Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Chuckit · May 24, 2008, 10:37 PM

OK, why did the alien archeologist kill Cate? He's like, "I want to give you a gift. It's the gift of glaring at you as you beg me to stop and then making your head explode." And how did Indy intuit that the alien was going to be such a double-crossing jerk when it seems like he'd genuinely been helping people up until then?

rickey939 · May 24, 2008, 10:41 PM

Let me re-phrase this movie another way:

It sucked.

Stogieman · May 24, 2008, 10:45 PM

Like Rickey Henderson's career with the Mets as training coach.

rickey939 · May 24, 2008, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by Stogieman

Like Rickey Henderson's career with the Mets as training coach.

Just like that, but worse. At least the Mets were good before they fell off the planet, whereas, this movie started bad and continued to get worse.

Stogieman · May 24, 2008, 11:09 PM

I think some of you guys are overreacting a bit. Sure there were some WTF moments like the Tarzan scene Sprinkles mention but overall it was a fun movie. Not as fun as Iron Man but not nearly as bad as Speed Racer.

rickey939 · May 24, 2008, 11:12 PM

The only "good" thing I see is that they have laid the ground work for the future of the series....no matter how good/bad the future holds, it's a future.

PaperNotes · May 25, 2008, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

They just had to ruin the series didnt they ? I havent seen Indy IV (and wont bother) given the 'spoiler' mentioned in the first post.

I'm steering clear of all the 'comeback' movies... Rambo, Die Hard, Indy, etc....

Rambo was very good. It stuck to the basics and had a tight unconfused script and unike the other comebacks Rambo held a middle finger up to the MPAA and said **** you I'm not going to soften the tone. It was very gory. Stallone showed us exactly what happens to humans who get ripped apart by a grenade or 50mm shell.

Die Hard 4 censored half of McClane's famous tagline. In Casino Royale Bond gets bullied around by a 25 year old girl and doesn't rough her even once. In Crystal Skull Indiana doesn't shoot a single baddie! That's the pussification of onscreen heroes.

Stogieman · May 25, 2008, 05:21 AM

He shot that Russian dude in the foot when he dropped his gun in the warehouse.

Besides that guy with the sword in Raiders, who else has Indy shot and killed ? I can't think of any at the moment.

PaperNotes · May 25, 2008, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by Stogieman

He shot that Russian dude in the foot when he dropped his gun in the warehouse.

Besides that guy with the sword in Raiders, who else has Indy shot and killed ? I can't think of any at the moment.

In Last Crusade one he machine gunned down a whole load of Nazis when he rescued his dad. When they were running away another half dozen died from vehicle manouvers. He shot a few when they were in the tanks too.

red rocket · May 25, 2008, 06:44 AM

Is it worse than ‘National Treasure’?

PaperNotes · May 25, 2008, 06:46 AM

About the same as Mummy Returns

analogue SPRINKLES · May 25, 2008, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by red rocket

Is it worse than ‘National Treasure’?

No. But it does feel very much in line with Mummy Returns.

Dork. · May 25, 2008, 11:51 AM

I saw it this weekend (a special treat for us, as we rarely see any movies in the theater anymore), and I liked it a lot. Of course, there are parts of it that are way cheezy. But we watched the first three movies on DVD recently, and they had plenty of cheezy bits, too.

I think the mixed reviews here are due to the fact that there's an awful lot in this movie that requires you to suspend your disbelief. For me, the action and pace of the movie was enough to gloss over the plot holes, but everyone has a different threshold for that.

starman · May 25, 2008, 12:14 PM

Where are the "cheezy" bits in Raiders? Please enlighten me.

analogue SPRINKLES · May 25, 2008, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Where are the "cheezy" bits in Raiders? Please enlighten me.

Peoples faces melting from a religious artifact?

starman · May 25, 2008, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

Peoples faces melting from a religious artifact?

I don't see how that was 'cheesy'.

Dork. · May 25, 2008, 01:42 PM

There's a lot of cheesy stuff in Raiders. Front and center, of course, are the historical problems like why any Nazis would be interested in a Jewish religious artifact at all, no matter what the lore behind it is (and why exactly the British would let them dig on such a massive scale in Egypt). The whole bit with the monkey was total cheezeball, right up until the end. And how exactly did he get into the U-boat dock? Did the boat never submerge after that? I doubt the Germans would have let him on board undetected.

