Indiana Jones and Crystal Skull etc.

[John Hoffler]

Just saw this film and was SO disappointed!

 

After just rewatching "Munich" and "Diving Bell" in the last week I was really looking forward to Kiminski's work on Indy 4.

 

The stuff outside of the warehouse was awful. All the actors were so overlit and flat looking. All of the big set pieces had atrocious unmotivated lighting! And was I the only one who thought that the dialogue in the beginning sounded really strange?

 

There was also a heavy use of bad CGI that looked like a Star Wars Prequel. The script was pretty poor as well and the film didn't feel like an Indy film.....

 

The whole thing felt dialed in, from the directing and the cinematography. Harrison Ford did do a good job, he's still got it.

 

All in all, it made me sad...... :(

[Guest Stephen Murphy]

Thanks Ignacio,

S

[Tom Lowe]

I thought the cinematography was a disgrace in this movie. Overlit, too much diffusion, crappy DI... all the things mentioned in the OP.

[David Calson]

I think one time Spielberg said 'Temple' was his least favorite indy (which I agree). Maybe in hindsight he'll acknowledge what a failure this one was and shoot a proper one.

 

That old paramount logo at the beginning gave me hope he was going to stay old school with 'Crystal' oh well.

[georg lamshöft]

h

Edited May 24, 2008 by georg lamshöft

[georg lamshöft]

I thought it was quite entertaining but the third Indy with Sean Connery (perfect chemistry!) simple set the bar too high...

 

From the technical side I was heavily disappointed.

It's Spielberg & Kaminski, aren't these the guys that set standards? Isn't Janusz Kaminski one of the very best cinematographers? Schindlers List, Amistad, AI, Minoritiy Report, Catch me if you can, Munich... Aren't these movies with a magnificent visual style? With all respect to Mr. Slocombes work, isn't Kaminski even more impressive? Maybe he was "forced" to do a visual style he never wanted?

 

But then there's another guy: Georg Lucas...

To me it felt like a George Lucas-movie, even the look...

He messed up the Star Wars prequels, is he "guilty"? Am I thinking too simple?

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think it's as bad as so many people are saying. First of all, there are many times in the movie where you can sense the rich image quality that anamorphic provides over Super-35 (or digital), especially in the daytime exteriors but even for some dark scenes. There is a nice smooth dimensionality to the image.

 

Yes, the use of diffusion is rather inconsistent and I would have personally preferred it to be more subtle and logical to some extent, not so grab-bag. In high-contrast lighting situations and tight moody close-ups, it can look quite nice... some nice halation and glow to the skin. It's in the medium and wide-shots in lower contrast lighting where it gets a bit mushy sometimes.

 

Also, the use of HMI's outside, on principle, I like the glossy look it gives, but I don't understand why sometimes it goes beyond just filling in with hard light to creating overly bright faces. Too spotty basically.

 

The direction is not quite as inspired as in Spielberg's last movies, don't know why.

[David Calson]

Lucas always used the excuse, that whenever people criticized the new starwars movies that it was expected since 'supposedly' everyone bad-mouthed the old trilogy (complete bs). I wonder if he'll try that same excuse with this movie.

[David Mullen ASC]

I will add that Cate Blanchet was strangely sexy in that black wig and boots... she also has great skin.

 

The efx shot of Indy at sunset with the atomic mushroom cloud boiling over in the sky was quite striking.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

They had fast stocks and HMIs allover THE LAST CRUSADE, and that still felt the same.

 

One of the worst scenes for cinematography in this new film was the military interogation with Indiana Jones in that bunker, lit by a super soft, green spiked flo practical. It was like something from a Nu Metal music video from ten years ago. Inexcusable!

