MR

(SPOILERS AHEAD!!!)

Thought i'd start a thread to get everyone's opinion on the long awaited and anticipated Indy movie. I have to say that I was rather underwealmed, and that hurts so much to say as I adore this character, my childhood hero.

For me, the storyline just didn't fit with an Indy adventure and the earthly values of the originals movies. There were too many 'pointless' bits in it, the car race at the beginning, the CGI ferret/desert things, the monkeys (what was that about?!) and most of all a really hokey story which frankly I didn't really care about, i'm not even sure now what it all meant, at least with the Religious/Biblical imagery from the other films there was something a bit more weighty in it - whether you're religious or not.

The whole Roswell/FBI thing didn't add anything to the story and felt stuck on like some belated attempt to pick up fans of the X-files but they didn't really follow any of it up, I thought the FBI guys would keep cropping up but they didn't.

The intro sequence should have been unrelated to the main story (like in the previous films) because it felt like we were rushed straight into the story rather than slowly (but not boringly) setting it up like in the others.

To say John Hurt was wasted in his role is an understatement and the old chemistry between Indy and Marion was gone. Karen Allen looks great, but where has the fiesty character from Raiders gone?

I found the movie lacking in any dark edge that the previous ones did and also the pacing of the movie was wrong - it felt too rushed just moving from one action sequence to the next like a computer game without stopping to take stock.

More than any other Indy film this stretched the realms of believability (i'm not even going there with the indestructable fridge!) and by the end I could have been watching 'The Mummy' or something.

It didn't need the wedding ending, I know Spielberg and Lucas like their family stuff but really I thought it was nonsense, it was like watching a TV movie.

I know the script was argued over for quite a while and a couple of years ago there was a script that Spielberg and Ford loved but Lucas didn't like so they let him have his way - big mistake!...Lucas fucks up AGAIN!

Man you really should add a spoiler warning to the top of your post.

Whilst I agree that the film was extremely underwhelming and ultimately disappointingly to many, myself included I don't for a second believe that the blame rests solely with one of the movie's two executive producers. How does Spielberg walk away from this mess scot free when he directed it with a very heavy hand? There is collective problem with the movie that is far larger than the alleged insistence of one man that the 'Maguffin' be saucer men! After all Ford, Lucas and Spielberg all agreed on the script before proceeding.

I quite liked the race section at the beginning as it set the time period nicely, the CGI gophers were truly awful though. My main issues were a massive lack of tension and danger. It was obvious that all the heroes seemed invincible and not at all bothered by the 'red threat' - it was definitely Indy-Lite designed to sell toys and promote happy meals. The special effects in places were absolutely woeful and embarrassing and the last twenty minutes were a complete sh!tfest.

SPOILER - I can't believe in the last act of the movie Indy was merely an observer to what was clearly Close Encounters II - the action just stopped and everyone was asked to suspend their disbelief which backfired when the majority of the audience simply laughed at how ridiculous the movie, good to this point despite it's issues, became.

In short it was a seven out of ten movie for the most part but bombed to a minus seven in the last act! Overall, an embarrassment albeit one that will make masses of money and soldier on despite the very mixed reviews.

I agree with both of you= they ruined it!
Its like they tried to make it a sci-fi, reminded me alot of Jurassic Park.

The scene with the monkeys? uh?
The russian villian - boring and stupid.

Where was Sean Connery? The ONLY good part of the whole movie
was Shia Lebeauf.

I WANT MY MONEY BACK AND THE MONEY FOR THE POPCORN, COKE AND GAS TO GET THERE!!!!

I saw the word "spoiler" in a post, so I just skimmed this thread so the movie isn't ruined for me. But it seems that the movie is not getting the best reviews from fans, so I will just wait for the DVD. They could never recapture the magic of Raiders.

SteveForever wrote:I agree with both of you= they ruined it!
Its like they tried to make it a sci-fi, reminded me alot of Jurassic Park.

The scene with the monkeys? uh?
The russian villian - boring and stupid.

Where was Sean Connery? The ONLY good part of the whole movie
was Shia Lebeauf.

I WANT MY MONEY BACK AND THE MONEY FOR THE POPCORN, COKE AND GAS TO GET THERE!!!!

Shia's method acting exposed -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXCK1EyP4s

Shia is a horrible actor but surprisingly wasn't the worst part of the movie. The worst thing was that I really, really wanted to like it despite its faults and it kept repaying me back by kneeing me in the nuts over and over, figuratively speaking of course!

