-
The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
New Indy Flick Poll
- Thread starter MAB1
- Start date
Doh!
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,079
- Location
- Tinsel Town
Brian Sheridan said:
What he said.
Man, this thing's a mess. And don't get me started on the overabundance of CGI. They couldn't even film a real Nevada sky for the love o' Mike!! I wish I'd known ahead of time -- I'd have invested in greenscreen materials.
I wasn't expecting Raiders, but geez, this thing's worse than Temple of Doom. That one at least used real stunt people and they built real sets an' stuff. This feels much more Lucas than Spielberg.
Maybe Indy and sci-fi just don't belong together. At least, not in this movie.
Iron Man was much better, and now I'm really looking forward to the next Bat movie.
I saw it the other day, and I've been fighting disappointment ever since. In my opinion George Lucas should not be allowed near another film as long as he lives, especially not any sequels to well-loved films. I thought it was alright, but for an Indiana Jones film, that's always going to be disappointing. I thought that somewhere along the way, they have forgotten what made the original films so charming. Now there's too much CGI, it's sentimental and actually lacking in a sense of humour. Worst of all, some of Ford's acting is just appalling... and the end.... oh dear.
Having said that, I'm taking the wife to see it tomorrow, so I'll give it another chance. It's worth seeing, anyway.
ST
Having said that, I'm taking the wife to see it tomorrow, so I'll give it another chance. It's worth seeing, anyway.
ST
flat-top
My Mail is Forwarded Here
- Messages
- 3,772
- Location
- Palookaville, NY
I just heard a rumor (not sure if it's been mentioned on the Lounge yet), that Speilberg directed the first half of the movie, and Lucas the second. Seems about right to me!
sean138
New in Town
- Messages
- 38
- Location
- Muncie, Indiana
#2 and We saw it yesterday. Me and the Mrs. thought is was great! It was Indiana Jones in 1957 with commies to fight and ancient mysteries to unravel. I don't get all the negatives. Enjoy it for what it is.
Sean
Sean
RedHotRidinHood
Practically Family
- Messages
- 786
- Location
- Phoenix
My beau and I saw it last night with DocRedfield and drjones, and we all loved it! All three of these fellas are major movie geeks, and for them to like it says a lot. And I agree with the comment above mine: enjoy it for what it is!
KY Gentleman
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,881
- Location
- Kentucky
Prairie Dog said:
Well-loved movies seem to get diminished by too many sequels....
- Messages
- 14,382
- Location
- Small Town Ohio, USA
Maybe I need to see it again, but wow. Remarkably bad. Wouldn't know where to begin.
Indy's house was swell. Good set decoration, use of old cars. Best thing in the film was probably Lebeouf's performance. Lousy script, predictable story, and just plain no-excuse-for-it bad acting, especially from Ford & Allen.
Indy's house was swell. Good set decoration, use of old cars. Best thing in the film was probably Lebeouf's performance. Lousy script, predictable story, and just plain no-excuse-for-it bad acting, especially from Ford & Allen.
WH1
Practically Family
- Messages
- 967
- Location
- Over hills and far away
I enjoyed the movie but was also disappointed particularly in Cate Blanchett, I had greater expectations of her as a villain. She was indifferent at best not making me want to hiss at her like a good villain should.
I didn't think it was as bad as Temple of Doom though. Kate Capshaw grates in that one. 2 hours of her screeching and bad acting was enough to make me pull my own heart out.
I didn't think it was as bad as Temple of Doom though. Kate Capshaw grates in that one. 2 hours of her screeching and bad acting was enough to make me pull my own heart out.
Doctor Strange
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 5,231
- Location
- Hudson Valley, NY
Saw it yesterday. Overall, it as good fun and Ford is still Indy.
But it suffered from a lousy, nonsensical plot, an overabundance of sidekicks (Mac was especially underdeveloped and unnecessary), too much cheap-shot humor, and a Peter Jacksonesque approach to push everything too far. It was great to see Marion again, but why so much angry bickering? (Though Indy's reaction upon first seeing her was very sweet.)
The fifties setting and SF aspects were fine, and Cate Blanchett, as usual, brought some class and almost-believability to her over-the-top, cartoonish commie. (Though great Brit actors John Hurt and Jim Broadbent were thoroughly wasted.)
Mutt was more a plot device than a character, and I will NOT be seeing any sequels built around him, at least not before they hit cable. (But then, he's in the picture for my kids, not me.)
Harrison Ford did great: there was never any question that a 60ish Indy was still the Indy we know and love. And while I winced at the Pancho Villa referrence to that awful TV series, I am curious about "Colonel Jones" WWII exploits...
