Why?
This is about the new Indiana Jones, not Minority Report.
Maybe it's not a habit, then. He sure as hell included a lot of unnecessary graphics in this movie, though.
Originally posted by exanda kane
I had low expectations for it actually, considering the Cannes reactions, muted responses on here and general common sense. I've seen Firewall, I've seen the Star Wars prequels. Genuinely, there wasn't much to be gained by going to the cinema vested with too much optimism.But I saw it and enjoyed it. My first response was simply that it was a solid, family adventure movie. I'll perhaps have to see it again to get over my weakspot for Spielberg's playful direction; on the subject of that, it was great. He invests so much love of his craft in anything he does. It's a marvel to watch.
As for Iron Man, that exceeded expectations too. But it had the chore of 'going through the motions' of a Superhero movie, which, albeit more enjoyable than similar superhero outings, still had that slightly tired air to them, rather than a nostalgic well trodden ground for Indy.
Are you honestly criticising Iron Man for having a tired air, amidst praise for the fourth Indiana Jones movie?
Honestly? I know you're biased, but come on.
Glowing, sentient, crystal alien skeletons? Flying saucers and temples used as a disguise for flying saucers? Then again, did he not let his buddy George Lucas write some of it?
-AC
Cave in like usual why don't ya.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
This is about the new Indiana Jones, not Minority Report.Maybe it's not a habit, then. He sure as hell included a lot of unnecessary graphics in this movie, though.
Anyone with even a grassroots knowledge of the man can tell you that he doesn't use CGI superfluously, thus why such an idiotic comment just derides the rest of your opinion. Given, Crystal Skull was rife with unecesarry CGI rodents, but I am not sure how you some how shoved that into a generalisation about Spielbeg.
Are you honestly criticising Iron Man for having a tired air, amidst praise for the fourth Indiana Jones movie?
Yes, that is precisely what I am doing. Of course, I need to see Indiana Jones again, partly because it was so fun, partly because I enjoyed it too much, where as Iron Man could be dissected in one viewing. Nothing against Iron Man, exceeding expectations an' all, but was it really innovative for the formula in any way? Less said about the last act, the better.
Honestly? I know you're biased, but come on.
I'm going to have to counter that and say that you're biased against Indiana Jones. What other explaination is there? How can anyone not appreciate the creative meld of two men who have changed Hollywood and who's legacy still thrives 35 years on? It's a rich, tongue-in-cheek run through of cinematic history, with one of the most popular and successful actors of all time, written by some of the most successful producers and writers - bar Selznick - and directed by Spielberg? How can one with any love and enjoyment of film not be enticed by that?
Glowing, sentient, crystal alien skeletons? Flying saucers and temples used as a disguise for flying saucers? Then again, did he not let his buddy George Lucas write some of it?
Watch some 1950's B movies for christ sake.
It isn't really up to debate. When I consider that you genuinely thought Iron Man had a strong last act, I have to check myself whether you are serious or not. Arguing with someone with such a ramshackle (to say the least) taste in film is not productive and it doesn't go anywhere.
As said, need to see the film again to enjoy the grand pastiche that it was.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Cave in like usual why don't ya.Anyone with even a grassroots knowledge of the man can tell you that he doesn't use CGI superfluously, thus why such an idiotic comment just derides the rest of your opinion. Given, Crystal Skull was rife with unecesarry CGI rodents, but I am not sure how you some how shoved that into a generalisation about Spielbeg.
Are you just pissy because I said something not so positive about a man you have an affinity for?
After thinking back to his previous movies, I retracted my comment. Of course, such an event only comes along once in a while, when I get something wrong, so you're right to jump on it with such agitation.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Yes, that is precisely what I am doing. Of course, I need to see Indiana Jones again, partly because it was so fun, partly because I enjoyed it too much, where as Iron Man could be dissected in one viewing. Nothing against Iron Man, exceeding expectations an' all, but was it really innovative for the formula in any way? Less said about the last act, the better.
Less said about the last act, the better? Are we to honestly get into an Iron Man last act Vs Indy last act debate?
Do you want to put the Iron Man/Iron Monger battle up against ridiculously digitised flying saucers and flourescent alien bones?
How was Indiana Jones anything but a nostalgic return to a formula that is long gone, for good reason? There's a reason movies like that are not flying everywhere, there's a reason it's only really Indiana Jones that has one of them out at the moment. Because they are extremely dated, hardly anyone can relate to it outside of a nostalgic setting, and even with the new Indy, an old man can't portray that kind of hero as he is meant to be.
I get he was old, and he was past it, but that kind of movie needs an exciting hero, and he doesn't have it anymore, in my opinion. You'll disagree cos it's Harrison Ford.
I could dissect Indiana Jones in one setting as you could to Iron Man.
Originally posted by exanda kane
I'm going to have to counter that and say that you're biased against Indiana Jones. What other explaination is there? How can anyone not appreciate the creative meld of two men who have changed Hollywood and who's legacy still thrives 35 years on?
Because unlike you, I don't judge movies NOW based on what the people involved did ages ago. I love the original trilogy, I think it's a masterpiece, even genius, and very unique. It's nothing against Indiana Jones, it's this specific movie, so you're obviously talking out of your arse.
