Gaming World Forums
General Category => Entertainment and Media => Topic started by: Liman on February 14, 2008, 06:00:21 pm
-
(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/www.ghostofaflea.com/archives/Crystalskullteaserposter.jpeg)
As many might already know, the upcoming Indiana Jones flick will be released on May 22. It will be starring ol' Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchette, Shia LaBeouf, John Hurt among others. Not much of the plot is revealed but as the title suggest, it will be about the Crystal Skulls, ancient skulls made in crystal (duh). Instead of germans, the russians will be the bad guys this time around with Cate Blanchette in the lead.
The teaser trailer was released earlier today. You can find it by clicking on the link below.
http://www.indianajones.com/site/index.html
My personal opinion: I wasn't very excited about the film before. I love the old ones but I kinda doubted this one. There's been alot of sequels to old films lately (blame Stallone) but after viewing the trailer, my interest went from 30% to 90%. Last 10% will probably go up within the week of the release. Ford may be old but he can still use that whip of his!
-
How about this for 10%: Lucasfilm have made very few bad films.
Yeah, I will be most definitely looking forward to this. Then again, I am a big Indiana Jones (well, Lucasfilm) fan.
-
I originally wasn't interested in this at all. Not even simply because sequels usually suck or whatever, but more because I'm just not that big of Indiana Jones fan. I liked all the movies as a kid, but re-watching them now that I'm older, I think they're all pretty laughably corny.
But I heard that they're not going to be using much CGI (although it looks like there's a lot in that trailer), and instead are going to use more traditional special effects techniques, in order to keep a consistent style with the other three. I think that's very cool, and the Star Wars prequels definitely should've done that. I mean, it's pretty sad that all three of the original Star Wars still more or less hold up to today's standards, but The Phantom Manace is already horribly dated by it's CGI. It hasn't even been out a full ten years yet. :(
And I also like Shia LaBeouf. He's not in very many dramatic roles from what I've seen (only two I can think of off the top of my head are Tru Confessions which was really dumb, and A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints which was really good), so it's hard to actually judge him as a serious actor, but he just seems like a cool guy and I've grown up with him, so.
And also it's hard not to get excited hearing that theme song. So yeah, even though I'm not a big Indiana Jones fan, I'm looking forward to this.
-
Lucasfilm have made very few bad films.
Hhahahahahahahahahahahahaha
...maybe Rockman hasn't seen Star Wars Ep 1 - 3....
I am looking forward to this movie, because Indiana Jones is cool.
-
But I heard that they're not going to be using much CGI (although it looks like there's a lot in that trailer), and instead are going to use more traditional special effects techniques, in order to keep a consistent style with the other three. I think that's very cool, and the Star Wars prequels definitely should've done that. I mean, it's pretty sad that all three of the original Star Wars still more or less hold up to today's standards, but The Phantom Manace is already horribly dated by it's CGI. It hasn't even been out a full ten years yet. :(
If this is true, this will be a wonderful film.
Also, I still can't tell the original Star Wars trilogy's space sequences from actual space. =P
EDIT: What, those three good films (well, 2 good and one quite good)? I have. (also notice that I said very few. very few.[/b] as in just Howard the Duck, or Howard the Duck and The Phantom Menace if you're not a Star Wars fan)
-
Hhahahahahahahahahahahahaha
...maybe Rockman hasn't seen Star Wars Ep 1 - 3....
Or, even worse, Howard the Duck. :(
But I guess American Graffiti balances that out.
-
I've been waiting for this for about 15 years! Indiana Jones films were always my favourite films as a kid and I have been following the release of the new film for about a year, so I'm really stoked for this!
The trailer looks complete badass. Spielberg never seems to let us down
-
I LOVE INDIANA JONES. I just got the Young Indy Chronicles on DVD, I watch them all the time, I have the original trilogy and half the chronicles on VHS, I have made Indiana Jones games, sprites, I have a RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK poster in my room....
THIS IS GOING TO BE KILLER SWEET, the trailer looks a little corny, especially with Indy whipping around and stuff, he is supposed to our quintessential realist hero, he get hurt, shot, breaks ribs, falls down, gets beat up, etc, and to see him flipping around like that is a little disheartening, especially when he goes right through the windshield of that truck, without an OUCH or anything.
Anyways, I've been looking forward to this movie since I was a kid.
-
THIS IS GOING TO BE KILLER SWEET, the trailer looks a little corny, especially with Indy whipping around and stuff, he is supposed to our quintessential realist hero, he get hurt, shot, breaks ribs, falls down, gets beat up, etc, and to see him flipping around like that is a little disheartening, especially when he goes right through the windshield of that truck, without an OUCH or anything.
I would almost dare to guess that they left all the "ouch" lines out of the trailer so that people won't go "lol, they've made him so oooold and whiny!" and not realizing that he's been like that all along (not whiny but complaining over the wounds). You catch my drift.
-
The Indiana Jones movies are my favourites. I pray that they don't screw it up! I think the teaser, being only rough, it's quite okay. Harrison's still got it. I won't be completely content until it comes out though. After those just plain awful Star Wars prequels (come on whoever may, don't defend them - they are dreadful) I can't help but have that nagging lack of confidence in the back of my mind.
-
(come on whoever may, don't defend them - they are dreadful)
Oh come on, they're not Rocky V bad. It's just because of what you have to compare them against (and I will admit that Episode I wasn't that good.)
-
The Indiana Jones movies are my favourites. I pray that they don't screw it up! I think the teaser, being only rough, it's quite okay. Harrison's still got it. I won't be completely content until it comes out though. After those just plain awful Star Wars prequels (come on whoever may, don't defend them - they are dreadful) I can't help but have that nagging lack of confidence in the back of my mind.
You seem to forget that the prequels were made by Lucas himself with a bunch of aye-sayers around him (which happens when you're the boss of your independent company). Lucas is simply a producer of this film while Spielberg is making the final decisions (or so I'd like to think). I doubt he and Harrison Ford would go through with this if they didn't believe in the film themselves.
