Indiana Jones--Crystal Skull

from JoeUser Forums

I went to see this movie today.

I saw all the other Indiana Jones movies in excess, each several times.

I found this movie to be technically on par with the previous  movies.  You may think that is a good thing, but it's not.  It looks as if it were shot fifteen years ago.  Except computer generation, none of the new cutting edge cinematography for action movies is present.

Remember when it was IJ vs nature vs traps and all the excitement?

That element is sadly underplayed in this movie.

The acting was SO BAD in the first 30 minutes I thought it was a spoof.  I kept thinking, they should roll the credits anytime now and start the real movie.

Nope.

I don't know what happened, but Harrison didn't seem comfortable in this role at all.  It was like watching a bad audition where the entire time you secretly cringe and are embarrassed for the actor.

I took an online poll before the movie.  It asked me, "Is Harrison Ford too old for this part?"

I answered, "no."

However, there are a few scenes, especially at the beginning when his age just seemed to take center stage.  And it wasn't intentional on the part of the director.  He just moved old, too old for this part.

The first forty five minutes DRAG by with way way too much dialog by other characters aimed at propping up IJ.  Why does he need words to do it?  He is IJ....watching him be himself always spoke for itself.

Not so this movie.

The crystal skull is the worst movie prop I have EVER seen.  It is a clear plastic alien skull with aluminum foil or clear plastic wrap where the brain cavity rests.

It looks no more like crystal than K-Mart plastic ware, and instead of being an artifact, I kept thinking, "Man that's a crappy prop."

Every time it was in a scene, I was forced out of suspended reality and reminded it was a medicore movie with really crappy props.  (Well, that and the TIRED cliches.  I spoke a few lines before the actor, they were so predictable and SO SO bad.)

The last fifteen minutes are the best part of the movie, but full of said prop.  So you never really get consumed by the movie.  I still heard crunching pop corn, heavy breathing, and wondered how much longer it could possibly last.

I didn't leave the theater feeling like I was coming back from a couple hours in another place...I left feeling like I just spent a couple hours in a cramped theater with a bunch of people watching crap tv.

Over all, this is the worst I.J. in the entire series.

The best parts are all covered in the trailer, in fact if the movie lived up to the trailer, it'd be a GREAT movie.

If you want to see it on big screen, wait for a matinee.  I wouldn't recommend paying full price.

Out of four stars, I give it a one.

Barely.

44,842 views 19 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

Oh, the first few times the "crystal skull" was in a scene, I looked at other patrons to see if they were buying it.

Nope.

While I don't mind an occasional bad prop, or bad line, it gets down right insulting when they make it the focus of the movie. 

 

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

Ouch. That sucks. I'm probably not gonna see it anyways. I have all three originals on my desk, though, in a fancy Indy true box.

I knew it was goin' downhill when I saw a platinum-colored Indiana Jones box containing the first three, and it was so untrue to the original theme.

Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
My boys asked me to go with them to see it and I said naaaah. It started at 9:30 and I was already tired. Heh, I didn't even hear them when they came home. The next morning they told me it was sucky so I should be glad I didn't go.

Oh well, at least it was kinda an honor to be asked!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ouch! No wonder my son does not want to see it!
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

My boys asked me to go with them to see it and I said naaaah. It started at 9:30 and I was already tired. Heh, I didn't even hear them when they came home. The next morning they told me it was sucky so I should be glad I didn't go.

hahaha.

I wonder if they were the same guys sitting behind me....they were not happy with the movie at all...in fact they often voiced what I was thinking...."Ya gotta be kidding me!"

That sucks. I'm probably not gonna see it anyways. I have all three originals on my desk, though, in a fancy Indy true box.

You can always wait for the rental.

 

Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

Saw this with the wife and daughter on Friday.  Having seen comments from friends and acquaintances, I really had my expectations lowered going in.  I wouldn't say it was awful, but it was far from the best.

