posted
Ok. I'll try not to be too spoilery here because it was the midnight showing (yes, I'm a geek, but I'm not married, I don't have kids and I work the night shift so I'm allowed) but I thought I'd get this one started. I enjoyed it. Really, I did. I've enjoyed all of the Indiana Jones movies and this one was no different.
It was pretty stylistically similar to the previous films, set in a slightly different era and it had all the Indy stunts, the whip, the fist-fights; I was glad to see that they didn't try to shove a lot of the terribly popular martial arts into it.
I don't think it will ever be my favorite, Last Crusade still holds that distinction with Raiders a close second, but I'll buy it, and I'll probably watch it more often than I do Temple of Doom (I really have to be in the right kind of mood for that one, so much of it is just gross).
Of course there was still the evil opposing government as well, the USSR now instead of the Nazi's but it was still the same idea. Luckily, the original movies were set in a time period that made this work. Harrison Ford still looks good, and I understand he did a lot of his own stunt work on this film (he always did for the Indy movies) but his age shows. Because the original movies were set in WWII they could put this one during the rise of Communism without having to worry about a) not enough time passing to account for the age difference or b) too much time passing and trying to cover it up.
As for the Mutt thing? He was pretty good. I'm not sure I'd go watch a Mutt Williams and the (Insert Title Here) movie, but it worked as a story line. I know I said possible spoilers in the title, but I'm not telling about the whole, was Indy the kid's dad thing. I'll let someone else do that. I'm sure there's someone out there who's willing right?
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last Crusade will always be my favorite, but DAMN, that was a ride!
I wouldn't go see a movie without Harrison Ford I think, but the kid was pretty good. He didn't by any means carry the movie, the movie wouldn't have been any good without Harrison as Indy, but they all were pretty awesome. Better than Temple easily, maybe tied with Raiders.
The end was just, I mean out there, but oh well, it's not any of the other ones ended less crazy.
I'm convinced that if there is another one, it'll be about Christianity. There's a pattern now: Raiders: Christian. Temple: Polytheistic non-Christian. Temple: Christian. Crystak Skull: Polytheistic non-Christian. Therefore five will be Christian! Before I thought maybe Foutain of Youth, but I trust the pattern now.
I loved the homages to previous movies, both the obvious and the less obvious.
Very good movie, and maybe if we have a spoiler thread I'll go into what I specifically liked and liked slightly less about it, but I thought it easily fit into the pantheon of other Indy movies and was an awesome movie! Great mix of action and comedy just like the others.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Indy should just be recast at this point, with a reboot storyline back to WWII.
My suggested casting? Leonardo DiCaprio. Think about it! There's not another actor that can be as angry as Harrison Ford, and still be likable.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't think of an actor today that could possible take Harrison Ford's place. Think of the two iconic roles he played during that time: Indiana Jones and Han Solo. Do we have an actor of the right age in today's legion of male actors that has the right combination of swagger, funny, intelligence and machismo that could equate? The only person that comes to mind is Will Smith, and somehow I don't see that working.
I don't think this is the kind of role you can recast. It's just over, and it went out twice. Once gracefully, and once with a bang, but it's still over.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ummm. Will Smith is not funny, Will Smith plays "funny roles." There is a huge difference. He adds nothing I like to any of his movies, he's just affable with an "attitude" that goes over more like a wet moldy towel. His attempts to be serious are unintentionally giggle inducing, because he never succeeds in sounding either intelligent or educated.
Ford, though not known for his range, has so much plain old gravitas, it doesn't matter what the role is- you want to believe him. Will Smith is usually busy "hamming it up" either with his unconvincing mojo, or his equally unconvincing straight man. He's a disaster- why do people insist on his skills?
Edit: You know what it is? The cheesy one-liners. Will Smith's idea of personality is to strike some pose and say "aw hell naw!" The kind of ad-lib that makes it into the final cut because it's supposed to be funny, and the audience is supposed to laugh. That's the thing about him as an actor, and the movies he picks, it's everything the way it's "supposed" to be, as if the interaction of an audience with a film is also scripted.
