Is the Online Fan Community Over-Reacting to Indiana Jones 4?

Posted by on May 27th, 2008   Filed under: Action, Fandom, Features, Internet

indy4-copy.jpg

So I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that among the internet movie bloggers and commenters I know, I’m the only person who liked Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The film does have its supporters, but they’re pretty small in numbers. Sure the film has its flaws, but overall I was entertained and had a fun time. I guess it was pretty much what I’d expected. Surprisingly, it seems I’m in the minority here. To say that most Indy fans were let down by this fourth installment in the series would be an understatement. The reaction has been overwhelmingly negative, reminding me of the hatred directed towards Raimi’s third Spider-Man film. In that case, things such as hair-do’s, dance numbers and female characters (Gasp!) were enough to turn an entire internet community sour, possibly endangering the series. (That is, if it didn’t make loads of money at the box office.) Although I didn’t think Spidey 3 came close to part 2, I certainly didn’t think it deserved the hate it received. Worst film of 2007? Hardly.

Now we get Indy 4 with it’s own set of problems that people seem caught up on. A film that quite possibly could never meet the expectations of those of us who’ve been waiting 19 years for a new installment in the Indy franchise. For the most part, like Spidey 3, the fans seem to be picking on some pretty inconsequential visuals. Mainly those directed towards kids.

Here are a few quotes from around the web, mostly from comment sections, that blow my mind:

Simon: “If you’re an Indy fan then prepare yourself for two hours of cinematic soddemy [sic].” (/Film)

Rot: “I am truly stunned that people enjoyed this film, something like Iron Man I can at least understand. I found virtually every moment of Crystal Skull awkward, clunky, grating, silly, embarrassing, or boring. To me it is the ultimate trainwreck of a film.” (Row Three)

Steven C: “This movie was a giant piece of s**t, and almost unwatchable. I can’t believe Lucas and Speilberg took 20 f**king years to come up with this pathetic movie. Neither one of them should ever even think about making another movie ever again after completely f**king up a great trilogy. It was so bad, that it even made the Star Wars prequels look great!!!” (The Movie Blog)

Dan: “I saw Indy Last night and it was the biggest pile of rubbish i have ever seen. by far the worst movie of the decade. Lucas / Speilberg need to retire as i don’t want anymore of my childhood spoilt.” (The Movie Blog)

Elisabeth: “I absolutely hated it. I went in with middling expectations and there wasn’t one thing I enjoyed.” (Cinematical)

Blarney Man: “Broke my f**king heart. I have never wanted to unsee a movie so much.” (The Movie Blog)

Clearly, this film is being raked over the coals by many people. I’ll admit that some criticisms I’ve read have been understandable, but it’s the gut reactive, nostalgia driven HATE that I can’t wrap my head around. The film is really that bad? Am I missing something here? (This coming from a guy who really liked Lady in the Water.)

It seems to me that ever since the internet facilitated film fan message boards and the open discussion of the best and worst theatrical releases of the year, we’ve gotten the negative side effect of mob mentality backlashes that seem to be, in most cases, fueled by other commenters (commentators?) rather than the films themselves. Whether it’s the ‘tarzan scene’, ‘groundhog’ or ‘fridge’ from Indy 4, the ‘emo haircut’ or ‘dance sequence’ from Spidey 3, or the ‘flames’ or ‘pissing’ from Transformers, entire films are written off based on visual gags. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying everyone who hated these films is wrong. I didn’t like The Transformers, and there’s been many good points made against Indiana Jones 4, some that I completely agree with. I just don’t think any of the sight gags I mentioned are earth shattering enough to bury a film.

What do you think? Am I way off the mark here? Is the internet notorious for nit picking or am I guilty of giving Indy a free pass?



←  Older Comments
 →
  • rot

    Even if you want to say the film sets its own tone, I would argue that tone is still the same kind of Indy universe, and the tone is set in the very first scene… I can by-pass any relationship to what existed before by focusing solely on INDY 4, but it makes more sense in relation to the other films because the film operates entirely self-conscious of the other films. To deny these prompts is insane. I guess it was purely coincidental that Shia choose a snake?

    See the argument that people are being too nostalgic rings false because the film is nostalgic and is setting itself up for obvious comparison. If the goal was to live in a different universe of B-movie pulp then it did a poor job of achieving that because it still had one foot in the old universe, and ended up being a mess.

