Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

[TallMax]

Also, I don't get why people claim George Lucas is getting worse over the years, seeing as he never wrote or directed the original trilogy nor the Indiana Jones movies. The new trilogy is what happens when he does do directing/writing, but in terms of rough ideas for a good movie he's alright.

And Temple of Doom will always be the best.

[Mr. Beck]

indy4.jpg (95.03 KiB) Viewed 1946 times

[Allium Cepa]

Also, I don't get why people claim George Lucas is getting worse over the years, seeing as he never wrote or directed the original trilogy nor the Indiana Jones movies. The new trilogy is what happens when he does do directing/writing, but in terms of rough ideas for a good movie he's alright.

And Temple of Doom will always be the best.

Um, are you aware that he co-wrote all of the Indiana Jones movies, and all of the Star Wars movies? He also directed Star Wars IV.

[TallMax]

I messed up on my info a bit, but I mean he either had help or didn't write the screen play for most of those movies.

He only wrote the screenplay for A New Hope and and had help on Return of the Jedi, and he never even helped write a screenplay for the Indiana Jones movies. He can think of decent stories, but when it comes to the raw dialogue he's a goof. I'll even argue that the shortcomings of a New Hope stem from him being the one behind it all.

[Allium Cepa]

He can think of decent stories, but when it comes to the raw dialogue he's a goof.

Good point.

But he is definitely getting worse over the years. His movies don't really have any of the soul that his older stuff did. I mean, he already gave us a father-son story with Star Wars and with the Last Crusade, and I don't really think we needed another one. It's like a cheap shot, a crutch he keeps falling back on because he has lost his ability to hold a story together. His more recent movies have their moments, but it's like their pasted together with some scenes that he didn't care about.

[Mercat]

His more recent movies have their moments, but it's like their pasted together with some scenes that he didn't care about.

Agreed. It was especially true with this one, like they just grabbed a bunch of stuff labeled "potentially awesome" and threw it into a bag, pulled it out again in a random order and then filmed it that way. It's a good film if you just sit back for the ride and take it for what it is. Personally I think it's the worst of the series but not terrible. I definitely wish they would have done it differently, because it seems after nineteen years that was a pretty crappy script, which from what I understand is a combination of Lucas' obsession with the crystal skulls

Spoiler:

(and their aliens/interdimensional beings qualities)

and the fact that they had like three different scripts they ended up piecing together into one. You can definitely tell because the harder you look at it, the more times you get "now why the hell did this happen, again?"

Oh, well, it's still fun.

[22/7]

I really enjoyed

Spoiler:

the early stuff with Indy and his kid at the university, the greaser fight, and the premise of using the crystal skulls.

I really took issue with

Spoiler:

1)the nuke. It was completely unnecessary. It's the 50s, we get it.
2)The stunts, in general. Don't get me wrong, some of them were great, but the vine swinging was retarded, as was the sword fighting (while standing on both cars? Really?). I also thought the tree that gently sets a car (A BOAT-CAR!) in the water from, what, 50 ft up? was stupid. And, of course, the three waterfalls without so much as a capsize or someone getting flung from the, did I mention this already? BOAT-CAR!
3)The use of alien shaped crystal skulls instead of human shaped crystal skulls. I really thought that the whole explanation was unnecessary, too. They could have simply had to return the crystal skull to the temple at the middle of the valley much like they had to return the stones in Temple of Doom. I know that the endings for Raiders and Crusade were better, somewhat because you actually found out how the thing works, what it does, whatever, but it would have made the whole thing more believable.

It probably would have been more fun for me had I not seen the first three, but the stunts especially were... frustrating, especially when comparing them to the first three (ok, the first and third) movies.

[GhostWolfe]

So let's talk about the actual skull prop. I think it was quite well done in that it fell way, way down the Uncanny Valley. Every time it was on screen I got a little creeped out. I suppose that skulls in general are a little freaky. Then, they made the skull out of crystal with a funky crinkled silver inside, and a quite oddly shaped cranium. Add to that the fact that it always looked like it was about to eat whatever was in front of it...

Honestly I couldn't get over the fact that it looked like the the propmaster shoved a bunch of shrinkwrap inside, minus the last few scenes where they digitize the insides to make them all swirly and glow-y.

