Spoiler-Free Review of Indiana Jones

Following last week's sour review of Indiana Jones, Seamus123 links us to "A spoiler-free review of the brilliant new Indiana Jones film, The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Much has been made of the revival of the series: is Harrison Ford too old, is Shia LeBeouf any good and can it live up to the three previous movies? All these questions — and some surprising answers — are found in Den of Geek's review." Personally I'll see it no matter what.

Comments

My review:

[morgan_greywolf]

Harrison Ford is too old, Shia LeBeouf is too young to even remember the original Indiana Jones movies, and the Crystal Skull looked fake.

Next.

Re:My review:

[pubjames]

Yes, Harrison Ford is as old as my dad, and I think I would be too old to play Indiana Jones.

Spoiiler Free ...HA!

[Hankapobe]

I don't know about you guys, but when I see the ending of this movie, I guarantee that I won't be surprised. Hollywood has become too predictable. The only time I've ever been surprised by a movie ending was "The Sixth Sense". Even "Crying Game" didn't surprise me because I recognized the actor from "Stargate".

When I do know the ending from hearing it from others, it has no affect on my enjoyment of the movie. Great film making is great film making. Everyone knew the ending of "Titanic" but it is the biggest blockbuster ever.

I want to know everything about the movie before I go a spend $10 on a ticket to see it. Nothing pisses me off more than going out with the wife and spending $20 on shit.

Re:Spoiiler Free ...HA!

[xpuppykickerx]

Everyone also knew the how "the Passion of the Christ" ended, but it still made a ton of money.

Re:Spoiiler Free ...HA!

[houghi]

When I do know the ending from hearing it from others, it has no affect on my enjoyment of the movie. Great film making is great film making. Everyone knew the ending of "Titanic" but it is the biggest blockbuster ever.

I only partly agree. It depends on the movie. A film like the 6th sense rides on the surprise and thus gives you a different experience that you now will never have.
Many other movies do not depend on the twists and turns of the story, like LotR. Many people enjoyed it even though it was clear what would happen.

Many movies are just a trip from A to B, like LotR. You have a ring, you need to get rid of it and that is what happens. Other movies, like the sixt sense, the change of direction in the story is the goal of the storyteller.

Yes, American movies seldom use the twist to suddenly point in a complete different direction. Most of the time they just sidestep a bit, or they go completely overboard and do more turns then a drunken balerina. One thing you often need not to do is think and that is what those plot twists need.

CGI

[qoncept]

"A conscious decision in production was made to steer clear of CGI effects when possible and perform stunts the old-fashioned way"

Thank god. CGI made Star Wars 3 one of the worst movies I've ever seen. "This chair doesn't look quite right, can you paint it orange?" "I'll just make a quick 3d model of it instead. You know -- to ensure the movie doesn't look too real."

Re:CGI

[esocid]

Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth. Well, the Thank god part.
I really think directors need to stick to using "real" effects instead of cgi simulations. We can still tell the difference, so all it does is interrupt the movie and make me aware that I'm really watching a movie. The goal should be to immerse the viewer, no matter how outlandish the plot may be, and not to make him say 'wow, that looked so fake.' And while I'm at it, I'd rather see some sort of puppet/animatron than a cgi character to be completely honest, however, LOTR did a good job with Gollum.

Re:CGI

[getto man d]

Indeed. When seeing the opening of Star Wars III it felt as though I was entering a poorly made space shooter.

The move back to "the old-fashioned way" is a wise choice. I do not want a CGI Ford bouncing around like Yoda. Even Del Toro (for the Hobbit) seems to agree http://www.ifitsmovies.com/2008/04/28/guillermo-del-toro-talks-the-hobbit-plus-its-sequel/.

And why not CGI? Well, look at Blade Runner, Alien, and the original Star Wars movies. They felt so real because the models were real.

Why couldn't they have just left this alone?

[elrous0]

Sometimes I really hate Hollywood. There is absolutely no reason, other than sheer greed and laziness, to go back and exploit a good trilogy with a 20-years-later sequel featuring an embarrassingly aged cast and mediocre storyline. It's essentially a case of Spielberg and Hollywood throwing their hands up and saying "Well, we can't come up with anything ORIGINAL. Let's just make a open money grab by tarnishing one of our quality projects from the past."

If it weren't for the creative young directors coming out of independent cinema and the new paths of distribution now available for the few original films out there, I would have given up on film a long time ago." I haven't seen a quality blockbuster in years, but at least there are still a lot of brilliant smaller films out there (you know, the ones that AREN'T prequels, sequels, and remakes).

honestly now

[X_Bones]

Personally I'll see it no matter what.

Why? Just because of the first two words in the title? That, frankly, is a piss-poor reason to see a movie.

Yours is the exact attitude that causes movie studios to continue producing terrible sequels and re-makes instead of movies that are worth watching. Why innovate when you can imitate for cheaper and people will eat it up anyway, right?

Re:honestly now

[Anonymous Coward]

I am very sorry Mister Rossellini. I solemnly promise that from now on I will carefully choose movies to watch in order to educate my poor soul.

