[Henke]

The magic of an Indy-adventure has gone down the drain. It's really sad. I have to see it again though, but right now I'm really disappointed.

[Jazhara7]

By the way, I'd like to point out that the line "Saucer Men from Mars" that Indy dropped in that one scene was not random at all.


(Oh, and I just realised, I should read the second scrapped script too. Could be I might have discovered the source or reason for the...Tarzan LaBoeuf and his Monkeys scene...)


-

[Lee in Limbo]

I enjoyed the movie immensely. I suspect I just hav a greater appreciation for pulp fiction tropes than some of you guys do. It amused me greatly the way they tied together a number of 50s-era pulp sci-fi themes with the whole Von Daniken Chariots of the Gods thing. It was still archeology-based but it had a few elements that didn't creep into pulp fiction until well after the war-era stuff that informed much of the first movie. It also didn't dabble in another European or Asian religious history, instead dealing with the fascinating Mayan culture, and having some fun with it as well.

Yes, it reminds me (just a little) of Fate of Atlantis (which I have played from start to finish), but not detrimentally so. It's also important to remember that most folks who went to see that movie have no idea what Fate of Atlantis is, and, more importantly, the premise went in a completely different direction, so that comparison is basically BS as well.

I think Harrison Ford and Karen Allen looked fantastic for their age, and the chemistry was there just well enough for me to smile just seeing them together again. I think all of the performances were great, the action sequences looked great, the plot was interesting and not nearly as cliched as some people are making it out to be (especially given that it IS based on early 20th Century pulp fiction, which by it's very definition means it's going to use themes and ideas you've heard of before. Duh).

I have a very simple formula for deciding whether I think a story is good or not; I ask myself truthfully if I think I could have done it better. If I can't think of any ideas that would truly have made for a better story, I applaud. If I can... I go and write my ideas down for future use. I'm probably not as discerning as some folks fancy themselves. However, I think it's an easy game to try and tear apart something that doesn't make sense on first inspection.

I don't know what it is that sets me off about scathing criticism of something I thought was executed excellently. It always strikes me that people went into the thing expecting something that they wouldn't have liked if it had turned out precisely as they wished anyway. To me, it's like some people just can't be pleased.

[Lucien21]

Lee,

I think that is the problem with ressurrecting classic movies after a period (or maybe just any sequel).

The weight of expectations mean some people either go into it expecting something of pure genius (and are inevitably going to be dissapointed) or they go in already decided that it is never going to surpass their childhod memories.

[Kolzig]

By the way,

Why in the world are they talking about Mayas and Maya culture in the movie and they jump around in Peru?

Peru never had any Maya, Maya's were way up north in south Mexico area.

Peru was the center of the Inca culture. Cusco was their main city.
And all the languages and stuff in the movie were in Mayan, and they still were in Peru...

I know this bit of information because I used to know some Peruvian people.

[Henke]

I believe that the problem with continuing a film-series after so many years is that if you make it exactly like the earlier films some people will say it's dated and if you throw in a lot of new stuff some people will say the series are messed up.

Although I've grown up watching the Indiana Jones films over and over again I want to think that I had an open mind when I went to the cinema. I really don't think this was a good and solid adventurefilm (which I still think the other three films really are).

Spoiler:

But even if you take Aliens and UFO:s out of the film (which I nearly cried when I saw) the characters and dialogues are just bad IMO (and not in a fun way which was the case of the earlier films). Neither monkeys or CG-ants was any fun, just ridiculous if you ask me.

I will see it again though to really make up my mind about it. It has to be said that it's still slightly better then any recent Mummy-films but I think the first Pirates of the Carribean was better then this (only the first one though, then it went all downhill for them too).

[Giligan]

Just got home from the theater. Like the rest of the audience at the film's conclusion, I applauded. Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford have created another great adventure. Casting was perfect, the action was intense, and the plot was interesting. BTW -

Spoiler:

The ants were the creepiest thing I've seen in a movie, ever.

[Jazhara7]

Leesie, I didn't mean to say it was bad that it had similarities with "Fate of Atlantis". I was just curious if other people noticed it too.

