lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Well based on Fincher's track record, and that of Eric Roth, who wrote the script (some have said this is his best one to date), I feel VERY confident about it.
Indiana Jones - I believe this is worthy of its own thread.
- Thread starter Lancemc
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well based on Fincher's track record, and that of Eric Roth, who wrote the script (some have said this is his best one to date), I feel VERY confident about it.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I think it will be good, too
when I wrote the trailer and film are not always the same
I was thinking about the score (music)
when I wrote the trailer and film are not always the same
I was thinking about the score (music)
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
8K votes on IMDB and it currently has 8.1/10
Where do you think it will end up?
Return of the Jedi 8.3 #107 all time (155K votes)
The Last Crusade 8.3, #108 all time (120K votes)
Revenge of the Sith 7.9 (136K votes)
Temple of Doom 7.4 (76K votes)
Attack of the Clones 6.8 (122K votes)
Phantom Menace 6.4 (151K votes)
FYI, Empire is #8, Star Wars is #11 and Raiders is #17 all time.
If memory serves, Attack of the Clones was somewhere in that 8.0 range before it started to take a beating. Do negative fans tend to seek out voting for films they were let down by or do the fanboys cancel them out?
I've got to think if it can stay in the 7's, it's a success, regardless of box office. Granted, IMDB user ratings aren't gospel and are quite fickle at ttimes but when you have that many votes, you start to see a pretty good consensus.
Understand, I know it's an essentially meaningless rating but it has to say something about fan reception.
Where do you think it will end up?
Return of the Jedi 8.3 #107 all time (155K votes)
The Last Crusade 8.3, #108 all time (120K votes)
Revenge of the Sith 7.9 (136K votes)
Temple of Doom 7.4 (76K votes)
Attack of the Clones 6.8 (122K votes)
Phantom Menace 6.4 (151K votes)
FYI, Empire is #8, Star Wars is #11 and Raiders is #17 all time.
If memory serves, Attack of the Clones was somewhere in that 8.0 range before it started to take a beating. Do negative fans tend to seek out voting for films they were let down by or do the fanboys cancel them out?
I've got to think if it can stay in the 7's, it's a success, regardless of box office. Granted, IMDB user ratings aren't gospel and are quite fickle at ttimes but when you have that many votes, you start to see a pretty good consensus.
Understand, I know it's an essentially meaningless rating but it has to say something about fan reception.
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
I see it going in the 7.1-7.5 range and settling near Temple of Doom.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
I'm only expecting to be thoroughly entertained. I'm not going in expecting the best picture ever, much less the best Indy picture ever.
I don't care. I'm just glad to hear it's getting generally good reviews and doesn't appear to be a big, stinking pile of poo.
OP
OP
Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
Just got back.
Slightly better than I expected, but I expected it to be pretty awful. I had fun nonetheless.
David Koepp is still a fucking atrocious writer though, and definitely the film's biggest liability. Honestly, why the hell does Spielberg keep using his stuff? Far too many lame in-jokes, weak dialogue, lousy pacing, all his fault, though overall the film is still better than Temple of Doom.
CGI is a problem too, though it isn't nearly as obtrusive as early trailers lead me to believe. Why its used, it's typically pretty poor though, which is unusual for ILM. It just doesn't fit the type of film they set out to make I think. There were plenty of times when CGI was used to create something that could have been done with visual effects to a likely better result. There's a particularly horrendous running theme of CGI animals in the film that just screams unnecessary and show-offish, gophers anyone?
As a whole, the first half is remarkably weaker than the second half, when the film picks up, loses some of its extra camp and starts to feel like Indy again. But seriously, the whole Area 51 segment was pretty eye-rolling, even for an Indy flick. Still, like I said, it's an ultimately enjoyable romp, though likely to finish as one of this summer's weaker offerings.
Slightly better than I expected, but I expected it to be pretty awful. I had fun nonetheless.
David Koepp is still a fucking atrocious writer though, and definitely the film's biggest liability. Honestly, why the hell does Spielberg keep using his stuff? Far too many lame in-jokes, weak dialogue, lousy pacing, all his fault, though overall the film is still better than Temple of Doom.
CGI is a problem too, though it isn't nearly as obtrusive as early trailers lead me to believe. Why its used, it's typically pretty poor though, which is unusual for ILM. It just doesn't fit the type of film they set out to make I think. There were plenty of times when CGI was used to create something that could have been done with visual effects to a likely better result. There's a particularly horrendous running theme of CGI animals in the film that just screams unnecessary and show-offish, gophers anyone?