On a different note, I enjoy the prequels because they are fun to watch. :gwa:
-
Oh, I have faith in Spielberg, Liman. But I haven't seen a good action movie in the cinema for a longgggg time, so I'm quite wary. Apart from the very occasional one these days, few seem to have that long lasting charm that they have in the 80s and early 90s. I'd love to see this movie as a big success that shows current movie makers just what has been lost over the last decade.
-
And I also like Shia LaBeouf. He's not in very many dramatic roles from what I've seen (only two I can think of off the top of my head are Tru Confessions which was really dumb, and A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints which was really good), so it's hard to actually judge him as a serious actor, but he just seems like a cool guy and I've grown up with him, so.
I love Shia LaBeouf. I grew up with him, too. I love Even Stevens. I remember seeing Tru Confessions, too. :P But you forgot his wonderful performance in The Greatest Game Ever Played.
-
I thought Shia was great in Transformers and Disturbia, haven't seen his older stuff though. Best part of the teaser.."Damn, I thought that was closer" haha and it seems that Harrison Ford has still got it! I eagerly await this film, should be awesome.
-
Yah I love indy (even the spin-off Young indy series was really awesome), so I kinda have hopes for this. Shia is kinda gay, but he's THE YOUNG ACTOR at the moment apparently so I kinda guessed he would be in it before knowing. Spielberg I dunno I hope he can do it right, but he hasn't exactly been the best director around in recent years.
(the star wars prequels are just bad films... on every aspect of being a film, regardless of even on a Star Wars scale)
-
Episode 3 was a well crafted operatic story, IMO, and the only thing that ruined it was Hayden Christensen's acting (which had improved over the course of the prequel trilogy). Other than that it was a pretty good film.
But as it's been said, it doesn't seem like they are relying on hevy special effects but more traditional stunts and action film techniques and whatnot, so ILM probably won't be involved so much, and the cinemattic narrative probably won't take a backseat to showing off any fancy special effects, which is something the prequel trilogy suffered from.
-
ILM did all the special fx in the original films
-
Man, that was great. I'm actually looking forward to it.
-
Man, I really can't wait for this. The original trilogy is awesome and Indiana Jones movies are among my favorites. Harrison Ford is one of my favorite actor and this is a movie I have been looking forward to a long time and I'm definitely going to see it. The trailer was good, though it had more CGI than I had expected. But still, it definitely felt like Indiana Jones and that's a good thing.
-
I just started getting into Indiana Jones and there's a lot of backstory to the movies and everything. Lucas wrote over 90 years worth of story for Jones and 70+ different story arcs which all lead up to the movies. The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones chronicles 28 of the original Indiana plot arcs but they never got to season 3 which ties in with Raiders of the Lost Ark by introducing younger versions of characters.
Anyways, this new movie is actually the sequel to the canceled 3rd season. Young Indie was searching for the crystal skulls but was thwarted by Germans or something. 40 years later or whatever, this movie begins.
-
I think the Crystal Skulls were a sub-plot in some of the novels, all the novels which featured it being written by the same author (mark... something?) and approved by Lucas. The Young Indy TV series was too fragmented to have any steady overaching story arcs, but still did produce a lot of cool adventures (like Attack of the Hawkmen and Adventures in the Secret Service).
-
Shia LaBeouf. I never really liked him that much; mostly because he was shoved into Transformers and given tons of opportunities, all to raise Shia Awareness after he was hired to be Indiana's apprentice years ago. Call me cynical.
-
I think he's a good young side kick with some great natural comic wit :/
-
Sorry, I know necroposting is bad but this movie comes out next week, and from the looks of things some reviews are starting to come in.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/05/08/reviews-of-indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull-hit-the-net/
Warning: Spoilers at end of article, article links to spoilers.
This article at slashfilm lists some of what's been said by those who saw preview screenings. Apparently the reactions have been mixed, but so far the movie hasn't been grandly applauded. I find this disappointing, and I am starting to hope to God that this isn't going to be the Attack of the Clones of the Indy franchise. The initial trailer foreshadowed this, I must say, showing maybe something a little more like, as the article says "Live Free or Die Hard" rather than Raiders. What do you guys think?
-
So, I saw it, and while I wouldn't really call it "good" it was at least enjoyable. The beginning was all pretty dumb, but around the point Shia LaBeouf comes in, it starts to actually get interesting and kinda cool. But then there is this terrible car chase scene in the jungle and everything just sort of falls apart.
It felt like watching The Mummy or National Treasure but with slightly better direction. So, I guess just take that how you will.
-
How would you compare it to earlier ones? I just watched ALL THREE like last week for the first time ever and I liked the first one a lot, but the second one was fucking terrible and the third was watchable but not as good as the first I felt. I was planning on checking it out maybe today because I sort of find that shit cool in a nostalgic way, and if it's like the first one then that'd be swell, but if it watches more like the second one then I might just skip it altogether. I only saw The Mummy once when I was like 13 and I don't recall it being so hot, so that doesn't bode well!
-
Well, to be entirely honest, I didn't really like the earlier ones. The first one was the only one that I thought was even "okay," but the other two I thought were too cheesy and over the top for me. So I'd probably say it's not as good as the first one, but better than the other two. But probably the only reason I'm saying it was better is because of the environment and everything. Like, with this kind of movie, seeing it in theaters and with friends is obviously always going to be a better experience than alone and at home, so if I were to rewatch the newest one a few years from now I'm sure I'd have a totally different take on it.
I dunno, I feel like I can't really give you the kind of answer you're probably looking for, just because I'm not a big Indy fan. I'd say it's worth going to see it though.
-
I can't believe you didn't like the first one that much! You're right, the second and third are comparatively way over the top and kind of hokey and HAHAHA LITTLE ASIAN KID GREAT CINEMA GREAAAAAAT CINEMA but I watched the first one and even at 22 I found it pretty cool in, I guess, the same way people find Pirates of the Caribbean good (swashbucklin' adventure etc), so I'm surprised you weren't WAY INTO IT as a kid. Nazi gunfights and all that; kids usually gobble that shit up.
-
Man I want to see this tonight SO bad, but I have finals to study for. Damn.
But even if this sucks it will be awesome because it's fucking Indiana Jones.
