Hier on 27/5/2008 at 00:55
You're not alone Bear. I just got back from it.
This movie wasn't an Indiana Jones movie. This would have even embarrassed the Tomb Raider franchise. It was absolutely awful. The action scenes were terrible, the storyline was worse that I could have ever imagined. The movie was packed full of forehead-slapping stupidity. I groaned out loud during the quicksand scene, I couldn't help it. The movie was such an abysmal failure that even the crappy CGI seemed such a minor problem in comparison to the rest.
It made Temple of Doom look like Citizen Kane in comparison. If you like the Indy movies you should do what my instincts were telling me to do: avoid this movie like the plague.
I'm really, really not joking when I say it was worse than both Tomb Raider movies. And those were terrible.
Angel Dust on 27/5/2008 at 02:46
The most mind blowingly bad thing about the film was the script. Not the fact that it was bad but the fact that this was the script that they waited 19 years for? I'm not expecting Shakespeare (or insert your writer of choice) here but I would have thought that could have come up with a tighter, wittier script than the holey, hamfistedly plotted one with some truly awful lines, I still cannot believe that line about mayan/treasure/gold/knowledge that poor Harrison Ford has to say, that they used in KOTCK.
Scots Taffer on 27/5/2008 at 02:48
Most likely it's the only Frankenstein monster amalgam of good scripts from the past that they could get Lucas to agree on. I don't know why someone in power hasn't removed his executive rights to veto anything, the guy hasn't been creatively correct in 20 years.
Angel Dust on 27/5/2008 at 02:50
Some of the dialog is so bad it honestly sounds like he wrote it.
Stitch on 27/5/2008 at 02:52
HURR HURR LUCAS WHAT THE HELL
Still thought Indy 4 was the shit :cool:
Angel Dust on 27/5/2008 at 02:56
Quote Posted by Stitch
HURR HURR LUCAS WHAT THE HELL
I wasn't making a joke I seriously think he wrote some of the script despite his story only credit.
Aja on 27/5/2008 at 03:12
Quote Posted by Angel Dust
The most mind blowingly bad thing about the film was the script. Not the fact that it was bad but the fact that this was the script that they waited 19 years for? I'm not expecting Shakespeare (or insert your writer of choice) here but I would have thought that could have come up with a tighter, wittier script than the holey, hamfistedly plotted one with some truly awful lines, I still cannot believe that line about mayan/treasure/gold/knowledge that poor Harrison Ford has to say, that they used in KOTCK.
I know! The movie had some great sequences, a few glimmers of classic Indy, but the rest was just an incomprehensible plot full of useless characters that practically drown in all the obvious CGI. The beauty of previous Indy films derived from THREE ASPECTS:
1. Exciting action. If the action is fake, it is no longer exciting. Vic Armstrong did some amazing work in Last Crusade, while Indy 4 relied almost entirely on clumsy computer-generated effects. The tank scene of Last Crusade felt more real and visceral than anything in the Crystal Skull.
2. Intriguing mystery. Indy worked out every problem just as fast as he encountered it, leaving no sense of mystery to the audience, because we had no idea what the fuck he was talking about. GOOD ARCHAEOLOGY IS IMPORTANT. Or
interesting archaeology, at least. There was no sense of wonder, no greater mystery, just a bunch of generic characters wandering through generic sets to find an utterly generic treasure.
the treasure is knowledge! KNOWLEDGE IS THE TREASURE GET IT3. Humour. Indy 4 was funny. But it also had a lot of dumb, over-the-top sequences that only came off as a pale parody of the genuinely funny moments of the originals. SUBTLETY jesus christ.
And I haven't even mentioned the dull villain, ridiculous
alien effects, and the fact that, even if the action sequences were of high quality (by modern movie standards), when none of it MEANS anything, there's no reason for the audience to care.
I wanted so bad to like to this movie. Hell, I haven't attended an opening night since... well I don't think I ever have. But man, I found it totally alienating.
NO PUN INTENDED Maybe if it wasn't Indy I would've enjoyed it more. As it stands, I'll stick to the original box set. Crystal Skull is just depressing :(
Angel Dust on 27/5/2008 at 03:23
Quote Posted by Aja
1. Exciting action. If the action is fake, it is no longer exciting. Vic Armstrong did some amazing work in Last Crusade, while Indy 4 relied almost entirely on clumsy computer-generated effects. The tank scene of Last Crusade felt more real and visceral than anything in the Crystal Skull. :(
True, although I prefer the Raiders truck scene to that one. I really don't think the CGI can be blamed entirely though. Spielbergs tone for the action was just wrong. He seemed to be going for a more playful vibe as opposed to the gritty, dangerous feel of the original action sequences. Now you could blame that on the CGI, but there is nothing stopping you from using CGI in a more gritty way much like he did in 'War of The Worlds'.
Much of the humor in the film did not go down well at all in the cinema I saw it in. There was deafening silence for alot of the gags.
Aja on 27/5/2008 at 03:32
I was going to argue that the stunts in Indy were always playful (which they kinda are), but you're right: War of the Worlds had some absolutely riveting sequences that were almost entirely CGI. So maybe the direction is to blame or maybe it's just george lucas
Angel Dust on 27/5/2008 at 03:42
I disagree that there were playful, maybe from our point of view ie 'Gee, this is fun!' but from the characters in the film it was made to feel mostly like life and death stuff. Watch the Raiders truck scene, Indy gets hurt real bad and barely manages much of the amazing feats and is bloody exhausted. None of that happens in KOTCK, people bounce around quiet easily and there is no feeling of exhaustion. The action in the originals just has a vastly different tone to it than the new stuff.
Now this cannot all simply be put down to it being CGI because the actors and director have decided to go in a much more cartoony direction. Shia not slipping or struggling on the vines, or reacting to getting hit in the nads is not tht CGI's fault. CGI can be real and visceral, like I perviously stated the initial invasion and destruction in 'War of the Worlds' is an excellenet example. but it was Speilberg and co who decided to use it like this.
Edit: shit, didn't see your post change Aja.