If you actually look at real crystal skulls made of clear quartz (what they originally thought the skull to be made of), you'll see that the prop is actually pretty accurate.

Spoiler:

Source

I loved this movie. I was willing to cheer for certain soft science nightmares just for the fun of an Indy movie. I had a great time.

/angell

[ranatalus]

I have never seen Raiders of the Lost Ark.

There.

I've said it.

I have seen Temple of Doom several times. Last Crusade I could only tolerate after two or three viewings. It seemed to drag out the longest among the three of them.

wait

out of all the indiana jones movies, you liked temple of doom the most?

i very much enjoyed the movie as an indiana jones movie. it's meant to be goofy and over the top and ridiculous. yes, there is no way someone could:

Spoiler:

survive the fridge ride
effectively swordfight while straddling two cars
spontaneously learn to swing nearly perfectly from vine to vine and happen to catch up to a car race and time your jump perfectly to land on one of the cars and not fall off
SEE ALIENS

but who cares? i walked out of this movie wanting to jump from a balcony, dodge traffic, and start a fight when severely outnumbered with no planning. it's an indiana jones movie, which is exactly what i had hoped for walking into it and is exactly what i got.

[Jesse]

See, that's the problem. I felt gypped out of an Indy film. Half the action was conducted by Indy Jr. who I don't particularly like, and the deathtraps were unspectacular. The big cogs rolling into place looked brilliant in the trailer. They were virtually ignored by the characters in the film, who just kind of walked up the stairs. The fight in the ants was great, the motorcycle ride was great, even the car swordfight was good fun. But it just didn't fill up enough of the tilm to make me come out thinking "That was awesome".

[ranatalus]

in that case i guess it is a matter of personal taste

[22/7]

Spoiler:

survive the fridge ride
effectively swordfight while straddling two cars
spontaneously learn to swing nearly perfectly from vine to vine and happen to catch up to a car race and time your jump perfectly to land on one of the cars and not fall off
SEE ALIENS

See, here's my issue with that.

Spoiler:

I don't remember those kinds of stunts in the previous movies. These were not supernatural issues (the Ark killing everyone with ghosts, the guy in TofD pulling the heart out of a guy, the Holy Grail allowing for ridiculously long life, the crystal skeleton being magnetic for certain metals and not for others). That's where suspension of disbelief should come into play. Suspension of disbelief should NOT have to be applied to so many stunts. One or two, here and there? OK, that's fine. But you just listed a freaking huge chunk of the middle of the movie that's just ridiculous. If you can remind me of so many stunts that were so insanely over the top as the {sword fight, vine swinging, car driven into a tree which lowers it gently to the river, over three waterfalls without so much as getting thrown from the car-boat} from the previous movies, I'll admit that it was a solid Indy movie. Until then, I just can't agree with that viewpoint. It was just too much, too unbelievable, too often.

Note: I'm not trying to bait you into an argument. I honestly want you (well, anyone, really) to prove me wrong here, because I want to enjoy this film, but for the aforementioned reason, I'm finding it very, very hard.

[Gunfingers]

The best example of over-the-top stunts that comes to mind is the minecart in Temple of Doom, which does things like leap off a track and then land on it again, the odds against which would be astronomical. Depending on how closely you want to look you could say the same thing about a great many of the stunts (how could one guy outrun a dozen natives who are more familiar with the area than him while escaping all of their poisoned darts?) but one doesn't normally do that because, y'know, suspension of disbelief.

[22/7]

The best example of over-the-top stunts that comes to mind is the minecart in Temple of Doom, which does things like leap off a track and then land on it again, the odds against which would be astronomical. Depending on how closely you want to look you could say the same thing about a great many of the stunts (how could one guy outrun a dozen natives who are more familiar with the area than him while escaping all of their poisoned darts?) but one doesn't normally do that because, y'know, suspension of disbelief.

I never liked TofD nearly as much as the others... Alright, that makes sense. That's two for TofD.

[Cryopyre]

Spoiler:

survive the fridge ride
effectively swordfight while straddling two cars
spontaneously learn to swing nearly perfectly from vine to vine and happen to catch up to a car race and time your jump perfectly to land on one of the cars and not fall off
SEE ALIENS

See, here's my issue with that.