You feel we should all like them because of their rep. You're no different to people who claim The Beatles are the best band ever and anyone who questions such an opinion is a retard. You just do it a little more slyly.
Originally posted by exanda kane
It's a rich, tongue-in-cheek run through of cinematic history, with one of the most popular and successful actors of all time, written by some of the most successful producers and writers - bar Selznick - and directed by Spielberg? How can one with any love and enjoyment of film not be enticed by that?
Things are usually history for a reason, this is obviously lost on you.
This entire counter, as you call it, is derived from your massive puzzlement and confusion that the names Spielberg and Ford are simply not enough to make someone enjoy a movie. I will leave you with that thought and hope you recognise how ridiculous that sounds.
I don't judge movies by how good an actor has DONE, I judge them by how they do. If The Dark Knight happened to be shit, I wouldn't say it was good because Bale did American Psycho and Rescue Dawn. I wouldn't say Mr. & Mrs. Smith was good because Brad Pitt was in Fight Club. I don't give a shit what you've been in.
I note actors' performances for reference, I do not use their history as a means of giving films points. You obviously do, and that's stupid.
At the end of the day, when I went into the cinema, sat down and watched this movie, I had a bit of fun, but was mostly disappointed. The names involved were not relevant.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Watch some 1950's B movies for christ sake.
Alternatively, go to another forum if you cannot handle people critiquing films fairly, not based on the names.
You obviously have a passion for these two men and it's blinding you. You're rabidly biased.
Originally posted by exanda kane
It isn't really up to debate. When I consider that you genuinely thought Iron Man had a strong last act, I have to check myself whether you are serious or not. Arguing with someone with such a ramshackle (to say the least) taste in film is not productive and it doesn't go anywhere.
Might as well just say "I give up, you win.". Honestly.
Iron Man's last act could have been much stronger, but it wasn't as bad as you are making it out to seem. The fact that you called Crystal Skull "the nuts", based solely on two men involved, proves you shouldn't be allowed to review any movie.
In this thread you have slammed anyone so much as questioning Indy, dove in head first with the assumption that nothing matters, because it's Indy (You did say that).
You even called Shia Lebouf a thespian. How do you suppose your opinion holds any weight? You like Sharpe, for crying out loud. Some mid-evening, ridiculously acted femi-drama.
You claimed Iron Man's movie adaptation wasn't necessary, but have apparently kidded yourself into thinking a fourth addition to a brilliant trilogy, decade plus later, was necessary? You need to snap yourself out of the bs, junior.
Originally posted by exanda kane
As said, need to see the film again to enjoy the grand pastiche that it was.
You decided that before you saw it, fact.
-AC
Indy didn't fire his gun once in this movie.
And many of the scenes were over the top, as some others mentioned. I don't mind over the top, as long as it is at least somewhat in the realm of reality; when things happen like the fridge scene or the truck landing on the tree branch, it just takes away any sense of reality and loses tension/suspense.
I liked the alien storyline, I thought it actually fit fine with Indiana Jones.
Could've been better action sequences/CGI.
Overall, Iron Man was the better film definitely. Indiana Jones was fun, but Iron Man was better on nearly every level, except for maybe the musical score.
Oh yeah, and what the **** was up with the gophers throughout the beginning of the film?!
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriAre you just pissy because I said something not so positive about a man you have an affinity for?
Not pissy Jim Davidson. Perhaps just shocked that you continue to 'critique' films with such a cavalier understanding of film. What are you going to do now, say Favreau's got any good distinctive sense of direction?
Less said about the last act, the better? Are we to honestly get into an IronMan last act Vs Indy last act debate? Do you want to put the Iron Man/Iron Monger battle up against ridiculously digitised flying saucers and flourescent alien bones?
No point really. I'd take an over-the-top homage to flying saucers - gotta love a MacGuffin done right - rather than a weak third act in Iron Man. Honestly, ending the film before Jeff Bridges even makes his own suit (he learns to fly it instantly after Stark spends the whole movie doing so?) would have been a stronger ending.
And the final act provided the finest shot composition of the film. Even where another Director might simply have focused on the advent of a flying saucer rising from the ground, Spielberg doesn't let the effects overwhelm his adventure; Indiana Jones stops cowering from the rubble, stands and moves to watch this otherworldly event. He just stands at the bottom of the screen, watching. It just grounds the event. I loved that shot.
How was Indiana Jones anything but a nostalgic return to a formula that is long gone, for good reason? There's a reason movies like that are not flying everywhere, there's a reason it's only really Indiana Jones that has one of them out at the moment. Because they are extremely dated, hardly anyone can relate to it outside of a nostalgic setting, and even with the new Indy, an old man can't portray that kind of hero as he is meant to be.
There is still a reason why movies like Indiana Jones are everywhere. They still are. Family friendly, effects driven, narratively weak spectaculars. They are everywhere. Not really sure where you are coming from them. Yet again, the rudimentary unfamiliarity you expose when trying to put Indiana Jones into the context of being dated is disconcerting for someone trying to give a reasonable argument.