-
watched this today and it was sooooooooooo bad. I can't believe it. Usually Spielberg makes good films, but he really fucked up with this one. Everything was really off. The pacing of the film was horrendous. It was just mindless action scene after action scene. SHIA LEBOUF SWINGING WITH THE MONKEYS!!!!
I really hated the look of the film aswell. They put some shitty filter, which made it have that cloudy feel like in Lord of the rings. Karren Allen's character was completely unneccersary and just put in for nostalgia.
Harrison Ford was absolutely terrible in this film. He couldn't get back into the character. He slipped back in once or twice, but quickly left. He didn't seem like 'Indiana Jones'
CGI WAS FUCKING TERRIBLE
Don't let anyone tell you that the Special effects were mainly practical, becuase there was a shit load of bad CGI. CGI Goafers, CGI Monkeys, CGI Explosions, CGI backgrounds etc the list goes on.
I loved the originals, but this film was a complete let down. I would give it 3/10
-
I enjoyed the majority of the movie. Several lines of dialog were terrible, though: "I never should have doubted you, my friend." Ugh. Otherwise I liked it!
Except... For... The ending. I won't spoil anything, but it's just so OUT OF NOWHERE even though the whole movie kinda leads up to it. It goes against the whole action/adventure/some fantasy genre style of the originals and adds in this out-of-place gimmicky ending that was just... Not good! Other than that I liked it, with a few qualms here and there.
-
GUUUURRR GURRRRRR THIS FUCKING MOVIE
I was pretty much astonished that despite being on the imdb Top 250 and having like 77% on RottenTomatoes, this movie turned out to be so fucking ridiculous! Impeal couldn't have been more right when he said it's like National Treasure meets Mummy Returns but with slightly better direction.
The movie is set in 1957 and I guess it has that 1950's atmosphere, with the greasers and the girls with the big ribbons in their hair and the 50's pop music playing in the background. Heck, even the old Paramount logo was a nice touch to begin the movie. Shia LeBeouf is pretty laughable as a TOUGH GUY, though, because like 15 minutes into the movie, he rides in on a motorcycle dressed as a greaser (combing his hair and shit) and acting all tough and he has a knife in his pocket and he likes playing with his knife. But I couldn't take him seriously at all. I know Indy movies are not to be taken seriously but jesus christ.
Harrison Ford wasn't bad, I felt. He's lost some of his edge and charm as Indiana Jones and he's become too much of a softie now, it seems. But it didn't bother me that much. Bringing back Karen Allen was cool but she's lost plenty of her edge from Raiders too. And Cate Blanchett was cool but her character just felt totally underdeveloped and one-dimensional. OKAY SHE'S EVIL SOVIET BITCH, WE GET IT. And apparently she has an inkling of the Force or something because she is telepathic or something!
The unrealism in this film is startling. I know Indy films always had some unrealism going for it, such as the immortal knight and the ghosts in the Ark or whatever, but this was just ridiculous! ALIENS AND SPACESHIPS AND E.T. AND KILLER MONKEY, KILLER ANT, KILLER MAYAN, KILLER MONKEY-MAN WITH POISON DARTS, LET'S JUMP OFF WATERFALLS, LET'S DRIVE OFF CLIFFS AND LAND ON A TREE THAT DIPS US INTO THE WATER and apparently a magnetic material that is selectively magnetic and throwing a cloth over it would stop it from being magnetic. I don't know how to explain it! There are a lot of unnecessary parts, including some dumb FBI subplot that didn't make much sense at all in the plot, and a bunch of random action scenes in the first ten minutes of the movie.
The use of CGI in this movie is TERRIBLE. There's TOO MUCH OF IT. CGI everything! I think even Indy's whip was CGI! It just ruined the feel of the movie!
The ending of this movie is horrible and anti-climactic and just made no sense! It feels like George Lucas more than Steven Spielberg (and that isn't a good thing at all!).
All in all, it WAS a pretty enjoyable movie (except for the last 15 minutes because fucking George Lucas) because I chose to ignore a lot of the ridiculous shit that was going on while watching it so I wouldn't say it's so horrible that you should boycott it. If you're an Indiana Jones fan, just be cautious when you walk into this movie. It's a fun movie for the most but ruined by a bunch of unrealistic elements and ridiculous action scenes that will make you grind your teeth if you take them too seriously.
George Lucas also reported this in a recent Vanity Fair interview: "What it is that made it perfect was the fact that the MacGuffin I wanted to use and the idea that Harrison Ford would be 20 years older would fit. So that put it in the mid-50s, and the MacGuffin I was looking at was perfect for the mid-50s. I looked around and I said, Well, maybe we shouldn't do a 30s serial, because now were in the 50s. What is the same kind of cheesy-entertainment action movie, what was the secret B movie, of the 50s? So instead of doing a 30s Republic serial, were doing a B science-fiction movie from the 50s. The ones Im talking about are, like, "Creature from the Black Lagoon," "The Blob," and "The Thing." So by putting it in that context, it gave me a way of approaching the whole thing. "
Man he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. Shut the fuck up!
-
I enjoyed the film.
As far as realism goes, I didn't find the Crystal Skulls to be anymore farfetched than the fucking Arc or Holy Grail. While I was initially put off by the science fiction alien conspirist bullshit near the beginning, the fact is that it's all based on popular myth which is what Indiana Jones is at the very core; a pulp action movie with supernatural shit based on popular myths. The Crystal Skulls and the alien myths surrounding them are pretty popular in pop culture (well, not so much as the holy grail or excalibur but they're well known) so the "surprise twist" wasn't at all that confounding.
Indy did lose a lot of his "fire" which could probably be attributed to the fact that both the character and the actor are 20 years older. He was much more hamfisted than normal (this movie taught me that the best way to get out of a hostile situation is start punching random people) and he spoke in short blunt sentences but that didn't ruin the "spirit" of the film at all. LeBouf wasn't bad and he does his best performances as a side character so I was never put off by him being there or being a greaser or whatever.
Everything felt pretty normal for an Indiana Jones movie; you've got crazy outlandish fight scenes (nothing will top the tank scene from Crusades in terms of OUTLANDISH), supernatural shit, tombs, traps, crazy natives, a fist fight with a bruiser that ends up with him dying a horrible death... it felt very "Indy" right down to the last bit. The only thing that truly put me off was the two random tomb guardians...
there was only two of them. Do these guys seriously sit around doing nothing and perform kung-fu on anyone that gets near the tomb?
