Originally Posted by :
In its earliest incarnation, Lucas proposed an all-out alien flick called "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men From Mars." Spielberg and Ford didn't like that idea, and it took more than a decade of wrangling to come up with a story all three could live with.
Review from a poster on another board whose opinions on films I respect:
Originally Posted by :
Anyway, I saw this yesterday.
Was it fun to watch? Overall, yes.
Does it compare to RAIDERS? No way.
Is is a total embarassment to the franchise? Not in my opinion.
Star Wars Eps 1-3 were total shit to me and I guess most people here. With that as a point of comparison, the new Indy felt like a better attempt; it's maybe a little "cuter" than the first 3 -- with a few adorable animal moments that made me roll my eyes and a fair amount of CGI -- but far less of both than the newer Star Wars movies.
I think it's basically inevitable that this movie will pale in comparison to the first few because most of us saw those movies as kids. RAIDERS is an undeniable classic to audiences of all ages, with at least a dozen iconic, unforgetable, and much-imitated scenes. I count at best one scene in this new sequel that could be considered anything close that memorable, and probably not even that one. But when I think about it, if I saw the 2nd and 3rd Indy movies as an adult, would I consider them classics? Probably not.
I would rate this the least interesting of the 4, but I would expect kids and teenagers right now to love it; whether people in their 20s and 30s will accept it as a worthy addition to the earlier movies they grew up loving as kids is another question -- and probably too much to expect of any sequel that comes 20+ years later, especially one from the increasingly geriatric Spielberg/Lucas crew.
The plot is interesting enough, bringing together a few intriguing aspects of late 1950s America in a fun way. The main problem for me was that most of the characters other than Indy sucked, feeling very sketchy and cheesy and some good actors are basically wasted. John Hurt's character is ridiculously bad and Shia LaBouef or whatever his name is no River Phoenix. Oh, and it's a sausage party from start to finish... they don't even try to have anything remotely sexy in this movie; Indiana Jones in 2008 is definitely an action hero for the erectile disfunction set.
The new Star Wars films relied on CGI way too much, aimed the films at kids way too much, took liberties with the tone of the previous films way too much, etc etc. To me, the Phantom Menace felt as different from Star Wars "IV" as Star Trek does. This is a more conservative and consistent film that builds on what's already there in small but acceptable ways, and so it avoids crashing and burning the way the new SW trilogy did.
My take is: in not trying to be anything other than another decent installment in the franchise it succeeds mildly.
Originally Posted by ZootedGranny:
Review from a poster on another board whose opinions on films I respect:
That review brought up a few good points ive thought about before.
Will the younger generation (those aged 13-25) which are HUGE part of the potential box office show up and support a new Indy?? Do they even know who Indy is or care? Or do they view Indy as something their Dad and Grandpa liked?? Something old fashioned. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990:
That review brought up a few good points ive thought about before.
Will the younger generation (those aged 13-25) which are HUGE part of the potential box office show up and support a new Indy?? Do they even know who Indy is or care? Or do they view Indy as something their Dad and Grandpa liked?? Something old fashioned.
I think your age bracket is off by about five years. I'd put the cutoff at 20. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ZootedGranny:
Oh, and it's a sausage party from start to finish... they don't even try to have anything remotely sexy in this movie;
With that comment Goatse will be there in the first row with a trench coat on. [Reply]
Reading a lot of reviews this week. All of them seem to be what I'd term as 'cautiously positive'. Along the lines of "it feels like an Indy film, and there are some great moments, but...". [Reply]
Originally Posted by keg in kc:
Reading a lot of reviews this week. All of them seem to be what I'd term as 'cautiously positive'. Along the lines of "it feels like an Indy film, and there are some great moments, but...".
As long as "it feels like an Indy film", I'm good with that.
I wasn't expecting them to reinvent the wheel, I was just hoping they wouldn't screw the pooch. [Reply]
I think people want Raiders all over, and that just isn't going to happen.
Every review has touched on the fact that you cannot rank this film with the other ones nor can you really compare them. Naturally, everyone will.
I just think it reeks of a money grab, obviously. But more importantly, the trailer seems to indicate a bored director and subpar storyline. As well as the "he got older" slapstick comedy. It's going to try to BE funny like the other ones. It's going to go out of its way to be funny. And that, I think, is where it's epic failure lies.
But, as always, I'm awaiting Wednesday afternoon. [Reply]
Originally Posted by keg in kc:
Reading a lot of reviews this week. All of them seem to be what I'd term as 'cautiously positive'. Along the lines of "it feels like an Indy film, and there are some great moments, but...".
Just got back from seeing it, this is entirely accurate. Its basically a decent movie in spite of being hampered with a just plain goofy premise. [Reply]