Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[grady]

Originally Posted by negative1

grady , care to be more specific?

I can start getting into more specifics, I was hesitant too initially as no one else had replied to thread just yet but here we go. (Side note, I've been trying to use the color tags method stimpee describes in the sticky post in the forum and it's been non-responsive for me, so I just added a bunch of space)



















(I'm just going to start writing and putting this together very similar to an email I wrote to a friend in Boston today who really enjoyed the film. I went through in a cursory overview of the points in the film that didn't work for me.)


Story/plot/structure

For starters, my overall impression was that the film was just too cluttered for it's own good. This seems to be a contribution from a multitude of sources, but the primary one being the appeasement of the fanbase. The film just seem to have too much going on and was juggling too much for it's own good.

I'm referring specifically to the amount of secondary characters and story lines. It's been widely known that Lucas has worked with a plethora of talented writers over the years brainstorming and trying out potential ideas and scenarios for another film. This film just seemed like a hodgepodge of all the different ideas produced over the years selectively culled together into one large blob-like thing and haphazardly stitched together.

There was no definite through line for the story. It seemed very scattered from the involvement of the Russian element/red scare, to Mutt and Marion, to Ray Winstone and John Hurt, and then all the nods to previous films, and the mythical supernatural element present in the previous three films. This film had all of these elements but the balance and fine tuning of it seemed all off.

I could go into more detail if you would prefer, but I just think back to that conclusion of The Last Crusade and how wonderful that final shot is in it's simplicity but also it's effectiveness. There was none of that type of simplicity in this film. Everything is too over complicated and over explained.

Look/feel/design/CG/Other

Perhaps the first jarring element was the production design, cinematography and visual presentation. Prior to and during the film's production, Spielberg's go to DP for the past decade, janusz kaminski had been mentioned in the press as trying to replicate the visual look of the previous three films shot by Douglas Slocombe. I was always worried about Kaminski's approach to the film as with most film's he's shot for spielberg, they tend to be bathed in this white, over lit glow that becomes a bit repetitive.

Now with this new Indy film, it does have a certain look and visual feel that is reminiscent of the three prior films, but doesn't fit into the visual look. Part of this I feel was due to the over abundance of CG used throughout the film, both in large visual effects sequences, but also in small adjustments to the background of shots like matte paintings and set extensions.

It all has that soft, fuzzy feel that looks very flat.

What was with the monkey/tarzan sequence? honestly? How could you not roll your eyes at that nonsense? When the hell did the film enter the board game film Jumanji?!

Cast

Harrison Ford is great as Indy and it's nice to see him do something where it seems he's enjoying himself and the capable hands of a good director. I didn't mind that he's aged a bit. It worked and he could still trade blows with the baddies and jump into hairy situations with the greatest of ease.

Shia Lebeof seemed entirely unnecessary for the film.

I wish there was a more fleshed out role for Ray Winstone. He's always such a damn pleasure to watch.

Kate Blanchett seemed like she was having fun.

Directing/action/pacing

Maybe Spielberg's becoming lazy, but the action sequences in this film paled in comparison to a couple of his previous films. I'm thinking specifically of sequences like the electronic spiders in Minority Report going through the building, Aliens on the rampage in New Jersey in War of the Worlds, or Avner planting the bomb in the hotel room in Munich.

I'd heard about some great action sequences in this film and there were about two, and they occurred in the first 3 reels, the first one being reel one of the film at the Air Base and the second one being the motorcycle chase on the college campus.

The remainder of the action throughout the film felt really forced and tired and uninspired. I couldn't see past the fact that these were nothing more than sets built on stages throughout the greater Hollywood area last summer. I felt like The Mummy 4 and National Treasure 3 would soon be cannibalizing these sets for their productions.

None of the other film's in the series had this feeling.

[negative1]

grady,

great response...i do actually agree with most of your points..
i don't really want to drag this out....but i will post some defense
of them....although being an apologist isn't exactly what i'm trying to do..

i don't think this film was that great either,
but compared to:
================================
sahara
national treasure
the mummy

this still stands head and shoulders above them..
which might not be saying much..

i take it you actually liked 'last crusade'...i felt it was
a huge letdown as the then finale, and was a very weak
climax for the trilogy.....it was so derivative of the first
film, that i had a hard time taking it seriously...especially
as you mention the overall simplicity of it..there was no
suspense, no motivation, and besides sean connery just
'being there' underutilized.....along with the pseudo
backstory to introduce the 'indiana jones' character..
did we really need to see him as a young man?

anyways, i digress, as i don't mean to dig too far back
into 'the last crusade'...

i'm sure many volumes have been written about the trilogy,
what each movie meant, their impact etc...and i don't mean
to revisit that here...

i'll post more clarifying points about indy 4 later on..

thanks for your detailed points....

later
-1

[Jan]

There seem to be parallels to Live Free or Die Hard:

- They said there would be minimal CGI, turned out to be a CGI fest (in a bad way)
- There was a young, but completely unnecessary and annoying charakter added, so that the film would appeal to young people
- It was hyped, but did disappoint

I haven't seen it yet, but the first two points seem to be true...

[mmm skyscraper]

Originally Posted by grady

It also makes me wonder about people's reaction to another highly anticipated film like Star Wars Episode 1and whether or not people were just going to say they liked the film regardless.

One of my friends in high school was huge Star Wars fan and went to the midnight showing of Episode I. He said it was like a bad dream.

Why is Shia LaBeouf always a sidekick in movies? His roles in I, Robot and Constantine were
annoying.

[gillenium]

Well, the first half of the movie is pretty good.

Then... well.... it becomes too goofy to watch. If George Lucas hadn't been involved, I guarantee it would have been better.

[IsiliRunite]

*SPOILER*


I felt the *SPOILER* extraterrestrial tie-ins were unpolished and pointless.

[negative1]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

*SPOILER*


I felt the *SPOILER* extraterrestrial tie-ins were unpolished and pointless.

why were they at a military base then?

what was the point of getting the skeleton at the beginning?

where did the skulls come from then?

the whole plot falls apart if that isn't mentioned..

if you're saying the whole arc is pointless->movie=pointless..

it made perfect sense to me..

later
-1

[negative1]

Originally Posted by gillenium

Well, the first half of the movie is pretty good.

Then... well.... it becomes too goofy to watch. If George Lucas hadn't been involved, I guarantee it would have been better.

name something good that speilberg has done lately?
munich?
war of the worlds?
terminal?
catch me if you can?
minority report?

yeah, maybe if you go back a decade to 'saving private ryan'..

sorry speilberg hasn't done any better, and thats no guarantee...

who should have been involved?

later
-1

[negative1]

Originally Posted by mmm skyscraper

One of my friends in high school was huge Star Wars fan and went to the midnight showing of Episode I. He said it was like a bad dream.

Why is Shia LaBeouf always a sidekick in movies? His roles in I, Robot and Constantine were
annoying.

i hate shia labeof, but i would hardly call being in transformers
a sidekick.......

later
-1

[IsiliRunite]

Originally Posted by negative1

why were they at a military base then?

what was the point of getting the skeleton at the beginning?

where did the skulls come from then?

the whole plot falls apart if that isn't mentioned..

if you're saying the whole arc is pointless->movie=pointless..

it made perfect sense to me..

later
-1

I just felt that aliens were added for the sake of adding aliens, as opposed to adding a social or philosophical commentary when a new perspective on life is added to movies.

What happened in the Ukrainian chick's brain when she was getting all that knowledge? were they just killing her or was she overflowing with knowledge? How did they lose their heads? How are they inter-dimensional?