Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - initial impressions and casual discussion

i hope it's amazing. and i wouldn't even care if it was my least favorite of the four (all previous three are pretty damn amazing... rotla, tod and tlc is my order of preference.). i just want a film that *feels* right with the rest. kaminski is probably my most worrisome aspect--he's not like slocombe at all. that and c.g.i. i just hope it feels like an "indy film". and hopefully, i will be surprised!

so, yeah... i'm really excited, nervous and anxious at the same time.

the reviews that said it was old-fashioned and heavy on exposition were the best news i've heard yet! if that's the case, it may just feel like an indy film after all! most of my favorite scenes from the trilogy are talky exposition scenes, character scenes and romance scenes (not that i don't love action--i'm also big on the creepier supernatural aspects).

well, if i hate it, i'm now legal to drink and drown out my sorrows. unfortunately, without the nazi-saluting capuchin monkey.

a tiny bit peeved about the gun thing. well, he lost the gun in the first scene of temple of doom, and that turned out violent enough. it sounds like the liberal thing might have peeked through concerning the hero killing people with guns. they should have remembered it was a period piece. indy only killing one person in a movie? O_o i admit that's a tad worrisome.

are there any really good indy/marion romantic parts (other than the wedding)? or have they sort of dropped the indy girl romance angle due to younger audiences being put off by harrison and karen's ages?

The chemistry between Indy and Marion is amazing.

Seriously, I have never ever felt so good in my stomach as when they meet for the first time in this movie. Indy's face says it all. So much relief. So many memories.

Especially a truck scene a couple of minutes later defines their relationship. Say about this movie all you want, but you can't possibly deny that they did something amazing with these 2.

And the wedding is beautiful. It is.

The wedding scene is priceless. It was simple and very well done. Love the hat gag.

Dr. HenryJones.jr said:

look, I have read today the luxembourgish cinema called Utopolis, the view user has been send only star *** (three for movie) awwwww (***** mean is very good)
I will to go today late afternoon alone at the movie.

Click to expand...

Hey, *** isn't usually that bad for Utopolis. Are you talking about the website "review"? The ranking has been there for ages. So don't let your opinion be disturbed by it.

Papa Jones said:

Hey, *** isn't usually that bad for Utopolis. Are you talking about the website "review"? The ranking has been there for ages. So don't let your opinion be disturbed by it.

Click to expand...

no, I have not read "review" but only star gives the user comments. really? of Ages? P12 for movie? *oh*
from Luxembourg, too. I am not alone here *grin*

Sam Falco said:

Do they REALLY think they are fooling anyone with their CGI in those new Star Wars movies? Really? I mean come on, you can SMELL the CGI in those flicks its so ridiculous, not to mention Lucas seems to have used all the takes where the actors didnt know the camera was running. Its like he just used shots where they were running their lines. Cant blame them for it, I wouldnt be able to act very well against a green ball either.

Click to expand...

Can you people just leave SW alone? It a goddamn movie! Lucas saved a lot of money making them digitally (they only cost about $100 million each and would have likely been closer to $200 with traditional practices given the amount of effects) and he pioneered new technology. Let's not forget that HE paid for them using his own money, they were not paid for by a studio like Indy was. He did the same stuff he did in Young Indy just on a larger scale. Let's not pretend that Spielberg doesn't use CGI. If there's too much CGI in this then Spielberg allowed it since he seems to win battles vs GL.

I'm old enough to remember when fanboys used to complain about the effects in the OT like matte paintings and the blobs under speeders and matte boxes on the ships and everyone hated Ewoks as much or more than Jar Jar. Everyone I knew loved the SE and the little changes, it made the film fresher, but then when the internet got bigger and dorks started speaking Klingon to each other they all started a backlash just before TPM came out because it's not exactly like the wanted or remembered (but they still saw it like 10 times). After 16 or more years nothing ever is the same (but I guess if you're only 16 then you'd never know that)! I don't think TPM is Lawrence of Arabia, but it has it's moments and still, ITS JUST A MOVIE. If you don't like it don't put it on your DVD shelf, but damn its been almost 10 years and I hear about the SW PT every f***ing day.

This kind of mentality is why girls who are 100 pounds think they're fat and celebrity teens shave their heads and go nuts. People like to tear things down, it's been a really bad trend in the past 10 or more years. Everyone is cynical and venomous.

Enjoy the films and the new Indy for what it is, a ride. If you don't like it then don't see it again, but you don't have to persist in voicing your displeasure to those that do.

Oh, and by the way KOTCS is awesome. Love the waterfall scene! Tarzan scene is not as bad as some have stated, to me at least. Have fun and don't go in being a critic.

Dr. HenryJones.jr said:

no, I have not read "review" but only star gives the user comments. really? of Ages? P12 for movie? *oh*
from Luxembourg, too. I am not alone here *grin*

Click to expand...

I just checked and there isn't even a written review, so no worries

Yeah, it's a small world, eh?

Sandiegojones, I want your babies.

Sandiegojones, you couldn't have said it better.
I've heard so many fan-types (and I'm probably one myself) gripe about almost anything they can in these films, but I defy THEM to ever go out and actually do something better. The only power they can feel is when they sit at home in their parent's basements on their fat butts and throw venom at the hard work of others. I'm sure glad that there are more people in the world who want to see these films than just the cynical fan-boys, otherwise we wouldn't be getting ready to experience this one.

