Ok. I'll try not to be too spoilery here because it was the midnight showing (yes, I'm a geek, but I'm not married, I don't have kids and I work the night shift so I'm allowed) but I thought I'd get this one started. I enjoyed it. Really, I did. I've enjoyed all of the Indiana Jones movies and this one was no different.
It was pretty stylistically similar to the previous films, set in a slightly different era and it had all the Indy stunts, the whip, the fist-fights; I was glad to see that they didn't try to shove a lot of the terribly popular martial arts into it.
I don't think it will ever be my favorite, Last Crusade still holds that distinction with Raiders a close second, but I'll buy it, and I'll probably watch it more often than I do Temple of Doom (I really have to be in the right kind of mood for that one, so much of it is just gross).
Of course there was still the evil opposing government as well, the USSR now instead of the Nazi's but it was still the same idea. Luckily, the original movies were set in a time period that made this work. Harrison Ford still looks good, and I understand he did a lot of his own stunt work on this film (he always did for the Indy movies) but his age shows. Because the original movies were set in WWII they could put this one during the rise of Communism without having to worry about a) not enough time passing to account for the age difference or b) too much time passing and trying to cover it up.
As for the Mutt thing? He was pretty good. I'm not sure I'd go watch a Mutt Williams and the (Insert Title Here) movie, but it worked as a story line. I know I said possible spoilers in the title, but I'm not telling about the whole, was Indy the kid's dad thing. I'll let someone else do that. I'm sure there's someone out there who's willing right?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Last Crusade will always be my favorite, but DAMN, that was a ride!
I wouldn't go see a movie without Harrison Ford I think, but the kid was pretty good. He didn't by any means carry the movie, the movie wouldn't have been any good without Harrison as Indy, but they all were pretty awesome. Better than Temple easily, maybe tied with Raiders.
The end was just, I mean out there, but oh well, it's not any of the other ones ended less crazy.
I'm convinced that if there is another one, it'll be about Christianity. There's a pattern now: Raiders: Christian. Temple: Polytheistic non-Christian. Temple: Christian. Crystak Skull: Polytheistic non-Christian. Therefore five will be Christian! Before I thought maybe Foutain of Youth, but I trust the pattern now.
I loved the homages to previous movies, both the obvious and the less obvious.
Very good movie, and maybe if we have a spoiler thread I'll go into what I specifically liked and liked slightly less about it, but I thought it easily fit into the pantheon of other Indy movies and was an awesome movie! Great mix of action and comedy just like the others.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think Indy should just be recast at this point, with a reboot storyline back to WWII.
My suggested casting? Leonardo DiCaprio. Think about it! There's not another actor that can be as angry as Harrison Ford, and still be likable.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can't think of an actor today that could possible take Harrison Ford's place. Think of the two iconic roles he played during that time: Indiana Jones and Han Solo. Do we have an actor of the right age in today's legion of male actors that has the right combination of swagger, funny, intelligence and machismo that could equate? The only person that comes to mind is Will Smith, and somehow I don't see that working.
I don't think this is the kind of role you can recast. It's just over, and it went out twice. Once gracefully, and once with a bang, but it's still over.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ummm. Will Smith is not funny, Will Smith plays "funny roles." There is a huge difference. He adds nothing I like to any of his movies, he's just affable with an "attitude" that goes over more like a wet moldy towel. His attempts to be serious are unintentionally giggle inducing, because he never succeeds in sounding either intelligent or educated.
Ford, though not known for his range, has so much plain old gravitas, it doesn't matter what the role is- you want to believe him. Will Smith is usually busy "hamming it up" either with his unconvincing mojo, or his equally unconvincing straight man. He's a disaster- why do people insist on his skills?
Edit: You know what it is? The cheesy one-liners. Will Smith's idea of personality is to strike some pose and say "aw hell naw!" The kind of ad-lib that makes it into the final cut because it's supposed to be funny, and the audience is supposed to laugh. That's the thing about him as an actor, and the movies he picks, it's everything the way it's "supposed" to be, as if the interaction of an audience with a film is also scripted.
Just do a little thought experiment, and see if you can place Will Smith in the context of a movie in which it would never be appropriate for his character to cock his head to the side, press his shoulders back, and spout off some spunky reparté, preferably either racial, or absurdist. I include, as a close cousin to this vile "humor," the stuff in "I Am Legend," with him "renting" movies and talking to mannequins. It was just a situation in which an actor should never find himself- either trying to be funny, or trying to be serious. It was contrived, and awful.
[ May 22, 2008, 05:33 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think he's a great actor, and I think he's pretty funny in all the roles he's supposed to be funny in, and I think he has great range. I'm guessing you were never a fan of Fresh Prince. Clearly we just fundamentally disagree.
Either way, no one could replace Ford. Not in those movies anyway.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Sure, but my not being a fan of Fresh Prince shouldn't negate all his later performances. I didn't watch Fresh Prince, and have no opinion on it- other than being completely unaffected by it.
Will Smith will never do immortal, great movies. He just isn't talented enough. And since he's a big star, he'll never be in a movie where anyone else is situated in a position to make the movie really work. Just look at his filmography, and tell me in which of those films he gives a unique performance, or which one of those movies is going in your list of the top films of its year, its decade, or of all time. You'll find there are actors of the same profile who have much better track records.
When Smith turned down The Matrix, he saved the movie. Can you tell me honestly that he would have made the caliber of movie that got made, even with the likes of Keanu? It would have been just another "Will Smith" movie with another smith role. Blah.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
So, if I go to Crystal Skull, the MacGuffin device is the secret of Will Smith's acting career?