I liked Cate Blanchett as the movie's mostly lovable, not too nasty villian but was distracted by her seeming to gain and lose weight (and her Ukrainian accent) throughout the movie. The weight thing was apparently due to her pregnancy - wonder if that explains the boiler suit.

SPOILER - Sean Connery could not be in the movie as Indy's dad Henry Jones Sr had died a few years back as had Marcus.

I though the movie was very entertaining.

I hated it, I never want to see it again and I'm glad I'm not the only one. Most of my friends really liked it and I just can't understand why.

Bad writing
BAD villians!
Bad story
Little to no character development/relationships
The only part I somewhat enjoyed was the motorcycle chase

George Lucas, let it go!
Stop now before you spoil the Indiana Jones legacy like you did to Star Wars!

Not that I have an opinion or anything.

Just Sara wrote:George Lucas, let it go!
Stop now before you spoil the Indiana Jones legacy like you did to Star Wars!

Amen to that, sister! You know, the first 3 Star Wars films were very good, as well as the 1st and 3rd Indiana Jones movies, but after the last three Star Wars films, I've come to see Lucas is overrated. An obviously talented creator and writer, but who seems to have as many flaws as talents. He took Star Wars and sucked the magic right out of it by over-commercializing it to the extreme -- when you do that, nothing seems special anymore -- it just seems obligatory, and quite honestly, cheesy. Also sucked the mysticism out of the Jedi thru too much exposition. Add in bad stories, convoluted or nonsensical plots, and horrible acting, and it just killed the franchise.

Hell, Lucas even plagiarized Flash Gordon and Edgar Rice Burroughs' Mars series for Star Wars -- if you compare the two, down to how he named several creatures, it's undeniable. Did you know that "Sith" and "Jeds" (no "i") were creatures directly from the Mars books?

This Indiana Jones film was in development hell for years, and went thru SEVERAL story outlines and script drafts, so for them to finally put out crap is just... amazing... but never surprising. I'll still see it of course, but am thinking now I may wait for it to come out on video.

Now tomorrow, RAMBO hits home video! I'm getting my copy manana...

Just Sara wrote:I hated it, I never want to see it again and I'm glad I'm not the only one. Most of my friends really liked it and I just can't understand why.

Bad writing
BAD villians!
Bad story
Little to no character development/relationships
The only part I somewhat enjoyed was the motorcycle chase

George Lucas, let it go!
Stop now before you spoil the Indiana Jones legacy like you did to Star Wars!

Not that I have an opinion or anything.

Not even Harrison Ford, dashing, gorgeous, sexy, hunky, wonderful Harrison Ford was worth watching? To hell with the script, the plot and the special effects, I wanna see Harry!!!!!!!!

Harrison Ford was good and in great shape for his age but people - enough of the George Lucas bashing. He didn't direct the movie he was an executive producer. I know he originated the character and had a (heavy) hand in this movies development but what about Spielberg? Surely some if not the majority of blame rests on the shoulders of the man who is supposed to be the greatest living movie director of all time. Did he forget how to do his job?

If an unknown Harrison Ford had no trouble standing up to Lucas in the early days of Star Wars "You can write this sh!t George but you can't say it" then I have difficulty believing that the combined forces of Ford and Spielberg wouldn't be able to curtail Lucas' flights of fancy this time round. They were all in it together and as Brian May might say "be man enough to own your own poo"!

As for Star Wars, the Phantom Menace still gives me nightmares but all credit to Lucas for Episodes II and III.

finalfight wrote:...enough of the George Lucas bashing. He didn't direct the movie he was an executive producer. I know he originated the character and had a (heavy) hand in this movies development but what about Spielberg? Surely some if not the majority of blame rests on the shoulders of the man who is supposed to be the greatest living movie director of all time. Did he forget how to do his job?

As for Star Wars, the Phantom Menace still gives me nightmares but all credit to Lucas for Episodes II and III.

I'm not a huge Spielberg fan, either. He's done tons of great work, but some of his signature maneuvers wore on me after a bit of time (like all the camera zooming into people's faces while they give some wide-eyed look of wonderment). I think both these guys legends are mainly products of their box-office results, which are notably substantial. But there are much better directors out there.

I really seem to be in the minority on the last 3 Star Wars films, and have it almost backwards from everyone else -- I liked Phantom Menace the best of all three. Attack Of The Clones was extremely hard to follow, and I didn't buy the quick conversion of Anakin to Darth Vader in Episode III --- sure, he was being coaxed slowly to the Dark Side, but then there was a huge leap that led to him killing Jedi kids that I just didn't buy. I won't be watching any more Star Wars, such a the new TV series... the magic and the mysticism is gone...

Rip Rokken wrote:

finalfight wrote:...enough of the George Lucas bashing. He didn't direct the movie he was an executive producer. I know he originated the character and had a (heavy) hand in this movies development but what about Spielberg? Surely some if not the majority of blame rests on the shoulders of the man who is supposed to be the greatest living movie director of all time. Did he forget how to do his job?

As for Star Wars, the Phantom Menace still gives me nightmares but all credit to Lucas for Episodes II and III.

I'm not a huge Spielberg fan, either. He's done tons of great work, but some of his signature maneuvers wore on me after a bit of time (like all the camera zooming into people's faces while they give some wide-eyed look of wonderment). I think both these guys legends are mainly products of their box-office results, which are notably substantial. But there are much better directors out there.

I really seem to be in the minority on the last 3 Star Wars films, and have it almost backwards from everyone else -- I liked Phantom Menace the best of all three. Attack Of The Clones was extremely hard to follow, and I didn't buy the quick conversion of Anakin to Darth Vader in Episode III --- sure, he was being coaxed slowly to the Dark Side, but then there was a huge leap that led to him killing Jedi kids that I just didn't buy. I won't be watching any more Star Wars, such a the new TV series... the magic and the mysticism is gone...

What about the animated Clone Wars movie opening in August...? It looks pretty promising and I'm pleased that my daughter is old enough to finally get to see a Star Wars movie on the big screen! She just loves Star Wars.

finalfight wrote:What about the animated Clone Wars movie opening in August...? It looks pretty promising and I'm pleased that my daughter is old enough to finally get to see a Star Wars movie on the big screen! She just loves Star Wars.

I only saw the slightest hint of a Clone Wars movie just the other day, and didn't realize it was for the big screen. I have no intentions at this point of seeing it... I doubt it will bring back any of the magic and mysticism of Star Wars that has been whored out to death by Lucas.

I enjoyed the new Indiana Jones movie. It's way better than Temple Of Doom, and possibly better than The Last Crusade. No, it's not a work of art, or the greatest feature ever made, but it's an amiable way to pass a wet afternoon, and Ford does great in the reprise of his role. Were expectations a little too high, perhaps? All the others in this franchise, with the possible exception of Raiders Of The Lost Ark have been hokey and short on characterization of the 'lesser' characters too. I think it's important to resist looking at the previous three in the series through a nostalgic haze. It's excellent, thrill-a-minute cinema with plenty of intentional laughs. The movie provides pure escapism, and I believe it does it well.

Paul_UK wrote:(SPOILERS AHEAD!!!)

Thought i'd start a thread to get everyone's opinion on the long awaited and anticipated Indy movie. I have to say that I was rather underwealmed, and that hurts so much to say as I adore this character, my childhood hero.

For me, the storyline just didn't fit with an Indy adventure and the earthly values of the originals movies. There were too many 'pointless' bits in it, the car race at the beginning, the CGI ferret/desert things, the monkeys (what was that about?!) and most of all a really hokey story which frankly I didn't really care about, i'm not even sure now what it all meant, at least with the Religious/Biblical imagery from the other films there was something a bit more weighty in it - whether you're religious or not.

The whole Roswell/FBI thing didn't add anything to the story and felt stuck on like some belated attempt to pick up fans of the X-files but they didn't really follow any of it up, I thought the FBI guys would keep cropping up but they didn't.

The intro sequence should have been unrelated to the main story (like in the previous films) because it felt like we were rushed straight into the story rather than slowly (but not boringly) setting it up like in the others.

To say John Hurt was wasted in his role is an understatement and the old chemistry between Indy and Marion was gone. Karen Allen looks great, but where has the fiesty character from Raiders gone?

I found the movie lacking in any dark edge that the previous ones did and also the pacing of the movie was wrong - it felt too rushed just moving from one action sequence to the next like a computer game without stopping to take stock.

More than any other Indy film this stretched the realms of believability (i'm not even going there with the indestructable fridge!) and by the end I could have been watching 'The Mummy' or something.

