Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
During the Cold War, Soviet agents watch Professor Henry Jones when a young man brings him a coded message from an aged, demented colleague, Henry Oxley. Led by the brilliant Irina Spalko, the Soviets tail Jones and the young man, Mutt, to Peru. With Oxley's code, they find a legendary skull made of a single piece of quartz. If Jones can deliver the skull to its rightful place, all may be well; but if Irina takes it to its origin, she'll gain powers that could endanger the West. Aging professor and young buck join forces with a woman from Jones's past to face the dangers of the jungle, Russia, and the supernatural.
| Harrison Ford | Indiana Jones |
| Cate Blanchett | Irina Spalko |
| Karen Allen | Marion Ravenwood |
| Shia LaBeouf | Mutt Williams |
| Ray Winstone | 'Mac' George McHale |
| John Hurt | Professor 'Ox' Oxley |
| Jim Broadbent | Dean Charles Stanforth |
| Igor Jijikine | Dovchenko |
| Dimitri Diatchenko | Russian Suit #1 |
| Ilia Volokh | Russian Suit #2 |
| Emmanuel Todorov | Russian Soldier #1 |
| Pavel Lychnikoff | Russian Soldier |
| Andrew Divoff | Russian Soldier #3 |
| Venya Manzyuk | Russian Soldier #4 |
| Alan Dale | General Ross |
| Steven Spielberg |
6.60 out of 10 (130608 votes)
Visitor Reviews
An old and dear friend
posted on 30 Aug 2009I may be in the minority, but I was not disappointed in the least with any part of Indiana Jones' latest adventure. Harrison Ford did a wonderful job of recapturing the magic of Indy as an older man; something that, I would assume, wasn't as easy task. Admittedly, when we get to see Indiana for the very first time, it's hard not to have doubts as to just what Mr Ford would still be able to do, and where this story was going to be taking us. But it didn't take long for me to sit back and enjoy the ride once the story got started.For me, it was a given that this installment would be far different from the previous three. It was set in a different era, with different obstacles and different possibilities. It was also following the adventures of a man much older than we had last seen, so it would be ridiculous to expect that he would be that very same man. I found it highly entertaining to see what the imaginations of those putting this together would envision Indiana Jones to be like in his sixties.As well, it was nice to see Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) back. She, too, had changed over the years, both in appearance and demeanor. Yet, the spark that was so present between them in Raiders had definitely withstood the test of time.The rest of the cast, as far as I am concerned, did an okay job, but none were a standout. Shia LeBeouf showed that he can hold his own, action-wise, but his acting performance never came across, to me, as something a dozen other young actors couldn't have done just as well. And Cate Blanchett, as well, never really made her villain into much more than a cardboard cutout.That said, I would still definitely recommend seeing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, regardless of your expectations. Maybe you will leave after having seen it with the thought that you would've done some things differently, but isn't that what imagination is all about? I'm just glad to have been able to see my favorite college professor in action one more time.
Very entertaining
posted on 30 Aug 2009The mixed reaction from critics to this film is understandable as i feel that there were many flaws in this movie. A lot has been made of the introduction of aliens into the indiana jones franchise and whilst i can see why some people would be annoyed by this i don't think it takes too much away from the film. there were times when the plot was a little far fetched but this is indiana jones, its not meant to be taken seriously, previous films had story lines including a lost ark with gods power and the holy grail, a story about aliens is almost a natural progression.What did annoy me slightly is that whilst i can cope with a far fetched plot i was a little taken aback by how much time they spent developing the plot and explaining it. i thought more time should have been spent developing the characters and their relationships, especially the relationship of harrison ford and shia la beouf. I think their interaction was the main strength of the movie and i thought there was a lot of potential for spielberg to develop that even further, maybe he's saving that for possible sequels.The action sequences were amazing, i particularly liked the bit with the atomic bomb i thought that was great as it really gave the audience the feeling of the times that indiana jones was living in, the fear of communists and the fear of spies was worked well into the story.Having said that i didn't like the character of ray winstone at all and thought that he was pretty pointless in the movie. i wont give away what the progression of his character is but it just ended up annoying me when revelations about his motives were made.Aside from that the acting in the film was very good and harrison ford especially seemed to revel in returning to his former role. It was also fantastic being a fan of scrubs to see neil flynn popping up in a small role.A very satisfying film, extremely entertaining and doesn't disappoint if you aren't looking to take it too seriously.
