Originally Posted by GOATSE:
Go and watch the last James Bond film.
That movie had grit and viscera in spades despite the fact it was set around a casino.
That's what was missing from Indy IV.
"Casino Royale" was freaking awesome. Maybe the best Bond film, EVER.
But the reason why it's so cool is that the producers decided to "go real". They hired Neal Purvis for the first script, then Paul Haggis for the final script. They also went out of their way to hire a uniquely gifted, "against-type" actor for the role.
The only way that "Indy 4" would even remotely satisfy those looking for something beyond what they've produced is if someone else took over the franchise.
That wasn't going to happen. So, "It is what it is". [Reply]
Originally Posted by GOATSE:
That's why it felt more like a Mummy film. They have all that dumb, but entertaining crap in the Mummy. It fits there.
Honestly, they probably thought they had to pace with the current wave of CGI dominated adventure flicks. That way they could ensure they get the "teen/kiddie dollar"
Sucks to hear they went that route. I know Spielberg can stil bring the gritty realism. "Munich" was very gritty and very real. Nothing over the top. [Reply]
Originally Posted by GOATSE:
It was almost like they added too much lens flare in photoshop, if you know what I mean. .
Yea, i noticed Spielberg didnt use the orignal cinematographer (Douglas Sloucombe) for this one. Hes probably too old anyways.
He went with his old buddy Janusz Kaminski who is fine, but at times he has this weird glowing backlight thing going on in his shots. Anyhow, im sure it looks strange for an Indy film. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990:
Yea, i noticed Spielberg didnt use the orignal cinematographer (Douglas Sloucombe) for this one. Hes probably too old anyways.
He went with his old buddy Janusz Kaminski who is fine, but at times he has this weird glowing backlight thing going on in his shots. Anyhow, im sure it looks strange for an Indy film.
That blows.
I'm going to watch Last Crusade this week. I'll get pounded for saying this but it's my favorite. It has the right mix of humor and gritty action. The Nazis are ****ing awesome. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990:
Whoa, whoa whoa....i wouldnt go that far.
Raiders is by far the best. I like TOD better than Last Crusade. I think some of the action scenes in Last Crusade are kind of lame.
Oh, who cares. I love them all. They're like my children. I just haven't seen Crusade in awhile. A guy had it on his laptop in the theater before the movie last night. I was peeking over his shoulder and saying all the lines to myself.
"The penitent man will pass! The penitent man will pass! The penitent man...kneels before God....KNEEL!" [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
"Casino Royale" was freaking awesome. Maybe the best Bond film, EVER.
But the reason why it's so cool is that the producers decided to "go real". They hired Neal Purvis for the first script, then Paul Haggis for the final script. They also went out of their way to hire a uniquely gifted, "against-type" actor for the role.
The only way that "Indy 4" would even remotely satisfy those looking for something beyond what they've produced is if someone else took over the franchise.
That wasn't going to happen. So, "It is what it is".
Royale was an ok movie, IMO, kind of boring. The audio was off it seemed. Also, I almost needed to turn on the subcaption on the DVD player because I could not understand what the hell Craig was saying!!! ugh!! Dude is hard to understand, he seemed to mumble throughout the whole movie.
Having said that, I did enjoy it. I'm hard to displease, because I'm easily entertained lol. [Reply]
Just saw it. I thought it was okay (as in, 'eh, it was okay I guess'). It wasn't bad, outside of some cheesy shit, but I doubt I'll go out of my way to see it again.
I love the concept, the execution just wasn't there. [Reply]
Originally Posted by GOATSE:
But it's disappointing hardcore Indiana Jones nerds because it doesn't feel like Indiana Jones. There's no sense of peril.