Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (US - BD)
Or as Gabe likes to call it: Indiana Jones and the Director Doesn't Care Anymore
Feature
Harrison Ford is back as Indiana Jones, the aging treasure hunter and college professor, this time forced by evil communists onto the trail of a mysterious crystal skull. On the way Indy meets up with a kid named Mutt (Shia LeBeouf), and the kid’s mother…Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen). Plus or minus a few double crosses, that’s pretty much the story.

I’ll come right out and ask—did anyone really expect a great movie out of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? After all the behind the scenes fiascos with scripting woes and possible falling out between the creative types? Perhaps a closer glance at the writer and director’s recent resumes might have been a good cue? When has Steven Spielberg ever been known to deliver on a project when he wasn’t interested? Wasn’t Munich a good enough launch into officially adult filmmaking for him to officially move on? Does he really owe George Lucas this much? And come on people, I’m like the only guy left in the world that still defends the Star Wars prequels, hasn’t Lucas developed enough negative surplus for you guys yet?
Frankly speaking, and putting my review here in an immediate framing as to not offend any of the film’s fans, I’m not an Indiana Jones die hard, and my sense of nostalgia is not afraid of a little hard love every once and a while. I believe Raiders of the Lost Ark is a masterpiece, Temple of Doom is trite and Last Crusade was a fun enough time at the movies, and a fine last act. I wanted more Munich and Minority Report out of Steven Spielberg, not more Indiana Jones. The first time I found myself developing any interest in the project was when the cast was announced, but I still wasn’t quite excited enough to go see the movie in theatres. However, I’m just not a big enough stick in the mud to turn down a Blu-ray viewing on a cool fall day.
For my basic enjoyment I developed a ten item checklist of necessities:
1. Indiana Jones in a hat. Check.
2. Indiana Jones whipping something. Check.
3. Faceless thugs being dispatched in a manner probably too graphic for a PG-13 movie? Check.
4. Sallah. Wait, where the hell is Sallah? That’s an anti-check.
5. Cate Blanchete looking refined, sexy, and commie? Check.
6. Lots and lots of cobweds? Check.
7. Double Crosses (that was quick). Check.
8. Marrion Ravenwood (I love you Karen Allen). Check.
9. Creepy crawlies (no confined spaces this time, but still pretty gross). Check.
10. John William’s original cue. Check
Nine out of ten makes for a modest success I suppose.

For the record Crystal Skull is better than a lot of the critics have labelled it, but it’s still pretty weak, mostly for different and sadder reasons than The Phantom Menace. When George made The Phantom Menace he put everything he had into it, and didn’t have to share almost any of the creative control. When Menace hit the fault laid on Lucas’ personal problems as a storyteller and filmmaker. Now after almost ten years, and three ‘great comebacks’ that were largely considered mistakes, Lucas’ inability to let the past go has sucked in a more impressive creative talent, and one that’s actually managed to grow as a filmmaker.
I didn’t see a single press release or interview during the production of this film that lead me to believe that Spielberg had any interest in the project. He’s always appeared good natured, and happy to be push Shia LaBeouf’s career along its merry little way, but his general malaise was always damning. Those of us keeping an open mind can look way back in development and plainly see the seeds growing from the first script chats. It sounds absurd as all get out, but I kind of like the idea of Indiana Jones vs. the Invaders from Mars. The reasons for not going the full on sci-fi route makes sense (though for some reason Independence Day didn’t stop Spielberg from making War of the Worlds). Then looking at the record we can see it took something like twenty years for Ford, Lucas, and Spielberg to decide on a middle ground, which was written up by Stephen King’s best adaptor Frank Darabount. Apparently everyone but Lucas liked the script (sight unseen I’m willing to bet large money it was the better script), and after George’s rejection the air went out of the project. Spielberg brought on his blandest capable conspirator David Koepp to keep Lucas’ awful sense of dialogue in check, and went through the numbers. You can see it all there on screen.
I don’t like to play the Lucas blame game, because I think the guy is a genuine artist and has a hugely important place in film history (and again, I actually enjoy the prequels), but here it’s obvious that the man isn’t only continuing to deal with his never ending Star Wars and Saturday morning serials obsessions, but his post- Young Indiana Jones historical diddling has taken precedence, as has an official mid-life crisis level re-re-visitation of his greasy roots. This isn’t just Indiana Jones 4, this is Star Wars 7, American Graffiti 3, and chance to deal with the one major element of 1900s pop-culture George hadn’t yet dabbled in—the red scare. Spielberg has no place in this film beyond his work with an awesome cast (he’s even fully dealt with red scare sci-fi in the far more efficient and relevant War of the Worlds remake), but then, working with Steve again is really just another symptom of confused midlife crisis.

Spielberg appears to have taken too many pieces of advice from Lucas on the film’s look. Steve works best with realism, sometimes hyperrealism, George is a champion of the staged and painterly look. Too much of Crystal Skull looks particularly staged. I’m guessing that Spielberg objected to too many digital backdrops and met half way with practical sets that can’t pass as real despite their enormous budget. Spielberg also opts for a more modern lighting scheme, which kind of jibes with the series’ previous visual thesis. The beard can still kick out the big set pieces from a bull horn in the Porto-john, but it’s simply obvious that his heart isn’t fully in this one. We’re talking Lost World levels of fun without magic.
But despite a lacklustre script that basically amounts to some new actiony thing happening every ten minutes, and a brilliant director’s most average effort in a while, the actors actually manage to pull off some spectacular feats of enjoyable characterization. Harrison Ford has been on the road to nowhere for so long I’d personally written him off, hoping that he could find some kind of Bill Murry-esque bit part adventure. Low and behold Harry had it in him for one last go. He plays Jones with a near perfect mix of old school slyness with just enough oldness as to not alienate his audience. John Hurt and Karen Allen don’t get enough screen time to really do us proud, but their general warmth is affecting. Winstone and Blanchett don’t over excite (they were hired for very specific talents), but manage plenty of good face time, and though a little stilted coming off a film saving role in Transformers, Shia LaBeouf does not suffer acute Shortround-ites. There isn’t a lot of drama in the dialogue or action, but the occasionally hitting jokes keep things moving. The grab the snake scene is probably the closest the film gets to the real joy of the original film.
Video
I’m not sure how much of my vague disapproval with the look of Crystal Skull has to do with this Blu-ray disc’s almost blinding clarity. It looks like the powers that be reached another stalemate in the film quality. Apparently Spielberg refused to go full on digital (which was a beautiful look for the Star Wars prequels), but went for a very clean, anamorphic 35mm. I’m not usually one to harp on tradition if filmmakers want to move on, but the first three Indiana Jones films had such pleasant grain and imperfections to them. Sometimes this super pristine transfer, without a smidgen of dirt, grain, of even real life texture looks a little bit like a made for TV movie on Sci-Fi HD. This isn’t a bad thing for the purposes of my video review, because it is immaculate, it just isn’t quite what I was expecting (honestly, I kind of like the look shoddy blue screen effects).

