Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[Richard Kaufman]

Just played hookey and watched this today with the Missus.
Great film. Go see it and have a good time.

[RogueMD]

Good to hear, Richard.

With it being the 4th film... I was a bit apprehensive.

RogueMD

[Richard Kaufman]

I've read lots of comments by film critics in the past few days and, after having seen the film, I can say that many of the criticisms are way off base.

Really idiotic stuff like, "Yes, Karen Allen is in the film, but she's not playing Marion Ravenwood." To which I can only thing that a lot changes in a person's life between the ages of 30 and 56, and she seemed like Marion Ravenwood to me. And the criticisms that she's not in enough of the film, or is underused. Those numb nuts must've seen a different film than I did.

[Hugh Castell]

All the reviews I have read have been positive, but thanks for the confirmation this is a great movie,Richard. I'm a big fan of Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones,but I can't hold a candle to Michael Ryan of Kirkland, Washington. Look here http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/36 ... fan22.html for a fun article about a real fan.

Enjoy,
Hugh

[Robert Sixx]

I'm looking forward to seeing it, but have to wait until the weekend!

Robert Sixx

[Richard Kaufman]

One of the things that struck me is that it has to be the first summer blockbuster with a heroine that's a realistic age for the male lead. He's 65, she's 56.

[Magic Newswire]

Already on my "To Do" list.. Thanks for confirming!

[mai-ling]

i haven't been following the reviews nor what the
actual story line has been as of late...

anyway...i wanna see.

[Jonathan Townsend]

One of the things that struck me is that it has to be the first summer blockbuster with a heroine that's a realistic age for the male lead. He's 65, she's 56.

realistic? My father just remarried and ... well....

and what about the entire cougar scene?

Okay we're OLD - who'd a thunk?

[MaxNY]

Wasn't his son into magic, like 15 years ago? I remember Harrison rumored to have shown up at some Al Faria one day convention in NYC, back when Pluto was still a planet...

[thecardman]

I'm with Richard on this one. I went to see it last night and it is a great movie - lots of fun.

Only problem with it is that I've now got the Indiana Jones theme going round and round in my head and I can't get rid of it! :crazy: All together - da da daa daaaaaa, da da daaaaaa; da da daa daaaaaa, da da daaa daaa daaaaa...

Best wishes

Peter
:)

[Dale Shrimpton]

I used to kid people that i would dress up as Indi whenever the movies were on television, and the really believed me.




(The sad part is... I do own a hat that wear when i watch) :whistle:

[Carlo Morpurgo]

I've read lots of comments by film critics in the past few days and, after having seen the film, I can say that many of the criticisms are way off base.

How about this review:

http://www.reelviews.net/movies/i/indiana_jones4.html

Anything off base there?
I have not watched the movie yet, and I will,
but I am a big fan of Berardinelli, one of the best movie
critics, in my opinion.

Carlo

[Jonathan Townsend]

Reminds me of an episode of the Jules Verne TV show a few years back - would have been nice to see how Short-Round and Sallah were doing in those turbulent times in their parts of the world - where oil was getting to be big in business and politics.

Ah well - it's a roller coaster ride at the theme park - may as well see it on the big screen and hope the audience does not do that sound pattern from close encounters at the end.

[Richard Kaufman]

Nothing Asian about this film: no place for Short Round.
As far as Sallah, I'm damn annoyed he wasn't in this movie, however the way the script is written, there really was no place to put him. Those who've seen it will know what I mean.

[Richard Kaufman]

Carlo, everything's off base in his review. He's fallen into the same trap as the other reviewers, and how anyone in his right mind could think that Temple of Doom is better than this new movie is beyond me. I think Temple of Doom is one of the worst movies Spielberg has ever made (and that takes some doing). Your reviewer also thinks that all the crap Star Wars sequels are better than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which shows how warped his reviewing abilities are.

[Carlo Morpurgo]

Carlo, everything's off base in his review. He's fallen into the same trap as the other reviewers, and how anyone in his right mind could think that Temple of Doom is better than this new movie is beyond me. I think Temple of Doom is one of the worst movies Spielberg has ever made (and that takes some doing). Your reviewer also thinks that all the crap Star Wars sequels are better than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which shows how warped his reviewing abilities are.

