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.
I really love Last Crusade. I agree Sallah was wasted, but I thought Marcus' dimwittery was used to great effect.

To be honest, I barely can recall what purpose he played in the first movie. Did Marcus have a major part in the movie? He was less of a goofball, I think, but could he really be wasted in the third movie when he wasn't in much of the first?
 
:scream:I REALLY wanted to love the film but as a whole it is too unbearable for a fan of the first three movies. Because there were a number of scenes that were completely unesscesary and there was just too much :censored: CGI in the final act. D+
 
:scream:I REALLY wanted to love the film but as a whole it is too unbearable for a fan of the first three movies. Because there were a number of scenes that were completely unnecessary and there was just too much :censored: CGI in the final act. D+


Thanks,
for calling it like it is.

I think the first couple of days it was out
all the devoted fans just talked themselves into believing it was better than it was.
 
I really love Last Crusade. I agree Sallah was wasted, but I thought Marcus' dimwittery was used to great effect.

To be honest, I barely can recall what purpose he played in the first movie. Did Marcus have a major part in the movie? He was less of a goofball, I think, but could he really be wasted in the third movie when he wasn't in much of the first?

You're right, he's not a big part of the first film, but you're kind of led to believe he's this fatherly figure to Indy and probably used to travel around the world like him during his younger days. With Indy's actual dad in this, I can understand why he's made into the comic relief. I'm probably talking out of my ass here.

Again, I still love Last Crusade, but not as much as I used to though. Raiders is the only one that's really held up with me from my childhood to now.

I must be in the minority of kinda hardcore Indy fans that think Crystal Skull wasn't completely terrible.
 
I'm with you. I don't know that I'd call myself a "hardcore" Indy fan. A big Indy fan, that's plenty for me. But I thought it was entertaining and not nearly as awful as you'd think by some accounts.
 
You're right, he's not a big part of the first film, but you're kind of led to believe he's this fatherly figure to Indy and probably used to travel around the world like him during his younger days. With Indy's actual dad in this, I can understand why he's made into the comic relief. I'm probably talking out of my ass here.

Again, I still love Last Crusade, but not as much as I used to though. Raiders is the only one that's really held up with me from my childhood to now.

I must be in the minority of kinda hardcore Indy fans that think Crystal Skull wasn't completely terrible.

Clearly I'm with you.
 
I miss Sallah. And Captain Katanga. Also, I miss Sallah a lot. Sallah, where are you? Do you miss me too?

INDIANA_JONES_RAIDERS_LOST_ARK-0-113.jpg
 
I'm also kind of an Indy fan, and have watched all the movies up until now. Still didn't have the time to go see the new movie, but hopefully I'll be able soon. Is it really that bad in comparison to the older Indy movies? I hear so many different opinions, some say it's really worth seeing and others are just completely blah about it. Not that I'm not gonna go because of all those opinions, because I still want to see for myself, but I was just wondering, because so many tickets have been sold already, or was that just because of the Indymania that was startled again?
 
Some people thought it was far worse than the others and that it sucked ass.

Some people thought it wasn't as good as the others but was still an enjoyable time at the movies.

... that's about all you can say to sum up the opinions, I think. :)
 
I'm with you. I don't know that I'd call myself a "hardcore" Indy fan. A big Indy fan, that's plenty for me. But I thought it was entertaining and not nearly as awful as you'd think by some accounts.

:up: Like I said before, I liked it better than Temple Of Doom and I think it fits right in with the other 3 films. It was just fun, which is what these movies are suppose to be.

I think we are all going to get to review another one in a few years. From what George Lucas has been saying in interviews I think its going to happen. I'm looking forward to it if it happens. I may be in the minority by looking at this thread. :wink:
 
If Shia LeWhatever is starring in it, I will very likely stay home. :yawn:

I'd definitely be staying home.

This one holds up for me on a second viewing, too. Still hate all of the CG animals, alien at the end, wasting of Marion and other parts of the script, but it's still a great ride. Watching the sequels again before this really helped, It has its flaws, like the other sequels (well, sequel and prequel), but it's still fucking Indy.

NSW, we all miss Katanga and Sallah. I saw Heat, btw. It's got a GREAT ASS!
 
I'd definitely be staying home.

This one holds up for me on a second viewing, too. Still hate all of the CG animals, alien at the end, wasting of Marion and other parts of the script, but it's still a great ride. Watching the sequels again before this really helped, It has its flaws, like the other sequels (well, sequel and prequel), but it's still fucking Indy.

NSW, we all miss Katanga and Sallah. I saw Heat, btw. It's got a GREAT ASS!

Everyone keeps saying that this movie was supposed to be fun? Wasn't it supposed to be good? It's neither, as it turns out, but still.

YLB, I fucking told you that you'd enjoy Pacino's overacting.
 
Everyone keeps saying that this movie was supposed to be fun? Wasn't it supposed to be good? It's neither, as it turns out, but still.

YLB, I fucking told you that you'd enjoy Pacino's overacting.

