Which part? Shia doing the split and getting whacked in the nutz by a bunch of branches? Shia doing his best Tarzan impression with a bunch of monkeys? Indy and the gang surviving not one, but three waterfalls?
By now, no one has grown up watching the serials Indy was based on. Maybe that's one of the reasons it doesn't really resonate with a modern crowd. I was disappointed but still had a fun time. Even if Transformers kid was a poor substitute for Connery as a sidekick, I liked his persona as Marlon Brando in The Wild One. That was a good choice, whoever did that. Karen Allen looked a lot younger looking in the previews.
I just went to see it last night and I thought it was cute. It had moments of major cheese, but overall it had a lot of action and some cute one liners.
I want to see this...I asked my kids if they wanted to and my daughter says "that looks boring"...I may have to wait for DVD...
I'm going to see it at 4:30 with my son at First Colony AMC...hope it's good!!!! I know one thing...it's freaking HOT outside!!!
Well I thought it was pretty damn good. What I mostly like is that it felt like the old Indy movies. Same action, one liners, music, cinematography. Also Jones acted his age...it was actually as if it were 20 years later and Jones went out again on an adventure. He didn't try to act younger. The story was decent, nothing special to write home about. But all in all, a good sequel. Ford still has it!
Enjoyed it until about the last 20 minutes... 6.75 out of 10, IMO. And it would be less if it wasnt Freakin' Indiana Jones...
I enjoyed it. I actually went to some new age bookstore cause i got there really early and they had some old books on stuff and whoa and behold they had book about the crystal skulls, and mentioned this particular one they found in 1971 in Honduras http://www.hparchive.com/measure_magazine/HP-Measure-1971-02.pdf
It seemed like there were one too many one-liners (more than the old ones) and were a little corny. Overall, it was an okay movie. Nothing great.
I have been meaning to change that. In my defense though, Episode II was the one prequel I enjoyed and Christopher Lee was pretty cool.
movie was below par. i wouldnt see it again, unless it was for free. i would only buy it on dvd to say i have all the indiana jones movies on dvd....
Wow, this was one stupid ass movie! 1 out of 10 no plot whatsoever crappy cg stooopidest villian bad acting corny dialogue mother freakin aliens!!!!!
I think Indy fans are too jaded to the point where they forgot the originals were pure camp. The CGI to Indy's face really stood out. Body doubles for Ford got paid overtime, but just ignore it and it goes away. It was a decent summer flick where you park your ass in a seat and turn the brain off to any hints of logic or consistency. Instead of rolling my eyes at the Shia lebouf scenes, I just thought whatever...show me something else, and lo and behold, the movie did. It didn't feel as magical as 1 or 3, but not many movies do, and it was light hearted enough that never forgot it's job to let you have fun. I'd give it 3.5/5
Does anyone know of any book written by forgers of historical artifacts? A confessional would be an interesting read. What motivated them to do what they did? Are they made for the sake of mischief like crop circles? Crystal skulls 'are modern fakes' By Paul Rincon Science reporter, BBC News Two of the best known crystal skulls - artefacts once thought to be the work of ancient American civilisations - are modern fakes, a scientific study shows. Crystal skulls are the focus of the story in the latest Indiana Jones film. But experts say examples held at the British Museum in London and the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC are anything but genuine. Their results show the skulls were made using tools not available to the ancient Aztecs or Mayans. Researchers say the work, which is published in the Journal of Archaeological Science, should end decades of speculation over the origins of these controversial objects. And it casts serious doubt over the authenticity of other crystal skulls held in collections around the world. A team including Margaret Sax, from the British Museum in London, and Professor Ian Freestone, from Cardiff University, used sophisticated techniques to work out how the two skulls had been made. There seems to be the assumption that if it is roughly worked, it is more likely to have been made by a traditional society. That's untrue of course Prof Ian Freestone, Cardiff University "There are about a dozen or more of these crystal skulls. Except for the British Museum skull and one in Paris, they seem to have entered public awareness since the 60s, with the interest in quartz and the New Age movement," Professor Freestone told BBC News. "It does appear that people have been making them since then. Some of them are quite good, but some of them look like they were produced with a Black & Decker in someone's garage." He added: "There seems to be the assumption that if it is roughly worked, it is more likely to have been made by a traditional society. That's untrue of course, because people were quite sophisticated. They might not have had modern tools, but they did a good job." The researchers used an electron microscope to show that the skulls were probably shaped using a spinning disc-shaped tool made from copper or another suitable metal. The craftsman added an abrasive to the wheel, allowing the crystal to be worked more easily. Modern technology This "rotary wheel" technology was almost certainly not used by pre-Columbian peoples. Instead, analysis of genuine Aztec and Mixtec artefacts show they were crafted using tools made from stone and wood. The British Museum skull was worked with a harsh abrasive such as corundum or diamond. But X-ray diffraction analysis showed a different material, called carborundum, was used on the artefact in the Smithsonian. Carborundum is a synthetic abrasive which only came into use in the 20th Century: "The suggestion is that it was made in the 1950s or later," said Professor Freestone. Who made the skulls is still a mystery. But, in the case of the British Museum object, some point the finger of suspicion at a 19th Century French antiquities dealer called Eugene Boban. "We assume that he bought it from, or had it made from [craftsmen] somewhere in Europe," said Professor Freestone, a former deputy keeper of science and conservation at the British Museum. Anonymous donation Contemporary documents suggest Mr Boban was involved in selling at least two of the known crystal skulls - the one held in London and another in Paris. The London skull was probably manufactured no more than a decade before being offered up for sale. Despite the findings, a spokeswoman for the British Museum said the artefact would remain on permanent display to the public. The skull held by the Smithsonian was donated to the museum anonymously in 1992, along with a note saying it had been bought in Mexico in 1960. Nothing is known of its history before that date, but like the British object, it was probably manufactured shortly before being purchased. The researchers were not able to determine where the quartz used in the skulls was quarried. But locations with suitably large deposits include Brazil, Madagascar and, possibly, the Alps. Professor Freestone said the work did not prove all crystal skulls were fakes, but it did cast doubt on the authenticity of other examples: "None of them have a good archaeological provenance and most appeared suspiciously in the last decades of the 20th Century. So we have to be sceptical," he explained. The findings are likely to be a disappointment to enthusiasts and collectors; the skulls have become a part of popular culture, appearing in numerous films and novels. Paul.Rincon-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7414637.stm
