I did enjoy this movie quiet a bit. It had good acting, action, music, sound, stunt work and special effects, so is the allien ending the only thing that people have to gripe about. I've heard too many complaints. Also, I don't like the ending with the alliens, but it didn't ruin it for me. For those of you who only gripe on that and give it a terrible review, you guys always look at the glass half empt.
Personally, I'm not sure why people hate it *so* much. One hears a lot of complaints about the alien bit; but judging from the negative reviews, some didn't take to anything... from the lead-lined fridge to Cate Blanchette's (excellent) portrayal of Spalko!
I, too, am pretty sick of the repetitive hateful reviews coming in by the handful. These people have the right to feel however they want about this or any film. However, they should not fool themselves into thinking that their opinion (or anyone's for that matter) is set in stone as fact. Nor do they speak for all Indy fans, as they seem to incinuate at times.
You know there is an irate amount of hate and criticism going on when reviewers are actually telling others out-and-out to not go see the film, rather than being content with expressing their own opinion in an articulate and well-explained manner.
It probly is, I really enjoyed it. People got so critical of this movie and I just ignore it, this country seems to have the opposite taste in movies as I do. I will probly get severley judged for this but I thought the two most over rated movies of the year were the dark knight and iron man.
No. There's nothing wrong with the ending. (And, no, there's nothing wrong with having Russians instead of Nazis.) It isn't correct that I hate the movie, either, because it gets a half-star for entertainment and a half-star for Harrison Ford. It's that there isn't very much to like about it. Instead of expanding the good things about the original trilogy, it exaggerates the minor flaws in the originals, making it a parody. The real reason: The plot jumps around. The script provides no character development. That's why I think INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is not a very good movie!
Aliens, yes that was a big hurt for me because I read somewhere in a forum before the film's release someone incorrectly posted that they decided not to use the Alien plot. I was relieve to hear this and then avoided all spoilers before seeing it in theaters. Then I was slapped in the face with the absolute worst ideas for an Indiana Jones movie.
The icing on the cake was Shia Labouf and the monkeys along with all the terrible CGI. I wish I had never seen it. I also agree that it feels like a parody, from the initial CGI gopher scene at the beginning to the waterfal after waterfal bit [why?!].
The aliens didn't kill it for me. It was watching Shia Labeouf swinging from the trees with monkeys.
Ghosts flying out the Ark of the Covenant and melting Nazi faces = check A shaman reaching in and pulling out a dudes heart and him living = check Drinking water from a cup that cures gunshot wound = check Yep, even Aliens = check Mutt/Tarzan........wow.......
We've put up with some pretty far out stuff for the sake of fun and a good story, but come on.
At least it gave me a whole new appreciation for Temple of Doom. I honestly didn't think another character could possibly be any goofier than the Indian prince.
The thing with Indy and the atom bomb was one stupid thing. The second was the ending where the entire mountain fell and Indy walked out of it and didnt get scratched.
Then add that some of the special effects / stunts were not the quality of the old movies.
The Krystal Skull I remember seeing advertised was a human looking skull. (Right ?)
I mean this movie would have been great if it was about the crystal skull I remember hearing about in the 80s when I was a young kid. But instead it was about an alien Krystal Skull.
Oh and add the fact that ever 5 seconds Indy would make a crack about his age or his past memories. That ruined it more just like the last Rocky movie about fighting on PayperView. some of us dont want to watch an action movie that reminds us that we are getting old as well as the hero in the movie.
I liked it a lot. The movie takes place in the 50s, and what did a lot of movies in the 50s deal with? Alien invasion as a metaphor for Communism. The film took on both those aspects and dealt with the idea of alien artifacts and made the villains Communists. Given the period in which the film takes place, I thought it was logical.
Also, I really liked the action sequences. I go to an Indiana Jones film hoping for good, cliff-hanging action. In that regard, the film did not disappoint.