Certainly you are not striking me as a better reviewer than Berardinelli, who at least addresses specific points he liked and did not like, and why. For example, you talk about trap, what trap are you referring to?

He is not saying that Temple is better, he said "But the film doesn't work on the most basic level where *even* The Temple of Doom succeeded: getting viewers on the edges of their seats." In fact he gave 2.5 stars to Temple, not a good review either.

It's impossible to give a perfectly objective review, but Berardinelli is usually on track, often dead on, and makes really good points (a far cry from "that movie is better than this movie."). Sometimes he does take controversial positions, I admit, and usually this happens precisely with the big blockbuster movies. So this could be one....
That said, I will get back to this after I see it....

Carlo

[Richard Kaufman]

I'm not interested in getting into a debate, Carlo, since I am not a film critique. But after reading his review I think I'll stick with Roger Ebert.

[Carlo Morpurgo]

I'm not interested in getting into a debate, Carlo, since I am not a film critique. But after reading his review I think I'll stick with Roger Ebert.

I like Ebert as well...in fact those two guys are the only movie critics I look.... In this case they seem to disagree, and it's not the only time. When they disagree usually the movie is well worth seeing anyway!

Carlo

[Richard Kaufman]

I like Ebert because he's not a snob, and doesn't get into that "woulda', shoulda' coulda'" business. He enjoys, or dislikes, movies for what they are--not what they could be, or what he thinks they should be.

[Ryan Matney]

I think, taking into consideration that the movie is about 15-16 years too late, it's as good as it could possibly be and better than I expected. I liked it a lot.

There were a few things that bothered me in the action, the ants and the swinging monkey scene. But that's because it's far more unbelieveable than the action in previous films. But I can go along with it.

The main 'thing' Indy is searching for, and what it is, doesn't bother me at all. Seems to annoy some people but I think it keeps it the spirit of the previous movies..

Richard,

I'm with you on the Star Wars prequels, awful. But, you don't like Temple of Doom? Even a little? I saw it for the first time when I was about 7-8 so...I liked Short Round and the funny/gross stuff.

[AJM]

It's a pity big Pat Roach (ex-wrestler and 'Bomber' from British TV's 'Auf Wiedersehen, Pet') is no longer around as I'm sure he would have been given a part in his 4th Indiana Jones movie.

For those who might not remember him by name, he was routinely beaten up by Indy in each of the previous movies - in 'Raiders' he had an unfortunate interface with an aircraft propellor as I recall.

Cheers

Andrew

[Steve Bryant]

Saw it opening day and thought it was great fun. Even the impossible to impress Mrs. enjoyed it. I loved how they worked in 50s stuff, such as the atomic bomb, army ants (from 50s movies), and LeBeouf combing his D.A. Three point five stars today from Roger Ebert, excellent.

Best line from last night's Letterman top ten things overheard in line at the new Indiana Jones movie:

"Dude, why the hell are you dressed as Spock?"

[Nicholas Carifo]

SPOILER ALERT! DO NOT READ THIS REVIEW MENTIONED ABOVE.

http://www.reelviews.net/movies/i/indiana...

I am a big fan of Berardinelli, one of the best movie
critics, in my opinion.

I've never heard of Berardinelli, but whether he liked the film or not, I will never read a review by him again -- seeing that he practically reveals half of the surprises and sequences writing step by step through the plot of the film, revealing character appearances, surprises, specific action sequence descriptions and more while leaving out only a very few important plot points trying to review it.

What kind of reviewer does that?

I am just happy I have already seen the film twice, before it would have been ruined -- for me -- by reading this review.

[Doug Thornton]

Many reviewers have revealed too many plot points to spoil the movies. It's like a six year-old saying, "Guess what?" and then telling something that they know. That's fine for six year-olds, but professionals, nah. The worst is when someone writes, "The surprise ending will shock you!" Suddenly it's not really a surprise.
I rarely read reviews before seeing a film; sometimes I'll look at rottentomatoes.com to see the percentage rating of all reviewers.
I enjoyed the new Indy - I might like the third one best...
And yes, the prequel Star Wars flicks were a chore to get through.