AWESOME.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:My suggested casting? Leonardo DiCaprio. Think about it! There's not another actor that can be as angry as Harrison Ford, and still be likable.
He does look a lot like River Phoenix, so there's that.
Nathan Fillion could do it. When I saw Serenity (not having watched the series first) my thought was "this is like a movie where Han Solo is the main character and not a support." He's got that blend of swagger and anxiety that is so American.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Too little. Harisson ford is big, Nathan Fillion seems small. And slightly... geeky.
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
Interesting moments:
- Brief appearance (once again) of the Ark of the Covenant
- Marcus Brody saves the day
- Indiana Jones delivers a "Star Wars" line
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
Another great moment was when Indy told Marion why none of his other relationships ever worked out. Her reaction reminded me again of why I so disliked Indy's other love interests. It was really nice to see Marion back.
The bad part of that whole storyline was that Indy never bothered to ask Mutt the really obvious question: "What was your mother's maiden name?"
Of course, they had to do that in order to maintain the surprise of their meeting.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
"I like Ike."
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Nathan Fillion is a half inch taller than Harrison Ford, according to IMDB.
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
Moments I wasn't so fond of...
- I thought the sword fight went on too long
- Vine swinging was definitely silly, and not in a funny way, more of a "why did they do this?" sort of way
- Surviving the fall over the waterfalls (not that I wanted them to NOT survive!)
A Moment I ALMOST Hated...
The scene at the very end involving the hat. I say I almost hated it because at the last moment they steered it away from disaster and made it quite funny.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Totally agree on the hat. I was immensely relieved with Indiana snagged the hat from him. The vine swinging was a little silly but oh well.
Nathan Fillion MIGHT be able to do it. I don't really see him as a lady's man in the same way that Han Solo or Indiana Jones are, but I think he has the rest of it probably down rather well.
Orincoro -
How many Will Smith movies have you seen? I'm just curious. I'm not heavily invested in defending him, but I'm wondering if you're really seen enough of his movies to gauge what you think is lack of range.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Of his maybe 16 movies, I've seen two thirds. There would have to be some really good work in those other movies to steer my opinion away from its present course.
The dated and unfunny Will Smith of Men in Black is the real article, in my opinion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess we just really disagree then, as I not only disagree with your assessment of his lack of range, but I think he's funny in MIB.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I really liked the moment where Marcus Brody saves the day and Mutt laughs while Indy just looks at him frowning, that was right out of the Last Crusade's play book where Indy uses a flag pole to flip a nazi motorcyclist and when he laughs Sean Connery just frowns at him.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
If only Sean Connery could be young again, he's my favorite actor.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't remember Connery doing that. I know when Indy first grabbed the pole and used it as a lance Connery had a huge smile on his face. I don't remember it switching to a frown shortly afterwards.
I'll have to rewatch that part, but I do agree that many parts of it had a similar flavor. I miss Brody.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I guess we just really disagree then, as I not only disagree with your assessment of his lack of range, but I think he's funny in MIB.
The movie is funny, Will Smith doesn't manage to ruin the movie. But MiB could have been a real classic instead of what it is, which is almost that. But Smith is too much "personality," and not enough that anyone should care about.
Read anything he's ever said off camera- he's not an intelligent guy, he's a "character." Meh.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I disagree with that too.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Someone's not getting invited to my birthday party. I know that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I bring excellent presents and I'm a great mingler. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I have all the evidence I need that Orincoro and I are diametrically opposed on all things cinematic. I'm not contrarian enough to dislike a talented actor just because he's mainstream. Especially one who's, by all accounts, one of the genuinely nice guys in the business.
I place Crystal Skull 3rd of the 4 Indy movies. Last Crusade, Raiders, CS, and Temple.
I thought this one was the least funny of the four, and also the least believable (not that any of them were the least bit believable). But it's been a while since I watched Temple (I rewatched the other two in the last 6 months), so I might be slightly off base.
After seeing Iron Man last week, this movie couldn't carry IM's jockstrap with a wheelbarrow.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Really? Least funny? I think it was less funny than Last Crusade, which was hysterical and awesome, but I think it was more funny than Raiders and Temple, but I'll certainly give you the believable thing. Sure none of them are really believable, but the end of Crystal Skull is batsh** crazy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
JT, there's no reason to insult me over this, and to misrepresent my opinion as being based on whether the guy is mainstream. My opinions, which I have shared here, are obviously not based on that. They are based on his abilities, which are lacking. Any comment I make about his mainstream appeal is secondary to that.
How do you get through my posts and still have the balls to say "just because" as if that's the only thing I've said, or as if that's obviously ALL that matters to me? Did I misrepresent you in some way, and this is just your petty little revenge?
So since we're diametrically opposed, I am assuming you were a big fan of The Hulk, Troy, Reign of Fire, and Scarface. Also you really hated Goodfellas, Saving Private Ryan, all the Star Wars movies, and The Hunt for Red October, just to throw that one in.
Since everything I like is based on who else likes it, it's very tricky for me to come up with my choices... sometimes I might agree with the wrong people. Let me know of all your future movie preferences so I can make sure and have spurious reasons for disliking them.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Just a little friendly reminder all, I don't mind a nice friendly debate about a specific actor (although that actor has nothing to do with the subject of this thread so its a little off topic) but I hate the threads that degenerate into the "you can't accuse me of saying what I didn't say" and "well that's how I interpreted what you said" type. If this thread degenerates into that kind of discussion about Will Smith when it's supposed to be about the new Indiana Jones movie, I'll delete the whole thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Out of interest, why would you delete the thread?
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
meh. I was just about to post another comment about the movie, but I guess if this thread is going to get deleted, I don't think I'll bother.