Spoiler:

I don't remember those kinds of stunts in the previous movies. These were not supernatural issues (the Ark killing everyone with ghosts, the guy in TofD pulling the heart out of a guy, the Holy Grail allowing for ridiculously long life, the crystal skeleton being magnetic for certain metals and not for others). That's where suspension of disbelief should come into play. Suspension of disbelief should NOT have to be applied to so many stunts. One or two, here and there? OK, that's fine. But you just listed a freaking huge chunk of the middle of the movie that's just ridiculous. If you can remind me of so many stunts that were so insanely over the top as the {sword fight, vine swinging, car driven into a tree which lowers it gently to the river, over three waterfalls without so much as getting thrown from the car-boat} from the previous movies, I'll admit that it was a solid Indy movie. Until then, I just can't agree with that viewpoint. It was just too much, too unbelievable, too often.

Note: I'm not trying to bait you into an argument. I honestly want you (well, anyone, really) to prove me wrong here, because I want to enjoy this film, but for the aforementioned reason, I'm finding it very, very hard.

I'm QFTing you here. The suspension of disbelief came into play only with the supernatural, but the A-bomb, the vine swinging should have been omitted entirely, while the boat thing should have been greatly revised. I think the sword-car fight was fine however, that seemed classic Indy to me.

The movie needed more of those chase and fight scenes with interesting/cool resolutions. It just didn't happen. Overall it wasn't a horrible movie, it just wasn't an Indy movie.

[TallMax]

If the sword fight on the cars was more believable than I would have loved it - something more akin to the tank fight in Last Crusade. Instead of going for mindblowingly outrageous for most of these stunts, if they took it a bit slower and made it more realistic/less CG but not as extraordinary the movie would have still been perfect, aliens notwithstanding. They bowed to the pressure all the action/adventure movies since Last Crusade have done.

[22/7]

Eh, I took issue with the sword fight, too. Still too over the top for an Indy movie for me.

[MotorToad]

22/7, would it help to know that there are actually amphibious cars? There was the Daf 139 and Schwimmwagen that the Germans were trying to use in WWII.

Gunfingers, I think the main reason people didn't like ToD as much as the good^H^H^H^H other movies is that it also requires more suspension of disbelief than Raiders. The mine cart scene was just bunk.

I think one of the reasons they had Indy Jr. perform so much of the action (or, in fact, why he was at all) is so that they could have the option to spout out another series of films. I can't say I'd be against it if they'll pony up a few hundred bucks to hire some writers.

[22/7]

22/7, would it help to know that there are actually amphibious cars? There was the Daf 139 and Schwimmwagen that the Germans were trying to use in WWII.

Not really. My issue isn't with the existance of the boat-car, but the stunt that was performed with them.

[Mercat]

Yeah... I didn't mind the swordfighting, but most everything that happened at the end of that (the Tarzan, the cliff, the waterfalls) was a bit too much for me. Interestingly, I rather liked the fridge scene.

I think the reason that the Tarzan bothers me is only partly that it was ridiculous, but it just looked so incredibly fake to me. I have not seen CGI used to animate people (as in real people, this doesn't include things like Pirates' Davy Jones) that looked realistic. And not even textures or anything, I mean how they move. It's like... physics don't apply or something? The robotic thugees falling from the bridge in Temple of Doom seem more real to me. It's actually the same sort of thing that bothers me about almost all the quidditch scenes in the Harry Potter movies.

In addition, did it bother anyone to have the gunpowder floating at the beginning? Yes, it's been pointed out that it shouldn't be magnetic (which Indy thinks the box is at that point) though this is kind of explained that neither is crystal or gold, so it's obviously some otherworldly possibly-psychic power. But... floating? I should think gravity still applies... (In the book it falls to the ground but makes a trail to the boxes, which I find significantly less ridiculous.)

[EDIT] In addition it's interesting to see people's thoughts here as opposed to Indy-related forums. A lot of the talk on the Indy forums is characterization complaints and Lucas-bashing, and there's been some interesting plot points I've seen come up here that haven't come up there yet. Just a random thought.

[MotorToad]

22/7, I didn't think it would, but it's all I had that I thought might help.

[EDIT] In addition it's interesting to see people's thoughts here as opposed to Indy-related forums. A lot of the talk on the Indy forums is characterization complaints and Lucas-bashing, and there's been some interesting plot points I've seen come up here that haven't come up there yet. Just a random thought.