The majority of the film features powerful, high contrast, and deeply dark textures. The cave diving stuff is rich in detail, ensuring every single one of those mossy and cobweb encrusted walls are impressing the hell out of us. My favourite scene visually is at the beginning of the film, when Indy accidentally finds himself on a proto-‘50s town block settled to be big boy bombed. Here Spielberg and DP Janusz Kaminski (who deserved the Oscar for Munich) channel a bit of Tim Burton and David Lynch zaniest, including some really wonderfully vibrant hues and a little clever soft focus (which follows through in a few more of the film’s stylized scenes). The film’s climax features a more metallic and slightly lavender look, which is really the worst case of lacking texture in the whole film, but also the most immaculate part of the whole disc.
Audio
Despite iffy scripts and bored directors, I don’t think any of us were disappointed in good ole’ Ben Burtt and his memorable sound effects collection. The quality of this Dolby Digital TrueHD track shouldn’t come as a surprise given the pedigree or the effort Paramount usually puts into their big releases. The opening act pretty much contains everything you need—a car chase, a few fist fights, whip cracks, some explosions (including a nuke), and some specifically Ben Burttian extras, like magnetized ammunition. The killer ant scene is another fun bit, featuring some huge surround sound creepy crawling, but the sci-fi finale is Burtt’s finest moment, recalling classic genre buzzes and beeps, vamped up with a modern slant, including some heavy bass and lively multi-channel spinning.
John Williams is getting old, and I’ve been regularly disappointed with his more recent scores (comparatively speaking of course), with the exception of Revenge of the Sith, which built gracefully and tonally on the original prequel cues. He doesn’t pull off the same shocker magic with Crystal Skull, but Williams restraint in using unaltered version of old cues is admirable, and gives the full on theme a great bump when it finally springs in. The score is of course well represented on the track, featuring full and immersive symphonic sounds that stand out effectively against all manner of otherworldly sound effects.

Extras
The extras begin with disc one, which itself begins with three Indian Jones timelines. The first is a production timeline of the film, the second is a historical timeline of the events that occurred around the story of the film, based in fact, and the third is a story timeline of the events concerning the actual crystal skull. The timelines are mostly made up of slides with facts and photos. Unfortunately slides that do feature video only feature scenes from the film or behind the scenes footage, no documentary footage on the real life events
‘The Return of the Legend’ is made up of stuff that’s been making the rounds since last April, parts of which were on the latest trilogy DVD release. It’s a basic EPK, but with more post-release spoilers than the usual pre-release EPK. If ever there was proof that Spielberg was roped into this you only need to watch the poor sap crushed ‘neath the boots of Lucas and Ford, and only get particularly excitable when complaining about the pre-production problems. The seventeen and a half minute featurette features some hi-def footage from the original trilogy, if that kind of thing might make your day.
‘Pre-Production’ is all about… the pre-production process, beginning with a whole lot of digital pre-viz. Is this where the maestro lost his way? Did he rely too much on pre-viz and lose his Saturday Morning Serial on-the-spotestness? Later the direct and DP talk a bit about the effort they made to match the look of the original movies (which I disagree with personally), the cast and crew touches on the costume design, LeBeouf’s casting, sword training, and a myriad of other preparative techniques and news that don’t really flow very well. The whole thing is eleven minutes.

Disc one is completed with two trailers, Trailer One and Trailer Two. No sign of the Cat in the Hat.
Disc two features the plate of meat and potatoes, the ‘Production Diary’. This documentary covers pretty much every little thing one might want to know about the film, and it moves at a brisk and clean pace. The documentarians do the Lucasfilm brand proud, as with the exception of the non-extras that were a part of the latest Indiana Jones cash-in release, most of the studio’s produced DVD documentaries have been generally good little movies. There are some elements to the doc that seem to disprove some of my theories on the lacking quality of the overall film, but it also appears that there was a whole lot of important footage delegated to second unit folks (which is more in keeping with Lucas’ filmmaking style). The six part feature runs about one hour and twenty minutes.
The main doc is augmented by a series of shorter featurettes. ‘Warrior Make-Up’ is five minutes and concerns the concept and make-up execution of the very briefly featured generic Latin American ‘warriors’. As character designs I’d call these guys a whole lot less interesting then the similar characters featured in Apocalypto, The Fountain, and of course, The Lord of the Rings. ‘The Crystal Skulls’ is a ten minute coverage of the history of the world’s real crystal skulls and the prop construction very briefly. I actually saw this featurette in parts on television too. ‘Iconic Props’ is a slightly conceited ten minute look at the film’s main props (come on now, ‘iconic’?).

‘The Effects of Indy’ is a little longer, about twenty two minutes, covering pretty much every detail of the practical effects, the miniature work, the compositing work, and the digital animation. The featurette has a classy way of not dividing up techniques as much as scenes, putting equal emphasis of all the different brands of effects artists. I’m becoming so very jaded to special effects and special effects documentaries these days.
‘Adventures in Post Production’ is a glance into the world of editing, sound editing and design, and John Williams’ music. It’s so cool to see Michael Kahn not only still working, but able to cut an action scene just as well as the younger, commercial trained guys. Ben Burtt’s screen presence hasn’t become any more assured since the Star Wars documentary days, but his well stream of talent speaks for itself. Like all these technicians at the height of their power, Benny’s got some back-up these days, but he’s still very hands on. Williams is regal as ever, and has made me appreciate his new cues a little more. I’m beginning to think that perhaps my problems were in the placement and editing of the music, not the music itself, because I didn’t get this sense of nostalgia out of the tracks when blaring on screen.
‘Closing Team Indy’ ends things on a sappy and mawkish nostalgia note, and a love letter afterthought. Basically we’re talking three and a half minutes of face to name end credits. The collection is finished out with three pre-viz sequences, and four image galleries.

Overall
There was no way Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was going to be Raiders of the Lost Ark, but it could’ve been Hook, so I suppose we’re lucky we got a Lost World out of the deal. The worst news would’ve been if Spielberg managed to undershoot the quadruple threat of both National Treasure and The Mummy films, which were flat out Indy rip offs, and which generally weren’t good. From the standpoint of similar means of entertainment and storytelling, in 2008 I’d recommend Hellboy 2 over Crystal Skull. Though both films were flawed, it just seems that del Toro had the gumption to make something with real energy. If you’ll excuse me, I’m going to watch A.I. now so I can see Spielberg direct with his balls a bit, final film be damned.
*Note: The images on this page are not representative of the Blu-ray release.
Review by Gabriel Powers
Advertisement
Existing Posts
Indy 4 is totally forgettable and a lame excuse for a movie. Lucas is a total screwup.
Fabricio De Zuasnabar wrote: i wasnt planning to get this, cuz i havent seen any of them...
my word...that's just blasphemy
my word...that's just blasphemy
i wasnt planning to get this, cuz i havent seen any of them...
Matt Thompson wrote: Yankeescf04 wrote: Michael Friedrichsen wrote: This movie is great fun. What is eveverybody thinking. And the alien storyline it isn't more fantasy the the ark, holy grail and the glowing stones
Really? Just as fantasy oriented? The Ark, Holy Grail, and the Sacred Stones were all actual artifacts, regardless of what you believe in them. Aliens are, well, frickin aliens, from another planet. Its way more fantasy/sci-fi oriented than the other plot devices.
The Ark and Holy Grail are actual artifacts? So we've found them?