I am going in to this film at midnight with a VERY open mind, and considering that I nearly died of AIDS complications 18 months ago, I'm just glad I've survived long enough to see another Indy movie! And I hope to be around for the new STAR TREK film in '09. Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford didn't HAVE to make this film. They did it because 1) there was a whole new market for it, and 2) as a way of saying "Thank You" to all of us who made the last three films the critical and box office successes that they were. For that reason alone, the venemous cynics should be ashamed of their attitudes!

Hey, Son of Indy, glad you're still with us! Hope you enjoy Indy!

son of Indy said:

Sandiegojones, you couldn't have said it better.
I've heard so many fan-types (and I'm probably one myself) gripe about almost anything they can in these films, but I defy THEM to ever go out and actually do something better. The only power they can feel is when they sit at home in their parent's basements on their fat butts and throw venom at the hard work of others. I'm sure glad that there are more people in the world who want to see these films than just the cynical fan-boys, otherwise we wouldn't be getting ready to experience this one.

I am going in to this film at midnight with a VERY open mind, and considering that I nearly died of AIDS complications 18 months ago, I'm just glad I've survived long enough to see another Indy movie!

Click to expand...

I doubt there are many of us who really sit at home in a darkened corner and write our hands in eager anticipation of how we can...critique a film on an internet message board.

Some of us are people who are trying to do better, or who at least got their start in some fashion by what Lucas and Spielberg gave us. It's our profession, too. That makes us a slightly different set of viewer. Unfortunately, Lucas' "It's only a movie" is a wonderful way to make trivial what we've spent our live doing.

Congratulations on your recovery.

I'm still here, still kickin'! When I die, I plan to be buried (or cremated) with my bullwhip! Gotta be prepared for ANYthing in the afterlife...

I know what you mean about that Lynchpin. I'm a screenwriter myself, and was inspired by Indy and Starwars as a kid. While I'll always love these franchises it's a shame that Lucas seems to place a ceiling on his own creations. As if they can only be silly or fun. With collaboration both universes have created absolute perfection, and could come damn close again. I've yet to see Skull and I'm sure the 12 year oild me will love it. It's a shame about the 32 year old writer me will probably will that the film would have been better without the various silly/ goofy sight gags but I'm really hoping I'll just get carried along on another great, fun, escapist adventure with Dr. Jones.

Damn right, Son of Indy! (can we call you 'son of' for short?)

The only two scenes I didn't like were:

*Mutt's Tarzan-like tree swinging. It was way over the top.

*Marion driving off the cliff and landing on the "rubber" tree.

As for the rest, I loved the film.

QUOTE Some of us are people who are trying to do better, or who at least got their start in some fashion by what Lucas and Spielberg gave us. It's our profession, too. That makes us a slightly different set of viewer. Unfortunately, Lucas' "It's only a movie" is a wonderful way to make trivial what we've spent our live doing.

I, too, work in The Industry, and have done some work on SS films. I do mostly visual effects, and some small-time directing. But, that's what causes the problem for us: so many of us feel as though we're "above" the mere regular moviegoer, because we have some special "inside" knowledge of the process because we work in it, and our opinions are somehow more "legitimate" than Joe Blow down the street. But, Lucas is right: for all that we love our industry, it's still ONLY movies! We're not saving lives, or doing brain surgery, or going to the moon, or finding a new source of energy for our world. We're putting on a stepped-up version of skits in the barn. All we're doing is entertaining people, and while I do believe that at its highest form it can be a true art, as well as an engine for social change, in the case of an Indiana Jones movie, it's strictly made to put butts in theater seats and sell popcorn. It's only a treat, just for fun. There's no socially redeeming message per se, no use of film to change the world into a better place. If you want to talk about an IMPORTNT film that CAN act as a catylist for positive change, a better example would be AKEELAH AND THE BEE. At least that film showed a realistic person in a realistic situation and offered insights as to how anyone else could strive for the best.
Indy movies are GREAT fun, and maybe even somewhat inspiring for those who might become interested in the ancient worlds around us. But, they're still just POPCORN-selling movies.
And I love 'em!

Great points Son of! Amen to that at the end of the day.

Opps, mis-posted this one.

son of Indy said:

But, that's what causes the problem for us: so many of us feel as though we're "above" the mere regular moviegoer, because we have some special "inside" knowledge of the process because we work in it, and our opinions are somehow more "legitimate" than Joe Blow down the street.

Click to expand...

No way, we aren't above, in fact, we're probably a little more entrenched at the same level as the viewer. I said we were somewhat removed, and NOT because we have inside knowledge, but because we place emphasis on story and execution. It's easy to be funny in a movie, but hitting Mutt in the groin three times is the height of humor this movie can attain? Will Ferrel can get kicked in the nuts and be funny and make money, and it's easy.

Remember, Raiders was nominated for an Oscar -- for best picture! Why can't other summer "popcorn" movies (especially those within the same genre, let alone series) attain the same feat. Films don't have to be Akleeh and the Bee to be *important* or great. A film that trades plot, story, motivation, and characterizations for slapstick and shock-and-awe is not a decent movie, regardless of the powers behind it. It's only a movie -- fine. But that's an excuse freshman film students give when they whine to their teacher about working with 16mm. "Your footage is unsuable, your story is undeveloped," says the teacher. "Hey, it's only movies," replies the student. "Oh, well, A+ because it's a movie!"

Man, interesting debate on both sides. I must be bi-polar because agree with both of you! A great pub debate for sure.