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.
This was sort of like taking the awesomesauce of Aliens and Predator, and mashing them together to make AvP.
AvP was good. I found it entertaining. But it didn't have the same "serious" feel of Aliens or Predator, or an ounce of the grit.
That was really fine with me, because they didn't put Dutch or Ripley or Hicks or anyone like that in AvP. They just had Aliens and Predators. Those are throwaway characters. I was just there to see Aliens and Predators rip shit apart, which is a ****ing good time.
But Indy is different. Indy deserves to be in a quasi-realistic setting, not
Spoiler!
Mutt The Wonderboy comes swinging on monkey tribe vines to save the day.
Save that shit for The Mummy.
I haven't seen the film (due to extenuating circumstances) and will probably have to wait until it hits DVD (unless somehow, I can conjure up some time to get away).
That being said, "The Mummy" in my opinion was a blast. Great special effects (ILM), great casting and a well written script. Stephen Sommers is/was a George Lucas protege' for years and obviously learned a great deal from him and knew how to utilize that knowledge (which isn't as easy as it sounds, for obvious reasons).
I'm sure I'll enjoy it for "what it is" but Lucas did try to warn people months ago by proclaiming "It's just a movie".
I think he learned his lesson from the prequels about expectations. Unfortunately, Spielberg (and I had a feeling about this, due to his work over the last decade) was the wrong director.
As far as a "money grab", these guys are worth billions, just from making movies. I don't think there's any way in the freakin' world that they did it for money.
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
That being said, "The Mummy" in my opinion was a blast. Great special effects (ILM), great casting and a well written script. Stephen Sommers is/was a George Lucas protege' for years and obviously learned a great deal from him and knew how to utilize that knowledge (which isn't as easy as it sounds, for obvious reasons).
I loved the Mummy. Hell, Mummy Returns was a blast.
I just don't want to see Indiana Jones riding in a jet-powered balloon, you get my drift? [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:
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 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]
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".
I've got to agree with "Casino Royale". Craig is a perfect Bond, and much closer to Fleming's character in the novels. Bond was two steps from being a thug when he started. Incidentally, Roger Moore's first scene in The Wild Geese really makes me wish they would have taken this approach with his version of Bond. "Sean Flynn" convinced me he would have done a good job as a darker Bond.
I'll always love the franchise (except for Dalton), and Connery was great, but Daniel Craig is close to the image I had in my head when I read the novels years ago. I'm really looking forward to the next one.
As for Indy IV, I'm looking forward to seeing it this weekend, in spite of the tone of the reviews here. I don't have high expectations, and plan to sit down, disengage my frontal lobe, lean back and enjoy the ride. [Reply]
I thought it was pretty good, and definitely lived up to my expectations. The 79% on Rotten Tomatoes was surprising to me when I first saw it, but it was enjoyable throughout and I can see why it got a good rating from the majority of critics.
Raiders of the Lost Ark>>>>>>>>Last Crusade>>Kingdom of the Crustal Skull>>>>>>Temple of Doom
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.
