All Consuming


134 out of 202 people (66%) think this is worth consuming…


Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
by Steven Spielberg

2 people are consuming this.

483 people have consumed this.


See all 483 people who have consumed this

8 entries have been written about this.

bec012
Sydney

A story about this — 1 year ago

WORTH CONSUMING!

Although this Indy movie lacks originality, it’s good fun nonetheless. That said, Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark puts this film to shame. Spielberg’s latest films have commenced their descent into an abyss of vapidity, which is a downright shame.

I hope Steven Spielberg will not butcher my most beloved comic book series in his upcoming movie project ‘Tintin’. I can see it now…Herge turning in his grave at what could potentially prove to be a cinematic travesty.

marlenajo
Spring

where is the originality? — 1 year ago

WORTH CONSUMING!

I felt as if I was watching a farce film.
Take a little X files add Tarzan, Happy Days ( the hair combing was too Fonzy for anyone’s taste), West Side Story, Jumanji (the monkeys in the jeep), the Goonies (sliding down tunnels), some B horror film (the flesh eating ants) and a dab of the Fast and Furious and you have this film.

redbandita
Amsterdam

A question I have about this — 1 year ago

WORTH CONSUMING!

Why do people say that it’s stupid to revive the character and then go and see the movie? If you don’t want to see a revival movie, don’t go and see this movie.

To quote Emily’s review (see below):

“Are moviegoers so nostalgic about old heroes that they need to see them struggling past their prime?”

-yes, we are. So there. Seeing an old hero struggle past his prime is part of the fun of the movie. They did hand over a lot of the action to Shia LeBoef because Harrison Ford couldn’t have done it all on his own. I thought Mutt as a character fit well into the whole story. I didn’t like the Tarzan quote, either, but let’s not forget IT’s A B-MOVIE! (So aliens are OK.)

“What about new heroes?” There are plenty of new heroes. Go see the new “Mummy”-movie, if Brendan Fraser floats your boat.

Scott
Washington, D.C.

Why I recommend this — 1 year ago

WORTH CONSUMING!

George Lucas is clearly off his rocker and is Aerosmith-ing his career. If you’re headed to this movie thinking it’s going to be anything like the the prior Indian Jones films, you’re out of luck. I truly believe George Lucas is losing his mind and can’t create anything without going overboard.

But, the movie was fun. Just don’t go to it with high expectations.

This movie threw me into a cinematic crisis. — 1 year ago

NOT WORTH CONSUMING

Wow. I don’t have words for how much I didn’t like this movie.

First of all, the first few minutes are screaming something. Namely something along the lines of, “Hi, I’m Steven Spielberg and I’m making the fourth installment of Indiana Jones. Look, it’s a fedora! Indy wears a fedora! And he doesn’t like snakes! Hilarity ensues! Also, America in the 1950’s was full of squares, greasers, and commies!”

The whole film was much too intent on winking at the audience, which made it hard to take seriously. Were any of these good choices:

Surprised prairie dog shots? Doubtful.
Aliens? No thank you.
Nuclear explosion? Nuh-uh.
Shia LeBouf getting repeatedly hit in the nuts? No.
Cate Blanchett as a Russian? Absolutely not.

Not to mention the crystal skull that everyone is carting around looks like it’s made of cheap molded plastic and stuffed with balls of Saran wrap. What was the budget again?

Also, George Lucas, we need to have a talk about CGI monkeys. They made no sense when you edited them into THX-1138 years after you shot it, and they don’t work here either. Please quit it.

My father thinks I’m being too harsh. He said, “You don’t understand. Old people like me like having the closure.” But don’t I understand? Didn’t I grow up loving Indy, too?

Yes, the film has some great fight sequences, I’ll give you that. But what’s missing is a good story, and without it it’s just another action movie. Indy deserves more than this campy send-off. As one of my friends said, “For me, Indiana Jones ends with he and Sallah riding off into the sunset,” and I have to say I agree.

What is this recent trend with reviving characters that we have no business reviving? Are moviegoers so nostalgic about old heroes that they need to see them struggling past their prime? What about new heroes? What about new stories?

Leaving the theater, I had serious doubts about the future of Hollywood. Perhaps that’s melodramatic, but upon returning home and finding that Sydney Pollock had died, I gave it some more thought.

There are still many great living directors-Spielberg, yes, and Lucas. There’s also Scorsese, Coppola, Woody Allen, and even Sidney Lumet is still making films three years after receiving his Lifetime Achievement Oscar. But films like Indy 4 say to me that the great directors of the 1970’s and 1980’s have really had their moments in the sun, they’ve made their masterpieces, and they’re beginning to fade out. There are young directors that I really like-Wes Anderson and Steven Soderbergh just to name two—but I don’t feel that any of them are quite ready to take over yet, and I fear for Hollywood until they are.

miss kiki
St. Paul

A story about this — 1 year ago

WORTH CONSUMING!

Quite frankly, I have been waiting 14 years for another Indiana Jones movie. :) Does this one live up to the wait? Not quite, but it was entertaining. I think it’s problem was that it was trying too hard. The old Indy action wasn’t quite right, and there were some very silly parts (Shia LaBoef swinging through a jungle on vines like Tarzan?), but it was fun to see Indiana again.

Jacob Jones
Fort Worth

A story about this — 1 year ago

NOT WORTH CONSUMING

gak! what a bucket of horse piss. it must be the even numbered ones…
ok, first: why? why in the hell make a sequel after almost 20 years that no one is expecting you to make? no one was sitting around twiddling their thumbs saying, “Geez, when is that next Indiana Jones movie comin out?” No, the last one was called the last crusade. pretty cut and dry.
so youd think that it must be because they have a terrific way to tie up all the loose ends of the character. No. No they do not.
and yes, what IS Speilberg’s deal with aliens? it just seemed..silly.
it started off bad, dialogue not good at all, clunky. i kept waiting for it to pick up. and it did. for a bit. and then that scene dragged on and on and on and just became more and more improbable. then it didnt let up. it just became stupider and stupider.
i think the base story was good, just poorly executed. and why in the hell bring back the girl from the first movie? and what is the fucking deal with shia lebeouf? GAAKKASKKSKAKAKKAAKKAKAKAKAKAKAKKAKAKIIII

i really wanted this movie to be good. i really really did. i had a little itch at the back of my mind that it was going to suck, but i ignored it. but it was right.

this.
movie.
is.
crap.

you know though, its not that its that bad. its just that theres no point. they went out on a high note to end the franchise, and theres nothing in this movie worthy of bringing it back. thats the bottom line.

Timid Magick
Ottawa

Finally something worth watching in the theatre — 1 year ago

WORTH CONSUMING!

Not the best, but I like watching Harrison Ford. I do wonder what Speilburg has with aliens though. If they can be written into the plot they seem to show up in his movies.


FAQ | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | | Robot Co-op Blog | Copyright © 2004 - 2009 Robot Co-op