Crystal Skulls are every bit as 'real' -- maybe moreso -- than the artifacts in Raiders and Last Crusade. People seem to be confusing aliens as the main point. No, the aliens simply take the place God had in 1 and 3.
The Ark was an actual, tangible object.....history and archeology has attested to that, but the object itself disappeared thousands of years ago. The Holy Grail is a complete fable, yet at least its basis (the death of Jesus Christ) is a true event. So those two movies had at least some basis in reality. Aliens using crystal skulls to allow for telepathic communication......that's complete garbage with ZERO grounding in any sort of reality. It's as if Lucas & Spielberg up and decided "hey, let's cross The X-Files with Indy and see what happens!" - What happened was a pathetic mess of a movie.
Really? Just as fantasy oriented? The Ark, Holy Grail, and the Sacred Stones were all actual artifacts, regardless of what you believe in them. Aliens are, well, frickin aliens, from another planet. Its way more fantasy/sci-fi oriented than the other plot devices.
The Ark and Holy Grail are actual artifacts? So we've found them?
Crystal Skulls are every bit as 'real' -- maybe moreso -- than the artifacts in Raiders and Last Crusade. People seem to be confusing aliens as the main point. No, the aliens simply take the place God had in 1 and 3.
The Ark was an actual, tangible object.....history and archeology has attested to that, but the object itself disappeared thousands of years ago. The Holy Grail is a complete fable, yet at least its basis (the death of Jesus Christ) is a true event. So those two movies had at least some basis in reality. Aliens using crystal skulls to allow for telepathic communication......that's complete garbage with ZERO grounding in any sort of reality. It's as if Lucas & Spielberg up and decided "hey, let's cross The X-Files with Indy and see what happens!" - What happened was a pathetic mess of a movie.
Matt Thompson wrote: Yankeescf04 wrote: Michael Friedrichsen wrote: This movie is great fun. What is eveverybody thinking. And the alien storyline it isn't more fantasy the the ark, holy grail and the glowing stones
Really? Just as fantasy oriented? The Ark, Holy Grail, and the Sacred Stones were all actual artifacts, regardless of what you believe in them. Aliens are, well, frickin aliens, from another planet. Its way more fantasy/sci-fi oriented than the other plot devices.
The Ark and Holy Grail are actual artifacts? So we've found them?
Crystal Skulls are every bit as 'real' -- maybe moreso -- than the artifacts in Raiders and Last Crusade. People seem to be confusing aliens as the main point. No, the aliens simply take the place God had in 1 and 3. I didn't refer to the crystal skulls. He said alien storyline, which is what I referred to. I agree that Crystal Skulls in themselves are real, but HE SAID ALIEN STORYLINE, which, if you're too stupid to realize, includes aliens. That is what I'm basing my commment on.
Really? Just as fantasy oriented? The Ark, Holy Grail, and the Sacred Stones were all actual artifacts, regardless of what you believe in them. Aliens are, well, frickin aliens, from another planet. Its way more fantasy/sci-fi oriented than the other plot devices.
The Ark and Holy Grail are actual artifacts? So we've found them?
Crystal Skulls are every bit as 'real' -- maybe moreso -- than the artifacts in Raiders and Last Crusade. People seem to be confusing aliens as the main point. No, the aliens simply take the place God had in 1 and 3. I didn't refer to the crystal skulls. He said alien storyline, which is what I referred to. I agree that Crystal Skulls in themselves are real, but HE SAID ALIEN STORYLINE, which, if you're too stupid to realize, includes aliens. That is what I'm basing my commment on.
At least I see that I am not the only one who thought that Karen Allen was way under-used....
Ahhh George, stay away from movie scripts! Please!!!!
For me it felt like a Go, stop, go, stop, etc movie...
Ahhh George, stay away from movie scripts! Please!!!!
For me it felt like a Go, stop, go, stop, etc movie...
How many times people? They're not aliens they're interdimensional beings. Completely different
Kyle Mertes wrote: Bouncy X wrote: Kyle Mertes wrote: KotCS is my third favorite Indy film, with LC in first and RotLA in second.
wow, someone who actually likes one of the sequels more than Raiders? i thought that was a geek no-no or something. it seems everyone else is "universally" agreed that Raiders is the best, its refreshing to see someone think differently and kudos because Last Crusade is my favorite also.
Tom wrote: Last Crusade is my favourite too. Watched it again the other night - cracking film. Loved the Ford/Connery double act
Go us! LOL. Let's start a club and get jackets (and fedoras) :-D
Last Crusade was the first Indy film I ever saw. I've seen it so many times more than Raiders and it still makes me laugh to this day. Ford and Connery are fantastic in it, and I love the beginning how Indy gets his hat and the scar on his chin.
I actually agree. The Last Crusade was the most fun, therefore the most entetaining. The Connery/Ford chemistry was perfect. And I consider fun to be the most important aspect of judging a film, that's why I liked it so much... And on the "chemistry" thing, I think that's one of the reasons Temple of Doom didn't live up to the original when it was released. The chemistry between Ford and Karen Allen was excellent, but when the second film came around there was nothing between Ford and, I can't even remember her name, but you know who I mean. That was rectified by The Last Crusade, obviously with a different kind of chemistry though.... I think I used the word "chemistry" to often... And I really enjoyed Kingdom of The Crystall Skull, again, it was fun. If you were entertained, what more do you want?
wow, someone who actually likes one of the sequels more than Raiders? i thought that was a geek no-no or something. it seems everyone else is "universally" agreed that Raiders is the best, its refreshing to see someone think differently and kudos because Last Crusade is my favorite also.
Tom wrote: Last Crusade is my favourite too. Watched it again the other night - cracking film. Loved the Ford/Connery double act
Go us! LOL. Let's start a club and get jackets (and fedoras) :-D
Last Crusade was the first Indy film I ever saw. I've seen it so many times more than Raiders and it still makes me laugh to this day. Ford and Connery are fantastic in it, and I love the beginning how Indy gets his hat and the scar on his chin.
I actually agree. The Last Crusade was the most fun, therefore the most entetaining. The Connery/Ford chemistry was perfect. And I consider fun to be the most important aspect of judging a film, that's why I liked it so much... And on the "chemistry" thing, I think that's one of the reasons Temple of Doom didn't live up to the original when it was released. The chemistry between Ford and Karen Allen was excellent, but when the second film came around there was nothing between Ford and, I can't even remember her name, but you know who I mean. That was rectified by The Last Crusade, obviously with a different kind of chemistry though.... I think I used the word "chemistry" to often... And I really enjoyed Kingdom of The Crystall Skull, again, it was fun. If you were entertained, what more do you want?
Yankeescf04 wrote: Michael Friedrichsen wrote: This movie is great fun. What is eveverybody thinking. And the alien storyline it isn't more fantasy the the ark, holy grail and the glowing stones
Really? Just as fantasy oriented? The Ark, Holy Grail, and the Sacred Stones were all actual artifacts, regardless of what you believe in them. Aliens are, well, frickin aliens, from another planet. Its way more fantasy/sci-fi oriented than the other plot devices.
The Ark and Holy Grail are actual artifacts? So we've found them?