Ranking for me matches another acquaintance from the internet:

1. Raiders of the Lost Ark

2. Last Crusade

-- big gap --

3. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (even with the pathetically bad skull prop, along with unbelievable refrigerators, predictable plot lines, etc...)

4. Temple of Doom (Lucas/Spielberg still owe me heavy compensation for making me watch that one!!!)

Raiders was an awesome movie and just so much fun.  Temple of Doom almost ruined the series and required Sean Connery to help erase the bad taste, though a $100 gift check in payment back from Lucas/Spielberg would be more along the lines of what is required.  Not to mention that Lucas should be giving Star Wars fans about $200 - $300 each for making us suffer through the 3 prequel Star Wars films.  Last Crusade brought fun back to the Indiana Jones franchise and was just an enjoyable film to watch.

Which brings us to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  Not horrible, but parts of it were just bad.  The skull prop was totally pathetic.  Crystal Skull my left nut.  Cheap ugly plastic.  Completely so.  Quartz crystal isn't that expensive.  Heavy for carrying I guess, but considering that the prop was 'in the bag' for much of the time it was on screen, they should have used REAL CRYSTAL and not cheap ugly plastic.

The refrigerator... ugh.  Stupid, lame, unbelievable and totally ridiculous.

FBI agents that are seen for *one* scene and then gone?  Why were they not more involved?  Oh, yeah, because then it would have been more blatantly ripping off the National Treasure movies.

Kate Blanchette as Natasha (think Boris and Natasha, from Rocky and Bullwinkle).  Blech.  Accent as annoying as Meryl Streep used to be to me.

Not to mention the e.t. element, the Mutt element, the completely blown 'surprise' of having Karen Allen back in the franchise (since they gave that away in trailer/promo's for the film).  And no Sean Connery who really might have made this one a better film if they had found a way to actually include *him* rather than just a picture and few second nod back at him.

Lucas lost the ability to write/tell a good story with Return of the Jedi.  After that he's really gone downhill.  Spielberg did the best he could given a pile of crap story from Lucas, but you can only go so far to make things better when you are starting with crap.

In many ways Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a parody of the Indiana Jones franchise, but rather than going completely for parody they tried to be serious too and failed on both sides.  It wasn't horrible, but again was far from the best.  If not for the nostalgia it would have been best left untouched with Last Crusade as the end of the franchise.

Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top

In many ways Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a parody of the Indiana Jones franchise,

Yeah, that sums it up nice and tight.

Thanks.

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

I absolutely agree with everything you said about this movie.  Bad acting, horrible skull prop, all around campy.  But, call me crazy, I kinda liked it. 

I've been thinking about it and maybe it's just the idea was good.  George Lucas seems to come up with great ideas, but he is no good at executing them.  Everything he writes just comes out hokey.  The dialogue is awful and the details left in the dust.  But, deep down, it's a good story, and thats what makes them come out o.k.  Just imagine if he had let the ideas be developed by a better writer.  Imagine what Star Wars and Indiana Jones could have been!  He's wonderful at visual effects, but he shouldn't be allowed within 100 ft. of a script!

But, I'm glad it didn't have any new slick cinematography - it wouldn't have the same feel as the other movies in the series.

Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top

Wow, that is terrible!  So the skull is that bad? Wow!  I think I agree with the slick cinematography for IJ since it's not like some of these more modern-type genres.  But they sure should have made it worth the wait for heavens sake!  I'm not sure I'm going to see it or wait til the movie is on DVD.  Only if I'm pressured by No. 1 son!lol!  He's more keen on going to see Speed Racer next though! 

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
But, I'm glad it didn't have any new slick cinematography


At the very least the camera angles (and that ain't "Slick") shoulda been better. A director can set the tone of a movie simply by using camera angles, zooms, and pans.

This was like a high school kid shot it, fifteen years ago. Heh.

So the skull is that bad?


Oh yeah, wait till ya see it...it'll be a constant reminder the movie is crap.

Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top

Phew...  I'm glad you've done all the hard work.  Now I have a really good excuse to wait for it to come up for free on television, as it will do at some point in the future.  At least then, the ad breaks will give me a respite from the bad acting.

Go and see Iron Man if you want to see something that is the opposite of this movie.  Iron Man kicks butt!

Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top

This bums me out. I really wanted this to be a good movie. I will wait till it comes out on DVD.

Thanks for the heads up.

Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top

This bums me out. I really wanted this to be a good movie.

That's what really bugs me.  I think they did such a crap job because they KNEW people would forgive bad acting/cheesy props etc, because we wanted a new one to the series.

Or at least it seems that way.

Go and see Iron Man if you want to see something that is the opposite of this movie. Iron Man kicks butt!

Saw it the first weekend it opened.

I liked it a lot.

 

Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top

I guess I'm waiting 'til it comes out on DVD, too.

What's the last good Spielberg movie? Saving Private Ryan? Schindler's List? They came out in 1998 and 1993. Maybe he should have let someone else direct it.

Too bad since I was kinda looking forward to it. Same thing with Speed Racer. I used to love the cartoon when I was a kid. :)

 

Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top

Same thing with Speed Racer

I saw the shorts for Speed Racer and it looked absolutely dreadful.  I too loved Speed Racer when I was young.  But the reality is the conversion to real life action has made it seem incredibly ridiculous (as far as I'm concerned but remember, this is just my opinion and is worth as much as the paper its not written on :P )

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I purposely waited until I had seen the movie before reading this article. I guess my take on the whole thing stems from a more sympathetic attitude about Dr. Jones' age. hehe. Besides, in the story he is 57 years old...how spry to you want him? I liked the movie. Yeah, all the negative comments have merit, but so what? The origial movie was a parody of thirties and forties adventure series. This one was no different. If you can't suspend your disbelief for things like the refrigerator or some of the other stuff, how did you get through bailing out of an airplane over the Himalayas in a life raft, or riding a submarine across the med (must have stayed on the surface...wait, do subs run on the surface without lookouts posted? How DID they work that out?) It is a fantasy and as such, it was ok. Were you looking to Harrison Ford for an Oscar worthy performance? Go see "Witness" instead.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I purposely waited until I had seen the movie before reading this article. I guess my take on the whole thing stems from a more sympathetic attitude about Dr. Jones' age. he he. Besides, in the story he is 57 years old...how spry to you want him? I liked the movie. Yeah, all the negative comments have merit, but so what? The original movie was a parody of thirties and forties adventure series. This one was no different. If you can't suspend your disbelief for things like the refrigerator or some of the other stuff, how did you get through bailing out of an airplane over the Himalayas in a life raft, or riding a submarine across the med (must have stayed on the surface...wait, do subs run on the surface without lookouts posted? How DID they work that out?) It is a fantasy and as such, it was ok. Were you looking to Harrison Ford for an Oscar worthy performance? Go see "Witness" instead.


I still felt totally ripped off BFD. I PAY to drawn into suspended reality in a movie. And I get a little snippy when the acting/cinematography is so bad I am constantly forced to consider the people WHO MAKE the movie instead of the characters.

hahahaha

Oh well.

I saw the shorts for Speed Racer and it looked absolutely dreadful. I too loved Speed Racer when I was young. But the reality is the conversion to real life action has made it seem incredibly ridiculous (as far as I'm concerned but remember, this is just my opinion and is worth as much as the paper its not written on )


Yeah, I'm not going to see that one. I can't even stand the ads for it.

What's the last good Spielberg movie? Saving Private Ryan? Schindler's List? They came out in 1998 and 1993. Maybe he should have let someone else direct it.


What happened to him? He's lost his lust for film or something. Or maybe he's gotten lazy. Who knows.
Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top

I still felt totally ripped off BFD. I PAY to drawn into suspended reality in a movie. And I get a little snippy when the acting/cinematography is so bad I am constantly forced to consider the people WHO MAKE the movie instead of the characters.