  • Liney

    I’ve always felt myself lucky in that I’m able to enjoy the whole spectrum of films, from indie/arthouse/foreign to blockbusters. I’m interested in popular culture, so I’m always keen to see the latest blockbuster, and hopefully enjoy it. I watched Fantastic Four 2 (Silver Surfer) the other day and actually kind of liked it, and thought it’s a shame there won’t be more.

    I’m not into herd mentalities. Saying “this is the worst film of the last ten years” or retarded. But if you don’t think the film is very good, and you can back it up, then I think you are duty bound to say so, and be honest. Like the Row Three review, which I’ve now listened to and agree with laregly. I also enjoyed Jay’s review…he made a lot of excellent points, but overall I find myself not agreeing with him on this particular film. Which is fine obviously!

    I’d compare the Indy Franchise to a band you love that over time gets old and grows crap (and this happens to 98% in the end). This analogy sticks more than in some other cases of francises, because the same director, story writer, producer, and star remain through the four films.

    When a band go crap, you can either:
    a) pretend you like the new stuff as much as the old stuff, even though at heart you know it isn’t (I could never do this personally).
    b) acknowledge that the new stuff is not as good, but still get what you can from it, and still cherish the old stuff.
    c) have a big tantrum, burn all the old CDs, and swear at the artist concerned for selling out.

    We’ve seen all three reactions to Indy 4. Incidently, I’d put both Jay and the Row Three guys in category b, as they were both objective and honest about the film in their reviews (in their own way).

    I’m not a particular Paul McCartney fan, but I would say that to me Raiders is like Beatles era McCartney, Doom and Crusade are like Wings era McCartney, and Skulls is like Eighties/Nineties McCartney. I would never argue that McCartney is still as good, and neither would I argue that the new Indy film is as good. It ain’t.

  • rot

    or d) admit to not liking it at all without a tantrum.

    I’m amazed at the resistance from this option by people. The gull of finding nothing redeemable in a film and not attributing it to fanboy hysteria, or academic posturing… imagine that.

  • Goon

    “The gull of finding nothing redeemable in a film and not attributing it to fanboy hysteria, or academic posturing… imagine that.”

    having flixster and seing one sentence reviews about having their childhood being raped, oh please forgive me mr. man for drawing such a conclusion.

  • Flixster is hardly a place to go for intellectual discussion. Even if intellectualism doesn’t exist in your vocabulary and you find everything as nothing but boasting, maybe you should consider that there might be a difference between the Flixstermob, and people like rot. It would seem only fair, to not associate his comments with a mob he may not even be aware of.

  • rot

    So Jay there is a hang-up with the word pandering because it has elitist undertones… then what word fits the description when a film behaves a certain way because it knows it can elicit a response from the viewer even if this behavior is out of sync with the mandates of the story? I believe that is what Kurt means by ‘pandering’ and that is certainly how I use it.

    an example of pandering would be to have soap-operatic music underscoring a dramatic scene. Its telling you what to feel and this is jarring and explicitly pandering when the response is not earned from the storytelling.

    I think Indy 4 panders at times but that to me is the least of its faults.

    @Goon

    just leave me out of your theories of why someone would find nothing valuable to the experience of Indy 4, I’m not delirious, my childhood was not raped, I’m not writing a review in my head, not imposing schemata relationships between things learned in school onto Indy and then discerning its value. My criticisms come directly from the way Indy 4 thinks of itself, its there in the way it tells its story, and in the way it alludes to the past.

  • 1. I realize what Kurt means when he says ‘pandering’. I just think the word has connotations that can be misread.

    “then what word fits the description when a film behaves a certain way because it knows it can elicit a response from the viewer even if this behavior is out of sync with the mandates of the story?”

    You guys can use the word pander all you want. I just think it’s a term that can be somewhat vague and can actually be applied to more films than none.

    Based on your definition, I felt Funny Games pandered. Kurt doesn’t think it pandered.

    He think Lars pandered…but in that context, how was the emotional response from the audience out of sync with the mandate of THAT story?

    It just seems like a term that raises more questions than it answers. That’s my problem with it. It’s used both as a crutch and a positive. It’s too ambiguous.

  • Lets call LATRG extremely obvious then. It doesn’t encourage the audience to up make their own minds, it just wants them to be engaged emotionally on its terms, not on their own.

