There's a cool (but very graphic/nsfw) russian trailer here. Can't understand a word they're saying, but neat visuals: http://filmz.ru/pub/1/14256_1.htm [Reply]
Originally Posted by Adept Havelock:
I saw Indy IV earlier today. I enjoyed it. I just applied my "Bond" rule...disengage higher brain functions, lean back, and enjoy the ride.
I just walked back into the door from seeing the midnight show and I must say I agree. I don't understand all of the negativity surrounding this movie. What were people expecting? I think the biggest problem is that the majority of people doing the reviews, and people on here for that matter, were kids when the originals came out and that somehow distorts their views of what the originals were. They weren't art, they were action romps with a little humor thrown in. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Third Eye:
They weren't art, they were action romps with a little humor thrown in. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.
To reduce Indy to the level of The Mummy is an insult.
The action in Indy 1, 3 and even 2 most of the time was always grounded in reality. That's because it was, for the most part, REAL. You felt like the characters were in peril, or at the very least, felt like the characters felt like they were in peril. That feeling was not present in the least in this film.
And of course the look of the movie was completely off. Vaseline-cam was everywhere (everything looked too soft, Indy movies have always been harsh and stark), the color tone was too cool instead of warm.
And then there's the soundtrack...a disgrace compared to the first three.
Basically it's the worst Indiana Jones movie ever and doesn't begin to compare to the original three.
Originally Posted by GOATSE:
To reduce Indy to the level of The Mummy is an insult.
The action in Indy 1, 3 and even 2 most of the time was always grounded in reality. That's because it was, for the most part, REAL. You felt like the characters were in peril, or at the very least, felt like the characters felt like they were in peril. That feeling was not present in the least in this film.
And of course the look of the movie was completely off. Vaseline-cam was everywhere (everything looked too soft, Indy movies have always been harsh and stark), the color tone was too cool instead of warm.
And then there's the soundtrack...a disgrace compared to the first three.
Basically it's the worst Indiana Jones movie ever and doesn't begin to compare to the original three.
Should have used Darabont's script.
The difference is The Mummy was a BAD action movie. I would never compare Indy to that. To imply that it was more than an action movie is pure folly though. The themes were always juvenile, no character development (other than Indy himself, and that really wasn't till the third one), and they were filled, absolutely jam-packed with cheesy one-liners. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
I am speechless about your comment about the action in the first three being grounded in reality. I really don't know how to respond to that, AT ALL.
As to the soundtrack, other than the main theme, I probably couldn't recall a single piece of the score from the original three. This one didn't impress me either, but I didn't expect it to.
I will agree with you that the look was off, but I don't mind that. Well, at least not much. I blame that more on the high definition age we live in. In truth, Last Crusade was pretty bright too.
For me: Raiders>>>>>Last Crusade>Crystal Skull>>>>>>>>>>>Temple of Doom. [Reply]
Originally Posted by :
I am speechless about your comment about the action in the first three being grounded in reality. I really don't know how to respond to that, AT ALL.
I'm saying that most of the action in the other films felt real. That's because most of it WAS real. When they showed Indy being drug behind a truck in Raiders of the Lost Ark - THEY ACTUALLY DID THAT.
Obviously a guy didn't actually get his heart ripped out of his chest, but that was a tiny part of a scene.
The action also made you feel like something was at stake. In this, that was never present. No one was ever in peril. I felt a SMIDGE of that during the Ant scene when Indy was punching out the Russian dude, but it was weaksauce.
Originally Posted by Third Eye:
As to the soundtrack, other than the main theme, I probably couldn't recall a single piece of the score from the original three
Then it's clear you don't know shit about Indiana Jones.
That's probably why you liked this piece of crap. Sorry, but that's the truth.
Here is what Crystal Skull was missing:
Originally Posted by :
I will agree with you that the look was off, but I don't mind that. Well, at least not much. I blame that more on the high definition age we live in. In truth, Last Crusade was pretty bright too.
It has nothing to do with high definition. Raiders of the Lost Ark is available in high definition and it looks great.