GIMME WHAT YOU GOT!
GIMME WHAT YOU GOT!

Pacino's overracting was nearly matched by Nicholson's general insanity in The Departed. One of the best two-day movie-watching experiences I've ever had.
 
Nicholson's character at least had an interesting arc. He slowly became more paranoid and crazy over the course of the film. Pacino's didn't. At all. The story there is what De Niro does in a very minimalist, understated fashion. It's hard to say he stole the scenes from Pacino as they only had one together, but while one provides the entertainment value, the other really is the heart of this film, and makes it the epic tragedy worthy of love and respect.
 
Nicholson's character at least had an interesting arc. He slowly became more paranoid and crazy over the course of the film. Pacino's didn't. At all. The story there is what De Niro does in a very minimalist, understated fashion. It's hard to say he stole the scenes from Pacino as they only had one together, but while one provides the entertainment value, the other really is the heart of this film, and makes it the epic tragedy worthy of love and respect.

You're right, Pacino's character didn't have much of an arc, but I enjoyed his side of the story and struggles with keeping a family.
 
Everyone keeps saying that this movie was supposed to be fun? Wasn't it supposed to be good? It's neither, as it turns out, but still.

I thought it was good and fun. :shrug:

I think maybe the other part it for a lot of people is that when these films orginally came out most of us were kids. Its difficult to come back to a new film now and experience it the same way as when you were a kid. This is the major problem I think I had with the Star Wars prequels. I was disappointed with ep 1 and 2 (I liked ep 3) there and I think thats a lot of the reason. Because my 8 and 10 year old nephews loved all of them. (although I still think ep 1 was pretty bad regardless except for the Darth Maul parts).
 
Oh, if Ford is still in it as Indiana Jones, I'd probably go. But if it's Shia by himself as taking the reins over from dad, meh.
 
Unfortunately I think that is the plan. A sort of father/son deal like Last Crusade.

I was thinking they would use "bad guys kidnap the wife and/or son and the hero returns in action one last time" story.

I liked Harrison and LeBouf in the best of the family moments but I don't want anyone except Ford be Indy and the movie had a good enough closure as it is.
 
I think we are all going to get to review another one in a few years. From what George Lucas has been saying in interviews I think its going to happen. I'm looking forward to it if it happens. I may be in the minority by looking at this thread. :wink:



I'd be up for it. Like Episode 1 vs. Episode 3, I think that Skull's flaws are owed largely to Lucas' unchecked excitement at going back to the series after 20 years. If we can get more Indy's out of him, I bet we'd get better movies. Of course there's a time limit...I don't want to see a John McCain version of Harrison Ford out there as Indy, all crotchety and ancient. :yuck:
 
I thought the 4.0 John McCain was a virtual Superman compared to McCain in the first three movies. Luckily Indy 4.0 is more like an actual human.
 
I'll not watch a LaBouf driven Indy film. Just not interested.

BlueRoom, there might be something to the "we saw it as kids" thing, but, then again, there are plenty of films I watched and liked in my youth, but rewatch as an adult and discover they are crap. For the first and third Indy films, that is just not the case. For me, they still stand up.

I liked Episode III, too. :)

Oh, and Laz, agreed re: DeNiro in Heat. His character's story is a lot more interesting, but I just find some of Pacino's scenes to be hilarious.
 
Thanks,
for calling it like it is.

I think the first couple of days it was out
all the devoted fans just talked themselves into believing it was better than it was.

Wow deep, you must really be the cheering section for people who hate this movie. Why do you post so much about it if you hate it so much?

I'm in the group that enjoyed it, and im a fan of the first three as well. Just because someone enjoys something doesn't mean the haters have to go and mock them and make them out to have inferior taste or take pleasure everytime someone else comes along and dosen't like it. This isn't a contest to see how many people like or don't like this movie. I think the box office figures in the end will tell the story...if not the overall public reaction.

__________

chain
 
Oh, if Ford is still in it as Indiana Jones, I'd probably go. But if it's Shia by himself as taking the reins over from dad, meh.

I think its a good move going with Shia as Indy's son. If they make another Indy movie, it probably won't be soon. Maybe 4 or 5 years from now. By then, I think Shia's marquee value will have skyrocketed. Whether anyone likes the kid or not, he's definitely on the rise.
 
i saw the movie over the weekend with my daughter and we had fun. it totally reminded me of the times i saw the first two in the theaters...just like old times. it was great:up:
 
I finally saw it a couple days ago. It was entertaining, but I think it clearly suffered from what I like to call "The Hand of Lucas". You know it, you've seen it. Generally it's the irresistible urge to add CGI or do entire scenes in CGI whenever possible (also known as gangrenescreen), and the equally irresistible urge to add something specifically for the kiddies, no matter how cutesy or lame it may be (I'm looking at you prairie dogs and monkeys). Spielberg's directing no doubt saved t from a total crapfest and managed to make it reasonably fun and entertaining for the most part, but I'm in no rush to see it again. And for the life of me I can't figure out how Ebert could possibly give it 4 stars.
 
Back
Top Bottom