| Author |
 Topic  |
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
 Posted - 05/23/2008 : 00:49:45
|
Just come out of this and it's hard to describe how I feel. Kinda' like there's been a death in the family. I seriously sat silently in the cinema unable to move for some time afterwards.
Everyone knows Lucas lost the plot years ago, but how did Spielberg and Ford think any of this monstrosity was a good idea? The 'stunts' are so CGI (which Spielberg claimed would be kept to a bare minimum) there's absolutely no feeling of peril and at it's very worst, it's absolutely barmy- like watching a Tex Avery cartoon. Even when not doing action sequences, there was so much green screen I was inclined to think Harrison Ford only agreed to do the film if he didn't have to leave his house. And don't even get me started on the MacGuffin... I'm sorry but Indiana Jones and sci-fi just don't fit.
I'm sure others will pitch in with their feelings in the days to come but for now I'm still having trouble forming the words of how I feel. For me, there is only the original trilogy- this never happened  |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/23/2008 : 01:03:19
|
| Damn, I wanted to hear that this was an example of how the fourth movie in a franchise could be awesome. |
 |
|
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 05/23/2008 : 01:06:29
|
I'm seeing this on Sat 31st.
I heard that about the stunts being too CGI.
I hope the movie isn't that bad.  |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 05/23/2008 : 01:20:37
|
| Sorry to disappoint you guys. I'm actually posting here in the hope someone can tell me some way in which this film is not bad. I feel I need to reconcile this film in my mind somehow. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 05/23/2008 : 02:09:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Sorry to disappoint you guys. I'm actually posting here in the hope someone can tell me some way in which this film is not bad. I feel I need to reconcile this film in my mind somehow.
Just saw it tonight [on a bizarre double with Charlie Bartlett, about which more on another thread tomorrow]. Have to agree with you benj -- it's more of a ho-hum than a ho-boy!
My main problem was with the script - the back of a cereal box has more oomph! I think there were two jokes I laughed at. Then promptly forgot 
The music scoring kept reminding me of a parody of The Great Escape.
And that crap at the end! Pul-eeeze!
Struggling to find a few choice moments. Well, I did think both Cate Blanchett and Jim Broadbent were fine -- not special, but watchable. Whereas Ray Winstone kept streaking way off the radar. Karen Allen just looked like she was SO grateful to get the work!
As to young Shia, well he had none of the charm he brought to Transformers ... but the hair&make-up recreated a great D.A. for him. But my fav bit was when he instantly learned how to brachiate from what I think were capuchin monkeys.
But I guess the biggest plus is that shot for shot [and all green screen apart] Spielberg's direction was more assured and - dunno the best word - snappier I guess - than the earlier stuff.
But, you're right, there's more sense of danger in The Perils of Pauline than in this thin soup.
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 05/24/2008 : 03:04:36
|
quote:
The 'stunts' are so CGI (which Spielberg claimed would be kept to a bare minimum) there's absolutely no feeling of peril and at it's very worst, it's absolutely barmy
I'm sorry, this is an absolutely ridiculous statement. The CGI was used sparingly and unobtrusively, at least until the very end. I try not to use this old cliche, but it really does seem like we were watching different movies.
Not that I'm saying that it's an awesome movie, because it's not. It is certainly the least of the Indiana Jones movies. I think I'm going to say that it's an agreeable timewaster but it has no snap and no energy, it feels tired. On the other hand, that one guy got eaten by ants, and Indy blew a poison dart into the back of that guy's skull.
I just don't get Indiana Jones existing in 1957. The concept makes no sense to me, like John Wayne in space. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 05/24/2008 : 03:18:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
The 'stunts' are so CGI (which Spielberg claimed would be kept to a bare minimum) there's absolutely no feeling of peril and at it's very worst, it's absolutely barmy
I'm sorry, this is an absolutely ridiculous statement. The CGI was used sparingly and unobtrusively, at least until the very end. I try not to use this old cliche, but it really does seem like we were watching different movies.
Not that I'm saying that it's an awesome movie, because it's not. It is certainly the least of the Indiana Jones movies. I think I'm going to say that it's an agreeable timewaster but it has no snap and no energy, it feels tired. On the other hand, that one guy got eaten by ants, and Indy blew a poison dart into the back of that guy's skull.
I just don't get Indiana Jones existing in 1957. The concept makes no sense to me, like John Wayne in space.
Yep, I agree about the Indy in 1957 thing. Atomic bombs and space travel just don't gel with the character I've been brought up on.
As for the CGI, I should say I meant green screen. And by this I mean the only settings I can think of in this film that didn't look false were the warehouse at the start and the college Indy teaches at- at best everything else was an obvious studio set and, at worst, it had a weird fuzziness around the characters. As a result I never felt Indy went *anywhere*, unlike the previous films where you really believed Indy was in the jungle or in Egypt or Asia or wherever- probably because he actually was, as opposed to stood in front of a green screen.
