What are you on about? Did you even watch the amount of great, classic Spielbergian shots he and his cinematographer pulled off? It was pure, classic Spielberg in that sense. I couldn't wipe the smile off my face for some of them.
Wasn't all that impressed with Minority report, and the script was the saver there, not Cruise and not speilberg, just a cool concept, IMO, yet to see Munich and CMIYC.
__________________
"Van Zan is the Pinocchio of feces." - Lestov16
Last edited by Sadako of Girth on May 24th, 2008 at 12:39 PM
But my mind wasn't sufficiently distracted by the nice shiny objects/shots, it was more horrified by the intelligence-redundant nightmare that was the lack of content in the movie.
Thats what Im talking about Indy films were about content over style.
Not so in this movie.
__________________
"Van Zan is the Pinocchio of feces." - Lestov16
Last edited by Sadako of Girth on May 24th, 2008 at 12:40 PM
It's a benchmark in modern cinema, balancing great CGI technology with a strong narrative. It isn't praised enough.
There certainly wasn't a lack of content in the film. Of course, you've made your opinion of it pretty clear, and I respect that, but as always, Indiana Jones remains the enticing mix of Spielberg's style (it has always been in the Indy films, you know this) warm sentimentality and humour, and Lucas' pechant for great vision. It was more of the same, done in the same way and it was thoroughly enjoyable for someone abnormally cynical like myself and, from what I saw in the cinema, a whole new generation of people not old enough to be around when the first three films were about.
I'm a tad disconcerted with those CGI goafers and John Hurt being criminally underused or overused (they could have simply followed his trail and never found him), but it is more Indy fun. I fail to see any major flaw in a film that thrives on humour, wit and spectacle.
Speilbergs 70s and 80s style was something to be marvelled over, but In this day and age of spectacular vistas and effects, I can safely say that there have been Episodes of TV dramas like LOST and Battlestar galactica that topped the spectacular stakes in this movie.
Im 33 and saw the originals at the cinema, and I did not get that "More of the same" feeling due to the enormous shark-jumping detatchment in direction from the original trilogy and the dodgy, screentime consuming needless diversions that shatter the wall of believeability.
Speilberg is resting on his laurels in this regard.
He is too safe and fuzzy wuzzy for my liking these days.
They have to do more than get two things right (CGI/Narrative on M.R.)
Many films since have surpassed it. "The Wrath of Khan" did in the early eighties, for example it had CGI and strong narrative.
And series too, like BSG/LOST.
Im not impressed by mere competancy in filmmaking, its expected /a given when you pay to see a film..
__________________
"Van Zan is the Pinocchio of feces." - Lestov16
Last edited by Sadako of Girth on May 24th, 2008 at 02:08 PM
I wouldn't say the Indiana Jones trilogy has ever pushed the boat out so to speak, for a talent like Spielberg. Braver filmmaking like he went for and achieved with his critically acclaimed work isn't neccesarily ripe for a family movie. The way he plays with a camera, since Duel onwards, was still evident in the film. It's slick filmmaking.
His direction made Crystal Skull a fun experience for me.
__________________
Bravely Calling Actors By Their Second Names
Last edited by exanda kane on May 24th, 2008 at 02:48 PM
I'm 38 and I saw them also and I disagree. I was personally very impressed with Minority Report, Saving private Ryan, The Terminal and Catch me if you can... Impressed how he can handle all these different types of movies.
Here I felt he was maybe trying too much to make it look like previous ones instead of re-inventing a great character that has more depth any SW character has.
Again, I don't understand how great epic filmmakers like Lucas, Spielberg, Ford and Koepp came up with this particular version of Indy 4.... I just don't get it. It's rather sub-par. Still pretty good, but not for this team.
I honestly think he did a great job... especially after watching National Treasure 2 last night. I remember watching the chase scene and comparing it to the jungle chase in Indy. Long story short, KOTCS won
I'm sure. And I'm sure it's better than the next Mummy film as well. But still.... it's closer to The Lost World than to Jurassic Park if you know what I mean.
EDIT: I think age has a big part to play in these reviews. I read in one thread that you saw the first one in theaters, which apparently was incredible for its time. But then I'm 17 and grew up with these movies, but also more modern day films with more special effects etc. Kind of like jurassic park... I'm not even sure which one I saw first, but I'm sure a lot of the reason why the first one was so good was because audiences had never seen CGI like that before... while I was already used to it.
__________________
Thanks Vinny!
Last edited by Spartan005 on May 24th, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Well ... there we go; after waiting for this film for pretty much as long as I can remember, I am now in the very strange, still almost disbelieving position of finally being able to utter the immortal words ... I have seen "Indiana Jones IV". As with many of you on here I'm sure, for a very, very long time I was convinced that I would never speak those fateful words ...
So yes, I've seen it, and have now had two days to process the experience (and I guess it is an "experience") as well. My verdict? Cutting to the chase, is it a perfect film? ... no. But is it an Indiana Jones film? Thank God, the answer is a resounding "yes" !