Just do a little thought experiment, and see if you can place Will Smith in the context of a movie in which it would never be appropriate for his character to cock his head to the side, press his shoulders back, and spout off some spunky reparté, preferably either racial, or absurdist. I include, as a close cousin to this vile "humor," the stuff in "I Am Legend," with him "renting" movies and talking to mannequins. It was just a situation in which an actor should never find himself- either trying to be funny, or trying to be serious. It was contrived, and awful.
posted
I think he's a great actor, and I think he's pretty funny in all the roles he's supposed to be funny in, and I think he has great range. I'm guessing you were never a fan of Fresh Prince. Clearly we just fundamentally disagree.
Either way, no one could replace Ford. Not in those movies anyway.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, but my not being a fan of Fresh Prince shouldn't negate all his later performances. I didn't watch Fresh Prince, and have no opinion on it- other than being completely unaffected by it.
Will Smith will never do immortal, great movies. He just isn't talented enough. And since he's a big star, he'll never be in a movie where anyone else is situated in a position to make the movie really work. Just look at his filmography, and tell me in which of those films he gives a unique performance, or which one of those movies is going in your list of the top films of its year, its decade, or of all time. You'll find there are actors of the same profile who have much better track records.
When Smith turned down The Matrix, he saved the movie. Can you tell me honestly that he would have made the caliber of movie that got made, even with the likes of Keanu? It would have been just another "Will Smith" movie with another smith role. Blah.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My suggested casting? Leonardo DiCaprio. Think about it! There's not another actor that can be as angry as Harrison Ford, and still be likable.
He does look a lot like River Phoenix, so there's that.
Nathan Fillion could do it. When I saw Serenity (not having watched the series first) my thought was "this is like a movie where Han Solo is the main character and not a support." He's got that blend of swagger and anxiety that is so American.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another great moment was when Indy told Marion why none of his other relationships ever worked out. Her reaction reminded me again of why I so disliked Indy's other love interests. It was really nice to see Marion back.
The bad part of that whole storyline was that Indy never bothered to ask Mutt the really obvious question: "What was your mother's maiden name?"
Of course, they had to do that in order to maintain the surprise of their meeting.
Posts: 324 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
- Vine swinging was definitely silly, and not in a funny way, more of a "why did they do this?" sort of way
- Surviving the fall over the waterfalls (not that I wanted them to NOT survive!)
A Moment I ALMOST Hated...
The scene at the very end involving the hat. I say I almost hated it because at the last moment they steered it away from disaster and made it quite funny.
Posts: 324 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Totally agree on the hat. I was immensely relieved with Indiana snagged the hat from him. The vine swinging was a little silly but oh well.
Nathan Fillion MIGHT be able to do it. I don't really see him as a lady's man in the same way that Han Solo or Indiana Jones are, but I think he has the rest of it probably down rather well.
Orincoro -
How many Will Smith movies have you seen? I'm just curious. I'm not heavily invested in defending him, but I'm wondering if you're really seen enough of his movies to gauge what you think is lack of range.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of his maybe 16 movies, I've seen two thirds. There would have to be some really good work in those other movies to steer my opinion away from its present course.
The dated and unfunny Will Smith of Men in Black is the real article, in my opinion.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess we just really disagree then, as I not only disagree with your assessment of his lack of range, but I think he's funny in MIB.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really liked the moment where Marcus Brody saves the day and Mutt laughs while Indy just looks at him frowning, that was right out of the Last Crusade's play book where Indy uses a flag pole to flip a nazi motorcyclist and when he laughs Sean Connery just frowns at him.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't remember Connery doing that. I know when Indy first grabbed the pole and used it as a lance Connery had a huge smile on his face. I don't remember it switching to a frown shortly afterwards.
I'll have to rewatch that part, but I do agree that many parts of it had a similar flavor. I miss Brody.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I guess we just really disagree then, as I not only disagree with your assessment of his lack of range, but I think he's funny in MIB.
The movie is funny, Will Smith doesn't manage to ruin the movie. But MiB could have been a real classic instead of what it is, which is almost that. But Smith is too much "personality," and not enough that anyone should care about.
Read anything he's ever said off camera- he's not an intelligent guy, he's a "character." Meh.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have all the evidence I need that Orincoro and I are diametrically opposed on all things cinematic. I'm not contrarian enough to dislike a talented actor just because he's mainstream. Especially one who's, by all accounts, one of the genuinely nice guys in the business.
