Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull [use spoiler tags, please]

[Gemini Cricket]

Spoiler:

Crystal Skull has a solid 80% on rottentomatoes. That's pretty good.

[Alex]

It's a crowd splitter.

63% among "cream of the crop" critics. 85% among everybody else. 22% is, I think, a larger than normal split.

[DreadPirateRoberts]

Spoiler:

Our company had an "offsite" meeting at Big Newport this morning.

I think I remember seeing "Mutt" on his jacket.

I liked the movie. At the beginning of the movie I didn't recognize Harrison Ford's voice. I believe it has changed somewhat since the last movies, which is understandable. I am amazed at Harrison Ford, if I read it correctly he is about 6 years older than Sean Connery when he played Indy's dad in the Last Crusade. I can only hope I look half that good when I get to be that age.

One comment that one character made in the movie really stood out for me. When Indy was looking at the pictures of all the people he had lost, his friend said something to the effect of "You are at that point where life quits giving you gifts and starts taking them away". That really hit home for me, I must be getting to be an old geezer.

I was just so happy to have another Indiana Jones movie to watch, I was revelling in the nostalgia, and willing to suspend any disbelief. I was entertained.

Spoiler:

Does the Irina Spalko character remind you of Edna Mode (sans glasses)?

[innerSpaceman]

This is a response to mousepod’s original list post, since he addressed me directly. I’ve not read further than that yet.

Spoiler:

1. Yes, Indy is and old man. Older in fact than he would naturally be in 1957, which I understand is the last era they could possibly portray without Indy being absurd (well, more absurd). Indy’s age has always been all over the map. He didn’t look that much younger in Temple of Doom, purportedly taking place 2 years before Raiders of the Lost Ark. He looked way older in Last Crusade, supposedly just two years after Raiders.

For this one where he’s a good ten years older than his character is supposed to be ... well, I figure he’s aging a little faster than normal since he drank from the Holy Grail and then crossed the seal. If I recall the messed up mythos right, the Templar Twins were immortal till they left the cave after 150 years, but then aged rather rapidly. Or so it was sorta maybe implied.

As for the Ruskies ... I don’t know there were no repercussions for them having attacked a U.S. military base. Who says there were not? The movie was following Indy, not the U.S. authorities.


2. Yes, the fridge was clever and the unscathed survival in the flying fridge was crazy. (I loved the shot of Indy and the Mushroom Cloud though). I have long, long ago made my peace with CARTOON action in the Indy series. I don’t like it, but it’s been that way ever since Temple of Doom more than two decades ago. To bitch about it now is pointless. That’s what Indy IS. I prefer the Raiders style, but you either accept Cartoon Action or you don’t enjoy these movies. I decided to accept it. It allowed me to enjoy this film. There’s so much cartoon action, that you either get over that or don’t bother showing up.


3. Shia Labeouf was played enough for laughs for me. I wasn’t aghast in disbelief at him being a tough motorcycle 50's boy. Then again, though he is an appealing actor ... he didn’t light up the screen like Sean Connery or Short Round. Of course, those were much weaker films where the supporting character was the main saving grace. I’d personally rather have the better move with the weaker supporting character.


4. No problem here with "Gramps" riding Bitch. I thought it was one of the better action sequences in the film, and the old man as second fiddle in the action department was to be expected. Frankly, I wish they had stuck with that ... but Indy goes on to be the most virile 70-year-old in the movies!


5. Yes, the Alien plot was "telegraphed" (i.e., revealed) in the opening sequence. Who says it was supposed to be a surprise?


6. I LOVED that the was the McGuffin was employed this time. Ever since Raiders, adherence to the quest for the McGuffin has been a weak spot in the Indy movies. I rather like what they did with it this time around. One of the big plusses of the movie in my book.


7. In 1984, I had a huge problem with the onset of Cartoon Action when Indy and Co. jumped out of a plane on an inflating raft, landed on a mountain top, slid down the snowy slopes ... then fell over the side of a 3,000 foot cliff into a raging river - - and no one fell out of the boat.
In 2008, I’m over it.