Tova, I largely agree with you. However I think this movie is a tragic casualty of a symptom that seems to be repeating itself industry-wide, and I blame dim-witted uncreative studios. This has happened to most of the greats and it's an utter shame...

Talented producer/writer/director... or all of the above... come together and make an original movie that's quite special. This movie makes it big, usually gets a couple of good sequels in the next few years shortly after the first one. Sure, the movie can be hokey. It can be cheesy. It can have all kinds of ridiculous scenes in which one has to suspend belief. But at the core it's a hit because it's got some original concept, idea, mechanism or even a gimmick that folks enjoy. Something they haven't seen before... and this applies in a holistic sense.... for truly great movies, when you take a step back you see that the film as a whole is much greater than the sum of it's parts. That's why you can have a dumb scene here or there and get away with it.

So the original team produce a couple of really great films, then they usually feel they've done enough and move on. Years go by, the franchise grows into a kind of cult status with fans who keep the dream alive and buy up all the "redux" DVD box sets (aka money grab by studio) Years down the road, the studio wants to make big bucks and says "hey, remember those films made tons of money and everybody loved em? Let's capitalize on that and make lots more money!!!"

Problem is, now they have a movie that WAS a big hit 10 or 15 years ago which they are going to revive. Issues with this are:

A) Cult status of the franchise means there will be big expectations. Even if the movie is good on it's own, it will be compared constantly to it's predecessors. Talk about performance anxiety!

B) Actors have gotten older and moved on (star trek anyone???) Many of the production team that had the magic to make the originals have retired, moved on or simply refuse to work on a new one because in their minds the series/story has been told to completion. This then means you'll typically only get some of the original crew at best, trying to resurrect something that died long ago.

C) Studios are in it for a money grab. This means they shun originality or anything that would take the movie in a different direction from it's predecessor, as they see this as too risky and therefore a threat to profits. This means you will essentially see a newer rehash of the first movie... therefore, no originality.

Since there's no retooling or re-imagining allowed, the studio is lucky to get a screenwriter with half a brain that hasn't already been chased away by all their demands. So you end up with a film that takes the best parts of the originals, and tries to amplify them, make them bigger and flashier with no real change.

Let's think of some series where this has happened.....

Aliens, Terminator, Star Trek, Die-hard (comeon now.... in the last die hard Willis destroys a helicopter with a flying car) the list goes on to great extent. All you get is the exact same thing you saw before, only with more of the outrageous factor....BIGGER explosions! Louder BOOM sounds!!! All show and no substance. This attempt at over-amplifying those 'crazy' scenes of the original drive the entire movie into one big non-reality based la la land. Give people enough of this garbage and it leads to the bored heavy breathing you were talking about at the end. "thank Gods it's over!!" the crowd sighs at the end.

What DOES work is re-imaging the series. Look at the new battlestar Galactica series on TV. It's currently finishing it's 4th and final season (sadly) but if they would have tried to do a repeat of the original they'd have been lucky to get a TV feature movie.

Sadly, re-imagining is as I said the last thing the studios ever want because that actually requires intelligence and talent!

Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top

Sadly, re-imagining is as I said the last thing the studios ever want because that actually requires intelligence and talent!

You are right the new Battle Star Galactica is the same flavor as the old, but better.

That's what I was hoping for here.

So you end up with a film that takes the best parts of the originals, and tries to amplify them, make them bigger and flashier with no real change.

I agree with this...however I read an article today on E! (I think it was E, looked at a couple sites) that said Spielberg and Lucas went out of their way not to do that with this movie.  And it was more a movie tribute to themselves and other films they produced as much as to Indy.

It's too bad.  With all the advances in cinematography, they wasted an opportunity to take Indy places he's never been before....and rock the house at the same time.

But like most hollyland movies, the series ends on a cough and whimper, not a blaze of glory.