who likes it?

I enjoyed it, there was some things that could have been done better and I still think it pales in comparison to the originals but I still loved it.

I don't like it. At all. I really can't like it, even if I tried so hard in the past.

Horrible film, really. Possibly the worst I've seen at the theater in the last decade, at least.

NO PLOT, NO DIALOGUES, no thrill, damn, it didn't even had great special effects!! It was simply embarassing...

The only good things were the general acting performances and the scene with the flying saucer at the end. Not enough to save the day. And not even close.

Wow 38 liked it and 6 didn't. I'm one of those who liked the film.

I loved it.
The monkeys the the fridge the Nuclear bomb, everything!

jonesissparrow said:

Wow 38 liked it and 6 didn't.

Click to expand...

Were you really expecting something different from an Indiana Jones fansite??
The 99.9% of people who didn't like the film simply quit this forums and never showed up again. They couldn't vote.

I've loved since the first time I saw it.

It was okay...

Not face palmin' bad as say for.. Blues Brothers 2000. But it was okay.

Agent Crab said:

It was okay...

Not face palmin' bad as say for.. Blues Brothers 2000. But it was okay.

Click to expand...

You know, Blues Brother is my favorite comedy and one of my favorite films period, yet I've never seen Blues Brothers 2000. I've only heard mind numbingly bad things about it. I don't even think the fan in me wants to see it.

I was so pissed after I saw it the first time, but started to think of the redeeming parts of it once I got home. And went to see it a second time a few days later, and now I love it to death.

And the Nuke scene is one of the series' best moments. No question.

Great Indy film, although not worth the 20 year wait, it still is a great addition to one of the great film franchises of all time.

So, count me in as 'love it'.

The Stranger said:

Were you really expecting something different from an Indiana Jones fansite??
The 99.9% of people who didn't like the film simply quit this forums and never showed up again. They couldn't vote.

Click to expand...

It's my perception that, sans a couple of vocal people, the same members are still posting now. I'm sure that the boards had a lot of new members (in the build up to KOTCS) and the attrition rate would be in keeping with the nature of those who were primarily interested with KOTCS spoilers pre release (who left soon afterwards). Perhaps a mod can confirm???

When I first saw it I felt deflated (Raiders syndrome), then repeated watchings had me warm up to it, but now I feel more objectively critical of it, knowing what to like and dislike about it.

I wish I could work out whether I like it or not. The problem is I keep swinging from one extreme to the other and the mood that I watch in, seems to be a factor, though when I watch the other films, mood isn't too big a factor. Maybe it's just the fact that I grow up watching the other three, that I feel I can't completely fault those films (I can see mistakes even in those films, but I just don't care about them whereas when I watch KOTCS, I can't help but care).

I try to think of the better moments in the film to help redeem it, however let me clarify, it isn't the story and the spirit of the film that bugs me- it's the execution. The novel is far better. Marion does fall in love with Indy and it's developed in the novel, and Spalko's psychic ability is demostrated far better than the one very brief moment at the beginning of the film. Maybe it's because I get to have some freedom of choice in terms of how my imagination sees what's happening in the novel, but still that's how I feel.

KOTCS seems more pedestrian, and yes, less edgy than previous entries. I would have liked to have seen some blood and I would have liked Spalko to have been far more menacing- truth, I seriously didn't find her scary. I find Mola Ram and the Thugees a far more serious threat, alongside Toht and even Belloq.

So I guess, I do like KOTCS, but I don't think I'll ever love it like the original trilogy, yes, I admit there are factors like growing up with it, the long wait, the New Spielberg. But that's just the way it is.

DocWhiskey said:

You know, Blues Brother is my favorite comedy and one of my favorite films period, yet I've never seen Blues Brothers 2000. I've only heard mind numbingly bad things about it. I don't even think the fan in me wants to see it.

Click to expand...

The Orginal Blues Brothers was a great movie for it's time. The Mall Scene, the Church Scene, even with the nun where she thrawped them with her ruler.

