Fan in Chicago Posted May 24, 2008 Posted May 24, 2008 Saw it. Didn't like it. Posting a review would mean spoilers so I won't. It is barely better than Temple of Doom
TheMadCap Posted May 24, 2008 Posted May 24, 2008 Wow, I had NO idea people were so hard on Temple of Doom. I guess being 12 helped alot for me...
JoeFerguson Posted May 24, 2008 Posted May 24, 2008 I saw it and am very disappointed. Temple of Doom was good. "MONKEY BRAINS"
eball Posted May 24, 2008 Posted May 24, 2008 Wow, I had NO idea people were so hard on Temple of Doom. I guess being 12 helped alot for me... I haven't seen Crystal Skulls yet, but Temple of Doom was definitely the worst of the first three. Not even close.
Fewell733 Posted May 24, 2008 Posted May 24, 2008 Wow, I had NO idea people were so hard on Temple of Doom. I guess being 12 helped alot for me... back when I was an 8 year old I didn't like Temple of Doom cause it was too gross, but I rewatched it this week and realized its just not very good. It has a lot of awesome moments, but they're overshadowed by Kate Capshaw's terrible terrible acting, Short Run reminded me of Jar Jar Binks this time, and just some bad editing throughout - the bridge at the end fluctuates from being about 70 feet high, to apparently hundreds of feet high. It really should have been amazing.
Booster4324 Posted May 24, 2008 Posted May 24, 2008 Thoroughly enjoyed it. It may have just been a good father/son moment though.
Mark Vader Posted May 24, 2008 Author Posted May 24, 2008 Saw it last night, and enjoyed it thoroughly. Lots of fun, which is what these movies are supposed to be. Is it far fetched? Yes, but so are all the other Indy movies. Do you have to suspend disbelief? Yes, but you have to in all the other Indy movies. Having said all of that, it is great to see Harrison Ford in this role again, and he looks comfortable doing it also. I was quite surprised by Shia Lebeouf, he was much better in this film than in Transformers. I feel that Ray Winstone is wasted in this film, I would have liked to have seen more of John Hurt's character. It's great to see Karen Allen again, and Cate Blanchett is awesome. I wo'nt get into plot spoilers or details so as not to ruin anything. My expectations were met with this film. It was a very satisfying fun ride. I will say that if they have ants like that in Brazil, I'm never going there.
C.Biscuit97 Posted May 24, 2008 Posted May 24, 2008 Saw it last night, and enjoyed it thoroughly. Lots of fun, which is what these movies are supposed to be. Is it far fetched? Yes, but so are all the other Indy movies. Do you have to suspend disbelief? Yes, but you have to in all the other Indy movies.Having said all of that, it is great to see Harrison Ford in this role again, and he looks comfortable doing it also. I was quite surprised by Shia Lebeouf, he was much better in this film than in Transformers. I feel that Ray Winstone is wasted in this film, I would have liked to have seen more of John Hurt's character. It's great to see Karen Allen again, and Cate Blanchett is awesome. I wo'nt get into plot spoilers or details so as not to ruin anything. My expectations were met with this film. It was a very satisfying fun ride. I will say that if they have ants like that in Brazil, I'm never going there. Exactly. Was it the greatest movie ever? No, but it was definitely a very enjoyable movie experience.
GoodBye Posted May 24, 2008 Posted May 24, 2008 Saw it last night, and enjoyed it thoroughly. Lots of fun, which is what these movies are supposed to be. Is it far fetched? Yes, but so are all the other Indy movies. Do you have to suspend disbelief? Yes, but you have to in all the other Indy movies.Having said all of that, it is great to see Harrison Ford in this role again, and he looks comfortable doing it also. I was quite surprised by Shia Lebeouf, he was much better in this film than in Transformers. I feel that Ray Winstone is wasted in this film, I would have liked to have seen more of John Hurt's character. It's great to see Karen Allen again, and Cate Blanchett is awesome. I wo'nt get into plot spoilers or details so as not to ruin anything. My expectations were met with this film. It was a very satisfying fun ride. I will say that if they have ants like that in Brazil, I'm never going there. Yep, I kinda feel the same way about it. Got what I expected out of an Indy movie. Oh man, those ants had my skin crawling. I hate ants as it is so they can just stay in Brazil!
