That's stupid it makes more sense for him to crash in the wind shield than get splattered especially in the 50's.

It's called commentary-- a somewhat different beast than actual news reporting. Strange as you may find it if CHUD upsets your news standards, much news reporting anywhere is heavily based on commentary.

I wouldn't get bent out of shape over commentary. You, the informed reader, know the facts. The author was offering speculation.

is it bad that I laughed at that?

Another (positive) user review from AICN, with a Super-Mega Spoiler!! (You have been warned!!) at the end:

No B.S.Review (Some Spoilers!!!!!!!) by jones1899 May 12th, 2008 02:51:04 PM Here's my Indy review. I'll make this quick maybe. First of all, after reading some of the other reviews, I found myself wondering if they were legit or not. I am a huge fan of Raiders, really enjoyed Last Crusade, but don't enjoy TOD like I did when I was younger (though the scene where Indy knocks the baddie out and sends him sliding in the gravel get me everytime) Anyway, I was pretty good about avoiding spoilers, figuring I'd have a chance to see the film early anyway. So, as far as verifying the other reviews, well I just couldn't be sure. Come to think of it, even after seeing it, I still can't be sure, but all I can say I have strong doubts as I'm sure some will have about my own review. What I won't do I post spoilers here to convince you. I went in spoiler free and I think they may have a lot to do with my opinion of the film: What is that opinion? Well, I left the theater excited at the thought that I just watched the best Indy movie since Raiders. Yes, it is that good. In fact it is very good. Is it perfect? No, but then I don't think Raiders is a perfect film either (though its flaws are quite minor). TOD and LC have bigger problems here and there, but remain great regardless and more than worthy follow ups to Raiders. So, yes, considering all of this KOTCS fits nice and snug after Raiders. Let's start with the bad news. There are some one liners that don't quite work like they should. Second, the links to the other movies (besides Marion) could have been handled better. I'm glad that they're there, but I didn't get the same smile on my face as I did with the Ark in LC. Suffice to say there are similar thinks at work here (very similar in fact). Also, the climax of the film will split fans and viewers right down the middle. It happened to work for me, but may piss off others. Those afraid that the alien angle would diminish the magic of the other films - don't worry. It's actually referenced somewhat and handled quite well. Okay, now the good stuff. Ford has en energy on screen that I haven't seen in a decade or more. The trailers are edited quite poorly especially with the dialog, but in the film it works for the most part (minus the few one-liners mentioned above). Also, I read one review saying there was a major death and that is not true. It's not a minor death either, but it does have a nice impact considering how well the character worked in this universe. Shia is not the character you think he is in the trailers. He does a great job in this and those who disagree even after seeing the film will at least love the trick in the end. I won't spoil it, but suffice to say there will be sighs of relief and big smiles in the audience. Let's just say it invlves "torches". Spalko is really odd here and though it took a few minutes to get used her, I ended up enjoying this villain more than any other (minus Belloq of course). What else. The action has a nice weight to it. The stunts are amazing. The set pieces (there are many) are clever and well thought out. The critter scene (big ants and another surprise!) is creepy and, yet again, second only to Raiders. Blows the socks of the rats in LC. The campus chase was very fun and even gives a nod to Marcus along the way. Most of all, the reunion of Indy and Marion was perfect. This is the scene I had been waiting for and it just hits the damn mark dead on. As does the relationship between Indy and Mutt. It reminded of LC for obvious reasons, but takes a different angle that adds to the whole package - even the action. The last review I read said it better than I could and was spot on. Also, let me say that Hurt and Broadbent get the job done well also. I was worried Hurt's character would try to be to eccentric and goofy, but I was pleasently surprised. Broadbent does pretty much play Marcus, but fits in as well as he could. Wow I am really rambling here. In the end I expect this will make a decent dollar (to say the least) and the reviews will be around 85% positive, which is better than the other two sequels. Again, I can't say that the other reviews weren't legit. Hell, maybe the positive ones are fake and the bad ones are real. What I can say is do yourselves a favor and don't read too many spoilers before hand. You have less than 12 days left to wait and I know first hand that going in with barely a clue as to what I would see paid off big. Oh and I forgot about the score - great as well, but you can go to amazon and see that for yourselves. So Raiders remains the king (a 10). Skull is second (a solid 9). Then LC (8.5) and TOD (8) pulling up the rear. Tonally I'd say a mix of them all. Ok here's one spoiler to get you excited: There is a wedding, but there are no dumb cameos. Whew.

Speculation -

Indy will lose his hat at the end and Mutt picks it up.....