A thread-starter can delete the entire thread? Seems like that ought to be a mod function.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Please don't delete what other people write because you don't like what they're writing.
[ May 23, 2008, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I have never deleted a thread that I started on this forum before, ever. But I started this thread to discuss Crystal Skull, not for people to have a "you said this, no I didn't" argument over the acting abilities of Will Smith. Please open a new thread for that discussion if that is what you are interested in talking about. I put a warning in here that I might delete this thread if it degenerated into nothing more than an argument about something completely off topic in order to (hopefully) prevent the board from breaking down into exactly that. As long as the thread stays on topic (or even off topic as long as it doesn't become an argument about "you said this" "no I didn't you just don't read what I type") it won't go anywhere.
If people want to have an off topic "you said this about Will Smith and every movie in the world, no I didn't you just think that" argument, there's a nifty button at the top of the screen that says New Topic, that can be pushed by anyone and that argument can go there. I don't like those arguments. I don't read threads that they are in, and I would prefer that they not be in threads that I start, since, as I started the thread, I obviously intend to participate in it.
As I said above, I'm more than happy for this thread to be on topic or off as long as the childish arguments go elsewhere. And as long as the topic starter has the ability to delete a thread, I am within my rights to do so. I didn't have to let people know it was a possibility, I could have just deleted the thread as soon as the conversation started to go that way. I didn't. That should let those who are interested in participating the conversation in the room know that I don't want to go that direction.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It is funny how Indy's hat has become a character in its own right. I noticed at the end when the hat blew in the door and landed in the hands of Indy's son, that it looked like it might be a sort of passage of the torch, presaging a new series of Son-of-Indy films. But no, Indy grabbed it out of the kid's hands as he went by down the aisle, indicating that for now at least, the franchise remains in Harrison Ford's hands.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Nathan Fillion is a half inch taller than Harrison Ford, according to IMDB.
I would never have guessed that-- and that tells me that Fillion, much as I love him, couldn't be Indy. Harrison Ford has so much presence he SEEMS taller. Indy is all about presence.
(Seeing the movie tomorrow, btw, yay!)
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I saw it tonight.
My sister's going to -hate- the climax of this movie. And it's all our parent's fault, for giving me Whitley Strieber's Communion back when we were impressionable kids. Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I didn't like it. In the Indy Movies I liked the moments that required suspension of disbelief either directly aided the plot so it was an easy transition, like the melting faces in the first movie, or directly aided in humor and/or character development, like being brave enough and desperate enough to cut the bridge.
*spoilers*
CS had too many unbelievable moments that really didn't aid or help anything. The fridge? The vine swinging? The driving the car off the cliff on purpose to land on the tree?
There were so many scenes that just seemed silly. It broke the mood for me. Over and over again I was getting into the movie only to be woken back to reality with either a bad line or plot device.
And then the ending...bah! I could of waited for the DVD.
Here is my order from most to least favorite movie: The Last Crusade, Raiders, Cystal Skull, Temple of Doom.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330:
If people want to have an off topic "you said this about Will Smith and every movie in the world, no I didn't you just think that" argument, there's a nifty button at the top of the screen that says New Topic, that can be pushed by anyone and that argument can go there. I don't like those arguments. I don't read threads that they are in, and I would prefer that they not be in threads that I start, since, as I started the thread, I obviously intend to participate in it.
Take your ball and go home then. Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Nathan Fillion is no Harrison Ford, but I can't imagine any other actor who could come close. The Mal Reynolds character is a slight variation on the Han Solo/Indiana Jones personality, but there are obviously similarities and homages.
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by the new Indy flick. But maybe its because its been awhile since I've seen the original trilogy.
I didn't think it was all that funny. Most of the humor relied on nostalgia and at times I felt like I was watching a spoof. It was a very fine line they were walking between acknowledging the fact that Indy is old and beating that horse to death. I think they did a good job but it didn't have the same humor of the old Indy films for me.
Also, I can suspend my disbelief quite a bit but there were a few scenes that really bothered me. Firstly, the fridge thing! Expecting a fridge, lead-lined or not (which was awfully convenient) to protect you is one thing. Expecting to survive being hurled through the air and coming to a hard, bouncy landing...I don't think so. And then he got out and watched the cloud. I mean, its a good thing he had a kid, cause he certainly couldn't produce one now.
And the vine-swinging with the army of monkeys...yeah...stupid.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The driving the car off the cliff on purpose to land on the tree?
Actually, I don't think she knew the car was there, but was intending to land right in the water. She knew she was driving a DUCK like vehicle and that it'd float. I think the tree was a bonus.
The fridge was ridiculous though. But most everyone I've talked to forgave Iron Man's ridiculous landings. I can get over the fridge thing. The vine swinging was a little goofy but I think it fit right in. If Indy had done it, I don't think there would be as many complaints.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
The fridge might've been my favorite part, plausibility be damned.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Really? Least funny? I think it was less funny than Last Crusade, which was hysterical and awesome, but I think it was more funny than Raiders and Temple, but I'll certainly give you the believable thing. Sure none of them are really believable, but the end of Crystal Skull is batsh** crazy.
I love "batsh**" I feel like that was one phrase that never should have gone out of style.
I could never put my finger on Indiana Jones's grasp on reality as a series. There seems to be a fairly firm grasp on the humanistic aspect of all the myths that get weaved in. So, whenever the movies deal with these supernatural elements, it's always about the characters having credible reactions to what's going on. Indy and his father approach the grail myth as scientists, and the "believing in it," is never really an article of faith per se, but of deep understanding of the realities- like scientists finding out that magic is real, and dealing with it like scientists.
