Indiana Jones and the Really Terrible CGI

[Isaac]

If you were unfortunate enough to have dropped ten bucks on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull over the holiday weekend, the last thing you should feel is alone: The movie has made over $150million in just five days. And the reviews have been okay, too: According to Rotten Tomatoes, the movie garnered a not-unimpressive score of 79%. Still, you might be one of those (brilliant and thoughtful) people who thought the movie was nothing short of dreadful. If so, you are probably asking yourself, How on Earth could this film have been well received by critics?

A friend suggested one theory to me, which is that reviewers were scared to dump on a beloved franchise. This seemed plausible, although weren't the three most recent Star Wars films rightfully trashed? Well, sort of: Although not as well reviewed as Indiana Jones 4, none of the moves in George Lucas’ second trilogy received the drubbing it deserved.

Anyway, this is a long-winded way of broaching my real problem with the film, which was its awful, awful CGI. David Denby, in an otherwise sensible review, actually seemed to enjoy some of the action scenes, including the big one near the end that looked to my eyes almost completely fake. Denby writes: "In a sequence like that, with wild improbabilities linked by speed and rhythm, Spielberg re-creates the spirit of Buster Keaton’s most elaborately synchronized gags, but on a much grander scale." This could be said of many Spielberg action scenes, to be sure, but not the one in question. In fact, the special effects are so bad that they make the scene the most ridiculous and ponderous in the entire film.

Critics who are so concerned about the dreck Hollywood produces every summer should be focusing more time and expending more ink on the CGI that is ruining action movies. If there was one series that should be have been immune to this kind of nonsense, it was Indiana Jones. But alas...

Comments

I didn't realize that the film was getting good reviews. Every review I've read-- four, I think-- has damned it with faint praise, saying that it would feel like a convoluted, turgid mess if we didn't go in loving the protagonist so much.

I haven't seen it, but none of the reviews have made me want to.

Posted by Brian C | May 27, 2008 9:19 AM

I saw it. It was okay, decent action, decent humor. But for some reason every stunt had to be insultingly impossible. I'd give examples, but they would be spoilers.

I disagree that the effects were 'bad' in the sense that they weren't technically carried out well -- they were misused on things that simply struck me as stupid.

It would be as if in "Jaws", someone escaped the shark by running into a seaside water park, and the shark then swam in and suddenly there's a fast-paced sequence of the hero sliding down a waterslide with the shark snapping inches behind, only for the hero to be narrowly saved when the hero throws a bottle of sunblock at a switch to make a crane knock the shark back through the air and then it lands in a big goldfish pond, followed by a witty comment.

You can do that sort of thing, but it's stupid, even if the CGI looks good.

Posted by El Cid | May 27, 2008 9:22 AM

I saw it with my two seven year old nephews, kinda reminded me why these movies are awesome.

Also, re-watching the originals again... not so great, honestly.

Posted by TDE | May 27, 2008 9:25 AM

I was shocked to find that the movie failed the TV trailer CGI test. As a general rule, effects definitely look better on the big screen than the small (Independence Day comes to mind...it was silly enough but looked really good in the theater, whereas on tv it looks like a cartoon at times). Generally, a movie with a halfway decent budget should be able to cover over this fact for a 30-second TV ad, and if they don't, it spells big trouble. The worst ad I'd seen prior to Indy 4 was the Mission impossible with the exploding train -> helicopter stunt, which looked awful. There's just no excuse for that sloppiness with a movie this big. That said, I'll probably see it anyway...

Posted by jfaberrit | May 27, 2008 9:28 AM

I thought the movie was fine, a bit over-Lucased, but better than Temple of Doom and probably about as good as Last Crusade (although more uneven). The sequence referred to I'd say was the best part of the movie. I had absolutely no problem with it -- the special effects were great. I'd place it only slightly below the great set-piece of Raiders (which I rate as the greatest set-piece sequence in film history).

Posted by Scott de B. | May 27, 2008 9:30 AM

The CGI wasn't as offensive as turning the Great Ray Winstone into a commie stooge "triple agent."

And I personally can't wait for Mutt Jones and the Curse of the Dragon People (set in Vietnam). Maybe by then he'll have gotten rid of the 50s style ducktail haircut and instead fully embraced the Jewfro he spent all of Crystal Skull trying to hide.

Posted by Herb | May 27, 2008 9:30 AM

At the same time, a fine foreign film like "Reprise" is grossing on the order of $50,000 in the USA.

Posted by bob h | May 27, 2008 9:32 AM

haven't seen it, but I've been wondering if their intent to recreate the 50's included really bad effects.

Posted by paperpusher | May 27, 2008 9:33 AM

Terrible. Lame humor, predictable storyline, and overdone cgi.

Posted by Gob Bluth | May 27, 2008 9:39 AM

It would be as if in "Jaws", someone escaped the shark by running into a seaside water park, and the shark then swam in and suddenly there's a fast-paced sequence of the hero sliding down a waterslide with the shark snapping inches behind, only for the hero to be narrowly saved when the hero throws a bottle of sunblock at a switch to make a crane knock the shark back through the air and then it lands in a big goldfish pond, followed by a witty comment.

Something like, "Big fish, small pond," and then he presses the button on a detonator, and the pond blows up.

Wait, I think that was the ending of Jaws 3, actually.

Posted by Chris | May 27, 2008 9:44 AM

That's why you should use Metacritic instead. Much better gauge, though Indiana 4: Shia of the Jungle is still overrated there.

If you would have taken out the Indiana Jones stuff and put Brendan Frasier in the Ford role and Lil' Bow Wow as LeBouf in the same plot, it would have gotten a 18, and I'd be happy to watch it on cable while cleaning my apartment.

Posted by Mike | May 27, 2008 9:45 AM

Old school special effects (well, not that old) seemed perfectly adequate to me:

(1) W-what was that?
(2) Remember that plastic explosive I told you about?
There you go. Is the building on fire?
(1) No, but it’s gonna need a paintjob and a shitload of screen doors.

Posted by steve duncan | May 27, 2008 9:50 AM

It would be as if in "Jaws", someone escaped the shark by running into a seaside water park, and the shark then swam in and suddenly there's a fast-paced sequence of the hero sliding down a waterslide with the shark snapping inches behind, only for the hero to be narrowly saved when the hero throws a bottle of sunblock at a switch to make a crane knock the shark back through the air and then it lands in a big goldfish pond, followed by a witty comment.