And who cares if Last Crusade was "bright?" That's not what I'm complaining about. Raiders was well lit, too, jeez. But it wasn't all vaselined out (a recent Spielberg trademark - see Minority Report) and it wasn't all post-processed with a cool color scheme. They completely destroyed the look and feel of the other three films in Crystal Skull despite what they said they were going to do. [Reply]
Nobody is going to dispute than John Williams is a great composer, but his work on Indiana Jones doesn't even rank in the top 10 John Williams scores. That was my point.
Bottom line: you are putting Indiana Jones on a pedestal, way higher than it belongs. They were fun, but ultimately not cinematic events. They were SIMPLE, FUN, BRAINLESS romps. It's like complaining that Lethal Weapon 4 ruined the integrity of the series. I was completely on the "let's kill George for what he did to Star Wars" bandwagon, and I was against the blasphemy that Steven did when he re-edited ET. This one was fine with me. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Third Eye:
Nobody is going to dispute than John Williams is a great composer, but his work on Indiana Jones doesn't even rank in the top 10 John Williams scores. That was my point.
LOL. That's laughable. John Williams received a grammy for Raiders. Raiders, Temple of Doom, and Crusade were ALL nominated for academy awards.
That's because they were INTRINSIC to the value of the film. His scores sucked you into the film.
Originally Posted by :
Bottom line: you are putting Indiana Jones on a pedestal, way higher than it belongs. They were fun, but ultimately not cinematic events. They were SIMPLE, FUN, BRAINLESS romps.
You disgust me. The Mummy was brainless. Indiana Jones was not.
Indy IV is lazy filmmaking. It shows in the lack of location shooting. They went all over the world to make the first three Indy films. They stayed in America to make Indy IV. [Reply]
I thought this one was the second best of the series.
RoTLA is a classic... one of my favorite movies. Temple of Doom was its retarded asshole offspring; a movie chock full'o Hollywood stereotypical drivel. The Last Crusade was boring and trite; an excuse to pair Sean Connery with Harrison Ford.
The Crystal Skull, while nowhere near the original, harkens back to it; hell, it's almost a "remake", pitting a geratric Indy & Marion versus commies instead of nazis. The fight with the commie colonel was a wink to the fight with the nazi mechanic at the airfield. The dart blowing pigmies were a wink to the opening sequence of Raiders. Hell, even the truck scene from Raiders was redone.
While that may sound really lame, to "redo" a classic, it's also an attempt to get back to what made it great: fun, mindless action set in exotic backdrops. While Crystal Skull falls far short of the original, to lambaste it as a cinematic abortion is mere fanboi blither. Typical whining and bitching by overweight dorks who live in their mother's basement, collecting dolls, errr "collectibles" and talking shit.
If you want in-depth character development and pithy dialogue, rent Juno. Don't go into a summer action flick expecting the same. Iron Man didn't have it either. [Reply]
When was the last time you watched any of the others?
At least I felt some drama when Sean Connery got shot in the gut. In this one, nothing. YAWN.
The others sucked. "Drama" when Connery got shot in the gut? Are you freaking serious? That scene had been painted on a billboard for all to see, an HOUR before it occurs in the film. As soon as it was mentioned that the object had some sort of mystical healing powers everyone KNEW Indy's dad would get popped, nearly die, then Indy would use the object to heal him & they'd all ride into the sunset.
The only reason anyone would be pissed about this installment is if they held the second & third installments up as "good" movies. The fact is Raiders of the Lost Arc was great.... the follow-ups aren't even in the same dimension. Why do you think you can't buy Raiders of the Lost Arc on DVD by itself? They FORCE YOU to buy 2 & 3 because no one would actually choose to watch that shit.
Crystal Skull was fun mindless entertainment. Typical Memorial weekend fare. The Mummy comparison was actually quite accurate IMO. [Reply]
Hell hath no fury like a Mommy's basement dwelling Fanboy scorned.
It's a damn action movie, not a work of art. You didn't like it? Too fu**ing bad. All it means is you wasted your money seeing it and all the emotion you invested in the buildup, and I enjoyed myself for a couple of hours. :-) [Reply]
