This is topic Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001421

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-21-2008, 05:43 PM:
 
NON-SPOILER SECTION

Indiana Jones is back, and I don't care how many people think Harrison Ford is too old to play the character, he did an awesome job! This movie is a bit cheesy at points, but overall a LOT of fun.

I was very happy to see that essentially the the clips from the trailer were pulled from reel 1 of the movie, so there wasn't any big giveaways from the plot. Kudos to Spielberg for doing that.

SPOILER SECTION
SPOILER SECTION
SPOILER SECTION

This movie was essentially National Treasure 3 (but much better) and in my opinion the title was well thought out. After all, had they titled it Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Magnetic Headed Aliens, nobody would've given it a chance. I do think the poster would've been more fun though. This is how I imagined the poster would have looked. (Thanks to Joe for Photoshopping that for me.)

One thing that really bothered me was the whole bit on the magnetism. Since when does a burlap bag covering a magnetic source shield everything from it's magnetism?

Also, that entire last scene with Harrison and Karen getting married should've been dumped in favor of Karen drinking everyone under the table. Having them get married was overkill on the cheese factor. However, wait for it, wait for it...then Shia picks up the fedora. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! I know he didn't actually put it on, but that was uncalled for.

Let's talk techie stuff here for a minute. Did anyone else find that the quality of the dialogue on this movie wasn't particularly great? There were several points where it sounded like the actors were looping their lines in a small bathroom, and sometimes the tonal quality of the dialogue would change from line to line. Wasn't this post-produced at the Lucasfilm ranch? Ummm, since when do the Lucasfilm guys not have their shit together when it comes to sound??? I was expecting much more.

Speaking of George, I will say ENOUGH with the cgi! It really does take away from movies, and this is no exception. STOP!

Is anyone else really tired of Spielberg's use of vaseline on the camera lens? Seriously Steve, you don't have to do that! Better than 95% of theaters already have muck all over their port windows to do it for you. And for those of us who keep their windows clean, it really pisses us off. It is not artistic, nor pleasing. Please stop.

The entire print just looked cloudy and foggy. There were many scenes that were flat out overexposed, and the color and terrible lack of contrast was unforgiveable. These prints looked blah, except during the night scenes. Steve, whoever you hired on as DP, please do not hire him again. It made me feel like I was watching the movie off of a video projector.

While I am complaining about the awful job that the DP did, I must point out that when Harrison and Shia are out at night and crawl into the ground exploring caves...where in the hell is all of that nice room lighting coming from??? Seriously, it was WAAAAAAY overdone! Was this movie lit expecting for them to be ran at drive-ins? And in another underground cave scene, Harrison lights a torch and you can see the colored lights dimming up to light the entire room.

Ok, I think I have bitched about the DP enough. Suffice it to say he sucks ass. But not to be outdone, Deluxe labs has managed to suck more ass than even the DP! I am not complaining about the lab splice-ridden prints, nor the sloppy lab work in general. What I am complaining about is the AUDIO CAP CODE! I am not joking here. Check out this bullshit my team noticed during the print inspections on ALL of our reel 5s...



Seriously, what the fuck guys? First you made the most obnoxious CAP code ever conceived (anyone remember Master and Commander?) and now THIS? You guys deserve the Suckmasters of the Decade award. Spielberg should've taken his negative to the Technicolor lab.

Movie overall if you can put aside the technical and implausible issues - 4 out of 5 stars.

Movie with all of the technical and implausible issues (including Deluxe Labs' additions) - 2 out of 5 stars.
 

---

Posted by Mike Pennell (Member # 1692) on 05-21-2008, 06:34 PM:
 
Damn. Ditto. Brad took all the words out of my mouth. Kept on checking the focus, thinking it was me and the early morning after closing last nite.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-21-2008, 09:06 PM:
 
Janusz Kaminski has been Spielberg's right-hand-man since they worked on Schindler's List together. I think Steven regards him like a brother. But, as a Cinematographer, Kaminski is one gimmick after another. At least shooting Schindler's List in black a white was an respectable, "artistic" gimmick. But that was followed by muddy exteriors in The Lost World, the poorly-calibrated shutters of Saving Private Ryan, the washed-out metallic look of Minority Report and... I don't have the energy to analyze his other "artistic" contributions to the world of Spielberg. Unfortunately, he's already on-board for the foreseeable Spielberg future.
 

---

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 05-21-2008, 10:06 PM:
 
It was quite well made, giving the time gap from the last one and raiders they did a good job of keeping the film making style the same.
At the end of the day I still would rate Raiders of the Lost Ark at #1. It had a great balance of dialog action humor etc. Crystal Skull seemed to lack that earthy simple action balance with fast pace. At times reminded me more of an episode of X Files.

