Shia LaBeouf acknowledges Indiana Jones 4 was disappointing

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Star Trek was good. Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull was not.

That is all.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

For what it's worth I "enjoyed" Star Trek more than Indy IV, if only for the guy who played Bones and some cool effects.

[gkgyver 1,646]

I think everyone made very valid points why KOTCS did not do well as a movie, let alone an Indy movie, but I think the problem, even though each person has his own view on which problem is the worst, is a conglomerate of all that has been mentioned.

In all three Indy movies, there has always been a sense from the beginning that the movie may be a fun adventure, but it also deals with heavier and serious stuff.

Such a feeling was never created in KOTCS. For some reason, the screenwriters took on the challenge of making Indy 4 funny. I think that's a crucial difference between this Indy and all that came before; the first three were fun, KOTCS wants to be fun-ny.

Every time you feel the movie builds up some genuine excitement or sense of fun, there is a damn slapstick moment ruining everything.

Also, the story just goes nowhere, and has no good focus. Also because we don't care about the item Indy pursues.

You could relate to the Ark personally, you could relate to the Grail in a personal way, but nobody even knows what a Crystal Skull is (ToD is another story). Raiders and LC are playing with the audience's pre-existing expectations of the McGuffin; you had Marcus and Indy exchanging a few liines about the Grail, underlined by Williams' theme encapsulating the mystery or some higher ideal, and you have goosebumps;

there was some genuine wonder and excitement about the eventual discovery, about some magic or supernatural powers at work. This wonderment lacks completely in Indy 4.

Also because the Crystal Skull is dicovered early on in a very throwaway scene. From that point onwards, there is no goal to look forward to.

The story becomes, may I say it, just too complex or subtle for an Indy movie.

This is just a fundamental flaw in the script.

[King Mark 3,631]

The story and plot don't make any sense ,like The Phantom Menace. I think George Lucas thinks as long as were looking at a fight scene of space battle it doesn't matter what the hell is going on .I got the same feeling from Transformers 2 Revenge of the Fallen

[Datameister 2,044]

I hated how it was a dumb popcorn movie...

You were expecting, perhaps, Schindler's List?

...how it was more Star Wars than Trek...

You're right, they did make it more exciting than Star Trek's more lethargic incarnations in the last decade or two. Shame on them.

...too much comedy and parody...

Yeah, because TOS never attempted to be funny, nor did the films with the original cast...

..."Spock" turning his back on the council while that silly ass music plays...

He was never shown turning his back, and there was no music in that scene. What film were you watching?

...basically everything young "Kirk" said and did, etc.)...

Some of the most enjoyable acting in the film.

...asinine changes to the canon or whatever you want to call it.

This is an alternate timeline. No TOS episodes were harmed in the making of this film, unless you count the higher-tech look of the Kelvin, which is just something that happens every time a new movie is made. That's reality. It's just not practical to make it look like a set from the 60s.

The Enterprise being a warship with all those Death Star turret things...

Never noticed that. Generally speaking, though, the Enterprise has had weapons for a very long time - and it's used them all the more frequently ever since TWOK.

...Nero a very weak villain.

How so? Backstory/motivation? Acting? General convincingness?

The music sucked and, yes, I'm going THERE.

Psshhhh, there goes your credibility.

I would rather they had just come up with a new set of characters or something.

Every time that's happened in the Star Trek franchise, things have gotten worse and worse. Choosing to return to the original crew was the best choice about this film, and your disdain for it is the final nail in the coffin of your critique of the film.

Naturally, all of the above should be taken with a bit of a ...

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

KOTCS had a God awful story. It was terribly written. Even such a detail as Mutt not telling Indy his mother's actual name. I just didn't believe he would refer to her as "Mary" instead of "Marion". It came off to me like they needed to conceal the mother's real identity so it would be a surprise, so Mutt has to call her a nickname instead. Why wouldn't he tell him her full name and her maiden name? That's just one example of stupidity in the screenplay. I didn't care about anything they were looking for or doing. I found that because I didn't know who Oxley was, I didn't give a damn about anything to do with him. Even when they find him, he's a vegetable. I don't care about him at all.

The finale is ridiculous. There's absolutely no suspense or tension. There isn't even anything to keep you INTERESTED. They're just standing around in a cave and temple looking at the walls. Then, guy flies away when Indy tries to save him (ripped off from The Mummy), they have to run out of the temple as it falls apart (ripped off from The Mummy), then absolutely ridiculous and out-of-place CGI alien, General Grievous-style death of villain and UFO. I still don't understand the ending at all, what it's supposed to mean. You can interpret what the hell is happening at the end of the other movies and you're right in there with them absolutely thrilled to be a part of the adventure as they escape the Temple of Doom, the Ark becomes a killer poltergeist and Indy has to face the challenges and retrieve the grail.