Seriously- name any external shot in this film that you really believed Indy was at for real. |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy 
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 05/24/2008 : 03:19:44
|
I enjoyed the movie but it went in a direction that made me wonder when Col Jack O'Neill was going to appear on screen. I thought Karen Allen & Harrison Ford scrubbed up very well.
Sit back, munch on your popcorn and suspend your disbelief - it's a Saturday matinee special. |
|
|
|
thefoxboy
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 05/24/2008 : 04:40:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
I enjoyed the movie but it went in a direction that made me wonder when Col Jack O'Neill was going to appear on screen. I thought Karen Allen & Harrison Ford scrubbed up very well.
Sit back, munch on your popcorn and suspend your disbelief - it's a Saturday matinee special.
Does 10:30am Saturday count as a matinee?
Not my preferred time to watch a movie, but the only time our babysitter (grandma) would give us.  |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 05/24/2008 : 14:31:38
|
quote:
As for the CGI, I should say I meant green screen. And by this I mean the only settings I can think of in this film that didn't look false were the warehouse at the start and the college Indy teaches at- at best everything else was an obvious studio set and, at worst, it had a weird fuzziness around the characters.
Ha. Well, the sad thing is that, according to what I just looked up, everything was filmed on location, but touched up in post-production with matte screens and fake backgrounds. But in any case, I certainly didn't notice any of what you're talking about, save during the car-straddling swordfight scene with Shia. I have problems with this movie but they have nothing to do with the special effects.
quote:
As to young Shia, well he had none of the charm he brought to Transformers
What, all none of it? Yeah, I guess I agree that he didn't bring it to Indy 4 either. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 05/24/2008 14:33:52 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 05/24/2008 : 17:21:15
|
Have to agree with the general tone so far. It left me with a very dissatisfied feeling. It was watchable, and definitely entertaining, but putting your brain into gear for even a moment makes the whole thing come caving in, not to mention if you compare it to past glories. I'm not actually a huge fan of the second and third movies - I thought the third in particular was quite average, but Raiders is an absolute classic and that standing this attempt next to that makes Crystal Skull a very poor companion indeed.
A few more detailed thoughts (and spoilers of course):
Aliens and nukes. No, sorry, like Benj said that's not Indiana Jones. Bad idea.
The alien skull couldn't have looked more like a plastic prop if they'd tried.
Harrison looked uncomfortable for most of the film - like he'd just woken up and cricked his back. Ray Winstone: waste of time. Cate Blanchett: poorly written 2D character, and never particularly convincing as a villain. Shia: pretty good, at least he seemed like a real person. And would they please stop casting John Hurt in roles where he doesn't speak or gibbers for the duration? Not using one of the best voices in film is ridiculous.
Explicitly referring to the previous films in the trilogy (seeing the Ark, as expected, once we were in the warehouse; talk of Marcus and Henry Snr.) seemed like a desperate attempt to pad out a weak script, unable to stand on its own two feet. It brought some welcome nostalgia, but only at the expense of this film.
So many ideas were crowbarred into the plot for the sheer reason of it being "a cool idea". What on earth was the nuke and the fridge about? Give me a break. The sand pit/snake episode was probably the funniest moment, but was an interlude that moved the film on exactly nowhere. So many parts felt tenuous at best. That'll be George Lucas at work.
Is the Mayan temple a dimensional portal or a space ship? Make your mind up...
What about the magnetic alien crate in the Nevada warehouse? - it seemed conveniently magnetic of strangely varying strength depending on what effect needed to be produced.
Falling down the three enormous waterfalls in an amphibious vehicle? Dumb, dumb, dumb. Okay, so logic needn't apply, it's an adventure movie after all, but did it really need to be so eye-rollingly implausible? |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 05/25/2008 : 00:01:09
|
| Benj, I think it's time to add a spoiler alert to the thread title. |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 05/25/2008 : 17:10:04
|
John Hurt was great. But when isn't he? And, yes Beebs, Karen Allen looked like she would have volunteered to wash all of the cars on the set AND clean audenice members' houses as a show of gratitutde for getting the work.
These charachters are older. Why didn't Spielberg allow them the grace of maturity?
 |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 05/25/2008 : 17:40:06
|
| I think the problem may be more Harrison Ford than Spielberg on this one. Unlike Sylvester Stallone or Bruce Willis, Ford has demonstrated an apparent unwillingness to age at all for the screen -- his sporadic acting roles of this decade are all things he could have played in 1988. (Heck, the oldest he ever got was playing the President in Air Force One, and that was more than ten years ago!) |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 05/25/2008 : 23:47:48
|
| Good point, MBI. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 05/26/2008 : 06:44:46
|
| Well, from the promos I've seen, he doesn't look all that young at all. Mind you, he doesn't look as bad as Connery looked in Never Say Never Again but still, he's not looking very young. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Indiana Jones IV (Spoilers)