So, what does the Crystal Skull do anyway? Infinine ammo? Double jump? Bonus MP?
It's the skull of inter-dimensional creatures that taught the Mayans how to do shit. They collected artifacts all around the world because knowledge to them was the greatest resource. They were completely benign but lost their powers when some Conquistador stole one of the original skulls. When you stare into it's eyes you see glimpses of all the knowledge in the universe (and the villain's head literally explodes from the knowledge).
-
I saw this yesterday and I really liked it.
It was very over the top and a bit corny but that should be expected considering how the previous movies were. The only part I thought was much too silly was when Mutt was swinging with the monkeys.
I also didn't initially enjoy the Alien thing but I think it worked out alright in the end.
I thought Shia was cute as the greaser but I liked him better in the later parts of the movie when it wasn't rubbed in your face every two seconds.
-
The only thing that bugged me (not really) about the film was how he survived a NUCLEAR BLAST in a REFRIDGERATOR. Lead-lined or not. I can see the fridge surviving, in one piece, but the landing alone should have turned Indy into goo.
-
Just saw this.
I got mixed feelings about it. Sometimes it was really good and felt like other Indiana Jones movies and then sometimes I just couldn't bring myself to like it that much. Some of the CGI stood out way too much and there were some way over the top moments and even though we know that Indiana Jones movies aren't really realistic, I think this one just overdid it and the end... I can kind of understand it and Marcus has a point but on the other hand, it didn't really fit into Indiana Jones and even though it was a myth like any other, aliens are still so farfetched and feel out of place. It didn't ruin the movie for me and I was definitely not expecting it, and I suppose that's what they were going for. I would have hoped for another kind of conclusion though.
Anyway, I'd say it was pretty entertaining and it most of the things which were present in old Indiana Jones movies too. Some parts felt unnecessary, some were over the top but on the other hand, I think Harrison Ford did a good job and as Marcus said, LeBouf wasn't really bad either. And yeah, the tomb guardians (or ninja indians as I call them) were just completely random. So yeah, even though I said I have mixed feelings about it, I'm pretty satisfied with the movie. It's not the best in the series but I think it's worthy of the title.
-
Gah! FUCKIN' UFOS. WHAT THE FUCK.
Apart from that it was pretty entertaining. Really entertaining, but you had to not just suspend disbelief, but take it and throw it out the door. Can anyone explain to me what the strange creepy test NUCLEAR SUPER BLAST town had to do with anything (plus wow that was out of place)? Plus what was with "I like Ike?", 'cause he said that to Cate Blanchett (whose accent slipped dramatically in the first part), and then it was on said super bomb.
Enjoyable, but... yeah. Worth it!
-
saw it tonight and EXCESSIVE PANDERING and a general feeling of it being overdone are the biggest things i got out of it. i think someone said summer blockbuster and that's pretty much clearly what they were going for, with random points where indiana does something so distinctly..............indy. i liked the first movie because, idk, it felt sort of fun and interesting and for what it was it did a pretty good job, but after that i think the steady decline in the quality of the sequels was due to that at that point people had certain expectations of what would be in the movie, and how indiana would act, and this is just another example of that. it's so obviously a movie defined by peoples expectations and perceptions of the series. it's such a cool idea for a POPCORN MOVIE or whatever but they really just can't help but overdo pretty much everything.
-
Christoph:
the strange creepy test NUCLEAR SUPER BLAST town had to do with anything (plus wow that was out of place)? Plus what was with "I like Ike?", 'cause he said that to Cate Blanchett (whose accent slipped dramatically in the first part), and then it was on said super bomb.
"I like Ike" was an out of place reference to Dwight D. Eisenhower who was reelected as President for his second term one year before the movie's events and it could have been a reference to the Eisenhower Doctrine (which was signed in the same year as the movie) which stated America would help any country opposed to communism. It was kind of a useless comment and it was also dumb how they briefly brought up a RED SCARE side-story and never did anything with it.
it's such a cool idea for a POPCORN MOVIE or whatever but they really just can't help but overdo pretty much everything.
I was having a conversation with my buddies on the ride home and we all agreed that George Lucas is batshit insane. He wanted to do an Indy film with Aliens since 1987 but every script was rejected so he turned his focus on other things. The guy is a completionist and doesn't feel right until everything he wants is accomplished. Once digital editing and computer animation became popular he started masturbating to the idea of digitally editing EVERYTHING.
I mean, just look at the new releases of the original Star Wars. Was there any point in making Han shoot first or having a Jawa getting thrown off that beast thing?
-
I just watched this.
By no means is this the best of the Indy films, but it's not like it ruins the series in any way.
If they just cut out some stupid shit nuclear test at the beginning, the snake as a rope gag, the monkeys, etc. while keeping the story the same this movie would be about 70% better.
But basically, it followed the same basic template of an Indiana Jones movie and while at times it was overdone it never seemed like I wasn't watching an Indiana Jones movie.
-
this movie is bad.
i just went and saw it after reading ebert's review of 3.5/4. so like i expected somethign quality like Raiders or Last Crusade. But it wasn't even remotely the same kind of storytelling. This was over-the-top, dumbed down, less stylized, more generic and stupidly simple. The characters are flat, other than one crazy guy and Indy himself. Shia is terrible. There is little chemistry between him and ford. Cate Blanchette's character isn't even hatable -- she's more of a running gag ("oh look, she's russian, thats funny, watch as she acts overly cartoonish and gets hit by a giant slingshotting branch).
I liked the stoy, well, the ideas behind it. I feel like it could have made a good Indy movie. But they went absolutely overboard on useless special effects (hmmm.. george lucas sure makes realistic gophers!!)
compare it to raiders, and it is dumbed the fuck down to be more accessible and re-creating the franchise as action tripe. i won't ruin it but some of the scenes are so ridiculous and stupid that you will want to scream. the "cameo" sean connery makes actually made me laugh out loud. there's one particular swordfight that basically sums up the bastardization of the movies.
anyway yeah i hated it. there were a couple cool fights, and an okay concept, but that was it
-
Hahahaha, this movie :-(
I tried to watch this twice, first time I fell asleep and my friend who managed to stay awake told me that I wouldn't benefit much from a second try. I ignored that because I'm a pretty big fan of the first and third old indiana jones films. God damn.