KOTCS just DRAGS. It's like A.I. It keeps getting worse...and worse...and worse.

[Morlock 11]

I'm confused...who exactly are all these anti-KoTCS posts meant for?

I'm still surprised at all the positive feedback the article is getting...LaBeouf is a weak publicity-whore for dissing the film.

[Datameister 2,044]

I'm confused...who exactly are all these anti-KoTCS posts meant for?

This.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I still don't understand the ending at all, what it's supposed to mean.

The Russian guy had all the Alien knowledge downloaded into his head, which overwhelmed him, and his eyes burnt out?

[Datameister 2,044]

Cate Blanchett is a man now? Even with that hideous wig, I'm having trouble imagining that...

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Maybe this will help:

[Josh500 1,615]

Hmmm, I disagree.

Maybe Indy 4 didn't take itself seriously enough, but I don't think that's the issue. If you think about it, ToD and LC didn't take itself too seriously, either. (And the end of Indy 4 was kind of serious, what with the aliens merging together and Irina disappearing wherever and whatnot). No, movies with heavy comedic elements are released even today, and some of them to great success.

And I noted that. I'm saying the balance was out of whack. For all the humor of LC, you had a good four or five serious beats with Indy and his father (the discussion at the crossroads, the conversation in the zeppelin, the aftermath of the tank scene, and the end of the climax). There were maybe one and a half, two serious beats between Indy and Mutt--and even they weren't as sustained or substantial. Heck, there were more serious moments between Mutt and Oxley than there were between Mutt and Indy. The emotional resonance and poignancy was not there to the degree it should have been. It didn't respect its characters--and by extension, its audience.

Well, I agree with what you said.

But like I said, I don't think that's the main problem (part of the problem, sure, but not the main problem). Most people who were dissatisfied with the movie didn't come out of the theaters saying--and many of them young guys--"Hey, there was no real emotion between Indy and his dad, no real . . . poignancy! This sucked!" Like I said, I acknowledge what you said, and that was one problem, but I'd say only a small problem.

The main problem, as I saw it, was that this movie seemed too old, too tired, too hackneyed. We had already been there, and they had already done that. What we saw might have been fresh in the 80s or maybe early 90s, but not in 2008.

I don't understand for the life of me how a piece of crap film like Alice In Wonderland can make 330 million dollars .Are people brain dead now?

And yet, you paid good money to see it in the theaters too, didn't ya?

(For the record, I haven't seen it . . . yet.)

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I snuck in

[Josh500 1,615]

timestamp='1274142566' Oh thank God I'm not the only one who thought AI was a big shiny wastebasket full of garbage. It was one of the rare times that I've been in a theater and audibly groaned when I realized that the movie wasn't going to end yet.

When it comes to A.I., people either love it, are in awe of it, or just hate this f***ing piece of garbage! I guess I am in the former category.

But most people (here) would agree, JW did a good, or even great, job!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I don't think it's complete garbage, but it isn't exactly amazing. The score on the other hand...

[Datameister 2,044]

I'm in neither category when it comes to A.I. I thought it was pretty good, but I wasn't amazed. And I still don't know the score well enough to have any sort of informed opinion on it, but the parts I remember didn't impress me. Heck, the only part that grabbed my attention in the context of the film was that totally unexpected drum beat.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

"The Moon Rising" ... with the weird synth and vocals?

[Josh500 1,615]

I'm in neither category when it comes to A.I. I thought it was pretty good, but I wasn't amazed. And I still don't know the score well enough to have any sort of informed opinion on it, but the parts I remember didn't impress me. Heck, the only part that grabbed my attention in the context of the film was that totally unexpected drum beat.

I gotta tell you, you are missing out on something big.

[King Mark 3,631]

I love A.I., the film and score

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It's an interesting experimental film at best.

[Josh500 1,615]

It felt like a mixture of pinnocchio and E.T.

Endlessly fascinating, though this is one movie where I didn't like the design. I mean Rogue City, WTH.

[Henry B 50]

timestamp='1274142566' Oh thank God I'm not the only one who thought AI was a big shiny wastebasket full of garbage. It was one of the rare times that I've been in a theater and audibly groaned when I realized that the movie wasn't going to end yet.

When it comes to A.I., people either love it, are in awe of it, or just hate this f***ing piece of garbage! I guess I am in the former category.

But most people (here) would agree, JW did a good, or even great, job!

