Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (F) (2 o'clock Critics)

[dalmatianjaws]

Here it is - the 2 o'clock Critics tackle the latest fiasco from George Lucas, and they've never before agreed so unanimously (two of our crew refused to be filmmed, they just wanted to go home and sleep it off).

Courtesy of RedFenceProject.com

Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, Cate Blanchett, Ray Winstone, Shia LeBeouf, really bad CGI animals
Rotten Tomatoes: 80% (proof that there is no god?)
Our Rating F

[Tyler Lovemark]

I am feeling so confused about this movie.  Half the news I'm hearing says terrible, the other half says it's pretty decent.  Either way, I'm seeing it this weekend.  I so want this movie to be good, but so much has me on guard about it.

[Stephen]

I liked the movie. Despite all the bad reviews. Harrison Ford is still a badass in this movie.

[Well Dressed Killer]

This is the worst review i have ever seen. The movie was fucking awesome! A great movie for true fans of Indiana Jones.You guys must be fucking retarded.

[wesdol]

Ford is a badass, I'll give him that one. Still should never have signed off on this script.

As for WDK - I know most of these folks and at least two of them are rabid Indy fans, well educated, love intelligent genre work, and have well thought out, coherent complaints to this movie. Or, if that's hard to comprehend, let me translate for you: Fucking Shit Man! Fucking Retards no make bad bad film! Fuck. Shit Fuck Fuck Shit Penis. LOL!! 

[dalmatianjaws]

These are GREAT!

[Tyler Lovemark]

Just saw it last night.  I am, to say the least, appalled.  It was almost as if they were trying to deliberately break my suspension of disbelief throughout the movie (especially every time I saw a skull or an action sequence started).  There were a few moments where I would say "oh, this is taking a turn for the better" and then the rest of the movie happened.  Simply appalling.

[dalmatianjaws]

Yeah, after the animated prairie dog I had hope for about ten seconds. Then it lost me with the ten minutes of exposition about what happened to Indy during the hiatus. Then I kinda liked the whip work in area 51 ... but it was downhill from there.

[warpshield]

My two cents on this movie (saw it opening night):

WARNING: Spoliers below

The main things that seemed really corny were the nuclear testing site/fridge incident, Mutt swinging thru the jungle on vines, the waterfall scenes, the quicksand/snake scene, the crazy man, and the entire inter-dimensional alien ending seemed like a total cop-out. I didn’t feel any real connection between the characters, no sparks, and no sexual tension between Indy and his old flame. The script was too weak. And when a script has several rewrites, the final product rarely comes out good. 

With holy grails and magical arks in the previous films, that worked for me because they are based on Christian mythology and gives the audience a history lesson along the way. The audience gets the feeling it COULD be real. Throwing a curveball about aliens predating human civilization and merging the film into the scifi realm just undermines the entire film and its creditability.

The film looked too over-polished and had too much CGI. I want to see real sets and locations, not computer simulations. I’m a computer tech by trade, and love electronics, but sometimes less is more when it comes to filmmaking.

I really miss the days of old school film making. I believe CGI should be used sparingly and to clean up existing optical shots. Don’t even get me started on the recent Star Wars trilogy…ughhhh.

This was an insult to the Indy trilogy. It's was too campy and tongue-in-cheek for my taste. However, I did like the sword fighting on top of the jeeps riding thru the jungle. I really wanted to enjoy this movie, but after the third or fourth time rolling my eyes, I gave up.

[The Movie Whore]

So my mother in law is an anthropologist.  One of the main theories on the crystal skulls is extraterrestial in nature so it really was not a stretch and actually fits in with common theory of the crystal skulls.  So I am good with it. 

Rest of the Movie was great.  If you didn't like it you just don't like entertaining movies.  Granted the Tarzan bit was over the top but I dug the rest of it.  Laughed my ass off. 

So yeah to get this one took some education and after educating myself on the subject matter I think the story line was great. 

[MacReady’sShack]

Well I really couldn’t be asked to see this at the Odeon Leicester Square London as its one of the technical poor sounding cinemas in the West End and the politics of films from Paramount Pictures going to the Odeon is taking the piss, when the odd 20th Century Fox film might be showing at the famous Empire Leicester Square and what the fuck is this all about!?

So no I haven’t seen this in the cinema expect, the countless many sites that have this film, (for limited poor viewing time only) and the U.F.O. getting married and some slow really slow boring snoozing off moments where Indy and the James Dean look alike, where they look around in very dark place? Not sure what the hell they where looking at as it was so dark, at which time I pursed it and got a few hours kip, because it was so bad and I’m not ashamed to say this.

