TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-24-2016, 12:32 PM   #301
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,355
I haven't had cable in a very long time, but I found myself under circumstances to watch some of the Indiana Jones marathon that aired on USA last night. Once more, I found Crystal Skull to be a quite watchable but curiously distant film compared to its predecessors. The disparity was really noticeable. It never gets into a comfortable gear or finds a rhythm.

I find it kind of a fascinating movie to dissect. It's like there's a piece missing but you can't quite place what it is.
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 03:21 AM   #302
NightWalker81
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: El Dorado
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
I haven't had cable in a very long time, but I found myself under circumstances to watch some of the Indiana Jones marathon that aired on USA last night. Once more, I found Crystal Skull to be a quite watchable but curiously distant film compared to its predecessors. The disparity was really noticeable. It never gets into a comfortable gear or finds a rhythm.

I find it kind of a fascinating movie to dissect. It's like there's a piece missing but you can't quite place what it is.

I agree. Though I love the movie, I share that feelings with you. Like you say it's interesting because it's difficult to explain what is different. But it's clear to me the movie is a little apart from the others in certain ways and creates a different grade of feelings.

Like I said in another post, I think the first half of the movie has more "classic Indy feeling", but the second half is more distant. It's curious and ironic, because the second half is more alike to the others (temples, traps, persecutions, fights against big guys, bugs, etc). But I think it's the energy... I can't explain it. It seems Spielberg and crew were in full shape in the first half of the movie, but they were a little tired for the second half. Like they haven't the same energy as they had in the beginning of the film. Everything is more conventional in the second half of the movie, less inspired, if you permit me say it.

And I like it so much, but I think is not than perfect (or inspired) like the others movies. The action feels more distant to me (Indy has few moments of action in solitaire) and there's no real danger or construction of tension. I think the movie lacks a little of soul. Maybe the fact Spielberg didn't want to make it was a reason to it.

I think it's a good new chapter in the saga and I enjoy it very much, but I think some times along the movie there is a little feeling of "reluctance?" in some parts.

On the other hand, I think part of this different feelings were deliberated because they wanted to place Indy in another era and to show the world that surrounds the hero has changed. It's complicated.
NightWalker81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 10:14 AM   #303
Major West
IndyFan
 
Major West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 750
Apart from the films superficial faults, it lacked a strong Mcguffin to draw the audience into the quest. That was big lacking thing for me. The two most successful films had strong Mcguffins.

The Ark of the Covenant.
The Holy Grail.

The audience could buy into the importance and significance of these things. In Crystal Skull, and despite their being plenty of explanation in IV, I'm constantly left trying to remember what the importance of it all is. There's plenty of decent action and exploration scenes, but there's no strong element to pull it together in a satisfying way. Especially at the end.
Major West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 11:02 AM   #304
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,355
I don't think it's the artifact itself. The ark of the covenant felt important because the movie effectively built it up as a discovery and communicated a sense of awe around it. The grail felt important because its significance was couched in a relationship we cared about. With the Shankara stones, we see the suffering its absence causes a village of people and witness the power it gives the Thuggees.

With the crystal skull, we have some vague notion that the Soviets want to use it as a mind weapon, but we're given no reason to think it can be successfully weaponized, and indeed it can't. An apologist might point out that the Nazis were similarly in over their heads with the ark, but Raiders did a much better job of selling us on the intrigue and significance of the ark. Perhaps if Crystal Skull had handled that better, it would have been different.

Also, part of what is supposed to make the ark/skull frightening is the notion of it falling into the hands of really bad people. Raiders gave us memorable moments of genuine villainy from the Nazis (threatening Marion with the poker, burying the heroes alive), whereas the Soviets felt more workmanlike and undistinguished by comparison. We in the audience really don't want Hitler to get the ark, whereas Spalko just seems like an inconsequenial loon rather than a threat to the world - the movie even undermines her supposedly trademark psychic ability - and the way Indy casually assists her and conveys no real concern over his safety doesn't do any favors either.

It was probably a waste for the movie to demonstrate the power of the skull on someone we never met before. If the skull was going to drive someone mad, it ought to have been Indy. Instead he looks at the skull just long enough to kinda communicate with Ox without himself being at any real risk. It's not just weird and convenient, it misses the opportunity to make the third act a matter of Indy's sanity. I would have cared a lot more about the pursuit of Akator if Indy being driven beyond his conscious will to lead the gang there.