I get he was old, and he was past it, but that kind of movie needs an exciting hero, and he doesn't have it anymore, in my opinion. You'll disagree cos it's Harrison Ford.
I'll disagree because Indiana Jones has never been young. He was 46 when the Last Crusade was made, and he only looks 10 or so years older now. Indiana Jones has always been a little creaky around the edges, exasperated like an OAP and ultimately, a little rubbish at what he does. Most people seem to have come out of the cinema realising that Harrison Ford, while being 65, is no old fart peeing into a bag.
Because unlike you, I don't judge movies NOW based on what the people involved did ages ago. I love the original trilogy, I think it's a masterpiece, even genius, and very unique. It's nothing against Indiana Jones, it's this specific movie, so you're obviously talking out of your arse.
I said nothing about judging the product of two mens creative output. It's more the point of how can anyone with even a passing interest in cinema try to make an argument out of another being 'biased' for Indiana Jones? It is the brainchild of, what you clearly do not understand, men who have changed cinema to such an extent, that their influence is still obvious decades later. Iron Man, Prince Caspian, Hellboy, the Incredible Hulk all are descandants of that trend. Yes, it is biased, but I fail to see how anyone cannot be biased for Indy. Of course, it appears overreaching schoolboy critics who like comic books too much aren't.
You feel we should all like them because of their rep. You're no different to people who claim The Beatles are the best band ever and anyone who questions such an opinion is a retard. You just do it a little more slyly.
No, people can dislike them. In fact, people who have never liked Indiana Jones probably won't like this, but to try to make a point out of people being biased for Indiana Jones is ridiculous. It's obvious you are biased for Iron Man, whatever you disagreement you might concoct from that speculation, so you will see differently. Of course, you are bias to a larger extent than me. I allow for critique of the film. It was hardly on the level of Raiders or Last Crusader, but I can see people's problem with the cluttered ensemble, the
Spoiler:and the CGI goafers. Not seeing fault in the gloriously underwhelming last act of Iron Man, Jeff Bridges suprisingly bad turn, unsatisfying action sequences (CGI looked pretty, that is it), among others however is worse.
aliens
Things are usually history for a reason, this is obviously lost on you.
Oh come on! Was that lost on you? Really, you debate so vehemently yet you again show your grassroots appreciation for cinema. Among the classic adventure films, epics, war films, Bond films, musicals, and Westerns, Indiana Jones references and homages them all. You could probably educate yourself on Hollywood cinema since 1927 just by reading up on the films that Indy homages.
I don't judge movies by how good an actor has DONE, I judge them by how they do. If The Dark Knight happened to be shit, I wouldn't say it was good because Bale did American Psycho and Rescue Dawn. I wouldn't say Mr. & Mrs. Smith was good because Brad Pitt was in Fight Club. I don't give a shit what you've been in.
There you go again with the preteen name dropping. But to the point, nor do I. I've seen Firewall, Air Force One, Hollywood Homocide, I'm not going to walk into that trap. But Indiana Jones is a homage to everything that went before it, and while the individual films made by those directors are not important, their importance to the state of cinema today is.
At the end of the day, when I went into the cinema, sat down and watched this movie, I had a bit of fun, but was mostly disappointed. The names involved were not relevant.
Then get some willpower and go with low expectations.
Alternatively, go to another forum if you cannot handle people critiquing films fairly, not based on the names.
Fairly is quite a stretch with your adoration of comic books. But that I don't mind, people like comic books I know that, but to try and vehemently criticise a film with such a poor knowledge is self-defeating. Saying you enjoyed the film or not without the knowing I am all for, criticising the film without needing to understand what you are talking about is fine. But trying to critique the film under the grounds that you are is stupid and smiply blows any argument out of proportion. How can you argue with a frenchman, if you don't speak the same language?
ron Man's last act could have been much stronger, but it wasn't as bad as you are making it out to seem. The fact that you called Crystal Skull "the nuts", based solely on two men involved, proves you shouldn't be allowed to review any movie.
No, it means I enjoyed the film and was simply too elated to elaborate. And for christs sake, maybe even you could understand how relieved one could be, after seeing the Crystal Skull and finding out it is no Phantom Menace.
In this thread you have slammed anyone so much as questioning Indy, dove in head first with the assumption that nothing matters, because it's Indy (You did say that).
That's just a needless exaggeration. The only one who has the density to reply to my initial reaction to the film is you. I have disagreed with no one else voluntarily because I respect their opinion. Yes, it's Indy, and it should end there because really, by trying to disconcert that notion, you show your own cluelessness in the subsequent argument.
You even called Shia Lebouf a thespian. How do you suppose your opinion holds any weight? You like Sharpe, for crying out loud. Some mid-evening, ridiculously acted femi-drama.
You think I said that even half-seriously? What are you, trying to pick up any dirt now you've exposed your own stupidity?
Come on. I've said before, and I don't mind saying it again. I would be the first to pick at the contrived bundle of romanticised pulp that are the Sharpe novels and adaptations. So nil points their Mr.Goldstone. But of course, I could jump onto your spintrain and just disconcert your opinion based on the weaknesses you have for bad films. But I don't need to do that because you have pretty much proven that you know 'eff all about the subject by yourself.
