The International House of Mojo

I've seen it a second time and I enjoyed the many good things about it even more, but the bad bits more painful.

To my mind ,the first hour or so is great and it felt like it was adding worthwhile things to the Indy series. From the diner and motorcycle chase all the way through to the Nazca grave-robbing section in particular was an excellent stretch of stuff. Ford was still perfect as Indy and the chemistry with Mutt worked. Immediately after the grave-robbing, at the jungle camp, with the appearance of Marion (a great idea wasted!) and Oxley, the film begins a nosedive for me and things often feel either awkward or vacuous.

Incidentally, the motorcycle chase was the action scene that felt the most classically Indy to me, and I just read that it was the only action scene that was traditionally storyboarded (rather than digitally 'pre-visualised') like the Raiders Truck chase. A lot of the other chases and whatnot didn't have that energy and humour of the campus mayhem.

On a related note, Speilberg has mentioned minimal CGI and a reliance on traditional stunt work, but that disappointingly didn't tally with all the unnecessary desert critters, helpful monkeys, the general look, and of course the UFO finale. The ants, fair enough.

It's a good film but it does irk me that Crusade's heroic ending is no longer Indy's filmic goodbye, but instead the awkward aliens, portals, saucers, and a wedding. It still feels like the trilogy I grew up with to me, with Kingdom an enjoyable catch-up. 'Grew up with' being important - I'm fully aware that I possibly can't see the wood for the trees with that burden of nostalgia and expectation.

I finally saw it last night. I had a wonderful time, really enjoyed it, and it absolutely met my expectations. In fact Mutt was a lot better than I had expected. Sure there were some ridiculous scenes (monkey-boy and the waterfall drops in particular), but all the previous 3 movies had cheesy / ridiculous scenes too, so I just sat back and enjoyed the ride.

Didn't care for Flip-Flop-Flip-Flop Mac, really. I still really don't understand why he led Spalko to the temple - he didn't need her for anything, he was just there to raid the loot from what I could tell.

I was surprised they killed off the character. I don't think that was necessary or added to the story in any way, and perhaps even diminished the tribute to Denholm Elliot (though he was all OVER the college). It's been pointed out to me that Connery was likely killed off as he would have had to be at the wedding otherwise. This is a very good point. Though they could've CGI'd him in there using old footage. ;)

Or better yet, lost the wedding scene entirely, and have the wind blow Mutt the hat on the clifftop and have Indy snatch it back as he begins the descent. FIN.

But as I said, I loved it, those minor quibbles above are just talking points, not anything that really bothered me. And the scene where Indy is berating Marion for letting Mutt drop out of school is one of my favourite Indy moments, ever.

Mac...what an embarrassing waste of Ray Winstone. "What if we combined Belloq, Elsa, and Donovan into one ridiculous and confusing character whose motivations aren't even clear to himself?" Spalko should have killed Mac in the opening scene to: a) Save the movie from an utterly useless and irritating character (Mac could have been this movie's Wu Han, that would have been infinitely more effective than what his actual role was), b) Make the Russians more villainous (they never seem dangerous or threatening ever), c) Make the fact that Indy immediately helps the Russians find what they want more believable (Indy and the Soviets are practically allies most of the movie...Indy sure got over that "Drop dead, comrade!" attitude fast!)

I do agree with you though that the KOCSuckers who say this film is too goofy or implausible need to give the first three films another look, because they've obviously forgotten them. That said, the movie has serious problems, most to do with the writing (not the story...and yes, aliens and nukes are great) that makes it merely "okay" in my book. It's still mostly good Indy fun though.

It does seem odd to me how unconcerned the script seems to be with generating emotional response, even when that emotion is something like fear or even just a rush of excitement. The relationship between Indy and the Reds was particularly lacking, yeah.

I, for one, would've been happy if Mac had been a traitor as he was, but had died in the truck crash during the opening sequence. The "you don't know him... YOU DON'T KNOW HIM!" was one of my favorite bits, and would've been a really appropriate way for a guy who backstabbed Indiana Jones to go.

In my opinion it was the writing that was good (maybe not great), but the story and directing were rather dull, lacking pizzaz, and merely "okay".

I saw Crystal Skull last night, I thought it was great. My only cons are A) Mutt's Tarzan routine, waaaay too over the top and B) It seemed like they used CGI sometimes when they didn't even need it! It was less CGI than I thought there'd be though.