BUT Indy goes over and takes it back!

Harrison would never agree to only the first half. Also hat wearing was going out of fashion in the '50s. Someone of Mutt's generation would never wear a Fedora, it would be uncool.

Hmmm this review was posted by the same guy who wrote this originally on The Raven, then in AICN talkback:


Sorry to say this, but I certainly think this one is BS.

British Channel 4's Teletext Page 321 are now gleefully carrying reports of the negative early "reviews" from AICN. Great. Why not give them even more credibility...:rolleyes:

As if anyone uses teletext anyway. The Metro was also running the AICN reviews as proof that the film will flop. Of course they failed to mention the good reviews. And just to put this in perspective, we're talking about 4/5 reviews here. 4/5 opinions of the millions who will see the film. The film may well suck , may well be great, and I have no doubt that the opinions reported are genuine and valid, but I hate the way that the reports only report one side of the story. The only guy to report this with any balance is Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere. The only good thing about all of this is that expectations will be lowered and that can't hurt. I do think that it's a shame that the 'verdict' is already being proclaimed by the doom-mongers though.

Just for ****s and giggles I post the last "review" from IMDB
(I dont take any review serious atm, good or bad)

<<I was lucky enough to get a preview of this as I help a charity out that premiers films in hospices.

Speilburg has really pulled this off brilliantly. It's as good as, if not better, than the best Indy films of all, 'Raiders of the Lost Arc'.

I won't give too much away but I have to say that the motorcycle stunts were some of the best I've ever seen, and it was good to see that Harrison Ford has magically retained not only his look, but the twinkle in his eye as well.

For me, this has it all, great story, brilliant action scenes, fabulous actors and best of all, no reliance on computer aided graphics, just a good old fashioned storyteller doing what he does best, telling a story.

10 out of 10 <<

Wiitmann, why you deleted the last review? It was another fake?

was already posted (with big black box above)

More scorn for a certain ShogunMaster along with some box-office crystal-balling...

http://news.fantasymoguls.com/origin...trackin-1.html

Indeed yes... and Steven Mason's sources (who were at the same screening) state that KOTCS "falls short of Raiders, but it is far stronger than 1984's Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and on par with 1984's Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade". This seems to sum up most people's expectations.

If it genuinely outstrips Doom and Crusade, that would make it pretty f**king special.

Drudge has "Will Indy get the Cannes Jeer?" top of the page, linking to:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...icle_id=566760
http://www.variety.com/VR1117985657.html
http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle3949817.ece

Are what time exactly does the movie premiere at Cannes?

Nevermind, I found it. The event takes place from 13:00 - 19:00. So for us on the US East Coast, that'll be 7:00 am - 1:00 pm. We won't have to wait long for reviews.

http://raven.theraider.net/showpost....3&postcount=33

http://raven.theraider.net/showthrea...t=12440&page=3

I love the fact that this blood has been thrown in the water for the sharks at Cannes over the one, most suspect review out of all those submitted.

Seriously, if people can't hate, they just can't do anything at all :down:

Yeah, the reporting on this sucks, but is entirely predictable. The knives are out, no doubt about it. There have been as many positive reviews as negative, FACT, and not one of these mainstream articles (apart from the Telegraph) has even hinted at this because it doesn't fit the story these guys want to run with. Their leading with the fact that the film has been panned by critics, yet not one professional critic (except perhaps Derek Flint - I'm not sure if he counts but he is a regular reviewer at AICN) has seen it or judged it. I love the fact that Shogunmaster is being hailed as an industry executive, when in all probability he is a theatre booker/ owner. His critique, while no doubt heartfelt, is childish (bringing in Lucas molestation digs is playground stuff and so passe it's ridiculous). The other negative review was not even that the film was terrible. The guy said that he didn't hate the film at all and felt that the film was unnecessary and fitted in right in with the others but didn't bring anything new to the franchise. One has accused it of being filled with non-stop, over the top set pieces, another that it feels like a drama. Which is it? The positive reviews on the other hand have tended to be well balanced and say that this is an Indy movie and fits right in with the others. That seems all that one can reasonably expect. An entertaining joy ride with a character I love. Bring it on.

...or a 16 yo with too much time on his/her hands....

I mean, that's how much we know, and yet, that is what gets taken at face value. Ridiculous.

Is this fake? If it's real, the reviews could be real. :confused:

That letter states that the screenings took place on April 22nd, yet the AICN ahem, "reviews" didn't appear until May 4th. What took them so long if their hatred of the movie was so intense? I'll tell you why: because they didn't even know about the screenings until well after the lights went up.

