knowing that they got to live and grow and change as the years went by. Or perhaps it is just getting to see these characters at different points in their life? Kinda adds another layer to things. I don't know. I'm incoherently rambling as usual.

 

Seeing where they are later on isn't bad in itself, it's the execution and the believability of seeing a 65-year-old man seeming almost invincible when his younger self took about as much abuse and looked really sore afterward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, just another baffling fuckup in a film filled with baffling fuckups and wasted opportunities. Just like that awesome jungle cutter truck that other filmmakers would've crafted an entire action sequence around, yet they thought the most creative option was to do two fifths of fuck all with it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quintus said:

Really? I could never get over how they wasted John Hurt so badly.

 

5 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

I had the EXACT same feeling.

 

Of course they wasted Hurt, as they wasted Allen, Winstone, and Broadbent, but if I concentrate on the Mutt/Ox aspect of the story, I find the film at least bearable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now