Maybe I was hoping for a more basic story , but I guess with sequels we always seem to demand bigger and better and they are usually bigger but most often not better.

I will agree with Brad, Harrison Ford did the role so well , almost as if time has stood still with him , I think Marion looked more like a train wreck.

My print was quite good , sound mix (analogue) was good (waiting on DTS disc).

3.5 out of 5 from me
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-21-2008, 10:22 PM:
 
Did that "audio cap code" sound as bad going thru as it looked like it would sound? Although I assume Brad, your screens are on some kind of digital sound...
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-21-2008, 10:30 PM:
 
Doesn't matter. Look at the digital tracks. They are designed so that the audio cuts to analog at that point. Audiences all over the world will appreciate this. I wish it was in every reel.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-22-2008, 12:52 AM:
 
I must say even though I had my doubts Indiana would ever see a cinema screen again, and even though George Lucas trashed a thoroughly good series by adding to it years later, I have recently been pretty jazzed about the idea of seeing Indy anew.

It transpires I have now managed to show every Indiana Jones film on its opening day...for me personally...that's a pretty big deal.

I thought the Paramount mountain bit was a bit of a laugh...the opening scene was a bit clunky dialogue-wise but I indeed got a chill when I saw the inside of the warehouse and as it pulled back realised where they were indeed. That bit was great.

Sadly, for me...it's all downhill from there.

They stated they couldn't find 'just the right script' for years...I guess they just gave in and said 'to hell with it' and filmed it anyway. There are takes in this film that even 'one take Woody Allen' would re-do. The lines are sometimes very poorly delivered and that explains the looping mentioned in another review above. And what happened to 'filming it old style' in the vein of the other Indiana films? This thing has so much CGI in it I'm sure they would have CGI'd the end credits if they had had the chance. Yuk.

But for me the worst bit is the editing, and thus, the pacing. It's nothing short of abysmal and makes other actioners (like Iron Man for example) look superior.

I'm incredibly disappointed that they waited so long to make another Indy film. Who knows what it could have been if everyone had been 10 years younger...and I mean everyone involved, not just Harrison Ford. I'm glad he said to George and Steven it has to be made by 2008 or he would never do it. If only he'd given that date to be 10 years ago.

Sorry, 1 out of 5 from me.
 

---

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 05-22-2008, 01:00 AM:
 
I built our one 35mm print tonight (the rest are DLP). Did anyone notice in the begining of either reel 4 or 5 (they just start the big car chase thru the jungle) a major wash-out of color?

Anyway, I quite liked the movie. Not the best out of the 4, but not as bad as I thought it would be. My two biggest complaints were Indy JR trying to be a bad ass greaser/biker kid. I didn't buy it. And Indy Jr and monkey scene. Wow, really? That scene is right behind Yoda doing backflips in worst scenes of all time on my list.

And Brad, I was thinking the same thing about the magnatism. I wish Cate Blanchett could have been more of a bad ass than she was. SPOILER Liked the ending alien room/skeleton/spaceship thingamabob. And again, why wasn't anything metal sticking to their heads when they walked in that room.

A strong 3.5 out of 5 for me as well.
5 out of 5 if Harrison Ford would have gone shirtless throughout the movie
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-22-2008, 03:38 AM:
 

quote: Allison Parsons

---

(they just start the big car chase thru the jungle) a major wash-out of color?

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

Everything you see is part of Spielberg's "vision".

---

Somebody please give that man some lens cleaner and tissue for his glasses.

quote: Mike Schindler

---

And as far as technical issues go, isn't it amazing what a difference 2393 makes?

---

quote: Geoff Jones

---

- When the ants formed an ant ladder to climb after the Russian psychic.

---

quote: Geoff Jones

---

When the monkeys taught Mutt to swing through the trees like Tarzan (faster than the motor vehicles that were speeding away from him).

---

quote: Geoff Jones

---

When the aliens from the space within the spaces made the Russian psychic's eyes bleed fire even though she didn't really do anything to them.

---

quote: Michael Moore

---

The Alien stuff at the end was just over the top and past the boundaries of what the first three Indian Jones movies set.

---

What boundaries? Once you bring magic into the series, all bets are off. At least the aliens had some sort of basis in science.