The ark would have come across as lame as well if it had been handled like Crystal Skull approaches its McGuffin.
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 12:34 PM   #305
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
I don't think it's the artifact itself. The ark of the covenant felt important because the movie effectively built it up as a discovery and communicated a sense of awe around it. The grail felt important because its significance was couched in a relationship we cared about. With the Shankara stones, we see the suffering its absence causes a village of people and witness the power it gives the Thuggees.

With the crystal skull, we have some vague notion that the Soviets want to use it as a mind weapon, but we're given no reason to think it can be successfully weaponized, and indeed it can't. An apologist might point out that the Nazis were similarly in over their heads with the ark, but Raiders did a much better job of selling us on the intrigue and significance of the ark. Perhaps if Crystal Skull had handled that better, it would have been different.

Also, part of what is supposed to make the ark/skull frightening is the notion of it falling into the hands of really bad people. Raiders gave us memorable moments of genuine villainy from the Nazis (threatening Marion with the poker, burying the heroes alive), whereas the Soviets felt more workmanlike and undistinguished by comparison. We in the audience really don't want Hitler to get the ark, whereas Spalko just seems like an inconsequenial loon rather than a threat to the world - the movie even undermines her supposedly trademark psychic ability - and the way Indy casually assists her and conveys no real concern over his safety doesn't do any favors either.

It was probably a waste for the movie to demonstrate the power of the skull on someone we never met before. If the skull was going to drive someone mad, it ought to have been Indy. Instead he looks at the skull just long enough to kinda communicate with Ox without himself being at any real risk. It's not just weird and convenient, it misses the opportunity to make the third act a matter of Indy's sanity. I would have cared a lot more about the pursuit of Akator if Indy being driven beyond his conscious will to lead the gang there.

The ark would have come across as lame as well if it had been handled like Crystal Skull approaches its McGuffin.

The film does hint at this. Indy does say he's going to return the Skull to the Temple because it "told him to."
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 12:42 PM   #306
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,355
That's right, the impetus for Act III is Indy saying, "It told me to!" It really highlights the limpness of the whole thing. It would have been far better if he had no choice, and the others follow because the only alternative is abandoning Indy. It's a total cheat that there are "degrees" of insanity when it comes to looking at the skull anyway.
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 12:44 PM   #307
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
The film does hint at this. Indy does say he's going to return the Skull to the Temple because it "told him to."

So much for Henry Sr.'s influence from the movie before, where Indy didn't need to be told what to do, because he was taught "schelf reliansch."

Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 02:26 PM   #308
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
That's right, the impetus for Act III is Indy saying, "It told me to!" It really highlights the limpness of the whole thing. It would have been far better if he had no choice, and the others follow because the only alternative is abandoning Indy. It's a total cheat that there are "degrees" of insanity when it comes to looking at the skull anyway.

Speaking of limpness, it certainly doesn't help that "it told me to!" is on the short list for Ford's lesser line deliveries in the series. As with "their treasure wasn't gold, it was knowledge; knowledge was their treasure," we see that the film possibly could have benefitted from Ford's Star Wars/Raiders era eye for what can be written but not said.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 02:59 PM   #309
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,355
It's a terrible line of dialog to be saddled with. If you don't have a better propeller for the final stretch of the movie than, "Well, BECAUSE!" then the script still needs work. A good actor can weave straw into gold, but you can't ask them to weave nothing into something.

And yes, the sermon at the end about knowledge=treasure was unfortunate as well. I don't blame Ford for that either. Using the grail theme over that dialog felt like the movie was acknowledging that it was weaksauce and thus wanted to remind you of a previous Indy movie where emotional beats actually landed. It's as phony as the South American background plates painted in behind the characters.
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2016, 03:54 AM   #310
NightWalker81
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: El Dorado
Posts: 17
It seems to me there are some dialogues or scenes which seems to be made (or thought) very hurriedly (ironic, if we bear in mind the screenplay had a large process of development). But it's the sensation I get sometimes from some scenes. Like if they shot them conventionally and more like "the nowadays", if I'm explaining myself well. Maybe I'm wrong, but I find the other movies to be a lot more carefully thought out. Each scene seemed to be very much studied and inspired.