As a whole, the first half is remarkably weaker than the second half, when the film picks up, loses some of its extra camp and starts to feel like Indy again. But seriously, the whole Area 51 segment was pretty eye-rolling, even for an Indy flick. Still, like I said, it's an ultimately enjoyable romp, though likely to finish as one of this summer's weaker offerings.
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
Just watched Temple of Doom again tonight and I still have the same feelings toward it. It's got the best action set pieces in one film of the whole series, but the rest is either mehtastic or plain awful. Kate Capshaw wasn't as terrible as I remembered... it's more of a fault in the writing/conceptualization of the character than anything.
Ultimately, the reasons behind the "journey" in this movie just aren't that compelling. I mean, you don't want to see him fight the Nazis every time, but looking to find magic stones for some Indian village and facing a less than menacing villain? The only way this works is that it's an Indiana Jones movie, the title is apt - Indiana Jones AND the Temple of Doom.
Why Lucas and Spielberg agreed to re-title Raiders w/ "Indiana Jones and the" in it makes perfect sense (for re-releases, etc...), I just don't like it. Raiders is one of the best, if not the best, action/adventure films ever made with an iconic character. The sequels rely on the character and base the story off of him, not the other way around, you know?
Not that I'm trying to knock these movies at all, they're hella entertaining. I loved Last Crusade more when I was younger for its comedy before I appreciated the finer aspects of Raiders. Apart from Brody becoming retarded since the first (probably because they didn't need the "fatherly" presence with Connery in the mix), it's entertaining, compelling, and full-on kickass. It's not in the same league as Raiders, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Most reviews I've read say it's in line with the sequels, which is totally fine by me... Doctah Jones!
Ultimately, the reasons behind the "journey" in this movie just aren't that compelling. I mean, you don't want to see him fight the Nazis every time, but looking to find magic stones for some Indian village and facing a less than menacing villain? The only way this works is that it's an Indiana Jones movie, the title is apt - Indiana Jones AND the Temple of Doom.
Why Lucas and Spielberg agreed to re-title Raiders w/ "Indiana Jones and the" in it makes perfect sense (for re-releases, etc...), I just don't like it. Raiders is one of the best, if not the best, action/adventure films ever made with an iconic character. The sequels rely on the character and base the story off of him, not the other way around, you know?
Not that I'm trying to knock these movies at all, they're hella entertaining. I loved Last Crusade more when I was younger for its comedy before I appreciated the finer aspects of Raiders. Apart from Brody becoming retarded since the first (probably because they didn't need the "fatherly" presence with Connery in the mix), it's entertaining, compelling, and full-on kickass. It's not in the same league as Raiders, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Most reviews I've read say it's in line with the sequels, which is totally fine by me... Doctah Jones!
deep
Blue Crack Addict
good review
GirlsAloudFan
Blue Crack Addict
LanceMc, I have a question. What did you think of the CGI?
I was disappointed that you didn't include your evaluation of the CGI in your review.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Clearly GAF is still drunk.
I'm on the way to see this now. If I don't get a Benjamin Button trailer, this will be getting a HUGE pan from me.
I'm on the way to see this now. If I don't get a Benjamin Button trailer, this will be getting a HUGE pan from me.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Spoilers follow. Though I question your intelligence if you're still reading this thread at this point without seeing the film
Just got back. Well, I had fun. And I know this is going to be the most obvious comment imaginable from me, but I'm amazed that people who are so critical of the Star Wars prequels, particularly The Phantom Menace, are giving this one a free pass. While there's nothing that sticks out as badly (or for as long) as Jar Jar, there are enough many bad choices and cringe-inducing moments to make this just as uneven an enterprise. I mean, people want to point to one fart joke over and over again, and yet that shit with the prairie dogs ain't no thing? Even going so far as to pay homage to the shot from The Phantom Menace when the pods race by the exclaiming Jawa? Come on.
Also, Shia swinging on the vines? And on top of that, with a friendly tribe of monkeys? The endless pratfalls that cried out for a "BOING!" sound effect each time? Surviving an atomic bomb blast by hiding in a fucking REFRIGERATOR (which magically stays closed)?! Folks, I'm seeing a whole lot of hypocrisy here. The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had more dignity.