    I don’t feel that all movies do this, most classical narrative cinema is trying to engage an audience and try and get them to follow the ideas and sensibilites of the filmmaker (Alfred Hitchcock is the prime example of this attitude, “no questions allowed please!”, but he at least several times employed genuinely interesting filmmaking and earned his audiences interest through innovative filmmaking), but some movies aren’t as concerned with this. Some films strive for portraying realism, some are concerned with philosophy, others playing with the medium for playings sake. The classical narrative is working just fine to get mass audiences in the cinema, but unless it’s backed by real innovation, it’s boring. It’s been done. Some films survive because they have awesome set pieces, but even this is dying out because with CGI nothing is that impressive. I mean I get more thrills watching ‘John Wayne’ jumping from horse to horse in Stagecoach than watching Iron Man fly with fighter jets. Without the thrill, the set piece is pointless. And with no innovative filmmaking, and no thrilling set pieces, the movie is a waste of time.

    LATRG is not realistic, it gives off a feel or vibe of being some sort of bedtime stories for teenage girls. I can’t imagine why you would buy into the story. I guess human beings have always been easy to lure with a feeling of security and pleasant safety, but do you really want to be lied to this blatantly? I sure don’t.

  • “LATRG is not realistic, it gives off a feel or vibe of being some sort of bedtime stories for teenage girls. I can’t imagine why you would buy into the story. I guess human beings have always been easy to lure with a feeling of security and pleasant safety, but do you really want to be lied to this blatantly? I sure don’t.”

    HAHAHHAHAH This reads like a Sprockets SNL sketch. Great job.

  • Unfortunately I don’t know the reference, so I’m innocent – though I’m sure you meant to insult.

  • It’s an insult only with the kindest of intentions. :P

  • Kind of like all the gay jokes in Chuck & Larry and the fat jokes in Shallow Hal.

  • Goon

    “HAHAHHAHAH This reads like a Sprockets SNL sketch. Great job.”

    This is just hitting you now? I’ve noticed this about Henrik a loooong time ago.

    “See the argument that people are being too nostalgic rings false because the film is nostalgic and is setting itself up for obvious comparison.”

    A statement like this is bullshit to me. so simply because its going to be compared to the other films, it can’t be judged as its own seperate film? The film is nostalgic? I hardly think so, I mean it hardly relies on references as a crutch whatsoever. It pretty much is a new adventure, through and through. They don’t trot out in jokes or drag out old character after old character, which ironically the Star Wars prequels were raked over the coals for.

    If Richard Donner made a new Superman movie that continues among the original films (as Singer more or less is doing), is he required to be stingy with CGI, keep the actors around the same age as Reeve and his cast, and make Luthor more bumbling and jokey? I can’t wrap my head around this “Indy Universe” argument.

    If there had been an Indy movie every 3 to 5 years since “Last Crusade” I am certain it would be gradually getting as slick and modern as Indy 4 looks. I was completely un-shocked at what I was seeing on screen. It was if there had been a couple Indiana Jones movies already over the years, and I had simply missed them. I have to think part of this reaction is againt Spielberg/Kaminski’s modern filmmaking techniques being carried over into the Indy films. Spielberg trying to mimic a 20-25 year old style to please fanboys? Now THAT would be pandering, now THAT would be the film being nostalgic.
    I think Speilberg challenged people to see a modern Indiana Jones movie, and people are just plain…

    …not up to the challenge. There, its out there. People who said they were unchallenged by Iron Man? I think SOME of you are so wrapped up in other films that you just can’t do it. Some don’t want to see ANY modern Indy film, regardless of how many or few monkeys and groundhogs populate it. They want an Indy movie with a Harrison Ford, Spielberg, Lucas and restricted effects budget that doesn’t exist. Indy grew up but they can’t.

    The gap between movies I think is messing with your brains. I have no idea who the hell thought there’d really be restrained CGI, or that a 65 year old Harrison Ford wouldn’t need to surround himself with more characters. I have no idea how anyone can say anything is over the top or unreasoned.

  • rot

    @Jay

    Fair enough, most words have passive connotations that are problematic.

    I can see what you are saying about Funny Games, but I think the asides are earned, I mean so long as the thoughts they are accusing you of are in fact running through your mind, all they are doing is making an obvious point about it. If you had no sense of exhilaration of watching violence then yeah their remarks would feel forced, like they are trying to hit home the point of the film and not allowing you to feel it on your own terms.

