O
Orpheus2112
Guest
No, you’re going to hell for this one. I’m pretty sure that it’s in the Cathechism.
- Status
M
maendem
Guest
SPOILER…
Ditto! And more than a little insulting to the Mayans/Incas/conglomerate indigenous groups referenced (not sure the director was sure which “Indians” he wanted these to be …) God forbid people actually thought up all this technology without E.T. help!
And a little insulting to the audience, since all the Mayan and Aztec architecture and symbology used throughout the film comes from Mexico, nowhere near Peru, where the film takes place. But I guess it’s an Indy film…not a geography/history lesson.
And it’s marketed in the US, so no one will notice
T
Tonks40
Guest
I want to laugh
And a little insulting to the audience, since all the Mayan and Aztec architecture and symbology used throughout the film comes from Mexico, nowhere near Peru, where the film takes place. But I guess it’s an Indy film…not a geography/history lesson.
And it’s marketed in the US, so no one will notice
and cry :crying: at the same time, knowing the sad state of affairs of our educational system…Don’t ever watch Stargate
SPOILER…
Ditto! And more than a little insulting to the Mayans/Incas/conglomerate indigenous groups referenced (not sure the director was sure which “Indians” he wanted these to be …) God forbid people actually thought up all this technology without E.T. help!
And a little insulting to the audience, since all the Mayan and Aztec architecture and symbology used throughout the film comes from Mexico, nowhere near Peru, where the film takes place. But I guess it’s an Indy film…not a geography/history lesson.
And it’s marketed in the US, so no one will notice
P
PhilVaz
Guest
jm << For example, we have no idea where this woman came from - she wasn’t in any of the previous movies; not even a mention of her - yet, she is the love of Jones’ life? The woman with whom no other woman can compete, try though they might? >>
You gotta be kidding me. :doh2: That’s the only thing in the new Indy movie that I understood immediately. It’s the same lady and actress (Karen Allen) from the first movie. Watch Raiders again. They had a “history” (not totally explained) even in the first movie.
The acting, action, and sfx were all great. The plot seemed similar to the first one: the Nazis become the Russians, the Ark becomes the Crystal “Inter-Dimensional Alien” Skull. I haven’t watched the sequels in a while, but very familiar with the first one (Raiders).
I thought it was great overall. Thumbs up.
It compares very much with Raiders. You can’t expect too much from these kinds of movies. I don’t see how they could have improved it unless they give it an explicit biblical theme again. Boring? How much less boring could it have been. 
There was constant action throughout! Ebert gave it an A- (3.5 out of 4) and I agree.
jm << I also thought that the character of the alien could have been better explored. Instead, he just shows up, eats the Russians for breakfast, and then leaves. This, after giving messages to the other professor that looked like they might be going somewhere interesting. >>
The movie was pushing 2 hours at that point. What did you want, a 4 hour movie that then took all the characters into the “inter-dimensional” universe?
The alien inter-dimensional thing was a surprise to me, they didn’t have enough time to develop that. Maybe save that for the sequels. I dunno about Indy at 70 and 80 years old however.
Phil P
You gotta be kidding me. :doh2: That’s the only thing in the new Indy movie that I understood immediately. It’s the same lady and actress (Karen Allen) from the first movie. Watch Raiders again. They had a “history” (not totally explained) even in the first movie.
The acting, action, and sfx were all great. The plot seemed similar to the first one: the Nazis become the Russians, the Ark becomes the Crystal “Inter-Dimensional Alien” Skull. I haven’t watched the sequels in a while, but very familiar with the first one (Raiders).
I thought it was great overall. Thumbs up.
It compares very much with Raiders. You can’t expect too much from these kinds of movies. I don’t see how they could have improved it unless they give it an explicit biblical theme again. Boring? How much less boring could it have been. There was constant action throughout! Ebert gave it an A- (3.5 out of 4) and I agree.jm << I also thought that the character of the alien could have been better explored. Instead, he just shows up, eats the Russians for breakfast, and then leaves. This, after giving messages to the other professor that looked like they might be going somewhere interesting. >>
The movie was pushing 2 hours at that point. What did you want, a 4 hour movie that then took all the characters into the “inter-dimensional” universe?
The alien inter-dimensional thing was a surprise to me, they didn’t have enough time to develop that. Maybe save that for the sequels. I dunno about Indy at 70 and 80 years old however.Phil P
M
maize
Guest
i think if they do another one they should show how he loses his eye.
S
StratusRose
Guest
It was boring because the action sequences were about 90% CGI and so completely absurd that it was hard to get into it.Boring? How much less boring could it have been.
Wasn’t it odd that in the beginning of the jungle sequence the jungle chopper thingy that was making way for the duck vehicles was the first thing to crash, but magically there was road and sometimes TWO roads for the rest of the action to take place?
M
maize
Guest
SPOILER
i want to know why there were dead conquistadors impaled on spikes in the temple when it hadnt been opened yet.
i want to know why there were dead conquistadors impaled on spikes in the temple when it hadnt been opened yet.
S
StratusRose
Guest
Ha, true!
I want to know what was up with the first temple Mutt and Indy went into with the scary guys with the skull faces. Apparently if you hit them in the face, the skulls break. WHAT DID THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING!? Just another unexplained tangent in the plot.
B
beckers
Guest
i know especial since there were already the 7 bodies of the conquistador and his friends that they found earlier.
A
AnthonyM2
Guest
As one who enjoyed the movie, I would be interested in reading the novelization by James Rollins (a best selling author in his own right, I understand), to see if it explains things in more depth.