And that leads to the other reason why it works so well. It's science fiction. Just like the first three were an homage to the Saturday matinee serials, this movie is an homage to the sci-fi movies of the 50's. I absolutely love the fact that there's an actual flying saucer at the end of this movie.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-23-2008, 09:45 AM:
 
Mike, it's not about believability, it's about stories and established scenarios and the like. In other words, it just seems "out of place" in an Indy movie. It is easier to believe that three naked people are having sex in a hot threesome than it is to believe that a stuffed animal can talk, but somehow a hardcore orgy just doesn't seem an appropriate subject for the Muppets.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-23-2008, 09:57 AM:
 
Spoiler

Joe, I see what you're saying, but my question is how are the aliens out of place? I don't have any problem accepting aliens as part of the Indiana Jones universe.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 05-23-2008, 10:32 AM:
 
I gage 'em by how many times I look at my watch. It started at 12.10am Thurs. morning and I never checked the time until it was over.

Regal Virginia Center Commons auditorium #6. Lots of bass coming from next screen. Sound was distorted occasionally, focus soft thru out, at credits focus was nearly acceptable at bottom left and words were unreadable at the top right.
 

---

Posted by Louis Belloisy (Member # 3836) on 05-23-2008, 11:00 AM:
 
Shucks, I was looking forward to this movie or any other movie to bring us up out of the doldrums. I was totally disappointed, its a total flop, IMHO and of the few patrons that came to see it in our three theaters. we have it on 5 screens and we hardly sold for it. the word is out. We show it in DTS and I noticed that it dropped out of DTS several times in all theaters, all in the same spots.

I think Harrison is getting a little too old for this type of movie. again, IMHO

louis
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 05-23-2008, 11:22 AM:
 
SPOILERS
I was aware that there would be aliens and a flying saucer at the end. I was actually looking forward to that - CE3K is one of my favorite films, and I was excited to see Spielberg return to that territory.

But they gave me nothing. No fear, no awe, no joy, no satisfaction. They were just "there." When their space (within-the-spaces) ship tornadoed away, I sat there thinking how convenient it was that all the big fancy dangerous effects that stopped just short of the heroes.

In Raiders, when the arc is opened, the scene took me through an emotional journey. First I felt wonder. Then awe. Then fear. Then satisfaction.
END SPOILERS

My biggest beef with "blockbusters" these days is that they don't take themselves seriously. They are always tounge-in-cheek, goofy, and self-referential.

Go back and watch Raiders. (Please! On a giant screen with a crowd!) Nothing in that movie is ever goofy. It's a popcorn movie with a bunch of preposterous things happening, but it never acknowledges that fact. It always takes itself completely seriously. Yet it still has a lot of humor. And you KNOW that the hero of a movie like that isn't going to die, but things feel so real, you're afraid at times anyway.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 05-23-2008, 04:04 PM:
 
Mutt doing his Tarzan thing was the low-point of the movie. I can handle the refrigerator getting blasted out of town, I can handle them driving off the cliff and tumbling down three waterfalls, but the monkey scene was just dumb.

I noticed the "glow" that was happening in many of the scenes, and I chalked it up to the fact that they were trying to accentuate the whole 1940's - early 50's setting.

Overall, the movie was the weakest of the four. It was much more on par with the second Star Wars trilogy; likable to a point but not even approaching the originals. The music was not very memorable, and the parts I remember were just the derivatives of the themes used in the previous movies. I guess it's difficult to be original when there is so much preceding it.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-23-2008, 09:09 PM:
 
I was willing to give it a second chance and sat in again on a bit yesterday...it was the scene where Indy meets Marion again. I couldn't even make it through the scene. It's just a big mess with everybody yelling at each other but nothing coherent or even halfway believable.

It's a big fat Lucas turd.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 05-24-2008, 07:55 AM:
 
It was a decent ride, but nothing that comes close to orginal's. I really like "Last Crusade" probably my fav of the three, then "Raiders" and so on.

I thought Harrison did a decent job and at times looked and sounded like the INdy of old.

Its busy as hell for us, thinly vailed brag here but we were the 26th busiest theatre in the Nation for it on Thursday. Brag over.

Overall I give it a 3/5
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-25-2008, 07:44 PM:
 
Today at Regal 15 in Eugene, #1 in 35mm. When First Look ended and the film rolled, the near-sellout crowd was treated to a good 90 seconds of black leader projected before the first trailer, including various buzzes in the audio. Nice. That gaffe should probably earn this showing an "F" but waddaya gonna do. Aside from that the presentation was good, no complaints.

Reel 5 had at least 4 instances of regular video CAP code, but there were no audible "issues" anywhere in the movie itself. I'm 98% sure it was SR•D but don't quote me on that.

The whole movie had a greenish tint. What's up with that. And if Spielberg approved the DP's choice of "look" for this movie, it's evidence that Spielberg is going senile. Too much of it just looked oddly wrong, like there was some weird veil over the image.