"That's gotta hurt!" /costanza

Be careful El Cid. Don't give the Hollywood hacks any ideas.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 27, 2008 9:53 AM

My question about that movie is: why is the mythology in contemporary action films so ridiculous? (Not to mention insulting to us humans, given we apparently weren't smart enough to think up farming all on our own.) I speak also of Transformers, Pirates of the Carribean, etc...

Could Lucas do a little more Star Wars now and then? Or maybe the current generation is actually turned on by this aliens-come-to-earth shit.

Posted by Marshall | May 27, 2008 10:03 AM

One of the problems is that studios 'discovered' that spending more on CGI did not lead to better ticket sales. No doubt some of this was due to the fact that CGI cannot replace good acting, writing and directing. But also, this was likely due to every large companies tendency to decide they should be spending less money. The downside, of course, is frequently crappy CGI.

Posted by mpowell | May 27, 2008 10:12 AM

The capabilities of CGI to, essentially, portray anything on the screen seems to have promoted a cartoon/slapstick approach to action scenes. When actual human beings had to do the stunts, they had to be things actual human being could do, even if it would have resulted in death 99.999999% of the time in real life. CGI lets filmmakers do the physically impossible, or at least the physically impossible to simulate, which destroys the sense of tension in any scene. You can admire those action scenes for how they look, but you can't suspend disbelief enough to be at all worried for what might happen to the characters.

Fundamentally, though, the problem is that the movie industry and convinced itself and educated the public to believe that big blockbuster movies don't have to be, you know, good.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 27, 2008 10:14 AM

Yeah, this movie was pretty terrible. I'm not sure that I would say that the CGI was bad, but it definitely gave the movie a very different feel from the old ones. And Cate Blanchett's character was criminally underdeveloped.
I think the bigger problem was * SPOILER ALERT* the entire premise. I just think the whole space alien thing is incongruous with the religious themes in the first three. Also, I just find the whole aliens with big heads and eyes a really unengaging sub-genre.

Posted by amos | May 27, 2008 10:18 AM

I saw the film too and liked it. There really is something about Harrison Ford. The man continues to be very charismatic and just seeing him on the screen is enjoyable. I also thought that Shia LaBeouf did a tremendous job and seemed to have excellent rapport with Ford. Same goes for Karen Allen. The villains on the other hand were hokey and contrived. I think that if I were Russian, I might be a bit hurt (especially if I were an Indiana Jones fan). But, once the story got going, I stopped paying attention to that. I found the plot engaging and the whole crystal skull premise interesting. Perhaps they should have extended the film a bit and spent more time developing the relationships between the characters.
But on the whole, I thought the film was fun and I would see it again.

Posted by Linda | May 27, 2008 10:24 AM

Complaining about complicated, impossible escapes in a movie derived from 30s "Perils of Pauline" type serials is like complaining about all the blue notes at Eric Clapton's "Crossroads" festival.

Harrison Ford seems to attract crappy plot devices, though. Nothing mentioned here, though, is within a mile of my favorite from "Clear and Present Danger". Near the end of the film Ford and some others are escaping from a very complicated factory/mill works of some kind. They're trying to be a bit delicate about it since they value their hides and they're outgunned. But just as he's about half-way to getting free of the place Ford sees a huge bunch of gears spinning around and out of pure impish spite he grabs a log and jams the gears. He's never quite reached the level of inspired absence of something recognizably human that is a Demi Moore picture, but it's not for lack of trying.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 27, 2008 10:25 AM

Mutt Lebouf's swinging through the trees with the greatest of ease is where the movie lost me. Is he Tarzan? Why didn't the monkey's attack him yet they attack Cate Blanchette?

Posted by crack | May 27, 2008 10:27 AM

The first time I saw it - I was disappointed because they have aged. But the second time I remembered what I love about these movies - they arent real. Stunts are always over the top. For example, in IJ2 when the flew out of a plane on an inflatable boat. CGI snobs who are more impressed with Hellboy should stick with those movies. This is what movie going for families is all about.
Looking forward to IJ5.

Posted by JJ | May 27, 2008 10:32 AM

This movie wasn't ruined by the CGI, though the CGI played a part in ruining the movie. While there was some really bad CGI in the movie, it also suffered from a bad script, really patchy camerawork and lighting, some clunky acting and lazy editing. Blaming it all on the CGI is too simplistic by far.

Posted by novakant | May 27, 2008 10:33 AM

Having just watched National Treasure, I a) want to shoot myself and b) feel like CGI is killing the action movie. I no longer believe that any special effects are anything BUT graphics, which negates my suspension of disbelief.

Posted by Luke | May 27, 2008 10:40 AM

CGI was a very small part of the problem but ILM has always had problems with realistic humans, not sure why. The writing was horrible, but just about any time Lucas puts his two cents into a script it veers towards horrible, Spielberg should have wielded a bit more script control in my view.

JJ, Guillermo del Toro who directed Hellboy isn't a huge fan of CGI. He uses a lot of it, has to since he runs in the fantasy genre quite a bit but he probably more than any director of his kind still uses as many mechanical and prop constructions as possible, including Hellboy who was entirely mechanical.

Posted by tom.a | May 27, 2008 10:41 AM

I haven't seen the new Indiana Jones film, but that won't stop me from commenting on it...

I think that there is something in the wiring of our brains that affects how we perceive CGI. I first noticed this with Gladiator, which got raves for its CGI and which looked comically fake to me. After comparing notes with some friends, I concluded that I had a qualitatively different visual experience. Not all CGI provokes as strong a reaction in me, but it generally looks a bit off, where other people think it looks fine.

Also, I watched parts of the old Indiana Jones films on TV recently, when they were being shown to promote the new film. They seemed silly, and not in a good way, and frankly a bit boring. Indeed, I generally have that reaction to action films nowadays. I loved the first Indiana Jones film when it came out, but I was in high school. I think one can grow out of the genre. This is neither good nor bad: it just is. I enjoy films today that twenty-five years ago would have bored me.

It does make one wonder, though: how do junior high students today regard the six Star Wars films? Do they think episodes 1-3 are better, what with the improved special effects and generally higher production values?

Posted by Richard Hershberger | May 27, 2008 10:42 AM

Another movie - that was a wonderful movie btw - that had terrible CGI was Prince Caspian. Not only was the 'fakeness' of all the animals really obvious but the CGI used in the big fight scene between Peter and Miraz was jaw-droppingly awful!

It is pretty bad when the original Star Wars looks more real than stuff today!

Posted by Elizabeth | May 27, 2008 10:48 AM

I thought the first half of the movie- at the warehouse and at Yale- was very good, and reflected the very best of the Indiana Jones movies.

