Indiana Jones - I believe this is worthy of its own thread.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Whats the difference in profits between that level of violence and one level up?



level of violence matters less than the rating -- in the US, a PG now means "for kids" whereas PG-13 means "for cool kids" -- and what i was sensing was that this was a bit of atonement on Spielberg's part. he's older, and post-Schindler/SPR/Munich, making cartoony-yet-bloody-thrillride violence probably doesn't sit as well with him as it did back in the days when the biggest laugh in the first movie was when he nonchalantly shoots an Arab. this one was far less colonialist than the first three (especially the first), and you'll notice that it's only the bad Soviets who engage in environmental destruction and genocide (whereas the OT had no problems disposing with scores of natives).
 
Monkeyskin, are you saying that you've only seen Reloaded once? And it was back in the theater? And you can still recount details from the action sequences? That is very impressive.

And at the end as Neo reached in to Trinitys heart to save her.....he says...

"I love you too damn much"

It helps that I've discussed and argued them with friends a few times since (same with Terminator 3 *shudders*).

And oh that bit with Neo saving Trinity at the end. LOL along with her kissing him back to life in the oroginal and their sex scene I think there's a very good case to make their scenes together the worst throughout the trilogy.

And laz that's a fair point, but it means that we'd have to disregard Star Wars and Aliens from the list. As for westerns and war films I guess Unforgiven, 3:10 to Yuma (2007), The Dirty Dozen and Where Eagles Dare could also be included, but there's got to a line drawn somewhere. I think the Matrix films should be ncluded ahead of other sci-fi films because the majority of the major / memorable actions scenes are given a real world setting and largely stay semi-believable stunt-wise. I would say if you can have Ong-Bak you can have The Matrix.
 
what i was sensing was that this was a bit of atonement on Spielberg's part. he's older, and post-Schindler/SPR/Munich, making cartoony-yet-bloody-thrillride violence probably doesn't sit as well with him as it did back in the day


you realize, of course, that this is the man who re-released E.T. and changed the word "terrorist" to "hippie" and made all of the FBI agents' guns walkie-talkies? bleh
 
you realize, of course, that this is the man who re-released E.T. and changed the word "terrorist" to "hippie" and made all of the FBI agents' guns walkie-talkies? bleh



crimes, to be sure, but not nearly as bad as offering a biological explanation for The Force.

shame.

:tsk:

(but it's true -- Spielberg has said that he couldn't have directed CEOTTK today because he would never have understood why a man with kids -- Dreyfus -- would get in the spaceship and leave his family behind)

(this is why we need a *real* man like big-balled Michael Bay directing all of our action movies now -- fuck coherence, what i want is testosterone)
 
I was telling YLB that one of the things that prevents me from ever permanently leaving Interference, for now at least, is waiting for the lead-up to and then your review of Avatar. I feel that either way, whether it is awesome, or horrible, you're going to die after seeing it.

Awesome or Horrible, it almost doesn't matter at this point, it's already making its mark as one of the most important films in a long time, and I'll likely be satisfied in many ways regardless of its actual quality.

As for The Matrix (this thread might as well remain slightly off topic considering it's now 50+ pages), I'm one of the VERY few people to prefer Reloaded to the original. Now, don't get me wrong, neither of the sequels compare to the original in terms of pure cinematic quality (script, mystery, suspense, characterizations, tension, action, innovation, etc.) and few experiences are going to compare to seeing that movie for the first time. However, at this point I am much more inclined to watch Reloaded over the original (and especially the comparatively disappointing third chapter). Sure there are flaws, it lacks the mystery and charm of the original, the plot is incredibly convoluted, and Neo is basically a superhero, but I simply can't get enough of it.