They seemed to be selling a LOT of the $5 concession stand pizzas today. The Manager was hand-delivering them to people in their seats in the theater due to how long the pizzas take to prepare I guess. This one soccer mom had about 6 little kids with her and they each got pizza, popcorn, and soda. Recession? What recession? I bet she drove them to the movie in a Tahoe. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Ok, the movie. I liked it, in fact I liked it quite a bit. Harrison Ford does a great job as Indy. He pwns the character Indiana Jones. Is that a correct application of the term? Anyway I liked the story, most of the action, the minimal use of Spielbergisms (the groundhogs are an example of that). The crowd seemed to enjoy it. The running time is just right, long enough but not too long. If the "look" of the movie had not detracted so much, I'd give this 3.75 stars. As it is I'll give it 3.25 stars. That's how much the occasionally-odd "artistic" cinematography and what I hope is the accidental greenish tint to everything interfered with my enjoyment of the movie.

It's a pretty solid 4th installment in the franchise and not the big disappointment I had feared.
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 05-26-2008, 12:14 AM:
 
CINEMA: Megaplex 17 at Jordan Commons, Sandy, UT
AUDITORIUM: 14
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema DLP/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None
RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

WARNING: "Spoooooiiiilllleeeerrrrrrsssss!"

ANOTHER new THX trailer? Tex tours an internal combustion engine. It kind of sucks.

THE PLOT: The Russians want to rule the world through the Psychic Friends Network. Wackiness ensues.

Well, it was silly and kind of dumb, but a lot of fun anyway. I'm sure the Mummy 3 movie will make it look like Academy material.

THING THAT ANNOYED ME ABOUT THE MAGNETIC SCENE: They go around Hanger 51 looking for this heavily magnetized box, throw stuff in the air that goes after it, have all sorts of problems with guns and stuff being attracted to it, but have NO PROBLEMS SLIDING IT INTO A STEEL TRUCK?
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-26-2008, 01:29 AM:
 
Maybe the truck was CGI. Every other bloody thing in the movie is. (Assuming CGI is not magnetic. That would be logical, but then I thought Crystal wasn't magnetic either so...)

---------------------------------------
"It's not the years Honey, it's all these fucking computer effects that's really done me in" - Indiana Jones
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-26-2008, 01:35 AM:
 
CGI is not magnetic. I just loaded up Ray Dream Studio version 5 and I could not get anything to stick to it.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-26-2008, 02:28 AM:
 
From IMDB...

>>Sean Connery was approached for a cameo appearance as Henry Jones Sr., Indiana's father, but he turned it down, finding retirement too enjoyable. George Lucas later stated that in retrospect it was good that Jones Sr. did not appear, as it would disappoint the audience when he would not come along for the adventure. Harrison Ford also joked that he was getting old enough to play his own father, so Sean wasn't needed anymore.<<

More likely he read the script and told them to shove it.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-26-2008, 02:39 AM:
 
I wonder how much he was compensated for the use of his still photograph.
 

---

Posted by Jaime Tuzzio (Member # 4760) on 05-26-2008, 02:40 AM:
 

quote: David Stambaugh

---

When First Look ended and the film rolled, the near-sellout crowd was treated to a good 90 seconds of black leader projected before the first trailer, including various buzzes in the audio.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I wonder how much he was compensated for the use of his still photograph.

---

He wasn't invited to the premiere...that surely was compensation enough.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-26-2008, 05:36 AM:
 
George probably used CGI to digitally insert Connery into the video clips of the premiere.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-26-2008, 06:36 AM:
 
I saw this movie twice this past weekend at the Regal Brandywine in Wilmington, Delaware. The first show was apparently DTS, and I noticed no digital drop outs. I did notice the washed out reel 5 that was mentioned earlier. A- on the presentation (we also had a mile long black leader with green scratches on it).

The second show sounded like SRD, and it was dropping out to analog like crazy. I told one theater employee there, and he said he couldn't hear it. He called the projectionist, and apparently he manually dropped it into analog. The digital came back by itself later and then promptly started dropping again. Ugh. It was also started slightly out of frame showing the negative splices on the bottom. I asked them to have the projectionist frame it down slightly, and he framed it down far enough for us to see the negative splices on the top. Moron. I brought a manager into the auditorium and explained about negative splices and showed him the problem and he eventually talked his booth guy through fixing it. After the show, I found the manager again to thank him, and also advised him of the digital drop outs. His response was that the tech was there that day checking everything, and that just because I hear it and he (the manager) can hear it, regular people can't hear it. So I give them a solid D- on the presentation, and an F for not acknowledging (or seeming to care about) a digital sound problem with their biggest movie.

