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

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!

[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.

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

[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: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.