32 responses so far

• 1 5-24-2008 at 11:15 am
  
  Proman said...

  Meh, I disagree.

  In fact I positively love numbers #2 and #7.

  And I like #6. Way to miss the point there buddy.

  Also, CGI didn’t bother me at all. Not for a second.

  But I do, kind of hate Koepp’s screenplay. It really is th worst thing Spielberg ever had to work with but it is to his credit, that for me anyway, the movie overcame the script’s problems to become a wonderful, extremely enjoyable experience. When I left, I was happy.

  The screenplay is the only criticism I share. It’s uneven, it does waste Hurt’s character. It bring up marvelous set pieces and then does nothing with them (the side effect of it though was that I was able to enjoy them as travelogous, I absorbed the images like the nuclear blast and the waterfall and they still stayed with me). Worst, of all, it made Indy somewhat bitter but not to an extent that made it vert problematic. The whole was greater then the sum of the parts.

  And I LOVE love love Indy’s reaction when he first sees Marion.

  Still, to each his own. Being an admirer of Temple of Doom isn’t the most popular thing ever. I thought the movie was great.

  And, I’m sorry but this made me laugh:
  “Thank God for saviors like Christopher Nolan, who believe in the practicality of filmMAKING.”

• 2 5-24-2008 at 11:20 am
  
  Belik said...

  a bad idea from day one…

• 3 5-24-2008 at 12:28 pm
  
  Chad said...

  Don’t forget Shia’s army of monkeys Tapley. Army. Of. CGI. Monkeys.

• 4 5-24-2008 at 12:33 pm
  
  Ali E. said...

  I think it’s unfair to claim nothing works in this film. I think Harrison Ford held himself up fine. His relationship with both Marion and his son were well-done. I also liked the self-conscious humor overall. The film, mostly because of Ford’s age, takes place in the ’50s. That’s the era of B-movie science fictions. So the fantasy part also makes sense to me…

  But I agree that the lighting was highly distracting. CGI work was poor. Most of the action sequences were lame and the supporting characters were definitely underwritten. And even for an Indiana Jones film, some impossible situations are hard to be swallowed by today’s audience (like the refrigerator, for instance).

  but I still enjoyed it. I’ve never seen any of the Indiana Jones films as flawless. So I’m willing to accept many things, as long as I have fun. and it was decent fun.

• 5 5-24-2008 at 12:58 pm
  
  McAllister said...

  The only thing I really didn’t like was Mac. The character sucked but a pro like Ray Winstone still could’ve done better.

  I loved Cate Blanchett and her character. Karen Allen was the same as in the first movie as far as I’m concerned… not great and cheesy.

  And as far as Cinematography goes, I loved it… especially the scene in the tent with Indy’s and Irina’s shadows… amazing!

• 6 5-24-2008 at 2:36 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  If you laughed at that point, Proman, you didn’t get it. If Nolan wants something done, he does it. He doesn’t “fix it in post.” It’s the kind of mantra Spielberg has followed for ages with this series, and then he shits the bed in this flick. Terrible.

  And there is no “point” worth making with that title. Sorry. It’s a stretch — like the rest.

  Chad: 100% agreed. The monkeys. I think that’s the sequence that had me shaking my head the longest…I’ve never been so audibly irritated by a film in a long time. “What the fuck” seemed to fly out of my mouth at every turn.

• 7 5-24-2008 at 7:29 pm
  
  Joel said...

  I could not disagree with you more, Kris. I thought it was a rousing adventure and one of the best films of the year.

  If you had a problem with the sublimely ridiculous elements in this film and didn’t with the same in the others, then I’m sorry, but you seem unable to leave your critic’s brain at the door. I’m a film critic for a small section of The Dallas Morning News, and my professional opinion was that “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is incomparable to the first three movies (you simply can’t compare them, I’m sorry). Spielberg did a magnificent job making the SF B-movie he wanted to, not a serious, down-to-earth picture.

  And for the record, Irina Spalko is more villainous than Mola Ram ever was.

• 8 5-24-2008 at 7:51 pm
  
  Brian Kinsley said...

  I think I disagree too. I think it’s Spielberg’s second worst film of this decade, I’d give it maybe 2.5/4 at best, but I think it isn’t without it’s charms, so don’t think I’m just being a Spielberg apologist Kris. ;)

  The college motorbike sequence is the set-piece that feels the most like an Indiana Jones scene, and it works really well. I enjoyed the big jungle set piece too, maybe more than any set-piece in Last Crusade.