---== SPOILERS ==---

Anyway, I enjoyed the film, both times. I did think that the flying saucer at the end could have been left out completely and it would have worked a little better. By adding the flying saucer, I think the film makers took something away from the movie. Almost like adding the scenes at the end of CE3K for the special edition seemed to take something away from the movie. At least it did for me. But I didn't mind the flying saucer in the movie. It fit the context of the story. I just think the story would have been a little better without it.

One thing I will say to Mr. Spielberg is this: "THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU... for proving that you do not need to hit your camera man with an electric shock to add tension to a scene." Hopefully the other action film makers of the world are paying attention... but they probably aren't.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-26-2008, 10:23 AM:
 

quote: Jaime Tuzzio

---

if you were watching the 1:15, 3:00, 3:30, 4:30, 6:15, or 7:45 show you were watching an interlocked print

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Odd since our prints were ran on loop printers, not the shitty K printers.

---

Is this something that you checked on, or is there a way to tell the difference on the print itself?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-27-2008, 06:55 AM:
 
Look at the sticker on the end of the reels. If there is a K18 in the corner, than that was printed on a K model printer #18. If it was a loop printer, it would say something like L4 (loop printer #4).

Also it is the K printers that are the reason why 50% of the reels will come heads and tails out mixed since they print the reel forward, then the next one is printed backwards, then forward, then backwards. The loop printers run continuously in a loop and all reels end up at the theater heads up. Plus the negative doesn't get as dirty and since it is newer technology the prints are of higher quality. If you ever happen to get 2 prints of the same movie and one was a K print and the other an L print, do a side by side comparison. The L print will be better every time. (Unfortunately there isn't an official lab guy willing/able to join in on the discussions to explain why this is so, and why Deluxe keeps using the bouncy, bouncey, bouncey K printers.)
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-27-2008, 08:05 AM:
 
I'm not sure what the people that didn't like this were expecting. Sure the plot was a little "out there" and it wasn't as good as "Raiders of the Lost Ark" but neither were the other two.

This movie was entertaining and fun (which is what movies are supposed to be). I'd rate it 3rd in the series just ahead of "Temple of Doom". CGI and monkeys are not as annoying as Chinese kid in TOD.

While it wasn't a cinematic masterpiece it was a great "popcorn" movie. Even though I was skeptical I thought Shia LeBouf was great and might be strong enough to carry the series forward.

4 1/2 out of 5 stars
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-27-2008, 12:40 PM:
 
Good info, Brad. Thanks!


 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-27-2008, 07:09 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-27-2008, 08:29 PM:
 
The first few minutes... we see great, panoramic vistas and wide open spaces. Then we see the caravan pull up to a guard shack and the look of the film was all downhill from there. The HMI "fill lighting" toward the end of the guard shack scene was horribly done. Then Indy makes his big entrance (how many times do we need to focus on his shadow in this movie?) in broad daylight and then, a moment later, the sky looks like it's already dusk. Apart from that, lots of scenes seemed over-lit. It looked like episodic TV. I mean... the quicksand scene was supposed to be at night, away from the campsite, right?

But what do I know? Obviously, Spielberg is a genius and Kaminski is a brilliant cinematographer and I'm not allowed to criticize their work until I win my own Oscar.

Spoiler section
The ending just reminded me of how every sit-com meets its demise. "They" finally get married or "they" finally have a child. In this case, I realized they'd done both of those things. The series is doomed!

And when Shia I-can't-spell-his-name picks up the hat I couldn't help thinking, "Don't you dare touch that hat! You haven't even come close to earning it." Yet, apparently, George Lucas wants the (potential) next movie to center on this Mutt fellow. Sigh.

I read someone else's review that called things pretty well. He said that the structure seemed to be that Indiana Jones kept spouting exposition throughout the movie. The only trouble was that he'd tell you what was going to happen and then (yawn) it would happen just like he said and then (yawn) he'd tell you what was going to happen next.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-27-2008, 09:56 PM:
 
While I agree there were some places that seemed like they chopped.. ok they lopped out big chunks of film and the Cinematography was a bit comical and childish... you certainly can't compare Kaminski to the great Douglas Slocombe's photography on the original film. Comparing any of today's typical Cinematographic Sluts to his work would be an insult at best. I don't think this lopping of film was expert editor Michael Khan's choice though... looks more like a Lucas editing job to me.

However you guys seem to be looking at this film as though it were supposed to be some sort of serious film... Its not... not any more serious than Iron Man or Superman or Speedracer! From the perspective that its another long Saturday afternoon serial I was able to truely enjoy it. I give it two and a half stars... it would have had another half star if it were not for the atrocious filum editing! Yes... I don't think this editor even knows how to spell film!

