The Final Word on KOTCS

[gonzosports]

Should be re-named Kingdom of Ghostbusters 2/ Caddyshack 2/Phantom Menace, etc etc etc

I'd rather have my eyes ripped out than see it again.

 

[Mrs_Fedora]

I haven't seen it a second time, but i will soon. I'll give it a 7/10, maybe 8/10 after second viewing

I liked it.

 

[Crusade>Raiders]

I've seen it twice, walked out happy. Nowhere near the level of Raiders/Last Crusade, but it was at least on par with Temple of Doom, and thats all I asked.

 

[Yure]

Very good, a well deserved 8.5. It was my first rating outside the theatre, and still is after many viewings

 

[Dr. HenryJones.jr]

good good... 8-9 very good wanna again to watch movie, just I didn't time...

 

[A_True_Believer]

Having seen it four times I have to agree that it does get better with repeated viewings. I love the interactions between Indy, Marion and Mutt. I've decided that I like this better than Crusade. Crusade has a much better ending (the best in the series in my opinion), but otherwise feels positively dull compared to Kingdom, which I think is more fun overall. Here are my current rankings:

OVERALL
1. Temple of Doom
2. Raiders
3. Kingdom
4. Crusade

ENDINGS
1. Crusade
2. Temple of Doom
3. Raiders
4. Kingdom

 

[Horchata]

excellent for me! Dont know how much better they could have done it. Ready for INDY V!!!

 

[Quickening]

I just watched Mission Impossible 3. I like the first two films but I didn't get a chance to see the third until now and... wow. All the Mission Impossible films are superior to KOTCS but Mission Impossible 3 absolutely shames it. It's on the edge of your seat action from start to finish and they even achieved what KOTCS failed to do, that is, have a love interest that was believable. And the thing is, the MI character was only introduced in that film. Ive been pretty restrained about my disappointment in Indy 4 and thought "well it may not belong with the trilogy but it's okayish" but now I see what a failure it is. I seriously can't believe how much MI3 shames KOTCS. Thank you JJ Abrams for reminding me what true tension, action and emotional attachment feels like. Oh yeah and despite the fact that it has more explosive action than KOTCS, you could never tell anything was CGI and nor did it get ludicrous. Man just awesome.

 

[The Man]

A near-worthless film.

 

[Darth Vile]

I just watched Mission Impossible 3. I like the first two films but I didn't get a chance to see the third until now and... wow. All the Mission Impossible films are superior to KOTCS but Mission Impossible 3 absolutely shames it. It's on the edge of your seat action from start to finish and they even achieved what KOTCS failed to do, that is, have a love interest that was believable. And the thing is, the MI character was only introduced in that film. Ive been pretty restrained about my disappointment in Indy 4 and thought "well it may not belong with the trilogy but it's okayish" but now I see what a failure it is. I seriously can't believe how much MI3 shames KOTCS. Thank you JJ Abrams for reminding me what true tension, action and emotional attachment feels like. Oh yeah and despite the fact that it has more explosive action than KOTCS, you could never tell anything was CGI and nor did it get ludicrous. Man just awesome.

I’m surprised you like it as MI3 contains all the elements (multiplied by a factor of 3) that you seem to criticize KOTCS for e.g. too much CGI, little character development, preposterous situations etc. etc. I like MI3 myself (as a piece of throwaway entertainment), but I think it’s everything (and more) that KOTCS detractors claim KOTCS to be… MI3 is certainly fast paced, but it’s also implausible, contrived and hugely predictable (although well done in places).

So again, if MI3 is a barometer for a good movie… I’d challenge that view.

 

[TheLastCrusader]

good good... 8-9 very good wanna again to watch movie, just I didn't time...

 

[Quickening]

I?m surprised you like it as MI3 contains all the elements (multiplied by a factor of 3) that you seem to criticize KOTCS for e.g. too much CGI, little character development, preposterous situations etc. etc. I like MI3 myself (as a piece of throwaway entertainment), but I think it?s everything (and more) that KOTCS detractors claim KOTCS to be? MI3 is certainly fast paced, but it?s also implausible, contrived and hugely predictable (although well done in places).

So again, if MI3 is a barometer for a good movie? I?d challenge that view.

No Im saying Mission Impossible 3 is the opposite of KOTCS. I cared about the characters even the obligatory love interest unlike in KOTCS. The CGI wasn't noticable at all unlike in KOTCS. Nothing in Mission Impossible 3 come within ten miles of how proposterous KOTCS is. Nuclear explosions and Tarzan. Mission Impossible 3 makes KOTCS look like a joke in every possible way.
Heh, disagree all you like. But Im just astounded at how MI3 utterly shames Indy 4. But it's so good that even as an Indy fan I don't much care. Im going to watch it again.
I watched There Will Be Blood recently to which I also prefer to Indy 4 but that's like comparing apples and oranges really.

 

[Darth Vile]

No Im saying Mission Impossible 3 is the opposite of KOTCS. I cared about the characters even the obligatory love interest unlike in KOTCS. The CGI wasn't noticable at all unlike in KOTCS. Nothing in Mission Impossible 3 come within ten miles of how proposterous KOTCS is. Nuclear explosions and Tarzan. Mission Impossible 3 makes KOTCS look like a joke in every possible way.
Heh, disagree all you like. But Im just astounded at how MI3 utterly shames Indy 4. But it's so good that even as an Indy fan I don't much care. Im going to watch it again.
I watched There Will Be Blood recently to which I also prefer to Indy 4 but that's like comparing apples and oranges really.