What happens when great characters get bogged down with boring details?
posted on 30 Aug 2009Pros...1- Ford is still Indiana Jones. His age does not hurt this movie. Loved him! 2- The music was very good.3- Some of the action was exciting.Cons...1- The characters are good but their interaction was often dull (and laden with boring dialog). I missed the human element that was present in the other Indy films. Do you recall his interaction with Shorty in Temple of Doom? Or with his father in Last Crusade? Well, Crystal Skull has nothing even close to that. Not even in the same ball park.2- There wasn't enough UNIQUE action. For the most part we get car chases and fist fights. The other movies offered us things we'd never seen before: Like the giant boulder in Raiders or the mine car chase in Temple of Doom. Where was that creativity in Crystal Skull? 3- We get very few truly indelible images or moments. Nothing like the pit of snakes in Raiders. (The CGI ants didn't cut it for me.) Most of the images in Crystal Skull are forgettable.But it gets worse . . .4- The plot is very tedious. We get a lot of dull talk talk talk about the crystal skull and its history. We listen to many conversations about hieroglyphics, maps, etc. Most of the dialog felt bogged down with boring exposition and explanation. If the characters didn't have to explain something boring every couple minutes, they'd have nothing to say! The "object" in these movies should never be the driving force in the dialog or story. It should just be a tool.Look at Temple of Doom... Was that movie ABOUT the rock? No. It didn't spend 70% of its running time talking about the rock and trying to convince the audience of its importance.Look at Last Crusade... The Holy Grail was merely a device to advance the plotting. But the movie was not ABOUT the Holy Grail. It was about Indy and his father. It was about their adventure.Part 4 should have taken a lesson from its predecessors and not made the object (the skull, of course) the central focus. It's merely a macguffen and should not be taking up this much screen time. It's not fun to feel like you're in history class while watching an Indy movie.5- The ending to Crystal Skull was atrocious. It was a lot of flashy images and loud sounds but no substance. I understood the endings to the other movies and found them satisfying. God smites Nazis? Yay! I dug that. But the ending to Crystal Skull left me scratching my head and asking, "What was that about?" Conclusion . . .A fair action/adventure movie. Nothing more. And I'm not saying this because my expectations were too high (as many will no doubt presume). I say this because the movie did not deliver a coherent, satisfying story. It had great characters/actors but didn't know what to do with them.
Good not great.
posted on 30 Aug 2009Warning this comment might contain spoilers. This movie was good not great, I liked it, but there were some flaws, Like the alien thing and the terrible CGI. It was not as good as Raiders or Crusade but it was better then Temple of Doom. It was cool that I got to see a Indiana Jones Picture in the theatre. I had a fun time watching the movie. Shia's character was better then short round in my opinion. It was fun watching and if your a fan of the series then you should get some enjoyment from this one. I recommend this film to any fan of the first 3. Well to me, the series is no longer a trilogy. It was not bad. Some scenes that I did like, Some scenes that I did not like. So, My over all rating is 7 out of 10 stars. Go see it if you haven't. It could have been better but it could have been a whole lot worse. MPAA Rating:PG-13. Well, enjoy the ride. The fourth chapter in the Indiana Jones quartet(Quartet means 4 movies).
It Delivers.
posted on 30 Aug 2009It was everything you would expect. It would be impossible to make a film better or equal to Raiders or even Last Crusade and anyone who is expecting that is expecting too much. Little CGI is used intentionally to make it appear as if it was shot shortly after Last Crusade and it worked out nicely. It was fun, humorous and entertaining, exactly what you would expect. The acting was superb on all counts, even Shia, who many critics thought looked out of place. The action was very similar to the other Indiana Jones flicks. It may seem a little outlandish at times and works out in Indy's favor, but thats what we were expecting and its entertaining to say the very least. All and all this movie is worth the price of admission and I truly hope that they make another Indy flick. No Oscar nominations here, but a great time still.
Overcooked and badly characterised but Ford is as good as ever
posted on 30 Aug 2009This fourth episode of the "Indiana Jones" saga has been a long time in coming - the idea of making a sequel to "Last Crusade" followed the franchise's creators for nineteen years before finally coming to fruition when actor Harrison Ford challenged Spielberg to either make it by 2008 or drop the idea altogether. Whilst it's definitely good to see Indiana Jones in a new adventure again, the movie suffers from being too long in the making.Set in 1957, the story sees Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) up against the might of the Russian Army, as the seek the lost city of Akator, the resting place of a mysterious skull carved from crystal. The skull, when combined with the power of the others, will give it's owners control over people's minds. Jones is dragged into the chase by Mutt (Shia Labeouf) a teenage biker who tells him the Russians have kidnapped his mother and Professor Oxley (John Hurt) to help them in their quest. Mutt's mother turns out to be Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), the spunky former bartender Indy once loved. They are faced with the deadly Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), who leads the Russians in the race to get to Akator and are helped by Indy's ally Mac (Ray Winstone) who may or may not be in league with the Russians...The film is let down by an over-cooked storyline. Over the years, scripts for this film have gone through draft after draft and this shows in the storyline which feels lame and tired and lacks the flair of the first three films. It seems to drag on