TheMadCap Posted May 24, 2008 Posted May 24, 2008 Saw it last night, and enjoyed it thoroughly. Lots of fun, which is what these movies are supposed to be. Is it far fetched? Yes, but so are all the other Indy movies. Do you have to suspend disbelief? Yes, but you have to in all the other Indy movies.Having said all of that, it is great to see Harrison Ford in this role again, and he looks comfortable doing it also. I was quite surprised by Shia Lebeouf, he was much better in this film than in Transformers. I feel that Ray Winstone is wasted in this film, I would have liked to have seen more of John Hurt's character. It's great to see Karen Allen again, and Cate Blanchett is awesome. I wo'nt get into plot spoilers or details so as not to ruin anything. My expectations were met with this film. It was a very satisfying fun ride. I will say that if they have ants like that in Brazil, I'm never going there. They DO have like that, but Jones calls them by the incorrect name (Siafu) in the film. Siafu are native to africa and can number in the millions of members. When they get rolling throught the forest, NOTHING stands in thier way. Thier depiction was quite accurate. Regarding the movie, it was ok, like visiting with old friends again. The story was ultra-lame, but what do you expect from George "toy'boy" Lucas. God, I wish he'd stop making movies. However, I knew going in that they could NEVER meet my expectations, because the other three movies were part of my childhood and nothing could compete with that. It was fun and I like it, but I probably wouldn't watch it more than once or twice more, unlike the other three...
Mark Vader Posted May 25, 2008 Author Posted May 25, 2008 They DO have like that, but Jones calls them by the incorrect name (Siafu) in the film. Siafu are native to africa and can number in the millions of members. When they get rolling throught the forest, NOTHING stands in thier way. Thier depiction was quite accurate. Regarding the movie, it was ok, like visiting with old friends again. The story was ultra-lame, but what do you expect from George "toy'boy" Lucas. God, I wish he'd stop making movies. However, I knew going in that they could NEVER meet my expectations, because the other three movies were part of my childhood and nothing could compete with that. It was fun and I like it, but I probably wouldn't watch it more than once or twice more, unlike the other three... First off, I disagree with you about George Lucas, I hope he continues to make movies. Besides he was only executive producer on this film. I know Lucas raped everyone's childhood with the Star Wars prequels, personally I liked them all, yes I am including Attack of the Clones. I'll agree that Lucas is a mediocre writer and an above average director, but he is an outstanding producer. He is one of the few people out there that I believe tries to keep things fun in movies today. Secondly, I would like to know just what expectations did you expect to have met for this film? The first 3 Indy movies are a part of my childhood also, although Temple of Doom leaves a lot to be desired. They can never top Raiders, and it would be a bit unfair to think that they could. Some people have said that they have found the ending of Crystal Skull to be too far fetched, but honestly was'nt the ending of Last Crusade a bit far fetched as well? What made Last Crusade great was the chemistry between Ford and Connery. I know it is difficult not to have any expectations, I would just not get them up too high, otherwise you are setting yourself up for a letdown. I went without any expectations and got a very entertaining film, and thats about all I could ask for. No this is'nt the greatest film, but it also is'nt the worst.