  Ford started off shaky, and came more alive when Shia showed up, and even more alive and classic when Marion showed up.

  The ending is clunky as hell, and while I don’t mind what the Crystal Skull origin is, I don’t think it’s delivered well at all.

  The nuclear blast was probably the only scene that filled me with any sense of awe. Impractical as it might have been (and Doomstown was well shot and edited too, I thought), that image has stuck with me more than anything else.

  I felt like Shia came away from Crystal Skull better than anyone. When he was about to put on the hat, I almost was excited. With a new director, I think Mutt Williams movies could be a fun summer distraction.

  John Williams seemed a bit low key, Kaminski off and on (agreed, that shadow scene in the tent is magnificent) and Kahn may be starting to show his age. Some of Spielberg’s directing was really off for him I thought too, but some was just as good as I expect.

  I don’t know how much to blame Koepp, or how much to just blame every screenwriter he clearly copy-and-pasted from. But copy-and-paste is the best I can give him, since my favorite writing, the bantering between Indy-Marion-Mutt, seems to have been attributed to a different writer.

  I hope, at last, that Spielberg is done with Indy. Let him shoot his 20 day TinTin movie, and then bring on Lincoln, please.

• 9 5-24-2008 at 8:55 pm
  
  Isaac Richter said...

  Okay, I actually really enjoyed this film, and to be honest, the ending to me felt similar to the endings in both Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade. The endings are basically the bad guys messing with the objects they are searching for and being destroyed by them (being blown up by the ark and dying in pursuit of the grail), so why is it so different this time? Yes, the whole thing with the aliens may have been a little much, but it was fun, and I loved the final shot of the flying saucer, and the whole pursuit through the jungle was exciting. I really enjoyed Harrison Ford’s interplay with Shia LaBouf, and Cate Blanchett made for a great villain (she was just so interesting to watch). I enjoyed the film. It’s not great, but I wasn’t expecting great. None of the Indy films are really great films, they’re all just pure stupid fun, and that’s why we love them.

• 10 5-24-2008 at 9:56 pm
  
  Padraig said...

  Wow, someone had bitter for breakfast. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion but it seems to me like you weren’t able to let go and simply enjoy the ride as a mere fan and not a tightened critic. That said, you’ve got some points, but I disagree with you as a whole and don’t think it is as bad as you make it look. I actually think it’s pretty good and a lot of fun.

• 11 5-25-2008 at 1:06 am
  
  Thomas H. said...

  Sounds to me, that Kristopher is disappointed as a simple moviegoer who enjoyed the previous installments of this series. «Crystal Skull» really offers so much to be disappointed about. The CGI is simply awful. What about those horrible gophers?! But overall I still somehow liked the film despite all its many, many flaws.

• 12 5-25-2008 at 1:11 am
  
  Twinzin said...

  I agree with everything you say Kris. What I’d say were the best things about the film was the score by John Williams. Ford. And Cate Blanchett eventhough she didn’t seem to be a threat. Koepp is known as the money writer he makes the big bucks for his scripts, but the movies he write always suck!

• 13 5-25-2008 at 2:02 pm
  
  BobMcBob said...

  There isn’t one thing you like about this film? You sound like a washed up critic who sits in his basement watching obscure foreign films, waiting for the Bolshevik revolution to start again. Of course you’re not going to compare this film favorably to a classic trilogy that ended 19 years ago with a film that stated it was the “Last Crusade”. The negative comments you are making now are not dissimilar to what every studio executive thought in 1981 (except for Michael Eisner) who turned the film down. This is a different era of filmmaking, in which it would be impossible to reproduce what you saw in the 80s for both artistic and commercial reasons. Stop your elitist rambling, because your nostalgia is blurring what you think you think you saw in the previous films, and be happy you didn’t have to sit through a manufactured blockbuster like “Alvin and the Chipmunks” this weekend.

• 14 5-25-2008 at 4:23 pm
  
  Joel said...

  Bob, I wholeheartedly agree. As I said I’m a film critic at heart. I LOVED “CRYSTAL SKULL”!!! I must say it. I thought it was better than “okay”; I thought it was fantastic.

  Oh, and Thomas, the gophers were in there (count ‘em) twice. If this bothered you so much, then watch something like “In the Name of the King”. In there you’ll witness the ninjas pop back and forth between appearance and disappearance no fewer than twenty times–IN THE SPACE OF TWO MINUTES. Spielberg is allowed his brand of humor, and although I found them random, I think they were a cute distraction.