in places between action scenes sometimes. What is worse is the crystal skull of the title - it's a great idea but as a McGuffin and object to motivate the story it lacks the mystical power that imbued the Holy Grail, the Ark of the Covenant and even the Sankara Stones from "Temple of Doom". The addition of extra-terrestrial elements near the end does not compensate for this.Characterisation is also thin on the ground. Indy's ally/nemesis Mac is very poorly fleshed out, despite Ray Winstone's best efforts. You never get a real idea of what motivates him, nor even of the friendship between him and Indiana Jones. Cate Blanchett was good as the cunning Spalko, but I still thought she could have been more menacing.During the making of this film, probably the worst kept secret about the plot was that Mutt turns out to be Jones's long-lost son. Whilst Labeouf is a competent actor and far less irritating than I thought he would be, it is difficult to see how the character could develop sufficiently to take over the series, as has been hinted by the film-makers. The relationship between Jones and Marion, despite their history, is never really explored and they barely get more than a couple of quality scenes together.There is however, much to enjoy in this picture and this boils down to one reason: Harrison Ford. Never better than when he's playing his signature role, Ford imbues Indy with an Everyman wit and humanity that is always compelling to watch. Fans will enjoy the references to the previous films, including Indy's dad and the Ark of the Covenant. Even the "Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" get a mention when Indy tells Mutt he once rode with Pancho Villa.Technically the film is excellent and sports a number of proficient set-pieces, including the opener in a crate-filled warehouse, a terrific motor-cycle chase with Indy and Mutt and a jungle battle featuring a swordfight, monkeys, killer ants and a dive off a waterfall. Most of the effects are done traditionally, though the use of CGI in some places (especially in the opening) is a bit too cheesy.If Spielberg and Lucas do decide to make another one (and despite my criticisms I hope they do) I hope I don't have to wait so long for it this time.
The same movie without the first three Indies - no one would go to extremes about it
posted on 30 Aug 2009Let me begin by saying that being only 25 years old, I have sadly missed on the opportunity to see the first three movies in theatres. Nonetheless, my father being something like a fan, I was introduced to Indiana Jones at a rather early age, and have watched each movie several times.My feelings upon entering the cinema were thus a mixture of fear and excitement - fear of suffering something similar to "Star Wars - Episode 1" and excitement over seeing Indy for the first time on big screen. Upon exiting, I was above all glad not to have been insulted in the way "The Phantom Menace" did its spectators - and felt, after all, to have been rather well entertained.And that, to get to the point of this comment, is about it. I believe that regardless of what one might feel about this movie being the 4th Indiana Jones, you have to give it the credit of being a sometimes overdone, perhaps not very deep, but for the longest time ...entertaining adventure film. Had it just been named "The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", I believe that neither the hateful comments calling it an abomination, an outrageous merchandising phenomenon which desecrates its heritage, nor the extremely positive commentators who celebrate the return of their most beloved film hero would try to convince us that this movie is either unspeakably bad or absolutely fantastic.To me, it is neither. Harrison Ford is delivering a very solid performance, which can't be said for all, but for most of the rest of the staff. The plot is nothing special - and apart from numerous, sometimes a little too "spectacular" stunt scenes, the film consists mainly of countless hommages to its predecessors.To sum it all up, I can understand that hardcore - Indy - fans may feel deceived, which is always a risk you have to deal with when watching the sequel to a brilliant trilogy from your childhood days, a sequel which is no more than an ordinary adventure movie. To all others I can say that if you leave aside all the Indy - context for one second and look on this movie "as is", you might just find it to be rather delighting. Delighting, but certainly not a film you would feel you have to show to your kids once they are old enough.
It sure was great to be with friends again.
posted on 30 Aug 2009So much has happened since the first three Indiana Jones films. This is true in so many ways. I've drifted apart from friends, seen my sister grow from an uncoordinated High School teen to a Professional mother, jump started a career of my own in IT, and seen horrible things happen to my friends, countrymen, and citizens of the world. The Oklahoma City bombing. Columbine. 9/11. Virginia Tech. I barely recognize myself any longer.Then comes along Indian Jones IV. I go to the movie with my girlfriend of 4 years, who's 12 years older than I am. Indiana Jones wasn't a part of her childhood or even her early adulthood. She was doing other things, like marrying her first husband and having a baby.I could barely keep myself from crying. It was like being with old friends again. I found myself smiling and laughing for the first time since I can remember. I almost felt foolish looking around at the end of the movie with this big silly grin on my face, like I should wipe it off my face before anyone saw how touched I was. I saw others smiling too and stupidly met others gazes while they were smiling too and we kindly acknowledged each other. You know who you are. LOL The cynicism and sadness which has so defined these last couple decades was gone, if only for that moment. I sat back in my chair and tried to take it all in. People clapped. I felt like I remembered who I was again. I don't care what anyone says or to hear about the faults the movie has or whatever the detractors are saying about this movie. This movie was a gift to me.Thanks to all of those who made this film. It sure was great to be with friends again.