You claimed Iron Man's movie adaptation wasn't necessary, but have apparently kidded yourself into thinking a fourth addition to a brilliant trilogy, decade plus later, was necessary? You need to snap yourself out of the bs, junior.
If I did that (I can't remember) I take it back. Actually, no I don't. Instead I'll say that while it wasn't neccesary, they certainly made a good film out of the opportunity and roll on any sequels. Robert Downey Jr is better than Harrison Ford, I hope his career rockets like his talent deserves.
The same can be said for Crystal Skull. No, it was not obviously necessary, but they certainly made a welcome addition to a good trilogy with the opportunity.
You decided that before you saw it, fact.
I think posts in the Indy forum will prove to the contrary, kid.
I'm also quite adamant (I don't buy your bollocks about being a fan of the original trilogy out of anything other than conformity) that if one liked the original trilogy, then they would like this.
-EK
Originally posted by exanda kane
Not pissy Jim Davidson. Perhaps just shocked that you continue to 'critique' films with such a cavalier understanding of film. What are you going to do now, say Favreau's got any good distinctive sense of direction?
Why does it matter if the man has the accolades of a Spielberg or not? He made a movie I really liked, a lot more than Indiana Jones, and has the ability to make more. That's what I care about.
Originally posted by exanda kane
No point really. I'd take an over-the-top homage to flying saucers - gotta love a MacGuffin done right - rather than a weak third act in Iron Man. Honestly, ending the film before Jeff Bridges even makes his own suit (he learns to fly it instantly after Stark spends the whole movie doing so?) would have been a stronger ending.
Of course you'd take it, despite the fact that it was horrifically done and totally unnecessary, because it's Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg. You had already decided before you went in that you liked this movie based on hype and name. They could have had Indy reveal himself as Clark Kent and you'd have found some way to redeem it.
And a stronger ending for Indiana Jones would have been anything other than the glowing bones and flying saucers. There are hardly any perfect movies.
Originally posted by exanda kane
And the final act provided the finest shot composition of the film. Even where another Director might simply have focused on the advent of a flying saucer rising from the ground, Spielberg doesn't let the effects overwhelm his adventure; Indiana Jones stops cowering from the rubble, stands and moves to watch this otherworldly event. He just stands at the bottom of the screen, watching. It just grounds the event. I loved that shot.
Yeah, I could probably make one of the biggest liberty-takes in modern cinema seem poetic and needed if I over-complicated it too. Congratulations, you have the ability to be blinded.
I don't care if you loved the shot, we've established that you love all of Harrison Ford's shots. My point is exactly that. There is no way in hell you'd ever have a bad word to say about this movie. You already said it's great by your standards simply because Spielberg and Ford are attached to it.
That scene was utterly ridiculous, and I chuckle quietly to myself knowing that you almost definitely say there thinking the same, simultaneously struggling to force yourself to find a way to accept it.
Originally posted by exanda kane
There is still a reason why movies like Indiana Jones are everywhere. They still are. Family friendly, effects driven, narratively weak spectaculars. They are everywhere. Not really sure where you are coming from them. Yet again, the rudimentary unfamiliarity you expose when trying to put Indiana Jones into the context of being dated is disconcerting for someone trying to give a reasonable argument.
Besides The Mummy, you name me more than five singular or multiple movies about a man in the 50s running around raiding tombs for artefacts.
I wasn't referencing family movies, I was referencing the specific style that Indiana Jones is. It just doesn't happen anymore, nobody cares, it's not relevant. The single reason this worked well, even a bit, was because of what the movie is called and the man starring in it. If this movie starred anyone else but him, called anything else, it would have got the slating of a lifetime.
You deny that this movie is dated? Specifically?
Originally posted by exanda kane
I'll disagree because Indiana Jones has never been young. He was 46 when the Last Crusade was made, and he only looks 10 or so years older now. Indiana Jones has always been a little creaky around the edges, exasperated like an OAP and ultimately, a little rubbish at what he does. Most people seem to have come out of the cinema realising that Harrison Ford, while being 65, is no old fart peeing into a bag.
And he isn't, he was more mobile than I expected, but again, you subconsciously reveal that this is more about Harrison Ford to you, than Indiana Jones as a movie.
He wasn't a creaky, old, can't-keep-up hero in Raiders, Doom or Crusade. Here, his age does not fit what that kind of a character needs to be doing.
Originally posted by exanda kane
I said nothing about judging the product of two mens creative output. It's more the point of how can anyone with even a passing interest in cinema try to make an argument out of another being 'biased' for Indiana Jones? It is the brainchild of, what you clearly do not understand, men who have changed cinema to such an extent, that their influence is still obvious decades later. Iron Man, Prince Caspian, Hellboy, the Incredible Hulk all are descandants of that trend. Yes, it is biased, but I fail to see how anyone cannot be biased for Indy. Of course, it appears overreaching schoolboy critics who like comic books too much aren't.