There Will Be Blood is a brilliant movie... and no you can't compare the two as TWBB would put all Indy movies in the shade (IMHO).

Straight off the top of my head - The idea that Tom Cruise can put a mask on that's so perfect/identical to Philip Seymour Hoffman's face that they get Philip Seymour Hoffman to play Tom Cruise wearing Philip Seymour Hoffman's face is more silly/preposterous than anything in any Indy flick (including the mine cart chase, fridge and Tarzan swing) IMHO.

But still, I'm not knocking you for enjoying MI3, I just think it's a lesser movie than KOTCS for all the reasons you believe KOTCS to be a lesser movie (which in itself is ironic). It's all subjective I guess.

 

[Quickening]

Straight off the top of my head - The idea that Tom Cruise can put a mask on that's so perfect/identical to Philip Seymour Hoffman's face that they get Philip Seymour Hoffman to play Tom Cruise wearing Philip Seymour Hoffman's face is more silly/preposterous than anything in any Indy flick (including the mine cart chase, fridge and Tarzan swing) IMHO.

I was surprised they took the mask thing back and it is silly but more stupid than an old man surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge and then surviving being catapulted three miles? Heh, I guess you'll say anything to defend KOTCS.

 

[Darth Vile]

I was surprised they took the mask thing back and it is silly but more stupid than an old man surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge and then surviving being catapulted three miles? Heh, I guess you'll say anything to defend KOTCS.

What are you going on about? I don?t have to, or feel the need to, defend anything apart from defending the use of logic and sensible/pragmatic discussion.

If you want a discussion around taste and subjective opinion ? fine, I?m up for that? But I don?t think you are in a position to claim some form of artistic higher ground if you hold MI3 up as a barometer of quality. A movie, that not only didn?t do the same box office, but also got lower reviews than KOTCS in the media.

I think this is where we start to see a separation of the wheat from the chaff as far as real critique is concerned. Very interesting.

 

[Quickening]

What are you going on about? I don?t have to, or feel the need to, defend anything apart from defending the use of logic and sensible/pragmatic discussion.

If you want a discussion around taste and subjective opinion ? fine, I?m up for that? But I don?t think you are in a position to claim some form of artistic higher ground if you hold MI3 up as a barometer of quality. A movie, that not only didn?t do the same box office, but also got lower reviews than KOTCS in the media.

I think this is where we start to see a separation of the wheat from the chaff as far as real critique is concerned. Very interesting.

You think that the mask thing is less unrealistic that surviving a nuclear bomb in a fridge. If anyones judgement isn't to be taken seriously it's yours. "Logic", heh.
And Im sure even you know that the amount of money a film rakes in does not necessarily have any correlation with quality. All I know is that MI3 was awesome and KOTCS was bad. It was a bad follow-up and it was a lazy film.

 

[The Man]

Im sure even you know that the amount of money a film rakes in does not necessarily have any correlation with quality.

True. Consider the box-office tally of Skull as a behavioural analysis of global fans. Take five average, everyday Indyphiles. If only two return for multiple viewings (one likes it, one doesn't but believes in digging through sh!t for gold), that pushes the financial intake far beyond what can be called an accurate reflection of overall opinion.

As for MI:III, I didn't feel embarrassed after seeing it.

Again, all this pseudo-intellectual codswallop directed at Indy 4 is a waste of bandwidth.

 

[Darth Vile]

You think that the mask thing is less unrealistic that surviving a nuclear bomb in a fridge. If anyones judgement isn't to be taken seriously it's yours. "Logic", heh.
And Im sure even you know that the amount of money a film rakes in does not necessarily have any correlation with quality. All I know is that MI3 was awesome and KOTCS was bad. It was a bad follow-up and it was a lazy film.

You are missing the point completely. It's like your slating Kylie Minogue, whilst slipping in your favourite Britney Spears CD. It's largely irrelevant which one is actually better/worse... rather that your argument is flawed as you've nailed your flag to the mast and used a rather poor example (as far as quality is concerned) as your benchmark of value.

There is a case for holding KOTCS?s flaws up to the light and examining them. There is a case for comparing and contrasting the quality of a movie such as TWBB (your example) against that of KOTCS? but your case is catergorically paper thin if you believe you can scientifically prove that MI3 is 1) A good movie. 2) Is a better than KOTCS.

You cannot take any morale/artistic high ground as your benchmark, MI3, is a known (and many would agree) sub par movie.

 

[Darth Vile]

As for MI:III, I didn't feel embarrassed after seeing it.

.

Do you not think that is more reflective of you and your 1) historic enjoyment of one (Indy movies) versus your less emotional view of the other (Mission Impossible)?

 

[The Man]

Do you not think that is more reflective of you and your 1) historic enjoyment of one (Indy movies) versus your less emotional view of the other (Mission Impossible)?

Whatever is was, I don't appreciate feeling embarrassed. Fundamentals, Darth. Fundamentals...