L
LRThunder
Guest
Novels do tend to go into more details than the movies. I think they are usually based on the original script/screenplay and that would explain why novelizations have some scenes that the actual movie doesn’t…scenes that were cut or edited for some reason.
W
wjp984
Guest
What I wonder is how much power these satanic rituals have. I call them satanic since I assume that these voodoo religion type things in Temple of Doom and whatever religion this was in this crystal skull movie is practiced by people and they believe it is power, which would only come from Satan. Like, I wonder if God would really allow something like Indy being taken over by that voodoo stuff or being harmed by it. I assume our Catholic faith protects people against it though.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Stratus << It was boring because the action sequences were about 90% CGI and so completely absurd that it was hard to get into it. >>
I can’t tell these days. I don’t think they were as “absurd” as “Speed Racer.” Now those car effects and “races” WERE absurd.
I can think of other movies too.
The “effects” in the original Raiders (in 1981 they didn’t have this kind of technology) were cheesy compared with modern techniques (the melting of the Nazi people), although they did the best they could at the time. I really don’t see much difference between the “action” in the first Raiders and the “action” in the new one. Same kind of action, car/truck chases, jumping from car to car, jungle/desert chases, running around fighting, guns, swords, animals (monkeys in both), many snakes in the original (although those were real snakes I think), CGI ants and scorps in the new one, waterfalls in the new one, etc. Great action which is what we expect since the same people were involved. You think Spielberg and Lucas don’t have it anymore? That they’ve lost their touch? They’ve become senile, old men?
Anyone who says the new one was boring must naturally say the first one was boring. Wasn’t Raiders boring then? As for “plot holes” I simply don’t think that deeply into these “kinds” of movies. The Conquistadors got in there because there is ANOTHER secret passageway inside not found by Indy. Ah ha!
As for CGI, the opening sequence shot of "The Day After Tomorrow" was a complete CGI shot (the hundreds of miles of Ice and water, etc). That blew me away when I saw the DVD commentary. It looks very “real.” Today I just can’t tell anymore what is CGI and what is not.
Phil P
I can’t tell these days. I don’t think they were as “absurd” as “Speed Racer.” Now those car effects and “races” WERE absurd.
I can think of other movies too.The “effects” in the original Raiders (in 1981 they didn’t have this kind of technology) were cheesy compared with modern techniques (the melting of the Nazi people), although they did the best they could at the time. I really don’t see much difference between the “action” in the first Raiders and the “action” in the new one. Same kind of action, car/truck chases, jumping from car to car, jungle/desert chases, running around fighting, guns, swords, animals (monkeys in both), many snakes in the original (although those were real snakes I think), CGI ants and scorps in the new one, waterfalls in the new one, etc. Great action which is what we expect since the same people were involved. You think Spielberg and Lucas don’t have it anymore? That they’ve lost their touch? They’ve become senile, old men?
Anyone who says the new one was boring must naturally say the first one was boring. Wasn’t Raiders boring then? As for “plot holes” I simply don’t think that deeply into these “kinds” of movies. The Conquistadors got in there because there is ANOTHER secret passageway inside not found by Indy.
Ah ha!As for CGI, the opening sequence shot of "The Day After Tomorrow" was a complete CGI shot (the hundreds of miles of Ice and water, etc). That blew me away when I saw the DVD commentary. It looks very “real.” Today I just can’t tell anymore what is CGI and what is not.
Phil P
S
StratusRose
Guest
Nah, they’re not mutually exclusive. Raiders just had something to it that made it in another league. Don’t know how to describe it. Also, I thought the Nazis melting was cool!
I don’t know, I think that CG is great, but so are old techniques of film making. Speilburg thought about going back to the old ways when making Crystal Skull but Lucas (surprise, surprise) wanted to go CG.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
J
jmcrae
Guest
I wasn’t actually aware of any rituals, satanic or otherwise, in the movie. The scientists thought the skull would enhance telepathic abilities, so they made Indy and the other professor stare deeply into its eye-sockets, and it gave them messages, but that was it.
I’m sure the actors didn’t believe in it - and if the skull was CGI, then they were staring into empty space, anyway - not at the skull.
D
Dandelion_Wine
Guest
I saw it on Wednesday and I enjoyed it. There were some plot holes but I didn’t let that get in the way of my “suspended disbelief”. I too wish Spielberg wouldn’t have been involved in writing, but ah well.
I liked the homages/tributes to Sean Connery and Denholm Elliott (Marcus Brody).
I liked the homages/tributes to Sean Connery and Denholm Elliott (Marcus Brody).
That’s the one thing I said to my buddy. It had a bit of the National Treasure/Da Vinci Code feel with puzzle solving and running back and forth.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
I just saw it a couple of hours ago. It was okay. Of the Indie movies, I rate I the best, III was a close second, II was third, IV was four, though II and IV were pretty close in quality, I think. (I say “I think” because it has been years since I’ve seen any of the Indie movies, so I should likely refresh my memory by viewing them again to be sure. We saw IV because hubby wanted to see it.) There were a few points where I was bored during the movie, and that is never a good sign. Wish we’d saved the $ for “Kung Fu Panda” and just waited for “Indie 4” to come out on DVD. Hubby liked it better than I did, though. Oh well, live and learn.
P
PatienceAndLove
Guest
I soooooooooooo want to see that!
W
wjp984
Guest
No I mean in general, and since people were also talking about the other movies like Temple of Doom, that one had some weird rituals. I just think its scarry since some people believe in this stuff and if there is any power from it would have to be satanic. I think the whole alien thing was kind of dumb for this one though.
- Status