Okay, Mr. Lucas, intellectually, I understand what you claim you were trying to do here. If the first three Indy movies were an homage to 1930s adventure serials, then 'Crystal Skull' is an homage to 1950s sci-fi B-movies. Okay, but the problem is, you're still making an Indy sequel, and the two genres don't blend well. Add to that the over-use of CGI (digital ants are just not creepy like REAL snakes, giant bugs or rats), and this kinda fun movie just falters.
We needed this flick 15 years ago, before the idea of what an Indy film should be got so diluted.
Brief periods of decent action and tries to be compelling & fun as the former films -- but the overdone, over-the-top action sequences just ruin these movies for me now! Can't you make action/chase scenes with some of the gritty and quasi-realistic flavor of the first Indy, and not be so "Matrix" ridiculous?
Hey, Dr. Jones, what happened to your adopted son, Shorty? What did you leave him back on the streets of Shanghai with Willie Scott and a promise to return after you went out and grabbed a pack of cigarettes? Not cool, man. Not cool.
It's been over a year since first seeing Saving Private Ryan -- it's a worthy effort by Speilberg--his best since Shindler's List by far. You've probably heard about the amount of violence, blood, and gore and that's all true--it's got the Viet Nam movie style violence (and then some) but it's not gratuitous. Were it sanitized like early WWII movies, modern audiences probably wouldn't take it as seriously.
This is the best representation yet of the horrors witnessed by the kids sent to Europe to fight in the war. I found myself breathless at times. While their are references to factual events scattered throughout the movie, the fact that it is ultimately a work of fiction bothered me initially. Regardless, the battles portrayed in the film could have been ANY battle fought in the hedgerows and villages of Normandy during the summer of 1944.
Can't wait to see