There were some splendid sequences and tasty grace notes, but it was (as I expected it to be) way more Temple/Last Crusade than Raiders. It'll take another viewing for me to decide if I would rank it third or fourth...
But it suffered from a lousy, nonsensical plot, an overabundance of sidekicks (Mac was especially underdeveloped and unnecessary), too much cheap-shot humor, and a Peter Jacksonesque approach to push everything too far. It was great to see Marion again, but why so much angry bickering? (Though Indy's reaction upon first seeing her was very sweet.)
The fifties setting and SF aspects were fine, and Cate Blanchett, as usual, brought some class and almost-believability to her over-the-top, cartoonish commie. (Though great Brit actors John Hurt and Jim Broadbent were thoroughly wasted.)
Mutt was more a plot device than a character, and I will NOT be seeing any sequels built around him, at least not before they hit cable. (But then, he's in the picture for my kids, not me.)
Harrison Ford did great: there was never any question that a 60ish Indy was still the Indy we know and love. And while I winced at the Pancho Villa referrence to that awful TV series, I am curious about "Colonel Jones" WWII exploits...
There were some splendid sequences and tasty grace notes, but it was (as I expected it to be) way more Temple/Last Crusade than Raiders. It'll take another viewing for me to decide if I would rank it third or fourth...
LocktownDog
Call Me a Cab
- Messages
- 2,254
- Location
- Northern Nevada
It ain't Doctor Zhivago ... and its not supposed to be. But I found it to be fun. Sort of like the old Flash Gordon serials ... you don't show up for the reality of it ... you sit and eat popcorn, watch over the top plot lines, and soak up the action. If I was sitting by myself or another adult, I may have found myself critiquing various parts. But I was with my three sons and felt like a 13 year old again. That doesn't happen often. Not nearly often enough.
Richard
Richard
Mrs. Merl
Practically Family
- Messages
- 527
- Location
- Colorado Mountains
Honestly, I was less disappointed than I expected to be after seeing the film. I hate the special effects and miss the days before computers started making movies. Overall though, I really thought it was entertaining and I enjoyed most of the characters.
We went in our "best" adventure gear, husband wore his new Fed IV to many peoples amusement! (Guess they didn't know that he wears it out all the time - not just to Indy movies...) I just wish we had more people who wanted to make a trip of it and dress and such. I always look for a chance to wear something fun where people are likely to take notice!
We went in our "best" adventure gear, husband wore his new Fed IV to many peoples amusement! (Guess they didn't know that he wears it out all the time - not just to Indy movies...) I just wish we had more people who wanted to make a trip of it and dress and such. I always look for a chance to wear something fun where people are likely to take notice!
Erik
One of the Regulars
- Messages
- 177
- Location
- The Rockies
My wife and I enjoyed it even while noticing and having to agree with some of the criticisms voiced here and elsewhere. But... all and all it was a fun flick. Interestingly enough, there seemed to be as many viewers in there 40s and 50s (and older) than as in their teens and 20s, at least to this 30ish couple.
I'm much more interested in Steven Spielberg as an American filmaker than in Indiana Jones as a character, but in a nostalgic mood, a couple of my old, old friends met up to see the latest IJ.
It was better than I expected it to be. It looked good for the most part, not as much of the amusment park look of the 2nd and 3rd films. Sets generally looked good, costumes were okay, none of the candyfloss lighting of ToD or LC. Ford was as good as he ever is, which is about a step or two above Chuck Norris and a step or two below Bruce Willis.
But the script was stinky. It was far too talky, splaining and splaining everything from what Indy was doing in the war to the legend of the skull to how so and so wound up in Peru and someone else became a Soviet ESP spy to what happened between Indy and Marion and then just to Marion. Blah blah blah. Raiders worked because it gave a one scene bit of explication and everything else became a chase to get that object; anything we learned about the characters we learned in clear, brief passages that didn't stop the narrative dead.
David Koepp is also just terrible at writing female characters, and the two females here were very badly written. Neither was given much to say or do and neither, ultimately, will be very memorable. That's in keeping with ToD and LC, but Lawrence Kasdan can write strong female characters (remember Body Heat?) which is why Marion Ravenwood is so memorable n Raiders. Too bad the character was treated so poorly in this one.