And while I'm sure Lucas is responsible for a good portion of some of this idiocy, the actual concept behind the film is one that I like. Much research has been done by archeologists on possible alien connections to ancient Central/South American civilizations, and I think it fits in perfectly with what Indy has encountered before.
Unfortunately, the climax is just a sad emulation of the one at the end of Raiders. Giant vortex opens, sucks all the bad guys into space, the power flows into the main baddie (Spalko=Belloq), and obliterates her after bestowing the ultimate knowledge. That's just lazy. And while I liked the idea of the temple collapsing into a spaceship that takes off, it certainly isn't anything we haven't already seen in The X-Files.
Which is part of the problem. Because of the 20 year wait between films, we've seen varying degrees of pale imitations like National Treasure, Tomb Raider, The Mummy, and we've just seen so much of this before. Secret codes, exotic locales, traps, stones moving into strange configurations, etc. While Spielberg handles this stuff better than anyone else can, for me it was unimpressive in the imagination department. While this didn't have the absolute lows that are found in each Star Wars prequel, its highs didn't even come close to wowing me like the podrace, the underwater city, the lightsabre fights, etc. It also doesn't help that the film's central setpiece, an ENDLESS car chase through the jungle, just seems interested in one-upping the one from Raiders. Jumping back and forth 15 times from truck to truck just doesn't do much for me, personally, even with a swordfight in the middle. And just when you think its over, it turns into an amusement park water ride, which strains even the most forgiving suspension of disbelief.
What worked for me were the moments of downtime, the fleshing out of Indy's world. The intro (up until the aforementioned fridge moment--couldn't he have hotwired one of those cars and driven out?), the classroom, talking with Broadbent, the diner with Mutt, the race through Cambridge, the train station, the trip on the plane, etc. The domestic stuff later in the film was a bit obvious with its generic squabbling, and Karen Allen returning is better on paper than as realized. Wasn't she pretty much driving that car/boat for the last hour of the film? They should have all paid a fare and tip at the end of that ride.
And LaBoof wasn't bad or inconsistent, in the way that Hayden Christiansen is in his Lucas collaborations. But he's a bit of a blank slate to me. There's no twinkle in his eye like Ford has at his best, or even River Phoenix had in the third film. I don't know exactly who out of today's crop I would have cast (James Franco?) , but imagine what a young Leonardo DiCaprio would have done with this thing. He would have played the greaser easily, has the underlying intelligence to be believable in contributing to the mystery, and would have been a lot more watchable. Is anyone really interested in a Shia-starring sequel with Ford in the Connery role? Not me.
Ultimately, I left the theatre on a happy note, as I loved that final moment with Ford taking the hat out of Shia's hands, and walking out defiantly into the arms of domesticity. It seemed the perfect chord to stike at what is hopefully the end of this series.
Just got back. Well, I had fun. And I know this is going to be the most obvious comment imaginable from me, but I'm amazed that people who are so critical of the Star Wars prequels, particularly The Phantom Menace, are giving this one a free pass. While there's nothing that sticks out as badly (or for as long) as Jar Jar, there are enough many bad choices and cringe-inducing moments to make this just as uneven an enterprise. I mean, people want to point to one fart joke over and over again, and yet that shit with the prairie dogs ain't no thing? Even going so far as to pay homage to the shot from The Phantom Menace when the pods race by the exclaiming Jawa? Come on.
Also, Shia swinging on the vines? And on top of that, with a friendly tribe of monkeys? The endless pratfalls that cried out for a "BOING!" sound effect each time? Surviving an atomic bomb blast by hiding in a fucking REFRIGERATOR (which magically stays closed)?! Folks, I'm seeing a whole lot of hypocrisy here. The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had more dignity.
And while I'm sure Lucas is responsible for a good portion of some of this idiocy, the actual concept behind the film is one that I like. Much research has been done by archeologists on possible alien connections to ancient Central/South American civilizations, and I think it fits in perfectly with what Indy has encountered before.
Unfortunately, the climax is just a sad emulation of the one at the end of Raiders. Giant vortex opens, sucks all the bad guys into space, the power flows into the main baddie (Spalko=Belloq), and obliterates her after bestowing the ultimate knowledge. That's just lazy. And while I liked the idea of the temple collapsing into a spaceship that takes off, it certainly isn't anything we haven't already seen in The X-Files.
