I don't know when this comes out in various international territories, but it came out here in the UK last Thursday. I saw it last night. Has anyone else seen it? If so, what did you think?

I thought it was pretty good (qualification: for this type of movie). If you like the first three, you'll like this one. One thing that amuses me is the fact that during the 15 minute car chase with characters fighing in between vehicles, no one ever thinks to stop.

I saw it. It wasn't bad. Certainly very watchable. First I didn't want to go watch it, because the critics for the movie were negative. I'm glad I watched it.

But maybe thats because I'm a big fan of Harrison Ford and the whole Indiana Jones fourology.

I haven't seen it yet (going to see it next weekend), but I did read some of the reviews on IMDB (I tend to read the critical reviews, although I often find that the criticism is not very well motivated).

A lot of the criticism seems to be "thin plot", "kingdom of crystal skull not mentioned at all in movie" and "surviving things no one should be able to survive without a scratch". Well, guess what? I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark again last night and that has a rather thin plot as well and some pretty unlikely action sequences as well (I'm specifically refering to the one where Indy crawls underneath a moving lorry to get to the back, then climb back to the front and cick the driver out of the car with his legs by swinging from the roof of the cabin, all after having been shot in his arm, but there are others). The temple in Temple of Doom is also never refered to as the Temple of Doom on screen either. So I'm going to watch the movie with the mindset that such criticism is unfounded and hope to have some fun.

(I do know most of the plot already, but I won't comment on that for the benefit of those who don't want to know).

It was released last thursday as well, I plan to go see it, unfortunatelly I don't seem to have much time to go, nor somebody to go with.

I have good time watching it.
It's Indiana Jones, and "ça troue toujours le cul, Indiana Jones".

I saw it last Friday, pretty nice.
Though of course, the plot is a bit far-fetched, and so is the action. But it's not like your average action movie doesn't have the same faults.

It's a good movie.

Did anyone else think, especially vis a vis the ending, that it's a shame George Lucas had to be involved?

It is like Matrix, a movie to watch at home on some air channel, not cinema. So I will be watching it in 3 or 4 years.

Rey: you mean M: Reloaded and Revolutions right?

Judging from the reviews, there's lots of people who think that, yes.
I can't comment myself, of course. Not yet.

I've noticed that in general for all old movies. Cynicism grows with age.

All of them. Just like Spider-Man. Very few movies are worth the entrance for me, none in the last 10 or so years. But then again, the last movie I thought worth it was X-Men 2, just because I went with many friends.

When I was young I've hated how parents forbided me from watching action flicks with van Damme, Lundgren, Stalone, Schwarzenneger, Willis etc. Now I'm glad they did so with honourable exception of Terminator, Die Hard, Last scout and some others.

Hmmm, I disagree. Movies like this aren't meant to be artistic or a "good read." They're meant to be fun and taken lightly. Going to see them on the big screen with friends is part of the fun (along with extra-butter popcorn and milkduds you spend twenty minutes unwedging from your teeth).

Of course, nowadays, this experience can be nearly the same at home with all the improvements in TV's and whatnot.

Surely you don't literally mean all old movies? The plot of The Big Sleep isn't that thin, and all the action sequences in North by Northwest are perfectly probable. And have solid plot bases.

In fact, while watching Indiana Jones, I immediately wanted to shout "make a public scene" at the screen when the KGB guys have turned up with guns at the cafe, as I was specifically thinking of the scene in the auction house in North by Northwest.

If we're talking low brow enjoyment, then I'd add Total Recall to the list. But I much prefer the Indiana Jones movies to any of them.

I want to see it, just because I'd like to know how much they screwed the original short story... plus I want some mindless action

Anyway I prefer Bruce Willis films than any other - at least there's lot of humour in them.

What a let down! in the last hour, the dialogs are limited to 'watch that', 'oh my god', 'be careful' etc!!! the riddles are...what riddles? a hole in a door that matches exactly the skull...only one skeleton in the room with a missing skull...the plot is revealed in the first ten minutes, and after that there is no mystery whatsoever...LeBeouf acted like a beef (no coincidence here), Blanchett's talent is wasted, the Marion character is there simply to tell Indy he has a son...Indy's involvement in the affairs was minimal (in most cases we was an onlooker, especially towards the end of the movie). He didn't even use his whip!