On the whole I hope they make ONE MORE because they seem to have an alternating GOOD/SHIT/GOOD/SHIT/GOOD thing going on now like the Star Trek movies
-
Hahahaha, this movie :-(
I tried to watch this twice, first time I fell asleep and my friend who managed to stay awake told me that I wouldn't benefit much from a second try. I ignored that because I'm a pretty big fan of the first and third old indiana jones films. God damn.
On the whole I hope they make ONE MORE because they seem to have an alternating GOOD/SHIT/GOOD/SHIT/GOOD thing going on now like the Star Trek movies
Look who made the movie, man. Nothing Lucas touches is anything but awful, awful shit at this point. I'm still trying to decide if I found this equally as bad or worse than the second one, though. A lot of the stupid shit in this one, like cheesy one liners and stupid bickering in improbable situations, were also in the second one, but idk this has the distinct feel of a by-the-books, uninspired summer action blockbuster, which the second one didn't (or maybe it did, but it's like 23 years old so it's more difficult to identify). It honestly felt like an inferior version of Pirates of the Caribbean but replace pirates with nazis/russians/archaeologists/whatever else.
I thought the third one was alright enough, but after watching all three in a single day, Raiders is honestly the best by a pretty wide margin. I'm starting to think that the whole thing was just dumb luck on his part. Or, maybe he's an alright director before the expectations of audiences start to influence him for the worse. It seems like the two major series he's been behind didn't start sucking in earnest until at least the second movie, when everyone was really anticipating them. That would explain why the newer Star Wars trilogy is even worse than the original one! EXPECTATIONS, man. I'm sure they're really stress-inducing!
-
Yeah I didn't actually know Lucas had written this thing, I should have come at this with way lower expectations. Even so I feel like I've just watched The Mummy Returns.
-
This movie sucked!
Certain scenes were entirely pointless: FBI scene, nuclear test scene and on a whole the movie just fell flat. The characters sucked. Cate Blanchett is a great actress but her character was so devoid of any kind of personality other than the russian army woman stereotype - and frankly the rest of the characters were pretty bland. Shia... UGH.. the last scene of the movie made everyone in the theatre cringe when he reached for Indy's hat to put it on. I seriously hope that they don't try any spinoffs with him.
You know what else sucked about this film? There were no booby traps. Yeah, none whatsoever. As soon as the group got into the waterfall cave they just easily walked into the chamber full of the alien skeletons without any problems. Oh, wait - mayans attacked them for 20 seconds, but then, once again, the skull acting as deus ex machina was able to miraculously get them out of that situation. What a disappointment. I really expected some elaborate traps and problems to overcome in the temple - not simply disappearing stone steps. It's like the film built up the mysticism of this golden kingdom but once the film got there there was nothing to show. The destination was just so empty.
All in all, this film was way too CHEESY, even for previous Indiana Jones standards. What a bad way to go out for a franchise. ;(
-
Mummy Returns meets National Treasure 2... meets Close Encounters of the Third Kind
-
this is such a terrible movie. worse than i thought it'd be even. unfortunately i got dragged to it because my family was PUMPED UP HARD to see it. of course they ended up hating it too, even though they were REALLY TRYING HARD TO LIKE IT.
this movie misses the mark on so many damn fronts, even for what it is. the other indiana jones movies are truly not half as good as they're made out to be, but if anything the drama and presentation generally work. if you're ok with turning your brain off for two hours, the movies are pretty entertaining and are generally engaging. this one never gets to that point. they waste characters, feature absurd amount of senseless cgi, and never pick up any positive momentum.
i really don't like how much the movie screams SEQUEL with that boring fucker shia labeouf. man what a waste of goddamn time he is. it bothers me that people are so hungry for something to blindly stare to escape from their hollow, pathetic lives that an indiana jones movie with shia labeouf would probably QUENCH THE THIRST/SILENCE THE DEMONS and make billions of fucking dollars. GET READY 2009 FOR INDIANA JONES AND THE WASTED LIFE OF AMERICA
also i want to state for the record that cate blanchett is the most obnoxious, unconvincing actress i've ever fucking seen. i started laughing uncontrollably during her first scene, as did several other people in the theatre. unfortunately the HUMOR wore off after a while and it just got extremely taxing on my nerves. i guess it's nice to see someone that tries, but jesus christ does she actually think that humanity is just this cluster of annoying, bloated stereotypes? she's like this in every fucking movie i've ever seen her in. it's like she plays every damn movie as ABSURDIST COMEDY in her attempt to STAND OUT/BE VIVID.
-
I can't believe people didn't like this.
I thought it was absolutely brilliant and i actually raved about it to quite a lot of people i didnt know that well afterwards.
The main complaint seems to be "Fucking hell aliens. Bloody GOD was in 2 of them and nobody batted an eyelid. These are meant to be over the top adventure films.
I went into the cinema expecting to be dissapointed and i just wasnt.
Great film.
-
that's definitely not my main complaint! also god from religious lore and SPACESHIP HIVEMINDS are... do you not understand how these are different? things like the ark of the covenant are legitimate parts of human history and mythology, and MAKE SENSE within the context of the movies (archaeology, history of civilization, etc). aliens are not, and as such do not. it's such a generic, terrible copout, and it's so far off the path from what the previous movies had established as the reasons behind all the adventuring. to just come in 25 years later and switch it up from legitimate aspects of human history to OR MAYBE ALIENS DUNNIT???? is laughably bad.
and yeah saying they're meant to be over the top is just a poor excuse for having nothing in the movie be believable whatsoever. ALL of them were meant to be somewhat over the top adventure movies, but with the exception of the second one, they were able to attain some modicum of believability. this movie, in contrast, is a joke and is totally incapable of being taken seriously. it is seriously PRETTY BAD and if you can watch raiders of the lost ark and then this immediately afterwards and not see differences you can't just dismiss by saying "w/e its meant to be over the top" then i don't really know what to tell you!