Blues Brothers 2000 was rather shallow, lame and just unfunny. It was too much fantasy and not enough comedy. They did try to beef up the laughs with some low brow humour, but it took a backseat to most of everything. If you can find it on TV or even rent it, give it a watch.

Like I said...

KoTCS was an okay movie, but there are people on here who defend the movie as if it was a golden coin that was found in a pile of ash, dog turds and vomit.

I thought "New Spielberg" had pretty much the same directorial style as the original films (as was John Williams' music). Within the first minute, it just felt like an Indy movie - through and through to me.

It was still rated PG-13, had a few brutal moments (soldiers shot at point blank range, ants swarm...). Did Spielberg make a conscientious effort to not show blood? I don't know, maybe.......but I don't particularly think you need blood and a high body count to make an entertaining/fun Indy movie. It's not exactly like any of the other Indy films were R-rated stuff here.

Spalko wasn't physically threatening (her henchman, Dovenchko, takes care of that). I think what makes Spalko an effective villain is that she is very cold, steely, and emotionally detached. She is prim, proper, and her obsession with psychological warfare and the skull also make her threatening. And the way Blanchett plays the character, and the look of the character she came up with.....all very memorable. She's a gifted actress and I think she proved to be an excellent choice.

Novels inevitably have the ability to expand on what is in a movie, because novels contain much greater detail.....that's why they make the novel companion to the film. You can read for two hours and only get through a few chapters. In a movie, 2 hours is all you have.

Given the action/adventure nature of these films, and the other dynamics of this film.........it is important to be "economical" with the relationships. They develop along the adventurents. With Marion - sure it is economical - but I think we know all we need to know, and those two are simply a lot of fun to watch on screen. And to me that's a big success.

We already get a sense of their strained relationship through their hilarious banter. We already clearly get a sense that they both have underlying feelings for each other (which isn't difficult to accept given their past history in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'). The fact that they now have a son brings them closer together.

I think the movie is about lost characters coming together, and finding what they needed in a family by the film's end. Indy loses Marcus and his dad. Without his job there is nothing to keep him in the States. The line "I think we've reached the age where life stops giving us things and starts taking them away" is gut-wrenching. Mutt's lost - he quits school, has a "tough guy" attitude (he doesn't have a true father). It was a natural progression that they find each other and solidify themselves as a family at the end. It continues the strong family bonds/values in 'Last Crusade.' I thought it was effective. I liked it.

Still my favorite of the four, still the soundtrack I listen to most (at this very moment, in fact), and it's still the one I watch the most.

I realize that since I've been with the franchise since it's birth, I should automatically like Raiders the best - and I did for 28 years. That said, Kingdom surpassed it. I've tried to come up with explanations, but I can't. I dig the hell out of it, so that's what I'm going with.

I've posted in this thread 3 times without giving my opinion on KOTCS.

Anyway,

I enjoy it. It's my least favorite film out of the 4 (that's not saying much) yet it's opening scene with the Area 51 escape leading to the nuke is my favorite Indy opening and favorite part of the film. I think the film will only get better with time for me. So, I don't "love it". But I really like it.

I absolutely loved it.
Spalko was awesome and Cate Blanchett did a brilliant job playing her (which is 50% of the reason why I loved the movie.)

Cole said:

I thought "New Spielberg" had pretty much the same directorial style as the original films (as was John Williams' music). Within the first minute, it just felt like an Indy movie - through and through to me.

It was still rated PG-13, had a few brutal moments (soldiers shot at point blank range, ants swarm...). Did Spielberg make a conscientious effort to not show blood? I don't know, maybe.......but I don't particularly think you need blood and a high body count to make an entertaining/fun Indy movie. It's not exactly like any of the other Indy films were R-rated stuff here.

Spalko wasn't physically threatening (her henchman, Dovenchko, takes care of that). I think what makes Spalko an effective villain is that she is very cold, steely, and emotionally detached. She is prim, proper, and her obsession with psychological warfare and the skull also make her threatening. And the way Blanchett plays the character, and the look of the character she came up with.....all very memorable. She's a gifted actress and I think she proved to be an excellent choice.