That's because we're smarter here.

[Cryopyre]

We're the A-Team.

[Gobo]

Funny how too much personal knowledge can wreck suspension of disbelief.

The thing that bothered me the most was the chase in the trucks through the jungle. Has anyone else here ever driven a truck on a bulldozer road cut through the forest? I loved the monsterous road-cutting machine; that thing was awesome and I want one. But the roads it supposedly created were impossibly smooth. Assuming the machine actually could grind stumps flush to the ground in one pass without leaving any stray saplings to hit Mutt in the nuts, the ground itself wouldn't be that level.

What gets me is it didn't need to be a podrace to be an effective chase. A much slower race on a rougher road with the trucks bucking all over the place would have been more exciting. Much like the tank scene in Last Crusade. Also, having a character catch up by swinging on vines would have actually been explainable.

Also, I've been over a (much smaller) waterfall in a (much more buoyant) boat. That part also wasn't believable, but it made me laugh so it was okay.

[backslash]

Okay, I'm late to the dance, but here's my 2¥ worth.... It is really long, and I expect the mods will yell at me for it. But here you go.

There are a couple of you who just plain liked all four, but in general there seem to be two distinct camps: those who like Raiders/Last Crusade, and those who like Temple of Doom/Crystal Skull. (This is among my friends, fellow actors and casual acquaintances I have talked to, as well as this board.) I am of the former camp, and believe a series should try to keep to its original as much as possible, but I will try to keep this objective.

RLA/LC movies were story-driven. Ancient, spiritual artifacts that are familiar to the average member of the Western culture, a single major storyline with easily hateable and identifiable villains, and a pulp adventure movie feel done on an A scale instead of a B scale. If you are an adventure movie fan and like the pulp stories these are for you.

ToD/CS movies were action-driven. Created "artifacts", a variety of villains and storylines that cross over and are ill-defined, B-scale production reliant on large amounts of CG that exceed the suspension of disbelief (rivers of lava, the aforementioned refrigerator, etc.) If you like to see stuff blown up, these are for you.

Why I personally didn't like it:

Spoiler:

I had some serious concerns when I saw the previews for this movie. The previews were more of the ToD variety: a sidekick, difficult to identify villians and storylines, tons of wink-wink-nudge-nudge, and, even though they tried to hide it, a heavy reliance on CGA.

Now then. In the original format, Jones movies start with a nice little teaser that lets you know something of what Indy has been up to. In RLA it was the wonderful bit in Central/South America with the gaming-inspired, trap-infested idol site. In LC, it was a flashback-laden story that showed some of where Indy came from in the context of a mini-ep about the Cross of Coronado. Neither of the "even" movies had that--a mishmashed jump into the movie was all we got.

Jones starts out in the first movie as a user--he has his soft side, sure, but he is a user. He likes people okay--good people, obviously, never "bad guys"--but he is a violent geek. He blows stuff up, shoots people, and insults people without necessarily meaning to in order to get what he wants (Captain Kirk as an archaeologist). It is why he must get the crap beat out of him, just as Han Solo does in Star Wars movies--he is a good guy overall, but has some bad parts. He operates solo, only *hiring* people to work with him, until he is eventually--and reluctantly--attached to another person. This person is not a liability, however--it is someone to whom he has a significant tie emotionally, and who has assets of their own to contribute to the quest.

These characteristics were present in the third movie as well, but conspicuously absent in the second and fourth--the sidekicks he is saddled with in ToD/CS have little to contribute and are annoying liabilities. Then, somehow they suddenly contribute something that tips the entire scale, seemingly by luck (a punch here, a chant there, a torch over here). They even rescue Indy, who has haplessly been caught with his pants down in a way that makes you question whether he ever deserved the tough hero title.

The storyline in the "odd" movies was pretty easy to follow--get the Christian artifact. It is powerful, ancient, and would be devastating in the hands of the bad guys. There is one set of bad guys racing against you to get it, and they will sometimes use you and sometimes get ahead of you. In the even movies, however, it was different: Chinese gangsters, Indian royalty, and some mystical cult in the second movie; russians, americans (remember the dropped government storyline?) and south americans (remember them?) in the fourth movie. More on this below.