Lucas has had my last £20.00 pounds with his Star Wars cash milking cow and this is the best he and Spielberg can turn out, after 19 years, by sticking a nail in the coffin, this franchise is dead now because of those two, now burnt out directors, the 70’s 80’s 90’s are over and this one just didn’t deliver the goods, apart from being this summers blockbuster turkey.

[Sheridan Passell]

That's all well and good, but who left the light on in MacReady's shack? Because when he left the light was off.

[MacReady’sShack]

That's all well and good, but who left the light on in MacReady's shack? Because when he left the light was off.

LOL maybe the switch was faulty and wind blowing against the shack, cursed the light switch, to turn on by itself. The other reason could be something tall, fell over when the wind blew hard against the shack and knocked it over, against the light switch.

My last and final answer is, MacReady was hard drinker and it’s possible that he stumbled into the light switch when walking out the door?

[Tyler Lovemark]

I actually have always wondered who left the light on in the shack.  I guess that's as good excuse as any to go out and watch it again.  I can see it now, "Uhh, why are you watching this again?"  "Dur!  To see who left the light one!"

[Mahmoud El-Azzeh]

I really enjoyed this movie. To me, great and fun movies are supposed to be like Indy IV in the sense that it is pure escapism and entertainment with fantastic long set-piece action sequences. If you're going to push away some "ridiculous" moments like the led-based fridge surviving atomic blasts and aliens, etc then you how can you accept ghosts coming from an ark and a soldier who can live for over 200 years? (And I did not include Temple of Doom - another film that people are really harsh on). There was always a presence of the supernatural or fantasy in the previous Indy films but to accept the lack of reality those films and not the other is applying double-standards. Either it's all good. Or none of it is.

[Sheridan Passell]

I didn't have a problem with having an alien aspect, the problem was it was handled so clumsily, with no intelligence. The story and exposition you could have got out of any tv soap writer. And the alien design itself was totally lame - no attempt was made to avoid making it look cgi unreal (I mean how hard is it to part-puppet an alien?) and the design was completely uninspired - the same old thing we've seen hundreds of times. If being a 'tribute' means doing exactly the same thing again can we please stop tributing.

Is what I think.

(Goes and stands quietly on the target and waits.)

[Mahmoud El-Azzeh]

... Okay. Granted, the story/plot itself was in some aspects not as sharp as let's say Raiders was. But did you like Temple of Doom despite it's plot flaws? Because I did and there were elements of Indy IV that reminded me of that film, i.e. the hokiness of the Black Sleep of Kalima and Indy staring into the Crystal Skull etc. But that didn't matter because what made Temple of Doom a good movie to me was because it was just a pure joy to watch with Harrison Ford on top form being extremely likeable as Indy (as always). Indy films are about adventure, not some complex and convoluted plot that will change the way you think about day-to-day true-to-life issues.

That being said. The film tied in with the whole Area 51/Roswell stuff so naturally the alien was going to look like the stereotypical alien. Probably, George Lucas felt (or perhaps whoever managed to manipulate his writings) that in order for it to have some sort of gravitas with reality (like the Ark and Holy Grail) then it had to be presented in ways and theories that we are already familiar with. None of us were around in the Bible times, but because that stuff was referred to the way we know it as, then it's a bit more believable. It was only natural the alien was gonna be the big-eyed grey man look.

That being said, Lucas gets a hard-on (or "The Force" as some of you refer to it as) for CGI as we all know. I'm trying hard to think the last time I saw CGI and thought it was believable (I think there's a Top 10 in there somewhere) but at the end of the day, the technology is not there to make it super photo-realistic. I'm with you. I think the use of traditional special effects and puppetry should happen more often because for some reason it always look better. But until then, forgive that aspect and enjoy the film for what it is, because it will be a long time before we will be able to forget that lame CGI stuff.

[dalmatianjaws]

In regards to the last couple of posts:

QUOTE:
"There was always a presence of the supernatural or fantasy in the previous Indy films but to accept the lack of reality those films and not the other is applying double-standards. Either it's all good. Or none of it is."

This is the number one rebuttal to our review, on YouTube or otherwise. And it makes sense on the surface, but not when you break it down. Crystal Skull is "unrealistic" not in the sense that it defies real world rules, it's unrealistic in that is breaks the rules of its own world.

All previous Indy films were supernatural, not science fiction. All previous Indy films (and keep in mind I BARELY count Temple of Doom) were based on highly documented artifacts and history, or artifacts that were prominent in mythology. And the results of these artifacts (Ark and Grail) were also documented. Not to say that it's factual, but both the grail and the ark reference a divine power that is highly documented in middle eastern and European culture. In Biblical AND secular text. Whether debunking or affirming. The Crystal Skull is "scientific" and completely undocumented. All they know is that they've found them ... that's it. All the powers were generated from George Lucas's ass, not his imagination, not through a culture's mythology.