I place Crystal Skull 3rd of the 4 Indy movies. Last Crusade, Raiders, CS, and Temple.
I thought this one was the least funny of the four, and also the least believable (not that any of them were the least bit believable). But it's been a while since I watched Temple (I rewatched the other two in the last 6 months), so I might be slightly off base.
After seeing Iron Man last week, this movie couldn't carry IM's jockstrap with a wheelbarrow.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? Least funny? I think it was less funny than Last Crusade, which was hysterical and awesome, but I think it was more funny than Raiders and Temple, but I'll certainly give you the believable thing. Sure none of them are really believable, but the end of Crystal Skull is batsh** crazy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
JT, there's no reason to insult me over this, and to misrepresent my opinion as being based on whether the guy is mainstream. My opinions, which I have shared here, are obviously not based on that. They are based on his abilities, which are lacking. Any comment I make about his mainstream appeal is secondary to that.
How do you get through my posts and still have the balls to say "just because" as if that's the only thing I've said, or as if that's obviously ALL that matters to me? Did I misrepresent you in some way, and this is just your petty little revenge?
So since we're diametrically opposed, I am assuming you were a big fan of The Hulk, Troy, Reign of Fire, and Scarface. Also you really hated Goodfellas, Saving Private Ryan, all the Star Wars movies, and The Hunt for Red October, just to throw that one in.
Since everything I like is based on who else likes it, it's very tricky for me to come up with my choices... sometimes I might agree with the wrong people. Let me know of all your future movie preferences so I can make sure and have spurious reasons for disliking them.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a little friendly reminder all, I don't mind a nice friendly debate about a specific actor (although that actor has nothing to do with the subject of this thread so its a little off topic) but I hate the threads that degenerate into the "you can't accuse me of saying what I didn't say" and "well that's how I interpreted what you said" type. If this thread degenerates into that kind of discussion about Will Smith when it's supposed to be about the new Indiana Jones movie, I'll delete the whole thread.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never deleted a thread that I started on this forum before, ever. But I started this thread to discuss Crystal Skull, not for people to have a "you said this, no I didn't" argument over the acting abilities of Will Smith. Please open a new thread for that discussion if that is what you are interested in talking about. I put a warning in here that I might delete this thread if it degenerated into nothing more than an argument about something completely off topic in order to (hopefully) prevent the board from breaking down into exactly that. As long as the thread stays on topic (or even off topic as long as it doesn't become an argument about "you said this" "no I didn't you just don't read what I type") it won't go anywhere.
If people want to have an off topic "you said this about Will Smith and every movie in the world, no I didn't you just think that" argument, there's a nifty button at the top of the screen that says New Topic, that can be pushed by anyone and that argument can go there. I don't like those arguments. I don't read threads that they are in, and I would prefer that they not be in threads that I start, since, as I started the thread, I obviously intend to participate in it.
As I said above, I'm more than happy for this thread to be on topic or off as long as the childish arguments go elsewhere. And as long as the topic starter has the ability to delete a thread, I am within my rights to do so. I didn't have to let people know it was a possibility, I could have just deleted the thread as soon as the conversation started to go that way. I didn't. That should let those who are interested in participating the conversation in the room know that I don't want to go that direction.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is funny how Indy's hat has become a character in its own right. I noticed at the end when the hat blew in the door and landed in the hands of Indy's son, that it looked like it might be a sort of passage of the torch, presaging a new series of Son-of-Indy films. But no, Indy grabbed it out of the kid's hands as he went by down the aisle, indicating that for now at least, the franchise remains in Harrison Ford's hands.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Nathan Fillion is a half inch taller than Harrison Ford, according to IMDB.
I would never have guessed that-- and that tells me that Fillion, much as I love him, couldn't be Indy. Harrison Ford has so much presence he SEEMS taller. Indy is all about presence.
(Seeing the movie tomorrow, btw, yay!)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
My sister's going to -hate- the climax of this movie. And it's all our parent's fault, for giving me Whitley Strieber's Communion back when we were impressionable kids. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't like it. In the Indy Movies I liked the moments that required suspension of disbelief either directly aided the plot so it was an easy transition, like the melting faces in the first movie, or directly aided in humor and/or character development, like being brave enough and desperate enough to cut the bridge.