Also, it took my sister for me to realise the joke behind the fact that Shia LaBouef's character calls himself "Mutt". Remember where Dr. Jones got the name "Indiana" from? Yeeeees. She realised that while watching the German version (where they talked about Chess in reference to the sound of the name. "Schach Matt" ["Matt" being sounds like "Mutt"] being the German "Check Mate"), and I didn't even realise it even after also having watched the English version.



-

[Catbert]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

Lee,

I think that is the problem with ressurrecting classic movies after a period (or maybe just any sequel).

The weight of expectations mean some people either go into it expecting something of pure genius (and are inevitably going to be dissapointed) or they go in already decided that it is never going to surpass their childhod memories.

I went in expecting a disappointment and my opinion ended up being even lower. Come on damn it, don't waste an hour explaining shit nobody cares about like OH MY GOD ALIENS HAVE KNOWLEDGE and then waste all that time going nowhere with it and have like 3 action sequences total. Didn't work. The other movies weren't like that.

At least Temple of Doom doesn't have to be the ugly duckling anymore, cos it wasn't that bad at all

[Lucien21]

Originally Posted by Catbert

The other movies weren't like that.

Actually they were:

Raiders -
Starts off with action sequence, big rolling ball etc.
Back to University lots of plot exposition about Nazi's and the ark
Meets up with Marion little fight, go to Cario big fight and escape through streets as Marion kidnapped
Indy outsmarts Nazis and finds real tomb, ambushed and arc stolen
Talk with Bellock who has switched sides.
BIG chase through desert to recover ark
Ark recaptured by Nazis who open it and all die and Indy escapes.


Last Crusade -

Starts with action seqence as young Indy then on ship which blows up
Back to University for plot exposition about father and holy grail
Goes to venice meets girl finds clue followed by fight and escape on the river
Indy outsmarts nazi and goes to rescue father, double crossed and diary stolen
Woman turns out to be nazi
Escape and Big chase on motorbikes etc
Goes to Berlin meets Hitler gets diary back
Huge chase through desert
Find grail solve puzzles, lose grail nazis die as indy escapes crumbling temple

Crystal Skull -

Starts off with action sequence in warehouse, nuclear explosion etc.
Back to university with plot exposition about communism in the 50's and the skull
Meets up with Mutt little fight followed by escape through streets.
Indy outsmarts Russians and finds skull, ambushed and skull stolen
Talk with partner who switched sides.
Exposition about where city of gold is.
HUGE chase through jungle followed by Ant sequence and waterfalls.
Find city, lose skull who then put skull back and all die as indy escapes crumbling temple.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Structurally the films follow a familiar pattern so I don't think there were more or less "action" sequences in the new film than the previous films.

The only one that doesn't really fit is Temple of Doom.

[Hammerite]

I liked it. Not as classic as previous ones, but still an awesome watch.
The hiding in a fridge to defend oneself against a nuclear blast was just strange.

[Jazhara7]

Originally Posted by Hammerite

I liked it. Not as classic as previous ones, but still an awesome watch.
The hiding in a fridge to defend oneself against a nuclear blast was just strange.

I actually think it was a pretty good idea hiding in the fridge - the reason was because it was a *LEAD LINED* fridge. Sure, in reality the lead lining would hardly be thick enough to protect you against a nuclear blast this close, but the idea was good. Oh, and he did get the whole post-nuclear wash down and all immediately after, so it was pretty well done.


-

[Catbert]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

THINGS

No, you look at this one and there's a huge gap in the middle which bored all of the voices inside my head until they got to the jungle and then they had that action scene which was actually pretty good, but there's that big-ass gap in the middle. By the time we got to the jungle fight I was so bored I hardly cared what was going on.

Final sequence doesn't even count. It was a shitty sequence of horrid blurry CGI, which sucks, coupled with what I felt was the worst MacGuffin of the series. It took over the film. If you don't know what that is, go google it.

Point being, I didn't want it to be a new Raiders, and went with pretty low expectations to it, and ended up disappointed. I think that was a first for me.