Joe... George is much taller than that in real life!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-27-2008, 10:36 PM:
 
Don't tell that to Joe, tell it to the legendary Phillip M. Jackson (whoever he is).
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-28-2008, 12:06 AM:
 
Mrs. Jackson's little boy.
 

---

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 05-28-2008, 02:48 PM:
 

quote: Lyle Romer

---

I thought Shia LeBouf was great and might be strong enough to carry the series forward.

---

I thought he was fine too but PLEASE - no Indiana Jones without Harrison Ford.
 

---

Posted by Jaime Tuzzio (Member # 4760) on 05-28-2008, 05:19 PM:
 
spoilers...

My whole take on the hat scene at the end seems to be different than many others. I took Mutt picking up the hat and Indy taking it away from him before he could put it on as an indicator that no one but Harrison Ford can/will be Indiana Jones. That there will be no Indiana Jones movies without Harrison Ford. And I certainly hope I am right.
 

---

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 05-28-2008, 05:20 PM:
 
Obviously not; it'll be MUTT JONES AND THE ALTAR OF THE SHRIMPMONSTERS
 

---

Posted by Jaime Tuzzio (Member # 4760) on 05-28-2008, 05:21 PM:
 
With monkeys.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-28-2008, 05:44 PM:
 
And more gophers...(with a special appearance by Jar Jar Binks)
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-28-2008, 11:28 PM:
 
You guys are all wrong. Mutt will be back, as will Indiana Jones. The only thing is that Harrison Ford won't be back. George will simply have Indiana's character digitally inserted with more of that fabulous CGI he is known so well for.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-28-2008, 11:51 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Deluxe keeps using the bouncy, bouncey, bouncey K printers.)

---

Does DeLuxe know about this, or do they care?

Plus, if one printer does a better job in reproduction, why then fuss with a lesser printer that produces bouncy prints??.. (or, is that a question that shouldn't be asked...just to deal with the results...??)

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 05-29-2008, 08:49 AM:
 
Almost makes you miss the Ewoks.... wait, no it doesn't!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-29-2008, 09:58 AM:
 

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Does DeLuxe know about this, or do they care?

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Did anyone else find that the quality of the dialogue on this movie wasn't particularly great?

---

quote: Chad Souder

---

Maybe its because George Lucas is responsible for writing some of the worst dialogue ever, so they quit putting forth effort to make it audible.

---

Actually, the script was written by David Koepp of JURASSIC PARK fame.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-30-2008, 08:16 AM:
 
Translation:

Actually, the script was [re]written by David Koepp [on a very short leash], of JURASSIC PARK fame, [after several better writers had a crack at it but their work was rejected by Lucas, Spielberg and/or Ford].

So, while I don't care for David Koepp's work, I can't really blame him for, nor credit him with very much for this script.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-30-2008, 12:02 PM:
 
But don't you think it feels a lot like a David Koepp script? I've always thought of Koepp as being a really good action movie writer, in the sense that his movies tend to have fantastic set pieces held together by a decent framework.

I've always thought of Koepp as being a crew member like any other. So while he most likely was kept on a short leash, the script was still his work in the same sense that the cinematography was Kaminski's work. Obviously, Spielberg had a big hand in both. But I would still credit/blame Koepp, especially for the dialogue.

Were the other writers really better than Koepp? Does Lucas count? I'd say he's a better writer. But Jeff Nathanson? Dude wrote SPEED 2: CRUISE CONTROL.

Frank Darabont is someone who has tricked the world into thinking he's a good writer. THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION was solid, but the rest of his credits are really weak. His stuff on YOUNG INDIANA JONES was crap, making me think that his script for this movie was also crap.

If you want to go back further, the only other two people I've heard of working on the script are M. Night Shyamalan and Chris Columbus. Shyamalan's really good at doing one thing, and that ain't INDIANA JONES. Columbus' work on Harry Potter has proven that he's really good at making movies like ADVENTURES IN BABYSITTING.

So while I don't think that Koepp is a fantastic choice, no one that came along (aside from Lucas) was better. Obviously, if we were living in an ideal world, Lawrence Kasdan would have written the script. But you have to take what you can get.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-01-2008, 06:01 AM:
 
I'm 99% sure I saw a U.S. flag with too many stars on it. Louis
 

---

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 06-02-2008, 12:25 AM:
 
Wow, the vaseline on the lense sure looked horrid.
Maybe it was CGI vaseline?
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-02-2008, 03:02 AM:
 
I'm not a big fan of diffusion either, but I don't quite see why everyone thinks it's so bad in this movie. I didn't think the photography was super-duper or anything like that, but I didn't have a problem with it at all. If nothing else, I thought it was cool to see something shot with anamorphic lenses.