Shia fell out of the boat over each of the falls. And everyone fell out of the boat over the last one. I consider the sequence a distinct improvement in realism. But see my comments in Item 2 above re the acceptance of Cartoon Action.

Frankly, though the CGI was obvious in many places, the effects were still better than some of the truly horrid photographic effects in the Indy series, most infamously the aerial dogfight in Last Crusade. And while too much CGI is regrettable, it’s better than when the series routinely went from grand outdoor locations to cheesy studio set-ups whose fake-ness was painfully obvious (the rope-bridge wall in Temple of Doom and the ship propeller tank in Last Crusade spring to mind).

Ok, yeah, too much of Indy 4 succumbed to the Peter Jackson folly of two steps too many over the top. Tarzan swinging and Dual Car Dueling were indeed groan-inducing. But once I decided to accept cartoon action, I decided to just deal. But I’m not saying I didn’t have a problem with the excesses of stupidity.


8. There was more of a plot than in Temple of Doom, but admittedly not much of one. I think the setpieces have been strung together inartfully ever since Raiders, so it’s long past the time to complain about that factor now. Oh the plot is a thin collection of strung together action sequences? Tell me something I didn’t know going in.


9. The climax was almost a direct lift from the X-files movie. I liked it better this time. But since everything in the series is a direct lift, this one didn’t particularly bug me. And although he dissed the concept of mindreading, Indy didn’t ever express scepticism about alien life forms visiting the earth. It seemed to me, for the first time, he’s accepted the paranormal ... and I rather like that about this story - as his disbelief in the earlier films was ridiculous (albeit in Raiders, the absurdity only existed once the mismatching prequel was made).


10. I didn’t need a reason for the aliens to behave menacingly. The trio of 50's paranoia icons of Commie Scare / Nuclear Testing / and Alien Invasion were brilliantly saluted in this film.

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm excited to see it again tonight. I am. I love the energy of opening weekend crowds.

[innerSpaceman]

The crowd last night was more subdued than I'd hoped. Though I will say ....

Spoiler:

There aren't really any CHEER FOR INDY moments like there were in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Ugh, in posting about the myriad lame points, I hope I'm not talking my self into intellectually hating a movie I was emotionally loving.

[mousepod]

Thanks for the response iSm... I had hoped you would address those points... glad you did.

I'm thinking that time will mellow me on the movie, and when I eventually see it again (not this week!), I'll like it a whole lot more.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I was bad - I went to see it today. I will save my final judgement for after Saturdays viewing, though I tend to agree with what has been said already. Although I will add this one thing...

Spoiler:

George need to hang it up -badly....

[flippyshark]

I found the movie pleasant to watch, but I was never excited. Indeed, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm capable of being excited by action sequences anymore. They all just seem like stitched together collages, bits of animation and live footage manipulated to death, with no palpable sense of peril. And this is all action movies, not just Indy. (Although, the action sequences here struck me as strangely low key. Where is that delicious tension that had me gasping back in 1981? Can it ever happen for me again? Please?)

So, agreeable time killer, but I can tell that thinking about it is going to do the movie no favors.

Oh, and the CGI gophers. They may as well have been hand drawn cel animation by Bob Clampett for how blatantly unreal they came off. Actual gophers are cute and funny without doing anything at all. Could they not have somehow gotten real honest to goodness footage of gophers giving a dramatic stare or just gazing straight ahead and wiggling their noses?

I'm sure to have other thoughts, but these were the non-spoilery ones.

[innerSpaceman]

A repeat viewing does nothing to improve it.

Of course, the emotional reaction I had the first screening can never be repeated. And an enthusiastic audience makes all the difference as well. (Opening Night reserved seating Dome crowd = bleh; First Show general admission fan-packed Village = excitement.)


This may have been a one-trick pony. Well, we'll always have Paris.