[Richard Kaufman]

You can always tell a poor critic: they're the ones who write a summary of the plot of the film that fills half (or more) of their so-called review. Giving a large plot summary is a crutch when you have nothing to actually say.

[Carlo Morpurgo]

SPOILER ALERT! DO NOT READ THIS REVIEW MENTIONED ABOVE.

http://www.reelviews.net/movies/i/indiana...

I am a big fan of Berardinelli, one of the best movie
critics, in my opinion.

I've never heard of Berardinelli, but whether he liked the film or not, I will never read a review by him again -- seeing that he practically reveals half of the surprises and sequences writing step by step through the plot of the film, revealing character appearances, surprises, specific action sequence descriptions and more while leaving out only a very few important plot points trying to review it.

What kind of reviewer does that?

I am just happy I have already seen the film twice, before it would have been ruined -- for me -- by reading this review.

Here's a quick suggestion for you: do not read ANY reviews before going to the thater, *if* it's a movie you really care about. I do that regularly; after the fact, I read the reviews to compare notes.

Movie critics have been around for ages, and they are as necessary as any other reviewers in any other field. You as an average Joe viewer can care less about the resources, the money, the thinking, etc, that goes into a production, and perhaps you just think about the popcorn aspect of it, but other people do care about it, and really would like to have good reviews attached to their work. Now how in the hell are you going to write a good or bad review without going in to some specific aspects?

Just look at the stars first, and then read the whole thing. You may learn new things about what makes a movie a good movie.
Sometimes it's just a matter of taste, but most of the times the good movie critic has it right, without being snobbish.


Carlo

[Carlo Morpurgo]

You can always tell a poor critic: they're the ones who write a summary of the plot of the film that fills half (or more) of their so-called review. Giving a large plot summary is a crutch when you have nothing to actually say.

I agree, and this is not the case for the reviewer in question.

carlo

[Nicholas Carifo]

I stand by my post.

I agree not to read ANY reviews before seeing a film, as they all contain some spoilers.

But, in my opinion, the review posted above gives away a lot more than it should. It will spoil the surprises for any fan of the films if read in advance.

Those who do not want to read the SPOILERS, a multitude of specific details on the film scenes and surprises, stay away from the above review link, and probably most reviews.

[Roger M.]

Regardless of genre, I find only about 5% of arts critics have a clue about that which they speak.

Upon examination of their history, more often than not they have no educational background which would make their opinions hold any more value than my own.

They are frequently the former food or travel critic for whatever paper they happen to write for.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Sturgeon's law aside, there are other issues more germain to offering criticism published back when folks took the trouble to read.

What, specifically, is gained in removing the surprises awaiting the reader/viewer of a novel work?

Can one not simply state that one was not moved or felt shorted by a work without getting into specifics rather than offering parallels which would serve to guide the curious to those specifics?

For example in that review it might have done as well to say that "several 1950s movie cliches have been incorporated in ways that while consistent with the formula for an Indiana Jones movie also lacked the freshness and vitality of the inspiring sources"? :)

[Carlo Morpurgo]

Sturgeon's law aside, there are other issues more germain to offering criticism published back when folks took the trouble to read.

What, specifically, is gained in removing the surprises awaiting the reader/viewer of a novel work?

Can one not simply state that one was not moved or felt shorted by a work without getting into specifics rather than offering parallels which would serve to guide the curious to those specifics?

A reviewer that in a way or another simply conveys that he disliked the movie is not really saying anything interesting, just as a food critic simply saying that he does not like that dish because taste is taste. There has to be more meat to it.

A serious review cannot sound like "I liked it, now just go see it yourself, taste is taste." How unfair to people who put a lot of work into it, and how uninteresting.

I would say that most of the times I look at the first paragraph and the number of stars and then I stop, only to continue with the full review after I watch it. But I do like to read a review that takes the movie apart with discussion of characters, performances, cinematography etc.