I don't care about the whole fridge deal or him surviving a "nucular" blast, as he put it, but the movie as a whole suffered from the MacGuffin, which is supposed to be a secondary thing, coming to light all the time. And then they don't even do it right. Sucked.

[Lee in Limbo]

Actually, I thought that CGI looked quite good. I don't usually like CGI that's too crisp and in your face... it often looks too real to be real. The French use the phrase 'plus perfect'. The Magic Realism used in a lot of modern CGI looks interesting in its own artificial environment, but rarely looks 'right' when inserted into film footage. The atmospheric physics effects used in the alien CGI sequence kept it from looking utterly impossible to my eye. I guess it's subjective after all.

Also, the boring bits in the middle were called character and plot development. I rather liked them, myself. Keeps an action-adventure film from feeling two-dimensional and pointless. Just saying.
____________________

And Jaz, I'm sorry hon, I didn't mean for that comment of mine to seem like I was singling out your comment. I can't recall from where, but I'm almost certain I'd read someone else make similar comparisons. I could be wrong though. My brain doesn't always catalogue these things as precisely as it used to. Think the battery is wearing down.

[Catbert]

Character development? Don't even go there. The professor? The "Mutt"? Even Indy? I like character development only if it's well done and I'm sorry, but it even failed there. It wasn't stuff like Brody and Indy's father being dead, it's that if you thought that was good character development you're absolutely insane. And I mean "christian-right" insane. Indy got married and found out he had a kid. There you go, that's the character development.

That filler time was no development, it was simply filler. And a bad one at it.

And damn it, I LOVE the other indy movies, even ToD which people tend to hate. Plus I hate with a passion the new generation of action movies which get shittier and shittier each year. STOP WITH THE GOD DAMN CGI

[Lee in Limbo]

Originally Posted by Catbert

Character development? Don't even go there. The professor? The "Mutt"? Even Indy? I like character development only if it's well done and I'm sorry, but it even failed there. It wasn't stuff like Brody and Indy's father being dead, it's that if you thought that was good character development you're absolutely insane. And I mean "christian-right" insane. Indy got married and found out he had a kid. There you go, that's the character development.

That filler time was no development, it was simply filler. And a bad one at it.

And damn it, I LOVE the other indy movies, even ToD which people tend to hate. Plus I hate with a passion the new generation of action movies which get BLEEP and BLEEP each year. STOP WITH THE GOD DAMN CGI

So I'm insane for not having ridiculous expectations of a two hour action-adventure movie, am I? Don't be so patronizing. Those movies that you cherish so much? Are no better than the film you're taking pot shots at now. Your argument makes no sense, given that the amount of character development in any of the previous three films was no deeper than what you witnessed in Crystal Skull. I'm a fan of two out of three of those movies, and even I recognize that they are merely pulp fiction, albeit of the highest caliber.

I don't know what film you were watching, but as near as I can tell, it wasn't the film that was actually up on the screen. And other than some trees and a skull-faced waterfall, a disintegrating temple and a baker's dozen of aliens (would costumed actors or puppets have been better for you?), there was no real CGI. They shot it on film, they used stunt people for any shots they wouldn't let the actors do themselves, and they used traditional stunt choreography for the fights. There were real pyrotechnics used, including a timed charge that accidentally landed unexploded in the passenger seat of the jeep Ford was driving in the warehouse. No more CGI was used in this movie than just about any other action film of the last thirty years. Get a grip.

There was a plot. I know there was, because I watched it for two hours and didn't get bored once (No, I'm not one of those people who are easily entertained by explosions and fight scenes. I'm a writer, and I like my fiction to have characterization and plot). There was character development, because just about every character in the movie went through a significant change before the end of the movie except Mac, who really was just a louse after all.

None of this may have worked for you, but then, I'm often surprised at how often some seemingly smart people miss the whole point of a movie (or game) I just watched and enjoyed. What seems perfectly clear to me seems to have completely passed you by. A shame, really. It was a fun movie. Wish you could have seen it.