Crystal Skulls are every bit as 'real' -- maybe moreso -- than the artifacts in Raiders and Last Crusade. People seem to be confusing aliens as the main point. No, the aliens simply take the place God had in 1 and 3.
Really? Just as fantasy oriented? The Ark, Holy Grail, and the Sacred Stones were all actual artifacts, regardless of what you believe in them. Aliens are, well, frickin aliens, from another planet. Its way more fantasy/sci-fi oriented than the other plot devices.
The Ark and Holy Grail are actual artifacts? So we've found them?
Crystal Skulls are every bit as 'real' -- maybe moreso -- than the artifacts in Raiders and Last Crusade. People seem to be confusing aliens as the main point. No, the aliens simply take the place God had in 1 and 3.
No it's not dumb at all mate, I preordered mine from www.movietyme.com, I got an email on 30/09 to say it had been dispatched, just waiting on it now.
They did the same with Iron Man and I had that 2 weeks early, they're an excellent company to deal with, highly recommended.[/quote]
Damn, I'm heading to www.movietyme.com now. There was a DVD website I used to go to years ago that sent me new movies a few days before their release date, but actually got fined by the studios. So from that point on, would only ship movies the day they were released in stores.
My Blu-Ray arrived this morning. RAH!
I shall be watching that this weekend me thinks.
I shall be watching that this weekend me thinks.
I had fun with "Hook"! It was an enjoyable fairy tale, and I thought that it had more magic in it than "Crystal Skull", which I liked for personal reasons. Watching Indiana Jones ride again is always a treat, but I have to agree with Gabe - the recent track records of those behind the camera haven't been up to the par that the previous films set. However, it's mostly all good; it's an enjoyable ride, but it doesn't leave the viewer with anything, the way that "Raiders" and "Last Crusade" left indelible impressions on the viewer.
Finally... Someone who doesn't think Temple Of Doom is the worst of the series... It may have a few flaws, but at least it's in the same tone as Raiders... We have action, adventure, some scary stuff en some humor... And all in a brand new story with new villains.
The problem (for me) with Last Crusade and Crystal Skull is they don't stay true to the characters. In Raiders and Temple Indy was a hero who wasn't invincible, but in the end got the job done. In Last Crusade and Crystal Skull they turn him into a fumbling idiot at times. I hate the part in Last Crusade where his dad sits on the chair, opens up a secret stairway and Indy tumbles down it with a ridiculous look on his face. Also, I think the plane that passes them in the tunnel is silly. Another thing I don't like about Last Crusade is how they treat Sallah and Brody in Last Crusade. In Raiders both were intelligent men who Indy could depend upon. In Last Crusade both are just comic relief. And Brody suffers the most... The changed him from a respectable curator of a museum to a mumbling idiot.
Same with Marion Ravenwood in Crystal Skull... In Raiders she had spunk... In Crystal Skull she just smiles and acts like a schoolgirl... Other bad scenes: the already mentioned monkeys and the sandpit with the snake...
Still... having said al this... both films are still much better than most of todays blockbusters.
The problem (for me) with Last Crusade and Crystal Skull is they don't stay true to the characters. In Raiders and Temple Indy was a hero who wasn't invincible, but in the end got the job done. In Last Crusade and Crystal Skull they turn him into a fumbling idiot at times. I hate the part in Last Crusade where his dad sits on the chair, opens up a secret stairway and Indy tumbles down it with a ridiculous look on his face. Also, I think the plane that passes them in the tunnel is silly. Another thing I don't like about Last Crusade is how they treat Sallah and Brody in Last Crusade. In Raiders both were intelligent men who Indy could depend upon. In Last Crusade both are just comic relief. And Brody suffers the most... The changed him from a respectable curator of a museum to a mumbling idiot.
Same with Marion Ravenwood in Crystal Skull... In Raiders she had spunk... In Crystal Skull she just smiles and acts like a schoolgirl... Other bad scenes: the already mentioned monkeys and the sandpit with the snake...
Still... having said al this... both films are still much better than most of todays blockbusters.
I think I rate them in order actually.
If pushed I would rather watch Doom (uncut) before Crusade. What I like about Doom is that (as has been said on here) that it gives Indy a different environment to play in rather than re-hash the original.
It's the same reason I rate Oceans 12 over 13. Despite being a non Ocean's script/story and made to fit, it dared to try something different to the first film. The 2 trilogy's do have that in common. The first is a breath of fresh air, the 2nd threw a lot of people of by being something unexpected and the 3rd tried to recapture the feel of the 1st again.
As for Skull, I like it. Not so much but it'll do. Not enough of John Hurt or Karen Allen and too much of Ray Winstone. I like Ray Winstone but his character became annoying very quickly with his constant switching sides. As an audience memeber, it just got irritating.
Music wise I did feel it was missing a strong theme.
CGI use. Well you could complain until the cows came home on this but all the first 3 films had SFX and matte paintings and Skull is no different. They just used digital to create the backgrounds and scene extensions rather than painting on glass. Digital has a different aesthetic but you can't blame them for useing the latest technolgy.
Having said that, the monkeys are and will always be a bad idea.
From a plot perspective I understand that they had to catch Mutt back up to the chase but surely there's ways of doing that (with comedy I might add) without resorting to Mutt of the Jungle.
I do understand that the jungle swinging is a reference to Tarzan which was popular at the time but just thinking about it quickly, Indy & Co could have realised Mutt had fallen away at some point and turned the whole chase around by going back the way they'd come. It would have been funny because it would be poking fun at chases in that most chases go from starting point A through B and end up at C. Having the chase go A-B-A could subvert this notion while providing quite a bit of comedic incident as they run into all the people who've been knocked of various vehicles previously. They would then pick Mutt up en route which to my mind would have been funnier and cheaper.
Plus, comedy without monkeys.
If pushed I would rather watch Doom (uncut) before Crusade. What I like about Doom is that (as has been said on here) that it gives Indy a different environment to play in rather than re-hash the original.
It's the same reason I rate Oceans 12 over 13. Despite being a non Ocean's script/story and made to fit, it dared to try something different to the first film. The 2 trilogy's do have that in common. The first is a breath of fresh air, the 2nd threw a lot of people of by being something unexpected and the 3rd tried to recapture the feel of the 1st again.
As for Skull, I like it. Not so much but it'll do. Not enough of John Hurt or Karen Allen and too much of Ray Winstone. I like Ray Winstone but his character became annoying very quickly with his constant switching sides. As an audience memeber, it just got irritating.
Music wise I did feel it was missing a strong theme.
CGI use. Well you could complain until the cows came home on this but all the first 3 films had SFX and matte paintings and Skull is no different. They just used digital to create the backgrounds and scene extensions rather than painting on glass. Digital has a different aesthetic but you can't blame them for useing the latest technolgy.
Having said that, the monkeys are and will always be a bad idea.
From a plot perspective I understand that they had to catch Mutt back up to the chase but surely there's ways of doing that (with comedy I might add) without resorting to Mutt of the Jungle.
I do understand that the jungle swinging is a reference to Tarzan which was popular at the time but just thinking about it quickly, Indy & Co could have realised Mutt had fallen away at some point and turned the whole chase around by going back the way they'd come. It would have been funny because it would be poking fun at chases in that most chases go from starting point A through B and end up at C. Having the chase go A-B-A could subvert this notion while providing quite a bit of comedic incident as they run into all the people who've been knocked of various vehicles previously. They would then pick Mutt up en route which to my mind would have been funnier and cheaper.