    Never saw Lars. but I would also say, and this is in agreement with you and Goon, that each film sets it own tone, its own implicit rules (a Narnia universe is different from a Indiana Jones universe) so there is no universal rule and if we are to talk about failures in a film we need to talk about those failures that are ostensive to what is inside that particular universe. My case with Indy 4 is it is entirely thinking about past sequels, the ire of fanboy nostalgia is legitimized because the film is thinking about its relationship to the nostalgic Indiana.

    If Lars operates in a Frank Capra universe then it likely has no pandering, in that I do not think it would be out of sync with the mandates of the kind of story it is telling. That said someone could still say it works fine for what it wants to do but I want nothing of it. My opinions about Indy 4 are not about how I feel about the Indy universe, I love mindless action adventure, I love Raiders, I am saying quite emphatically the film as it ‘thinks’ its particular story along is ill-conceived and ill-executed and flounders between shoe-horned plot points in an unnatural way that has all the outer signs of an Indiana film without any of the charm, imagination, or suspense.

  • rot

    @Goon

    ” I can’t wrap my head around this “Indy Universe” argument.”

    can’t get your head around the idea that a franchise like Indiana Jones has its own self-imposed parameters to its storytelling? or the particulars of it?

    We can quibble over particulars, but I think I can fairly easily convince you that there is some sort of unwritten rules… what if the monkeys started to talk in the film, what would you think? What if there was a cartoony aspect, that Indiana fell off a perilous cliff hit the ground and bounced back up? What if Indiana hurt himself and spent half the film in a wheelchair? What if the film ended in a long drawn out courtroom case to resolve the issue of some important artifact?

    These things do not happen in an Indiana film because the tone and the way every frame of the film thinks of the characters in the situation has a particular worldview in mind. Woody Allen made a whole film out of this conceit, the Jade Scorpion I think it was called where a character from a 50’s harlequin film steps into the real world and tries to co-exist in our world. Obviously there are implicit rules to how Indiana works in a film, you can close your mind to this all you want.

    Next is to look at what the film is thinking about in each frame, what it says about the world the characters inhabit. This ‘thinking’ in Indy 4 truly feels like something arranged by committee vote, a patchwork of unrelated thoughts, a world of ‘cool’ shots and scenarios which dictate everything else, characters and plot mere details to the next storyboard. I guess if this was one of those Hardy Boys teen novelizations, that would be okay but the film harkens back to REAL relationships and storylines that existed in the other films, Indy and his father, Indy and Marion, and you cannot help but notice the parody everything has become.

  • Regarding the use of CG:

    I’m all for seeing a film attempt an old school approach. I’m just not surprised that film wasn’t Indy 4, simply because I think it would’ve alienated a lot of people. Especially the younger crowds. I’m talking those who want Transformers and Iron Man level effects, not sets and matte paintings. It’s a tough balance, trying to stay true to the spirit of the originals while still making a film that appeals to a new generation.

    Having said that, according to Indy 4’s wikipedia page, ther were a total of 450 effects shots. This includes the use of CG matte paitings and the removal of wires and what not in stunt work. What about some other recent blockbusters?:

    Speed Racer – over 2000 (Time)
    POTC 3 – 1050 (Wikipedia)
    King Kong – 2500 (IMDB)
    Star Wars Episode 3 – 2200 (IMDB)
    Batman Begins – almost 600 (www.theasc.com)
    Harry Potter 5 – over 1400 (Wikipedia)
    Zodiac – 380! (www.editorsguild.com)

    I was most surprised by Indy 4’s numbers being lower than Batman Begins. And it only has 70 more effects shots than Zodiac! Pretty good for an blockbuster adventure film.

  • People obviously are disappointed if Indy 4 didn’t ‘get them going’ because they ‘get going’ by the first movies. The question there is wether or not they ‘got going’ because they were stupid kids, or wether it really is the filmmaking that gets them. I would definitely argue the former, and any sense of adventure now is deeply linked with the experience of watching it as a stupid kid. BUT, it wasn’t CGI and this is. So that’s the obvious place to yell at the new one for not ‘getting us going!’ like it used to.