Carlo

[ScottPeterson]

My wife and I are huge movie fans, we don't see them all, and pick and choose like most people for our entertainment desires. This newest Indiana Jones movie was a big hit with both of us, on many levels, it is just fun fun and more fun, great way to spend time together outside of home and walk away talking about the movie, holding hands, smiles all the way home even after 35 years being together lovingly. I often say when some movie critic pans a film for what ever reason, it might be that this person just did not get their free popcorn and poster...hehehehe
and get the you know what kissed.

It certainly does not matter to me or my wife what any reviewer has to say, good, bad or indifferent, we go on our own merit and get what we get, and 90% of the time we succeed...and life goes on.

Go see the film and have a ball doing so...!

Scott Peterson

[Mats Kjellstrom]

Great movie, sure. I will sooner o r later buy it on Blu Ray disc. Great entertainment.

[Richard Kaufman]

I believe it will be coming out on DVD in November.

[Richard Kaufman]

We should remember, while talking about the new Indiana Jones movie, that a famous name in magic is responsible for the visual conception of the character--creating the image of a man with a fedora, leather jacket, bullwhip, and so on ... Jim Steranko.

[Glenn Bishop]

I like Ebert because he's not a snob, and doesn't get into that "woulda', shoulda' coulda'" business. He enjoys, or dislikes, movies for what they are--not what they could be, or what he thinks they should be.

I just wanted to jump in here and say that I "loved" this post and in my opinion this is the way magic should be reviewed in both shows - and in products.

However I would like to add that I think that it is important to know or not "if the audience liked what they saw." And if the audience "enjoyed" the entertainment - Not what a magicians thinks about the act in a "woulda', shoulda' coulda'" way that we seem to have way to often when we talk about magic.

Just my opinion.

[Areeb Malik]

Hey, that looks like me! (Albeit 50 pounds lighter, 5 inches taller, and a lot tougher looking. Of course, if I looked like that, I'd be in the movies too!)

I just saw the movie today and enjoyed it. Even my son liked it. He said, "That was a great movie!" after it was over. Of course, he also wanted to go see Batman next because he saw the trailer.

Don't go expecting "Raiders of the Lost Ark", but a decent summer action flick. Ahhh Raiders, few movies are of THAT calibre (perfect mixture of action, campy, suspense, and gross-out factor) Nevertheless, I had a fun time watching it.

Besides, Cate Blachette looks hot as a Russian. ;o)

[Nicholas Carifo]

We should remember, while talking about the new Indiana Jones movie, that a famous name in magic is responsible for the visual conception of the character--creating the image of a man with a fedora, leather jacket, bullwhip, and so on ... Jim Steranko.

Richard,
Can you talk about this further? Who is Jim Steranko? Is the the character you pictured, or the author or artist who created the character pictured.

Up until now, I was under the impression that the Indiana Jones character was loosely inspired by the Alan Quartermain stories. Or did Jim write those stories?

Nick Carifo

PS.. Incidently, It's Sunday of opening weekend, and I've managed to squeeze in seeing Indiana Jones three times already:) lol. What can I say, I enjoyed it.

[Pepka]

I'm glad you scanned that pic in Richard. I have a few of the cards from that set and was going to dig them out.

Nick, The Jim Steranko Richard speaks of is the legendary Steranko of Steranko on Cards. Former close-up magician and escape artist. He is also the inspiration for the novel Kavalier and Clay. He doesn't much care for magicians anymore as he told me when I met him. He was kind enough to autograph my Nick Fury #1 and even his card book, but he feels that he's been ripped off by some big names in our field. I won't go into the ugly details here. He is now a publisher and illustrator. He's done quite a bit of work for Marvel in years past. (He says he was ripped off by them too.) He was hired to do the conceptual drawings for Indiana Jones and Coppolla's Dracula movie.

As for this movie, I have to disagree with most of you and say it was one of he worst films I've ever seen. All the "surprises" were blatantly obvious and I thought the story was very weak. I did not care for the "triple" agent bit, and I thought the kid was annoying. My opinion, the worst of the 4.

Let the egging begin.