There was also just too much in every scene. Action is like liquor, the right amount can leave you feeling exhilerated and alive, but too much makes you want to just lie down and sleep. The escape from the bomb blast was an early indication of this, but it got worse. The car chase through the jungle, clearly an attempt to outdo the chase in Raiders, was just far too long, far too unlikely and full of far too many credulity straining "stunts". The sword fight was bad enough - I can't imagine a road through the amazonian jungles that long or perfectly, smoothly paved to allow that kind of fight to occur, but I'll try to have fun and suspend my disbelief - I'm checking out, though, when one of the characters suddenly becomes Tarzan swinging through the trees with his ad hoc army of monkeys. :eusa_doh:
Finally, on the CGI... I don't really have a problem with CGI in general, it's just one more tool for the filmmaker and being against CGI is a little like being against matte paintings or miniatures or even set decoration or lighting, all of which are artificial and often clearly so. CGI can become a bit of a crutch though, and when someone has the money it can become one of the things that allows, or encourages some of that aesthetic of bloat, where too much is just enough (as in King Kong). An example here is where the characters are running up a set of stairs as giant gears smash the steps behind them. It's an image in the trailer. In the film though, the characters are not running but loping, practically strolling, as if they had no idea what was just a foot behind them. And they probabaly didn't. I'd bet the actors went up the stairs on a set without knowing that later, because a certain je ne sais quoi was missing, the CGI gears would be added. The end result is not more exciting or more involving, but more artificial and bogus - even laughable. Imagine if Indiana Jones had strolled through the tunnel while the ball rolled after him in Raiders.
I just saw Jurassic Park again on television last week, and despite the stupidity of the story, there are some very well handled scenes of edge of the seat suspense, as there were in Minority Report. Maybe working with George Lucas looking over his shoulder, or trying to direct Harrison Ford throws Steven Spielberg off his game, because outside of Raiders, none of the Indiana Jones films are near the same technical quality of most of his other work, and none are near the top end of what he's capable of.
KotCS is better than Last Crusade, one of Spielberg's three worst movies - I think - and it is slightly better than Temple of Doom - also pretty stinky, but if this was anything but an Indiana Jones film, no-one would be talking about it.
Finally, the "watch it for what it is" response here and elsewhere is a little bit false when it becomes synonymous with "relax and like it". It shifts the "blame" for not liking a movie onto the person who doesn't like it, but we all have different tastes, and not all of us are Indiana Jones fans. When I see "watch it for what it is" I wonder if that means I'm supposed to watch it as a bloated, cynical and half-hearted attempt to sucker fans and kids into forking out for the movie and all of it's merchandising. Probably not. I'd rather know what you think of the movie, not what I should think.
It was better than I expected it to be. It looked good for the most part, not as much of the amusment park look of the 2nd and 3rd films. Sets generally looked good, costumes were okay, none of the candyfloss lighting of ToD or LC. Ford was as good as he ever is, which is about a step or two above Chuck Norris and a step or two below Bruce Willis.
But the script was stinky. It was far too talky, splaining and splaining everything from what Indy was doing in the war to the legend of the skull to how so and so wound up in Peru and someone else became a Soviet ESP spy to what happened between Indy and Marion and then just to Marion. Blah blah blah. Raiders worked because it gave a one scene bit of explication and everything else became a chase to get that object; anything we learned about the characters we learned in clear, brief passages that didn't stop the narrative dead.
David Koepp is also just terrible at writing female characters, and the two females here were very badly written. Neither was given much to say or do and neither, ultimately, will be very memorable. That's in keeping with ToD and LC, but Lawrence Kasdan can write strong female characters (remember Body Heat?) which is why Marion Ravenwood is so memorable n Raiders. Too bad the character was treated so poorly in this one.
There was also just too much in every scene. Action is like liquor, the right amount can leave you feeling exhilerated and alive, but too much makes you want to just lie down and sleep. The escape from the bomb blast was an early indication of this, but it got worse. The car chase through the jungle, clearly an attempt to outdo the chase in Raiders, was just far too long, far too unlikely and full of far too many credulity straining "stunts". The sword fight was bad enough - I can't imagine a road through the amazonian jungles that long or perfectly, smoothly paved to allow that kind of fight to occur, but I'll try to have fun and suspend my disbelief - I'm checking out, though, when one of the characters suddenly becomes Tarzan swinging through the trees with his ad hoc army of monkeys. :eusa_doh:
Finally, on the CGI... I don't really have a problem with CGI in general, it's just one more tool for the filmmaker and being against CGI is a little like being against matte paintings or miniatures or even set decoration or lighting, all of which are artificial and often clearly so. CGI can become a bit of a crutch though, and when someone has the money it can become one of the things that allows, or encourages some of that aesthetic of bloat, where too much is just enough (as in King Kong). An example here is where the characters are running up a set of stairs as giant gears smash the steps behind them. It's an image in the trailer. In the film though, the characters are not running but loping, practically strolling, as if they had no idea what was just a foot behind them. And they probabaly didn't. I'd bet the actors went up the stairs on a set without knowing that later, because a certain je ne sais quoi was missing, the CGI gears would be added. The end result is not more exciting or more involving, but more artificial and bogus - even laughable. Imagine if Indiana Jones had strolled through the tunnel while the ball rolled after him in Raiders.