I bring these points up not to slog the movie, but to point out that is was so well-made and the pacing was so good that you don't see these problems. In fact, the simplicity of the plot of all these movies (find the MacGuffin before the bad guys do, or steal it back from the bad guys) adds to most people's enjoyment of the films. You need to take liberties with reality to make a truly good action flick.

As an aside, I counted two Wilhelm Screams in the new movie, one in the Library and one in the Ants scene....

PaperNotes · May 25, 2008, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Dork.

There's a lot of cheesy stuff in Raiders. Front and center, of course, are the historical problems like why any Nazis would be interested in a Jewish religious artifact at all, no matter what the lore behind it is (and why exactly the British would let them dig on such a massive scale in Egypt).

One, The Nazis did send scholars around the wolrd in search of all manners of religious objects.

Two, there were German scholars and diplomats (not in a military capacity) in Egypt and Palestine in the 30s and 40s. The Grand Mufti of Palestine was a Hitler supporter and so was the young Anwar Sadat.

Germany and Fascist Italy did attempt to capture Egypt in from 1940 to 1942.

And how exactly did he get into the U-boat dock? Did the boat never submerge after that?

The submarine did not submerge. It was a shorter journey than it looks. Indiana Jones could hang on and also sit atop.

vmarks · May 25, 2008, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

OK, why did the alien archeologist kill Cate? He's like, "I want to give you a gift. It's the gift of glaring at you as you beg me to stop and then making your head explode." And how did Indy intuit that the alien was going to be such a double-crossing jerk when it seems like he'd genuinely been helping people up until then?

Indy warned her to be careful what she wished for. She asked for all the alien knowledge, not a little.

pooka · May 25, 2008, 02:16 PM

Don't read this if you haven't seen it (i'm not using the spoiler tag)

Aliens? That's what has you all pissed? **** that. All of the **** with Marian was lame.
Oh, and married? WTF.

analogue SPRINKLES · May 26, 2008, 03:05 PM

So I never understood how the alien lost its head anyway and why didn't they all go home thousands of years ago?

k squared · May 26, 2008, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by starman

I don't see how that was 'cheesy'.

Really? Faces melting from an unproven God vs. faces melting from unproved aliens? All the movies are 'cheesy'; you're just looking at it from the perspective of an adult, not from some one watching it over 20 years ago.

jokell82 · May 26, 2008, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by k squared

Really? Faces melting from an unproven God vs. faces melting from unproved aliens? All the movies are 'cheesy'; you're just looking at it from the perspective of an adult, not from some one watching it over 20 years ago.

At least the original Indy movies had some basis in historical fact/myths. This new movie just makes it all up and asks you to believe.

awaspaas · May 26, 2008, 08:56 PM

Oh come on, lighten up a bit. Have fun at a movie! You'll live longer.

And those complaining about suspension of disbelief, did you forget about how a man's face melts, beating hearts get pulled out, and a man ages and turns to dust in seconds after choosing the wrong cup from a 500 year old knight?

jokell82 · May 26, 2008, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by awaspaas

Oh come on, lighten up a bit. Have fun at a movie! You'll live longer.

And those complaining about suspension of disbelief, did you forget about how a man's face melts, beating hearts get pulled out, and a man ages and turns to dust in seconds after choosing the wrong cup from a 500 year old knight?

I have tons of fun at the movies. Iron Man was amazing. This movie stunk up the place.

Sourbook · May 26, 2008, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by jokell82

At least the original Indy movies had some basis in historical fact/myths. This new movie just makes it all up and asks you to believe.

They didn't just make it up. The Crystal Skull is based on a (now debunked) Mesoamerican myth. I think they just wanted to base a story on western culture and western culture doesn't really have too many really cool ancient myths.

Crystal skull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

peeb · May 26, 2008, 11:58 PM

You know, I liked it.

But then, I went expecting it it be a cheesy action / comedy like the others. Really - some of it was not plausible you tell me? I'm shocked. Some lines were cheesy! No, say it's not true! It's nostalgic brain candy - on those terms, I enjoyed it.

jokell82 · May 27, 2008, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by Sourbook

They didn't just make it up. The Crystal Skull is based on a (now debunked) Mesoamerican myth. I think they just wanted to base a story on western culture and western culture doesn't really have too many really cool ancient myths.

Crystal skull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand that Crystal Skulls exist. However where is the myth that they are actual alien skulls? And that a golden city was erected in the amazon by those aliens?

analogue SPRINKLES · May 27, 2008, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by jokell82

I understand that Crystal Skulls exist. However where is the myth that they are actual alien skulls? And that a golden city was erected in the amazon by those aliens?