Indiana Jones & Crystal Skull
posted on 30 Aug 2009I was very eager to see Indiana Jones' latest outings – for three reasons, Steven Spielberg, Harrison Ford and after 20 years (with new movie making hi-tech techniques) – something bigger and better. Hearing and reading interviews before the movie, I knew that the producer and director have maintained an eighties format and formula – not much digressed from that. Third day – first show, of world premier release, I was there with my colleague Rodin to watch this movie at the beautiful and oldest Pathe Tushinski theatre in Amsterdam.This time on Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is pitched against the Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) of Soviet Russia. The movie begins with a long over-hauled out action sequence near a remotely located nuclear plant on barren lands. Indiana survives and near the college campus meets this young boy Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf) who is adventurous and reckless. Both travel to Latin America in search of the Kingdom of Crystal skull and are constantly chased by Irina and her troops. There are many actions and comedy sequences that lead the audiences to a finale – where they are face to face with the mystery of Crystal skull and some UFO type object emerging and disintegrating into pieces with our hero observing the whole spectacle standing on the edge of a cliff overlooking the ruined site.It is not a bad movie, but neither it is very good. It is in line with the tradition of Indiana Jones. I was not so pleased with this idea of making a younger actor join hands with our legendary hero. I hear that Producer George Lucas wants to carry on the Indiana Jones series with this actor. Let's see. The moments of suspense are less hidden because one can expect without doubt what is next to come. There are a lot of chases and actions, but nothing spectacular to some of the earlier Jones movies.Harrison Ford is the heart and soul of this movie. He looks terrific and acts brilliantly too. Age has caught up with him, but he is still convincing enough as the adventurous archaeologist. Cate Blanchett as villainous is okay, and does not get the scope matching the acting talent of hers. Shia LaBeouf – okay, nothing much to say till we see him as Indiana Jones – if at all.I was expecting much greater stuff from Director Steven Spielburg – who has been away from directing since many year (last was Munich in 2004). It seems that he is struggling to find an exciting subject and topic that would immerse him totally into letting his directional juices flow freely.As mentioned earlier, there are no obvious scenes that highlight the use of hi-tech movie making style. Nothing I can remember in particular of this Indiana Jones that will remain with me for years.(Stars 6.75 out of 10)
So much time wasted in human life waiting…Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
posted on 28 Aug 2009I'll tell you, nothing gets one's heart pounding more than a nostalgic theme song score playing during a film. Nothing is more iconic than John Williams' music when it comes to Indiana Jones, unless you count the humor, the adventure, the whip, and the hat. Steven Spielberg even goes out of his way to show the silhouetted professor place said hat upon his head before we even catch a glimpse of the man himself. From the start, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull transports you back to the 80's when the series had its run. It is pretty much as though no one involved had missed a beat during the 19-year layoff from Jones' "Last Crusade." We are thrust into the action, unknowing how we got there and how he has been captured. None of it matters, though, the Russians need him to find an artifact and he complies until his moment of escape presents itself. Jones' incorrigible demeanor and never say die attitude is still hiding behind the aged wrinkles, finding release every chance it gets right to the end of what turns out to be a faithful new installment to a classic series of cinema. What problems it has in trying to be a bit too extraordinary it more than makes up for in tone and overall sheer enjoyment.Harrison Ford is pretty astonishing here, showing that age means nothing when it comes to breathing life into a role that he made famous and vice versa. His delivery of cynical, stubborn wit coupled with the geeky wonder at discovering the answers to clues and puzzles hasn't missed a single beat. Just look to the "dry sand" sequence and see what I mean…this is one college professor that truly dives into his work. All the prerequisites are included for his character to keep continuity. We receive mention of Henry Sr., (Sean Connery is sorely missed here, but hey, the first two films succeeded without him), and Marcus Brody, while also being treated to some physical humor involving none other than a mammoth snake—every hero needs a mortal fear. Callbacks abound, including a fantastic glimpse at the ever-elusive ark, and it doesn't take long to get caught up in the action and really start pulling for these adventurers to come out victorious.The story at hand includes much of the series' trademark mysticism, leading all those involved on a quest to return the mysterious crystal skull to its rightful place, theoretically opening the doors to a treasure trove of gold. All the old stories about how the pyramids were created come into play with this quartz artifact, sculpted against the grain in a process that would destroy the whole if ever attempted by man. With its impossible magnetic pulse and draw of the mind to its eyes, no one quite knows what to make of it, except the fact that it must be returned. Of course, Indy and his band of misfits are on the journey to restore equilibrium and maybe uncover a mystery that the history books will never forget. Hot on his heels, though, are the Russians being led by the ruthless Irina Spalko, (an interesting Cate Blanchett), trekking across the world for the wealth hidden within the skull—knowledge and power the likes no gold could compare to.I really must thank Spielberg et al for stepping up to the plate and making this film, for the most part, in the style of the originals. Worries were definitely setting in from the badly blue-screened trailer and the CGI rodent popping up from the underground in the very first frame. However, the oldstyle font and glorious film grain of real live film stock brought me back to ease into the proceedings with faith it what could occur. All the action hijinks are here—car chases, crawling though cobwebbed tunnels, running against time down ancient architectural structures, and some good old fist fights complete with way too loud sound effects just a hair off timing-wise (vintage Jones). My favorite sequence is probably the motorcycle chase towards the beginning. Commencing with a brilliantly orchestrated soda shop brawl, continuing through town with screeching starts and stops, and finishing in the college library after a sliding entrance under tables, one couldn't ask for a better payoff than a student asking his professor a question as he rises from the floor like this happens everyday.I give tons of credit for the bringing back of Karen Allen as Marion and even the inclusion of Shia LaBeouf's Mutt—I don't care what anyone says, the kid is good. And the addition of two favorites of mine, Ray Winstone and John Hurt can only help any film. Why am I just heaping praise right now? Oh, right, it's because the hammer is about to drop. I have not read Frank Darabont's rejected script, so who knows what he had up his sleeve, but this one falls apart completely at the end for me; I had a blast for the entire thing until the end climax. I can handle the supernatural and the questioning of alien life as a possible answer to the unanswerable questions in life, but David Koepp takes it too far. I laughed at the badly animated sword fight, I shook my head at the Tarzan sequence, but what happens at the end only made me think, why? Why did you have to go there when everything was so splendidly steeped in wonder while still grounded in reality? I guess you can't have perfection bringing back a saga like Indiana Jones from the dead, but I applaud them for the attempt and almost getting it right.