I don't really see why people have a hard time believing the reviews are real. We know screenings have taken place. We know that there will be people who don't like it. My problem with the reporting of the situation is that 2/3 people people have seen it and voiced their negative opinions, 2/3 people have voiced positive opinions and the mainstream media is running with this as critics panning the Indiana Jones movie we were all dreading. Crazy. It may well suck, it may well be great but the media have already pre-emptively stuck a massive blow for the negative. It's predictable but all the same slightly depressing. You could easily spin positive articles/ stories from the positive reviews proclaiming the film a hit with critics but it would be just as unbalanced reporting.

I can see the reviews being mixed on this but the general public liking it. I just hope it's judged fairly.

That letter is real. I've seen similar letters from Paramount at LACC when I went to film school there.

Nobody's disputing the letter's authenticity.

It says they had to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Would an exhibitor risk writing a review?

The things is this. If this was a loudmouth at the same screening as you who hated the movie, would you give a **** what he or she thought? No. The only opinion that matters is your own. What's annoying is the doom-mongers raining on the parade with glee. It's just sad. Lucas was right, at the end of the day, it is just a movie. 2 hours of escapism. It's not meant to win Oscars or critical acclaim, or be a compelling character study. It's an adventure about a whip-cracking, adventuring archaeologist based on cheesy pulp serials. That's how it should be judged!

The person posting the letter seemed to ask if it was real or fake.

Where did that picture come from?

The media
 

Everyone should remember we live in an age where negative reviews, comments and bashing sells papers. We revel in the failure of others and embrace shows where people are tossed off islands, stages, and out of faux homes. We love to tear things down as it emboldens our own egoes.

No one is held up as a hero or role model anymore. Can you name five? Everyone has an opinion on everything and it is usually negative. No one can possibly create something of merit that is better than our own talents. What a sad state.

The negative reviewers (so far) hide behind aliases providing no proof or real detail of the film beyond what has been put out there already. i have read the reviews both good and bad and it is obvious who saw the film and who didn't.

People who attened the screening loved the movie and cheered when the credits rolled. The industry people take the non-disclosure very serioulsy as the studios are more dilligent than the CIA and if you are caught violating it it jeapordizes your standing with them in the future which impacts your career. Besides facing the wrath of the studio the real fact is you will be fired from the industry company you work for.

See the film, draw your own conclusions, but rest assured, this is an Indiana Jones film made by Spielberg and starring Harrison Ford.

Everyone in the "American Idol crowd" needs to watch the 1969 film They Shoot Horses, Don't They?. :(

First official review?

Appologies if this has been posted before:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle3953920.ece

The Times Online Review Tomorrow
 

It might be worth checking back here tomorrow afternoon for an official word from the Cannes screening to see if Dr Jones can still whip it (apologies for the shocking pun) ...

http://timesonline.typepad.com/blockbuster_buzz/

The Times Online review today :P

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle3953920.ece

Your link is broken, Chilled_Monkey.

Well, nice to see a positive early review. Especially from a Brit!

I found this in the LA Times regarding AICN and Indy. It seems real journalists can't stand the fat red-headed bastard:

Are grown up journalists really anticipating a flood of negativity because of one anonymous f-ing review of the film on AICN? YES!!!! And the fault lands dead on the editorial desk of the New York Times. And they should be embarrassed and apologize for a terrible editorial choice. (Fat chance of that!)

And Variety should be embarrassed as well. Creating false, ambitiously eye-grabbing mythology out of whole cloth is supposed to be what we expect from Nikki Finke, not a highly edited trade magazine!

It is, of course, possible that Indy will be slammed tomorrow. But all of this obsessive talk that skews negative based on NOTHING is relentlessly irresponsible and should stop. It's just not right.

The LA Times rock.

1st official review! THE TIMES ONLINE LIKED IT!
 

From The Sunday Times
May 18, 2008
Crack! Indiana Jones takes whip to doomsayers
Ignore all the gossip, the new Indiana Jones film is worth the wait, says John Harlow in the first newspaper review
Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones

For almost 20 years, Hollywood has been waiting for the next instalment in the money-spinning Indiana Jones adventure series. Indy is back this week – and even an ageing Harrison Ford can still crack an impressive box office whip.

The worldwide opening on Thursday of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull – the fourth instalment in the series featuring the world’s most indestructible archeologist – has been accompanied by enough controversy and intrigue to merit a film of its own.