  And about the direction it takes, how is it any more ridiculous than phantom zooming through people and melting off their faces (”Raiders”), or people’s hearts being ripped out while their still alive (”Temple”), or a thing as simple as a sip of water making someone into a calcified skeleton (”Crusade”). This ending was inevitable, people! And magnificent. (Oh, and the CG was absolutely perfect the whole way through–very B-movie).

• 15 5-25-2008 at 5:44 pm
  
  Marvin said...

  Say what about Tintin? Spielberg plans to shoot the entire movie in 20 days?

• 16 5-25-2008 at 10:55 pm
  
  Blake said...

  I don’t think a lot of people are getting what Kris is aiming at. I agree with a lot of what he says. In my opinion, the first three are all classics in their own right, Temple of Doom being the weakest but still filled with many laughs and thrills. There wasn’t one moment in this movie where I felt Spielberg’s brilliance at work. Most of it was a waste.

  The atomic explosion scene was a cool scene in itself. But why is it there? Delete that whole scene, and have you lost something from the film? No.

  And the gophers weren’t only unnecessary, it was an absolute cliche. I couldn’t help but shake my head at it. Raiders opens with a great shot of Indy looking out at the mountain peak, and the best thing they could come up with was a gopher?

  The ants do NOT provide the same thrills as the snakes and rats did in the previous films. Why? The CGI. It ruins the fact that these films were gripped in reality, and I felt like I was watching The Mummy Returns all over again rather than an Indiana Jones sequel.

  I think most of the blame has to go to David Koepp. I hope Spielberg can wake up and realize Koepp has written his 3 worst films in recent memory. Lost World, War of the Worlds, and this. But the rest of the blame has to go to the cast and crew for simply not carrying enough. Karen Allen doesn’t bring the sassy spark that made her character memorable in Raiders. Mac is simply annoying. I prefer Henry, Indy, Junior, and Dr. Jones far more than “Jonesy”. What the hell was that? That’s far worse than being called Junior.

  Jim Broadbent was completely boring, and I just wish Denholm Elliott were still around to fill those shoes.

  Um, did anybody notice how little we got of Indy kicking ass? 5 minutes in the first 20 minutes of the film, a very brief car chase in New Haven, then the jungle chase scene (filled mostly with Shia and Cate fighting), followed by a brief fist fight with the Russian officer. This really wasn’t a physically demanding role for Harrison Ford. If it did look that way, that was the magic of editing or CGI.

  Despite all this, it’s not like I hated the film, it’s better than most of the stuff out there, but it didn’t even come close to meeting my expectations, and for someone who is a huge admirer of Spielberg and especially the Indiana Jones trilogy, I think it’s the worst film Spielberg has ever made. Yes…the worst! (I’ve yet to see Empire of the Sun, Always, and 1941).

• 17 5-25-2008 at 11:01 pm
  
  Blake said...

  I also forgot to mention the completely forgettable score by Williams, and Kaminski did not even come close to recreating the look of the old films. Take a look at Slocombe’s work and how wonderfully motivated the lighting is compared to Kaminski’s cartoonish lighting. I will say, I did think the set pieces were very strong, and it could have benefited even more so with better CGI and lighting. If anybody deserves a nomination for this film, it’s Guy Dyas.

• 18 5-26-2008 at 10:12 am
  
  Nick Plowman said...

  I loved this film….I think.

• 19 5-26-2008 at 11:24 am
  
  Jonathan Spuij said...

  Well I agree with these 10 points not being the film’s strongest assets. But they’re not terrible or even hateable for that matter. It’s no smooth film no sir, but still very enjoyable. Though, a bit underwhelming at times. BTW I tried to find a Wilhelm scream in there but I haven’t heard it yet after 2 viewings. Anyone here who did?

• 20 5-26-2008 at 11:41 am
  
  Cypher said...

  Why are you so freaked out? It’s not supposed to make sense or be serious. This is the very definition of popcorn flicks — humorous, slightly cheesy but aware of it, and involves aliens, ancient civilizations, and Russians. And it’s definitely not meant to be looked to much into; Just for you to watch and enjoy. It’s not the details that drive the movie, it’s the overall spirit. And that’s what I loved so much about it.