What relevance did that have to the debate? All I see is you admitting, flat out, that you are biased and your whole argument stems from your childish inability to look past reputation and see that not everyone is as invested in reputation as you.
I love movies I enjoy, I go to see ones I think I'll like, I own ones I like. You are obviously so far buried under a failed concept of film appreciation that you've gone back on yourself. The point of film isn't to overlook a movie's flaws and/or like it inherently because certain people were involved. It's about making an amazing final product that you are happy with as a director, that people end up happy with on its own merit.
You are like The Beatles fans, but film. You feel that reputation entitles these men to some inherent, unquestioned love of their movies to any degree. I'm sorry, but that's not the case. I respect what they've done for cinema, I respect that they are pioneers, but what you fail to understand is, that is enough. I'm pretty sure that's all THEY would ask for. I am not going to continue saying their movies are great despite not thinking they are, if I do not think they are.
Did you praise War of the Worlds? I sure as hell didn't, and no amount of Jaws or Indy trilogies to Spielberg's name was going to get him praise from me, for that movie.
-AC
Originally posted by exanda kane
No, people can dislike them. In fact, people who have never liked Indiana Jones probably won't like this, but to try to make a point out of people being biased for Indiana Jones is ridiculous. It's obvious you are biased for Iron Man, whatever you disagreement you might concoct from that speculation, so you will see differently. Of course, you are bias to a larger extent than me. I allow for critique of the film. It was hardly on the level of Raiders or Last Crusader, but I can see people's problem with the cluttered ensemble, theSpoiler:and the CGI goafers. Not seeing fault in the gloriously underwhelming last act of Iron Man, Jeff Bridges suprisingly bad turn, unsatisfying action sequences (CGI looked pretty, that is it), among others however is worse.
aliens
So it's come to you trying to lump me in with you to save your floundering and uncredible argument.
I've never really liked Iron Man comics, I was going in with remarkably low expectations, but I had the idea that from what I know of his character, it might work better as a movie and it did. The last act could have been better, it wasn't without fault, but I am simply not willling to agree it was as fault ridden as you claim it was, and because I'm not agreeing with you on every level, you feel I am as biased.
I did not judge Iron Man before hand based on any frivolous and superficial factors as you did. You judged Indy before it came outbased on the executives involved, and one of the actors. I couldn't judge it on actors, since I'm not a fan of any of those involved, really. I couldn't judge it on comics bias, not really a fan. Certainly couldn't judge it on Marvel bias, considering Ghost Rider, F4, Daredevil (Mostly) and the latter two Blade movies were shit. So it's not like I live in a world where the constantly produce great adaptations.
You are bitter because a man's reputation has caused a so-called lover of film to ignore the very film in favour of judging it based on a name, and that's just how it is.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Oh come on! Was that lost on you? Really, you debate so vehemently yet you again show your grassroots appreciation for cinema. Among the classic adventure films, epics, war films, Bond films, musicals, and Westerns, Indiana Jones references and homages them all. You could probably educate yourself on Hollywood cinema since 1927 just by reading up on the films that Indy homages.
Who honestly gives a shit about 1927 Hollywood cinema that has no bearing on my life? I certainly don't, I don't claim to be a film scholar, nor do I care. I like movies I can enjoy, I don't care who they reference, what homages they pay, or anything.
I know my music history, but I'm not gonna rip on someone for not knowing who the crucial and influential jazz fusion guys were. It's not necessary to know, it's not disrespectful to not enjoy them, if you are a fan into music simply because you dig what you hear from time to time.
You are a slave to reputation and history, and that's sad. You've lost the ability to go into a movie completely unbiased, and that's sad. Like a musician so rooted in technicality that he cannot play an album without involuntarily analysing it. Either way, there's a reason movies like that aren't made anymore, movies like Indy specifically. It's because they are out of date and out of touch.
Originally posted by exanda kane
There you go again with the preteen name dropping. But to the point, nor do I. I've seen Firewall, Air Force One, Hollywood Homocide, I'm not going to walk into that trap. But Indiana Jones is a homage to everything that went before it, and while the individual films made by those directors are not important, their importance to the state of cinema today is.
The movies that Indiana Jones pays homage to are less important to me than movies I sit down and get enjoyment out of. That is your crucial flaw, Exanda. You invest so much in history, that movies with hardly any are considered a flaw. You feel that history of cinema has to be acknowledged and recognised, and the fact is, it doesn't. You are hypocritical, actually.
You plug on about how the state of cinema today is important, and that's great, but how do you expect to even know what today's cinematic position is when you are too busy focusing on two men who did stuff for it decades ago? If anything, I am doing what they would wish. Focusing on cinema today, not the past that is irrelevant to me. I'm not entirely ignorant, I can acknowledge and respect what they HAVE done, but that does not entitle them to instant points on whatever movies they made.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Then get some willpower and go with low expectations.
I did.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Fairly is quite a stretch with your adoration of comic books. But that I don't mind, people like comic books I know that, but to try and vehemently criticise a film with such a poor knowledge is self-defeating. Saying you enjoyed the film or not without the knowing I am all for, criticising the film without needing to understand what you are talking about is fine. But trying to critique the film under the grounds that you are is stupid and smiply blows any argument out of proportion. How can you argue with a frenchman, if you don't speak the same language?