TheMadCap Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 First off, I disagree with you about George Lucas, I hope he continues to make movies. Besides he was only executive producer on this film. I know Lucas raped everyone's childhood with the Star Wars prequels, personally I liked them all, yes I am including Attack of the Clones. I'll agree that Lucas is a mediocre writer and an above average director, but he is an outstanding producer. He is one of the few people out there that I believe tries to keep things fun in movies today. Secondly, I would like to know just what expectations did you expect to have met for this film? The first 3 Indy movies are a part of my childhood also, although Temple of Doom leaves a lot to be desired. They can never top Raiders, and it would be a bit unfair to think that they could. Some people have said that they have found the ending of Crystal Skull to be too far fetched, but honestly was'nt the ending of Last Crusade a bit far fetched as well? What made Last Crusade great was the chemistry between Ford and Connery. I know it is difficult not to have any expectations, I would just not get them up too high, otherwise you are setting yourself up for a letdown. I went without any expectations and got a very entertaining film, and thats about all I could ask for. No this is'nt the greatest film, but it also is'nt the worst. POSSIBLE SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD: Allow me to reclarify: I wish Lucas would stop writing stories and personally directing (I know he didn't here). He was also one of the writers of this storyline in addition to executive producer. And I totally agree that they could never have met everyone's expectations with this (or the SW movies) and I went in expecting to have a good time and for the most part enjoyed the movie. I was disappointed at how much CGI they tried to put in, which looked out of place in an Indiana Jones movie. The ending was directly from the X-Files, but I will say no more on that subject, as some folks have not seen the movie. It's not that it was too far fetched, it's just been done before. All in all, yes, I did enjoy the movie. I would have rather had this movie than none, so I can't complain too hard...
sweetbaboo Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 is it just me, or did they never once call him Indiana or Indy during the movie? It was always, "Henry!"
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 SPOLIER ALERT. I was confused. At times, it was confusing as to what they were trying to do with the skull and what it was supposed to accomplish. The previous movies were much simpler stories with simpler goals. In Last Crusade, they were after the cup to get eternal life. In Raiders, they were after the ark to get all of its powers. In this one, they were after the skull to: (1) maybe find the city of gold; (2) maybe find some sort of paranormal intelligence; and/or (3) return it because that's what Ox said to do. I also didn't get some of what happened with Ox-- so he went to the city of gold, but came back and returned the skull, went into an insane asylum, wrote some letter to the kid, then got kidnapped?? I thought the end goal of the story could have been more compelling and told in a much clearer way--but perhaps I'm just slow.
Vetriano Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 Thought the plot was a little weak. Thought Harrison Ford was very good. Cate Banchett was totally miscast-- she was downright bad. Thought they should have gotten an unknown East European (sort of like Bridgett Nielson was when she was tough in Rocky whatever). Enjoyable film. The jungle chase seen was too long.
shrader Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 I wish they hadn't gone where they went, but I enjoyed it. Pretty much all of the search right up until the city was right along the same lines as any of the other movies. From there, is the supernatural stuff really all that different from the ends or Raiders and Last Crusade?
yall Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 I haven't seen Crystal Skulls yet, but Temple of Doom was definitely the worst of the first three. Not even close. Believe me, this one is a contender. It was pretty bad. At the same time, it was a watchable, mildly entertaining movie. Just not a good Indiana Jones movie. The story was weak and underdeveloped. Spielberg asks audience to not only suspend disbelief but also common sense (see: Nuke scene). CGI is great in movies, but it can't replace good writing. Just because you can make an impossible situation possible by manipulating pixels doesn't mean you get to avoid any sort of plausibility in the scene. Oh, and Ewoks. Well, not really, but close enough (small furry CGI animals save the day ). If you see the movie you'll know which part I'm talking about.
Dante Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 Wasn't horrible. Nothing special though. Got a little too ridiculous at times. Acting was average. Villainousness was hot but again, acting on her part was average. It was also hard to suspend disbelief as far as Ford was concerned. Never really could shake his age issue throughout the flick. Wasn't a total waste but would not watch it again. 6.5/10 btw watched Cloverfield yesterday as well and enjoyed that one much more.
Just Jack Posted May 27, 2008 Posted May 27, 2008 I'd put it third out of the four movies. I'll see it again, but not going to rush out to the theater, I'll wait for it either on DVD or cable. Based on what other people said, I don't think I need to say which I consider 4th. 1st would be Crusades, mostly because of the interaction with Sean Connery.
Just Jack Posted May 27, 2008 Posted May 27, 2008 is it just me, or did they never once call him Indiana or Indy during the movie? It was always, "Henry!" I remember someone did, I think it was Marion when she first saw Indy.
Recommended Posts