That kind of kept the whole series anchored in realism. You could always count on the idea that knowledge and judgment, rather than belief, were the things that were going to save Indy and help him win. I think the only time the trilogy strayed too far was in the Burtonesque "Temple of Doom" setting, where people's actions really didn't seem to make any kind of sense, except for Indy's.
I think this is what distinguishes Indy from other genre pics, like say, "National Treasure." In that movie, the clues and the history are taken as articles of faith, central to the story. If anything is a misperception or doesn't pan out, the whole thing falls apart like a wet noodle. But Indy thrives on the fact that the evidence is all vague and open to interpretation, so you almost don't believe in the magic, or you allow yourself to accept it on principle because its effects have been proven. With NT, the intricate puzzle feels like one that, once solved, is not interesting.
I don't want to ruin it for everyone with spoilers, but I'm curious if this particular ending abandons all that credibility.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:The vine swinging was a little goofy but I think it fit right in. If Indy had done it, I don't think there would be as many complaints.
You don't understand - only Mutt could have done it. The monkeys saw in him a kindred spirit because they had the same hair. They recognized him as their natural lord and master by virtue of his glorious mane.
I'm still not sure if I'd pick that or the fridge as my favorite moment. Both parts were so excellently ridiculous. I can just imagine the direction for that scene. "Okay, you stumble out of the fridge that you've just flown about three-quarters of a mile in, so you're slightly disoriented. You turn around and there's a mushroom cloud close enough to melt your face off, but it totally doesn't. ACTION!"
Posted by couldge (Member # 9567) on :
For the most part I enjoyed Crystal Skull. I didn't like how the supernatural force in this movie turned out to be aliens. In Raiders it was Judaism. In Temple of Doom it was Hindu/Mystical religion. And in Crusaders it was Christianity. For some reason it is more believable for me when the supernatural forces are religious. I think the whole alien thing was a crazy direction to go and made the film too unbelievable.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, couldge.
I agree with you precisely about the aliens believability vs. religious believability (and I'm an atheist). I also think the movie stretched credibility far beyond the other ones (I haven't seen Temple of Doom). Halfway through, I joked that someone should bring a clicker counter into the theater and count how many times a character SHOULD have died/broken a bone/gotten badly hurt. Because it was far too many times. The movie was for the most part, extremely entertaining, and funny. If I were younger, I would have been scared. I won't stat on the plot holes, but I had fun, and I recommend seeing it in the theaters if you like action movies.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ok, I saw the movie tonight.
Lyr had it exactly correct: "Batsh**"
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ok, I saw the movie tonight.
Lyr had it exactly correct: "Batsh**"
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I saw it and really liked it. The only part I disliked was Mutt and The Vines. (Though the band The Vines are quite good.) I also didn't enjoy the fact that someone took a very young child to the movie. And said child cried throughout the first half of the film.
A lot of people have complained about the ending. But I feel that it fits well with the time period. It was an era of technological advancement and competition which inspired a number of authors to write science fiction stories as a reaction to the technology. I feel that, under that context, the ending was fitting.
Sure, it's less believable than previous Indy films. But that's not why I go see an Indiana Jones film. It certainly helped make the previous films enjoyable and more realistic. But I still enjoyed this movie as a work in its own right.
I think that, ultimately, after the initial reactionary reviews have subsided. The movie will be remembered as a good and enjoyable film. Certainly not great. And it probably won't win too many awards (if any). But I think it'll be one that people will return to at least a couple of times.
Overall, I really enjoyed the movie. And I found most of the complaints to be superfluous. Except the bit about the Tarzan/Mutt segment. That's silly no matter what context you put it in.
P.S. Most of the people that live around here put more focus on football than on education, so most of the intelligent remarks in the film went over people's heads.
The guy I went to see the movie with and I were the only ones who laughed at the "I Like Ike" bit. Which only made it more amusing for us.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Just a little friendly reminder all, I don't mind a nice friendly debate about a specific actor (although that actor has nothing to do with the subject of this thread so its a little off topic) but I hate the threads that degenerate into the "you can't accuse me of saying what I didn't say" and "well that's how I interpreted what you said" type. If this thread degenerates into that kind of discussion about Will Smith when it's supposed to be about the new Indiana Jones movie, I'll delete the whole thread.
I understand the frustration of having a thread you are interested in degenerate into silly arguments, but deleting whole threads is very disrespectful to all the people who've made the effort to contribute. As starter of the thread, you do have an alternative besides deleting the thread. You can change the thread title. So for example, if people really wanted to continue arguing about Will Smith, you could change this thread title to "Arguments about Will Smith". Then you can start a new thread on Indian Jones or what ever topic you really want to discuss. In the new thread, you could even quote a ll the on topic posts from the original if you really wanted to.
Just trying to get people to recognize that there are almost always alternative to deleting a thread.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I think the whole alien thing was a crazy direction to go and made the film too unbelievable.
When they were in the warehouse I assumed that they were looking for the Ark, and when I discovered that they were looking for aliens I thought it was perfect, given the period of the movie. I saw the "Chariots of the Gods" connection as soon as they mentioned the plains of Nazca. I thought it was kind of neat the way they fit all the pieces together, such as tying the Mayan head deformation together with the big headed aliens, and so forth.
The worst part I thought was how a bunch of heavily accented Russians could run around the United States and actually have enough free reign to chase Indy, whereas all he would have had to do is point a finger at them and shout "Commies!" and the crowd would have taken them out.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
I really wanted Daniel Jackson's grandfather to be involved, somehow. Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Ok, I saw the movie tonight.
Lyr had it exactly correct: "Batsh**"
I just saw it. I agree, it is "batsh**". Considering a bat's guano is an excellent fertilizer that sustains all sorts of biodiversity in many caves throughout the world, I think it's a very good analogy for this movie.
