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.