posted
$$ NO SPOILERS IN MY POST, BUT THEY ARE SURE TO FOLLOW! $$
I just got back from a midnight showing, and am too tired to post a full review, but I'm interested to hear the discussion on this one.
Basically, I thought it was very enjoyable, though flawed. It doesn't quite stack up to the others, but it's as close as could probably be done and very exciting to FINALLY see! Much fun!
There was no way they could have ever given everyone everything they wanted, but they did a great job of trying to give everyone at least a good portion of it. Personally, I'd have preferred a movie that was slightly less self-referential, but I suppose that was hardly avoidable and for the most part it was well handled.
Looking forward to seeing it again!
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
I was supposed to be seeing it tonight but my companion cancelled. Alas. I was very much looking forward to it & other activities with her.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
quote:Originally posted by Shik: I was supposed to be seeing it tonight but my companion cancelled. Alas. I was very much looking forward to it & other activities with her.
Um...Insert "Temple of Doom" joke Here?
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Hey, if I want to have an epic fuck battle against my newly rapacious neighbor & her new cock, that's my right, dammit!
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I saw it, and I'm glad I didn't waste my time -- or money -- on a non-matinee showing. It had its moments, but I don't know I'll want to see it again.
-- Conceptually, the whole 1950s Red Scare flying saucer sci-fi thing works really well. This was the natural territory to take these characters into from the 1930s pulp fiction Nazi-fighting of the originals. Stuff like "I like Ike" is priceless.
-- The opening credit sequence really put me in the headspace that I needed to be in to fully enjoy the movie. This means, of course, that it does its job. I'm talking primarily about the motorcade with the kids in the roadster; breaking into the base and finding the box were good, the subsequent action felt a little forced.
-- I love the idea of the nuclear test, though the refrigerator thing tugged pretty hard on my suspension of disbelief.
-- Cate Blanchett is great as the appropriately stereotypical heavy. The whole psychic warfare as part of the arms race thing is perfect for the material.
-- Harrison Ford has still got it. He looks fantastic and acts the part as easily as if the intervening two decades were just a week off work. Karen Allen...not so much.
-- The first sequence at the college felt too repetetive to me (I actually thought the same thing about the one in Last Crusade as well) but most others seemed to enjoy it for that same reason. I suppose it's sort of like the "M's Office" scenes in all the James Bond movies.
-- Shia LaBeouf played his part wonderfully. I have no interest in him being "all the rage" these days or anything like that. I went in with no baggage attached, no active like or dislike of him as an actor, though I was somewhat skeptical of the casting. I honestly thought he did really well.
-- The malt shop brawl and ensuing chase comprised the best action sequence in the film. Very cool, very believable. Real stunts done well.
-- Geroge Lucas' interest in real archaeology and mythology showed strongly in the story, which I dig. (No pun intended! ) Tying together the crystal skulls, El Dorado, Peruvian mummies, the Nazca lines, Roswell and Area 51, and everything else made for a highly interesting and entertaining story, especially if you already know some Meso-American history. Not that it's anything that no one thought of before, (Erich von Däniken, anyone?) but still perfect as a vehicle for Indiana Jones.
-- As I said before, I would probably have personally preferred a movie that was a little less overtly referential to what had come before. Having said that, I was gratified to see that as long as it was going to be that kind of film, they included a small nod to the Young Indiana Jones series. I watched that show when I was a kid and have recently been rewatching it in its modified DVD format. It provided much interesting backstory for the character.
-- I don't think I quite got what was up with those wild men at the cemetary. Come to think of it, I don't think I quite got what was up with all the angry natives who came out of the walls towards the end, either.
-- Marion's introduction didn't gel for me, but the sand pit scene made up for it pretty quickly. From that point onwards, it was mostly smooth sailing on that front. Perhaps the truck scene was a little talky, too.
-- Sand pit scene: classic! Comic relief has always been something these movies have used to great effect.
-- I can't understand why contradictory pre-release publicity regarding Mutt's relationship to Indy was deemed necessary. I was glad that it was a straightforward scenario presented in the film, but the fact that they seem to have actively tried to build up/confuse people's expectations of something more complex made it's straightforwardness initially distracting. Not the film's fault, just a poor marketing strategy.
-- Seriously, WTF is up with all the CGI animals in this film?
-- The very long chase sequence through the jungle had distinct high and low points. It could easily have been shorter. Mutt's swordfight and swing with the monkeys were wholly excessive IMO. The way they ultimately got into the water presented another challenge to my suspension of disbelief.
-- Not a problem unique to this film by any means, but all the massive and elaborate mechanisms incorporated into the ancient architecture bother me a lot. While visually impressive, they are extremely unrealistic. How the hell did the designers ever intend them to be reset? Even if they were only intended to be used once, surely they must have needed to be tested? Very hard to accept as real, practical devices.
-- I didn't really care about Ray Winstone's character enough to feel that the drama of his demise was warranted. I'd have preferred Cate Blanchett's ordeal to have been extended/expanded to fill that time. I'd also have liked more explication about the aliens.