I'm willing to forgive the stupidest parts (Tarzan, motorcycle only BARELY escaping cars in big city chase, driving confidently off a cliff to get caught by a tree) because the whole thing was just so much fun. Ford is simply a brilliant actor, and LaBoeuf is pretty good too (though I don't want him to replace Indy in any sequels). The fight/chase scenes are all woven together so cleverly, albeit unrealistically, that I was laughing out loud half the time. The whole thing captures the '50s, except for a lack of grease in Mutt's hair. I'm very glad I saw this movie, and you bet I'm getting the DVD.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Who buys DVD's anymore? I haven't in years.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Glenn, you are aware that they actually DID find the Ark of the Covenant again--except no one noticed. It was visible through a hole ripped in one of the crates in the foreground, while the brawl continued in the background.
And I loved the "51" on the inside of the warehouse doors.
And I too was delighted with the "I like Ike" reference.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Yes, I saw the Ark, and it reminded me of one of the other movies: "What's this?" "Ark of the Covenant" "You sure?" "Pretty Sure."
My family has an "I like Ike" button that we put on the Christmas tree. And a MacArthur button that we put on the BACK of the Christmas tree.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Who buys DVD's anymore? I haven't in years.
When it comes to Netflix, my family focuses more on second-raters and classics, whereas we buy anything that needs to be collected or watched at a whim. It's nice to be able to pick a DVD to watch as soon as the realization comes, at the last minute, that everything that needs to be done for the day is done, and there is ample time to watch a family favorite.
Unless you're talking about HD-format discs, in which case we have nothing to talk about.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Who buys DVD's anymore? I haven't in years.
I do. Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I buy DVDs.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We saw it yesterday. My three favorite parts:
-Indy uses societal influences to escape the KGB creeps by having Mutt punch a college boy and starting a fight between the preps and the greasers
-Indy gives advice on source reading to a student who took the opportunity of Indy and Mutt crashing into him on a motorcycle to ask Indy a reference question
-Marion looks back as Mutt is SWORD FIGHTING ON A MOVING VEHICLE and CORRECTS HIS STANCE Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I think you named my favorite scenes as well!
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
All right, I just saw it, and now I shall add my thoughts. I loved the first half... I loved the clever way it twisted itself into the history, the way all the films have tried to do -- but then, for me, it became tedious as, becoming more and more absurd. I didn't hate it. It didn't make me question everything I thought I knew about what society would accept from a film, the way Transformers did last summer -- but it definitely induced some sighs.
I dug the interaction between the characters, loved Cate Blanchette. A lot of great things. The fencing, the motorcycle chase, "you're going to finish school!" ....
But ultimately what I take away from this movie is that Speilberg continues to....be...less than spectacular... and that David Koepp is a stupid man.
Okay, that's harsh. He might not be -stupid- . I'll say he seems to have a very poor understanding of what is possible.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, yes, the "you're going to finish school" was funny. As was the scene when the guard gags Marion because he's sick of the arguing-- and they ignore him and keep right on arguing!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, and the entire sandpit scene.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
"Grab the snake!" "go get something else!" "I'm sorry there's not a Sears and Roebuck here -- grav the snake!"
Hilarious.... and yet, a perfect example of my problem with the screenplay.
You're in jungle surrounded by bushes and trees -- branches and sticks within easy reach -- and you come back with a snake?
Then the line about, "hold on tight, it's slimy!"
Koepp doesn't know any better?
The line about getting "bitten" by a scorpion....
It just... ... ...so many of the details were stupidly wrong.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, but it's Indiana Jones. There's never been a high level of scientific accuracy in Indiana Jones. (Historical, either.)
I did wince when he said "nukeyewlar."
Posted by ? (Member # 2319) on :
I was kind of expecting a ship from the Star Wars movies to come out of the ground at the end. After all it did happen a long time ago...
?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
If you read the "Infinities" Star Wars Tales issue, you know that Indiana Jones met Chewbacca and discovered the ruins of a certain Star Wars spaceship back around 1935 or so. Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Yeah, but it's Indiana Jones. There's never been a high level of scientific accuracy in Indiana Jones. (Historical, either.)
Completely agreed. I wouldn't split hairs over the psychic powers, you know -- I'm happy to let the magic be the magic. I don't mind the jumping from one car to another, all that. It's delightful. But I don't find horribly unintelligent gaffes about the common workings of our everyday world to be quite as delightful.
I'm not even mentioning a lot of things -- the big things -- in the movie that we all know made absolutely no sense, in any context, even in an Indiana Jones-world.
It was better than Temple of Doom. Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
It had some wonderfully fun stuff. I don't mean to just naysay. I really think the first hour of the film had everything I could hope to find in a great movie.... But then.... it just all started to seem less and less fun, for me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: I really wanted Daniel Jackson's grandfather to be involved, somehow.
My best friend and I gleefully referenced that a half dozen times during and after the movie. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think the pacing of the film was wrong.
:spoilers:
There was something about the way the second act bled into the third act that especially bothered me. Maybe it was that the second act was too thin, it didn't ever provide a sense of purpose for Indy- he just discovers the skull, and then gets captured by the Russians, but the second act is neither exciting, nor does it pay off the tension built up while the guys are in the tomb. There is also a lot of time spent with Mutt getting to know Indy, but it bumped me to see them having that "getting to know you" conversation RIGHT after they had just flown 5,000 miles together in tiny aircraft.