I just saw Jurassic Park again on television last week, and despite the stupidity of the story, there are some very well handled scenes of edge of the seat suspense, as there were in Minority Report. Maybe working with George Lucas looking over his shoulder, or trying to direct Harrison Ford throws Steven Spielberg off his game, because outside of Raiders, none of the Indiana Jones films are near the same technical quality of most of his other work, and none are near the top end of what he's capable of.
KotCS is better than Last Crusade, one of Spielberg's three worst movies - I think - and it is slightly better than Temple of Doom - also pretty stinky, but if this was anything but an Indiana Jones film, no-one would be talking about it.
Finally, the "watch it for what it is" response here and elsewhere is a little bit false when it becomes synonymous with "relax and like it". It shifts the "blame" for not liking a movie onto the person who doesn't like it, but we all have different tastes, and not all of us are Indiana Jones fans. When I see "watch it for what it is" I wonder if that means I'm supposed to watch it as a bloated, cynical and half-hearted attempt to sucker fans and kids into forking out for the movie and all of it's merchandising. Probably not. I'd rather know what you think of the movie, not what I should think.
sean138
New in Town
- Messages
- 38
- Location
- Muncie, Indiana
Hello, Jake, I will strike my "enjoy it for what it is" comment. I enjoyed it very much. I don't go to movies very often. Mostly I watch things on the small screen at home. I am a huge fan of 30's and 40's radio and film. It is safe to say the overacting, cheesy effects and laughable scripts are, for some reason, entertaining to me. With that said, I really liked it. Of course I like the other 3 as well. It was a fun movie, I didn't get up to go pee at any point in it. Thats a good gauge for me, as I normally have to go at least once every time I do go to a movie. I would see it again sometime. Most likely at home. It wasn't Citizen Cane, but it wasn't Encino Man either. My only complaint, when was the M-17 series protective mask introduced? (1959) In the decon scene they were wearing them. Standard practice at that time would also dictate not wearing anything on ones face that would melt, due to exposure to radioactivity or intense heat. Not that Indy would have been radioactive or anything. Lead lined fridge! Still, it was fun!
Sean
Sean
zaika
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,480
- Location
- Portlandia
i saw it last night. my screenwriter friends (one more than the other) hated it. lol but i think i laughed through the whole thing. i was one of those who knew it was bad but went with it anyway. the spaceship scene, while pretty cool in and of itself, was a bit...too out there. it reminded me of the ending of the x-files movie. but aliens BELONGED in that film. i think i would have liked to have seen LESS of the alien, and less explanation of them, in this movie.
in the end it was a fun, if not totally bizarre, adventure.
space between spaces. lol lol lol lol
in the end it was a fun, if not totally bizarre, adventure.
space between spaces. lol lol lol lol
JohnnyGringo
A-List Customer
- Messages
- 353
- Location
- OH-IO
My family and I saw the movie over the weekend, and overall, everyone enjoyed it. I went really wanting to like it, as I consider myself an IJ fan. I, like many others, genuinely enjoyed the first half; the second half, however, and especially the ending, were a little too far out there for me personally. I felt like it went from an Indiana Jones adventure to Indiana Jones meets Independence Day-just not really what I had personally expected or hoped for. Hey, it's a movie-enjoy it for what it is!
Twitch
My Mail is Forwarded Here
- Messages
- 3,133
- Location
- City of the Angels
The reality is I'll probably wait for it on TV.........[huh]
James Miller
One of the Regulars
- Messages
- 137
- Location
- Florida
Not bad!
I saw the movie and I took my Wife ,Son in Law and grandson. We liked it. We will see it again some of the parts were a little wild but thats Hollywood!
It's worth seeing.
I Guess I'm just an Indy nut. A lot of cool hats but one That I dont have is the hat Mutt wore, It's the same one Marlon Brando wore. So this morning I went and ordered me one (vintage motorcycle hat) to add to my collection of stuff.
Don't be cheeplol and go spend a buck or(two or three)and see it.
I saw the movie and I took my Wife ,Son in Law and grandson. We liked it. We will see it again some of the parts were a little wild but thats Hollywood!
It's worth seeing.
I Guess I'm just an Indy nut. A lot of cool hats but one That I dont have is the hat Mutt wore, It's the same one Marlon Brando wore. So this morning I went and ordered me one (vintage motorcycle hat) to add to my collection of stuff.
Don't be cheeplol and go spend a buck or(two or three)and see it.