-
Yeah the Ark of the Covenant and that aren't... like, common knowledge. This one is slightly more obvious where people will go OH ALIENS because aliens are generic and EVERYONE knows about them. The design was generic and stereotypical, and blargh. I can see what you're getting at, man, but the difference lies in the obscurity of the material.
Jesus Christ I cannot say what I want to. I think headphonics actually said it, but this was my attempt!
Not that the movie was bad, I still enjoyed it. But yeah.
-
Not only were the aliens are terrible copout but the characters didn't even react at all to them! There was no questioning their existence and no one even had a surprised reaction. They were all like "ok, let's just get this skull back to where it's supposed to go"...
The more I think about this movie the more I hate it. Why was Indy even bringing it back in the first place? The skull was supposed to bring power to the person who restored it, but I didn't get the feeling that Indy wanted power by bringing it back. It didn't even feel like he was doing it for the sense of adventure. I just never sensed any sort of motivation from him... They could have went with the angle that by bringing the skull back his friend would regain his sanity but that never was explicitly mentioned or portrayed. I still am confused by the motivations from all these characters.
Also, why was he so quick to obey the enemy's commands? (At first I thought that he was hypnotized by staring into the skull and was now obeying the Russians... but nope, he was just being dumb.) The old Indy would never comply so easily. This whole Indiana Jones has aged and is beyond his prime angle was just a slap in the face to the viewers. We don't want to see our hero get old and stupid... we all wanted to see him kick ass. The many jokes of him doing things inadvertantly and sucking weren't funny.. they were just cringe-worthy to me. Also, he began to re-trust Mac way too quickly. Come on, when you shift one character's perception of another with a single line ("I'm a double agent") that's just lazy. There should have been some hesitation and questioning on Indy's part - he could have discovered one of those blinking LED lights and confronted him, or been watching him more closely. But no, more wasted character potential. (And don't even get me started on Cate Blanchett's character... that's a prime example of character wastage).
The whole movie felt like empty characters were being dragged across various action scenes. :tsk:
I am extremely surprised that people actually enjoyed this film (unless they are so into action sequences that they are blinded by them or are such huge Indiana Jones fans that they can't see things objectively but through rosy coloured glasses.)
-
I've tried not to read too much of this because I am seeing the film tomorrow. But for those of you who think that realism was never a huge factor in the Indy films, is something I disagree with.
The progression in each of the Indy flims is very much one from natural towards supernatural at the end. In the beginning you think, "Well the ark is just a box," or "Eternal life, no wai!?" or "Magic rocks don't kill a village, whatever." And in this respect Indy was always a character who in the films usually got by off the skin of his teeth. That being said, as the films continue through thier plotlines, the lines between the realism and the supernatural are blurred, until the climax at the end when they are altogether broken. An example of this was in Raiders, when you see that the swastika wsa burned off the box while its in cargo in the boat, or in Temple of Doom when he pulls the guy's heart out and its still beating. Part of the big suspense of the films revolves around the fact that it is not clear weather or not the McGuffin is actually magic, like how in Raiders the ark is opened to reveal nothing but sand inside.... that is, until the transition between the natural and supernatural is broken, and the superstitions are confirmed. And because Indy is an expert in the Occult, superstition is where he knows his stuff, and its usually at this moment that he resolves the main conflict of the story. (says the chant to set the stones on fire, picks the right Grail, keeps his eyes shut through the crazy nazi-death scene).
So yeah, the idea of realism actually plays a huge role in the Indy films. Indy is also not some kind of superhero and there is a moment in each film when Indy is vulnerable, helpless, and on the edge of death, and usually, literally, hanging on by a thread (Raiders: the truck scene, Temple: the voodoo scene, OR the bridge scene, Crusade: the tank chase). He usually gets shot, stabbed, poisoned, set on fire, thrown off a cliff, or something like that. He's not meant to be some kind of Stephen Segal type action hero, because that doesn't fit in with the progression of the film. Indy is the realism, and the McGuffin is the supernatural, and as he gets closer to it the idea for the viewer of what is possible is supposed to diminish.
Now if this film doesn't at least hold to that established setup, I can see it being a total disappointment.
-
One thing people should know is to not go into this movie expecting Raiders of the Lost Ark quality material. You have to remember that Spielberg and Lucas have been senile for about a decade. So, if you go in expecting Temple of Doom quality you will enjoy this movie much more.
-
Not only were the aliens are terrible copout but the characters didn't even react at all to them! There was no questioning their existence and no one even had a surprised reaction. They were all like "ok, let's just get this skull back to where it's supposed to go"...
In all fairness, when you've first hand witnessed god's wrath, seen a man rip out people's still beating hearts, and stolen the holy fucking grail I don't think ALIENS and killer army ants is going to come as any sort of surprise.
-
Well, following that logic, once you've seen God's wrath, neither of those other two should come as much of a surprise either, and they clearly did in the second and third movies!
-
I haven't really got much of a problem with the whole aliens thing. My problem is with the delivery, direction and craft of the film. It's all wrong and doesn't feel right. The pacing is awful and it suffers from a lack of scenes that bridge the gap between the action. The acting from Harrison Ford seemed like he was doing impressions of his own character rather than actually being him. So many useless characters. The whole love thing going on was really hard to swallow and unbelieveable since Marion's character was pretty much redudant. The snakes, the monkeys, the goafers. The list goes on....
I watched this film as an avid fan, but feel I have judged it objectively. I kind of get the impression that those defending the movie must be in denial or something if they think that this is anywhere near the standard of an Indiana Jones movie.
-
Well, following that logic, once you've seen God's wrath, neither of those other two should come as much of a surprise either, and they clearly did in the second and third movies!
maybe so, but seeing men rip out hearts, melting nazis and the holy grail (in that order) would be increasingly surprising each time! aliens probably wouldn't (this is the 50s we're talking about - saucer-mania)
-
Well, following that logic, once you've seen God's wrath, neither of those other two should come as much of a surprise either, and they clearly did in the second and third movies!
... the second film takes place before the other ones though :gwa:
-
Really? I never knew! Is that supposed to be common knowledge? When I watched it, it seemed sort of cheap how they made him fall in love when whoever that woman was in the first one, and then just threw some other chick at him just out of nowhere like a fucking Bond movie.