    I generally think CGI is a hinderance in ‘getting me going’. I prefer CGI when its used to paint something beautiful and create a sublime image, like the new Star Wars movies did with all the different worlds, or the way Speed Racer seems to fill up the screen. Very rarely has a CGI action sequence ever meant anything to me. Jurrasic Park would be an example, even though it was mix’n’match, but I also saw that when I was a child, so it’s hardly an objective analysis. Usually when I see CGI action scenes like in Lord of the Rings it’s completely boring and ridiculous and it just ends up reminding me of The Mummy Returns where it’s meant to be a joke. The Matrix 2 would be an example that worked for me I guess. I do think there is some great action in that.

    But I can’t help but go back to how awesome set pieces like the airplane in North by Northwest, the Stagecoach attack in Stagecoach, the trainride and the river in Our Hospitality, and the killing of the child in Jaws are.

  • You might not know me, but I am a fellow blogger who liked Indiana Jones too. Solidarity!

    My thoughts are here if you want to read them: http://www.toybender.com/indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull-my-thoughts/

  • 1st off, it really sucks that my work blocks filmjunk’s IP address (this seems to be a recent thing) because I came to this very delicious conversation very late.

    @Pandering, in its simplest definition (for me) is any film that takes the ‘easy way out’ by not challenging the filmmakers or audience in some way (a good way, not a bad way) – I think at least the first two Indiana Jones challenged their audiences in a good way, by stringing together highly detailed and superb action sequences, that paid hommage to the old serials, but also updating things to modern filmmaking techniques and barrier pushing. Now, you might say that Indy 4 attempts to update Indy to modern filmmaking with CGI and shorter attention spans and such…maybe, but the whole affair stinks of laziness in the approach and in story telling. That, for me is a deal-breaker for the film.

    @ CGI, I was surprised that 450 effects shots is considered low, but breaking David Fincher (a man who is famous for constructive and elaborate (but well integrated) effects is perhaps the wrong example, even If Zodiac was a bit of a departure from something like Panic Room.) Pirates of the Carribean is a better comparison, but I’d actually be more curious to see the number of effects shots in Tomb Raider 1, Tomb Raider 2, National Treasure 1, National Treasure 2 and The Mummy 1-3 for comparison, after all, these are the Indy imitator films.

    Good conversations all around. Nice to see such mature discussion regarding this sort of thing.

  • @Henrik – a fellow Matrix: Reloaded fan. I also happen to think that the elaborate set-piece in the middle of the second Matrix is simply fantastic. Also, I liked all the programming metaphors made visual in the film, especially the architect, oracle, and keymaker, the back-doors, etc. my favourite of the three matrix films.

    @modern action sequences that ‘get me going’ – the car chase in Death Proof, The original rooftop chase and the girl-on-girl in the weapons room in Crouching tiger, the chase through the imagination sequences in Paprika, the opening sequence in NARC, the chicken in City of God, Robert Carlyle fleeing the zombie hordes in 28 Weeks Later, the last 15 minutes of [*REC], the bridge sequence in Cloverfield, the last 10 minutes of The Blair Witch Project, pretty much any action sequence in Children of Men, the ‘faceless man and buffet’ in Pan’s Labyrinth, the last 15 minutes (and self discovery, an internal action sequence) in The Fountain, Much of Ong Bak, Tom Yum Goong and Born to Fight (despite all three of those thai action films being quite over-the-top-silly) scattered moments in A L’interieur, Vacancy, P2, Ils and High Tension, and lastly the infamous ‘bathroom fight’ in Eastern Promises.

    Yea, there is a lot of good stuff out there, none of it having to do with Indiana Jones. The first two films (and much of the third) do still work with me, both as a cinemaphile and a ‘former dumb kid’, but mostly the former, those first two Indy films are very, very well put together. The 4th one, most definitely not.

  • I’m definitely with you on Death Proof, even though I do think the end chase goes on a little too long and becomes boring at parts, it still has mindblowing parts (much better in the cinema as well), and the first set-piece is astounding.

    I’m definitely NOT with you on Children of Men though. For me, this was too tricky and CGI’ed to get me going.

    But please, lay off the pedagogy. We don’t need to be told by you that we’re doing a good job with our conversations, I know you’re around kids every day so I’ll cut you some slack, but it’s enough that you do it on your pseudo-own website rowthree.com, we don’t need it here as well mate.

  • It’s tough finding effects shot numbers because in many cases, the effects are split among different companies. This is all I can find at the moment:

    National Treasure – 500 (www.digitalartsonline.co.uk)

    The Mummy “Tomb of the Dragon Emperor – 800 (www.robcohenthemummy.com/2007/12/)

  • Thus proving to me that Indy 4 is effects wise equivalent to the modern incarnation of ‘adventure movies’ which also indicates that Spielberg and co. reneged on the promise repeated in the media by them of doing this one ‘old school’.