However, once they found the "Crystal Skull" I thought the movie really took a turn for the worse. The characters all of a sudden became more cartoonish, the writing got noticeably worse, and the action scenes became, while visually interesting, a bit boring (perhaps due to the unrealistic nature, as noted within many comments above).

The biggest disappointment for me was the lack of time taken to write a decent part for the wonderful Karen Allen. Her character in Raiders remains one of the greatest female protagonists in film, and in this movie she is given nothing more than cheesy and unimaginative dialogue; which to mean indicates that her involvement was more the result of stunt casting than any real effort to seriously revisit this once fascinating character.

But yes, I DID really enjoy seeing Ford as Indiana Jones again, and thought the chemistry between him and Shia (in the first half of the film) was quite excellent.

And (finally) in response to the commenter above who said the previous Indiana Jones movies where, looking back, not very good; perhaps that argument could be made in regards to Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade, but Raiders of the Lost Ark, I think, remains one of the very best films of its time.

Posted by Aaron M | May 27, 2008 10:50 AM

Yeah, this movie was pretty terrible. I'm not sure that I would say that the CGI was bad, but it definitely gave the movie a very different feel from the old ones. And Cate Blanchett's character was criminally underdeveloped.
I think the bigger problem was * SPOILER ALERT* the entire premise. I just think the whole space alien thing is incongruous with the religious themes in the first three. Also, I just find the whole aliens with big heads and eyes a really unengaging sub-genre.

Posted by amos | May 27, 2008 10:50 AM

dude. you are thinking way too much about this. just watch the movie on a big screen with THX sound and enjoy it. that is the only reason it exists...

... wait, was that Indianan Jones 4 or Pirates of the Carribean 4?

Posted by TAR ART RAT | May 27, 2008 10:53 AM

If the tiniest bit of "realism" is unnecessary in these kinds of movies, why doesn't Indiana Jones just fly whenever he needs to? Or pull out a magic wand and create a cartoon tank to jump in and kill all the bad guys? Or suddenly walk out of the 1957, walk into an internet cafe, and book a space flight to the alien planet?

Just because these knuckleheads keep thinking that they're paying "homage" to 1930s serials by doing stupid things in current movies is no excuse.

And you don't even have to get into hyper-realism. When you aren't energetic enough to think through any stunt for five minutes more than "I'm seeing such & such, wouldn't that be impressive to see", it just means you're lazy and stupid; it doesn't mean you're paying "homage" to anything, you're just being lazy, uncreative, and derivative.

Posted by El Cid | May 27, 2008 10:54 AM

Did anybody else feel like they needed to be calling the Elder Abuse hotline whenever the bad guys were beating the crap out of Indy?

Or, rather, beating what should've been the crap out of Indy, but instead he keeps on going, no matter how many brutal punches he takes. CGI was realistic by comparison.

And the end sequence, done by Spielberg who used to *know* how to create a sense of wonder and awe, was just terrible. A waste of time and money.

Posted by Anderson | May 27, 2008 10:54 AM

dude. you are thinking way too much about this. just watch the movie on a big screen with THX sound and enjoy it. that is the only reason it exists...

... wait, was that Indianan Jones 4 or Pirates of the Carribean 4?

Posted by TAR ART RAT | May 27, 2008 10:57 AM

dude. you are thinking way too much about this. just watch the movie on a big screen with THX sound and enjoy it. that is the only reason it exists...

... wait, was that Indianan Jones 4 or Pirates of the Carribean 4?

Posted by TAR ART RAT | May 27, 2008 10:57 AM

Gotta agree with the cgi complaint. My wife, who would never comment on such a thing, pointed out to me how crummy the effects were.

It's not a great movie, but a lot of fun movies aren't necessarily great. Sadly, it wasn't much fun either. It was a slapdash affair, with a mediocre story poorly served by a bad script and sketched-in characters. It's easily the worst of the IJ films, by far.

"Star Wars" changed my life in real, concrete ways, and I'm grateful for that, but George Lucas must be stopped before he kills again. Can't he be paid to go away? This was also the laziest directorial effort from Spielberg that I've ever seen. It was a depressing movie-going experience to see such beloved characters so poorly served by their creators. But then we've seen this before from Lucas, haven't we? I expected more from Spielberg though.

That said, Harrison Ford's still got "it" and Karen Allen is magnificent to look at.

Posted by redjellydonut | May 27, 2008 11:08 AM

Is "CGI" "Computer Graphic Interface"? Or is it something else.

Not all of us know this lingo.

Posted by Duincan Kinder | May 27, 2008 11:17 AM

What a lame movie.

The Mutt character was a total stereotype, as were all the teens sipping sodas and racing hotrods.

Mutt swinging on vines and also our heroes descending a stairway whose steps were receding into the wall reminded me of precise skills needed to go forward, playing Donkey Kong with my daughter ca. 2000. My hands were subliminally trying to grip the game controller.

I (don't) love how Indiana Jones can go into the cobwebbiest sunken ancient palaces and *SPOILER ALERT ??* find all the secret doors and get exactly what he's looking for.

The theater I saw it in had a sparse audience on Sunday evening, and I wondered whether the producers had misgauged the interest in an old guy (just a bit more than my age) as the protagonist, even accompanied by a delicious Karen Allen and a Fonz stereotype.

No more Indiana Jones for me. I want a movie with characters and no *SPOILER ALERT* aliens.

Posted by putnam | May 27, 2008 11:18 AM

crack nailed it.

Mutt Lebouf's swinging through the trees with the greatest of ease is where the movie lost me. Is he Tarzan? Why didn't the monkey's attack him yet they attack Cate Blanchette?
Posted by crack | May 27, 2008 10:27 AM

This part of the movie was offensively stupid.

The parts that angered me:
1) Tarzan LaBouf
2) The refridgerator escape
3) The prairie dogs
4) the aliens
5) no, seriously, aliens?

Posted by cd6 | May 27, 2008 11:24 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery

Computer-generated imagery[1] (also known as CGI) is the application of the field of computer graphics or, more specifically, 3D computer graphics to special effects in films, television programs, commercials, simulators and simulation generally, and printed media. Video games usually use real-time computer graphics (rarely referred to as CGI), but may also include pre-rendered "cut scenes" and intro movies that would be typical CGI applications. These are sometimes referred to as FMV (Full motion video).

CGI is used for visual effects because computer generated effects are more controllable than other more physically based processes, such as constructing miniatures for effects shots or hiring extras for crowd scenes, and because it allows the creation of images that would not be feasible using any other technology. It can also allow a single artist to produce content without the use of actors, expensive set pieces, or props.