Which is part of the problem. Because of the 20 year wait between films, we've seen varying degrees of pale imitations like National Treasure, Tomb Raider, The Mummy, and we've just seen so much of this before. Secret codes, exotic locales, traps, stones moving into strange configurations, etc. While Spielberg handles this stuff better than anyone else can, for me it was unimpressive in the imagination department. While this didn't have the absolute lows that are found in each Star Wars prequel, its highs didn't even come close to wowing me like the podrace, the underwater city, the lightsabre fights, etc. It also doesn't help that the film's central setpiece, an ENDLESS car chase through the jungle, just seems interested in one-upping the one from Raiders. Jumping back and forth 15 times from truck to truck just doesn't do much for me, personally, even with a swordfight in the middle. And just when you think its over, it turns into an amusement park water ride, which strains even the most forgiving suspension of disbelief.
What worked for me were the moments of downtime, the fleshing out of Indy's world. The intro (up until the aforementioned fridge moment--couldn't he have hotwired one of those cars and driven out?), the classroom, talking with Broadbent, the diner with Mutt, the race through Cambridge, the train station, the trip on the plane, etc. The domestic stuff later in the film was a bit obvious with its generic squabbling, and Karen Allen returning is better on paper than as realized. Wasn't she pretty much driving that car/boat for the last hour of the film? They should have all paid a fare and tip at the end of that ride.
And LaBoof wasn't bad or inconsistent, in the way that Hayden Christiansen is in his Lucas collaborations. But he's a bit of a blank slate to me. There's no twinkle in his eye like Ford has at his best, or even River Phoenix had in the third film. I don't know exactly who out of today's crop I would have cast (James Franco?) , but imagine what a young Leonardo DiCaprio would have done with this thing. He would have played the greaser easily, has the underlying intelligence to be believable in contributing to the mystery, and would have been a lot more watchable. Is anyone really interested in a Shia-starring sequel with Ford in the Connery role? Not me.
Ultimately, I left the theatre on a happy note, as I loved that final moment with Ford taking the hat out of Shia's hands, and walking out defiantly into the arms of domesticity. It seemed the perfect chord to stike at what is hopefully the end of this series.
OP
OP
Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
The CGI animals nearly killed it for me. And the refrigerator gag. Both up there with the very worst the franchise has ever seen. I really enjoyed the second half of the film though, jungle chase included.
Yeah, those two parts made me roll my eyes and fear what the movie was headed towards.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
I think I said it would fall short of expectations.
but, be successful
U2Fanatic4ever
Blue Crack Addict
well, I just got back from seeing it.. I thoroughly enjoyed it and not going in thinking it was a Oscar winning film. My son totally dug it.
I just got back and also enjoyed it. There was a lot of clapping at the end.
No spoken words
Blue Crack Supplier
Just saw it.
I have to say that I agree with just about everything Laz had to say. Shia is useless to me; he's devoid of any sort of charm or magnetism....and I cannot believe that Lucas/Spielberg thought that having him swing on vines with a gang of friendly simians was a good idea. Truly fucking cringe-worthy.
You know, my expectations were kind of low, but, why should they have been? These two cinema giants have had 20 years to settle on a suitable script and I cannot believe this was the best they could come up with. I'm not saying it was horrid, not at all, but, I think the franchise deserved more. I am always willing to suspend disbelief but the boat going over that series of waterfalls truly strained the limits of credibility. I'll buy the alien connection, but not that.
So, yeah, I laughed sometimes and had some fun at times, but I cannot pretend that I was not a little disappointed.
Oh, it was fun to see Harrison Ford finally flash a little of his seemingly long-lost on screen charisma/charm.
I have to say that I agree with just about everything Laz had to say. Shia is useless to me; he's devoid of any sort of charm or magnetism....and I cannot believe that Lucas/Spielberg thought that having him swing on vines with a gang of friendly simians was a good idea. Truly fucking cringe-worthy.
You know, my expectations were kind of low, but, why should they have been? These two cinema giants have had 20 years to settle on a suitable script and I cannot believe this was the best they could come up with. I'm not saying it was horrid, not at all, but, I think the franchise deserved more. I am always willing to suspend disbelief but the boat going over that series of waterfalls truly strained the limits of credibility. I'll buy the alien connection, but not that.
So, yeah, I laughed sometimes and had some fun at times, but I cannot pretend that I was not a little disappointed.
