my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) (Page 1)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Author Topic: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-21-2008 05:43 PM                     NON-SPOILER SECTION Indiana Jones is back, and I don't care how many people think Harrison Ford is too old to play the character, he did an awesome job! This movie is a bit cheesy at points, but overall a LOT of fun. I was very happy to see that essentially the the clips from the trailer were pulled from reel 1 of the movie, so there wasn't any big giveaways from the plot. Kudos to Spielberg for doing that. SPOILER SECTION SPOILER SECTION SPOILER SECTION This movie was essentially National Treasure 3 (but much better) and in my opinion the title was well thought out. After all, had they titled it Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Magnetic Headed Aliens, nobody would've given it a chance. I do think the poster would've been more fun though. This is how I imagined the poster would have looked. (Thanks to Joe for Photoshopping that for me.) One thing that really bothered me was the whole bit on the magnetism. Since when does a burlap bag covering a magnetic source shield everything from it's magnetism? Also, that entire last scene with Harrison and Karen getting married should've been dumped in favor of Karen drinking everyone under the table. Having them get married was overkill on the cheese factor. However, wait for it, wait for it...then Shia picks up the fedora. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! I know he didn't actually put it on, but that was uncalled for. Let's talk techie stuff here for a minute. Did anyone else find that the quality of the dialogue on this movie wasn't particularly great? There were several points where it sounded like the actors were looping their lines in a small bathroom, and sometimes the tonal quality of the dialogue would change from line to line. Wasn't this post-produced at the Lucasfilm ranch? Ummm, since when do the Lucasfilm guys not have their shit together when it comes to sound??? I was expecting much more. Speaking of George, I will say ENOUGH with the cgi! It really does take away from movies, and this is no exception. STOP! Is anyone else really tired of Spielberg's use of vaseline on the camera lens? Seriously Steve, you don't have to do that! Better than 95% of theaters already have muck all over their port windows to do it for you. And for those of us who keep their windows clean, it really pisses us off. It is not artistic, nor pleasing. Please stop. The entire print just looked cloudy and foggy. There were many scenes that were flat out overexposed, and the color and terrible lack of contrast was unforgiveable. These prints looked blah, except during the night scenes. Steve, whoever you hired on as DP, please do not hire him again. It made me feel like I was watching the movie off of a video projector. While I am complaining about the awful job that the DP did, I must point out that when Harrison and Shia are out at night and crawl into the ground exploring caves...where in the hell is all of that nice room lighting coming from??? Seriously, it was WAAAAAAY overdone! Was this movie lit expecting for them to be ran at drive-ins? And in another underground cave scene, Harrison lights a torch and you can see the colored lights dimming up to light the entire room. Ok, I think I have bitched about the DP enough. Suffice it to say he sucks ass. But not to be outdone, Deluxe labs has managed to suck more ass than even the DP! I am not complaining about the lab splice-ridden prints, nor the sloppy lab work in general. What I am complaining about is the AUDIO CAP CODE! I am not joking here. Check out this bullshit my team noticed during the print inspections on ALL of our reel 5s... Seriously, what the fuck guys? First you made the most obnoxious CAP code ever conceived (anyone remember Master and Commander?) and now THIS? You guys deserve the Suckmasters of the Decade award. Spielberg should've taken his negative to the Technicolor lab. Movie overall if you can put aside the technical and implausible issues - 4 out of 5 stars. Movie with all of the technical and implausible issues (including Deluxe Labs' additions) - 2 out of 5 stars.  |  IP: Logged Mike Pennell Expert Film Handler Posts: 150 From: Tucson, AZ, USA Registered: Apr 2003 posted 05-21-2008 06:34 PM                     Damn. Ditto. Brad took all the words out of my mouth. Kept on checking the focus, thinking it was me and the early morning after closing last nite.  |  IP: Logged Greg Anderson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 766 From: Ogden Valley, Utah Registered: Nov 1999 posted 05-21-2008 09:06 PM                        Janusz Kaminski has been Spielberg's right-hand-man since they worked on Schindler's List together. I think Steven regards him like a brother. But, as a Cinematographer, Kaminski is one gimmick after another. At least shooting Schindler's List in black a white was an respectable, "artistic" gimmick. But that was followed by muddy exteriors in The Lost World, the poorly-calibrated shutters of Saving Private Ryan, the washed-out metallic look of Minority Report and... I don't have the energy to analyze his other "artistic" contributions to the world of Spielberg. Unfortunately, he's already on-board for the foreseeable Spielberg future.  |  IP: Logged Phil Blake Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 558 From: esperance western australia Registered: Nov 2003 posted 05-21-2008 10:06 PM                        It was quite well made, giving the time gap from the last one and raiders they did a good job of keeping the film making style the same. At the end of the day I still would rate Raiders of the Lost Ark at #1. It had a great balance of dialog action humor etc. Crystal Skull seemed to lack that earthy simple action balance with fast pace. At times reminded me more of an episode of X Files. Maybe I was hoping for a more basic story , but I guess with sequels we always seem to demand bigger and better and they are usually bigger but most often not better. I will agree with Brad, Harrison Ford did the role so well , almost as if time has stood still with him , I think Marion looked more like a train wreck. My print was quite good , sound mix (analogue) was good (waiting on DTS disc). 3.5 out of 5 from me  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-21-2008 10:22 PM                        Did that "audio cap code" sound as bad going thru as it looked like it would sound? Although I assume Brad, your screens are on some kind of digital sound...  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-21-2008 10:30 PM                        Doesn't matter. Look at the digital tracks. They are designed so that the audio cuts to analog at that point. Audiences all over the world will appreciate this. I wish it was in every reel.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-22-2008 12:52 AM                     I must say even though I had my doubts Indiana would ever see a cinema screen again, and even though George Lucas trashed a thoroughly good series by adding to it years later, I have recently been pretty jazzed about the idea of seeing Indy anew. It transpires I have now managed to show every Indiana Jones film on its opening day...for me personally...that's a pretty big deal. I thought the Paramount mountain bit was a bit of a laugh...the opening scene was a bit clunky dialogue-wise but I indeed got a chill when I saw the inside of the warehouse and as it pulled back realised where they were indeed. That bit was great. Sadly, for me...it's all downhill from there. They stated they couldn't find 'just the right script' for years...I guess they just gave in and said 'to hell with it' and filmed it anyway. There are takes in this film that even 'one take Woody Allen' would re-do. The lines are sometimes very poorly delivered and that explains the looping mentioned in another review above. And what happened to 'filming it old style' in the vein of the other Indiana films? This thing has so much CGI in it I'm sure they would have CGI'd the end credits if they had had the chance. Yuk. But for me the worst bit is the editing, and thus, the pacing. It's nothing short of abysmal and makes other actioners (like Iron Man for example) look superior. I'm incredibly disappointed that they waited so long to make another Indy film. Who knows what it could have been if everyone had been 10 years younger...and I mean everyone involved, not just Harrison Ford. I'm glad he said to George and Steven it has to be made by 2008 or he would never do it. If only he'd given that date to be 10 years ago. Sorry, 1 out of 5 from me.  |  IP: Logged Allison Parsons Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 630 From: East Peoria, IL Registered: Oct 2004 posted 05-22-2008 01:00 AM                        I built our one 35mm print tonight (the rest are DLP). Did anyone notice in the begining of either reel 4 or 5 (they just start the big car chase thru the jungle) a major wash-out of color? Anyway, I quite liked the movie. Not the best out of the 4, but not as bad as I thought it would be. My two biggest complaints were Indy JR trying to be a bad ass greaser/biker kid. I didn't buy it. And Indy Jr and monkey scene. Wow, really? That scene is right behind Yoda doing backflips in worst scenes of all time on my list. And Brad, I was thinking the same thing about the magnatism. I wish Cate Blanchett could have been more of a bad ass than she was. SPOILER Liked the ending alien room/skeleton/spaceship thingamabob. And again, why wasn't anything metal sticking to their heads when they walked in that room. A strong 3.5 out of 5 for me as well. 5 out of 5 if Harrison Ford would have gone shirtless throughout the movie  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 05-22-2008 03:38 AM                     quote: Allison Parsons (they just start the big car chase thru the jungle) a major wash-out of color? No, didn't notice any such of this problem with the two prints that I put together this evening for tomorrow's