The characters were all just way too thin- you never get a sense of who mutt is, and the film relies much too much on our knowledge of Indy from the other films. And for all the special effects at the end, the level of excitement that their discovery of the room evokes doesn't even touch that of "The Last Crusade." There is no moment like the one where Indy must step off onto an invisible bridge- you just never get a sense that anything in the story really matters.
Also, the immense lameness of Indy throwing his partner the whip, while he sprawls at the foot of a set of stairs 5 feet away, and is somehow unable to scramble to his feet in 10 seconds, is baffling.
As the makers of Die Hard said, the film stands on those small details that add up to a convincing whole. If you fudge all those details and forget about them, you have an unconvincing film, no matter how good it looks.
Or maybe it was the editing that was sluggish. It struck me from the first scene, in which the car race is just a beat too long, the finding of the crate is just a beat too long to maintain interest, and just about every action is shown for just a bit longer than it should be. As an editor, I would probably have cut the opening down and made the events much closer together, maybe opening not with the squirrels, but with the cars going past the "atomic cafe." I think by the time we see Indy, we are a little distressed that he has not already appeared- in a bad waym (hauling him out of a trunk was a bad intro too, imo).
The whole opening just goes on too long- remember the opening of raiders? The scene is easily half as long, and the situation is one Indy creates, and it doesn't have to do with the plot. Here, we were thrown into the plot with absolutely zero establishment of the characters.
I guess it "just didn't feel right."
[ May 26, 2008, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:The guy I went to see the movie with and I were the only ones who laughed at the "I Like Ike" bit. Which only made it more amusing for us.
You're assuming they didn't get it, whereas I'm assuming they didn't laugh because it wasn't funny. Lead balloon, that one.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I guess I totally missed the "marcus brody saves the day" moment.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
Did anyone else like the ants? Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
No! They made my skin crawl and want a bath.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I hope a species like that NEVER evolves...
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Wonder what those ants would be like with chocolate on them? Maybe a little bit meatier than their normal counterparts?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Nathan Fillion is a half inch taller than Harrison Ford, according to IMDB.
I would never have guessed that-- and that tells me that Fillion, much as I love him, couldn't be Indy. Harrison Ford has so much presence he SEEMS taller.
I think Ford also tends to be shot from slightly below more so than Fillion. The angle of the shot (head-on, slightly canted, or canted) makes a big difference.
Other aspects could go concurrent with that, of course.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Oh, like the camera angle they used in the first season of Star Trek: TNG, where the viewer is invited to get to know Picard's nostrils.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I hope a species like that NEVER evolves...
I watch a lot of nature shows and have seen similar ants to that. Does anyone know if that was an actual ant species or a made up one? Just curious.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ford is also older, and the fashion for portraying actors on camera seems to have changed to become more realistic, or maybe more, as CT says, angles tend to me more straight on. I doubt you'd see many shots of Ford straight on in his movies.
But interestingly enough, Harrison Ford is listed as having the same height as Leonardo DiCaprio, at around 6 feet. You don't get a sense of DiCaprio being very tall until some of his recent movies, like The Departed. There isn't a movie I can think of in which Ford looks shorter than he is, and he usually looks taller. He also started his career much later in life than DiCaprio, not starring in a major movie until he was already 35. Age might be a factor.
There are lots of surprising heights for actors. from one website:
quote: Angelina Jolie 5'7" Tom Cruise 5'7" Robert Downey Jr. 5'7" Demi Moore 5'5" Jon Stewart 5'7" Sarah Jessica Parker 5'4" (this one is very surprising) Natalie Portman 5'3"
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I hope a species like that NEVER evolves...
I watch a lot of nature shows and have seen similar ants to that. Does anyone know if that was an actual ant species or a made up one? Just curious.
It's hard for me to believe that there is an ant species that is THAT aggressive. There are certainly ants that big, and there are ants that will eat humans, but drag a thrashing human body into a giant ant-hole? I just don't see that number of ants actually supporting the weight.
Posted by Dark as night (Member # 9577) on :
My favorite part of the movie was Cate Blanchett. I've always been a big fan of hers and she did not disappoint again. I usually cringe when non-Russian actors make lame attempts at speaking Russian in movies. Cate Blanchett blew me away with her command of the language and the accent. Of course, I should have expected nothing less of her.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I hope a species like that NEVER evolves...
I watch a lot of nature shows and have seen similar ants to that. Does anyone know if that was an actual ant species or a made up one? Just curious.
It's hard for me to believe that there is an ant species that is THAT aggressive. There are certainly ants that big, and there are ants that will eat humans, but drag a thrashing human body into a giant ant-hole? I just don't see that number of ants actually supporting the weight.
From what I've read, it would appear that the weight thing is probably the most unbelievable part. There are ants that big, who are that aggressive, who have incredibly painful bites, and who even lock themselves together to climb, dangle or form bridges. I know ants can lift weights far more heavy than their own body weight, but I guess the human body would really be beyond the pale. Even the giant ant hills are familiar to me.
So fake species I guess, but not dramatically out of bounds.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I know that there are incredibly destructive ant species that consume pretty much everything in their path, including at least one in the Amazon. But I don't think they carry their food-- they just swarm it during the course of migrations. So they wouldn't carry a human into an ant hill because there wouldn't be a hill to carry it TO. Nor would they be that mindfully agressive to pursue a climbing human-- they just eat everything in their path during the course of their migrations, IIRC. (This was read about, I think, in Jr. High, so please excuse any misrememberances!)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(But, I didn't find the mischaracterization of the ants that extreme-- rather like how piranhas are characterized in many films. And snakes, for that matter. And spiders, and...
The most unbelievable part of the ants, for me, the part that took me out of it, was the animation, particularly close-ups and the squishing. I found the splattering highly unbelievable, effect-wise, and that was the part of the scene that bothered me.)
