|
Post by abortiondinner on May 22, 2008 12:41:21 GMT -5
Well, I watched it at a midnight showing last night. I didn't enjoy it as much as its predecessors. I'll wait until more of you have seen it before going any further.
|
|
|
Post by vigilante on May 23, 2008 5:34:13 GMT -5
I saw it yesterday.
Didn't expect it to be as good as the previous three movies and I was determined to enjoy it despite it's flaws.
All I can say is that I've never been so disappointed with a movie in all my life.
Spielberg seemed to have directed it in his sleep, much the same as he did with Jurassic Park: The Lost World. No memorable or iconic scenes, lousy editing etc. It just looked rushed. The old fashioned stunts we'd heard so much about seemed to be limited to a motorbike chase and various fist fights.
Harrison Ford looked tired and exhausted through most of the movie, not his fault at his age. He did his best but he must have known the script was a million times weaker than the other movies.
Karen Allen and Shia Le Beof were pretty good, possibly the best thing about the movie.
This movie's got George Lucas' stinking fingerprints all over it however. The cliff top car chase (which I'd been looking forward to since seeing the trailer) was overlong, far fetched and tedious and smacked of the pod race in The Phantom Menace.
I know everyone here is going to see it so I'll not discuss the plot. I will say that I knew after about 15 mins that the movie was going to stink. Maybe I'm being too harsh but seeing Indy survive an atomic blast by hiding in a refrigerator just made me pine for the giant boulder that chased him in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Chenney on May 23, 2008 7:24:12 GMT -5
Was there any CGI?
|
|
|
Post by vigilante on May 23, 2008 8:19:49 GMT -5
CGI gophers, ants, scorpions, monkeys (worst scene in the movie) and other creatures.
The CGI backrounds were pretty impressive but no more than the old fashioned matt paintings used before.
I also spotted some pretty weak looking minuature sets.
I had plans on seeing this movie a number of times in the cinema with friends, family, girlfriend but I really can't sit through it again.
Cate Blanchett is instantly forgettable too and there's absolutely no chemistry between her and Ford.
I just can't believe Spielberg would let this happen. If he didn't have time to make a worthy follow up to the series then he shouldn't have bothered at all.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Chenney on May 23, 2008 8:28:10 GMT -5
it sounds like its going to take you a while to get over this catastrophe vig.
i wish you luck.
i may now just download the fillem to ensure that no more of my hard earned money ends up in lucas' pockets.
|
|
|
Post by vigilante on May 23, 2008 8:36:11 GMT -5
I'm sitting at a internet kiosk outside a cinema in the shopping centre. Indiana Jones posters everywhere, people lining up to see it and I'm telling myself that maybe it wasn't that bad, maybe I should give it a second viewing...... I really can't wait for the rest of you guys to see it and give your opinions. Maybe I'm just being too harsh. Hope I haven't put anyone off seeing it. Watching the original trilogy this week probably didn't help fuel my disappointment.
|
|
|
Post by Colonel John Matrix on May 23, 2008 12:40:30 GMT -5
Despite the fact I fear I'll not like it, I'm probably going to go see it this weekend
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2008 7:45:20 GMT -5
I just saw this last night at 7 and must say I really enjoyed it. Lots of great action and decent amount of comedy. To be honest I don't understand some of the hatred this movie gets, or why Lucas bothered to be onboard and put in a bunch of CGI critters. He's just a technological bastard who likes to ruin sequels--this one he did not.
It felt like the old ones. It had a good villain, a great fight, and an excellent chemistry between the main actors. I usually detest Shia LaBeouf, but in this movie I thought he did a good job. The best part of the film was certainly the entire part that took place in the jungle. Exciting car chase with lots of thrown fights and gunfire. Then Indy has one of those classic fights with a big villain, which certainly lived up to my expectations.
What can I say, I loved it. What really bugged me while I was at the theater was this retarded 20-something behind me who laughed at EVERYTHING. He even laughed at the parts that didn't require laughing. That's not all: he actually commentated the damn trailers. Most irritating movie-goer ever.
|
|
|
Post by Chainmail Vest on May 24, 2008 15:03:03 GMT -5
I saw it this afternoon and I rather enjoyed it. Theres a couple of spoilers below though...