Shia Lebeouf and the phantom menace that is the new Jones flick
posted on 28 Aug 2009I am not usually hard on movies, Spiderman 3 disappointed me but I still didn't get mad about it. I take them for what they are, but every now an again there comes a film that I've been looking forward to that drives me to angrily rant about it on the internet like a twelve-yea-old virgin. Unfortunately this movie is just unbelievable. Almost the entire film looked like a silly cartoon, the effects were for the most part awful and unnecessary. An example would be the very beginning with the gophers and Indiana Jones surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge that bounces around like a basketball leaving him unharmed. Okay, in the other movies he does some ridiculous death defying acts, but this is pushing it and that is an understatement. Okay watching the movie hoping that just the beginning is that silly, but no. The only other action sequence in the entire film takes place in a jungle that looks completely CGI and fake. Adding to the surroundings looking very fake Shia Lebeouf begins to sword-fight a Colonel on top of a moving vehicle in a jungle. Okay, I was willing to let that slide even though it kind of made me want to vomit, but then Shia becomes one with nature and attacks Blanchett with his new army of monkeys he met in the trees. Shia and his monkeys some how catch up and are even faster then the moving vehicles and save the day only to then be attacked by man-eating ants, which I am assuming are army ants. Army ants to my recollection are only found in Australia, but whatever I could be wrong. The rest of the movie there is little peril just some weird CGI and alien garbage. To me it felt like Lucas, as he did in his newer star wars movies added a bunch of CGI animals that look really stupid and fake for whatever reason, I don't know perhaps CGI creatures give him a boner, but not me man. The movie sucked.VERY Disappointing!!!
Should not have let so many years go by....too bad!
posted on 28 Aug 2009I am a big fan of the Indiana Jones stories. This episode appears to be setting up the 'new' son for his own movies or maybe even a television series. After this installment I won't be looking for it in either place. The story almost hooked me until the jumping around started with the storyline, most notably the KGB agents who looked and acted more like recycled Nazi's from earlier episodes, the flying monkeys (the trees where a bit of a distance from the cars)and the flying saucer. When the ship appeared I got up and left the theater feeling like Harrison Ford should have taken the high road and passed on this one, but I'm sure it was a good payday and you can't fault him for that. I'm sorry, I know many will disagree with my opinion of this film but it left me feeling empty where the others made me feel satisfied and wanting more. So much potential! PS. How many noticed the Ark of the Covenant in the broken crate before the warehouse scenes ended.
A Legend Dies....