 

As I said before though, it's not just Slocombe's elegant and classy lighting that was missing this time, but also the elaborate operating and strong anamorphic compositions of the previous Indy movies. To my mind CRYSTAL SKULL's operating and compositions are just nowhere near the technical quality of the original movies, and I think Mr. Spielberg himself probably deserves most of the blame here. If Mr. Slocombe himself had been able to return to the franchise, or someone with a lighting style more inline with the original look had served as DP I have no doubt that CRYSTAL SKULL would better lit and exposed. However, I am doubtful that the uninspired operating and compositions would improve, even with the collaboration of those legendary operators (Waterston, Roberts), as I think that's just a facet of Spielberg from twenty years ago that nolonger exists.

 

Yeah, I just watched Last Crusade.... I was impressed, again...The castle scenes and the book burning scene were especially reminiscent of Raiders. And I'd have to agree that the overall craftsmanship in all departments was heads above Kingdom. I still have to see Kingdom again, though, due to my seat being in the second row to the extreme right! I could see the pixillation in every letter with a 45% angle in it on the opening titles!!!

 

Also of note were the superb mattes! My god! Why don't they use painters anymore? Don't answer....it's just that sometimes digital mattes are mailed-in by some. Whitlock killed!! Oh, well...a bygone era.....;(

 

-Jonnie

[Tenolian Bell]

I must've watched a different print from many of you. I didn't see it being nearly as bad as the rest of you. I can agree their was some inconsistency in contrast and the use of soft filters. But their were moments that were absolutely stunning. The high key outdoor scenes were a stylistic choice. I don't think its necessarily good or bad. Kaminiski's use of diffusion was also inconsistent in War of The Worlds and Munich.

 

I saw an interview a while ago where Kaminski said they did not want to stray far from the feel of Slocombe's work, but did not necessarily stick to it religiously.

 

And at the screening there was a trailer for "Get Smart" which was shot on the Genesis which looked 100% better than Indy and that was just a trailer !!!

 

That's quite an exaggeration.

[Tenolian Bell]

Yeah, I just watched Last Crusade.... I was impressed, again...The castle scenes and the book burning scene were especially reminiscent of Raiders. And I'd have to agree that the overall craftsmanship in all departments was heads above Kingdom. I still have to see Kingdom again, though, due to my seat being in the second row to the extreme right! I could see the pixillation in every letter with a 45% angle in it on the opening titles!!!

 

Also of note were the superb mattes! My god! Why don't they use painters anymore? Don't answer....it's just that sometimes digital mattes are mailed-in by some. Whitlock killed!! Oh, well...a bygone era.....;(

 

-Jonnie

 

 

To make a fair comparison you would have to see both prints projected. The memory of many of those old prints are better than the actual print.

[Emmanuel Lariviere]

The efx shot of Indy at sunset with the atomic mushroom cloud boiling over in the sky was quite striking.

 

 

 

That's my favorite shot in the movie. Everytime I think of the movie, that shot always comes to mind.

[Mark Williams]

Watched it last night and was all ready to phone the cinema house and complain about out of focus projection and had they transferred the footage to digital and was their projector DIGITAL. But after reading this I realize they did what ever they could to MESS IT UP themselves. Overexposed scenes gave it an amatuer feel. I also feel that the film could have overcome many of its shortcomings with better cinematography. Some scenes were really out of place like the tarzan sequence. Much of the lighting did the cast no favours and wouldnt have done if the film had been made in the eighties. Harrison ford was not to blame for his acting here. Which often seemed like he was trying to hard. Personally I think he could have been in better shape. His legs looked like they might give out and he could have lost a few more pounds.. Yes some may say look at his age. But I would say this is a major film with a huge budget everyone has to go that step further.There seemed to be a lack of directing and seemed like people living on their reputations and telling a story of how it used to be even retelling old scenes. There were moments of brilliance but somehow the script was completely nonsensical and boring. the sword fight with shia was ridiculous. However I still enjoyed it and I still think the creative brilliance is there. There was some amazing scenes and some great ideas. Im glad I watched it. Just a shame they didnt do as good a job as I know they should have on this..

[Max Jacoby]

I will add that Cate Blanchet was strangely sexy in that black wig and boots... she also has great skin.

Cate Blanchet has amazing skin, and she has one of those faces that you can film from any angle, she always looks good.