I'm not attempting to sit here and discuss old, irrelevant-to-me movies or styles of cinema. I'm not here to discuss reputation or influence.
I am here to discuss the latest Indiana Jones movie. I went to see it, I didn't like it THAT much, but it was fun. What more do you need to know? You can throw all the technical and historical jargon you wish at me, I've never claimed to be a film scholar, I've claimed to have an opinion on a movie that I have the right to, and mine is that it was out-dated, very ridiculous and at times, very fun.
If you cannot handle that because I do not share your affinity for history and names, then go for it, but don't attempt to debate with information that doesn't matter.
"Indy was good because it paid homage to all this old stuff that I care about and had men in it, and around it, that I like by name.". So? None of that matters worth a sh*t to me.
-AC
Originally posted by exanda kane
No, it means I enjoyed the film and was simply too elated to elaborate. And for christs sake, maybe even you could understand how relieved one could be, after seeing the Crystal Skull and finding out it is no Phantom Menace.
I didn't like The Phantom Menace, but I wasn't immensely let-down, because I simply haven't got that much invested in Star Wars as a series. I love the original Indy trilogy, but that's it. This film could have been a lot worse, and it was enjoyable at times, which is good. I think it's out-dated and I think a lot of it was utterly ridiculous and takes liberties with suspense of belief that insult me as a viewer.
If you have issues with that because you hold on to irrelevant, totally subjective important influence, then fine. If someone has to watch a shitload of old, irrelevant cinema to appreciate something happening NOW, then your argument about it not being out of date stabs itself in the chest.
Originally posted by exanda kane
That's just a needless exaggeration. The only one who has the density to reply to my initial reaction to the film is you. I have disagreed with no one else voluntarily because I respect their opinion. Yes, it's Indy, and it should end there because really, by trying to disconcert that notion, you show your own cluelessness in the subsequent argument.
I have a personal distaste to people who decide their opinion before seeing a film, then do not have the guts to admit that it wasn't what they expected or hoped for. I knew, as I'm sure anybody did, that you were going to love this movie before it even came out. You were never going to not enjoy it or praise it.
What's the point in having an opinion at all, in this case?
Originally posted by exanda kane
You think I said that even half-seriously? What are you, trying to pick up any dirt now you've exposed your own stupidity?Come on. I've said before, and I don't mind saying it again. I would be the first to pick at the contrived bundle of romanticised pulp that are the Sharpe novels and adaptations. So nil points their Mr.Goldstone. But of course, I could jump onto your spintrain and just disconcert your opinion based on the weaknesses you have for bad films. But I don't need to do that because you have pretty much proven that you know 'eff all about the subject by yourself.
I know F all about the subject? I know what's important to me, and that's what films I enjoy. Bad films coming from someone of your stance isn't really a crippling counter attack. There are plently of people who agree with both of us regarding say, Fight Club, American Psycho or other movies that you hate. That doesn't stop me from enjoying (Genuinely) The Godfather trilogy, the Indy trilogy, Jaws, May (An underrated but solid horror movie), Heat, A Dog Day Afternoon or Taxi Driver.
I like movies I enjoy, couldn't care less what their reputation is. Some are massively revered, some are hated, doesn't matter to me, since I'm not critiquing from the point of view of some film scholar. That's irrelevant.
I'm not sitting here trying to debate filming techniques, I'm discussing why I didn't enjoy Indy 4 that much, and you have taken exception because you enjoyed it for reasons that have nothing to do with the movie.
Originally posted by exanda kane
If I did that (I can't remember) I take it back. Actually, no I don't. Instead I'll say that while it wasn't neccesary, they certainly made a good film out of the opportunity and roll on any sequels. Robert Downey Jr is better than Harrison Ford, I hope his career rockets like his talent deserves.The same can be said for Crystal Skull. No, it was not obviously necessary, but they certainly made a welcome addition to a good trilogy with the opportunity.
Fair point.
Originally posted by exanda kane
I think posts in the Indy forum will prove to the contrary, kid.I'm also quite adamant (I don't buy your bollocks about being a fan of the original trilogy out of anything other than conformity) that if one liked the original trilogy, then they would like this.
I owned the original trilogy on VHS when I was younger, but of course you'd never believe that because it completely removes your strongest argument.
How ignorant can you get? "You can't be a fan of Indy because you didn't like the 4th much, and I ignore you claiming to have liked the others, but if you did I will say it's out of conformity.". Idiot. For all you know, I liked Indy before you.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why does it matter if the man has the accolades of a Spielberg or not? He made a movie I really liked, a lot more than Indiana Jones, and has the ability to make more. That's what I care about.
It was purely a response to your generalised comment about Spielberg's use of CGI. If you have to balls to run right in and say something like that seriously, it leaves your ability to give a reasoned argument open to criticism. I have nothing against Favreau, the man has done well to create a good film with confidence out of a lesser known Marvel commodity, but just to put things into perspective considering your brash generalisations, his direction is pretty devoid of any of the warmth Spielberg invests. But that no longer has any place in the discussion. It was simply worth saying at the time.