-
I've tried not to read too much of this because I am seeing the film tomorrow. But for those of you who think that realism was never a huge factor in the Indy films, is something I disagree with.
I think though that the reason it worked in the Indy films though, is that they were presented in a realistic way. I mean of course you've got the braindead action scenes, but everything is realistic to the point that you don't think that whatever he's searching for will exist, because it seems like it isn't 'that kind of movie'. In Raiders, up until the end the whole idea is that you don't think the ark will actually exists, or if it does it will probably not do anything. From what I hear about this movie it's conspiracies and alien fucking skulls right from the start which would kind of ruin that entire feeling.
-
Yeah so I saw it yesterday. It wasn't a particularly bad movie, but I agree with everyone that the pacing was off, and it was way over the top, the plot and dialogue was pretty much retarded (lol the power of family). I'm golad I went to see it in the theatre. My favourite shot of the whole film was the valley exploding at the end with all the shit whizzing everywhere , because the effect of it all with Indy in the foreground was just reminiscent of the opening scene of Raiders with him standing in front of the mountain.
Watching this film actually made me realize how much the actual compostion of editing and cinematography has changed over the past twenty years, and not altogether for the better. From what I saw, there were very few still shots, few long takes. The constant motion, cutting, action, does heighten the pace of the movie but at the loss of a huge artistic blow by essentially eliminating the chance of a composition of a shot to reveal something more about the scene. A popcorn movie even ten years ago (like Independence Day) held up against something like Transformers and Crystal Skull shows the difference. While ID4 was just as silly a film, you can't deny that it was a pretty well made piece of pulp, but compared to it the over-reliance on CG, the campy winking humour, and what feels like a general lack of good storytelling falls short.
Yeah, the mystery and atmosphere of the other Indy films is completely absent from this movie. The first 15-20 minutes should have been dropped entirely, and all the period stuff everywhere, all the wink wink nod nod to the old films and then to the period (yeah I get it Spielberg its the 50s thanks for the heads up) was ridiculous. I stayed after for the credits and saw that the Dr. Pepper items were donated courtesy of the Dr. Pepper Museum. That was pretty nifty.
-
Well, I'm seeing it next Saturday, so you can expect my thoughts that night.
-
To me this film doesn't exist. I have so many gripes with it. In my eyes there are three Star Wars films and three Indiana Jones films, George Lucas should stay the f*ck away from things and leave them the way they should be remembered.
-
Really? I never knew! Is that supposed to be common knowledge? When I watched it, it seemed sort of cheap how they made him fall in love when whoever that woman was in the first one, and then just threw some other chick at him just out of nowhere like a fucking Bond movie.
Yeah, Temple of Doom is technically the first adventure but it's not common knowledge unless you're a super dork or read other material. Lucas actually wrote the entire "Indiana Story" which chronicles his adventures from life to death. A lot of tertiary material was covered in the original comic books, the Fate of Atlantis video game, Young Indiana Jones, and the upcoming comic series.
-
To me this film doesn't exist. I have so many gripes with it. In my eyes there are three Star Wars films and three Indiana Jones films, George Lucas should stay the f*ck away from things and leave them the way they should be remembered.
Yeah, everything is Lucas fault. Spielberg, Ford and Koepp didn't have anything to say at all. Lucas is credited for the story. It's most likely David Koepp's fault for writing the script. It's one thing to blame Lucas for the new Star Wars film since he wrote and directed them himself but in this case he was simply a producer who said "yeah, I like this script, let's do it".
I personally think that Frank Darabont's script would have been worse since he added a brother to Indiana Jones (the alien part was already in there).
-
important to note that the producer often calls the shots especially when its George Lucas in charge. Spielberg apparently said he wasn't too happy with the script, but went along with it becuase he was working for George Lucas. So yes, George lucas would be the first person to blame, but not completely his fault.
-
Yeah, everything is Lucas fault. Spielberg, Ford and Koepp didn't have anything to say at all. Lucas is credited for the story. It's most likely David Koepp's fault for writing the script. It's one thing to blame Lucas for the new Star Wars film since he wrote and directed them himself but in this case he was simply a producer who said "yeah, I like this script, let's do it".
I personally think that Frank Darabont's script would have been worse since he added a brother to Indiana Jones (the alien part was already in there).
This isn't right at all. Lucas co-wrote the story, Koepp changed his ramblings into a script actors could sort of follow.
This is lucas' fault, don't you fucking take my scapegoat away.
David Koepp (screenplay)
George Lucas (story) and
Jeff Nathanson (story)
-
Sorry, forgot that it's cool to hate George Lucas!
I don't recall Spielberg saying "I don't like the script", what I do remember is that they agreed to do this version because they were getting older and wanted to move on with other things. This script was like the last one, if they didn't do it they wouldn't do a movie at all.
-
Sorry, forgot that it's cool to hate George Lucas!
It's not cool to hate on filmmakers who consistently make terrible, awful films. It's just right.
-
marks got a point
-
The Shawshank Redemption filmmaker Frank Darabont has hit out at movie mogul George Lucas for preventing Steven Spielberg from shooting his script for the upcoming Indiana Jones sequel, claiming his efforts were "a waste of a year." Darabont wrote a screenplay for the highly-anticipated movie, which is still known by its working title of Indiana Jones 4, and insists director Spielberg was happy with it. However, producer Lucas didn't think it was good enough. Darabont tells MTV.com, "It showed me how badly things can go. I spent a year of very determined effort on something I was very excited about, working very closely with Steven Spielberg and coming up with a result that I and he felt was terrific. He wanted to direct it as his next movie, and then suddenly the whole thing goes down in flames because George Lucas doesn't like the script. I told him (Lucas) he was crazy. I said, 'You have a fantastic script. I think you're insane, George.' You can say things like that to George, and he doesn't even blink. He's one of the most stubborn men I know." He adds, "I have no idea if there's a shred of (my script) left. It was a tremendous disappointment and a waste of a year." And Darabont has no plans to reveal what his Indiana Jones script contains: "At this point, I don't give much of a damn what George thinks, but I wouldn't want to harm my friendship with Steven."