[Michel Hafner]

I caught a 2K DLP screening. For the first 15 minutes or so I thought it looked pretty poor (mushy, no detail, no depth...), then it got better, but rarely looked as good as I would expect from today's DI work. I'll enjoy it more at home from BD disk on a higher contrast projector.

[Michael Lehnert]

I will add that Cate Blanchet was strangely sexy in that black wig and boots... she also has great skin.

 

Cate Blanchet has amazing skin, and she has one of those faces that you can film from any angle, she always looks good.

 

Interesting, I had the same thought but withheld a comment about that to British friends who sponsored the outing at the premiere because I didn't want to come across either uncooly smitten by her or indeed strangely attracted to black leather boots... "we are British, no s...", well, you know the rest... :rolleyes: B)

 

Out of make-up, she has a very pale and almost transparent skin (quite unlike the usual "english rose" tonality of Kate Winslet, which is much firmer) that reflects light in a very peculiar if not eery way, as if she shines from inside when light comes upon her. I would liken it the one that Catherine Deneuve has. Because of what Philip Garrel called in the 1960s "inner radiance" when working with Deneuve on several private movies, placing light for both must be incredibly demanding, requiring almost 1930s B&W actresses attention, if I may make this banale connection (Deneuve insists on approving portrait shots of her to this day).

 

Somewhat related to that, I found it interesting to note after my second viewing of the film that there were considerable efforts made in lighting her face very consistently througout the piece, in some situations at the deprive of realistic impressions in some scenes, especially in the Jungle Camp sequences or the Government Depot. Her cheekbones were kept unnaturally highlighted from above, giving a permanent darker shading to her rear-lower cheeks which made her her face look excessively skully - I guess a nice idea considering her role and what I wrote above. Although Kaminski gets quite a grilling here now, I think that shows that he is not as self-indulgent and non-caring to his subject that one might think after viewing the film.

 

Funnily enough and in complete contrast: for the publicity stills, Paramount's photoshoppers went overboard with their craft by using artificial skin layers...

 

[K Borowski]

I caught a 2K DLP screening. For the first 15 minutes or so I thought it looked pretty poor (mushy, no detail, no depth...), then it got better, but rarely looked as good as I would expect from today's DI work. I'll enjoy it more at home from BD disk on a higher contrast projector.

 

This is why I am against digital projection. I'd say that, there was almost never a case where a a35mm print at a theatre would look worse than a VHS or DVD copy at home. Now the print quality is worse than ever and the home formats are better than ever. Why would you pay half of what it costs to own on HDDVD for ONE PERSON'S TICKET at a theatre?

[Max Jacoby]

Why would you pay half of what it costs to own on HDDVD for ONE PERSON'S TICKET at a theatre?

So you're still buying HD-Dvds? ;)

[K Borowski]

So you're still buying HD-Dvds? ;)

 

Proving my point of the wastefulness of the digital life-cycle. . . Blu-ray is what I should have said. I don't own either type of player. This Christmas though I'm getting a Blu-ray.

 

I was the one telling people not to buy DVD players back in 2000. I only broke down and bought maybe 6 of them, and that was over tape, on clearance.

 

I'd personally much rather digital tape than fragile discs like Blu-Rays. Again, the technology is chosen for us by computer companies. You can still get *glass plates* from Kodak if you want them. Sure you have to buy a tonne, but just to show the staying power of a medium that was obsolete almost 100 years ago still being made. Hopefully film will enjoy a similar life-cycle.

[Tenolian Bell]

Proving my point of the wastefulness of the digital life-cycle. . . Blu-ray is what I should have said. I don't own either type of player. This Christmas though I'm getting a Blu-ray.I was the one telling people not to buy DVD players back in 2000. I only broke down and bought maybe 6 of them, and that was over tape, on clearance.

 

Standard Def DVD is still far outselling Blu-ray. Its unlikely that Blu-ray will replace DVD and enjoy the same market penetration. There are several other good quality digital formats that Blu-ray has to compete with that DVD did not.