I'm not going to sit and complain about the CG stuff because the good outweighed the bad by a long way on this film. For every disappointing monkey there were swarms of killer ants and intergalacic centrifuges that would have looked like some piss poor Lucio Fulci effort if they'd followed the no-CGI bandwagon so beloved on here...
A lot of people seem to be of the misguided and rose tinted opinion that the 80s films were actually sacred cinematic masterpieces and not just a fun popcorn munching way to spend a couple of hours. In this all important regard, for me, crystal skull was a success. There were some pleasing fanboy moments, i'm sure everyone smiled as the big warehouse from 'Raiders...' was shown to be area 51 and the moment when Henry the 3rd was about to don the hat only to be denied was cool. Indiana Jones films have always been cheese tastic, and i'm happy this didn't try and Casino Royale/Batman Begins it all up.
I also liked the 1950s sci-fi B-movie feel to it with plenty of evil commies. Evil Commies are a sure fire winner.
Anyway i wasn't disappointed because i only went in expecting a big fun adventure movie like all the previous films and not expecting to be completely blown away like i was when i was 5 and first saw the character. This will never happen.
It's a solid 7 or 8 out of 10 from me.
|
|
|
Post by Colonel John Matrix on May 27, 2008 6:13:22 GMT -5
Man, this is dividing our opinions right down the middle... I'm with Vig on this. I was very disappointed. I didn't have a problem at all with Indy moving more into B-movie sci-fi territory, rather than sticking to religious artefacts as before. In fact, it was a logical step, seeing as the film was set during the Cold War. However, the problem is that the power of the "Crystal skulls" is never really explained that well...plus the bad guys are pretty weak too, so there doesn't really feel like there's much at stake, or any tension - just a load of vague wishy-washy mumbo-jumbo about "Crystal skulls". As far as the CGI goes, for the most part it was only used where needed, but the fucking CGI monkeys and gophers were pretty stupid. I'm not anti-CGI, I think there's a time and a place and it works best when used with old-fashioned SFX work (e.g. Jurassic Park, Lord of the Rings...) - the problem is often just because you can do it with CGI, doesn't mean you should (e.g. Jar-Jar Binks). Anyway, it just felt so incredibly flat and lifeless to me...there were no memorable lines, or stunts, or action sequenes, or villians...even the John Williams score seemed lifeless. It was like everyone involved was just going through the motions and wasn't really that bothered. I didn't think it was terrible or unwatchable, just so very very mediocre. If Raiders of the Lost Ark is like drinking the finest wine, then Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is like drinking tap water. I'd give it 2 or 2.5 out of 5, I'm afraid
|
|
|
Post by vigilante on May 27, 2008 12:40:06 GMT -5
I'm still annoyed and upset about the movie. Might have a few beers and go see it again in a few weeks time when I've mellowed out a bit. The word is that all the bad word of mouth is going to hit ticket sales pretty hard and Crystal Skull's going to be trumped by Sex and the City next weekend.
|
|
|
Post by MacReady on May 27, 2008 12:43:25 GMT -5
I haven`t seen it and to be honest I don`t want to either, Last Crusade ended on a perfect note and that money grabbing twat Lucas isn`t wreaking it for me.
|
|
Wildey
David Bradley
53% New Footage
Posts: 375
|
Post by Wildey on Jun 3, 2008 17:09:01 GMT -5
I didn't have great expectations for this but it was still a disappointment. Crappy CGI, lame gags and questionable plot developments I could forgive, but being just plain dull is another thing altogether. It begins tediously and never really improves. A couple of decent action scenes, but that's all. Broadbent and Hurt play roles far beneath them.
|
|
|
Post by sonofbronson on Jun 10, 2008 18:41:46 GMT -5
I finally saw it and I'd call it as good as the Mummy. I liked the Mummy so take that as you will.
I would say compared to the new Star Wars efforts this film follows the formula and spirit much more closely.
That being said I can understand why people wouldn't cotton to this one.
|
|
|
Post by doo doo on Jun 10, 2008 19:02:57 GMT -5
every source says it is so so, that can't be a good sign. even Rolling Stone said it was "meh."
I was not really hankering for a new Indiana Jones but I'll probably catch it on HBO or something, two years from now.
|
|