It's a film that's practically overflowing with passion. You can sense just how much Spielberg, Williams, etc. cared about it. However... passion isn't everything. The script is nonsense and constantly breaks its own rules for the convenience of the plot. You could argue that plot is secondary to visceral experience. Not for me, though. When I'm told that human beings can be resurrected only once, then die when they close their eyes to sleep because of some universal pathway, I don't get teary-eyed. I get rolly-eyed.

I love the score more than my own parents and would like nothing more than to listen to it forever, though. Williams struck a deep, deep nerve with A.I.

[Morlock 11]

It's a masterpiece, Spielberg's greatest film this decade and one of his very best in general.

[Josh500 1,615]

I love the score more than my own parents

Is that just an expression?

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I hated how it was a dumb popcorn movie...

You were expecting, perhaps, Schindler's List?

...how it was more Star Wars than Trek...

You're right, they did make it more exciting than Star Trek's more lethargic incarnations in the last decade or two. Shame on them.

I think what he meant, and the two comments go hand in hand, is that the film didn't always feel like Trek, and I agree. I enjoy the film immensely, and I can deal with it as an interpretation of Star Trek, and they probably needed to get a rollicking adventure in before truly establishing the Trek feeling, but it still mostly does not feel like Star Trek. I mean, the film is essentially a thematic remake of Luke's arc in SW (I think Abrams has also said as much), which is one of the reasons it does work as that was universally appealing from the start. But (along with the dumb popcorn movie comment) Star Trek for me has always set itself apart from SW because it's attempted to examine, metaphorically, a lot of the social, scientific and environmental issues of its time. KHAN is an amazing film not just because of great writing, directing, music and kickass battle scenes, but because at the centre of it is a huge moral quandary about what the Federation are doing (which leads brilliantly into ST3 with the Klingons and a great Cold War parable). There was no attempt to cram any kind of real meditation into the film which is just at the end of the day a straight revenge story. And that works well, but it feels a little hollow when we've seen it before, and while I can accept much of TOS and to an extent some of the films were just fun capers, from my point of view if they're going to spend $200m on a film they should try and make the best of it.

So, I enjoy it (and I enjoy the score even more), even though I don't think it's that good, but then that sums up many of the Star Trek movies for me. But I think TMP is one of the best movies, so that pretty much throws my opinion out of the window I'd imagine.

[Datameister 2,044]

Nicely said - thanks for your input. I agree that Star Trek was more'n a little low on the intellectual and philosophical overtones that have tended to distinguish the franchise from its ballsier, more mythology-based rival. And I really hope that the next film brings that back. But I think it worked for that particular film because part of what dragged the Trek franchise so low IS overuse of those intellectual elements. People haven't changed THAT much in the last half-century - from the get-go, one of the criticisms of the first TOS pilot was that it was too "cerebral", as I recall. Now, I love the overall tone of TOS, even that episode, but the fact of the matter is that sometimes people want a meal with a little less meat and a little more frosting. Since one of Abrams' main goals was to create a story that invited non-Trekkies to the party, I think it made sense for that particular film to just try to appeal to as many people as possible by not getting too high-fallutin'.

But again, for the next film, I'd like to see more of those philosophical overtones. I think the second and sixth films are good models of how to do that without getting too dull.

[Quintus 5,399]

I don't hate AI and I don't love it either. I thought it was good and I'd watch it again. As for Star Trek, yes it was closer to Star Wars that ST, and bloody right too - best thing to happen to that dreary franchise since Gene's conception. It was a brilliantly respectful reboot and I laugh at the fanboys who feel robbed by what Abrams has done with their precious snore inducing intergalactic soap opera. Abrams single biggest achievement was to make a Trek movie you could finally take a woman to see. You nerds need to suck that shit up and re-find your love, or otherwise suffer the consequences of being left behind!

[Trent B 337]

It was a brilliantly respectful reboot and I laugh at the fanboys who feel robbed by what Abrams has done with their precious snore inducing intergalactic soap opera.

I actually have to agree with you on this. My friend Erik didn't like the movie that much especially that they destroyed Vulcan. I was like, "Uh dude it takes place in an alternate timeline, the Vulcan we know it is still around". His reply was, "I don't care it still sucked!" ...sometimes his logic and reasoning baffles me.

Again take it from someone who was against the film from the very mention of it because it was a reboot. However, after seeing it my opinion was quickly turned around. As you said it was brilliantly done. Abrams knew better than to mess with the current timeline for Star Trek.

[Datameister 2,044]

I, too, find some Trekkies' reactions baffling, but I could never call the franchise boring without any qualification. There's been plenty of boring stuff done with it, yes, but I quite like TOS and some of the original cast films. I don't see how anyone could find TWOK "snore-inducing", for instance.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

That's some exquisite trolling there.