-- The flying saucer was cool, although one questions why such a vessel is necessary for interdimensional rather than interstellar travel.
-- "Not into space! Into the space between spaces!" was pretty cringeworthy.
-- The first time around, the wedding scene seemed a little off or out of place or something to me. I didn't have that reaction on second viewing. The hat blowing over to Shia had me about to roll my eyes, but Indy's interception was the perfect antidote. Obviously, it was a very deliberately designed ending, but it worked. Overall, the interaction between Indy and Mutt was consitently the best part of this movie.
I'll definitely be seeing it at least one more time before it leaves theaters. Maybe a few more. I like Indiana Jones a lot. More than SW, even more than a generous portion of Trek. This one is very much worthwhile to have, though it could certainly have been better and may suffer from a few more flaws and excesses than its predecessors.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:The hat blowing over to Shia had me about to roll my eyes
What's even more funny is that SomethingAwful predicted that plot point a year and a half ago, in one of their fake IMDB-pages. I would've preferred to see that movie, actually. Especially with that cast.
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I had mixed feelings about the movie. As a stand-alone movie, I would give it a B+. As an Indiana Jones movie, I would give it a C+.
Now a movie set in the '50s with evil Soviets, psychic warfare, and aliens is perfectly appropriate. However, Indiana Jones movies have always been about fantastic supernatural phenomenon; the sci-fi/alien angle just didn't feel like Indiana Jones to me. And, although it's not the film makers' fault that Harrison Ford is as old as he is and that a fourth film set in the '30s or '40s just wouldn't work out, the image of Indiana Jones in front of a mushroom cloud (although a cool scene) just doesn't seem right; it seems completely anachronistic.
As its own movie, however, Crystal Skull was pretty good and had the back-to-back action scenes that I love about Indiana Jones movies. The sets, mythology, and the action itself were all very good. Since the opening of Raiders I had wanted to see a story set in Central or South America.
Shia LaBeouf did a very good job in his role and proved to be the most useful of Indy's sidekicks. Despite liking the character, I sure hope that the rumors of a fifth Indy movie with Shia LaBeouf in the lead role are just rumors.
It was nice to see Marion again. Once again she proved herself to be the most competent of Indy's female companions.
Cate Blanchett was given significantly more attention than other Indiana Jones villains, while the threat posed by the crystal skulls if they fell into the villains' hands seemed a bit more immediate than that of the other artifacts. The Ark was supposedly going to make the Nazi armies invincible, but it was pretty obvious that the Ark wasn't going to help the Nazis, the power of the Shankara Stones was never clearly defined, and the Grail couldn't even pass the Great Seal. However, Blanchett's description of how the Soviets intended to use the skulls to control the world was actually pretty creepy.
My friends and I concluded that we'll just have to watch it a couple more times. Once we're used to an atomic age Indy, the movie will probably work better.
For those who pay close attention to a movie's score, compare John William's score for the scene in which the temple's obelisk is closing (called "Hidden Treasure and the City of Gold" in the CD score) with William's score from War of the Worlds when the tripod is rising up out of the street (called "The Intersection Scene" in the CD score). The two scores are identical for a nearly 30 second long segment.
-------------------- "Having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Zefram: Now a movie set in the '50s with evil Soviets, psychic warfare, and aliens is perfectly appropriate. However, Indiana Jones movies have always been about fantastic supernatural phenomenon; the sci-fi/alien angle just didn't feel like Indiana Jones to me. And, although it's not the film makers' fault that Harrison Ford is as old as he is and that a fourth film set in the '30s or '40s just wouldn't work out, the image of Indiana Jones in front of a mushroom cloud (although a cool scene) just doesn't seem right; it seems completely anachronistic.
I have to disagree. To me, Indiana Jones has always been about history. Jones is a scientist. It's about Man's search for knowledge and understanding in the face of the Unknown, and about treating the traditions and mythologies of other cultures with respect.
Besides, psychic powers and interdimensional beings do fall into the category of fantastic supernatural phenomena in my book.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I saw it on Thursday, and while I've seen better films, there has been nothing else so far I've actualy wanted to see at the cinema.
It was great, if a little nostalgic. I actualy want to go and see it again (something quite unsual for me), but if I am just being a Spielberg/Lucas whore, I frankly don't care.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
A third viewing calls notice to some plot holes and/or confusing story points:
-- Who took the skull from Akator originally? Was it Orellana? Indy said Orellana was looking for the city in the 1540s and that the skull was stolen in the 15th or 16th century. So, did Orellana find the city and take the skull when he left? If so, why did he take only one, and why not more of the treasure?
-- How did the skull come to be buried with Orellana? If the natives caught him (as they must have, based on the mummification and location of burial) why did they leave the skull with him and not return it?