Yeah, I agree. The ants in particular just didn't have the gross-out value that real snakes, rats, spiders, or bugs have. I thought Spielberg would've realised this.

The ants scene was great, and the most "Indy" part of the movie if you ask me.

Yeah, I loved the ants, too, and I can't think of any way they could've been realized without CGI. Apparently (according to Wikipedia) they are from a draft for Indy IV that dates back to 1995. A classic idea that apparently just lodged itself in sirs Lucas and Spielberg's minds.

And they almost got Indy's hat! Classic!

Yeah I loved the ant scene as well, that was appropriate use of CGI to me and classic Indy.

I thought Skull was a decent romp, but I had a few serious issues with it. 1) The climax must have been really watered down from the initial Lucas idea - it was bland as hell compared to the other Jones movies. 2) The new music was incredibly unmemorable. 3) Spalko wasn't manacing at all 4) Somehow the stakes didn't seem to be particularly high (I guess Spalko didn't convince me she'll be albe to pull out what she was talking about) 5) There wasn't really a separate adventure with a different artifact for the beginning scenes 6) A lot of things looked rather cheaply made (amongst other things: Indy's pants, the crystal skull prop, the CGI alien being)

1) Lucas' original idea was apparently even more science-fictiony than what we got - if they got taken to the Aetherium I wouldn't have been surprised. I agree though that it was a bit... quick.
2) I thought the same about the Raiders soundtrack! Everyone remembers the Holy Grail theme, who remembers the Raiders Nazi theme? I like the simple Crystal Skull theme, but I think the Russian theme could've been better. I miss Clint Bajakian's!
3) Yeah, she wasn't really - neither was Belloq or Donovan, the film needed another ruthless Commie in there.
4) Yep, agree, they didn't really make it clear. Although the Sankara Stones were much the same. Hell, I don't think even the Holy Grail was particularly useful to the Nazis!
5) There was, but they tie it in to the story. All the games do the same, so it doesn't bother me much.
6) I don't quite understand what you mean about Indy's pants as an example - he's not exactly a rich man! I thought the Crystal Skull was fine, I'm not sure how they could've improved it.
Got as many Cons as the rest of the Indy films I think. It's up to you if you consider the Pros to be worth it!

Ad.2) Well, the Ark of the Covenant and Marion's theme are definetly in the same league as the Grail theme (which is amazing, I agree). Besides the specific themes I also love and know by heart such music pieces as the one for the truck chase.

Ad.3) I agree about Belloq and Donovan, but Toht, Lao Che, Mola Ram, Kurz, even Elsa and some of the nameless tough Nazis always made up for the weaker, overly cultured villians

Ad.4) Hmm, I guess you're right. Maybe the problem was the Russians seemed always to be one step behind Indy and, in consequence, having small chances of getting what they want.

Ad.6) Indy's pants were a few sizes too big. It looked ridiculous sometimes. And the skull looked like they've put aluminium foil inside a plastic form. I just felt I was watching a low budget movie at times.

Kingdom certainly had Pros or qualities that make this installment interesting. What is most important for me: Indiana's character has clearly matured, the story is set in a different era in a successful way, it tries a slightly different mix of genres. I'll have to rewatch the film to build my ultimate opinion though. For now I'd rate it 7/10 - far behind the previous Indianas.

I thought the Skull prop was awesome! The texture on the inside looked like real quartz, and its surface was, as Indy said, perfect.

And I agree that Spalko wasn't particularly menacing. As Tingler says, she's this movie's Belloq or Donovan with a few chop-socky skills thrown in. A more bloodthirsty villain at her side would've been nice (as much as I liked the burly commie Indy was at odds with throughout.)

I agree wholeheartedly with Tingler on this one. Great cast, great action scenes, exciting (though CGI-laden) special effects, and a fairly effective MacGuffin. The script was certainly lacking at parts, particularly during the film's climax, but I loved the sci-fi twist. Parts of it reminded me of the Mummy, too, which sure is a problem, and Mutt's little Tarzan scene stretched plausibility to its absolute breaking point. What the hell, though, it was exciting to see Indy up there again on the big screen.

I would also like to say that I thought the movie was merely above average the first time I saw it (at midnight), and when I saw it for the second time that very same day, it was like a whole new movie...it was amazing! Definitely check it out a second time if you weren't a huge fan the first. While the story may be a bit more outside the box, if you think about it, the others are no different. Also, I think the action sequences throughout rival that of Raiders...I am in love w/ this new movie...
Go see it another time if you didn't really like it the first time...
4.5 out of 5 for me!