Computer software such as 3ds Max, LightWave 3D, Maya and Softimage XSI are used to make computer-generated imagery for movies, etc. Recent accessibility of CGI software and increased computer speeds has allowed individual artists and small companies to produce professional grade films, games, and fine art from their home computers. This has brought about an Internet subculture with its own set of global celebrities, clichés, and technical vocabulary.

Simulators, particularly flight simulators, and simulation generally, make extensive use of CGI techniques for representing the Outside World (OTW).

Posted by El Cid | May 27, 2008 11:32 AM

You are right about reviewers being unwilling to dump on a beloved franchise. The reviews for Phantom Menace were positively glowing. Although, I will say, once it became clear that people weren't happy with the new trilogy, the reviews on the next two became harsher. Ebert gave Phantom Menace 3.5 stars (3.5!!! for that dung!) while Attack of the Clones got 2. Someone wrote in to his Q/A column and asked him what was so great about TPM that it deserved an extra 1.5 stars, and he said you really can't compare his star ratings from movie to movie that way, which is a *somewhat* fair answer, given the number of movies he reviews. But he left out the other part of the answer, which was that he'd wildly overrated TPM. (And to be fair, many of my friends and I were defensive and supportive of TPM in the immediate aftermath. It took about a week to feel OK admitting that the first Star Wars film in 2 decades was utter garbage.)

That said, I was kind of surprised the reviews of Indy 4 were so positive. It wasn't just that I didn't like it (I didn't, but I've certainly seen worse), but the rest of the audience seemed visibly disappointed by it, and that's just never happened to me before. There was far more consensus on this one than I expected, at least with the 300 or so people I saw it with, and I'd expected harsher reviews.

Posted by Royko | May 27, 2008 11:40 AM

lets not forget where this film started.it has always been aimed at kids and has always been abit cheesy. you just need to watch them to see that. this new indiana jones film follows suit and for me that is exatly what i expected and wanted. the cgi at the end was cheesy but if you compare it with the end of raiders of the lost arch then it is equally cheesy. i really enjoyed it and would recommend going to see it. i am so glad that mutt didnt put the hat on at the end though-that could have spoilt it for me-there is only one indy!!

Posted by ruth | May 27, 2008 11:52 AM

Why would anyone have thought the IJ4 wouldn't suck? Didn't anyone see 2 or 3? I mean the scene with the magic knight at the end of Last Crusade was just about the stupidest thing ever. Why not *SPOILER* aliens?

CGI is a much bigger issue. Sometimes it works OK, such as in Cloverfield. But so often, because CGI allows anything to happen, directors decide to just go ahead and let anything happen and then show it from 100 different angles. One of the worst examples is a short scene in Phantom Menace when Jar Jar jumps into a pond. He doesn't just jump. He leaps high into the air and does some sort of gravitationally impossible triple flip like he's Buggs Bunny or something.

I saw the movie Aliens recently on television. This is a film holds up extremely well as one of the best action movies of all time. The effects are outstanding and completely convincing, and there is no CGI at all. It's all done with flashpots, cool sets, interesting lighting, stunts, and puppets. Yeah, I said it. Puppets. Awesome.

The fact that Lord of the Rings depended so much on CGI was a big disappointment to me. Peter Jackson was a master of makeup and creature effects. If he had tried to do the Balrog or the cave trolls with real creature effects it would have been amazing. Yes, creature effects are limiting in some ways and can be stylized. But in the hands of a good director the overall effect can be so much better.

Posted by Rob Mac | May 27, 2008 11:53 AM

Some of you folks need to consider exactly what tradition this movie orginates from. Amazing Stories and Hugo Gernsback ring a bell? Weird Tales?

http://www.stationlink.com/pulpdom/pulphist.html

Not enough character development? Are you serious?

Posted by rochrist | May 27, 2008 11:53 AM

Although there was something really fun about seeing Indiana Jones again after all this time, I really think the film is about as bad as Phantom Menace is terms of what it does to its beloved franchise:

And of course on some pure plane of aesthetic valuation it must be said that Lucas and Spielberg should have resisted the temptation to mess with perfection and let Last Crusade stand as the proper ending to this story it's always been. In this sense Crystal Skull is actually worse than superfluous—the need to return to Indy, 20 years on, undercuts and arguably destroys entirely the narrative arc that somehow took the cartoon hero of Raiders and turned him into a human being. Last Crusade didn't need a sequel; the trilogy was already a complete story, not Episodes 44-46 in the 108 Adventures of Indiana Jones.

Phantom Menance betrayed us right up front, and was pretty noisy about it. What Crystal Skull does is quieter, subtler, and perhaps ultimately more devastating to its franchise: it takes that human being from Crusade and turns him back to a cartoon again.

Full review here, with links to a few others here...

Posted by G C | May 27, 2008 12:09 PM

Posted by novakant | May 27, 2008 10:33 AM
This movie wasn't ruined by the CGI, though the CGI played a part in ruining the movie. While there was some really bad CGI in the movie, it also suffered from a bad script, really patchy camerawork and lighting, some clunky acting and lazy editing. Blaming it all on the CGI is too simplistic by far.

Sorta this.

I actually thought the basic premise and plot was pretty good, and due for an Indiana film. Aliens from El Dorado, and crystal skulls we’re fine for me, and the dismissive line from Indy when he put two and two together was pretty funny and of his character as well. (The guys that’s seen everything, and found the mythical cup of Christ, found something to far fetched even for himself).

I think where the movie lost me was the simplistic , Lucas dialogue. It felt like Episode one all over, and broke the 4th wall, as they all seemed like they we’re acting, and not in character. They broke the rule of “Show, don’t tell” too many times. The cinematography was also wretched, and cutting was to fast paces and ADHD like, jumping around. Mostly, it just didn’t feel like Indiana until the idle, but again lost something towards the end.

Sad really, because it should have been easy to replicate the feel of the first 3, even with this story.

Posted by LegoIndy | May 27, 2008 12:13 PM

I have not seen the movie but you guys have convinced me not to see it.

I don't take much stock in either George Lucas OR Steven Spielburg these days. The last three (first three) were ruined by stupid decisions both have made. What I want to know is how this junk gets to the screen without passing a review of just "normal" people? Good business would dictate that they would want feedback to know what potential viewers think; but it doesn't look that way.

Ruined movies because of bad plots and charectors are

Star Wars - Jar Jar Binks and Anakin "the imature brat" Skywalker.
Lost in Space - Flarp.
The Incredible Hulk - Stupid and distracting camera cuts. (Bad choice of directors as Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was trash too)
Independance Day - Too many stupid things to name.