The only time it felt like an Indiana Jones movie was the car chase, when the characters threw quite clever lines to each other, and the action was really good. The rest was a big yawn.

I watched yesterday the movie "Zabriskie Point". An excellent movie. They don't know how to make good movies nowadays, simply because the only motivation is profit. 25 years ago, Spielberg and Lucas had ideas and wanted to implement them. Nowadays they are bored and ultimately boring.

By the way, if they are looking for a good Indiana Jones script, they should look no further than the game 'Fate of Atlantis'. Excellent humor, amazing riddles, good enemies, thick plot.

EDIT:

I fear for the next Star Trek movie that it's going to be a complete flop.

I agree.

Funny that The Big Sleep was mentioned here, I was just thinking how modern films don't seem to be able to match the storytelling brilliance or old flics.

Yes, I've fallen in love with noir in particular and old films in general.

He used it a bit in the very beginning, to take a gun from a Russian military dude. I think he also used it to swing from the top beams in that same warehouse.

I saw the movie twice, and fell asleep (albeit in different parts) each time. I've seen most of the movie as of the second time I saw it.

Of course, I was tired each time I went, and the movie seemed to drag along and bored me to sleep. It was far fetched and pretty unrealistic. I didn't really care for it.

BAF must have a "lady-friend." Why else would he see a movie he "didn't really care for" twice.

He saw it twice, that means he has two lady friends.

And sleep is a code word for .

Isn't BAF underage to see Indy?

I'm not sure... the more I hear about it, the more positive I've become over the past few months (tell me if something big happened over the past few weeks, I haven't been paying attention).
Then again, I liked both Insurrection and Nemesis and didn't think First Contact was particularly good (better than Nemsis though).

Anyway, Indy...

I loved this Indy, the first three are among my favorite all time movies. I was afraid that they would "modernize" this one and make it all snazzy... I was glad that it help the flavor of the first three.

And of course there were unreal stunts and escapes, it's Indiana Jones!

Oh my god it's aliens!! Or is it nazis? No, wait, it just Steven Spielberg.

I wanna see it, but I don't really have anyone to go with at the moment. Maybe when it's released on DVD or something.

I used to watch Raiders of the Lost Ark a lot when I was a kid. Good times.

Get some personality and go alone

Um, that's like going out on a date alone... Seriously I can't imagine going out to the cinema alone without friends.

Edit:
Edited for better understanting.

I did. Twice actually.
For Star Trek Nemesis a couple of years ago, and last weekend for a small amateur movie. That had some friends in it though, so I guess that doesn't really count.

It's a weird experience for sure. Not so much watching the movie itself as not being able to dicuss it afterwards.

As contrasted with only ever accepting dates when you're already in a relationship?

Um that single wasn't meant as single but as alone. (Edit: I think I should be more carefull, edited the original post).

And I should probably be less of an idiot.

Thomas: that's fine, it was really ambiguous expression which started a little misunderstanding.

I'm of the same opinion; have been for many years. What would have been quite interesting would be a sequence involving Indy's ride on the German sub viewed from the side (as in the game), Oldboy style.

I don't go OUT to see movies anymore. I saw Indiana Jones 1 and 2 in the theatre, but didn't see 3 until it aired on cable TV. I enjoyed them, but not quite enough to spend money on a DVD.

I will probably see 4 whenever it comes to cable.

I saw it yesterday. It was absolutely disappointing .
It is basically a mix from all Spielberg's movies that results in somekind of frankenstein monster. A complete lack of creativity. A shame, because I love most of his work.

On the other hand, Ford did a good acting.

I just came back from watching the movie. I'm guessing alternate titles for the movie during production were "Indiana Jones and the Plot Dump of Doom", "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Over-Exposition" or "Indiana Jones and 'Let's Destroy All Mystique!'". The Indiana Jones series has never been much for subtlety or plot, but what it has always had in abundance besides tons of action is atmosphere (well, maybe not so much Temple of Doom...). It's not just that it's only present by accident this one, they're actually going out of their way to destroy it with painful, dragging scenes of exposition. And sevttvat nyvraf. Midichlorians come to mind.

And the car chase/fight scene? Three words: poor chroma keying.

I've done that once. But only because I was stuck in bloody Karlstad and the Swedish army was paying for it.