posted on 28 Aug 2009I went to see this film last night and i really wanted to like it. I mean i tried very hard to stay away from reviews and close my ears to all the critics.When i arrived at the cinema i should have been suspicious that there were no queues, in fact there were only 2 people in the line with 10 minutes before seating left.So anyway on to the movie, and for those who have not seen this film do not read past this point. Bottom line is this film is far from the Indianna Jones genre that its unreal, there was absolutely no need to involve aliens in this film, we have enough History on earth to base the film on actual events or something that is believable. All 3 films before had a sold foundation, they were based on something we knew existed or even based on religions. This one stepped down the road of Alien Vs Predator. It had aliens that were worshipped whilst providing man kind with technology.Now i gave this film 7/10 because 70% was great the part where you see a flying saucer taking off really annoyed me and they have as a result killed the legend that is Indiana Jones
Indiana Jones 4.0 (die harder)
posted on 28 Aug 2009I want to start off by saying that I'm a huge indiana Jones fan, I grew up on him, dressed up as him for almost every halloween, so it hurts me to say that Indiana Jones was barely in this movie. Harrison Ford was in it, there were a few hints of Indy here and there but in the end this was an action movie starring Harrison Ford. There was no "Indiana" moment, way too much CGI and not enough story. I'm sorry but futuristic artifacts and indiana jones just don't belong in the same world. The clean perfectly shaped crystal skull just seemed so out of place in the dirty, grimmy, dusty world of indiana Jones, especially the space ship at the end of the movie, hell even my wife who is not much a movie person turned to me and said "Indiana Jones & the Martians"? It just doesn't go. And way too much CGI, everything looked to perfect and clean there was no roughness to anything. The acting was perfectly fine but there was no magic, no mystery, after 20 years of trying to find the holy grail of scripts this is what they chose?? I don't understand how this is getting all these great reviews, I mean is it because it's lucas and Spielberg together again? AS a generic action movie it's good, as a indiana jones movies its a far cry from the trilogy. I compare it to the last die hard installment, it's by no way as huge of a bomb as the last die hard but it's definitely a huge let down.
The equivalent of hitting a Grand Slam at your last at bat
posted on 28 Aug 2009This movie is such a delicious escape that I was totally taken by surprise. I'd heard early reviewers had panned it, but that clearly has more to do with its ethnic involvement which is so fleeting you'll probably miss it. Some people have always seen film as a propaganda tool in the fight for social prominence and feel the pain any time any non-traditional orientation makes it to the screen. And that's especially true for a series that's had any involvement with the Bible. In this movie at one point the teen heart throb part played by Shia LaBeouf actually says in admiration "You rode with Pancho Villa?" and I could just see reviewers like Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune cringe in disgust.The more overwhelming ethnic commentary is about the Soviets and that's mostly Cate Blanchett's task which she carries off with such relish that I was reminded of Daryl Hannah's wonderful take as Elle Driver in Kill Bill 2. She and Harrison Ford both earn every dollar they were probably paid for their participation. But the two things that impressed me the most out of a film full of beautifully realized scenes was the way the CGI was so seamlessly melded with the real footage and the sheer craftsmanship of the action scenes especially.In previous films in this series much of the action was at too frantic a pace for my taste, though I still appreciated the effort. Here the speed at which the action unfolds is almost as if Spielberg had deliberately teased out every move in such a masterful and elegant way that at times my jaw actually dropped open. The creativity at work in this film is easily on a level with his, or anyone else's, best work. It delivers such a pleasurable and memorable ride that I doubt it'll be topped as sheer entertainment anytime soon. You might quibble with the ending a bit, but I've never seen such a magnificent effort accomplished in a situation where every eye in the world was on the director demanding something special. For me this was Spielberg putting one across the bow of Tarantino's franchise, probably his only rival in this genre, and that by itself is worth cheering about.I dragged my wife to this movie last night but even she was glad she hadn't missed it. Don't you miss it! For movie lovers especially this is truly a treat.
Enthralling
posted on 28 Aug 2009Indy is back and better than ever, now with a senior discount. Ford dons Dr. Jones hat once again as the swashbuckling archaeologist. The story is as out-there as any other Indy vehicle, but this one does not delve into the absurdity of prior adventu...(read more) res such as Temple Of Doom. The set-pieces are fantastic, the banter is as witty as usual, and most of the series familiar cast of supporting characters return as strong as ever, with Shia Le Beouf turning in another strong performance. Ford bounces back after the countless disasters hes starred in the last couple years. Having fun with the role, Ford encompasses Indy with the same amount of bravura and spirit as his earlier adventures. Spielberg is also in full form here, after directing several ho-hum vehicles over the past few years. All in all, this is an extremely enjoyable adventure film that rises above the typical summer popcorn flick. A worthy addition to the Indy series.
Where was Indy?