[A24 4,348]

It's an interesting experimental film at best.

What are you saying? It's a big commercial beast!

[Morlock 11]

A.I. is a big commercial beast?

[A24 4,348]

Steven Spielberg, production budget: $100 million, standard storytelling, very watchable, FX galore, starring the most popular child actor and Jude Law who was the biggest up-and-coming at the time, ... No, I see nothing "experimental" about AI. Stanley Kubrick? No, Kubrick is a commercial filmmaker too.

[Josh500 1,615]

Steven Spielberg, production budget: $100 million, standard storytelling, very watchable, FX galore, starring the most popular child actor and Jude Law who was the biggest up-and-coming at the time, ... No, I see nothing "experimental" about AI. Stanley Kubrick? No, Kubrick is a commercial filmmaker too.

How about the storyline? Now, that was preetty experimental.

That was no "standard" storytelling!

[A24 4,348]

No, like you said, it's another variation on Pinocchio.

[Josh500 1,615]

No, like you said, it's another variation on Pinocchio.

EVERY story being told these days is a variation of another story.

And anyway, I said a mixture of pinnocchio and E.T.

[A24 4,348]

That was no "standard" storytelling!

Well, it wasn't typical Spielberg but it wasn't anything new or experimental either. It felt a bit like Spielberg was trying to copy Kubrick.

EVERY story being told these days is a variation of another story.

Just look at Avatar!

[Josh500 1,615]

That was no "standard" storytelling!

Well, it wasn't typical Spielberg but it wasn't anything new or experimental either. It felt a bit like Spielberg was trying to copy Kubrick.

Well, I would say for Spielberg it was kind of experimental.

EVERY story being told these days is a variation of another story.

Just look at Avatar!

And Terminator and True Lies and Aliens and Titanic...

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It was generally outside of Spielberg's comfort zone, and for the audience as well. Unless you mean he'd only be experimental if he was channeling David Lynch?

[crocodile 8,020]

That's exactly why I can't hate A.I. completely. It is flawed, very much so, but at least there is something to it. Even if it is largely misguided.

Karol

[A24 4,348]

It was generally outside of Spielberg's comfort zone, and for the audience as well. Unless you mean he'd only be experimental if he was channeling David Lynch?

What are you saying?! Dune is a big commercial beast!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Old Dave lives out beyond the Dune sea. He's kind of a strange old eraserhead.

[publicist 4,643]

That's exactly why I can't hate A.I. completely. It is flawed, very much so, but at least there is something to it. Even if it is largely misguided.

Karol

There is 'something' to JAWS 3-D, too. But both times, it's basically money down the toilet.

[Ollie 1,059]

I don't understand for the life of me how a piece of crap film like Alice In Wonderland can make 330 million dollars .Are people brain dead now?

Well both Transformer films and KOTCS all did as well so I guess you answered your own question.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

That's exactly why I can't hate A.I. completely. It is flawed, very much so, but at least there is something to it. Even if it is largely misguided.

Karol

At first I thought the movie might be good. It seemed to be a decent sci-fi for around 30 minutes or so. I liked the idea of one story ending and another beginning. After he's left in the woods, the movie seems to then focus on the sex robot. As soon as their paths cross and they go on an adventure, it just falls apart. I may be way off base, but I felt like someone really dropped the ball around the time that David finds out he's a machine. Like perhaps the audience shouldn't have known he was a machine up to that point.

[A24 4,348]

As soon as their paths cross and they go on an adventure, it just falls apart.

Correct, and it's the worst type of conveying adventure since Ridley Scott's Legend. The movie 'quick jumps' from one event to the next.

[Quintus 5,399]

The weaker Potter movies (ie, most of them) suffer from the same problem.

[Red 75]

I don't understand for the life of me how a piece of crap film like Alice In Wonderland can make 330 million dollars .Are people brain dead now?

Well both Transformer films and KOTCS all did as well so I guess you answered your own question.

The Transformers movies are much, much worse than KOTCS.

[Wojo 2,453]

That's because the Potter movies have to distill massive tomes into 2.x hour movies. A lot of exposition and action are either unfilmed or left on the cutting room floor, because the bare bones of the plot means we have to see this snippet of a scene, then five minutes later we have to be somewhere else.

Why? Because if they didn't speed up the plot, those few hours would be used up before each school year got to Christmas. The movies are a string of vignettes about the books more than anything.

At least the Potter movies have books to refer to in case you didn't understand the movie, though that makes for sloppy filmmaking. What does A.I. have to bail you out? Nothing.

[Quintus 5,399]

I'd have glady sat through three hour long (a là LotR) Potter movies, had the extra minutes added to the quality.