To make matters worse (my opinion, remember), the storyline of the even movies is completely buried in over-the-top CGA. Lucas and Spielberg themselves admitted that the second movie was focused on effects more than the odd movies, and I think that is clearly the case with the fourth movie as well--the initial entrance to the complex was the most glaring, unbelievable part of the entire movie. The whirling vortex of stone was exciting, I will grant--but it did not belong in this franchise. It is just too much, and makes it all about the effects and drowns out the storyline.

To make things worst of all: I got the repeated feeling, both while the movie was happening (and you must know, I can suspend my disbelief like nobody's business) and in discussion afterward, that this was a farewell movie--not an Indiana Jones movie. It was as if the production and creative team sat in a room and said, 'ya know, Harrison isn't going to do another one of these. What should we do?' Then someone said, "El Dorado!" and someone said "Aliens!" (probably Lucas) and someone said "Russians!" (that was probably Spielberg, I think he is over the whole Nazi thing) and someone said "Government paranoia from the 50's!" and Spielberg said, "We simply MUST get Shia Ladouche in here somehow..." Then no one would compromise, so we got all of that. There were repeated verbal takes to the audience (like Lucas' patented "I've got a bad feeling about this"), and a number of unnecessary commentary-on-society nods (Look at that steampunk-inspired automatic deforestation device! Those russians sure are EVIL!) that just took me out of the whole thing.

Someone in this thread mentioned the Spiderman3 emo-Peter. A perfect tie-in, in my opinion. My son and his friends liked that movie, and I hated it, for many of the same reasons that they liked Crystal Skull and I didn't. Overall, I believe a friend said it best: they could have taken Indiana Jones out of this movie and replaced him with any other generic adventure character. It would have been a better movie and better for the franchise. If you like generic action films, and can put the franchise aside, bully for you. I could not. Sad for me.

[AKAnotu]

Overall, I believe a friend said it best: they could have taken Indiana Jones out of this movie and replaced him with any other generic adventure character. It would have been a better movie and better for the franchise. If you like generic action films, and can put the franchise aside, bully for you. I could not. Sad for me.

I was actually going to say that, but then decided not to. I personally agree completely.

[GhostWolfe]

I think one of the reasons they had Indy Jr. perform so much of the action (or, in fact, why he was at all) is so that they could have the option to spout out another series of films.

I will cry. Then I will have to go stab someone. It's just not Indy without... well... Indy. Not that it wasn't pretty much my first thought as well.

/angell

[mstrzerg]

Am I the only one who would have been really pissed off if Mutt had actually put that hat on his head at the end? Off the top of my head I can't think of any actors who could replace Harrison Ford as Indy and definitely not Shia LeBouf.

The movie was an ok popcorn movie. Suspending disbelief was too tough most of the time. The selective magnetism, tarzan, and all the other things that have been mentioned bugged me. The storyline was confusing and full of plot contradictions that annoyed me too, but those are minor things you have to overlook sometimes...

[backslash]

Am I the only one who would have been really pissed off if Mutt had actually put that hat on his head at the end?

I actually said, out loud in the movie theater: "no...No...NO!!!" And then everyone in the audience heaved a collective sigh of relief and we all laughed. The only laugh in the movie, actually--none of the laugh lines got any from us.

So, yeah--you're not the only one. I might have asked for my money back at that point. There's only so much one man can handle.

[22/7]

Not at all. I was very upset when I saw Shia start to put the hat on, and was very relieved when Indy took it back.

@backslash, you pretty much hit it on the head, as far as I'm concerned. The only thing I really disagree with is the "creation" of an artifact in 4, but I agree with pretty much everything else.

[Rodan]

Just to clarify, I liked all the Indy movies, not just or particularly Temple and Kingdom.

[krick]

Spoiler:

In Raiders, Indy was dragged across a stretch of road from the back of a Nazi truck. He was heavily bruised, and it hurt him to even move. Marion had to help nurse him back into a fighting state. In Skull, he survived a fucking nuclear explosion in a goddamn refrigerator, and then walked himself home unharmed save for some sunburn. This angered me.

Where did the hat come from anyway? I got the impression that it flew from South America. I hope that wasn't it?

The script relied on more coincidences than Spider-Man 3.

[Mr. Beck]

I note that "Nuke the Fridge" was Word of the Day on Urban dictionary about a week ago...

[H.E.L.e.N.]