-- The relationship between the aliens and the indigenous people is unclear. It is said that the visitors taught the people agricultural and architectural techniques and it is implied that their influence is also found in other early cultures around the world. Yet, it is also said that they were archaeologists who were collecting artifacts from these same cultures. These seem like contradictory roles: directing human development versus documenting it.
-- What happened to the aliens that caused them to end up as skeletons in the temple? The ending seems to imply that they were inactive due to one of their collective being missing, and they were waiting for the skull to be restored. However, the theft of the skull apparently didn't happen until the 1500s, long after the city had been built up around their vessel. What were the circumstances uder which it was built and why were they just hanging out there for thousands of years? This is very confusing.
-- If they are collective beings, why were the ones at Roswell and in the USSR alone?
-- Why is the skull only selectively "magnetic"?
-- What is up with the portal through which Spalko is sent? Why is such a portal necessary on the interior of a vessel already designed for interdimensional travel? For that matter, if interdimensional travel can be accomplished through such a portal, why is the gigantic ship necessary at all?
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
The more I hear about this the more it sounds like they took three different scripts from three different potential movies and merged them into one. Like "Shoot the works! All on black!"
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:-- Who took the skull from Akator originally? Was it Orellana? Indy said Orellana was looking for the city in the 1540s and that the skull was stolen in the 15th or 16th century. So, did Orellana find the city and take the skull when he left? If so, why did he take only one, and why not more of the treasure?
I seem to remember that, after finding the skull with Orellana, Indy said that he must have found the city after all. It did look like there was some treasure buried with Orellana, perhaps the skull and a small amount of gold was all he and his men could grab while avoiding angry natives.
quote:-- How did the skull come to be buried with Orellana? If the natives caught him (as they must have, based on the mummification and location of burial) why did they leave the skull with him and not return it?
I believe they found the skull with Orellana's body in Peru while the temple he stole it from was in the Amazon. The Peruvians, not affiliated with the Amazonian natives, probably revered him due to his possession of the skull and gave him the fancy burial (complete with gold mask).
quote:-- The relationship between the aliens and the indigenous people is unclear. It is said that the visitors taught the people agricultural and architectural techniques and it is implied that their influence is also found in other early cultures around the world. Yet, it is also said that they were archaeologists who were collecting artifacts from these same cultures. These seem like contradictory roles: directing human development versus documenting it.
The only explanation we get is Indy's guess that 'they were archaeologists'. They could have been collectors of "primitive" artifacts as well as humanity's benefactors. Perhaps they didn't have a variant of the Prime Directive.
quote:-- What happened to the aliens that caused them to end up as skeletons in the temple? The ending seems to imply that they were inactive due to one of their collective being missing, and they were waiting for the skull to be restored. However, the theft of the skull apparently didn't happen until the 1500s, long after the city had been built up around their vessel. What were the circumstances uder which it was built and why were they just hanging out there for thousands of years? This is very confusing.
My only guess is that the aliens knew that even their skeletons could be beneficial to the natives (it was shown that the crystal skull could communicate with Indy). Upon their deaths, they allowed their skeletons to remain to guide the natives. Orellana arrived, took the skull, and the rest of the region was eventually decimated by Conquistadors and various European diseases. By that time, not only would the civilization that the skeletons had been aiding be a shadow of its former self, but the aliens probably did not want modern civilizations to gain access to knowledge that would undoubtedly be abused. Hence, the command to return the skull to allow the aliens' departure.
quote:-- If they are collective beings, why were the ones at Roswell and in the USSR alone?
Didn't they mention that there were three bodies at Roswell at that the body in the crate was one of the three? I'm pretty sure that the number of bodies was part of the established Roswell mythos. As for the USSR aliens, perhaps the others survived and escaped.
quote:-- Why is the skull only selectively "magnetic"?
They specifically mention that gold is not magnetic, yet it seems to be attracted to the skull. I'm sure the various properties of the skull were deliberately left unexplained to emphasize the mystery and unearthliness of the skull.
quote:-- What is up with the portal through which Spalko is sent? Why is such a portal necessary on the interior of a vessel already designed for interdimensional travel? For that matter, if interdimensional travel can be accomplished through such a portal, why is the gigantic ship necessary at all?
I was under the impression Spalko was disintegrated and that it was her ashes that were pulled into the portal since everything else was being sucked into it as well. There could be any number of explanations for why there is a portal within the ship itself. Perhaps the ship is inverted or turned inside out in some way and actually travels through it's own interior portal. This may be necessary if the portal can't be projected outside of the ship and if you don't want to have a portal generator that is separate from the vessel (which may not be feasible if you ever want to return to your point of origin). Given that it's an interdimensional portal, maybe concepts such as "inside" and "outside" aren't all that relevant.
-------------------- "Having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) Tying together the crystal skulls, El Dorado, Peruvian mummies, the Nazca lines, Roswell and Area 51, and everything else made for a highly interesting and entertaining story, especially if you already know some Meso-American history. Not that it's anything that no one thought of before, (Erich von Däniken, anyone?) but still perfect as a vehicle for Indiana Jones.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