I think the artifact is O.K. I like the mysteries and the topics about UFO... But it's the movie itself the one it has some lack of inspiration in some places (I opine). Even I didn't like the artifact, I think it won't be a problem. They didn't deepen too much in the topic of Shankara Stones, but the movie worked very well because it has good scenes of tension, action, fun and great moments with Indy.

If you look close enough the first half of the movie, you will see there is more dialogue, more interaction between characters and more "classic Indy spirit". But, in the second half, neither there was so much dialogue nor there was than interesting. The personal interaction was almost gone in the second half. Everybody acts like a cluster, a group run ahead, but there almost isn't personal moments or interactions. Even, the few there was, haven't passion or emotional connection. Indy movies were never cold and distant, and that may be a reason because this is a little different. I like it and I think it has great moments, but the inspiration isn't that alive. Maybe everybody (George Lucas, writers, Spielberg, Harrison, etc) wanted many things and, at the end, the movie didn't got a concrete personality but a mix of them.

Anyway, even with some little "buts", I think the movie was better than many movies of that year, and I think if you look at it like a chapter more in the saga, it's O.K., funny and with some great moments.
NightWalker81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2016, 07:35 AM   #311
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWalker81
Indy movies were never cold and distant, and that may be a reason because this is a little different. I like it and I think it has great moments, but the inspiration isn't that alive. Maybe everybody (George Lucas, writers, Spielberg, Harrison, etc) wanted many things and, at the end, the movie didn't got a concrete personality but a mix of them.

I think you're a pretty forgiving guy if this adds up to a "little but" in your final assessment. I'm guessing for a lot of people, and certainly for myself, an Indy movie being distant, uninspired and confused is pretty much a dealbreaker since those really aren't qualities that describe the rest of the series.

My take on negative audience reaction is that it comes down to exactly these faults. However, it's not easy to articulate that a movie was distant or didn't have a concrete personality. I think people simply left the theater with a sense that it didn't work, somehow. Lacking a confident way to describe that disappointment, it's easier to express it via CGI gophers, the implausibility of the fridge, a monkey with Mutt's hair style, etc. But I think in a better movie no one would have cared about those things.
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2016, 09:01 AM   #312
NightWalker81
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: El Dorado
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
I think you're a pretty forgiving guy if this adds up to a "little but" in your final assessment. I'm guessing for a lot of people, and certainly for myself, an Indy movie being distant, uninspired and confused is pretty much a dealbreaker since those really aren't qualities that describe the rest of the series.

My take on negative audience reaction is that it comes down to exactly these faults. However, it's not easy to articulate that a movie was distant or didn't have a concrete personality. I think people simply left the theater with a sense that it didn't work, somehow. Lacking a confident way to describe that disappointment, it's easier to express it via CGI gophers, the implausibility of the fridge, a monkey with Mutt's hair style, etc. But I think in a better movie no one would have cared about those things.

Well, I said those “negative” things because we are talking about the “low” moments of the movie and analyzing them. But if we have to talk about the good moments, at the end, the good things weight a lot of more to me than the bad. I love the movie and it has many moments I like. As for me, I didn’t went out of the cinema disappointed, indeed, I went out glad and I had desired to be able to make a film like that, funny and with adventure. I almost felt similar feelings I had when I was a kid and I was watching the old movies of Indy (with due respect to the inevitable differences) and I can say I finished the movie with a smile under my hat.

It’s only, though I love the movie, I can accept the things are not perfect. I am not fan of the extreme positions. I can’t believe whom claims Indy 4 is pure garbage. But I can’t be aside whom says Indy 4 is absolutely perfect either (I don’t think any film is perfect, indeed). Even the original trilogy has his flaws (though I love them too, but I think that’s a fact). Hence I can understand the movie has his flaws (and I can understand many people who is a little disappointed), but even with those things in mind, as for me, I can enjoy the good things of the movie (which I think they are far more than the bad things).

Yes, I find the second half, like I said, less inspired and a little more distant. But, not than distant, if I’m explaining well. For me isn’t a disaster, it’s maybe only a step lower than the others in some parts (and not in the entire movie). Less inspired and a little distant (in some parts) than the others is not equal to “disaster” to me, if you get me. Though I accept the movie could have to do some things better, but I’m very happy with the results at all.

