Indiana Jones
Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 09:54amAlso, this weekend we saw Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Did you? What did you think?
- the other andrew: I HEART LINGONSYLT...
- Hugh: Where do you get one of those lower case "t" things?...
- freakgirl: :))...
- Oddrey: Oh, there's no Maeby about my proposal! ...I'll get...
- freakgirl: Whenever I read the words "Marry me," I always think of...
- SHOW MORE COMMENTS
Chips O'Toole on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 10:23 am
No, we didn’t. Every waking hour (and most of the sleeping ones, too) are taken up with the wee one.
I just wanted to (pointlessly) answer the question in the negative. But I do want to hear about what peopple thought of the movie. just trying to contribute.
GeekBoy on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 10:36 am
My review is over on my website … www.gagglefrak.com
(How’s that for a shameless plug?)
Bottom line: I loved it!
Kat on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 11:56 am
Hated it. HATED. IT. Zero booby traps. A box that was selectively magnetic - only when they remembered “oh, yeah, this thing is supposed to attract metal” would it do so. Marion didn’t do anything, really - the Marion we met in Raiders would have been punching people and fighting her ass off. Cate Blanchett’s real accent kept poking through. And Spielberg? Just because you call them “inter-dimensional beings” doesn’t negate the fact that they are lame-looking aliens in a flying saucer.
My boyfriend has renamed it “Indiana Jones And The What The Fuck Are You Serious?”
Athena714 on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Hated it. George Lucas needs to stop. Really just stop.
GeekBoy on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Kat, for the sake of those who haven’t seen the movie yet, I blacked out some of your comment. It can still be seen if you highlight over it.
Not sure what Freakgirl’s stance on this is, but it doesn’t seem fair to spoil important plot points for people who haven’t seen the movie yet.
Having said that, sorry you didn’t like it! I guess we saw two different movies.
freakgirl on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Can we add a feature that lets people put spoiler bars over their text?
Amy on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 12:21 pm
We saw it… everyone I saw it with loved it. However, I felt much like Kat. It was just too far-fetched and silly for me. Entertaining? Yes, but a great movie? No way.
Kat on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Oops! So sorry about that. I’m an idiot.
freakgirl on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Kat - no worries!
As for it being far-fetched, isn’t that kind of the point? It’s summer movie fare - candy for the eyes and ears. I know I didn’t go into it expecting anything thought-provoking or life-changing. It did its job.
genevieve on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I’m seeing it this afternoon to pass some time thinking about something other than the fact that I am 2 days past my due date and still pregnant and it is starting to get hot… But - yah - I am not looking for anything deep, so as long as it is entertaining that’s fine with me.
Athena714 on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I don’t know, I for one can suspend A LOT of disbelief for the sake of entertainment, but I’m with Amy on this one. It seemed less like an Indiana Jones movie and more like the newer Star Wars with all the CGI. And the monkeys? Don’t get me started on the monkeys.
Soosan on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 12:36 pm
We were sitting infront of the people who comment on movies out loud.
In the monkey scene, all I can remember is them shouting “He and the monkey have the SAME HAIR!!”
I enjoyed the movie, despite the people behind me being loud.
freakgirl on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I see your point, but it didn’t really bother me. The monkey thing made me laugh, it was so silly. Different strokes for different folks, I say!
Gen, good luck! Maybe you’ll go into labor at the movies.
Athena714 on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Well I’m glad you guys enjoyed it, anyway!
Kat on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 1:05 pm
The weird thing is, I am totally fine with the supernatural stuff in the earlier movies, but the way they handled it in this one just didn’t work for me. I can’t even figure out why I can accept it in Raiders but hate it in Kingdom. The magnetic thing did the movie a lot of harm, at least for me - I can suspend disbelief, but you have to be consistent with the world you’re presenting.