• 21 5-26-2008 at 11:50 am
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  A lot of people here are making the mistake of assuming that I’m being overly critical of a film that should be taken for face popcorn value (which in and of itself is never an excuse,but that isn’t the point).

  The “overall spirit” was vacant, it pains me to say. Everything pulp-satisfying about the original films left a vacuum in this effort, in my opinion. “Crystal Skull,” as a result, plays more like a spoof of an Indiana Jones film rather than an organic part of the whole.

• 22 5-26-2008 at 10:05 pm
  
  Joel said...

  Cypher, you’re correct. The word “pulp-satisfying” is, as Adrian Monk would say, a funny word.

  Me and Cypher are not presuming that you are, as you say, “overly critical of a film that should be taken for face popcorn value.” You’re being critical of a film that WANTS to be taken at face popcorn value. “Transformers”, “TMNT”, etc., were films that, if taken as seriously as, say, “The Assassination of Jesse James…” would fail miserably. “Crystal Skull” was, as Pauline Kael would say, “great trash”. NONE of it would work if it was any other movie. (After all, it didn’t work in “National Treasure 2″!)

  As for that not being an excuse, here’s where I agree with you. It isn’t. But THAT isn’t an excuse NOT to like it. Just because it isn’t always serious about its OWN subject matter (which is sublimely ridiculous) doesn’t mean that the movie is unwatchable.

  As for the movie playing “more like a spoof of an Indiana Jones film rather than an organic part of the whole”, don’t they all? That was Spielberg’s goal: self-aggrandizing tone, awesome action. Don’t look at the action like you do the other films.

  Think of this: Imagine “Raiders of the Lost Ark” made EXACTLY as it is, just filmed today, and you know what? It would have been a mess. Because it was made in 1981 when most of this stuff was unheard of, critics loved it. Now that we have modern technology, Spielberg has a social obligation to make it WITH THAT TECHNOLOGY! When you praise Christopher Nolan for at least knowing the process of filmmaking, it comes up with nothing. Yes, he does make great films, but so does Spielberg. When Spielberg makes a serious picture, it’s a demanding but rewarding experience, and equally as when he does an action film. Base your opinion on the MOVIE, not the series, is all I’m saying.

  I leave you with a quote, from the Movie Answer Man himself, in his review of this film: “I can say that if you liked the other Indiana Jones movies, you will like this one, and that if you did not, there is no talking to you.”

• 23 5-27-2008 at 12:08 am
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  Nope, sorry. It failed for me in nearly every way. But I hope you guys can just settle on that rather than making excuses for my not liking the film.

  By the way, everyone keeps missing the point about Nolan. The “making” was capped for a reason. Practical effects. Not that hard to understand.

• 24 5-27-2008 at 3:27 am
  
  Jonathan Spuij said...

  I do agree that the original Indy’s wouldn’t have half the attractive value today. There’s still some weird story gaps and flaws but they’re very conscious of it so it don’t matter.

  There was an article over at CNN clearly defending Spielberg with which I only partially agree. The basic was that Spielberg could’t be blamed because without him it would’ve been even worse. Koepp and Lucas (mainly Lucas, he hasn’t made a decent film since uhm well that little space movie in 1977) got most of the blame because of the poor story.
  On the other hand one must also wonder why Spielberg tried to turn that thing into something anyway, in which he partially succeeded which is a special thin in itself.

• 25 5-27-2008 at 2:37 pm
  
  Blake said...

  Joel, I ADORE the Indiana Jones trilogy. More so than Star Wars, or any franchise. So when critics said it’s at least as good as the two sequels, I had high expectations. I have high expectations for any Spielberg film. But this time, I really just wanted to have a good time at the movies. I still came out largely disappointed. So Ebert’s quote you posted rings completely false to me. And I hope you understand that Kris, and many many others, feels the same way. I haven’t talked to one person I know who has loved this movie. Some thought it was okay. And a lot of people think it absolutely SUCKS. I don’t think it’s a terrible film, but it definitely doesn’t hold a finger to the rest of Spielberg’s films, and that is reason enough to hate it. This movie failed to be even the slightest entertaining to me. It failed to be a good “popcorn movie”, and I liked Transformers more.

  And Spielberg most definitely did NOT have a “social obligation” to make the film with CGI technology. There, you are 100% wrong. When Spielberg and Lucas started production on the film, they promised us a movie that would not be CGI driven. If you don’t believe me, look here:

  http://forums.dvdfile.com/now-playing/36437-indiana-jones-4-no-cgi.html

  That was their social obligation. And they failed miserably.