Disagreements among producers, arguments between screen-writers and actors, and lawsuits against anyone who has dared to reveal a smidgen of plot, have combined to make the $185m (£95m) film one of the most eagerly anticipated of the year.

Directed by Steven Spielberg and produced by George Lucas (of the equally spectacular Star Wars series), the film returns to 1957 – the height of the cold war – for another round of heart-pounding chases through tunnels and across clifftops as a motley gang of intrepid treasure hunters span the globe in their quest for the usual nonsense.
Related Links

* Dr Jones: digging up a golden relic

* Tales from the set of Indiana Jones

* The return of Indiana Jones

The long delay between the new adventure and the previous instalment – released in 1989 and unwisely entitled Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade – has piqued Hollywood’s interest.

In the internet/video game age, when most recent action blockbusters have been derived from superhero cartoons, can an ageing screen idol who hasn’t had a decent hit for years reprise the wild success of his youth?

The good news for Ford fans is that Indy may be older and greyer, but there’s still a spark to his repartee, and he still gets the girl in the end (the girl in question being Marion Ravenwood, played by Karen Allen, who was the love interest in the first Indiana movie, Raiders of the Lost Ark).

Whether Ford’s charm will be enough to earn the film the $400m it is estimated to need to recoup Paramount Pictures’ investment remains to be seen. However, a preview attended by The Sunday Times last week suggested that the internet gossips who have doubted the film’s drawing power may be proved wrong.

Jones admits early on that chasing baddies is not as easy as it used to be. In one scene he escapes from a nuclear blast by hiding inside a lead-lined refrigerator. Science and probability were never among the series’ strong points.

It rapidly becomes clear that since we last saw him saving the Holy Grail from the Nazis, Jones has become a sadder and more solitary character.

His gloom is broken when an unlikely pair of treasure hunters – Mac, played by Britain’s Ray Winstone, and Mutt, played by Shia LaBeouf, a teen idol – warn him that the dastardly Soviet Union is after a crystal skull that, in the finest Indy tradition, offers dangerous powers to anyone who possesses it.

Much has been made in internet chatrooms about LaBeouf’s potential impact on the film, and fears that he is merely a sop to lure teen viewers. Yet LaBeouf, who made a striking impact against computerised villains in Transformers, matches Ford quip for quip and leather jacket for leather jacket.

The first Indiana Jones film in 1981 was Spielberg’s homage to the Saturday morning cliff-hanger serials of the 1930s. The latest film still has a pleasingly old-fashioned feel, with several long, slow shots, plastic-like foliage, tinny sound effects and a silly python.

Cate Blanchett makes an eye-catching appearance as Irina Spalko, the spooky leader of the Russain villainry; John Hurt, the veteran British actor, lurks menacingly as a rival hunter.

The crystal skull itself was formerly the subject of obscure disagreement between Spielberg and Ford, but it’s now hard to see what the fuss was about. It might as well have been a brussels sprout for all the difference it makes to the plot.

The real pleasure for series fans may lie not so much in the madcap action, the carnivorous bugs and the familiar perils of quicksand, but the restored romance between Ford and Allen, and the fatherly relationship that develops between Ford and LaBeouf, who is clearly the new pretender to his whip.

Indy treats Mutt with the same sarcastic disdain that his own father, played by Sean Connery, lavished on him during the Last Crusade. You can probably guess how it all works out.

The new film has long appeared critic-proof – audiences will flock to it whatever the critical verdict. Yet will it have the box-office legs to join its distinguished predecessors among the most popular films in Hollywood history ?

It is bound to triumph this weekend – the Memorial Day holiday in America – but the latest Narnia adventure, Prince Caspian, is waiting in the wings, and the late Heath Ledger will soon make a posthumous return to screens in the Batman film, The Dark Knight. Indy may have his work cut out to save the day for Spielberg.

brussels sprout

Kind of a weird article. It was hard to tell if it was an actual review or an article about the movie that hinted that the movie may be good.

Anyway, it sounds promising.

That's got to be the McGuffin for Indy 5 :gun:

:up: :up:

You can probably guess how it all works out.

way to ruin the film ^^^

Its a review they just did not want to spell out all the details. Plus they mix in speculation about what the overall reaction will. Even though they saw the movie and liked, that does not give them any insight on what everyone else will think.

Who is the fat headed bastard in question?

And another one that likes it :)

"Mythology, science-fantasy a dynamite mix in new ‘Jones’ movie

Only a matter of time before Indiana Jones’ tastes for arcane scholarship and rip-snorting adventure should lead him toward cosmic warfare. There rests the point of the spectacular comeback flick “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.”