Novels inevitably have the ability to expand on what is in a movie, because novels contain much greater detail.....that's why they make the novel companion to the film. You can read for two hours and only get through a few chapters. In a movie, 2 hours is all you have.

Given the action/adventure nature of these films, and the other dynamics of this film.........it is important to be "economical" with the relationships. They develop along the adventurents. With Marion - sure it is economical - but I think we know all we need to know, and those two are simply a lot of fun to watch on screen. And to me that's a big success.

We already get a sense of their strained relationship through their hilarious banter. We already clearly get a sense that they both have underlying feelings for each other (which isn't difficult to accept given their past history in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'). The fact that they now have a son brings them closer together.

I think the movie is about lost characters coming together, and finding what they needed in a family by the film's end. Indy loses Marcus and his dad. Without his job there is nothing to keep him in the States. The line "I think we've reached the age where life stops giving us things and starts taking them away" is gut-wrenching. Mutt's lost - he quits school, has a "tough guy" attitude (he doesn't have a true father). It was a natural progression that they find each other and solidify themselves as a family at the end. It continues the strong family bonds/values in 'Last Crusade.' I thought it was effective. I liked it.

Click to expand...

Is anyone getting the feeling that this guy is working for Spielberg or is it just me? By the way, if you are, you're not the first I've caught out here.

You know, if you want to counter my opinion with arguments in favour of KOTCS, then that's fine, but you could at least quote me so we know what you're refering to. In any case, what's point of arguing for KOTCS to try to make me like it. Liking a film to me, isn't a matter of thought or logic, it's a matter of the heart and soul, just like making a film when you're not getting paid to do it. I obviously for the sake of the thread, try to put my feelings in more physical terms because no one else lives in my skin but me.

Yes, I do realise a film has less time to show all these elements than a novel (I would know as someone who does make short films), however reading the novel aside from great detail, there was potential for the film in it's 2 hours to have been better. All films though have the flaws, even the films of Orson Welles. One could have very easily made that Jungle Chase shorter, and added the scene with Spalko trying to communicate with the skull and in the Staircase, the scene in the novel where Marion falls and is caught cleanly in Indy's arms, would have been more appropriate than just dialogue and banter, because actions speak louder than words in a film and in real life. Let me clarify, I am not saying that I'm better than anyone here, but that's just how I would have done things from what I have seen.

I understand what the film is about and if you read my previous post properly, you would understand that I do like and have no problem with the actual story and spirit (in terms of the themes being portrayed), so there's no point in mentioning the "loss" theme and "family" theme as I have often spoke about it as a positive on this forum. I have not been overly negative towards KOTCS, so I suggest you argue to someone who actually admits to hating the film, instead of someone who admits that they like it enough to watch but not love and obsess over; the audience can have a valid opinion just like any other critic or filmmaker. As to whether you think my opinion is valid or not, that is your problem, not mine. I've seen you try to argue with others the same way, it gets old and tired. People I think have settled on their opinions (they've had over a year to do so) and trying to change it is like trying to hold back a tidal wave. If you think I'm being negative, you should have seen some of the people who were posting here a day after KOTCS came out. Search for the Ravener's reviews thread and you'll see what I mean.

My enthusiasm for the film wained over time. I liked it a lot more the first two times I watched it at the movies (I even thought at one stage, that it was better than ToD). As time's gone on, the film hasn't age well and ToD is a better film.

I don't think your snide tone towards me is justified, as I in no way intended to insult you.

I'm not trying to make you like the film........but it is a discussion board. What's the point if you don't expect anyone to respond to your viewpoints?

Violet Indy said:

Is anyone getting the feeling that this guy is working for Spielberg or is it just me? By the way, if you are, you're not the first I've caught out here.

Click to expand...

Hrmm? You've caught Spielberg employees posting here??