posted on 26 Aug 2009Apparently expecting to see Indiana Jones in an Indiana Jones movie was too much to ask.I knew things were going to be different, I couldn't really expect the same man to show up 20 years later like nothing had happened. But I hoped the core of the character, the reason I liked Indy so much, would still be intact.My favorite part of the original movies was Indy's humanity. He would spend each movie getting beat up over the course of the adventure leaving audiences amazed that he was still standing. All the while, the movies kept reminding us that he was an ordinary man caught up in an extraordinary adventure. He was not super-human. He was equipped with his trademark tools, his knowledge, and his recklessness all packed onto a fairly athletic frame. But at the end of the day, he was still just an average guy. He bled. He got dirty. He screamed with fear in his voice that made you believe in the danger.This may come across as being nit-picky, but I feel a huge part of the iconic image of Indy isn't just his trademark hat, whip and jacket. It's also the blood, sweat and the DIRT on his clothes.Where was the DIRT? I have never seen Indy look so clean. His shirt and pants always had clean pressed look to them. This is such a simple thing to keep track, but for some reason it was completely overlooked. At the start of every new scene, no matter what happened in the previous scene, Indy would walk out with a clean outfit fresh off the wardrobe rack. It felt like Harrison was simply wearing a costume rather than clothes that a character lived in. It's such a trivial thing, but it's something that can take me out of the moment of the movie. It causes me to no longer be able to suspend disbelief.As a sequel, this movie essentially has the rules of the world already established for it. There are some strange supernatural elements in this world, but the characters are human and vulnerable and that must be acknowledged. Not acknowledging the established rules of the world pulls me right out of the movie. I've read other reviews that complain about the Alien element, the excessive use of CGI and how it cheapens the suspense of the action, the one-liners that rarely work, Mutt's name and how he somehow is Tarzan, the underdeveloped characters and the general sense that there was no reason for this movie to exist. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the very thing that took me out of movie early on.The nuclear blast. How does Indy survive? Oh, he just climbs into a lead lined fridge, shuts the door and waits for the blast to launch him clear of the site. The fridge for some reason, launched like a projectile out of the town. And not only that, it was the only fridge to get launched from the town. All the other fridges stayed put for some reason. It also just happened to be on a trajectory that shot past the bad guys as they try to escape in their car. The car of course is crushed by the shock-wave, but the fridge which was at ground zero sailed through the air with no problem. Indy emerges from the fridge perfectly fine. Let's ignore the fact that the fridge didn't get destroyed from the blast and just assume it somehow flew. The landing? How did the landing not kill him? How did the landing not even injure him? Suspension of disbelief. This happened early in the movie, but it was asking a lot from audiences considering Indy spent the three previous movies getting nothing but beat up.The rules had changed. The old Indy is gone. Heck, he spends most of the movie getting called anything but "Indy." What we have in his place is a pale shadow of the once great character. The costume is there, too bad the man never showed up to actually wear it.In the end, we are left with a movie that abandons the core elements of it's character. It refuses to be the same old movies of the past and at the same time doesn't take any bold steps into the future.
Too late. Too elaborate. Too much.
posted on 26 Aug 2009For a fourth time we are treated to the legendry Hollywood vehicle lauded by audiences for its entertainment and despised by critics for its American Imperialism. Yes, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull stereotypes tribal folk, unfairly represents women, clichés foreigners and has more than its fair share of anti-Soviet propaganda - ultimately it's detrimental to everyone and everything other than American men. However, given that the film is a pastiche, the film-makers clearly believe they can excuse themselves from any such imprecations, and perhaps rightly so.Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is set in 1957 and has moved away from the 1930's serials it parodied in the previous three and instead concentrated on the 1950's B Movies, noted for their depiction of invaders from space and other worlds. This decision has perhaps alienated a lot of fans, but if Indy's age difference is to be accurately addressed then a move like this should be expected. In addition to this the film would not really be a pastiche to those 50's movies if it did not on some level champion the All-American hero, the only problem is that in championing the All-American hero those around him result in looking a hindrance or expedient. Most notable of which are the double crossing cockney and the bumbling English professor.Interestingly, and in accordance with its predecessors, there are many influences and homage's to 1950s cinema, the introduction of Henry Williams (Shia LaBeouf) is a direct homage to "The Wild One" and towards the end of the film audiences will be treated to various other influences, including "The Day Earth Stood Still", "Invasion of The Body Snatchers" and "Forbidden Planet". The fact the fourth installment has again chosen to do this highlights the director's and the producer's (Steven Spielberg and George Lucas) love of film.With the godfather of blockbusters at the helm the direction of '…Crystal Skull complements the fast-paced narrative like no other director could. A prime example of Spielberg's ingenuity lies with the opening few scenes; a crane shot depicts Indy being man-handled to the floor, followed by his hat rolling to his feet and then the shadow of his torso on a car, finally the camera pulls to reveal his face as a gentle whisper of the call-to-adventure theme plays – it is pure Spielberg and should please even the harshest of skeptics. After this brief introduction, and in franchise-established fashion, the film reveals our hero to be in peril and surrounded by his new enemy, Russians. Comically Indy lightens the situation with his trademark grin and humorous banter, although the dialogue here is a little on the cringe side and alludes at the possibility that maybe the actors aren't as comfortable as they'd like us believe.The films strength definitely