Yeah, I thought we were partly sold this movie on the idea that computers would be used very sparingly, if at all?

I've noticed that in quite a few recent films which is strange - you'd have thought it's something they'd have mastered by now, but sometimes I wonder if its more about subtle incorrect perspectives than anything.

I haven't seen it but it can't possibly be perspective, we've evolved past the point where such mistakes could be made.

Software exists that can orient the viewing frustum for CGI production automatically and reliably enough for TV production (it works by analysing the footage for markers placed on the set). Some making of -show demoed the program in action during the production of the first replicator episode of SG-1.

If they didn't use that, well, ILM for one has had since the early 90's equipment for reading out camera telemetry from the dolly/boom it's mounted to, probably even a steadicam harness. (they've used that telemetry for running robotic camera booms / dollies for some miniature work, such as the crash landing in ST: Generations.

There's no way they can get the perspective wrong in composite shots unless they're so incompetent they can actually mangle automatically generated data.

Ok I've seen it now.

What can I say? It was certainly different from the other three. Was it entertaining? Yes, very much so. Dit it feel like Indiana Jones? Well...

I liked that they acknowledge Indy is older in many ways. It's a different movie because of that and that's actually good I think. It's not Raiders or Crusade, but we've already seen those movies and with hindsight I'm not sure I would have been happy with a Raiders clone. It would feel too same-ish for me.

I did not like the blatant references to the other movies all too much. Seeing the warehouse was enough, I didn't have to see a deliberate shot of the Arc of the Covenant in a damaged crate to realise that it was there somewhere. It was too much. All of the other movies contain references to the earlier ones (to Raiders, actually, I don't think Temple of Doom is referenced quite so much) but in more subtle ways. Also, "all those women had one flaw: they weren't you" is one of the corniest lines I remember hearing recently.

Then there's aliens. It's not even a plot twist because the point is basically drilled into you the moment you see the skull, or even before when Roswell is mentioned. Not appreciated. I would have bought some hocus-pocus mumbo-jumbo that isn't really explained (we got plenty of that in the other movies too) but I found the aliens to be too contrived. "Space between spaces" my foot.

Overall the editing felt a bit sloppy in places and not all the characters were as well developed as they could have been. Indy junior was ok, Marion wasn't half as fun as she was in Raiders and the guy whose name I've already forgot who walked into Indy's classroom (we called him Marcus Brody-substitute) could have been fleshed out a bit more (as Marcus was). I would have liked to see at least a cameo of John Rhys-Davies as Sallah in the final scene.

The only movie I saw alone was 'white men can't jump'. Since none of my heavy metal/rock-loving, soccer-loving friends weren't into rap and basketball, I had no other choice.

The only weird thing for me is that you don't share your experience with others.

I know what you mean. Whenever I watch a movie at home alone in my room, I always have to spend an hour or two reading and writing reviews after I'm done watching it to feel satisfied.

I think its likely to be a combination of lighting, colour and motion blur. Those have to be hard to get right.

I think that the movie has too many flaws for a movie that was in the planning for so long and that had so many script revamps (or so they said) to end up with this.

The action scenes suit well for a Indiana Jones movie, but then, looks like a bunch of scenes were just thrown to fill the movie run time. The Tarzan thing is ridiculous; the scene in the sand trap seemed like a excuse to to tell people that Indy hates snakes, but in a very ridiculous way.

And then, american writers, concerned about the bad influence of media on younger people, decided that Indy's partner Mack, I think being a bad person, deserves to be punished, so they kill him. But they do it in a REALLY stupid way.

And the whole thing about Indy being a government agent not only is forced but also TOTALLY unnecessary since for the rest of the movie that fact has no relevance at all.

I could keep writing, like for example the part where a moment they are chasing Cate Blanchet, and the next second they're the ones being chased, but I guess you get the idea of what I think about the movie: I expected more.

Too many rewrites rarely improve the script to something where you think the large number of rewrites did any good.

Yes, that was very random.

It was a bit over the top, but I didn't have a big problem with it beyond the fact that I don't think snakes like being used as ropes (or have the tensile strength of a rope). But maybe the snake was pulling on Indy at the same time because he wanted to eat him.

I don't think bad media influence has anything to do with it. Belloq died cruelly in Raiders and both Donavan and Elza were killed in Crusade (the first gruesomely).