P.S.: Sorry for my bad English again. I’m doing my best, but I’m pretty sure I’m making some mistakes XD.
NightWalker81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2016, 12:58 PM   #313
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,355
So the David Koepp interview back in October was dissected at the time in the Indiana Jones 5 forums, but I think his quote about Crystal Skull has relevance to this thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Koepp
I think that what [Indy] looks for and when he looks for it dictates what the movie’s gonna be. So the selection of the MacGuffin is everything. I think Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, being set in 1957 there was a conscious desire to say, ‘Much like two of the other ones were World War II movies set in the 30s and early 40s, this is ’57 so a lot of our influences are gonna be science-fiction movies.’ You got that with the original [script], Jeb Stuart took the first shot at it with Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars. That was a really conscious decision that dictated a lot about what the story would be and what the movie would be like, and I think that was followed through on really nicely. I thought Steve did a really good job with that. I don’t know that the idea was most suited to an Indiana Jones movie, but that was what we did. So we tried to be very careful with the selection of the MacGuffin and the eras to give ourselves as much latitude to make the best kind of Indiana Jones movie that we most want to see. Learning how that’s the importance of the choice of the MacGuffin is a big deal.

Emphasis mine. I wanted to know what you fellas have to say about this. Making the movie about aliens was of course always going to be controversial, and I'm sure there was a certain percentage of the audience that was apt to reject the movie on that basis alone.

But I think it's facile to just point to "aliens" as if it's some password that unlocks the movies problems. Because I don't think the movie's problems have anything to do with the MacGuffin, which is diametrically opposed to Koepp's "the MacGuffin is everything" stance.

I mean, what exactly about aliens or the 50s forced the movie to have no stakes, sloppy plotting, disserviced characters and a distracting, gauze-like patina over its photography? Those are certainly some of the things that made me hard on Indy4. For me to judge whether aliens were just a bad fit for the series in a general sense, I kind of feel like I'd need to see the good version of an Indy aliens movie first. A poor execution of a concept should not be an automatic indictment of the concept. Or to put it another way, you can't blame the MacGuffin for bad storytelling.

So what do you guys think? Does anyone agree with what Koepp's implying here, which is that anything that might have negatively influenced the reception of the movie pretty much traces back to its MacGuffin? Because I don't buy it.
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2016, 01:46 PM   #314
IndyBuff
IndyFan
 
IndyBuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
So what do you guys think? Does anyone agree with what Koepp's implying here, which is that anything that might have negatively influenced the reception of the movie pretty much traces back to its MacGuffin? Because I don't buy it.

I don't buy that. The Sankara stones weren't a terribly memorable MacGuffin and we saw very little of their power actually displayed in the film, yet they worked because the story wasn't entirely focused on them. Indy eventually made it his mission to save the slave children and put his selfish ambitions aside for the greater good. Kingdom Skull didn't have that same focus, as it became all about the skull and we never really felt the threat of what would happen if it fell into Russian hands. They needed to include a few scenes where the skull really does brainwash people, something the novel (if memory serves correctly) does go into a bit more. The skull itself isn't a bad MacGuffin and certainly had potential to be interesting but there was simply too much tossed in by the end.

Look, I like the film quite a bit and have watched it numerous times over the years. I wasn't disappointed by it and I find myself enjoying it every time I see it. That being said, it has problems and I can willingly admit those flaws. It feels like too many rewritten scripts forced together to try and create a cohesive whole. If anything I blame Lucas for his insistence on aliens and a very specific story. If a different angle had been taken with the skull it could easily have been used to great effect.
IndyBuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2016, 01:55 PM   #315
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyBuff
I don't buy that. The Sankara stones weren't a terribly memorable MacGuffin and we saw very little of their power actually displayed in the film, yet they worked because the story wasn't entirely focused on them. Indy eventually made it his mission to save the slave children and put his selfish ambitions aside for the greater good.

Bingo. And the holy grail is the same way. Spielberg originally rejected it because he thought it was a weak artifact, but eventually came around to liking it after the father/son dynamic was added. The MacGuffin didn't magically get stronger; they made the story stronger.
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2016, 01:49 AM   #316
Toht's Arm
IndyFan
 
Toht's Arm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 163
Yeah I don't agree with Koepp at all on this. I hope he's simply responding to fans who were disappointed by the film and in particular the aliens. Perhaps his own private thoughts on the matter are more nuanced. The "ancient alien" stuff was totally in line with the Indy movies' pseudo-archaeology shtick.
Toht's Arm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2016, 08:14 AM   #317
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,355
Let me re-address a point made earlier in the thread about the look of the film. I argued that this movie looks significantly different from the first three movies. It was counter-argued that the first three movies have their own stylistic differences from each other.