Of course, after so many years of expectation and wondering what would be, it was never going to be the film that I (or most of us) had hoped for - I knew to expect that. All I wanted out of my "Indy IV" experience going in was to not walk away disappointed ... and the fact that I didn't is, at least in my case, good enough for me .
Admittedly, I don't think that the second half of the movie really matches up to the first, but, overall, this was still an extremely enjoyable, funny, and exciting thrill-ride of a movie; it may not scale the towering heights of its illustrious predecessors - in particular 1 and 3 (though few films do) - but it is still, to my mind, a very worthy addition to the series. Personally, one of the biggest reliefs for me was Harrison himself - though the guy is, of course, a living legend, for the past decade or so he's been languishing cosily (and dangerously) in mediocrity, and is more animated in this film than I've seen him since possibly "Air Force One", or maybe even "The Fugitive" (way back in '93!). Welcome back Mr. Ford ... we missed ya .
Well, that's my two cents anyway; I'm sure that many of you on here will disagree with me ... but there's still plenty of time for all that in the weeks to come.
And so then ... dare we hope for an "Indy V"?
__________________
Ahnold Sez: (From "The Expendables 2"): "My *shoe* is bigger than this cahr!"
the film - at it's core, is a very strong one. Just a few flaws here and there, but interesting ones. After a few more viewings, it will all become clear to me.
on a side note, the camera work was amazing - especially the (american graffiti) type chase at the beginning (well, not exactly a chase) but it was sensational to watch, one of my favourite scenes actually. It put the audience directly to the 50's!
I think the age argument is lame. Some films I loved as a kid, I consider very sucky. Other films I liked as a kid I still like. A story is a story and that can always be considered on its merits, no matter what the age. Character can also be judged on its merits. And it doesn't take a genius to see how shallow all the side characters are (Mutt excluded).
Plus the story has a few major flaws. And crappy CGI is still crappy CGI. Even the crappy CGI in TLC looked crappy then and it still does now. Yet, teh acting is very enjoyable and the characters have more depth in TLC as well (Sallah, Brody, Elsa, Donovan)
saw it yesterday... damn lucky I didn't had to pay full price! It's a good Hollywood movie, but it is a lousy Indiana Jones movie. With a few minor changes they could easily have named it "National Treasure 3: Going International". There were little Indy-elements in it; they ripped off a lot of scenes (or how they will call it "paying hommage"). In short: disappointing
and lucas should stop butchering movies with CGI. It's not always the best solution, y'know!
__________________ Kyuzo: Don't you see? A real sword will kill you. Mr. Earl Brooks: If I were here to kill you, you would already be dead. Mercedes: My mother told me to be wary of Fauns. Mr. Le Chiffre: No, I believe in a reasonable rate of return. James Bond: Now the whole world will know you died while you were scratching my balls!
Ok, so you were older than I was at the initial screenings.
Interesting.
In that if age at-viewings was a factor, that with Kane being youngest, you being oldest that the middle guy has the problem with the film. Can't be just that then, therefore.
"Lame" is so 90's... we say gay now, instead. but yeah I'm not arguing, it just occured to me when you made that jurassic park analogy, that maybe one of the reasons you liked the first one better is because you've never seen CGI that good before. By the time the second one came around, you already saw it and therefore it wasn't quite as good. Same thing with Jaws and Jaws 2. The audience already knew what the shark looked like and thats why the second one didn't do as good.
maybe just one of the reasons why you didn't like this movie as much as the originals is because there's nothing new or groundbreaking like in the originals. From what I remember reading the reviews of Raider and temple, the truck chase and mine chase was stunning... no one had ever seen anything like them. In KOTCS, the audience is already used to amazing CGI and special effects.
This might have nothing to do with why you didn't like it as much, but maybe for some other people it does.
Or maybe I'm just rambling on about nothing, because I just got home from a 10 hour shift and can't function properly.... whatever
You still don't get it. I preferred JP3 over JP2... and I also consider myself a Spielberg admirer. I think the LW story was flawed, it was messy storywise and that didn't make me feel as involved as I felt in JP1... JP3 however was a pleasant surprise. Also due to its considerable shorter length, but it was honest, straightforward, to the point. I felt Jp2 was going over the same thing dealt with in JP1.
I don't judge films by the surprise of the CGI, but how the characters work, how the "world" created works and above all if the story can pull me in... now and in the future.. Raiders does that, TLC does that, even ToD did. This one just kinda keeps me at distance... it's fairly shallow. I think it compares to the Mummy films in many ways. And I think Spielberg is waaayy better that Stephen "I like a lot of crappy CGI" Sommers.
Fair enough. Now that I think about it though, the plot in Indy 1, 3 and 4 are all pretty much: Big quest to find artifact, use its power and then watch the bad guys die some horrible fantasy death. Honestly, I think the biggest thing that draws me into movies isn't so much the plot as it is the characters and the acting... one of the reasons why I like KOTCS and the mummy movies as well lol.
but I will hand it too you... the CGI in the Mummy Returns was pretty damn bad
KMC Community Forums
May 24th, 2008 11:39 AM
!
.