*spoilers*
CS had too many unbelievable moments that really didn't aid or help anything. The fridge? The vine swinging? The driving the car off the cliff on purpose to land on the tree?
There were so many scenes that just seemed silly. It broke the mood for me. Over and over again I was getting into the movie only to be woken back to reality with either a bad line or plot device.
And then the ending...bah! I could of waited for the DVD.
Here is my order from most to least favorite movie: The Last Crusade, Raiders, Cystal Skull, Temple of Doom.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
If people want to have an off topic "you said this about Will Smith and every movie in the world, no I didn't you just think that" argument, there's a nifty button at the top of the screen that says New Topic, that can be pushed by anyone and that argument can go there. I don't like those arguments. I don't read threads that they are in, and I would prefer that they not be in threads that I start, since, as I started the thread, I obviously intend to participate in it.
Take your ball and go home then. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nathan Fillion is no Harrison Ford, but I can't imagine any other actor who could come close. The Mal Reynolds character is a slight variation on the Han Solo/Indiana Jones personality, but there are obviously similarities and homages.
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by the new Indy flick. But maybe its because its been awhile since I've seen the original trilogy.
I didn't think it was all that funny. Most of the humor relied on nostalgia and at times I felt like I was watching a spoof. It was a very fine line they were walking between acknowledging the fact that Indy is old and beating that horse to death. I think they did a good job but it didn't have the same humor of the old Indy films for me.
Also, I can suspend my disbelief quite a bit but there were a few scenes that really bothered me. Firstly, the fridge thing! Expecting a fridge, lead-lined or not (which was awfully convenient) to protect you is one thing. Expecting to survive being hurled through the air and coming to a hard, bouncy landing...I don't think so. And then he got out and watched the cloud. I mean, its a good thing he had a kid, cause he certainly couldn't produce one now.
And the vine-swinging with the army of monkeys...yeah...stupid.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The driving the car off the cliff on purpose to land on the tree?
Actually, I don't think she knew the car was there, but was intending to land right in the water. She knew she was driving a DUCK like vehicle and that it'd float. I think the tree was a bonus.
The fridge was ridiculous though. But most everyone I've talked to forgave Iron Man's ridiculous landings. I can get over the fridge thing. The vine swinging was a little goofy but I think it fit right in. If Indy had done it, I don't think there would be as many complaints.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Really? Least funny? I think it was less funny than Last Crusade, which was hysterical and awesome, but I think it was more funny than Raiders and Temple, but I'll certainly give you the believable thing. Sure none of them are really believable, but the end of Crystal Skull is batsh** crazy.
I love "batsh**" I feel like that was one phrase that never should have gone out of style.
I could never put my finger on Indiana Jones's grasp on reality as a series. There seems to be a fairly firm grasp on the humanistic aspect of all the myths that get weaved in. So, whenever the movies deal with these supernatural elements, it's always about the characters having credible reactions to what's going on. Indy and his father approach the grail myth as scientists, and the "believing in it," is never really an article of faith per se, but of deep understanding of the realities- like scientists finding out that magic is real, and dealing with it like scientists.
That kind of kept the whole series anchored in realism. You could always count on the idea that knowledge and judgment, rather than belief, were the things that were going to save Indy and help him win. I think the only time the trilogy strayed too far was in the Burtonesque "Temple of Doom" setting, where people's actions really didn't seem to make any kind of sense, except for Indy's.
I think this is what distinguishes Indy from other genre pics, like say, "National Treasure." In that movie, the clues and the history are taken as articles of faith, central to the story. If anything is a misperception or doesn't pan out, the whole thing falls apart like a wet noodle. But Indy thrives on the fact that the evidence is all vague and open to interpretation, so you almost don't believe in the magic, or you allow yourself to accept it on principle because its effects have been proven. With NT, the intricate puzzle feels like one that, once solved, is not interesting.
I don't want to ruin it for everyone with spoilers, but I'm curious if this particular ending abandons all that credibility.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The vine swinging was a little goofy but I think it fit right in. If Indy had done it, I don't think there would be as many complaints.
You don't understand - only Mutt could have done it. The monkeys saw in him a kindred spirit because they had the same hair. They recognized him as their natural lord and master by virtue of his glorious mane.