Oh, it was fun to see Harrison Ford finally flash a little of his seemingly long-lost on screen charisma/charm.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
Probably going to see this Tuesday...sad to see many of you are pretty disappointed. But anyway, I'm not a huge Indy fan, so my expectations aren't exactly through the roof. I suspect it'll be good fun.
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
I saw it today, too and gotta echo the same sentiments about the script. A lot of it was a hell of fun and worth the ride. I thought the action set pieces were some of the best/most inventive in the whole series (the bike chase, the Area 51 fight, even the jungle fight) so I'll just list what I didn't like:
- Shia and the CG Monkeys
- 3 waterfalls
- Mac / Marion / Oxley being incredibly underwritten
- CG gophers? What the fuck? This isn't Caddyshack 3
- Shia getting smacked in the nuts repeatedly during the rapier fight
This could've also been called How Harrison Ford Got His Groove Back. Seriously, what the hell has he been doing for 10+ years?
I'd put it firmly between Temple of Doom and Last Crusade though.
- Shia and the CG Monkeys
- 3 waterfalls
- Mac / Marion / Oxley being incredibly underwritten
- CG gophers? What the fuck? This isn't Caddyshack 3
- Shia getting smacked in the nuts repeatedly during the rapier fight
This could've also been called How Harrison Ford Got His Groove Back. Seriously, what the hell has he been doing for 10+ years?
I'd put it firmly between Temple of Doom and Last Crusade though.
JCOSTER
ONE love, blood, life
Just saw it this afternoon. My 8 year old and his friend loved it and were whipping their way out of the theatre. I happened to enjoy Shia and at the end I kinda had an inkling that he may be taking over in the future Indiana Jones movies. Still Harrison Ford wasn't bad for 68!!! 
Theres nothing like the 1st in a series of movies; you don't know what to expect. After that its pretty much the same ol' stuff.
Theres nothing like the 1st in a series of movies; you don't know what to expect. After that its pretty much the same ol' stuff.
MsPurrl
Blue Crack Supplier
Harrison Ford wasn't bad for 68!!!
He's 65--imdb.com says that he was born July 13, 1942.
I saw it last night and this was the worst Indiana Jones film period. It had absolutely no feel of an Indiana Jones film. Shia Lebouf??? why was he in this film. Over saturated with CG effect like the last three star crap films by Lucas. Such a shame I was expecting a lot from this film.
U2MaNaIcWeIdO
Blue Crack Addict
I'm thinking about seein Crystal Skull on Monday with my father. 
david
ONE love, blood, life
i thought it wasn't bad.
djerdap
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 7,605
Well, this movie left me underwhelmed to say the least. So inferior to the sequels (even Temple of Doom) it's not even funny.
JCOSTER
ONE love, blood, life
He's 65--imdb.com says that he was born July 13, 1942.
Still not bad for that either!!!
major_panic
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Said everything I was going to. Especially the part about Koepp.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
I also wanted to add that the clapping after my screening (which as packed) was very light, scattered, and eventually sounded rather desperate. Like some people could hear there wasn't much applause and then defiantly tried to override the collective response.
Just got back. Better than I expected, and a better revival of the series than that other 80s born action hero John McClane.
Low points: some of the gags (those gophers and Shia swinging with the monkeys), Marion and that Brit traitor Mac. And come on, what a weak ending.
Good points: Ford. He's old but he's still got it most of the time. Also, I didn't mind Shia, in particular once they started off the "son/father" banter - the movie really took off after that point. The car chase was great. And Blanchett helped, too.
Not quite up there with Crusade or even Raiders but definitely better than Doom.
Low points: some of the gags (those gophers and Shia swinging with the monkeys), Marion and that Brit traitor Mac. And come on, what a weak ending.
Good points: Ford. He's old but he's still got it most of the time. Also, I didn't mind Shia, in particular once they started off the "son/father" banter - the movie really took off after that point. The car chase was great. And Blanchett helped, too.
Not quite up there with Crusade or even Raiders but definitely better than Doom.
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
I know it's wrong to shit on people's opinions, but I honestly don't see how people think Last Crusade's better than Raiders. Don't get me wrong, I love them both and appreciate the better aspects of Last Crusade (Connery, the humor, action set pieces), but how this tops the original, I'll never know. I'm not trying to antagonize anyone with a differing opinion, but if you like Crusade more than Raiders, would it be cool if you told me why?