Plus, comedy without monkeys.
Indy IV is truly a god-awful, insulting mess of a movie. As a longtime Indiana Jones fan, I loved the other three. "Crystal Skull" is so far removed in quality from them that it's not really even in the same league, aside from the fact that it has "Indiana Jones" in the title. Gone from this film is any trace of fun, adventure, humor, and even the remotest traces of plausibility (note I said "remotest traces" because none of the others are completely plausible, but at least 'Raiders' macguffin was based on something real). Instead, Spielberg and Lucas decided to treat their fans to over-used (and bad) CGI.....poorly written characters......bad acting (i.e. Karen Allen particularly).....and a completely idiotic storyline.
This film was trash through and through.
This film was trash through and through.
cinemaniac26 wrote: Disciple wrote: I don't really care about it's flaws to be honest, i thought it was highly entertaining and i'm a huge fan of Shia Labeouf, so i'll be watching this a lot over the weekend. That's it; i already have it, two weeks before it's release. (BD) Looking forward to watching all the extras, might have an Indiana Jones marathon. 
May it be so dumb of me to ask, but...how in the hell do you guys get these two weeks early?
No it's not dumb at all mate, I preordered mine from www.movietyme.com, I got an email on 30/09 to say it had been dispatched, just waiting on it now.
They did the same with Iron Man and I had that 2 weeks early, they're an excellent company to deal with, highly recommended.
May it be so dumb of me to ask, but...how in the hell do you guys get these two weeks early?
No it's not dumb at all mate, I preordered mine from www.movietyme.com, I got an email on 30/09 to say it had been dispatched, just waiting on it now.
They did the same with Iron Man and I had that 2 weeks early, they're an excellent company to deal with, highly recommended.
Disciple wrote: I don't really care about it's flaws to be honest, i thought it was highly entertaining and i'm a huge fan of Shia Labeouf, so i'll be watching this a lot over the weekend. That's it; i already have it, two weeks before it's release. (BD) Looking forward to watching all the extras, might have an Indiana Jones marathon. 
May it be so dumb of me to ask, but...how in the hell do you guys get these two weeks early?
May it be so dumb of me to ask, but...how in the hell do you guys get these two weeks early?
I don't really care about it's flaws to be honest, i thought it was highly entertaining and i'm a huge fan of Shia Labeouf, so i'll be watching this a lot over the weekend. That's it; i already have it, two weeks before it's release. (BD) Looking forward to watching all the extras, might have an Indiana Jones marathon.
First of all I should say that I haven't yet seen Kingdom but the blu ray is on it's way from MovieTyme.............
Now then,
I'll tell you what I find mystifying about the whole Indy debate......... it's the revisionist opinions of Temple of Doom, I remember when it was released, I was just a kid and went to the cinema with my Dad to watch it, we were on holiday in Cornwall at the time and I absolutely loved it but then I rented it on VHS a few years later and I simply didn't enjoy it that much at all.
Over the years between then and now, no one I have ever met has ever had much to say about it that I would classify as positive and most of the negativity surrounds the plot itself, the setting and of course, Short Arse, I mean Round (sorry), then a couple of christmases ago, my missus bought me the DVD trilogy and I have watched Raiders and Crusade over and over, I tried to watch Temple once and couldn't even finish the film, I started to wonder exactly why this was and the conclusions I came to are that it just doesn't have any real magic to it, the bad guys hold no appeal and as for Indy's companions, well to be honest I want a director's cut where they all die, it's a poor film in my opinion and it hasn't retained the watchability of Raiders and Crusade over the years.
(who cares if the Maharaja and some village gets saved from some half arsed spell or not vs the evil Nazi's getting hold of the Ark or the Holy Grail and taking over the world?)
Then they release Kingdom and suddenly................ people are putting Temple second in the running when I will bet a pound to a penny they wouldn't have had this never been released, it's just revisionist bull and it bugs the hell out of me.
To be totally frank, Indy needs something despicable to go up against and the Nazi's were the perfect foil for him, an army of people who went against everything he stood for gave him so many reasons to do the things he did, a bunch of pillocks in a temple chanting about stones and stuff just doesn't do it at the end of the day and if they had to advance the years the movie is set in so as to reflect the fact that Harrison is older then the Russkies were the only real option, although they perhaps could've gone with some underground group of neo nazi's trying to bring Hitler back from the dead with some otherworldly device (mcguffin) found by Nazi archaeologists or something.
My final point is, that even though I haven't seen this film yet, I can't imagine it being as poor as Temple is, maybe I'll be proved wrong when I watch it but my money is bet firmly against that.
Now then,
I'll tell you what I find mystifying about the whole Indy debate......... it's the revisionist opinions of Temple of Doom, I remember when it was released, I was just a kid and went to the cinema with my Dad to watch it, we were on holiday in Cornwall at the time and I absolutely loved it but then I rented it on VHS a few years later and I simply didn't enjoy it that much at all.
Over the years between then and now, no one I have ever met has ever had much to say about it that I would classify as positive and most of the negativity surrounds the plot itself, the setting and of course, Short Arse, I mean Round (sorry), then a couple of christmases ago, my missus bought me the DVD trilogy and I have watched Raiders and Crusade over and over, I tried to watch Temple once and couldn't even finish the film, I started to wonder exactly why this was and the conclusions I came to are that it just doesn't have any real magic to it, the bad guys hold no appeal and as for Indy's companions, well to be honest I want a director's cut where they all die, it's a poor film in my opinion and it hasn't retained the watchability of Raiders and Crusade over the years.
(who cares if the Maharaja and some village gets saved from some half arsed spell or not vs the evil Nazi's getting hold of the Ark or the Holy Grail and taking over the world?)
Then they release Kingdom and suddenly................ people are putting Temple second in the running when I will bet a pound to a penny they wouldn't have had this never been released, it's just revisionist bull and it bugs the hell out of me.
To be totally frank, Indy needs something despicable to go up against and the Nazi's were the perfect foil for him, an army of people who went against everything he stood for gave him so many reasons to do the things he did, a bunch of pillocks in a temple chanting about stones and stuff just doesn't do it at the end of the day and if they had to advance the years the movie is set in so as to reflect the fact that Harrison is older then the Russkies were the only real option, although they perhaps could've gone with some underground group of neo nazi's trying to bring Hitler back from the dead with some otherworldly device (mcguffin) found by Nazi archaeologists or something.
My final point is, that even though I haven't seen this film yet, I can't imagine it being as poor as Temple is, maybe I'll be proved wrong when I watch it but my money is bet firmly against that.
m@tt wrote: Movie Dude wrote: m@tt wrote: Movie Dude wrote: Call me crazy but I thought it was enjoyable from start to finish. Didn't need my brain on for the entire movie. It reminded of those summers of 1996, 1997, 1998, & 1999 when I was a kid seeing movies like Godzilla, Lethal Weapon 4, Armageddon, Mission: Impossible, The Phantom, Independence Day, just to name a few.
And very bad movies they all were too.