I think most people want GOOD and adult sci-fi and fiction and not some stupid "just for the kiddies" fiction. It might have worked in the 70's and 80's but not anymore.

Posted by Chris Singletary | May 27, 2008 12:16 PM

I just think the whole space alien thing is incongruous with the religious themes in the first three.

I didn't have a problem with it. The Indiana Jones traditions derive heavily from secret history (or, considering the usual time-frame, secret prehistory), and certainly Von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods counts as that, especially if you ignore that he was serious and read it like fiction.

Also, see Lovecraft for more on the "aliens as ancient gods" ideas. I didn't have a problem with it at all, and thematically it fits better in 1957 than any Christian religious artifact.

Catholicism is a really great fantasy setting, to be sure, but hadn't they just about strip-mined it? If I see the Spear of Longinus in another movie I'm going to puke.

Posted by Chet | May 27, 2008 12:26 PM

Honestly the movie is better than Temple of Doom, but worse than the other two. (Whether or not Raiders is better than Last Crusade is a question for the ages.)

I just think that, at some point in the last 15 years, the Indiana Jones movies were canonized, and a lot of people who grew up with the trilogy simply wouldn't accept, under any circumstances, any movie that purported to extend them. I mean there's been 15 years or more for you to basically decide who Indiana Jones is to you, and any movie that comes out now and extends that character is going to be paving over something that was important to you.

For my own part I tried to see it with no preconceptions about what I believed Indiana Jones should have been, or would have been, and I had a good time. I think if you were looking for the capstone to a trilogy that was really important and meaningful to you as a child, that would bring you back to the first time you saw Raiders, you're liable to be disappointed. But I don't think any movie could have met that standard.

Posted by Chet | May 27, 2008 12:34 PM

I'm not anti-scifi or geek, but I really didn't like Star Wars when I was as a kid (late '80s and then during the mid-'90s re-release. I have to believe that a lot of the love for the franchise is not based on its quality but on its innovation. Of course, the newer ones were even worse.

Spielberg makes good or, more often, flawed but almost really good films. So Lucas is the weak link. The IMDB page of Lucas looks amazingly insufficient if you don't consider Star Wars good.

Posted by Mike | May 27, 2008 12:46 PM

"I just think that, at some point in the last 15 years, the Indiana Jones movies were canonized, and a lot of people who grew up with the trilogy simply wouldn't accept, under any circumstances, any movie that purported to extend them."

I'm not, and I don't think others are, criticizing Crystal Skull because it doesn't live up to some preconceived idea of Indiana Jones. It's being ripped because it's not very good. Maybe you've just got really low standards.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 27, 2008 12:57 PM

A large company invited my firm to the premiere and I got the tickets by default. There was an open bar and buffet ahead of time and the whole theater was rented out for the occasions.

I had two glasses of wine and a Mai Tail before settling in with complimentary ice cream to watch.

My verdict? Best Movie Ever. Nothing in it made any sense. At any point.

Posted by glennn | May 27, 2008 1:08 PM

Mai Tail was an accidental homage to MY. I'm pretty sure it was a Mai Tai.

Posted by glennn | May 27, 2008 1:13 PM

"Denby writes: " 'In a sequence like that, with wild improbabilities linked by speed and rhythm, Spielberg re-creates the spirit of Buster Keaton’s most elaborately synchronized gags, but on a much grander scale.' "

Except, of course, that Buster Keaton did his own stunts FOR REAL.

Oy.

Posted by dr.giraud | May 27, 2008 1:15 PM

I took my two sons to see the movie Friday and I will agree that the movie was a bit long and some of the action was cheesy... but All in all it was a Indiania Jones Flick. It was exactly what I expected and exactly what I wanted to watch. I will say the ants reminded me of the scarabs in the mummy. It was very enjoyable and I'm sure I will add this to my collection. I would rate it a 7.5 out of 10. Granted I rate the second Narnia movie a 9.5 out of 10.

Posted by John | May 27, 2008 1:19 PM

I think you're right that the movies have been canonized to an extent -- obviously what I wrote upthread reflects that -- but I don't see why that's a bad thing, or why that isn't something that should be respected in the calculus of whether or not to make another movie. These guys are already gazillionaires -- why not choose to respect and preserve the legacy of the thing they created?

Posted by G C | May 27, 2008 1:19 PM

I think that there is something in the wiring of our brains that affects how we perceive CGI. I first noticed this with Gladiator, which got raves for its CGI and which looked comically fake to me. After comparing notes with some friends, I concluded that I had a qualitatively different visual experience. Not all CGI provokes as strong a reaction in me, but it generally looks a bit off, where other people think it looks fine.

I think that this is true but also irrelevant.

All special effects, ever, have suffered from not looking quite real. The human brain is very good at distinguishing real things from not-quite real things.

In the past, though, when an effect looked "fake" (as they almost always did) we would be much more forgiving since the point of the effect wasn't to fool us... it was to, well, indicate an event. Think about the early way that werewolf transformations were handled with a series of time-lapsed fades... utterly fake looking but perfectly acceptable at conveying the notion that someone is turning into a werewolf.

Back then, the audience simply accepted this and engaged in a willing suspension of disbelief. No one complained that, for instance, the skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts looked like stop-motion (which, of course, they were).

For some reason though, some people get grumpy if CGI doesn't look perfectly real. Perhaps that's because the very, very best CGI can sometimes actually fool us. Never the less, the audience is part of the process and a willing suspension of disbelief is one of the things that are required to make movies more enjoyable.

If you go into a movie trying to spot the CGI, of course you're going to be jarred out of the movie when you see it. Treat it like any other special effect though and accept that it's just a cinmematic device and it's much easier to suspend disbelief.

Posted by Andrew Lias | May 27, 2008 1:25 PM

I am in agreement with most of this post, although as far as the list of problems with the movie is concerned, above the CGI I would put the terrible writing, deplorable acting, ludicrous plot, ridiculous characters, boring action scenes, awful humor, cliche-ridden history, and the insulting background story of aliens teaching humans the rudiments of civilization. But the CGI sucked as well.

Posted by Jack Huguley | May 27, 2008 1:32 PM

Except, of course, that Buster Keaton did his own stunts FOR REAL.

I am so glad someone pointed that out. (I've made too many "culture crank" comments here lately and didn't want to get pigeonholed.)

Posted by James Gary | May 27, 2008 2:37 PM

we went, we saw...we almost left.