 

I'd personally much rather digital tape than fragile discs like Blu-Rays. Again, the technology is chosen for us by computer companies. You can still get *glass plates* from Kodak if you want them. Sure you have to buy a tonne, but just to show the staying power of a medium that was obsolete almost 100 years ago still being made. Hopefully film will enjoy a similar life-cycle.

 

The advantage of a disc is it doesn't have moving parts like a tape does.

 

Actually HD-DVD was killed by the studios. More of the bigger studios chose to produce Blu-ray disc, that forced everyone else to go along.

[Scott Bryant]

So I saw it and I'm wanting to use it as kind of a learning experience. I agree that I felt the images were just out of character for the body of Indy films.

 

What I'm interested in is what made them so over the top? Every image looked like the colors had been shifted into the yellows a great deal and many of the shots especially daylight exteriors looked like the lighter parts were blown out creating a dreamy feel. When a character was in direct sunlight often his shoulder or jacket would have blown out highlights. Why is this? Also, I've seen diffusion thrown around in this topic. By diffusion are people referring to softening of the image through diffusion of the lens? or of the light source?

 

I guess mainly i'm wondering if most of this stuff is post or on the set.

[Chris Keth]

I'd personally much rather digital tape than fragile discs like Blu-Rays. Again, the technology is chosen for us by computer companies. You can still get *glass plates* from Kodak if you want them. Sure you have to buy a tonne, but just to show the staying power of a medium that was obsolete almost 100 years ago still being made. Hopefully film will enjoy a similar life-cycle.

 

Actually no you can't. Not long ago the building that held the equipment for coating plates was demolished.

[K Borowski]

Actually no you can't. Not long ago the building that held the equipment for coating plates was demolished.

 

OK< fine. So you can get it from Ilford-Harman. Or you can get T-Max 400 if you supply your own glass :blink:

 

You can still get 110 film from Kodak, same with Super 8.

 

You can get EPP, a film designed and unchanged since 1973.

 

YOu can get XX, a film basically unchanged since 1955.

 

YOu can get Kodachrome-64, 1973.

 

Do you want to nitpick anymore?

[David Mullen ASC]

What I'm interested in is what made them so over the top? Every image looked like the colors had been shifted into the yellows a great deal and many of the shots especially daylight exteriors looked like the lighter parts were blown out creating a dreamy feel. When a character was in direct sunlight often his shoulder or jacket would have blown out highlights. Why is this? Also, I've seen diffusion thrown around in this topic. By diffusion are people referring to softening of the image through diffusion of the lens? or of the light source?

 

We're talking about the use of Classic Soft filters and or nets over the lens -- which when combined with bright sources in the frame or intense backlighting, creates visible halation (glowing). An effect that I'm quite fond of, actually (I'm going to be doing a lot of it on my next movie). But you have to watch your contrast when using a lot of lens diffusion or else the image will either wash-out or get mushy. The controversy here is either that people think it is out of character for the style set by Slocombe when shooting the previous Indy movies (though I will say that the few diffused shots, using nets, sort of stick out in "The Last Crusade", they hardly blend in invisibly), or that the diffusion was a bit overdone here for an action movie. Or that it was inconsistent.

 

Personally, I like some of the shifts in diffusion level in the movie, but I also tend to think of the Indy series as being rather clean-looking, built around the hard-edge noirish b&w lighting of 1940's movies, not the soft glamour of 1930's movies (though one of the visual models is "Casablanca", which mixes both styles, partly being both a romance and a drama, and being an early 1940's movie).

 

The opening desert race with the army convoy and teenagers was one of the first things shot on the movie, schedule-wise, and is also some of the sharpest stuff. I wonder if Kaminski and/or Spielberg saw the dailies from Day One, or when looking through the camera, saw how clean and sharp anamorphic photography can be shot in sunlight and decided they needed to start softening the image more. Or maybe it was when they saw the actors step into their close-ups ("quick, break-out the Classic Soft #1!") -- I have no idea.