It kind of sucks, becuase I think Darabont's script would have probably been much better. Not only did he write Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile, but he also wrote quite a few young Indiana Jones episodes. I feel that it was just a bad decision on George Lucas. Sure, the story would have been the same, but at least the dialogue would have been way better.
I can't see how David Koepp's script was worth the 10 year wait or whatever. He didn't write much 'indy' dialogue for Harrison at all. The closest it came was at the end where he says "so, you're a triple agent?".
All aspects of this film were bad, not just the story and script. Like I have said above, acting, directing, visual effects, pacing etc were all really off. I am really struggling to find some redeeming features in this movie.
For all those pro-indy 4 people. Please give me some reasons why this film was any good. Becuase seriously this was worse than every single Michael Bay film I have seen. I'm half expecting Postal to be better
-
no-one has complained about Shia Labeouf yet? how was he? i do not like this guy
-
no one's complained because the movie being terrible outshined his mediocre performance in it
-
Shia LeBeouf played a greaser tough guy. Nuff said.
-
no-one has complained about Shia Labeouf yet? how was he? i do not like this guy
i really don't like how much the movie screams SEQUEL with that boring fucker shia labeouf. man what a waste of goddamn time he is.
yeah he is just terrible. he kinda feels like a less textured david schwimmer.
it defies logic that someone can be LESS INTERESTING than david schwimmer, but shia labeouf manages to pull it off. you'd figure someone with such a terrible, annoying, derived-from-clearly-dead-languages name would try a little fucking harder, but that's the kinda DONT HAVE AN ACTING BONE IN MY BODY vibe that shia labeouf wishes to exude.
his role in indiana jones can be summarized like this: the guy can't even convincingly comb his fucking hair. seriously. his character has to compulsively comb his hair [EVERY ][/EVERY], and each time he does this you will find yourself thinking HEH HEH LOOK THE SCREENPLAY MUST HAVE TOLD HIM FAGGOT JR. COMBS HIS HAIR AGAIN
it's really upsetting that someone with pull in the industry has decided that HEH THEY WILL LOVE SHIA LABEOUF and is thrusting him on us every month or two. pretty much the only thing you can type-cast this retard as is BOOM MIKE VISIBLE IN SCENE but i do not think there exists any filmmaker with that much common sense.
-
I thought David Schwimmer was really good in Band of Brothers. I was surprised.
-
I can't believe people didn't like this.
I thought it was absolutely brilliant and i actually raved about it to quite a lot of people i didnt know that well afterwards.
The main complaint seems to be "Fucking hell aliens. Bloody GOD was in 2 of them and nobody batted an eyelid. These are meant to be over the top adventure films.
I went into the cinema expecting to be dissapointed and i just wasnt.
Great film.
Mainly because at least you didn't have to see what God looked like whereas in this you saw what the aliens looked like, that and the absurd amount of CGI crammed into this film... for the budget they had they could have at least made it look good/realistic then maybe I wouldn't be so ticked off.
James Cameron is my hero at the moment, yeah he's used to doing model/physical effects in a lot of his movies but with Avatar he's doing CGI, but spending 2 years in post-production with it to make sure it looks real. Maybe they should have done this or not at all. No matter how real they made it, army ants, gophers and monkeys do not need CGI, they're not extinct after all.
-
Okay, so I liked the movie. Why? I have no idea. Perhaps it's because I actually went in and accept everything they threw at me. I liked everything, except
The FBI scene, for it had NO PURPOSE other than saying INDY IS A WAR HERO, which had no purpose itself either, and Shia swinging with the monkeys.
Am I a bad movie-watcher or something?
-
well accepting all the horrible shit they "threw at you" probably doesn't make you a good one!
-
I thought David Schwimmer was really good in Band of Brothers. I was surprised.
He was good, but was only in there for like 1 episode + show-ups in 2 others for small periods. But of course, that's how it happened in their lives so yeah.
-
Aliens. For Crying out loud, ALIENS. I mean, I realize that the other Indiana Jones movies touched upon some supernatural stuff (as I had to explain to my friends who watched the movie with me) but... aliens? The presentation of it just completely ruined the whole "willing suspension of disbelief" thing for me. It started okay, but when I saw the interdimensional vortex and the freakin' UFO I sort of called it quits, and we all left our theater before the end of the wedding and snuck into the one across the hall to see Iron Man (which pretty much made up for this movie's shortcomings).
-
Overlooked this topic!
I saw it the first day it was out and was really disappointed. Thought it lacked most of what made the originals good, the CGI was god-awful and the dialogue was all round not inspiring.
Decent blockbuster kind of film I spose, but definitely not up to Indy standards in my eyes.
-
man
people keep saying BAD CGI and i don't really disagree (oh god the monkey scene) but i see a lot of movies with pretty bad cgi and this seems to be getting an inordinate amount of attention for it!
-
man
people keep saying BAD CGI and i don't really disagree (oh god the monkey scene) but i see a lot of movies with pretty bad cgi and this seems to be getting an inordinate amount of attention for it!
i think a lot of that comes from how completely out of line all of it was from the rest of the movies in the series, and how totally unnecessary it was in this movie. i can't really think of a movie where the cgi felt so forced and unnatural. i think with most other movies you don't have this sort of reference point, but with the indiana jones movies you expect a degree of visual believability and the poor cgi ruined that completely. whenever something visually abnormal happened in the indiana jones movies, it was always pretty well justified within the context of the movie, but the cgi in this movie really wasn't at all. you really know that it was just there because george lucas is a worthless human being, not because anybody honestly believed that it would contribute to what the film was trying to do.
yeah, there's worse cgi out there, but through the cgi you can really see how big of a shit george lucas laid on this movie. i don't really think that cgi is usually this influential in the ultimate failure of a film.
-
Basically what Hundley said is totally what I feel. The Mist had pretty poor CGI (although cool designs) but since the movie focused a lot on the human element I still felt it was a success. It's just totally out of place in an Indy film and really shook me out of enjoying the film as much as I could have.
-
things
yeah i guess this is a pretty good point! i mostly thought people meant poor cgi on a superficial level rather than on a uh... cinematic one i guess.