Everything about this film was off. It didn't hold a match to the first three...in regards to script, story, characters. Ford seemed to be "going through the motions" and subdued. The lighting and film quality was not even close to the first three. I agree, the CGI added little and made for enormously lame scenes (swinging with the monkies. lol). Ford uses his whip maybe twice...never draws his gun and just seems uncomfortable in the fedora and leather.

Shia's character is a laughable attempt at a '50s "rebel". He often made harrison to be an old, bumbling idiot.

I watched Raiders soon after and tried to make a comparison. Other than the costume, everthing else is lacking.

Nothing less then terrible. Close overall resemblance to the Mummy with Brandon Frasier. Save your cash, get this one on netflix

Posted by vince311 | May 27, 2008 2:45 PM

we went, we saw...we almost left.

Everything about this film was off. It didn't hold a match to the first three...in regards to script, story, characters. Ford seemed to be "going through the motions" and subdued. The lighting and film quality was not even close to the first three. I agree, the CGI added little and made for enormously lame scenes (swinging with the monkies. lol). Ford uses his whip maybe twice...never draws his gun and just seems uncomfortable in the fedora and leather.

Shia's character is a laughable attempt at a '50s "rebel". He often made harrison to be an old, bumbling idiot.

I watched Raiders soon after and tried to make a comparison. Other than the costume, everthing else is lacking.

Nothing less then terrible. Close overall resemblance to the Mummy with Brandon Frasier. Save your cash, get this one on netflix

Posted by vince311 | May 27, 2008 2:47 PM

Incredibly horrible! The first thing we starting complaining about was the horrible CGI. This isn't the Matrix or Iron Man - it's Indian Jones. If you look back at the trilogy you'll notice real scenes and real people (albeit stunt doubles - but that's ok!!).

The acting was horrible. The three characters did not look like a family. I'm a fan of Shia, but he was completely wrong for this. And we were so excited to see Karen Allen and they gave her absolutely nothing to do. I think she made the best of the script she was given. And the banter back and forth between the 3 was awful. Take a look at The Last Crusade and watch how funny Ford and Connery pull off the father/son banter. They were brilliant.

Although Blanchet is always amazing, even in this, I still think she was also mis-cast. You couldn't take the focus off the Disney-esque villianesse character she was playing that almost made it too comical. I guess another way to put it is that you were never frightened by her - you just wanted to laugh.

Did i mention horrible CGI??

And I have to ask about that scene in the beginning with the refrigerator in the nuclear testing site? WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT!!?? I can't even muster up an opinion about that - because it seems they took a scene from some Ed Wood B-movie Sci-Fi flick and stuck it in there to fill time.

Aside from all that (and back to the horrible CGI) - I wish they'd leave that technology to video games and films where it is appropriate (e.g. Spiderman). Indiana Jones has no special powers - he's a real man - and webs don't come out of his wrists! So the film should not look like that!

William

Posted by William | May 27, 2008 3:22 PM

Incredibly horrible! The first thing we starting complaining about was the horrible CGI. This isn't the Matrix or Iron Man - it's Indian Jones. If you look back at the trilogy you'll notice real scenes and real people (albeit stunt doubles - but that's ok!!).

The acting was horrible. The three characters did not look like a family. I'm a fan of Shia, but he was completely wrong for this. And we were so excited to see Karen Allen and they gave her absolutely nothing to do. I think she made the best of the script she was given. And the banter back and forth between the 3 was awful. Take a look at The Last Crusade and watch how funny Ford and Connery pull off the father/son banter. They were brilliant.

Although Blanchet is always amazing, even in this, I still think she was also mis-cast. You couldn't take the focus off the Disney-esque villianesse character she was playing that almost made it too comical. I guess another way to put it is that you were never frightened by her - you just wanted to laugh.

Did i mention horrible CGI??

And I have to ask about that scene in the beginning with the refrigerator in the nuclear testing site? WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT!!?? I can't even muster up an opinion about that - because it seems they took a scene from some Ed Wood B-movie Sci-Fi flick and stuck it in there to fill time.

Aside from all that (and back to the horrible CGI) - I wish they'd leave that technology to video games and films where it is appropriate (e.g. Spiderman). Indiana Jones has no special powers - he's a real man - and webs don't come out of his wrists! So the film should not look like that!

William

Posted by William | May 27, 2008 3:24 PM

Incredibly horrible! The first thing we starting complaining about was the horrible CGI. This isn't the Matrix or Iron Man - it's Indian Jones. If you look back at the trilogy you'll notice real scenes and real people (albeit stunt doubles - but that's ok!!).

The acting was horrible. The three characters did not look like a family. I'm a fan of Shia, but he was completely wrong for this. And we were so excited to see Karen Allen and they gave her absolutely nothing to do. I think she made the best of the script she was given. And the banter back and forth between the 3 was awful. Take a look at The Last Crusade and watch how funny Ford and Connery pull off the father/son banter. They were brilliant.

Although Blanchet is always amazing, even in this, I still think she was also mis-cast. You couldn't take the focus off the Disney-esque villianesse character she was playing that almost made it too comical. I guess another way to put it is that you were never frightened by her - you just wanted to laugh.

Did i mention horrible CGI??

And I have to ask about that scene in the beginning with the refrigerator in the nuclear testing site? WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT!!?? I can't even muster up an opinion about that - because it seems they took a scene from some Ed Wood B-movie Sci-Fi flick and stuck it in there to fill time.

Aside from all that (and back to the horrible CGI) - I wish they'd leave that technology to video games and films where it is appropriate (e.g. Spiderman). Indiana Jones has no special powers - he's a real man - and webs don't come out of his wrists! So the film should not look like that!

William

Posted by William | May 27, 2008 3:24 PM

Incredibly horrible! The first thing we starting complaining about was the horrible CGI. This isn't the Matrix or Iron Man - it's Indian Jones. If you look back at the trilogy you'll notice real scenes and real people (albeit stunt doubles - but that's ok!!).

The acting was horrible. The three characters did not look like a family. I'm a fan of Shia, but he was completely wrong for this. And we were so excited to see Karen Allen and they gave her absolutely nothing to do. I think she made the best of the script she was given. And the banter back and forth between the 3 was awful. Take a look at The Last Crusade and watch how funny Ford and Connery pull off the father/son banter. They were brilliant.

Although Blanchet is always amazing, even in this, I still think she was also mis-cast. You couldn't take the focus off the Disney-esque villianesse character she was playing that almost made it too comical. I guess another way to put it is that you were never frightened by her - you just wanted to laugh.