• 26 5-28-2008 at 7:59 am
  
  Joel said...

  Yes, Blake, I remember when they released this info, and it wasn’t “NO CGI”; it was “at least 30% CGI”. I’ve gotten that info off of at least a dozen more websites that dvdfile.com.

  And yes, I adore the trilogy too. But you’re forgetting something. Spielberg has confirmed (on many websites, so look it up yourself) that “Crysal Skull” is the start of a new trilogy. He said not to compare this to the other films. He hopes that people will like it as much as the other films, but the comparison is strongly not recommended. He wants us, as viewers, to think of this as the comparison film for the two succeeding movies.

  But everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, I suppose.

  How about this? When Kris puts up his Top Ten of 2008, I’ll put mine up too, and if “Crystal Skull” ends up not on it, I’ll apologize, okay? Put yours up as well, and we’ll compare notes.

• 27 6-19-2008 at 11:50 am
  
  Steve said...

  Veteran multi-million-dollar cast and crew churn out amateurish inane blockbuster.

• 28 6-19-2008 at 11:56 am
  
  Steve said...

  By the way, I’m really tired of people saying:
  (1) It’s a kid’s move (because Finding Nemo was better).
  (2) You just have to go and have fun not expecting a whole lot (with the big names and big money, high expectations are what these film-makers must deal with).
  (3) Don’t compare it to the old ones (even though it has the same name and many of the same actors?).
  (4) The older movies were just as silly (they were silly but not just as silly; sit down and watch them again).

  Quit making excuses for these people that used to do a good job. They have standards to maintain and have failed.

• 29 7-31-2008 at 10:01 pm
  
  Count Vardulon said...

  Steve, I’d go one bit farther than you on point 4 – Yes, Temple of Doom is silly at points, yes, Last Crusade is very silly, but watch Raiders again. It’s fun, it’s engaging, it’s entertaining, but it’s never silly.

• 30 10-14-2008 at 1:45 am
  
  Majid said...

  My dear Kristopher Tapley,

  Thanks for taking the time to put down those ten points. (Though I still can’t believe you were able to narrow it down to only ten!)

  You’re the second person so far to make me feel that I’m not the only moviegoer in the world to witness the brutal rape of Indiana Jones. The first being whoever came up with the idea for South Park’s dig at this movie. I don’t know if you’ve seen the episode, but it’s pretty hilarious in describing what a tragedy this particular sequel was to Indy fans – or at least Indy fans like you and me.

  WHATEVER negative comment you may have on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it would still be a huge understatement especially it being the work of the legendary Spielberg who we all know can shit greater movies than this.

  But apparently, he and Lucas are not the only ones to lose their marbles. My God, look at all the defensive reviews this movie got (even on this very page). You’d think that with all the negativity and hard-to-please attitude of the internet world, this movie would get the bashing of ten lifetimes, but what do you know? A whole lot of people actually think it’s good filmmaking. LOL! Son of a bitch! Am I in the Twilight Zone or something?

  Hey, go ahead and like it. Why let yourself down when you can just go with the flow, right? Hell, I thought White Chicks was fun, no problem, but at the same time I’d rather punch myself in the nuts than call it good filmmaking.

  My own reaction to Crystal Skull from start to finish was about the same reaction I usually have to Jerry Seinfeld’s attempt at humor onstage. I just sit there with my mouth hanging out trying to force myself to laugh at his jokes but it never happens because, let’s face it, the fucker is just not funny. Same with this film. It fails even as a joke. But for some damn reason, you’re still watching. If you consider that a positive note, then OK, more power to ya.

  Anyway, my condolences to all the likeminded Indiana Jones fans who walked into that theatre ready to rock, and came out ready to tear the filmmakers’s asses apart for selling them out this fucking bad.

  All I can say is, thank God for Nolan.

• 31 8-30-2009 at 12:53 am
  
  Coby Isley said...

  I have been pumped for this movie ever since I was 7 and saw the first 3 movies. I read a magazine on the 20th anniversary of Raiders and read about them talking about another movie. So like I said I’ve been pumped for it for years. It came out. I about peed I was so excited to see it. Then I saw Indy launched across a desert in a refrigerator by an atomic bomb, unscathed. the following 2 hours of my life can never be returned to me.

Name

Email

Web site

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail