Indiana Jones IV or Iron Man

Oh come on AC. Cut the waffle. I have things to do and I don't want to read mounds of waffle to actually find what you are getting at here. You've dug yourself a hole, tried to bluff your way out of it and still you simply can't accept that someone genuinely enjoyed a film that your poor tastes didn't find so satisfying. I'm not interested if you continue to run away from fact and insist on getting nowhere with childish taunts.

In response to something earlier you posted, I allowed people their opinion if they had good reasons for it, or if it was simply too trivial to make me care. It seems almost the same as what you do, yet I can put a sock in it when I reach the point where I lose what the hell I need to say and why. Yet have I derided anyone here for not liking the new Indiana Jones? Nah. It has its flaws.

Like Transformers, you either liked it or you didn't. Probably no middle ground.

Yes, it's clearly me with the trouble accepting things, whilst I clearly have not accepted your enjoyment.

It's definitely not your reasons for enjoyment, it's definitely that you enjoyed it. Despite stating otherwise.

-AC

Alright, face to face with a direct proprosal, you can't pull out the goods.

I can, have and am.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Ignore my other criticisms if you want, just don't expect any payout at the end.

Ramble if you want, just don't do it here.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Way to reiterate my point.

Since when did your point go from praising someone despite end product, and praising someone relevantly?

Originally posted by exanda kane
How much crap are you going to spout out next. Again, you do the thing you always do and gradually lose focus of what you are actually on about, creating an antagonising argmuent that no one you were in discussion with held. I've already made it clear why you are out of your depth, why I mentioned Indiana Jones' homages and why they are of relevance to your impotent criticism.

Haha, I'm not out of my depth, you just cannot relevantly counter my criticisms involving this movie being dated. Your ultimate rebuttal is "It wasn't dated because it was paying homage.". Then it's an outdated homage.

Originally posted by exanda kane
It isn't a dated movie. You have no grounds on which to place that criticism. If you were to critique any meshing of eras however, it would be the CGI. Again, you don't understand the New New Hollywood films to an extent where you can adaquately make an argument to your sentiment.

Shh, stop rambling.

It's a dated movie because it just doesn't fit in well today. It simply doesn't, that kind of movie (Not blockbusters, but 50s set, archeological style) does not fit well today unless it is done in a manner that can be exciting, in my opinion. You cannot prove me wrong, and your one attempt to do so (It's an homage, you say), doesn't refute my claims.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Again, you're simply leading the discussion down towards extreme subjective opinion, and it leaves me know ground but to disregard it as opinion that is irrelevant to the core issue you have here; that I have some overreaching love of Indiana Jones, Harrison Ford, Spielberg etc that derides any opinion I may have. I'm sorry, but it ain't true.

Whether it's an over-reaching love that blinds you, or an over-reaching love that doesn't, there's an undeniable over-reaching love, made evident my comments such as "I do not understand why anybody can not be biased toward these people.".

Originally posted by exanda kane
Don't say that. You aren't. It just weakens your credibility to claim as much, when the evidence in hand points so clearly to the contrary.

Oh, I am very much familiar enough.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Well, on the simple grounds that you disregard the new installment as dated because it is set in the 50s etc etc etc. When were the originals set? When were the Roadshow Epics of the 50s set? When were the string of Vietnam films set compared to when they were made? Take it the other way; sci-fi films aren't relevant because they are related to issues we just do not experience in the 21st century? Simply not true.

It's not specifically because it is set in the 50s, had you been reading you'd know this.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Stop repeating yourself. I've said as much.

When you stop repeating yourself irrelevantly, I'll stop correcting you.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Yes, biased because Indiana Jones is one of the most watchable films out there. This installment carries on the trend.

In your opinion, and yet, somehow there isn't an over-reaching love...odd.

Originally posted by exanda kane
I enjoyed it, like I enjoyed Iron Man. Again, we get onto the point that I acknowledge the flaws, appreciate their failings, but still enjoy them. But there certainly is a point where it just becomes unwatchable. Star Wars prequels examples in mind.

I haven't invested as much in the originals to render anything new, truly unwatchable, so I cannot relate.

Originally posted by exanda kane
With crap melodrama like that, you could write a new Star Wars film. Save it for your typewriter sonnyjim.

True, though.

Originally posted by exanda kane
I haven't heard anything from you, apart from the get-out clause 'it's my opinion,' other than it is set in 1957. By the logic, a great many many films are redundant for you. I couldn't abide by that logic, not when you miss great films, and even simply enjoyable ones like Indy.

Indy 4 was enjoyable in parts, it felt mostly like a chore in others, most of them.

It wasn't specifically the time it was set, and if you had read my posts you'd know what I mean by "dated". You don't, though. You hum the theme and try to reply heroically.

Originally posted by exanda kane
-EK

Told you I was more Indy-personifying than you. I set trends, you follow. Conversely, you are the out-dated and redundant one.

-AC

I saw this last night and I just really didn't enjoy myself watching it. Firstly the cinema I watched it in was terrible (really uncomfortable and the sound was very poor) and then I thought the plot was way to far fetched and over the top. I thought the CGI wasn't great, I didn't care about the characters and the dialogue was boring.