Did i mention horrible CGI??

And I have to ask about that scene in the beginning with the refrigerator in the nuclear testing site? WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT!!?? I can't even muster up an opinion about that - because it seems they took a scene from some Ed Wood B-movie Sci-Fi flick and stuck it in there to fill time.

Aside from all that (and back to the horrible CGI) - I wish they'd leave that technology to video games and films where it is appropriate (e.g. Spiderman). Indiana Jones has no special powers - he's a real man - and webs don't come out of his wrists! So the film should not look like that!

William

Posted by William | May 27, 2008 3:25 PM

Incredibly horrible! The first thing we starting complaining about was the horrible CGI. This isn't the Matrix or Iron Man - it's Indian Jones. If you look back at the trilogy you'll notice real scenes and real people (albeit stunt doubles - but that's ok!!).

The acting was horrible. The three characters did not look like a family. I'm a fan of Shia, but he was completely wrong for this. And we were so excited to see Karen Allen and they gave her absolutely nothing to do. I think she made the best of the script she was given. And the banter back and forth between the 3 was awful. Take a look at The Last Crusade and watch how funny Ford and Connery pull off the father/son banter. They were brilliant.

Although Blanchet is always amazing, even in this, I still think she was also mis-cast. You couldn't take the focus off the Disney-esque villianesse character she was playing that almost made it too comical. I guess another way to put it is that you were never frightened by her - you just wanted to laugh.

Did i mention horrible CGI??

And I have to ask about that scene in the beginning with the refrigerator in the nuclear testing site? WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT!!?? I can't even muster up an opinion about that - because it seems they took a scene from some Ed Wood B-movie Sci-Fi flick and stuck it in there to fill time.

Aside from all that (and back to the horrible CGI) - I wish they'd leave that technology to video games and films where it is appropriate (e.g. Spiderman). Indiana Jones has no special powers - he's a real man - and webs don't come out of his wrists! So the film should not look like that!

William

Posted by William | May 27, 2008 3:27 PM

Another movie - that was a wonderful movie btw - that had terrible CGI was Prince Caspian. Not only was the 'fakeness' of all the animals really obvious but the CGI used in the big fight scene between Peter and Miraz was jaw-droppingly awful!

I don't think that scene had any CGI, just stunt doubles. I think they did use a high-speed camera for that scene, which they also did for the fights in Gladiator, which is maybe why you associate the effect with CGI.

So, not CGI, but maybe also not the best choice aesthetically...it technically allows you to see more detail in fast-paced action sequences (there's less motion blur), but it also sort of makes everything look like a Hype Williams video.

Posted by tps12 | May 27, 2008 4:03 PM

"But for some reason every stunt had to be insultingly impossible."

What part of "Indiana Jones" movie didn't you get?

This is what those movies DO! They're like James Bond deliberately jumping off a cliff, skydiving down into a plane, then flying it away! Even I couldn't buy that one! But that's what every single Jones movie has done since the first one.

So what? That's the POINT!

I saw the movie the other night. It was okay. I don't think it was as good as the earlier ones, but that's a bit vague and I'm not sure why - other than Cate Blanchett was a fairly lame (if hot) villain.

Since I know a bit about the Roswell/crystal skull business, I thought it was an OK plot, although initially from the trailers I assumed Blanchett's crowd were ex-Nazis trying to build Nazi UFOs (a theory that's been floated by various conspiracy types.)

BTW, on "the insulting background story of aliens teaching humans the rudiments of civilization" - that IS a theory a lot of people who believe in UFOs think is quite credible. In fact, some people think "aliens"(or whatever) actually genetically engineered humans from primates. If so, the "aliens" need to get their asses kicked...

Basically, where the plot falls down is the whole "return the skull to the hidden temple" bit. Since Jones is a "Tomb Raider", he has to get in a tomb or temple at some point (preferably one full of snakes and bugs and spiders). So that didn't surprise me.

The plot would have been more interesting if Blanchett had been an ex-Nazi trying to get the Roswell UFOs to build them for a Nazi resurgence or some similar concept. That whole theory is well known to UFO buffs and has been dealt with in novels and movies before.

All in all, it was a perfectly good action flick - just not quite up to the first three. Big surprise - most sequels aren't. I didn't like the one with Sean Connery, either. In fact, I think that one was worse than this one, in terms of plot, characters, action, CGI, the works.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 27, 2008 6:28 PM

I'm a big fan of Indiana Jones. I used to think that Temple of Doom was the worst of all three. Now I know that The Crystal Skull is the worst of them all. No competition. This makes Temple of Doom a good movie. I want more Temple of Doom.

Too much CGI
Some bad CGI
Lousy plot
Bad acting
Some guy who looks like Indiana Jones but isn't
Refrigerator Nuke Shelter
Not enough character development (it's true!)
Monkey Boy Lebouf
Siafu are not native to Peru (Africa)
Some Russian leaders are calling for a boycott of this movie (Russian Terrorist in 1957)
Aliens

Aliens come on! none of the characters even seemed surprised at 'aliens' being in the behind the crystal skull - like it was some everyday thing in 1957. "Alien crystal skull - who taught the Mayans farming and aqueducts? It must be true"

Posted by G-Man | May 27, 2008 7:19 PM

Note that the "top critic" score on Rottentomatoes is only 61%. They seem to be taking more and more reviews into account in the main score these days, so the top critic score is getting to be the more reliable measure.

Posted by Mike | May 27, 2008 8:30 PM

"This is what those movies DO! They're like James Bond deliberately jumping off a cliff, skydiving down into a plane, then flying it away! Even I couldn't buy that one! But that's what every single Jones movie has done since the first one."

I think we differ on what's improbable vs. what's impossible. All of the Indiana Jones stunts in the previous films, because they didn't have CGI, were performed by human beings. Which means, even if it were astronomically improbably that such actions could happen in real life...they weren't impossible. Too much CGI stuff, like surviving a nuke by hiding in a fridge and Spider-Shia swinging on vines fast enough to overtake speeding vehicles, is frickin' impossible. Without CGI, you couldn't do such stunts. It's like the difference between Jackie Chan and Wile E. Coyote.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 27, 2008 9:02 PM

Having seen Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull thought it very poor stuff, interesting only as an obvious commercial for John McCain - the grumpy older man, the hero getting on a bit who can still show the younger folk who think they know it all a thing or two, confronted by castrating communist bitch Hilary. Obama is I suppose the La Beef boy, at the end trying to put on the hat but reminded that no, this is not your time, perhaps next election.