It has been suggested that the skulls are so advanced it must have been made by aliens but there was a BBC story the other day that all the skulls are probably fake as they were only discovered in the 60's and under the microscope the dill bits look like it was done with modern black and decker technology.

scottiB · May 27, 2008, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by peeb

You know, I liked it.

But then, I went expecting it it be a cheesy action / comedy like the others. Really - some of it was not plausible you tell me? I'm shocked. Some lines were cheesy! No, say it's not true! It's nostalgic brain candy - on those terms, I enjoyed it.

Concur. Wife and I liked it. Worth full price.

Lava Lamp Freak · May 27, 2008, 12:05 PM

I enjoyed it as a stand alone film, but I didn't really feel like I was watching Indiana Jones. I thought it was ok, but it isn't one that I'd view again. I felt the same way watching Die Hard last year.

I expected cheesy moments, but my issue is I wasn't expecting the whole inter-dimensional alien plot line. It didn't fit the Indy universe, in my opinion. I expected religious tones, cheesy jokes, and laugh out loud moments, but not alien spacecraft that rip up the ground.

I thought Indy 4 was more sci-fi than the X-files.

jokell82 · May 27, 2008, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak

I enjoyed it as a stand alone film, but I didn't really feel like I was watching Indiana Jones. I thought it was ok, but it isn't one that I'd view again. I felt the same way watching Die Hard last year.

I expected cheesy moments, but my issue is I wasn't expecting the whole inter-dimensional alien plot line. It didn't fit the Indy universe, in my opinion. I expected religious tones, cheesy jokes, and laugh out loud moments, but not alien spacecraft that rip up the ground.

I thought Indy 4 was more sci-fi than the X-files.

I said pretty much the same thing coming out of the theater with my friends. If it hadn't been called "Indiana Jones" I think I would've liked it a lot more.

ibook_steve · May 27, 2008, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

So I never understood how the alien lost its head anyway and why didn't they all go home thousands of years ago?

Wasn't it that conquistador who stole the skull and had it buried with him in the graveyard? But that doesn't explain the 1000 or 2000 year time span between when the aliens arrived and when the conquistadors found them.

Steve

starman · May 27, 2008, 06:09 PM

Nor does it explain why they were hanging around there waiting for their heads to get stolen, does it?

ibook_steve · May 27, 2008, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Nor does it explain why they were hanging around there waiting for their heads to get stolen, does it?

I think they were dead.

Steve

jokell82 · May 27, 2008, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by ibook_steve

I think they were dead.

Steve

But when they returned the head it magically came back to life???

Chuckit · May 27, 2008, 10:27 PM

I thought the crystal things were just supposed to be their skeletons. Then again, I suppose there's no reason a psychic creature from an alternate dimension necessarily couldn't live without its skin, so what the hey.

starman · May 27, 2008, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by ibook_steve

I think they were dead.

Steve

Right, but then returning the skull brings them back to life? So why did they die in the first place?

rickey939 · May 27, 2008, 11:29 PM

The best part of the movie was the "cameo" made by the ark....

TailsToo · May 27, 2008, 11:45 PM

Indy was great in the 80's... after seeing this movie, I wish I could unwatch it, and pretend that they left the series alone. By far the worst of the series. I knew when they couldn't get any scripts they liked that the movie would suck.

PaperNotes · May 28, 2008, 01:46 AM

Google "nuke the fridge"

It had a Wikipedia page that has been deleted!!! Censors be damned! Still cached tho....

"Nuke the fridge is a colloquialism used to refer to the moment in a film series when it becomes apparent that a certain installment is not as good as [a] previous installment[s], due to ridiculous or low quality storylines, events or characters. The term comes from the film Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, in which Harrison Ford's character survives a nuclear detonation by getting into a fridge, and is then blown hundreds of feet, only to hit the ground, and then emerges from the fridge with no injuries whatsoever. Fans of the Indiana Jones series found the absurdity of this event in the film to be the best example of the lower quality of this installment in the series, and thus coined the phrase, "nuke the fridge"

The phrase is also a reference to the phrase "jump the shark", which has the same meaning, only applied to a television series instead of a film series."

Eriamjh · May 28, 2008, 08:53 AM

I was disappointed by the movie plot and ending, but entertained by the process.

Eriamjh · May 28, 2008, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Dork.