Probably because you were thinking way too much when they came out in theaters. Unlike you, I don't watch movies to point out flaws, I watch movies to be entertained by them, not to think about the stuff that could of made it better. That's a film critic's job.
I watch movies to point out flaws? Bizarre. I enjoyed the Dark Knight, that was entertaining but it was also well made and not a dumb film either which is rare for a summer blockbuster i know but it is possible. Those films you mention are awful but if you enjoyed them that's fine. I actually enjoyed Temple Of Doom better than this Indy film so we all like a bit of c**p now and again.
I got a good point there.
And very bad movies they all were too.
Probably because you were thinking way too much when they came out in theaters. Unlike you, I don't watch movies to point out flaws, I watch movies to be entertained by them, not to think about the stuff that could of made it better. That's a film critic's job.
I watch movies to point out flaws? Bizarre. I enjoyed the Dark Knight, that was entertaining but it was also well made and not a dumb film either which is rare for a summer blockbuster i know but it is possible. Those films you mention are awful but if you enjoyed them that's fine. I actually enjoyed Temple Of Doom better than this Indy film so we all like a bit of c**p now and again.
I got a good point there.
Movie Dude wrote: m@tt wrote: Movie Dude wrote: Call me crazy but I thought it was enjoyable from start to finish. Didn't need my brain on for the entire movie. It reminded of those summers of 1996, 1997, 1998, & 1999 when I was a kid seeing movies like Godzilla, Lethal Weapon 4, Armageddon, Mission: Impossible, The Phantom, Independence Day, just to name a few.
And very bad movies they all were too.
Probably because you were thinking way too much when they came out in theaters. Unlike you, I don't watch movies to point out flaws, I watch movies to be entertained by them, not to think about the stuff that could of made it better. That's a film critic's job.
I watch movies to point out flaws? Bizarre. I enjoyed the Dark Knight, that was entertaining but it was also well made and not a dumb film either which is rare for a summer blockbuster i know but it is possible. Those films you mention are awful but if you enjoyed them that's fine. I actually enjoyed Temple Of Doom better than this Indy film so we all like a bit of c**p now and again.
And very bad movies they all were too.
Probably because you were thinking way too much when they came out in theaters. Unlike you, I don't watch movies to point out flaws, I watch movies to be entertained by them, not to think about the stuff that could of made it better. That's a film critic's job.
I watch movies to point out flaws? Bizarre. I enjoyed the Dark Knight, that was entertaining but it was also well made and not a dumb film either which is rare for a summer blockbuster i know but it is possible. Those films you mention are awful but if you enjoyed them that's fine. I actually enjoyed Temple Of Doom better than this Indy film so we all like a bit of c**p now and again.
Michael Friedrichsen wrote: This movie is great fun. What is eveverybody thinking. And the alien storyline it isn't more fantasy the the ark, holy grail and the glowing stones
Really? Just as fantasy oriented? The Ark, Holy Grail, and the Sacred Stones were all actual artifacts, regardless of what you believe in them. Aliens are, well, frickin aliens, from another planet. Its way more fantasy/sci-fi oriented than the other plot devices.
Really? Just as fantasy oriented? The Ark, Holy Grail, and the Sacred Stones were all actual artifacts, regardless of what you believe in them. Aliens are, well, frickin aliens, from another planet. Its way more fantasy/sci-fi oriented than the other plot devices.
Movie Dude wrote:
Probably because you were thinking way too much when they came out in theaters. Unlike you, I don't watch movies to point out flaws, I watch movies to be entertained by them, not to think about the stuff that could of made it better. That's a film critic's job.
But even film critics can be entertained by the material...most of the ones you mentioned fared pretty good amongst critics.
As an aspiring film critic, there are lots of films that are just dumb fun for me even when they shouldn't be. It's all a matter of taste and it depends on how a movie is made.
Probably because you were thinking way too much when they came out in theaters. Unlike you, I don't watch movies to point out flaws, I watch movies to be entertained by them, not to think about the stuff that could of made it better. That's a film critic's job.
But even film critics can be entertained by the material...most of the ones you mentioned fared pretty good amongst critics.
As an aspiring film critic, there are lots of films that are just dumb fun for me even when they shouldn't be. It's all a matter of taste and it depends on how a movie is made.
It was a good review Gabe.
Personally though, I found the movie so terrible when watching it in the theater it actually made me squirm with disgust. I think a second go around on video would be unwatchable for me.
Personally though, I found the movie so terrible when watching it in the theater it actually made me squirm with disgust. I think a second go around on video would be unwatchable for me.
m@tt wrote: Movie Dude wrote: Call me crazy but I thought it was enjoyable from start to finish. Didn't need my brain on for the entire movie. It reminded of those summers of 1996, 1997, 1998, & 1999 when I was a kid seeing movies like Godzilla, Lethal Weapon 4, Armageddon, Mission: Impossible, The Phantom, Independence Day, just to name a few.
And very bad movies they all were too.
Probably because you were thinking way too much when they came out in theaters. Unlike you, I don't watch movies to point out flaws, I watch movies to be entertained by them, not to think about the stuff that could of made it better. That's a film critic's job.
And very bad movies they all were too.
Probably because you were thinking way too much when they came out in theaters. Unlike you, I don't watch movies to point out flaws, I watch movies to be entertained by them, not to think about the stuff that could of made it better. That's a film critic's job.
It's not that "Munich" isn't good -- it's a well-crafted and well-performed film, but the pacing is glacial when the pacing needed to be tightened more. I'm not saying that the film should've been two hours, but that it could've been a lot more satisfying at close to 2 1/2 hours as opposed to being ten minutes shy of three hours long.
And someone really needs to teach Tony Kushner how to condense the story down further as opposed to way too many shots of the characters reflecting and too much exposition. That kind of stuff works beautifully in Kushner's plays but not in a film. And that melodramatic scene (the slo-mo sex scene) at the end is badly misplaced.
And it's way overrated, and Indy 4 is way underrated IMO.
And someone really needs to teach Tony Kushner how to condense the story down further as opposed to way too many shots of the characters reflecting and too much exposition. That kind of stuff works beautifully in Kushner's plays but not in a film. And that melodramatic scene (the slo-mo sex scene) at the end is badly misplaced.
And it's way overrated, and Indy 4 is way underrated IMO.
Movie Dude wrote: Call me crazy but I thought it was enjoyable from start to finish. Didn't need my brain on for the entire movie. It reminded of those summers of 1996, 1997, 1998, & 1999 when I was a kid seeing movies like Godzilla, Lethal Weapon 4, Armageddon, Mission: Impossible, The Phantom, Independence Day, just to name a few.
And very bad movies they all were too.
And very bad movies they all were too.
I agree with Movie Dude. This was the perfect summer movie. Was it great like "Raiders"? No, of course not. But it wasn't terrible. I'd probably give it an 8/10. And as someone who saw "Raiders" for the first time as a late teen, it was very nostalgic to watch another Indy movie. Also, rating all the IJ films, I'd say "Raiders" was the best. Followed very closely by "The Last Crusade". Then "Kingdom". I thought "The Temple of Doom" was absolutely terrible. And I watch it every few years just to see if maybe I'm being too tough on it. Nope, I'm not.