Also, I thought the opening of Indy 4 should have followed the pattern of being a sort of stand-alone Indiana adventure that lasts 15 to 20 minutes, followed by the REAL story beginning after the credits. Instead, I was like, “CGI gophers. That’s the opening shot they’re going with. Huh.”
freakgirl on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Athena714 on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 1:17 pm
GeekBoy on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 1:25 pm
(wrote this before I saw Kat’s last comment)
“Raiders of the Lost Ark” starts with a scene where we’re expected to believe that some ancient(?) indigenous peoples managed to create not only a light-triggered spike trap, but also a counterweight system that, when triggered, would release — among other things — a giant perfectly spherical boulder down a passageway that is perfectly sized to fit it. And that all of this sticks-and-stones engineering has somehow managed to remain in working condition over hundreds of years in the middle of a humid Peruvian jungle. That same movie climaxes with a scene where spirits fly out of a big golden box to melt people’s faces … but will leave you alone if just close your eyes and don’t look at it. And in “Temple of Doom”, Indy uses a life raft as a parachute. And do we need to discuss the closing scenes of “The Last Crusade”?
Anyway, my point is, I’m not sure I saw anything in this movie that was more far-fetched than those things. But I walked in expecting far-fetched, and was glad to get it.
It’s cool if people didn’t like the movie. To each their own. But I’m not quite sure where the “HATE” comes from. I’ll assume that’s disappointed expectations speaking? Because in my opinion, the movie just wasn’t anywhere near bad enough to warrant that assessment.
GeekBoy on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 1:29 pm
The gopher thing did make me scratch my head, but to be honest, I’d completely forgotten about it until you mentioned it just now.
Michael on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I didn’t enjoy the gopher, and was chagrined when it appeared AGAIN later, but I figure they have to ape to the kiddies a little. At least it didn’t fart.
I really enjoyed this, in no small measure because of the nostalgia. It was fun to revisit the characters and their shenanigans. As I mentioned to GB, I thought the movie was gorgeously shot, especially the scenes around the beginning when we first see Indy again, along with his Russian nemesis. It looked just like the other movies, felt like the other movies, and if you actually think back, was no more incredible than the other movies. It didn’t break new ground is about all I can say against it. Didn’t expect it to do that, though.
Michael on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Still, it’s no Ironman.
Athena714 on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 1:45 pm
GB - not saying that previous Indy movies didn’t have some far-fetched moments. They totally did. But #4, for me personally, crossed into the realm of “oh gimme a break” one too many times. I was really disappointed, particularly by all the CGI. I just don’t think it was necessary - I think George Lucas just likes to show off what ILM can do. But hey, plenty of people seem to have enjoyed it, and that’s awesome. I just wasn’t one of those people.
Patrick on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Enjoyable, but disappointing. The script was full of holes (magnetism, for one), and much like the Star Wars prequels, they substituted CGI for heart. (Tarzan scene, anyone?) The dialogue just didn’t have the same wit for the most part, and there was more internal inconsistency than any of the first three— I’m guessing that comes with a more complicated story, which I feel was the ultimate downfall.
That being said, I thought most of the principals did a good job, especially Harrison Ford and Shia LeBouf. I definitely got giggly when they did the long Indy reveal, with hat, shadow, etc.
Jennifer on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I liked the principals and liked how it ended.
Good point on the magnetism, though. Big oops there.
GeekBoy on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I will not disagree that it’s no Iron Man. That movie was an A+ for me, and this one was maybe a B+. And if not for nostalgia, it would probably dip to a B-minus. I loved it for what it was, whereas with Iron Man, I just plain loved it.
Dave on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 2:23 pm
One thing that occurred to me was that the time the movies are set bears greatly onto their plot. The first three films were set in the mid- to late-1930’s, and had the Nazis and other things that were common to the time. This movie is set in 1957, and has other sensibilities (I’m being vague for not wanting to spoil anything.) If you look at it from that perspective - that times change, even if the characters remain somewhat the same, the ending fits better.
And, yes, the gophers didn’t fart, so I think we’re money ahead of the typical later-Lucas affair.
Athena714 on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 3:28 pm
GeekBoy on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Dave, I’m with you there. A lot of the plot points this time around are more sci-fi in nature, instead of spiritual/supernatural, in keeping with the Atomic Age / Cold War setting. Which was a bonus for me. But I also understand how that may be what’s bugging Kat and others — it’s much easier to poke holes in sci-fi plot points (which theoretically have a scientific basis) than it is to poke holes in supernatural plot points, for which there are no real-life rules. For instance, unless a robot is almost human-like, people tend to be more critical of it than of a poltergeist or a demon (and no, none of those things is in the film).