Of course you'd take it, despite the fact that it was horrifically done and totally unnecessary, because it's Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg. You had already decided before you went in that you liked this movie based on hype and name. They could have had Indy reveal himself as Clark Kent and you'd have found some way to redeem it.
I have to earnestly disagree with you their. My erratic pleasure from knowing this film wasn't a disappointment would have been evident from brief posts like "it was the nuts" I would have thought. I can honestly say that reaction was from sheer elation that the film didn't fall to the pits, rather than a firm judgement on the film itself. I feel I am going to have to repeat myself again and again (reading through your posts), but the film was nowhere near perfect. Again, I'm going to have to say that I know the film was flawed, certainly wasn't anywhere near Raiders' level (perfect adventure movie), but I enjoyed it, despite its flaws. If it was anything to do with the names involved, then it was only because they delivered (at least Spielberg's direction).
And a stronger ending for Indiana Jones would have been anything other than the glowing bones and flying saucers. There are hardly any perfect movies.
Perhaps you are precisely right. Yet it was a major talking point of the film to say the least, and particuarly a dividing point for many of the audience it seems. I don't think the last act of Iron Man is anywhere as comparable. It was forgettable. Goodbye Jeff Bridges, the ride was nice, roll up next film. As said in my reaction to Iron Man after it was released, a weak last act is hardly uncommon among its 'genre.'
Yeah, I could probably make one of the biggest liberty-takes in modern cinema seem poetic and needed if I over-complicated it too. Congratulations, you have the ability to be blinded. IMy point is exactly that. There is no way in hell you'd ever have a bad word to say about this movie. You already said it's great by your standards simply because Spielberg and Ford are attached to it.
I'm flattered. You seem to be implying I have some kind of gay obsession with Harrison Ford, which is quite decieving for yourself. It's funny and I see your point; it's okay if you can't deal with someones appreciation for a film you're intent on criticising in ways you don't care for (I understand not everyones going to enjoy Spielberg's genius in the way I do - call me pretentious if you want) but really, it was a great shot and to me, despite the far fetched event of a flying saucer arising from a Mayan temple, to me it felt like Spielberg was simply trying to reach people who would be shocked by such a jump. It was a highlight in a film was its share of flaws. I have bad words to say about the movie, but I think I need to hold off on posting them until I've seen it again.
That scene was utterly ridiculous, and I chuckle quietly to myself knowing that you almost definitely say there thinking the same, simultaneously struggling to force yourself to find a way to accept it.
I accept it because its there. It's a bit disconcerting considering the MacGuffin's of the others, but I have to say, that shot was Spielberg (or the cinematographer) trying to bridge the gap between the audience and disbelief. It's like a reconciliation for that jump. It doesn't entirely work, but I appreciate the gesture.
I wasn't referencing family movies, I was referencing the specific style that Indiana Jones is. It just doesn't happen anymore, nobody cares, it's not relevant. The single reason this worked well, even a bit, was because of what the movie is called and the man starring in it.
See, this is the bit you don't get. Yet I don't mind if you don't care about the specifics, you've admitted that you don't have interest beyond a casual if interested viewer, as long as you stop trying to berate the series for being dated when it is clearly self conscious. It wasn't the pulp Treasure Hunter finding MacGuffin aesthetic that is evident (despite its fair shair of heirs; Mummy, National Treasure, Lara Croft, Sahara) but the whole formula that Indiana Jones is responsible for. You might think the aesthetic is dated, even if you allow that is it knowingly so, but the formula is the backbone of the blockbuster.
You deny that this movie is dated? Specifically?
I can't say it is, no. It had its critics when it was released, Raiders of the Lost Ark, because it was 'dated.' But it isn't.
And he isn't, he was more mobile than I expected, but again, you subconsciously reveal that this is more about Harrison Ford to you, than Indiana Jones as a movie.
Well, I'm pretty sure it has alot to do with Harrison Ford being Indiana Jones. People doubted he could do it, and he did. As for the character, I think it still works. I said it in an earlier post, but I think it is pivotal for the character. He has never been a young character, flashbacks are exempt of course, he has always been a world-weary, grumpy red-blood American everyman. I think its central to the character. Not every protag needs to be a young, clean cut farmboy/dislocated teen that develops superpowers, or a seasoned anti-hero. Even Tony Stark (as his publication history developed) has something to thank Indiana Jones for.
He wasn't a creaky, old, can't-keep-up hero in Raiders, Doom or Crusade. Here, his age does not fit what that kind of a character needs to be doing.
He was certainly creaky. He is a 40 year old guy under the criticism of a father that keeps calling him junior for Patrick Kielty's sake; as Indy says in Raiders, it isn't the years, it's the mileage.
I love movies I enjoy, I go to see ones I think I'll like, I own ones I like. You are obviously so far buried under a failed concept of film appreciation that you've gone back on yourself. The point of film isn't to overlook a movie's flaws and/or like it inherently because certain people were involved. It's about making an amazing final product that you are happy with as a director, that people end up happy with on its own merit.