opening day... Agree with Brad though: vocal recording wasn't the best ... Could have done more with LeBeauf as well. Started out good, then went a little flat, then picked up then got shoved back in the shadows again. Loved the scenes to take us back to 1981 and still laugh at them.. Yet, why, so why does every action flik has to have a scene, late in the movie, where the cheese really reeks to high heaven and you're so glad that the smell left the room? Great to see Harrison Ford still can do "Indy" - the shart wit and humor, yet they were a bit careful with his part with his return - mainly due to his age. ..and loved seeing the old "Paramount" trademark - just too bad that it couldn't be the classic "A Paramount Picture." "Raiders" still the best. 4/5 for my tally.  |  IP: Logged Mark Campbell Expert Film Handler Posts: 148 From: Seattle, WA USA Registered: Jul 2007 posted 05-22-2008 10:43 AM                     Greg Anderson, take a look at "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" before you call Janusz Kaminski gimmicky.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan M. Crist Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 531 From: Hershey, PA, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 05-22-2008 10:48 AM                     SPOILER ALERT Prehaps this should have been subtitled "A Tribute to Spielberg & Lucas's Greatest Hits" I agree with Brad in that the whole thing had a mechanical, mailed in, National Treasure 2 like feel to it. Much like Die Hard 4 it seemed that they dreamed up and choreographed the action set pieces and then attempted to fashion a story to tie them together. That's not to say that action set pieces were bad but - like Die Hard 4 - they easily could have been inserted in any number of story lines. Still a relatively enjoyable outing ..... until the last 25 minutes. And then they had to go the 'Close Encounters' route. I kept waiting for the soundtrack to break into 'When You Wish Upon A Star' as the spaceship rose into the air. 3 Stars Out of 5 (if you don't include the ending) 2 Stars Out of 5 (if the ending is included) PS I also noticed all of the technical issues. Running in SDDS there were a number of dropouts at end of Reel 2 as well as three different places in Reel 5. [ 05-22-2008, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan M. Crist ]  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 05-22-2008 11:49 AM                        Does anyone really think Spielberg's DPs just dream up whatever look they want and SS says "That's nice" and gives it his rubberstamp approval? Everything you see is part of Spielberg's "vision".  |  IP: Logged Mike Schindler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1039 From: Oak Park, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 05-22-2008 01:07 PM                     I liked this movie quite a bit. I'd put it at #3 in the series, after RAIDERS and LAST CRUSADE. SPOILERS: There were definitely some moments which felt a little off, but in the end, they did exactly what I had been hoping they'd do for the past ten years. Even going into the theater, I didn't think they'd go all out with it. But they did. Even down to the flying saucer at the end. This film definitely has the best Macguffin, because it's scientifically-based. The others all deal with some sort of mysticism, which is kind of dumb. Every time I think about this movie's faults, I think about stuff like the Macguffin, and how much in this movie they actually got right. END SPOILERS: Greg, the "gimmicks" which you describe are the very things I love about Kaminski. All of his movies have that very distinct Kaminski look, and yet he adapts it to suit the material's needs. I think this movie looks great too. When they first announced the movie, one of the things which excited me about it was the fact that it probably be shot by Kaminski. But if you think he's just a bad DP who relies solely on gimmicks, I urge you to check out JERRY MAGUIRE. It's very classicly beautiful. And as far as technical issues go, isn't it amazing what a difference 2393 makes?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-22-2008 01:52 PM                     quote: David Stambaugh Everything you see is part of Spielberg's "vision". Somebody please give that man some lens cleaner and tissue for his glasses. quote: Mike Schindler And as far as technical issues go, isn't it amazing what a difference 2393 makes? Nope.  |  IP: Logged Mike Schindler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1039 From: Oak Park, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 05-22-2008 05:32 PM                     I'm not saying that the lab can't mess things up or that certain artistic choices may be misguided, but you really don't think that there's a substantial difference between 2383 and 2393? That's crazy. P.S. Did anyone else catch the YOUNG INDIANA JONES reference? I liked that. It made me feel like those 44 hours I just spent watching the series actually weren't a waste of time.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.