I think the drab and subdued look was, like the sci-fi elements, intended as carrying on the '50s B-movie theme.

I'd like to underline two things in my review:
1. Seeing it the 2nd time was way, way better. Unless you absolutely hate this film and never want to see it again, I hope you'll see it again and like it more.
2. That f***ing Lego trailer must be avoided at all costs! And I don't mean spoils the end by showing the Temple of Akator playset, I mean entirely recreating that final use of the Crystal Skull in animated Lego form! It was incredibly annoying!

No Lego trailer in my theatre man.

You lucky, lucky man. The first time I was lucky - I only saw it on the second trip.

Just got home from the new Jones movie. I loved it!

Loved that Last Crusade review! Isn't it interesting how the things we experience first as children seem somehow immortal and impervious to criticism?

I actually met someone the other day who thought The Phantom Menace was the best Star Wars film. After directing him to a YouTube video of that scene in Spaced, I respectfully disagreed ("But it's s**t!!"). He couldn't be dissuaded. He saw that one first, you see!

Luckily for Gabez (and me I think) Last Crusade IS deserving of its undying praise!

I honestly can't see why people think of Temple of Doom as the worst one. It was dark, scary, but those are all plus points for me. As for Short Round, I really love the little fella. A lot of people think he's annoying, but I can't help but feel for him. Willie can be annoying at times, but she learns in her journey, and actually gets likable near the end.
Plus the fact ToD has locations and bad guys so different to the other films really makes it unike to me. Raiders and Crusade both share the same kind of locations and vehicles, while Temple is in every way unique in these category's. Don't get me wrong, I love Raiders and Crusade too, but I wouldn't love them as much as I do if it wasn't for Temple, which was different enough to make the other two be as great as they are.

I agree with all of this pretty well. I actually wasn't aware until I read the review that people found Shorty annoying.

I do agree that Temple is the weakest of the lot, but being worst of a trilogy of incredible films certainly doesn't make it bad. It's a great movie.

Well said!

A crucial point there about reviews being just opinions. Sounds obvious to most people, but it's good to restate from time to time - particularly in the case of such well-watched films as the Indy series.

The problem with Temple of Doom had always been those children for me. It just felt lame, like I was watching Chitty Chitty Bang Bang or something.

Anyway I tried to watch it again recently, and got to exactly 8 minutes into the film before I turned it off and watched something else instead. The opening, quite frankly, sucks. Then yesterday I skipped past all the crap and watched the mine cart chase, and shortly after that discovered that I didn't hate Willie Scott after all. I mean damn, she's braless for the whole second half of the film pretty much, and they are fine-looking baps. So in the end, I enjoyed myself.

That infamous version of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang where the kids are enslaved, whipped and burned! :P

Ahahahaha! That's the hardest I've laughed at any online comment in a long time, I've gotta save that somewhere.

Man huge knock on the Last Crusade tank chase out of nowhere. That's my least favorite of the first three Indy films, but cripes, I'll be damned if the tank chase isn't great.

It is, but it's the same with the quotes thing. It's a great action scene, but not one that can ONLY be identified with Doctor Jones! At least not as much as pretty much any of the scenes in Raiders!

I'd agree that Last Crusade is more quotable, but there's plenty in Raiders. I particularly like Belloq's 'Once again doctor Jones, we see that there's nothing that you can posess which I cannot take away!' and to a lesser extent the slightly odd 'Next time, Indiana Jones, it'll take more than children to save you!'

I think they're GOOD lines, but nothing particularly quotable. It's a weird distinction I know, and quite hard to explain! I think the best definition is a line that instantly makes you think of that film. "I find your lack of faith disturbing" instantly summons up Darth Vader. "Fools, bureaucratic fools!" does not make Indy, at least not as much as "It belongs in a museum!". I think, anyway!

I dunno, nothing to me says Indy more than "Snakes... why'd it have to be snakes..."

I meant, right there, in that one line, the hero mentions his fears in a tone that tells us he will still confront them, as reluctant as he may be to do so. How many heros say things (or have fears) like that?

I think I mention that as the one exception. It's not like Star Wars though, when you can comfortably quote almost every line and people will immediately know what it's from!

Y'know, I never really thought about it that way. Last Crusade is really the quotable one... Raiders is much more visual, and has kind of a paucity of dialog at times as a result. But that truck chase! Still likely my favorite action scene, ever.