Am I the only one who would have been really pissed off if Mutt had actually put that hat on his head at the end? Off the top of my head I can't think of any actors who could replace Harrison Ford as Indy and definitely not Shia LeBouf.

YES. I am very, very glad that didn't happen. The way it was, it was a good moment. Hi, I'm Indy. That kid? Ha ha, faked you out, clearly not Indy.

[johnie104]

There is a dutch proverb that describes exactly what I thought during this movie: "Verstand op nul en kijken".
It translates roughly to "intelligence on zero and watch".
This is not really a bad thing. I liked the movie, but it was just impossible for me to take it seriously.

[GhostWolfe]

There is a dutch proverb that describes exactly what I thought during this movie: "Verstand op nul en kijken".
It translates roughly to "intelligence on zero and watch".

This is pretty much my philosophy for all action and adventure movies. <3

/angell

[Malice]

There is a dutch proverb that describes exactly what I thought during this movie: "Verstand op nul en kijken".
It translates roughly to "intelligence on zero and watch".

This is pretty much my philosophy for all action and adventure movies. <3

/angell

Previous Indiana Jones movies didn't have the same requirement, though. Especially the first one--you can (and have to) think during that movie. You're evaluating. Drawing inferences. Predicting. Part of the joy of the movies is trying to guess what Indy is going to do next, because he's making it up at the same time you're guessing.

I can't remember a single point within KotCS where that happened. Except for the fridge/nuke moment, which was ludicrous.

[SpitValve]

Spoiler:

In Raiders, Indy was dragged across a stretch of road from the back of a Nazi truck. He was heavily bruised, and it hurt him to even move. Marion had to help nurse him back into a fighting state. In Skull, he survived a fucking nuclear explosion in a goddamn refrigerator, and then walked himself home unharmed save for some sunburn. This angered me.

I agree.

It was an ok movie, but it felt like it was trying to be an Indy movie, and not quite getting there. I actually think The Mummy did a better job of an Indiana-Jones style movie than KotCS.

[|Erasmus|]

A bit of background here. I live under a rock, on some remote planet.

I had seen -part- of one of the original movies, and I'm not even sure which one. So when I went to see this one I did not have any real previous experience with Indiana Jones to compare this to (so I can't say it's bad compared to the other Indy movies).

The movie was HORRIBLE. the absolute worst movie I have seen for a long time. The entire plot consisted of lameness, and stunts so stupidly unbelievable it went beyond trying to make the audience think "oh wow, cool stunt" and into the realms of "you audience are a bunch of stupid pathetic morons who will lap up whatever kind of garbage we want to attempt to force down your throat with a toilet plunger". There was almost nothing in the movie that could be considered enjoyable unless you are a rabid fanboy in which case you may have enjoyed the two times in over two hours of entertainment, or lack thereof, that Indy pulled out his whip to vaguely wave it in the direction that he wanted something to happen.

I just hope to god that this was not a lame stunt in an attempt to create another few movies full of the same garbage with the now revealed Indy jnr.

[Mercat]

If Mutt had put that hat on, I might have hitchhiked my way out to California to punch George Lucas personally.

I'm debating, whether it's worth an Indy V that does the character justice or if that's just going to lead to a Mutt series. =( I mean, I had no problem with Mutt whatsoever, but you can't try to pass on the series to him. He's not the same character.

But I still feel like KotCS was a crappy goodbye to the character (by which I mean Indy).



And just for full disclosure, yep, I am a rabid fan who enjoys about a grand total of two scenes. Well, I have kind of forced myself to enjoy everything minus Tarzan and the ship (which is, apparently, not a ship, but a portal! makes it so less cheesy, amirite?! I keel you, Lucas), because of the lots and lots of background explaining going on behind the scenes on forums (like this, or Indygear). So yeah: a lot of things to hate but I am on my way out to see it for the fifth time tonight. =P

I definitely agree about the Temple similarities. Stunt driven and not story driven. But just like Temple, KotCS is growing on me, too. And as many many many people have pointed out, none of the sequels (or two sequels and a prequel if you want to be technical) measure up to Raiders anyhow, as it's just a classic. E];)

[Al Creed]

All I can really say about the movie that hasn't been said before is, you kind of have to be familiar with the theories of Erich Von Daniken to not walk away from the movie, scratching your head.