    It certainly shifted expectations for the film…

    I honestly believe though in 10 years, after the dust has settled, people are going to consider Indy 4 as the odd-man out and worst of the litter, barely even worth mentioning in the same sentence as the originals. My thoughts anyway.

  • @Henrik, I certainly don’t think it’s a crime to pay compliments to a movie conversation forum that is informed enough not to devolve into a flame war, and people go out of their way to formulate and express the complexity of their thoughts.

    Seriously Dude, that is something to be fucking celebrated, and I’m going to let the moderators (even if I’m one of them at RowThree) know that I really appreciate it.

    I can’t believe that this bothers you.

    To each their own, is this another cultural thing. I’ll say clearly that ‘to needlessly pat oneself and ones friends on the back’ is very much in the Canadian Psyche, and to make self deprecating comments afterwards which both takes a piss at things, yet also underscores the former is also very Canadian.

    It’s how were raised here; well most of us.

  • It seems that you’re on some sort of pediestal where you’re either approving or disapproving of debates. We’re all thinking beings here, and if people disagree with me on this feel free to say so, but I think we would all like to be treated as thinking beings untill we prove otherwise.

  • rot

    Yes but the CGI that is used is painfully obvious and flat. Henrik brought up Jurassic Park and that is a good example, seeing as this, for me, is a successful blockbuster, but also one that Spielberg worked on, and think of the mastery of the first T-Rex scene. Think of how unobtrusive that CGI was but also how it was threaded out…there was a real vehicle that had weight… the jeeps in the jungle never seem to have any sense of weight they are just part of the wash of colour. Different films sure, but there was a natural build-up to the T-Rex sequence that nothing in Indy 4 has… I believe Kurt made a similar point in the cinecast about how uncontrolled the jungle set-piece is, how it does not adhere to the Spielbergian tendency to … for lack of a better word… thread out the action/suspense. Indy 4 has Star Wars prequel overload to the jeep scene, nearly Transformers-level clutter/silliness. And its not just the jeep scene but everything, and if it is not execution, its that the scene is thematically, narratively pointless/inadequate. Acting, CGI, story progression, editing, disrespect to that which it is being nostalgic about, it really is a perfect storm of ineptitude from where I stand.

    So it is genuine surprise that other people do like it and like it a lot. People can say with a straight face that, for example, Harrison Ford was just like the old Indy, or the spirit is the same. No hyperbole, just true astonishment.

  • rot

    Henrik I have no idea what you are talking about… so nobody can say something positive about a debate that is going on ?!

  • I guess it’s the word ‘mature’ in his praise that makes it sound like pedagogy for me.

  • No Henrik, I call Hubris! :)

  • swarez

    The thing most people seem to forget about Jurassic Park is that there is only about 6 minutes of CGI in the whole film. The rest is all physical effects by Stan Winston.

  • And look how amazing it turned out.

  • rot

    Going on the purely execution criticism of the Indy 4 (again my problems with the film are not limited to this)

    There is a lack of architechtonic sense of space and geography in the jeep scene that Spielberg usually is a master of. The threading out of visual cues and the gradual development of increasing peril were not adequately pronounced. It was very much like a cartoon where background is zooming past in constant repetition and there is some immediate action going on, and none of the simultaneous action sequences felt well orchestrated in themselves, but also they didn’t flow together in a way that was inventive or exciting or escalating. It was just silly, bouncing from vehicle to vehicle, no stakes, no danger, perhaps a nod to Buster Keaton, in which case I think it was a poor decision because that was the signature set-piece action sequence and it was too frivilous… not to say you cannot have comedy but in moderation. If you compare to the tank set-piece in Crusade or the Truck set-piece in Raiders you will see the difference, there is a delicate balance of comedy and peril in them that is never achieved in Skull.

  • Internet forum posters are notorious for their overuse of hyperbole. I disregard most of what I read.

    Except on this site, of course.

  • Man, I just thought the scene was a greaser sword fighting with a Communist.

  • RJ

    I just saw the movie, and i liked it, it’s a history movie, thats why people don’t understand it, it was around the time, with aliens and what not, the whole Red scare, i loved it, but then again, im a hostory buff lol

←  Older Comments
 →