[Squinky]

I personally can't tell what a "good" action movie is supposed to be. Maybe it's just my lack of taste, but I tend to prefer a campy action movie with cheesy dialogue and over-the-top special effects to one that takes itself too seriously. The latter kind of reminds me of when people listen to various kinds of popular music because it supposedly has deep and meaningful lyrics -- I often don't get how said lyrics are deep and meaningful, because compared to all other poetry out there, it sounds like adolescent whining. This is probably also why I don't play very many video games that have "serious" themes; what I've seen of the writing in games such as GTA 4 and Mass Effect, hailed by critics as being exemplary of interactive storytelling, sounds like, well, something out of a generic action movie.

[Giligan]

Well said, Lee.

[Catbert]

Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo

So I'm insane for not having ridiculous expectations of a two hour action-adventure movie, am I? Don't be so patronizing. Those movies that you cherish so much? Are no better than the film you're taking pot shots at now. Your argument makes no sense, given that the amount of character development in any of the previous three films was no deeper than what you witnessed in Crystal Skull. I'm a fan of two out of three of those movies, and even I recognize that they are merely pulp fiction, albeit of the highest caliber.

I don't know what film you were watching, but as near as I can tell, it wasn't the film that was actually up on the screen. And other than some trees and a skull-faced waterfall, a disintegrating temple and a baker's dozen of aliens (would costumed actors or puppets have been better for you?), there was no real CGI. They shot it on film, they used stunt people for any shots they wouldn't let the actors do themselves, and they used traditional stunt choreography for the fights. There were real pyrotechnics used, including a timed charge that accidentally landed unexploded in the passenger seat of the jeep Ford was driving in the warehouse. No more CGI was used in this movie than just about any other action film of the last thirty years. Get a grip.

There was a plot. I know there was, because I watched it for two hours and didn't get bored once (No, I'm not one of those people who are easily entertained by explosions and fight scenes. I'm a writer, and I like my fiction to have characterization and plot). There was character development, because just about every character in the movie went through a significant change before the end of the movie except Mac, who really was just a louse after all.

None of this may have worked for you, but then, I'm often surprised at how often some seemingly smart people miss the whole point of a movie (or game) I just watched and enjoyed. What seems perfectly clear to me seems to have completely passed you by. A shame, really. It was a fun movie. Wish you could have seen it.

Yet I loved all the others and went to see this one with lowered expectacions as mr. Lucas pointed out, it wasn't the second coming of Jesus, and I did honestly go and see it HOPING it was good, but with a clear conscience that it would probably suck. It felt dead for most of the time. Ok, the action sequences didn't suck, apart from some details I didn't like such as Tarzan LaBeouf which I felt didn't belong, it's not that. It's that it lacked the magic the others had. I'm sorry but I didn't feel dragged into it like with the Ark, the stones or the Grail, I just didn't. Maybe I've become a cynical moviegoer, but I still love the first three and watch them from time to time and have a blast, so that's probably not it.

As for your comments on the possibility of me being a lowbrow movie enjoyer, I doubt it. Sure I watch the occasional Steven Seagal movie, but that's more when I've got no comedies around to watch and what do you want, the man makes me laugh.

All I know is I went with 4 friends and we all disliked it strongly, yet we all truly love movies. And yeah by loving movies I don't mean we liked the latest Bourne movie (I haven't seen any).

Edit: in continuation, I didn't expect any character development in the movie, didn't see any, didn't want any. They did that right. 1 point for the movie.

If I've learned anything from these intarwebs is you won't change your mind. I don't know if it was the idiots behind me repeating every line said in the movie or if it was the movie itself, but I disliked the experience. I just did. However as an Indy fan I'll give it another shot. I didn't like ToD at first either.

Then again I was like 8 or so when I saw it and hearts being pulled out of chests wasn't my cup of tea back then

[Jazhara7]

Personally, I also didn't see that much difference between the original movies and the new one. Sure, the CGI stuck out badly (my biggest irk was the awkward, and really fake looking lighting at the beginning when Indy talks to the woman, before going into the warehouse. Can you make it more obvious you're lighting out the scene artificially?), but it was still fun. And other from that, it was just like the other movies.

And please note, I saw the older movies shortly before seeing the new one, as one of the German TV channels took the chance and showed them on TV before the release of the new movie.


-