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

[innerSpaceman]

Yep, one of the best things about Raiders is its sparse use of effects, to excellent effect.

After that, the series went hog-wild with effects, with increasingly diminishing returns.




It's interesting what nits people will choose to pick with Indy 4. There are indeed so many to choose from.


I've heard "why didn't Indy use his whip to get out of the (non)quick sand?" Um, he didn't have his whip at the time; he'd been disarmed by the Russians.

And I've heard "how can Marion have just driven off the cliff hoping for a tree to break their fall' when she's clearly shown scoping out the cliff and finding the exact spot of the tree. (And by 'clearly,' I mean I finally noticed this on the 3rd viewing.)


Most people are bothered with the Tarzan swinging, some aren't. Just about everyone freaks that he survived a nuclear blast in a flying refrigerator. It never concerned me in the least. When the TV and slip-&-slide water and car-watering hose were all on in the fake town set up for nuclear annihilation ... I had surrealism telegraphed to me quite clearly.


The ants were too big. Three waterfalls were too many.


I can't defend any of this stuff. But there are far larger problems, imo, with a very weak story and underused characters.


If it's just the preposterous nits that are bothersome, I think the movie is pretty good.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

And I've heard "how can Marion have just driven off the cliff hoping for a tree to break their fall' when she's clearly shown scoping out the cliff and finding the exact spot of the tree. (And by 'clearly,' I mean I finally noticed this on the 3rd viewing.)

I noticed her scoping it out, but only because I had caught the "I'm going to drive off it" in the previews so I was aware of it.

If it's just the preposterous nits that are bothersome, I think the movie is pretty good.

I disagree. You've correctly pointed out that the other movies have several of the same flaws, so I think it's a sign of the overall weakness of the movie that people are complaining about the little nits. To me it says that it didn't sufficiently entertain enough to distract from those nits.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

It's interesting what nits people will choose to pick with Indy 4. There are indeed so many to choose from.


I've heard "why didn't Indy use his whip to get out of the (non)quick sand?" Um, he didn't have his whip at the time; he'd been disarmed by the Russians.

And I've heard "how can Marion have just driven off the cliff hoping for a tree to break their fall' when she's clearly shown scoping out the cliff and finding the exact spot of the tree. (And by 'clearly,' I mean I finally noticed this on the 3rd viewing.)
...
If it's just the preposterous nits that are bothersome, I think the movie is pretty good.

So, you're saying people shouldn't complain? The Abbie Hoffman of the LoT wants us me to be as silent as a Geisha and not point out anything that bugs me? Puh-lease! lol

I think it's as fair to point out problems with Spielberg and Lucas films. They used to exceed our expectations, why not now? I find it just as fair as pointing out f-ups Disney has been doing for the last 8 years or so.

Nitpicks or not, I think it is possible to make a movie fool proof.

Yes, no whip. But a belt, a leather jacket... A man resourceful enough to pull the whole "gimme your bullets" technique of finding a needle in a haystack at the Area 51 warehouse surely could have unbuckled his own belt.

The drive off the cliff, land on tree branch, tree branch lowers duck into the water, tree branch slams and kills several Russians sequence was dumb. No matter if it was set up before or not. Yikes. A close up of Blanchett saying, "You're despicable!" would have rounded it off all nicely. Or maybe Irina holding up a sign that said "Yipes" as she looks at the camera with a panicked look?