Also, everyone keeps on complaining about the CGI gophers. What's wrong with them? They're insignificant. The only problem I have with them is the one reaction shot where they're watching the jet-powered vehicle-thing speed past them. The camera crosses the line on that shot. Why not just have the gophers turn their heads in the opposite direction?

Personally, I think this is the best movie of the year so far. But that being said, I can find way more deserving things to complain about it than gophers and diffusion.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-02-2008, 07:49 AM:
 
There were no gophers in the movie, digital or otherwise. I believe they were actually prairie dogs. At any rate, the reason folks are harping on the CGI animals is simple: They are the most obvious examples of "Stuff that Just Didn't Work" in this movie. A lot of stuff just didn't work but it's easier to point out the critters than do a more indepth analysis. At any rate, a real Indiana Jones movie would never have given up the box office throne to a bunch of middle-aged, spoiled women within 8 days.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-02-2008, 09:03 AM:
 

quote: Greg Anderson

---

At any rate, a real Indiana Jones movie would never have given up the box office throne to a bunch of middle-aged, spoiled women within 8 days.

---

It took the box office throne back after one day.

SATC IJATKOTCS
Fri- $26.9M $12.2M
Sat- $17.9M $19.9M
Sun- $10.8M $13.9M

This actually held pretty well in week 2, down less than 55%. That's a relatively good hold especially when the opening weekend was memorial day weekend.

Indiana Jones will end up making over $300 Million while the middle aged women movie will most likely not hit $100 Million which is HORRIBLE with an opening of $55 Million.
 

---

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 06-02-2008, 09:53 PM:
 
I've not seen any gophers, I was just commenting in general about all the crappy looking CGI. Much worse than in most films.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-02-2008, 10:24 PM:
 
Brad, I wasn't trying to specifically comment on your post. Sorry about that. And sorry to call them gophers. I get my burrowing rodents all mixed up.

But seriously, why does everyone think the CGI in this thing is so bad? There was never a moment where it took me out of the movie. How is it worse than any other movie?
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-02-2008, 11:48 PM:
 
It's probably not...we were all just told it wasn't going to be there.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-03-2008, 06:18 PM:
 
Fully agreed. That was a big selling point of this movie to me, no fucking cgi! ...and then there it was in all of it's godawful glory.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-03-2008, 07:12 PM:
 

quote: Lyle Romer

---

It took the box office throne back after one day.

---

Sex And The City 3 days - $56,848,056
Indiana Jones 3 days - $44,754,615

Indiana 4 only spent 1 week at # 1 but...Raiders in '81 did the same thing (ousted by Superman 2). Temple lasted 1 week also (ousted by Star Trek III). Crusade managed to hold 2 weeks (ousted by Star Trek V).

They're summer movies. The chances of them staying at #1 for long are mightily slim.
 

---

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 06-05-2008, 11:43 PM:
 
The scene where they all go over the water falls, I think it was the first time, the car looks really bad.

I finally got to sit down and watch it. Wow, if it took 20 years to "get the right script" I sure would hate to see the ones rejected.

2 out of 5 stars.
 

---

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 06-06-2008, 09:24 AM:
 
I think the group of middle aged women needs GCI
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-07-2008, 06:10 AM:
 
I don't have any problem with CGI itself. However in Lucas' hands, there is no restraint. ( I have felt this way since Jurassic Park, when a FEW dinos would have been "believable." In a recent Star Wars there was too much (by a factor of 100) traffic in the background.) Face it, these two (Lucas/Spielberg) cannot deal with subtle or restraint. They haven't heard "less is more." Louis
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-07-2008, 09:26 AM:
 

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

Face it, these two (Lucas/Spielberg) cannot deal with subtle or restraint. They haven't heard "less is more." Louis

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

Indiana Jones will end up making over $300 Million while the middle aged women movie will most likely not hit $100 Million which is HORRIBLE with an opening of $55 Million.

---

Yep, Movieline predicts $300M for IJ4 but has raised its prediction for that "middle aged women movie" to $155M which is not too bad for a film that cost $65M. I have a feeling that both Indy and the girls will be turned loose to run amok again in the future.
 

---

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 06-13-2008, 10:24 PM:
 
I was very disappointed by Indy 4.
It just didn't come close to having the same "feel" as the other 3.

If it took 20 yrs to get the "right script", wow I would hate to see the one's that were rejected.

And what a complete waste of Karen Allen.

I now know why Sean Connery turned them down, he read the script. Then called Stephen and in his best Scottish accent said "Screw You".

Several of the CGI shots looked absolutely horrid.