In all previous Indy films, Indiana Jones obeys a set of physics that is exaggerated, but similar to our own. Meaning, if he falls off the bridge he dies. In Crystal Skull, if he falls off of three GINORMOUS waterfalls that are strong enough to tear apart a metal army vehicle, or survives the concussion of an atomic blast and giant rolling fall against rugged New Mexico terrain, he survives with hardly a bruise.

I'm ok with camp. I'm ok with silly. But I'm not ok with Indiana Jones falling into that category. And, even despite the camp, the real reason it's all so bad is that it's sloppy, simple, and unimaginative.

And, also, the entire point of Indiana Jones is that he spawned from old 1930s serials. The decision to update Indy into 1950s cheesy science fiction doesn't work because he was designed for something else! Which is why they came up with the ridiculous exposition about Indy working for the CIA and studying the alien body form Roswell? An archeologist and professor? come on.

The filmakers need to have some balls and CREATE and new franchise, a new awesome character to take them organically through that sort of story, not force it upon their old creation so they can make an easy hit.

Like Sheridan said: lazy. Also Uninspired. Offensive to the audience.  We're about three steps away from seeing a real life version of the ASS movie from Idiocracy, and it will probably be CGIed from LucasFilms.

[Mahmoud El-Azzeh]

I can see what you're saying. But it all depends on how you look at films/movies as a whole. As you mentioned Dal-Jaws, you didn't like Temple of Doom, which is fair enough because you explained you didn't like that film as you felt it was way too much of a departure from what Indy was in Raiders, and yes, Spielberg and Lucas probably noticed this due to the mixed reactions back then and hence made a third film which was closer to the original installment. I can understand that because we like some films and characters so much that anything that is even an attempt at something differnt ruffles the feathers the wrong way.

As for me, yes, if in any other film I saw the waterfall sequence/vine-swinging sequence, where the charm of Harrison Ford and the fantastic Spielberg-directed set-piece action sequences were missing, then I would've been angry or upset or annoyed, like you guys were right after you saw the film. But I wasn't, because I was too busy having a blast during the scenes around those stupid scenes. The good outweighed the bad for me. I love Indy as much as the next guy, but I think everyone who told me they didn't enjoy this film took the whole thing a bit too seriously. Especially to give it an "F"! That was way harsh, guy. There are so many movies out there that are worse than Indy IV... (Uwe Boll I'm talking to you) that only deserve such distinction. The worst movies in this world are the boring ones.

It IS supposed to be entertainment afterall. Maybe Spielberg and Lucas didn't want to make another nazi-based Indy movie with the same themes and the same whatever. We don't know what their story was and what happened behind the scenes so although it would be easy to assume that's it's Lucas taking liberties with the source material, we can't be certain. Maybe he genuinely thought that the people would enjoy what he was putting into it and maybe Spielberg agreed and maybe, the box office successes of his Star Wars Episode 1-3 work didn't exactly discourage him. If you didn't believe it [alien plotline] could possibly work, then you wouldn't have bought a ticket to see the movie - regardless of the furore that the critics were stirring up.

As far as fantasy/supernatural/science fiction goes, I think it is arguable that the Ark and the Holy Grail are more documented than aliens. The former two only have historice Bible teachings and scholars - with atheists who always question it. Extra-terrestrial beings are a contemporary topic and so IMO would have just as much coverage now with perhaps the same amount of credibility, because this is something happening now, with people recording footage all the time, rumours flying around the time, documentaries constantly being churned out - despite skeptics always questioning it too. However, the man on the street is more likely to know about little green men than the Ark of the Covenant. Sad, but true. I'm going to assume something here, but perhaps, Lucas sees them both as questionable/credible as each other because of this. The skull, is just a plot-moving device (like the Ark) and should be treated no different - I forget what the term Hitchcock refers to it as... but Joe Dante mentioned it in his interview with Movie Moron (plug alert - You can put a link at the bottom of this Sheridan).

At the end of the day. This was *probably* the best we were going to get from the Indy franchise. Harrison Ford is 66. No-one, I repeat NO-ONE, can be Indy except Harrison Ford. I'm sorry. Maybe they can be a different Indy (like the way the Bond franchise works) but definitely not this Indy. You're right in the sense that film-makers should always try to make something new with new characters and concepts etc. But, the people wanted another Indy film (as you can see from the Box Office takings) and I'm happy with the one I got despite it's flaws. Although it's not as great as the previous films, I'm still happy to see old friends do their thing again - it's not an "F" film, so although I respect your opinion, I have to agree to disagree on this one.

Some may feel that this film never should have been made at all. Well I say, it's better to have loved and then lost, then to never love at all.

[Sheridan Passell]

Oh MacGuffin.

And it's here by the way. Great listen everyone.