To this point, the following are DVD screenshots from the main site. They are exterior, daytime shots of Indy with his hat from all four films:






Talk all you want about the nuanced differences in the photography between Raiders, Temple and Last Crusade. There's a clear outlier here.
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2016, 10:09 AM   #318
IndyBuff
IndyFan
 
IndyBuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,251
I felt the lighting was too bright throughout much of the film. Tombs and underground areas should be dark and dim, yet it always looks like Indy's in broad daylight throughout the entire adventure. I had no problem with the cinematography and overall look of the film, but the lighting was too soft and intrusive in many places.
IndyBuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2016, 11:57 AM   #319
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,355
I enjoyed the compositions. But there is unwelcome filtration applied to the movie throughout that gives the impression of a layer of gauze over the image. I don't just object to this because it is inconsistent with the rest of the series, but because it plain looks bad and gives the whole movie an artificial sheen, even in the location footage.

I mean, just compare the opening images of Last Crusade to Crystal Skull. Both prologues were filmed in a real desert. But while Last Crusade looks vibrant, filmic, and immediate, there's this hazy filter on top of Crystal Skull that distances us. All the halating light feels weird as well. I'd argue this artificial look is a real problem rather than just a taste thing because it prevents us from buying into even the movie's real scenery and stuntwork. It keeps us at arm's length.
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2016, 03:39 PM   #320
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
I'd argue this artificial look is a real problem rather than just a taste thing because it prevents us from buying into even the movie's real scenery and stuntwork. It keeps us at arm's length.

It's a camouflage technique.

http://7wallpapers.net/wp-content/up...rison-Ford.jpg

They had to do it. Large Image intentionally used to substantiate my point.

Last edited by Finn : 05-23-2017 at 07:40 AM. Reason: you've made it by now
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2016, 03:56 PM   #321
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,355
I don't buy that the softness was an attempt to disguise Ford's age. For one thing, it doesn't, and for another the filtration is characteristic of Kaminski's work prior and since. And what does the obnoxious blooming around every light source have to do with hiding wrinkles?

Besides, that BS wasn't used in The Force Awakens, and Ford was seven years older in that. No, Crystal Skull looks the way it does because of a DOP who couldn't suck it up and put his preferred style aside, even for a movie where it plainly was not compatible. But I might be more pissed at Spielberg for giving it his approval.

Last edited by Udvarnoky : 12-16-2016 at 04:04 PM.
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 08:17 AM   #322
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,355
Here's a production still of Harrison Ford during the filming of Crystal Skull. It functions as a reference of what he looked like with make-up, but without Kaminski's "enhancements."



Looks great to me.
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 05:56 AM   #323
Mickiana
IndyFan
 
Mickiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,184
Yeah, that softness gave a sort of misty look to much of it. It seems very common these days. I wonder why that is?
Mickiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2017, 09:06 AM   #324
seasider
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 182
I recently had a dinner table discussion with some friends regarding the Indiana Jones movies and which one was their favorite. Naturally, the discussion eventually steered towards KOTCS and it was like they suddenly transformed into an angry Trump voter (no offense to those who voted for him). There was no room for middle ground or to maybe have them meet me halfway on certain aspects of the movie. It was just flat out "how dare you! The movie is an abomination and I hate the aliens, etc"

The most common denominators always seem to be:

-Aliens was a dumb idea for an Indy movie and they don't belong in that universe.

- George Lucas already ruined Star Wars with the prequels and now he ruined the beloved Indiana Jones franchise.

-The nuke the fridge scenes were dumb and fake.

-Aliens. Still hate those aliens (would it help if I told you they were technically "interdimensional beings"? ...Ok it was worth a try.)

Of course none of these points really explain the vitrol froffing of the mouth hatred some people have for the movies. I think part of it has is generational where people who grew up in the 80's have a deep affection for the 3 movies and then the social media age we live in.
seasider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2017, 05:49 PM   #325
Kai Hagen
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 118
From what I remember of the movie, I lost my interest in the story when I saw Mutt laughing with the swinging monkeys. And the argument between the couple was too long. It was supposed to be a tense action sequence. It just showed me that the villains weren't a serious contender.

The previous series were very different.
Kai Hagen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44 AM.