A lame 2 out of 5.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 06-19-2008, 10:02 PM:
 

quote:

---

Is anyone else really tired of Spielberg's use of vaseline on the camera lens? Seriously Steve, you don't have to do that!

---

That's right. They can do that very easily in CGI.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-24-2008, 12:58 PM:
 
Location: Carmike 8, Lawton, OK
Auditorium: #2
Format: 2K DLP, 2048 X 852 pixels
Rating: 3 stars out of 4

This movie turned out to be better than I expected. Some friends and acquaintances didn't have great things to say about it, but Indy 4 was still "certified fresh" at Rotten Tomatoes.

It was pretty obvious early on there would be an alien angle to the story. Can't mention Area 51 without conjuring up thoughts of "black projects" using found UFO technology. Makes sense for the colossal warehouse shown at the end of Raiders to turn up at Area 51.

The ensemble of actors turned in good performances. Harrison Ford seemed back to life in the starring role. I don't know why he seems so dull and dead in his interviews. Cate Blanchett played her part very well (as usual), although I wish her part had been written to be more fearsome. Karen Allen's performance bothered me a bit as being kind of goofy. She was sort of an ass kicker in Raiders. John Hurt was acting more nutty than he did in Midnight Express.

On the technical end of things, I agree with others that the cinematography was just not very good.

There was all this buzz about how Spielberg and Kaminsky were going to recreate the look of Douglas Slocombe's work on the three previous Indy movies. I guess that plan was thrown out the window. I sure don't see the resemblance. The image quality for much of this movie appeared desaturated and a tad soft. The movie may look that way on purpose, but I don't think it's going to go over well with video critics when it arrives on Blu-ray.

quote: Greg Anderson

---

There were no gophers in the movie, digital or otherwise. I believe they were actually prairie dogs.

---

Those rodents looked much more like prairie dogs than gophers or ground hogs, but they were 100% CGI.

While the sight gags of the prairie dogs were somewhat funny, those scenes were totally phony as well.

Prairie dogs dig their holes in a certain manner. They don't come poking up out of the ground like Bugs Bunny and make a "Paramount Mound" in the process of doing so. Prairie dogs don't come out of their holes at night time at all. The rodents warn each other with barks and calls based on what they can see during day light. And given the fact prairie dogs make very distinctive sounds, I find it pretty odd the filmmakers couldn't acquire some authentic prairie dog sound effects for this movie.

Lawton, Oklahoma has a fairly large prairie dog "town" in Elmer Thomas Park. There's a couple others in the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. The prairie dogs are popular attractions, at least until about mid November when the "rut" begins. The males will maul the shit out of each other to compete for the females. It kind of alters the cute image many people have of prairie dogs like what Watership Down did for rabbits.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-24-2008, 02:14 PM:
 
FWIW, I thought the Paramount logo dissolve into a "mountain" was better in the trailer than in the actual movie.

I did like that they used the old fashioned Paramount logo to open the film with though, and I'm glad Paramount allowed the Lucasfilm logo to go first so the traditional dissolve could take place.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-24-2008, 06:57 PM:
 
Did it really NEED a LUCA$FILM logo at all though? I don't remember ever seeing one on the other three films.

BTW, we have a staff screening here tonight and I added the Raiders trailer to the show. Just watched it on screen and although it's pink, there's more enjoyment watching this 2 minute piece than the 122minutes of the Indiana Jones and the Magnetic Headed Aliens.


 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-11-2008, 04:39 AM:
 
I read in the newspaper today where IJATKOTCS has been responsible for a new term.

Whereas 'jumped the shark' refers to the point where a television series lost its way...the term 'nuked the fridge' is now employed in the same way about movie series.

I don't know whether it's true or not, but I like it.

 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-09-2008, 12:55 AM:
 
So.... who caught the latest episode of South Park?

It was perfect!
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-09-2008, 08:36 AM:
 
I'll have to pull up South Park Studios website and watch the episode there. I have the "DishHD Absolute" subscription (plus HBO and local channels) from Dish Network. Since Comedy Central doesn't have a HD channel yet I don't get Comedy Central at all. WTF is up with Comedy Central and Viacom anyway? The friggin' Weather Channel is in HD. Damn that has to be embarrassing to Viacom. That's hella-lame.

Joe, I assume you're talking about "The China Probrem" episode, right?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-09-2008, 08:59 AM:
 
Damn straight!
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-13-2008, 06:39 PM:
 
Just watched it last night.

We're all safe now.
 

---

Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 10-14-2008, 10:03 PM:
 
Why would George Lucas do that?


 

---

Posted by Adam Holland (Member # 4539) on 10-20-2008, 08:41 PM:
 
Just had it this past weekend and it did well especially considering that we lost Friday nights for the fall due to football season
 

---