Leaving the politics out of it for the moment, the objectionalities in Crystal Skull were
* Unnecessary complication
Can anybody actually map the path of the crystal skull? I still don't know whether it was in Oxley's possession before or after it was in the government warehouse, if it ever was.
*insufficient thought
And why did the government build their most vital storehouse five miles maximum from an atomic bomb testing site? I would have thought that that would have pissed off the Ark of the Covenant and given everybody hemorrhoids (see 1 Samuel six; it really wasn't like Raiders at all).
And if the alien wanted to leave the planet but couldn't do it unless all the skulls were together, why hadn't it/they left when all the skulls were together last time, before one was stolen by the spaniards?
And if the aliens were in fact keen collectors of ancient artifacts, why didn't they put them in a part of the spaceship that wouldn't be destroyed by the stresses of takeoff?
And if there were only thirteen skeletons, what did the Roswell reference refer to anyway? Who were those copses?
*rotten mcguffin
The story was that whoever returned the skull got the power. They returned the skull, and nobody got the power.

Actually, my main disappointment was that we only got to see inside one other box from the warehouse, and that was one we already knew. What about Captain America's shield, or the Independence Day spaceship, or Cthulu?

Trying to get into the spirit of it all I bought a a party supplies shop what I registered as an Indy hat. Only some while later did a more accurate perception kick in: I realised it was in fact a Freddy Krueger hat, a switch in semiotics across the entire width of the spectrum.

Posted by Chris | May 27, 2008 9:03 PM

theres actually a theory/myth that one may be able to survive an impending nuclear attack by enlosing himself in a lead regridgerator..i thought the entire film was excellent until the skull things turned into an alien and that russian agent like blew up..but when you look at the skull, honestly, how could you not think alien when you look at that thing..overall..pretty damn good movie.id rank it behind Crusade and Raiders, but before Temple

Posted by indyyo | May 27, 2008 9:24 PM

theres actually a theory/myth that one may be able to survive an impending nuclear attack by enlosing himself in a lead regridgerator..i thought the entire film was excellent until the skull things turned into an alien and that russian agent like blew up..but when you look at the skull, honestly, how could you not think alien when you look at that thing..overall..pretty damn good movie.id rank it behind Crusade and Raiders, but before Temple

Posted by indyyo | May 27, 2008 9:24 PM

I knew I was destined for 2 hours of crap when the film opened with a stupid CGI gopher. The monkeys were even more stupid. Can anyone imagine this garbage in any of the three previous films?

Great job on closing out the franchise on a low note.

Posted by Scotty | May 28, 2008 2:25 AM

"none of the characters even seemed surprised at 'aliens' being in the behind the crystal skull - like it was some everyday thing in 1957"

Actually, UFOs WERE an "everyday thing" in 1957.

Or at least 1952, when UFOs appeared over Washington, D.C. That was a major story.

Today, UFOs are considered "old hat" since everybody's seen the various sci-fi movies like "ET" and everything since.

But in the 1950's and '60's, they were a phenomena that did stimulate a lot of interest.

Although I'm not sure that the stereotypical "Gray Alien" depicted in the movie was the common view back then. That I think was more recent imagery - which you would expect since it would have to appeal to a modern audience steeped in more recent UFO lore.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 28, 2008 5:20 AM

Indiana Jones 4 was so bad I felt sick after the film. I saw it with three other die hard fans and nobody could believe how much they destroyed the originals. The Crystal skull looked rubbish, John Hurt's character was a travesty, mumbo jumbo. The ending was not even good enough for a B movie. 7 Alien skeletons morph into one organic being and take off for the space between space. Jesus what a load of garbage. Spielberg and Lucas should bow their heads in shame, only they won't. They'll read the numbers and think they're great. Reality is this film craps all over the good work they did in the 1980's. Verdict, Rubbish.

Posted by Joseph Conroy | May 28, 2008 7:47 AM

We are forced to agree to this statement in order to post a reply:

"By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable."

Matthew, please do the same. Stop blaming CGI for crappy storytelling. It's harassing and defamatory. And lazy.

Posted by Kevin Kutchaver | May 29, 2008 1:18 AM

This film has to be some kind of practical joke on the public. What it all boils down to is this: believability.

1) Raiders of the Lost Ark, save for certain religious embellishments, could have actually happened.

2) Same for Temple of Doom

3) Same for the third one with Sean Connery

4) There is no way in all hell the things in Crystal Skull could have happened. Surviving a nuke in a fridge indeed, even the kids in the theater were shaking their heads. It goes downhill rapidly from that, until the sight of a lost city turning into a flying saucer passes unremarked by the characters.

Posted by Mile Silverstein | May 29, 2008 6:34 PM

Harrison Ford seems to have lost all charisma for this film ! I watched the Last Crussade prior to seeing the Crystal skull and these films are worlds apart.. The CGI's are a big problem, despite showing what shoul be exhilarating action, it just becomes boring! They should have done the James Bond makeover on the franchise..

It needed to be grittier with more realism, minimal CGI's and more character driven.

Posted by Ben Hunter | May 30, 2008 9:31 AM

RottenTomatoes has a highly flawed rating system - every review 50% or higher counts as 100% and every review 49% or lower counts as 0% - then they are averaged together.

So a movie with 10 51% reviews and 10 1% reviews gets the same 50% total as a movie with 10 100% reviews and 10 49% reviews.

Posted by babaloo | May 30, 2008 1:44 PM

I'm loving El Cid!

Posted by Jeff Adams | June 2, 2008 10:38 PM

monkeys???? come on,shia swinging on vines???? seriously... are we inept drooling idiots. i almost walked out and would have save for my wife and father. I was robbed of ever looking at star wars the same from these two. Indiana Jones was my guy, an intelligent and gritty scrapper who used his wits and back to prevail. granted he's older but jones wasn't the flashy quick action or the long winded over done scenes. A sword fight on trucks through the jungle, stupid. I can handle the aliens and the lack of a sensible story line, i mean it's a movie in the end. But you rushed it, you made it into eye candy for the masses. You made a generation love an intelligent hero who bleed, and you mad him into a CGI dependent goof. next time you schlep out another movie please go with your gut and preserve some of your greatness by going old school.

Posted by jimmy daggett | June 3, 2008 1:17 AM

Am I crazy?? This was one of the worst movies ever made!!!! I loved the first three films but this was just painful to watch. What happened to making movies in real places with real people? This movie sucked something awful, I want the last two hours of my life back. I'm still in shock that this movie could ever make it into a theater.

Posted by Jeff | June 7, 2008 12:32 AM