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:There are ants that big, who are that aggressive, who have incredibly painful bites, and who even lock themselves together to climb, dangle or form bridges.
I was under the impression that while there are ants that fit these descriptions, they are mostly of different species.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I agree-- a lot of ant characteristics of different species got conflated into one.
Which, as I said, is okay with me, in a movie.
Just not the squish-and-splatter.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
That page is most definitely not for the faint of heart, or people who dislike profanity.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that that was a single ant, I just meant that those are all characteristics of many different ants, and in this case all rolled into one.
That site is going to give me nightmares for the next two nights. And curse you, you warned me ahead of time and I still looked, so I can't blame you. Posted by EmpSquared (Member # 10890) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: I suppose the closest living ant would be the Army ant. (#2 on list)
That page is most definitely not for the faint of heart, or people who dislike profanity.
I'm never going outside. Never again. I'll just have Pick Up Stix deliver to my apartment until I'm 80.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But to do that, you have to open the door. And then something might get in.
Like a bot fly.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Last week, I was in flip-flops outside my dad's house. In the sandy dirt by the sidewalk. Anyway. I felt something in my toe; I assumed it must be a sliver of glass. I said, "Ow!" and went to pick it out. About the time I noticed it wasn't clear, it was darker than glass, it MOVED. It was a fire ant! It had buried its pincers into my toe! For no earthly reason! Ow! It really felt like a really sharp, painful sliver of glass. But I took some Alavert-- I tend to hyper-react to insect bites and stings-- and got better.)
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I got bit by an ant once. I assume it was a fire ant. It didn't hurt that much, but I had a red mark on my arm for over a year. I was stung by a bee on the back of my leg. It got swollen enough to connect on the other side. It was terrible. When I was like five I was bitten by what we assumed was a spider when I was sleeping. The bite was super swollen for weeks. And now, thanks to that list, I have to live in fear of having a bot fly eating my brain.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I get bitten by spiders all the time. Our house has a lot of them, and I live upstairs where they seem to congregate. It's only really annoying when they bite me on the face. And the marks tend to last for a few weeks.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Lyr, the spiders congregate upstairs because you live there. Clearly, you are the tastiest person in the household.
--Enigmatic
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I used to have a bedroom in one house we rented that had used to be the garage. There were lots of spiders. I missed every single field trip that year because the day we were supposed to go, I'd wake up with spider bites and a swollen leg. Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Orincoro, why is Sarah Jessica Parker's height surprising?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Just saw this tonight. Really liked it, laughed and clapped a lot. Appreciated all the Brody/Henry Jones Sr. references, and the Ark shout-out. My biggest issue with the whole movie: ALL THE ANIMALS!!
What the hey-ho? First shot of the film was a CG prairie dog, and from then on in it was like every creature in the general vicinity needed a piece of the Indy action. Monkeys, Scorpions, Snakes, Ants, you name it, they became integral parts of huge action sequences! So many people complained in this thread about the unbelievability of the VINES...what about the MONKEYS on the vines?!
That being said, I pretty much enjoyed everything else. Except the Mac character. He was just completely useless and non-interesting. Either he was worthy of Indy's time and respect, or he wasn't, and since he proved time and time again that he wasn't, even in just simple actions during the entire course of the film, I wonder why Indy ever trusted him in the first place? He is so completely not the kind of friend Indy would have ever had -- greedy and vocally so, unkind, and opportunistic. So at the end, with the wink? What was that? And why was he suddenly nice, wise, sagelike Mac, with a "don't worry Jonesy, I'll be all right"? That kind of a line can only be spoken by the dear friend about to die, or maybe in extreme circumstances the reformed villain turned helper, but not the still awful, still nasty, still evil triple agent guy!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
He wasn't a triple agent. He just lied about being a double.
(Which, duh, I think everyone knew from the start. Why was Indy so dense?)
I agree there were too many animals. They had too much Fun With CGI.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I liked that they hit the 50s-early 60s pulp movie tropes. Atomic weapons, giant ants, commies, greasers and preps. I didn't really like the alien thing, but I think that may have been another nod to the movies of this time period.
I'm still undecided if Cate Blanchett's character's lines about psychically infiltrating the U.S. from inside, converting people over to their way without them even knowing it was intended as a subtle nod to the red scare propoganda of the time or not.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
They weren't aliens, though. They were pan-dimensional beings. Possibly just checking in on the progress of the great Super-Computer, eh?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
While I forgave the fact that the mystical element was aliens this time around, I found that their status as interdimensional beings, instead of just plain extraterrestrials, was a bit much to swallow. Unless "interdimensional" just means that they can jump into hyperspace like Han Solo.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
So what is the difference between a powerful immortal interdimensional being and a deity in a polytheistic cosmology?
--Enigmatic
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: But to do that, you have to open the door. And then something might get in.
Like a bot fly.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: So what is the difference between a powerful immortal interdimensional being and a deity in a polytheistic cosmology?
--Enigmatic
You should read Eyes of Silver by Michael Stackpole.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm still undecided if Cate Blanchett's character's lines about psychically infiltrating the U.S. from inside, converting people over to their way without them even knowing it was intended as a subtle nod to the red scare propoganda of the time or not.
It was far from subtle. And yes, it was about the red scare.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
We went to see this last night, but I wish we'd tried speed racer instead. It was like a "Best Of..." TV special or something. There was no cohesion to the story or relationships. The double agent fellow existed solely to drop breadcrumbs. Ox never really seemed important. Ox should have been dropping the breadcrumbs under mind control from the Russian, and leave the MI6 guy out altogether. It mostly made me wish I'd spent the evening playing Tomb Raider -- not that it would have been an option. Too many of the lines were rushed. Re: critters, I thought that was just part of the series. The snake bit in the sand pit was actually one of my favorite parts.