I'm still not sure if I'd pick that or the fridge as my favorite moment. Both parts were so excellently ridiculous. I can just imagine the direction for that scene. "Okay, you stumble out of the fridge that you've just flown about three-quarters of a mile in, so you're slightly disoriented. You turn around and there's a mushroom cloud close enough to melt your face off, but it totally doesn't. ACTION!"
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the most part I enjoyed Crystal Skull. I didn't like how the supernatural force in this movie turned out to be aliens. In Raiders it was Judaism. In Temple of Doom it was Hindu/Mystical religion. And in Crusaders it was Christianity. For some reason it is more believable for me when the supernatural forces are religious. I think the whole alien thing was a crazy direction to go and made the film too unbelievable.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
I agree with you precisely about the aliens believability vs. religious believability (and I'm an atheist). I also think the movie stretched credibility far beyond the other ones (I haven't seen Temple of Doom). Halfway through, I joked that someone should bring a clicker counter into the theater and count how many times a character SHOULD have died/broken a bone/gotten badly hurt. Because it was far too many times. The movie was for the most part, extremely entertaining, and funny. If I were younger, I would have been scared. I won't stat on the plot holes, but I had fun, and I recommend seeing it in the theaters if you like action movies.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw it and really liked it. The only part I disliked was Mutt and The Vines. (Though the band The Vines are quite good.) I also didn't enjoy the fact that someone took a very young child to the movie. And said child cried throughout the first half of the film.
A lot of people have complained about the ending. But I feel that it fits well with the time period. It was an era of technological advancement and competition which inspired a number of authors to write science fiction stories as a reaction to the technology. I feel that, under that context, the ending was fitting.
Sure, it's less believable than previous Indy films. But that's not why I go see an Indiana Jones film. It certainly helped make the previous films enjoyable and more realistic. But I still enjoyed this movie as a work in its own right.
I think that, ultimately, after the initial reactionary reviews have subsided. The movie will be remembered as a good and enjoyable film. Certainly not great. And it probably won't win too many awards (if any). But I think it'll be one that people will return to at least a couple of times.
Overall, I really enjoyed the movie. And I found most of the complaints to be superfluous. Except the bit about the Tarzan/Mutt segment. That's silly no matter what context you put it in.
P.S. Most of the people that live around here put more focus on football than on education, so most of the intelligent remarks in the film went over people's heads.
The guy I went to see the movie with and I were the only ones who laughed at the "I Like Ike" bit. Which only made it more amusing for us.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Just a little friendly reminder all, I don't mind a nice friendly debate about a specific actor (although that actor has nothing to do with the subject of this thread so its a little off topic) but I hate the threads that degenerate into the "you can't accuse me of saying what I didn't say" and "well that's how I interpreted what you said" type. If this thread degenerates into that kind of discussion about Will Smith when it's supposed to be about the new Indiana Jones movie, I'll delete the whole thread.
I understand the frustration of having a thread you are interested in degenerate into silly arguments, but deleting whole threads is very disrespectful to all the people who've made the effort to contribute. As starter of the thread, you do have an alternative besides deleting the thread. You can change the thread title. So for example, if people really wanted to continue arguing about Will Smith, you could change this thread title to "Arguments about Will Smith". Then you can start a new thread on Indian Jones or what ever topic you really want to discuss. In the new thread, you could even quote a ll the on topic posts from the original if you really wanted to.
Just trying to get people to recognize that there are almost always alternative to deleting a thread.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the whole alien thing was a crazy direction to go and made the film too unbelievable.
When they were in the warehouse I assumed that they were looking for the Ark, and when I discovered that they were looking for aliens I thought it was perfect, given the period of the movie. I saw the "Chariots of the Gods" connection as soon as they mentioned the plains of Nazca. I thought it was kind of neat the way they fit all the pieces together, such as tying the Mayan head deformation together with the big headed aliens, and so forth.
The worst part I thought was how a bunch of heavily accented Russians could run around the United States and actually have enough free reign to chase Indy, whereas all he would have had to do is point a finger at them and shout "Commies!" and the crowd would have taken them out.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I love "batsh**" I feel like that was one phrase that never should have gone out of style.