Re: Spielberg's other recent films. I actually loved "A.I.". And can't WAIT to see that on BD. "Munich" was pretty good too.
Re: Spielberg's other recent films. I actually loved "A.I.". And can't WAIT to see that on BD. "Munich" was pretty good too.
I re-watched the film last night on Blu-ray. Disc looked and sounded awesome. Did the film hold up on a second viewing? To a point. I would say this is my third favorite of the series behind Temple of Doom and ahead of Last Crusade (Raiders is simply in a class by itself). I didn't go in with high expectations last May, and they were nicely met.
Call me crazy but I thought it was enjoyable from start to finish. Didn't need my brain on for the entire movie. It reminded of those summers of 1996, 1997, 1998, & 1999 when I was a kid seeing movies like Godzilla, Lethal Weapon 4, Armageddon, Mission: Impossible, The Phantom, Independence Day, just to name a few.
I heard the Frank D script was almost the same except it was a lot less silly and better written.
I thought this film was the worse of the series and even Young Indiana Jones was way better than this one (some episodes of Young Indy were written by Frank D).
Enjoyed the review.
I thought this film was the worse of the series and even Young Indiana Jones was way better than this one (some episodes of Young Indy were written by Frank D).
Enjoyed the review.
Skipped this in theaters because I was reading too many disappointing reviews. I'm an Indy fan from way back. I had all the Raiders of the Lost Ark toys as a kid, but Harrison Ford is so long in the tooth now, and Shia LeBeouf fricken annoys me in every movie I see him in, except A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints. But nostalgia will win out and I'll won't be able to resist going on one more adventure with the Man in the Fedora......this time on Blu-ray!
Nice review Gabe. I'd actually give the film a 7, but to each their own. The main problem I had with this film was the overuse of visual effects, like many have said before me. I don't think that was the direction that Spielberg wanted to go with the film, but I'm guessing he may not've had a choice.
I enjoyed this one. Maybe i'll pick up the single disc edition because i'm really not interested in the making of Indy 4.
This movie is great fun. What is eveverybody thinking. And the alien storyline it isn't more fantasy the the ark, holy grail and the glowing stones
Excellent review. I can't agree more. I actually have a PDF copy of Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods, the Frank Darabont script, and it is definetly better. Interestingly, a decent number of set pieces are the same, but it just tends to flow better. Oh well, such is life.
Good review Gabe...however, why do people still expect for an Indiana Jones movie to have a complex story, with complex characters, when the original movie was all about blockbuster popcorn eating movie fun???
I watched this after watching the original three movies one per day, and let me tell you, KoTCS was NOT a disappointment. It had Indy, it had the action, the adventure, the unbelievable stunts, the absurd plots, the corny dialogue, the same jokes...come on, it was Indy!
Then I saw it again a few weeks later, and I still enjoyed it as much as the first time, laughing at the jokes like I did the first time, and being in awe everytime I saw the effects, sets and stunts that were in the movie...
It's Raiders, then Crusade, then Skull then Doom (because of how dark it is)...Dr. Jones is back, and let's hope we have even more! And don't start with Shia, he was really good in his role...
I watched this after watching the original three movies one per day, and let me tell you, KoTCS was NOT a disappointment. It had Indy, it had the action, the adventure, the unbelievable stunts, the absurd plots, the corny dialogue, the same jokes...come on, it was Indy!
Then I saw it again a few weeks later, and I still enjoyed it as much as the first time, laughing at the jokes like I did the first time, and being in awe everytime I saw the effects, sets and stunts that were in the movie...
It's Raiders, then Crusade, then Skull then Doom (because of how dark it is)...Dr. Jones is back, and let's hope we have even more! And don't start with Shia, he was really good in his role...
Good review Gabe,
I agree with you in regards to A.I, Munich and War of the Worlds. Though I have a soft spot for The Lost world as a JP fan. I would import now but I'm looking forward to getting my KOTCS Steelbook. Oh well, just a month to go till my Indy marathon.
I agree with you in regards to A.I, Munich and War of the Worlds. Though I have a soft spot for The Lost world as a JP fan. I would import now but I'm looking forward to getting my KOTCS Steelbook. Oh well, just a month to go till my Indy marathon.
I'll only ever own 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', I agree this is the weakest of the 4 which is pretty damn bad when you consider how terrible 'Temple of Doom' was. Munich rules!
The most depressing thing about the Darabont draft, which I read about 80 pages of, is not that it's SO MUCH BETTER but that it is better...and it's pretty much the exact same movie. There is no quantifiable reason to hate the Darabont draft yet enjoy Koepp's version. The main thing in the Darabont version that is better is the stuff with Marion -- her part is far more substantial and it wouldn't have left Karen Allen looking kind of lost and grinning for the camera.
Really, had they kept the Marion stuff in the final film, it would have made it almost 50% better. If you had kept the Marion stuff, lost the monkey-swinging, and toned down Winstone's irritating traitor character, it might have actually been a good movie.
Really, had they kept the Marion stuff in the final film, it would have made it almost 50% better. If you had kept the Marion stuff, lost the monkey-swinging, and toned down Winstone's irritating traitor character, it might have actually been a good movie.
Bouncy X wrote: Kyle Mertes wrote: KotCS is my third favorite Indy film, with LC in first and RotLA in second.
wow, someone who actually likes one of the sequels more than Raiders? i thought that was a geek no-no or something. it seems everyone else is "universally" agreed that Raiders is the best, its refreshing to see someone think differently and kudos because Last Crusade is my favorite also.
Tom wrote: Last Crusade is my favourite too. Watched it again the other night - cracking film. Loved the Ford/Connery double act
Go us! LOL. Let's start a club and get jackets (and fedoras) :-D
Last Crusade was the first Indy film I ever saw. I've seen it so many times more than Raiders and it still makes me laugh to this day. Ford and Connery are fantastic in it, and I love the beginning how Indy gets his hat and the scar on his chin.
wow, someone who actually likes one of the sequels more than Raiders? i thought that was a geek no-no or something. it seems everyone else is "universally" agreed that Raiders is the best, its refreshing to see someone think differently and kudos because Last Crusade is my favorite also.
Tom wrote: Last Crusade is my favourite too. Watched it again the other night - cracking film. Loved the Ford/Connery double act
Go us! LOL. Let's start a club and get jackets (and fedoras) :-D
Last Crusade was the first Indy film I ever saw. I've seen it so many times more than Raiders and it still makes me laugh to this day. Ford and Connery are fantastic in it, and I love the beginning how Indy gets his hat and the scar on his chin.
I liked the fourth film even though I knew it was going to be a bit of a letdown (how could any film be better than "Raiders"?). Its the weakest out of all four Indy films & the only 2 films that I enjoyed better were Iron Man & Dark Knight.
I don't think it's fair to compare KoTCS to any Star Wars prequels. Aside the fact they were part of a trilogy, they were done in (mostly) by horrible dialogue that even a crystal skull could out-write. As a stand alone film, Kotcs was pretty entertaining.