I love the franchise but this didn't add anything to it. Should have been left alone. It's a shame because I thought it would be better not as good as the original trilogy obviously but it was a big let down for me.

Oo did I make a mistake when I went to see Cassandra's Dream instead of Indy... oops.

May (An underrated but solid horror movie)

That is indeed an underrated horror, good film! shame about the director's next one after May, was disappointing.

MP, have you seen Roman? Kinda a spiritual successor to May.

I've heard of it but yet to see it, want to though!

I'll take Iron Man over Indy 4, but I'll take Raiders of the Lost Arc over Iron Man anyday of the week Indy 4 was a good ride until the end, I wasn't a fan on how there adventure ended. It was such a disappointment for me because I was really into the movie, and than you get to the climax, and I remember thinking "you've got to be kidding.".

Originally posted by MildPossession
I've heard of it but yet to see it, want to though!

Definitely check it out. It's really good. Very low budget, too.

I only saw May at Backfire's request, so Roman is probably solid.

-AC

The Crystal Skull sucked. It wasn't as bad as the Star Wars prequels, but it also wasn't nearly as good as the originals. Now going off the first three, I expected this Indy to be a little corny at times, and it was, and a little over the top. I know the movie takes place during the Red Scare, but even in 2008, Hollywood just can't stop depicting Russians as heartless monsters. Kate BLanchett's character looked way too much like Natasha from Rocky & Bullwinkle. But my biggest complaint was that just like Alien versus Predator, this movie takes credit away from the natives of the Americas, by implying that only a far-superior alien race could have built the structures of Meso-America. It's actually a very old notion, and its rejected as racist pseudoscience by every single mainstream archaeologist.

I thought the movie had a great "Oh shit!" moment when he realized he was in a nuclear test village. As soon as he walked into the living room and I saw that the family was a bunch of mannequins, I thought to myself "You better make yourself scarce, pal!".

I didn't much care for it either, I don't think it's complelely horrible, but it was a let-down.

Best to worse Indy films.

Raiders
Crusade
Skull
Temple

I'd have to see Temple of Doom again, as it's been 15+ years since I've seen it, but if I recall, it was the worse of the bunch.

Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't much care for it either, I don't think it's complelely horrible, but it was a let-down.

Best to worse Indy films.

Raiders
Crusade
Skull
Temple

I'd have to see Temple of Doom again, as it's been 15+ years since I've seen it, but if I recall, it was the worse of the bunch.

I prefer the Nazi filled Indys compared to Doom, Doom is my least favourite out of the three, yet to see Kingdom.

I see Lucas wants to make another one and give the lead to Marlon Brando, and bring Harrison Ford in as a role like Henry Jones in Crusade.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
If you can ignore Kate Capshaw's horrific acting, or lack thereof, TOD is the second best.

really? That means you think Doom is better than either Raiders or Crusade. So, what is number one? I liked the idea of Indy getting involved in something that had nothing to do with him, but better than raiders or Crusade...,really?

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
really? That means you think Doom is better than either Raiders or Crusade. So, what is number one? I liked the idea of Indy getting involved in something that had nothing to do with him, but better than raiders or Crusade...,really?

Raiders, TOD, last crusade. I have yet to see the new one. I think you are assuming I have seen it and I am saying it is the best.

I like the storyline, it was a welcome break from Indy fighting Nazis. Everything from the opening fight, to the bug scene, to the bug dinner, to the end battle, it was just brilliantly done.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The Crystal Skull sucked. It wasn't as bad as the Star Wars prequels, but it also wasn't nearly as good as the originals. Now going off the first three, I expected this Indy to be a little corny at times, and it was, and a little over the top. I know the movie takes place during the Red Scare, but even in 2008, Hollywood just can't stop depicting Russians as heartless monsters. Kate BLanchett's character looked way too much like Natasha from Rocky & Bullwinkle. But my biggest complaint was that just like Alien versus Predator, this movie takes credit away from the natives of the Americas, by implying that only a far-superior alien race could have built the structures of Meso-America. It's actually a very old notion, and its rejected as racist pseudoscience by every single mainstream archaeologist.

So in short you don't like it because you think it is racist.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I I think you are assuming I have seen it and I am saying it is the best.

I like the storyline, it was a welcome break from Indy fighting Nazis. Everything from the opening fight, to the bug scene, to the bug dinner, to the end battle, it was just brilliantly done.

no, i was wondering which Indy movie you thought was the best if temple was your second top pick. The crystal Skull has to relevance to me. If someone told me that it was their favorite pick for the best Indy movie, i would ignore them. So, i was assuming that you would put it in last.

Its just odd that i meet indy fans that pick Doom over either Crusade or Raiders. So, im always curious as to why. I agree it is a cool story.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
no, i was wondering which Indy movie you thought was the best if temple was your second top pick. The crystal Skull has to relevance to me. If someone told me that it was their favorite pick for the best Indy movie, i would ignore them. So, i was assuming that you would put it in last.

Its just odd that i meet indy fans that pick Doom over either Crusade or Raiders. So, im always curious as to why. I agree it is a cool story.