Short answer: Yes. The whole alien part of the plot was the biggest factor that pretty much ruined the movie for me. That's not to say that I hate or really dislike "Crystal Skull", lets just say that this movie has replaced "Temple of Doom" as my least favorite Indy flick. For me it's a whole gray area just like some other movies, music albums or any other kind of product that you have both positive and negative things to say about. There were a number of things that I liked about "Crystal Skull": Karen Allen's return, some of the same feel and homage to the earlier films, SOME of the action sequences, etc. Russian communists instead of Nazi's? I'm fine with, it took place in the 1950's, so it's to be expected. Shia's character I wasn't thrilled about, but not a big deal. Even the nuke going off and Indy ducking in a frig to survive didn't really bother me. When I went and saw the movie for the first time and the moment they opened up that metal casket and pulled out that alien skull, I thought, "Oh boy, here we go.". Even as the movie progressed I tried to give it a chance, and as I said, there were aspects of the film I liked, but the whole swinging from vines like Tarzan, the ant attack and lastly, A MAGNETIC, TELEPATHIC, ALIEN SKULL?! No, I'm sorry, that's enough. If they had used some of the mythology of the ACTUAL HUMAN crystal skulls that were found in South America and built something more from that, then it would have been much better. It's just that, aliens in a Indy flick? It's like having aliens drop down from the sky in one of the LOTR or Harry Potter flicks or something. It's the last thing that anyone would both expect or want in this type of movie. IMHO.
People should dig up Frank Darabont's "Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods" screenplay. It was a brilliant love letter to the series that featured a lot more Marion, Indy had no irritating son, and there was much more mystery surrounding the crystal skull (it was human-shaped, not obviously alien like in the final film). It was great but Lucas didn't like it because it was too character-driven and didn't have enough action. The guy's a moron.
To sum up some of the points from Mr. Plinkett's review; Mack's constant double, triple and quadruple crossings get really stupid, really fast. Indiana Jones would not put up with that. Way too many cgi scenes that make some scenes look like a cartoon. Many of the supporting characters don't have much to do. Marion Just seemed like she was there for nostalgia sake. Nuking the fridge. The whole pointless red scare plot-line with the FBI and college protests that went nowhere. All the off-screen and bloodless death's that undercut any tension. Also, Harrison Ford is too old to be playing Indiana Jones. The movies are wish fulfillment. People want to be Indy from the first 3 movies. People don't want to be old like he is in the fourth. Also, Indy needs to kill more people. In Crystal Skull, he kills about 1 person, where as the other he kills nearly a dozen. What kinda action movie is that?
It would possibly have been more enjoyable to me if it was not passed off as an Indiana Jones movie. Regrettably, it was and the awful plot and Shia Lebouf ruined it for me. Aliens were only one part of the problem, but the aliens factor shares a common element with everything I hated-suspension of disbelief. Yes, I know all of the movies have crazy action sequences that are over the top and unrealistic, but this movie took it into cartoon territory. The hiding in a refridgerator to ward off a nuclear blast, swinging from vines like monkeys, etc. made it impossible to ever take this movie even remotely seriously. If you look at things in a vaccum and summarize the plots extremely generally, then aliens may not seem like too outlandish when compared to the holy grail, the ark of the covenant, and whatever those glowing stones were. However, the previous MacGuffins had a sort of magic to them (I mean to the audience and not in the sense that they have magic powers), and the aliens seems very bland and generic. It almost seemed like were sitting around and asking themselves how ridiculous they could make this movie, and they forgot everything that made the first three classics (ToD to a much lesser extent though).
The only reason people hate the last movie is because they don't have the nostalgia for it like the other three. All the things people complain about are the same kind of silly unbelievable stuff that's in the other movies.
No, plenty of people hate this movie for the same reason some of us don't own the Temple of Doom. Suspension of disbelief can only be pushed so far. Also they need to lay off the CGI. The ants and monkies were terrible. I think the Russians as villians were a great idea, but that whole opening with the McCarthyism angle went no where. It's not that the audience outgrew Indy as some posters have claimed, it's that Spielberg seems to have outgrown him. I think the Spielberg from 30 years ago would have made this picture rock!