It didn't need the wedding ending, I know Spielberg and Lucas like their family stuff but really I thought it was nonsense, it was like watching a TV movie.

I know the script was argued over for quite a while and a couple of years ago there was a script that Spielberg and Ford loved but Lucas didn't like so they let him have his way - big mistake!...Lucas fucks up AGAIN!

Agree with every point. This film was a monumental fuck up as much as The Phantom Menace was. Lucas and Spielberg should have left this saga well alone.

Daza wrote: This film was a monumental fuck up as much as The Phantom Menace was. Lucas and Spielberg should have left this saga well alone.

I liked the Phantom Menace for what it was when it first came out. Taken collectively the new trio of Star Wars could have been better, but I had high hopes after seeing the Phantom Menace -

This new Indiana...ehh, I'm not so sure it's horrible, but it really was just 'ok'. Seriously, what were they thinking with some of this stuff. The acting between Indy, and Mary (was her name Mary), did she lose her acting chops by being dormant so long? (Think so)

I really lost interest in 'caring' anything about the characters just about at the 60% mark of the film, so by the end of it I was like ' yeah yeah, and oh ok, yeah', and then a personal indicator, the dreaded watch check.

I did think the african ant thing was cool.

NealIsGod wrote: They could never recapture the magic of Raiders.

Absolutely.
And they had to know that but sadly most reviewers are decrying it for NOT being Raiders anyway.

This movie was a sitting duck for many geeks from the word "go."

Rip Rokken wrote:

finalfight wrote:What about the animated Clone Wars movie opening in August...? It looks pretty promising and I'm pleased that my daughter is old enough to finally get to see a Star Wars movie on the big screen! She just loves Star Wars.

I only saw the slightest hint of a Clone Wars movie just the other day, and didn't realize it was for the big screen. I have no intentions at this point of seeing it... I doubt it will bring back any of the magic and mysticism of Star Wars that has been whored out to death by Lucas.

Lucas really screwed the pooch with the "first" three Star Wars films. Prequels, as a general rule, DO NOT WORK!! The reason? There's no suspense! We KNOW what's gonna happen! So what did we learn from Epi's 1-3...that Yoda knew Chewie? That Anikan built 3PO? That deep inside Darth Vader, the greatest, most evil villian in film history, lay the heart of a PUSSY WHIPPED TEENAGER???? Thank you , Mr Lucas, for ruining my childhood!!!

If they were pumping these out at the two-year assembly line clip of the Bond series, "Crystal Skull" would be passable. Perhaps decent even.
But given the extended interim since Last Crusade, this film, while not bad per se, remains only almost good enough.
After the juvenile snake scene, the film never really recovers from its descent into sunday serial kid flick hell.

Of all the studio's summer tentpole releases, so far only Speed Racer merits the title of blockbuster (yes, I thought it looked like shit too).

How does Speed Racer "merit the title of blockbuster", TNC?

NealIsGod wrote:How does Speed Racer "merit the title of blockbuster", TNC?

'Cuz like Beowulf-3d, it transcends the medium and becomes a bareknuckled hypersensory experience.
The psychedelic gumdrop color scheme and kaledoscopic transitions will have you swearing that the gangly concession stand clerk spiked your slurpee.
I didn't wipe the punchdrunk grin off my face for days...and still quite haven't yet.
In fact, I think the film activated some long dormant lobe in my lizard brain, (or maybe that's just my inner child doing backflips).

George Lucas keeps making sequels to films we all grew up with (Star Wars, Indiana) but it took something brand new this summer to make me feel as I did when the overhead lights dimmed and I first heard that cued-up majestic John Williams score.

Indiana Jones? These foolish fantasy films are on par with Star Trek and Star Wars...pure garbage. Indiana Jones...lol. I'd go see Speed Racer if it was in the original cartoon format. That show was bad ass.

Saint John wrote:Indiana Jones? These foolish fantasy films are on par with Star Trek and Star Wars...pure garbage. Indiana Jones...lol. I'd go see Speed Racer if it was in the original cartoon format. That show was bad ass.

Pff.
Dude, don't even weigh in here.

You're the WORST with your appreciation of pop culture. You don't like movies (only one you own I thinks is Planes/Trains an admitted classic but still), tv, and haven't outright purchased an album since TBF.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:If they were pumping these out at the two-year assembly line clip of the Bond series, "Crystal Skull" would be passable. Perhaps decent even.
But given the extended interim since Last Crusade, this film, while not bad per se, remains only almost good enough.
After the juvenile snake scene, the film never really recovers from its descent into sunday serial kid flick hell.

Of all the studio's summer tentpole releases, so far only Speed Racer merits the title of blockbuster (yes, I thought it looked like shit too).

Sorry, dude. IRON MAN has already topped 250 million. It's also gotten great critical response, and it's got legs! That gives it BLOCKBUSTER status in my eyes...SPPEDRACER, on the other hand, has been a box office disaster, and taken a HUGE (and probably well deserved) critical pounding.

And unless you have kids, are a pedophile, or you have a crush on Kirsten Dunst (in the case of Spiderman) you have no good excuse to see any of those ridiculous Marvel Comics films. The Hulk...lol. Any grown man that goes to see that is about as much of a man as Jim J. Bullock.

Saint John wrote:And unless you have kids, are a pedophile, or you have a crush on Kirsten Dunst (in the case of Spiderman) you have no good excuse to see any of those ridiculous Marvel Comics films. The Hulk...lol. Any grown man that goes to see that is about as much of a man as Jim J. Bullock.

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! (BUZZER SOUND)

WRONG ANSWER!!!! IRON MAN, for instance, is well acted, well scripted and has a nice, well paced story line. No different from ANY of the myriad of action movies that "men" flock to all the time...just cause it's based on a "funny book"- STOP THE HATERATION!!!

And for my money Jim J was ALL man, baby!!!!!!!!!

Saint John wrote:Indiana Jones? These foolish fantasy films are on par with Star Trek and Star Wars...pure garbage. Indiana Jones...lol. I'd go see Speed Racer if it was in the original cartoon format. That show was bad ass.

Whatever dude. People go to the movies to be entertained. You'd say you'd go to see a cartoon, hardly what I'd call "manly".



I thought this movie was ok. Some people complained about the special effects, but looking at this from purely the 80's iconic view that this movie is based from, I thought the effects were up to par. The script wasn't up to par, and I really hope this wasn't the "reworked" script that they had promised, because it failed miserable in that regard. However, overall, it was nice to see Indiana Jones on the big screen one more time. Apparently the large majority liked it because it brought up huge numbers it's first week.

X factor wrote:Sorry, dude. IRON MAN has already topped 250 million. It's also gotten great critical response, and it's got legs! That gives it BLOCKBUSTER status in my eyes...

Iron Man is just Daredevil with twenty extra million thrown at it.
When the hero and arch nemesis finally have their obligatory climactic showdown (yawn), and you can't even be bothered to straighten out your reclining theatre chair posture, that's when you know you have seen a scenario play out one too many times.
Waaay overrated.

There's a good first hour in there, I'll grant you that.

X factor wrote:SPPEDRACER, on the other hand, has been a box office disaster, and taken a HUGE (and probably well deserved) critical pounding.

Three poor selling albums and counting, I would like to think that Journey fans, of all people, are well aware that financial success has nothing to do with quality.

Red13JoePa wrote:

NealIsGod wrote: They could never recapture the magic of Raiders.

Absolutely.
And they had to know that but sadly most reviewers are decrying it for NOT being Raiders anyway.

This movie was a sitting duck for many geeks from the word "go."

They didn't have to recapture the magic, although for a few beats they did, they just needed to make a compatant movie. What ended up on screen was at times a real mess. It was simply an average movie when compared to any other movie and not just the previous trilogy.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

NealIsGod wrote:How does Speed Racer "merit the title of blockbuster", TNC?

'Cuz like Beowulf-3d, it transcends the medium and becomes a bareknuckled hypersensory experience.
The psychedelic gumdrop color scheme and kaledoscopic transitions will have you swearing that the gangly concession stand clerk spiked your slurpee.
I didn't wipe the punchdrunk grin off my face for days...and still quite haven't yet.
In fact, I think the film activated some long dormant lobe in my lizard brain, (or maybe that's just my inner child doing backflips).

George Lucas keeps making sequels to films we all grew up with (Star Wars, Indiana) but it took something brand new this summer to make me feel as I did when the overhead lights dimmed and I first heard that cued-up majestic John Williams score.

Absolutely on the money when it comes to Speed Racer (and Iron Man).