lies with its direction and this is unsurprising given that it incorporates all the plot devices and mechanisms that have been established, created and employed by Spielberg over the decades. Examples of which range from the comical fist fights, the lovers tiff, the car chases, the dysfunctional family unit, use of score, apt camera-work and the pace of the editing. Coincidently, the most notable of the chase sequences is the one that take place in the Jungle which is perhaps the best chase sequence of the franchise, and probably one of Spielberg's best since Duel. The jungle scene does use CGI and many have disagreed with its use, but it's good, far better than the "blue screen" technique utilized for the rushing water chase in Temple of Doom, or the childishly animated booby traps at the end of Last Crusade, here we have special effects that finally work. The annoyance is that they are relied on too heavily and integrated into the film too much.Paramount to this latest Indiana endeavor is that it is 20 years too late. The script is by David Keopp (Spiderman, Mission Impossible, Snake Eyes, Jurassic Park, etc) and has "financial-success" written all over it and, no matter what the critics write, it will be. Regrettably Keopp's script pushes the boundaries of plausibility to the extreme. He has sacrificed the credibility of the films predecessors in favor of maximizing the entertainment value. This is correlated by the decision to have the Crystal Skull as the chief plot device, it is something (that unlike the previous films) Indy doesn't really understand or really have a desire to understand, alluding to its mystique would have been better but to be so upfront with its origins and by tying it in with Roswell and then multi-dimensional forces is little too far, even for Indiana Jones. Furthermore, this has all been seen before in contemporary cinema, from "X Files: The Movie" to "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" and "Stargate".Finally I feel that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull suffers due to a poor script, it is wildly entertaining but deviates from the previous three by being too elaborate and flamboyant. The direction is brilliant, the performances are great and Harrison Ford does pull it off despite the fact he is 63, furthermore Cate Blanchet as the Russian Stalin-like femme fatale is brilliant as is Ray Winstone. Some fans will appreciate the film and perhaps revel in the many jokes and in-jokes to be had, from the fading of the Paramount logo, the reappearance of the Lost Ark and the comical Back to the Future reference, others fans will not. However because we have a director that is fully aware of his audience it can only be noted that this film is aimed at children and it is that age group that will love it the most. But don't be surprised if you're in your mid-20 to 40s and you don't like it, I don't think Spielberg and Lucas were solely aiming to please you.
I can't say this movie is wonderful.
posted on 26 Aug 2009I'm Japanese and I hate the atomic bomb. I couldn't understand why do they add that scene. It will hurt many Japanese people, I guess. Perhaps many people thinks atomic bomb was worked for the World War II. But I don't think so. It was just a mass murder and a human subject use in Japan. The atomic bomb killed just the ordinary people... old people, students, women and kids, not troops. I mean it was really sad and terrible tragedy. Just a overkill and genocide.I love Indy movies. But I can't say I like #4. I love #3, it's my best movie of Indy.Anyway, I was so disappointed about the "Crystal Skull"...
Are Lucas and Spielberg losing it?
posted on 30 Aug 2009Yesterday i went to see the new movie. Since i am a real fan, off course i won the look-a-like competition, my expectations were high. But i tempered them knowing that as good as raiders and last crusade would be nearly impossible. It wasn't enough. The crystal skull had not much to do with the classic three. It missed a lot of critical things to make it Indy worthy. They tried to evolve the genre while i was just waiting for another adventure of Jones. It could have been the sequel to triple X. Pick any adventure movie and swap the main character with Indy. That would have been fine, but no.If i picture Dr Jones in my mind i see him on his own exploring some old dig-site or other historical place and after some exploring all of a sudden he rolls into adventure. Some other things that made the old movies marvelous. It was pure: Indy got into trouble he does some real quick thinking and solves the problem with something plain and simple but therefor genius. A couple of Mano a Mano fights. Action and adventure scenes with in between some dull research. Which makes it all look like it could have been possible.For this matter Indy 4 starts off pretty good. It will make you accept the fact that he isn't a young dog anymore. He escapes some hazardous situations with style. But it is a bit to much, over the top and not realistic anymore, even for Indiana Jones. It hurts saying that. Unfortunately it is true. Besides the exaggeration an other thing which is lacking is the research. He looks more like a detective looking for a missing person. This is not a #!@@$##!! movie! For example he arrives somewhere in an foreign country and the next scene he walks up in an easily accessible temple like building. No puzzling, no exploring at all, if i where on Holiday there i would have found it as well. Too easy! And then the Russians. They show up far to often. In the old days Indy slips under the radar and goes his own genius way. But now everywhere he goes those Russians show up. So if we make a count: Indy, 20 Russians, his sidekick, Karen Allen, Mac and another man. That is archeology with almost 30 people! That's bull. The movie failed at giving me the feeling he is out there on his own on the edge of something very very mysteriously important. Too bad, that is what i liked about it. That is what wanted me to be Indy. However the point were i really thought "okey, no way back, this movie is going to suck big time" is when some 20 year old boy is swinging like Tarzan through the jungle followed by a dozen monkeys to interfere with Indy's car chase! Why?! This isn't Tarzan nor Jungle Book. The Mogli boy and his monkeys enter the car from above and kick some Russian ass but why! It doesn't make sense! And to make it even worse, ah I'm not going to tell you.One last thing i want to say is that i was about 12 years old when i first saw Crusade and the others, perhaps at that time i didn't see the flaws of those movies and never did ever since because as a child it is like you see it is. Nothing to doubt about that. Perhaps that's why I'm giving Indy 4 such a hard time. Go ahead and watch it, after all it's Indy.