At 65, Harrison Ford is going strong as the leading man in the ’Indiana Jones’ movies.


Some long-term fans will argue Jones belongs in the 1930s and has no business consorting with science-fiction mysteries. The new film’s flash-forward to the 1950s — a generation after the events of 1989’s “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” — not only catches Harrison Ford at the right age to resume the portrayal but the setting crystallizes the series’ chronic fascination with ancient religion and tribal superstitions.

Many enthusiasts, anticipating the Friday opening, will backtrack to the DVD racks for fresh looks at the three Jones films of 1981-1989, maybe even some Young Indiana Jones television episodes. But head writer George Lucas and director Steven Spielberg are hardly so near-sighted.

A more meaningful warm-up to “Crystal Skull” might involve a look at Hammer Films’ “Quatermass and the Pit” (England/1957) or a reading of Donald Wandrei’s unearthly novel “The Web of Easter Island” (1948) or Jim Marrs’ “Alien Agenda” (1998).

Jones, after all, has as much in common with the British Empire’s famous rocket scientist, Bernard Quatermass, as with such men of action as Doc Savage and Jungle Jim Bradley.

Prof. Quatermass’ struggles against extraterrestrial menaces had foreshadowed the rise of Indiana Jones long before the day of Lucas and Spielberg.

The fictional characters — all except Spielberg and Lucas — are, in a sense, brought to cinematic life time and again in response to a popular need for heroic fantasy as an antidote to workaday drudgery.

The worst Jungle Jim movie of the post-WWII years (and there are many candidates) was worth its price of admission as a brief refuge from drab reality.

With “Raiders of the Lost Ark” in 1981, master storytellers Spielberg and Lucas introduced Dr. Henry “Indiana” Jones (played by Harrison Ford) as a crowd-pleasing nod to the pure-escapism matinee serials of the mid-century. Lucas had done as much with an unexpected hit of 1977 called “Star Wars,” but the teaming with Spielberg restored the cinematic tradition of fantastic adventure to a level unseen since the 1940s cliffhangers heydays.

“Raiders” proved the genuine article, evolved with just enough nostalgic touchstones to anchor Lucas and Spielberg’s deeper interests in political intrigue, ancient superstitions and Big Science.

The film yielded appealing sequels, each hinging on the idea that certain sacred objects might represent powers beyond comprehension.

A mere synopsis cannot do justice to the new film, and it might spoil the fun. Suffice that Ford’s Jones has aged but not mellowed into the Cold War 1950s, when an international power-grab search for the legendary “crystal skulls” associated with Mayan and Aztec antiquity pits him against Soviet operatives.

The 13 such carvings known to science represent one of the more baffling mysteries of archaeology. Tribal lore links the skulls with miraculous properties. In any event, the objects are ideally in keeping with what Ford has called “the mysto-crypto stuff that’s part of every Indiana Jones movie.”

Final-version screenwriter David Koepp nods as fondly to post-WWII B-movie science fiction as Lucas and Spielberg have paid tribute to the WWII-era serials. The combination of interests makes for a sharp combination of weird menace and hard-charging action, spiked by Ford’s droll sense of humor under fire and his ability to perform some of the more jarring stunt work himself.

Shia LaBeouf lends rebellious vigor as a young accomplice named Mutt Williams. Karen Allen reprises her original “Raiders” character with youthful vigor and seasoned gumption. Some might view LaBeouf’s casting as a set-up for a next-generation sequel, but for the moment his character serves ideally as an overconfident foil for Indiana Jones’ seasoned wisdom in dealing with mortal perils.

Ford makes 65 appear a desirable age to attain. All along during a diversified career, he has made a point of infusing his more heroic roles with human frailty and fallibility.

And the new Indiana Jones adventure crystallizes that quality most effectively: The generosity of Ford’s portrayal is the whole point, enhanced by the producers’ acknowledgment of mythology and science-fantasy as inseparable

Suffice that Ford’s Jones has aged but not mellowed into the Cold War 1950s, when an international power-grab search for the legendary “crystal skulls” associated with Mayan and Aztec antiquity pits him against Soviet operatives. The 13 such carvings known to science represent one of the more baffling mysteries of archaeology. Tribal lore links the skulls with miraculous properties. In any event, the objects are ideally in keeping with what Ford has called “the mysto-crypto stuff that’s part of every Indiana Jones movie.”

http://www.timesleader.com/living/20..._etc_ART0.html