The film has left me feeling indifferent, I still don't know what to think of it. I think like the SW prequels there is just something that I can't put my finger on that is missing. Although the film did seem like a true love letter to period (not a bad thing) and there seemed to be a lot of passion in those scenes dedicated to the period. Lucas has made American Graffiti and still has a lot of love for the period, I would like to see him make another film on the period instead of trying to unsuccessfully capture the magic of SW again.
I would have to disagree with the review on the picture, as I would love to see a pristine print without grain. On the Mad Men Blu-Ray I felt that the grain was a little too distracting at times.
I would have to disagree with the review on the picture, as I would love to see a pristine print without grain. On the Mad Men Blu-Ray I felt that the grain was a little too distracting at times.
the score was a letdown, but I'd still take his weakest orchesteral moments over some heavy handed repetitive noise that passes for music in some high grossing superhero movies
there's a complete score set about to come out for the four movies, can't wait
there's a complete score set about to come out for the four movies, can't wait
I'm in the 'Raiders' is the best camp. It's actually my favourite movie of all time. My second favourite is 'Temple Of Doom'. I love that one because it puts Indy in a totally new adventure and environment. It's as different to 'Raiders' as 'From Russia With Love' is to 'Dr. No'. With 'Last Crusade' and 'Crystal Skull' they try too much to go back to the style of 'Raiders'. I like 'Crystal Skull' though. For me it's in the same league as 'Last Crusade'. I like most parts of both films, but sometimes the humour in those films borders on slapstick. (The Star Wars-prequels have the some problem).
I can't wait to get hold of my copy of this one!
Last Crusade is my favourite too. Watched it again the other night - cracking film. Loved the Ford/Connery double act
Kyle Mertes wrote: KotCS is my third favorite Indy film, with LC in first and RotLA in second.
wow, someone who actually likes one of the sequels more than Raiders? i thought that was a geek no-no or something. it seems everyone else is "universally" agreed that Raiders is the best, its refreshing to see someone think differently and kudos because Last Crusade is my favorite also.
wow, someone who actually likes one of the sequels more than Raiders? i thought that was a geek no-no or something. it seems everyone else is "universally" agreed that Raiders is the best, its refreshing to see someone think differently and kudos because Last Crusade is my favorite also.
I enjoyed it, but not as much as "The Dark Knight" or "WALL-E." Can't wait to get the DVD. This movie is released on DVD a couple days after one of my friend's birthday.
I enjoyed it immensely for what it was, but agree with everything you stated about Lucas and Spielberg.
The main thing I noticed (and clearly stated whose film this was) was the Lucasfilm logo displayed before the Paramount logo. I did like how they kept the same font and vintage logo for the beginning credits.
Blanchett stole the show. LaBeouf was a worthy addition. I was so glad Ford returned.
All in all, this is so much better than Temple of Doom. KotCS is my third favorite Indy film, with LC in first and RotLA in second.
And as always, a well-written review, Gabe. You rock, dude.
The main thing I noticed (and clearly stated whose film this was) was the Lucasfilm logo displayed before the Paramount logo. I did like how they kept the same font and vintage logo for the beginning credits.
Blanchett stole the show. LaBeouf was a worthy addition. I was so glad Ford returned.
All in all, this is so much better than Temple of Doom. KotCS is my third favorite Indy film, with LC in first and RotLA in second.
And as always, a well-written review, Gabe. You rock, dude.
Great Review Gabe. I agreed with most of your points on the movie. I saw this twice in theaters, and the first time I was extremely disappointed. Then I lowered my expectations when I took my brother to see it, and it was a very enjoyable adventure film, but it still isn't Indiana Jones.
The whole plot of the film has nothing going for it. Who cares if this professor gets rescued, we've never met of him nor heard of him. They should've had Sallah get kidnapped, then we all woulda been glued to the screen. Besides the story, there were so many difference scenes with unbelievable and unplausible stunts that the originals never had. Swinging through trees like Tarzan? Surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge? Swordfighting while standing on two cars at once? Driving off a cliff straight into a tree, which bends all the way to the bottom of the cliff and lets the car off perfectly, then snaps back up to kill everyone climbing down the cliff? Please. EVERYTHING, minus maybe 2 scenes in Temple, was a legitimate stunt in the original trilogy.
Overall, this film did it's basic job, I was entertained, but I don't think it should be considered and Indiana Jones film.
The whole plot of the film has nothing going for it. Who cares if this professor gets rescued, we've never met of him nor heard of him. They should've had Sallah get kidnapped, then we all woulda been glued to the screen. Besides the story, there were so many difference scenes with unbelievable and unplausible stunts that the originals never had. Swinging through trees like Tarzan? Surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge? Swordfighting while standing on two cars at once? Driving off a cliff straight into a tree, which bends all the way to the bottom of the cliff and lets the car off perfectly, then snaps back up to kill everyone climbing down the cliff? Please. EVERYTHING, minus maybe 2 scenes in Temple, was a legitimate stunt in the original trilogy.
Overall, this film did it's basic job, I was entertained, but I don't think it should be considered and Indiana Jones film.
well guess i'm a minority because i liked it a lot. i'll admit within the 4 movie series, i would rate it the "worst" but i didnt think it was a bad movie at all. like star wars, unrealisticly high expectations probably ruined it for many. both series suffer the same problem with "geeks" or "fanboys", they've placed the originals on some impossibly high pedestal which frankly they dont even deserve. but thats besides the point, everyone has their own opinion and tastes so yeah.
but yes, i liked it very much and this sounds like a great disc, way more extras than i ever anticipated and since i'm an extras w***e i like it. of course i just know they'll announce the first 3 for blu-ray with an eventual series box set so i'm gonna hold off buying it for now. especially with that mention that clips of the original 3 are shown in high-def in one of the extras so lemme guess...after xmas we'll start hearing the stories. lol
but yes, i liked it very much and this sounds like a great disc, way more extras than i ever anticipated and since i'm an extras w***e i like it. of course i just know they'll announce the first 3 for blu-ray with an eventual series box set so i'm gonna hold off buying it for now. especially with that mention that clips of the original 3 are shown in high-def in one of the extras so lemme guess...after xmas we'll start hearing the stories. lol
Sorry, "A.I." just isn't Spielberg's best work. Neither is "Munich."
I certainly enjoyed Indy 4, and while it deserved some of the flack it got, it wasn't half bad. I truly think the Beard should get over his Shia obsession, though.
I certainly enjoyed Indy 4, and while it deserved some of the flack it got, it wasn't half bad. I truly think the Beard should get over his Shia obsession, though.


Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13
Disc Details
Release Date:
14th October 2008
Discs:
1
Disc Type:
Blu-ray Disc
RCE:
No
Video:
1080p
Aspect:
2.35:1
Anamorphic:
No
Colour:
Yes
Audio:
Dolby Digital TrueHD 5.1, Dolby Digital 5.1 French, Dolby Digital 5.1 Spanish
Subtitles:
English, Spanish, French
Extras:
Interactive Timeline, Return of a Legend, Pre-Production, Production Diary, Featurettes, Galleries, Pre-Viz, Trailers
Easter Egg:
No
Feature Details
Director:
Steven Spielberg
Cast:
Harrison Ford, Shia LeBeouf, Karen Allen, Cate Blanchett, Ray Winstone, John Hurt
Genre:
Action and Adventure
Length:
122 minutes