Who cares that Hollywood spits out a ton of shit, there are quality movies in circulation anyway. But if I want to slip back in my 12 years old self I go and see 'crap' movies like this, or even Rocky VI. Why? Because.

Re:honestly now

[Blade]

Actually, I think you'll find that people who go and see summer blockbusters no-matter-what are the ones that fun innovation.

See, innovation isn't cheap, it has a cost and a risk. If a company has plenty of income and revenue and spare cash, when they get asked 'do you want to take a risk with this?' they are more likely to answer yes, than if they're strapped for cash and are struggling to make it through.

There's plenty of quotes around from people in production companies who say 'we mass produce all this stuff to make a profit so that we can afford to make minority stuff that doesn't.'

Re:honestly now

[LordKaT]

I'll see it because I want to see it, not because some reviewer did/didn't like it.

Get over yourself, shithead.

Re:honestly now

[cvas]

That, frankly, is a piss-poor reason to see a movie.

How did you come to that conclusion? It is the fourth film in a franchise that has produced, at the very least, some entertaining movies.

And if there is imitation going on, it is all the people from the first three imitating themselves. This isn't some Flavor of the Month franchise that they handed to a no name director because the guy that handled the first one moved on to bigger and better things. This is the team that brought us one of the most iconic action movies of recent times taking another stab at the character.

In my book, that's a damn good reason to see a movie.

Yes, even if it turns out to be crap. How am I going to know until I see it? Reviewers? (insert sounds of maniacal laughter)

I understand what you are trying to say, and with almost any other sequel (hell, any other movie) released lately I would be agreeing with you, but in this case I think your ire is misdirected.

Re:honestly now

[Bonewalker]

I like you man, but you're crazy.

If someone enjoyed the previous movies, then seeing the sequels just because of the name is a perfect reason to see them. What else should you base your desire to see a movie on? Critic reviews? BS. Friend's word-of-mouth? Even more BS. Budget size? BS. Director, Producer, Studio? Wrong again. They all have their own hits and misses.

There is no better reason to see a movie than if you saw a first version and liked it, then of course you should see the next entries.

That would be like saying I liked this can of Chicken Noodle soup, but I'm going to wait and see what Julia Child thinks of this next can before I warm it up.

I'm not saying you have to automatically like the sequel, but it sure as hell is a good enough reason to see them.

That's not a review...

[ghostdoc]

that's a vomit-inducing puff piece. I only managed to read the first three paragraphs before my gag reflex kicked in and I had to look away for a while.

I can only take so much sugar in my reading material.

Re:Short -term memory syndrome.

[JasterBobaMereel]

Because The original Star wars trilogy were some of the most watchable movies ever (note not the best) and the prequels were constantly compared to them and were not as good.... but compared with the rubbish touted by the studios nowadays they were still very watchable ...

Re:My spoiler-free Review of Indiana Jones

[aLEczapKA]

Dah-nuh-da-da!

*whipcrack*

*wisecrack*

*swiiiiiiing*

*punchpunchpunch*

INDY!!!

Dah-nuh-da-da!

Indy: I'm too old for this shit...

No CGI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could have fooled me. The commercial looked chocked full of it, from the chase scene in the jungle, to Indy swinging around in the warehouse, to the jeep going over the edge of a cliff. Maybe I have a lower tolerance to things looking plastic.

Re:Memento

[zippthorne]

Huh? The movie itself gave away the ending in the first ten minutes.

Oh rally?

[McNihil]

"...Crystal Skull is an absolute triumph, and a picture-perfect tribute to one of cinema's great action franchies..."

OMG by bullshit detector just exploded.

Re:Review seems forced...

[KlaymenDK]

Actually, I don't think so, though I can see why you say that. I'm obviously biased here because I'm a big Ford fan, but I guess a guy like that, especially with a character like that, is exactly what it takes to pull it off.

Like the classic scene where he decides he can't be bothered by the ninja, and instead just shrugs and pulls his gun. There are quite a number of little moments like that, where he reveals that Indy Jones is just a normal human and not a superhero like John McClane.

I guess I'm kinda hoping this will deliver a graceful this will have to be the last in the series and you can see why---I'm too old for this-kind of message.

I can well imagine the new movie would play on that, and being all the better for it (eg. by making him fall clumsily instead of a perfect roll, or letting him be out of breath every once in a while).

I doesn't fit with the franchise style.

[DrYak]

How is a UFO more unbelievable than a vengeful god It just doesn't fit in the mood which was set by the franchise. I'm watching Indiana Jones movies to see exotic and/or ancient civilisation and mythologies ; not a damned E.T. which is missing one last part to be able to finally phone home. (Unless the movie is expressly advertised as a Indiana Jones / E.T. crossover).

An UFO is as much appropriate in a franchise which up to now focused on ancient civilisation and magic, as it would be in, say, a Fantasy movie such as Conan, LOTR, Harry Potter, etc...

What's next ?
A microbiology based explanation in a franchise which was based on mystic / spiritual pow...
no, wait !

Re:Memento

[gmuslera]

You had the ending at the 1st minutes, but the real meaning of it (very different from your 1st idea) in the last ones. So you didnt got "the ending" (all of it, image and meaning) till the film ends, that was one of the things that made that movie great.