The entire sequence was goofy, so...
As I said, I thought the editing was a bit sloppy, but I can't really put my finger on it.

What the movie lacked basically is the sense of achievement. In the previous movies, Indy was a hero: he was confronted with incredible mysteries, he solved the riddles and won. In this movie, there are almost no riddles, and therefore no sense of achievement: everything is known almost from the beginning.

Are you kind of a medium ?

It's not about being a medium, it's about the clues given in the story.

For example, when I saw the hole in the door, I immediately knew the skull would have to be placed in it.

When the group was searching the rocks for a mechanism to open, I knew that they would push a level or something.

When I saw the references to Roswell, I immediately knew the whole thing was about aliens.

When I saw Indy in the middle of the desert 10 seconds before the nuclear test, I immediately thought "he should hide in something with a lead casing". At the next frame that I saw the refrigerator, I immediately understood, before Indy making a move, that he will hide in the refrigerator.

These are some of the examples I could give. There are others...this movie really lacked the element of achievement.

A classic moment in the Indiana Jones film is the moment where Indy confronts a fellow with a sword. The guy does a little dancing, showing how capable he is with the sword, but Indy smiles ironically and shoots the guy (this scene is from Raiders of the lost Ark). In the second movie, Indy is confronted with two sword fighters, he simples, he tries to pull out his gun, but the gun is not there! (that's from Temple of Doom). That's a great surprise. What Indy will do next?

Indy 4 had no such material.

It was orriginally written so that there was a sword fight. But whats his face broke his foot or something prior to shooting that scene, so he just said "I have a gun, why don't I just shoot him?", and thats what they did. Gotta love adlib.

Or
"The infamous scene in which Indy shoots a marauding and flamboyant swordsman was not in the original script. Harrison Ford was supposed to use his whip to get the swords out of his attacker's hands, but the food poisoning he and the rest of the crew had gotten made him too sick to perform the stunt. After several unsuccessful tries, someone made the off-handed remark, "Why doesn't he just shoot him and get it done and over with?" Steven Spielberg immediately took up the idea and the scene was successfully filmed."

Or sick. which ever, but as I heard it, it was harrison ford that mentioned it.

As usual, I was thinking to put a loooooooooong answer, but then I resign.

I will just say that when the first Indy were out, a lot of people there (including me) were young, or very young. Which mean that we didn't have all the brain capacity that we have now.

This lead to the following explanations: there never be any 'hard' clues. It's just that now you find them easier than when you saw the firsts Indy.

When I read your post, I immediately know you are a boring guy But I still read you.
Man, WTF with that film ? Didn't you have a good time watching it ? Ha, yeah, I forgot that you immediately known that Indy will win at the first 5 minutes of the film. Wait, isn't he supposed to win each time ? So why going watch such a film if we already know what's going on ?

That's called pleasure. Did you have pleasure watching that film ?

That's enough. Mind that I was wanting to put a short post .

EDIT: IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INDIANA JONES IF IT WAS A COMPLICATED FILM.

As a friend of mine said afterwards: it's very reassuring to know beforehand that the heroes will survive, even if the plunge down a long cascade of waterfalls.
The same goes for the apparent markmanship of the average Russian soldier, or Nazi in the previous films for that matter.

Talking about kicking some Nazi butt, after Indy I had an increadible urge to watch Ace Rimmer again, so enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXYfnWRp1Q0

I don't post comments in order to entertain other people.

Nope. It sucked. And it was not because I am older now, because I've watched Raiders of the Lost Ark again and it's a vastly superior film.

While I may have enjoyed Raiders more than Kingdom, I say your reasoning is suspect. You can take most of the criticism leveled at Kingdom in terms of plot or action and apply it without modification to the previous films. In other words, if Kingdom is less enjoyable than Raiders, it's not because of the plot or the action.

That's my opinion exactly when it comes to movies. I would make a very bad film critic since I seem to enjoy almost every movie I watch. Some people complain about how stupid or poorly acted a movie was and I come out saying it was really funny. They say "it wasn't supposed to be funny" but I figure, "I laughed at it and enjoyed myself, what does it matter what the film makers intended".

Nope. Raiders is a better film in all aspects.

Let's just hope they hurry up and make a fifth movie so everyone can say, "Well, it's no Kingdom..."

Well played Nial