I really wanted to like this movie. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I liked that they hit the 50s-early 60s pulp movie tropes. Atomic weapons, giant ants, commies, greasers and preps. I didn't really like the alien thing, but I think that may have been another nod to the movies of this time period.
I'm still undecided if Cate Blanchett's character's lines about psychically infiltrating the U.S. from inside, converting people over to their way without them even knowing it was intended as a subtle nod to the red scare propoganda of the time or not.
Its a nod towards Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:I think the whole alien thing was a crazy direction to go and made the film too unbelievable.
When they were in the warehouse I assumed that they were looking for the Ark, and when I discovered that they were looking for aliens I thought it was perfect, given the period of the movie. I saw the "Chariots of the Gods" connection as soon as they mentioned the plains of Nazca. I thought it was kind of neat the way they fit all the pieces together, such as tying the Mayan head deformation together with the big headed aliens, and so forth.
The worst part I thought was how a bunch of heavily accented Russians could run around the United States and actually have enough free reign to chase Indy, whereas all he would have had to do is point a finger at them and shout "Commies!" and the crowd would have taken them out.
I think its hard enough getting a crowd to go after criminals as it is.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: So what is the difference between a powerful immortal interdimensional being and a deity in a polytheistic cosmology?
--Enigmatic
You should read Eyes of Silver by Michael Stackpole.
Mike Stackpole you say? I'm interested. The only other Stackpole book I've read other than the Star Wars books is "Wolf and Raven," which is a Shadowrun book and I love it so.
What's it about?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Its a nod towards Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge
Really? I figure it would have been a nod to the pervasive sentiment in American culture that existed during the time frame that the film was set in and was an element in many of the other movies and such that it also referenced as opposed to a relatively recent video game that most of the audience wouldn't be aware of and that had no tie to anything else in the movie. But maybe you know best.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: So what is the difference between a powerful immortal interdimensional being and a deity in a polytheistic cosmology?
--Enigmatic
You should read Eyes of Silver by Michael Stackpole.
Mike Stackpole you say? I'm interested. The only other Stackpole book I've read other than the Star Wars books is "Wolf and Raven," which is a Shadowrun book and I love it so.
What's it about?
As you might guess from the context, inter-dimensional beings and religion. The story is set in a world where magic works and everyone has some degree of magical talent; the twist is that different religions forbid different types of magic as heretical or abominable. So they are constantly at war with each other.
Then there's some very interesting other stuff. But I won't give it away. The interdemensional aspect doesn't come in until late in the story.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Is there a lead male character who's kind of sassy/sarcastic but has a strong moral center that causes him to constantly question the right or wrongness of various situations?
Just curious. Since all or most of his Star Wars books are based around Corran Horn, and Wolf and Raven had a Horn clone, Wolfgang Kies, only he was from the wrong side of the tracks so to speak.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, in a way.
The central character, at least one of them, is a very moral character, and has spent most of his life tyring to do the right thing, but is now in a situation where what he has been told is right is wrong, and he must follow his own moral code, and yes, he does start out scaldingly sarcastic, although it becomes clear that he was not always so. He is also an older/mentor character. Then there's another central male character, who is younger, who is very sure of himself, who reminds me more of a kind of young Corran, and now that I think of it in the end... Well, I don't want to give it away but suffice to say he's very important to saving the day, so to speak.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: [QUOTE]But maybe you know best.
*saved* Now Mr Squicky can never run for political office, BWAHAHA!
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:The story is set in a world where magic works and everyone has some degree of magical talent; the twist is that different religions forbid different types of magic as heretical or abominable. So they are constantly at war with each other.
Then there's some very interesting other stuff. But I won't give it away. The interdemensional aspect doesn't come in until late in the story.
What, Michael Stackpole wrote Alvin Maker??
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Just re-watched Raiders. Everything that Raiders did right, Crystal Skull botched. Pacing, acting, dialogue--they're all great in Raiders and Crusade. Indy's rivals--the creepy German guy, Belloch, the Nazis--simply better rivals than the communists. The new movie was trying very hard to be clever with one-liners and cheesy homages (to the old movies, the 50's, etc). I laughed a few times, but mostly I was rolling my eyes with frustration. With the all the extra money being spent on CGI effects, with "cooler" action sequences that last (even LONGER than before), the new movie was just trying too hard. The story was pitiful, the characters were thin. It followed the previous formula fine--without any of the heart and adventure that made the other films great. It's frustrating because "kids these days" won't be able to tell the difference. My little brother has only seen the new one and he thought it was "awesome". *sigh*
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Ditto on some of the most horribly implausible moments (fridge flight, vine swinging, waterfalls). Enjoyed the sword fighting, but it did strain credulity a bit more than it needed to.
I didn't really mind the alien thing but...it's not a great fit with the Powerful Artifact theme. These aliens have incredibly advanced powers, but are vulnerable to pre-technological humans making off with a critical component of their anatomy/minds/interdimensional ship? Arg. But it wasn't bad enough to ruin the movie.
I really don't get why Shia LeBeouf [I can't help reading this as "Shia of Beef" even though I know that's wrong] is in so many movies...esp. as a lead character.
I thought it could have used a little more creepy suspense and a little less crazy action. The pace was too frenetic.
I thought the movie was pretty entertaining and would have been a lot better if they'd skipped the main suspension-of-disbelief-killers listed above, and not tried to jam-pack quite so much stuntery into it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I love "batsh**" I feel like that was one phrase that never should have gone out of style.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)