...In fact, the simplicity of the plot of all these movies (find the MacGuffin before the bad guys do, or steal it back from the bad guys) adds to most people's enjoyment of the films. You need to take liberties with reality to make a truly good action flick.

I have never heard the term MacGuffin, but I like it. However, I think for Indy IV, the term Big Dumb Object is more appropriate.

starman · May 28, 2008, 09:13 AM

I think we need to revive "Nuke The Fridge"

Mrjinglesusa · May 28, 2008, 09:41 AM

I don't understand why everyone is so upset about aliens. Other things I can understand (bad script, bad acting, poor dialogue, etc.) but why make such a stink about aliens?

Raiders of the Lost Ark had a box that killed everything that looked at it when it was open. Yeah, that's believable.

Last Crusade had a cup that healed wounds and provided immortality. Yeah, that's believable.

Crystal Skull has aliens. Big deal. That's not any less believable than the things in Raiders and Crusade.

Dork. · May 28, 2008, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by starman

I think we need to revive "Nuke The Fridge"

gofridge would not approve.

Dakar the Fourth · May 28, 2008, 09:46 AM

Alright, I'll weight in here.

I went to see it. I had heard so many bad things, and was not looking forward to the aliens, but that said...
...not that bad. The movie lacked some of the better elements of other Indy films (His exploration and realizations are far more intriguing without a giant group in tow). And yeah, the Aliens just really didn't belong, but given the period setting (1950s) and the genre (cheesy adventure), somehow it doesn't seem wholly inappropriate.

Didn't anyone catch the continuity error during the jungle scene? When Shia gets caught in the vine, Indy is chasing Cate... cut to the cliffside ...Indy is leading Cate (even though she has the skull) and she pulls up along side him. It confused the hell out of me.

Oh and I agree with chuckit? about her death. The last look the alien gave was so pissed off. I was also expecting her head to explode from all the knowledge, not her dematerializing. The former would have been more apropos to the old films.

jokell82 · May 28, 2008, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth

Alright, I'll weight in here.

I went to see it. I had heard so many bad things, and was not looking forward to the aliens, but that said...
...not that bad. The movie lacked some of the better elements of other Indy films (His exploration and realizations are far more intriguing without a giant group in tow). And yeah, the Aliens just really didn't belong, but given the period setting (1950s) and the genre (cheesy adventure), somehow it doesn't seem wholly inappropriate.

Didn't anyone catch the continuity error during the jungle scene? When Shia gets caught in the vine, Indy is chasing Cate... cut to the cliffside ...Indy is leading Cate (even though she has the skull) and she pulls up along side him. It confused the hell out of me.

Oh and I agree with chuckit? about her death. The last look the alien gave was so pissed off. I was also expecting her head to explode from all the knowledge, not her dematerializing. The former would have been more apropos to the old films.

I noticed the continuity error and even laughed at it in the theater. How do you miss something so blatant?

But I guess when you're surviving nuclear blasts in a fridge and swinging through a jungle with monkeys (who then attack the bad guys) it really doesn't matter anymore.

starman · May 28, 2008, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa

I don't understand why everyone is so upset about aliens. Other things I can understand (bad script, bad acting, poor dialogue, etc.) but why make such a stink about aliens?

Raiders of the Lost Ark had a box that killed everything that looked at it when it was open. Yeah, that's believable.

Last Crusade had a cup that healed wounds and provided immortality. Yeah, that's believable.

Crystal Skull has aliens. Big deal. That's not any less believable than the things in Raiders and Crusade.

Regardless of whether or not you're a religious person, you can still understand the context of what a religious artifact is and what it's supposed power can be. Is it REAL? Well, that depends on how much you're willing to believe in the power of God in the context of the film.

Aliens are much sillier because it opens up so many story holes. Archeology is supposed to be about finding things on Earth, not outside it. The story about our own civilization's past is interesting enough, there's no need to bring in extraterrestrials.

Dakar the Fourth · May 28, 2008, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by jokell82

I noticed the continuity error and even laughed at it in the theater. How do you miss something so blatant?

Yeah, I don't get it. I guess they couldn't come up with some other way for Cate to be put into position to try and ram Indy?

Originally Posted by jokell82

But I guess when you're surviving nuclear blasts in a fridge and swinging through a jungle with monkeys (who then attack the bad guys) it really doesn't matter anymore.

The nuclear scene was probably my first real WTF moment. The Russians drive off and Indy chases after them for a moment, before ignoring two vehicles which are in his way to run into a stationary house.