Many people complain about the lack of drama in the action sequences, and I understand. However, I absolutely love them for their rhythm, their beauty and choreography, and visual spectacular bliss. I guess, just like Speed Racer, I just completely buy into the Wachowskis' vision for the franchise at this point, and really admire their living-anime homage style in the series, Reloaded in particular. And yeah, these days (and even admittedly when the film first came out to an extent) the use of CG doubles in the film, particularly Neo during the Burly Brawl and the Freeway Chase rescue, can be distracting. But the brothers gambled on using some groundbreaking new techniques to achieve something nobody had seen before, and while they may have over-reached or misjudged the level of what they could convincingly pull off in those cases, I'm more inclined to reward their ambitions than penalize them for not quite pulling it all off (for the record Spiderman 2 used the same technique much more convincingly a year or so later).

So there.
 
But the brothers gambled on using some groundbreaking new techniques to achieve something nobody had seen before, and while they may have over-reached or misjudged the level of what they could convincingly pull off in those cases, I'm more inclined to reward their ambitions than penalize them for not quite pulling it all off (for the record Spiderman 2 used the same technique much more convincingly a year or so later).

That's a fair point and I definitely don't want to sound like I'm bashing innovation (I've watched many films purely because they seemed 'different' in one form or another). It just leaves a sour aftertaste when they have demonstrated a great marriage of technical innovation and overall substance in one film and then let the scales tip in the next. But someone has to make every first step and I'm sure it's not easy.

To clarify, are you referring to Doc Oc at the end of that comment? It's late and I'm hazy.
 
Yeah, talking about Doc Oc. Spidey 2 is still my favorite action flick of this decade, even though I know it doesn't have quite the best reputation around here.

And I knew you weren't slamming the film (Reloaded), but I do feel it gets far too much shit from fans and critics alike in general.
 
Yeah, talking about Doc Oc. Spidey 2 is still my favorite action flick of this decade, even though I know it doesn't have quite the best reputation around here.

And I knew you weren't slamming the film (Reloaded), but I do feel it gets far too much shit from fans and critics alike in general.

I get uneasy when we agree on stuff.
 
level of violence matters less than the rating -- in the US, a PG now means "for kids" whereas PG-13 means "for cool kids" -- and what i was sensing was that this was a bit of atonement on Spielberg's part. he's older, and post-Schindler/SPR/Munich, making cartoony-yet-bloody-thrillride violence probably doesn't sit as well with him as it did back in the days when the biggest laugh in the first movie was when he nonchalantly shoots an Arab. this one was far less colonialist than the first three (especially the first), and you'll notice that it's only the bad Soviets who engage in environmental destruction and genocide (whereas the OT had no problems disposing with scores of natives).
I don't know MPAA ratings, but thats what I meant.
 
I liked the Hellboy movie, I will probably like the sequel, not great films but they are fun and have the same general feel of the Indy movies to me (average guy versus paranormal forces and Nazis).
 
I get uneasy when we agree on stuff.

You love it.




















7348113Neofight-med-med.jpg
 
I didn't read through the entire thread but I can guess what a lot of it says. Dissecting every little frame of the film and slamming it because its not going to be up for an Academy award. ;)

I started the original thread about this a year or so ago and I was cautiously optimistic about this film. After seeing it I thought it surpassed my expectations. I honestly thought I was going to be disappointed with it. I think it fits with the other 3 Indy movies and has the same feel to it. It doesn't beat Raiders (I don't know if its even possible top it), I think its better than Temple of Doom (my least favorite Indy film) and I think its just a hair under Last Crusade but very close to as good. These movies are suppose to be fun, nothing more, nothing less and this movie meets that expectation for me. :up:

I hope the next one is as good! ;) :hmm:
 
I didn't read through the entire thread but I can guess what a lot of it says. Dissecting every little frame of the film and slamming it because its not going to be up for an Academy award. ;)

Is it wrong that I stopped caring about your post after this?
 
But it'll be fun.

Yeah, hopefully. The trailer didn't have me too psyched and I'm not a fan of the Darrin Stevens action going on with Evie's part, but it'll probably be cool.

The Incredible Hulk's my next big must-see action flick. :up:
 
Back
Top Bottom