Film appreciation is one thing. I've already stated that the film is, like Iron Man, quite clearly flawed. However, why not enjoy yourself while you can? Indy films are enjoyable films, despite the names involved. Iron Man was an enjoyable film too, and I hope the sequels live up to the expectation that Raiders gave for the rest of the Indy films (although judging on Indy's record, they won't). They both have flaws, they both have strengths. Criticising fun films has to come second to enjoying them, in my book. Perhaps that is just a result of someone burnt out over the pretentions of independant cinema, but that is what Indy caters for. I don't see anything to gain by going to your pedantic, childlike level.
You are like The Beatles fans, but film. You feel that reputation entitles these men to some inherent, unquestioned love of their movies to any degree. I'm sorry, but that's not the case. I respect what they've done for cinema, I respect that they are pioneers, but what you fail to understand is, that is enough. I'm pretty sure that's all THEY would ask for. I am not going to continue saying their movies are great despite not thinking they are, if I do not think they are.
So what occurs when you actually enjoy the Beatles? Are you not allowed to enjoy them? At the end of the day, it depends on their output - well done for repeating my point - but when you enjoy their output on so many levels, why not praise them for their hard work? Yes, I see your point. The Beatles aren't the be all and end all, but that is certainly not a reason to dislike Thomas the Tank Engine just because Ringo Starr is a crap drummer. I've rambled, yes, but I can certainly admit that Crystal Skull was a fun film, and for that I enjoyed it. Does it really hurt if Spielberg's direction was one of the aspects that I did enjoy?
Did you praise War of the Worlds? I sure as hell didn't, and no amount of Jaws or Indy trilogies to Spielberg's name was going to get him praise from me, for that movie.
I did not enjoy as such, but I certainly appreciated what Spielberg tried to do with it, even if he caught himself in a hole considering the ending of the book. The visuals and sound effects of the initial invasion are certainly praiseworthy, even if one wanted to gut Tim Robbins by the end of it.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I've never really liked Iron Man comics, I was going in with remarkably low expectations, but I had the idea that from what I know of his character, it might work better as a movie and it did. The last act could have been better, it wasn't without fault, but I am simply not willling to agree it was as fault ridden as you claim it was, and because I'm not agreeing with you on every level, you feel I am as biased.
It works in exactly the same way however. You're intent on casting me up as a staunch defender of Indiana Jones. I like Indiana Jones, 'everybody does,' so to that extent I am biased, but of course I'm not going to go as far as shielding them from the criticism people want to level at it. As I remember, it was you who insisted on disconcerting my initial reaction of the film in relation to Iron Man. Iron Manwas fault ridden, but it doesn't mean it wasn't enjoyable and ultimately, flaws fall by the way side.
I did not judge Iron Man before hand based on any frivolous and superficial factors as you did. You judged Indy before it came outbased on the executives involved, and one of the actors. I couldn't judge it on actors, since I'm not a fan of any of those involved, really. I couldn't judge it on comics bias, not really a fan. Certainly couldn't judge it on Marvel bias, considering Ghost Rider, F4, Daredevil (Mostly) and the latter two Blade movies were shit. So it's not like I live in a world where the constantly produce great adaptations.You are bitter because a man's reputation has caused a so-called lover of film to ignore the very film in favour of judging it based on a name, and that's just how it is.
However I clearly did not dismiss the actual film in favour of the names on the page. I said I'd have to repeat myself, but again, if those names deliver, what isn't to praise? You certainly seem to like the Hulk too much, and are keen to deliver your ultimate opinion on anything vaguely involved with comic book adaptations, so it stands to reason that you might enjoy Iron Man more than Indy. I've been quite clear that Indiana Jones is not above fault, yet you insist that I can find nothing wrong with them, insist I am 'bitter' (come on, 'av a word) because you do find fault with them. Stop levelling underhanded criticisms that have no basis, no knowledge of. You might try and deny yourself as a schoolboy film scholar, but yet you still insist on giving the same contrived arguments. You can have it that way and look like an idiot, or you can reserve any argument out of your depth to yourself. That's the way it is.
Who honestly gives a shit about 1927 Hollywood cinema that has no bearing on my life? I certainly don't, I don't claim to be a film scholar, nor do I care. I like movies I can enjoy, I don't care who they reference, what homages they pay, or anything.
Again, I'm just clearing up your messy points; by levelling criticisms of Indiana Jones being dated, you have dug yourself a hole that you can't get out of. You try and take the road of arguing like an informed debator, but you end up a masturbator.
I know my music history, but I'm not gonna rip on someone for not knowing who the crucial and influential jazz fusion guys were. It's not necessary to know, it's not disrespectful to not enjoy them, if you are a fan into music simply because you dig what you hear from time to time.
Exactly. But at the same time, I'm not going to claim that JJ Cale is the bees knees, invented the cuckoo cluck and was the founding member of the White Stripes. I'm not going to raise criticisms in an area I am not familiar with, which was your mistake. But if you take that back, then fair game to you.
You are a slave to reputation and history, and that's sad. You've lost the ability to go into a movie completely unbiased, and that's sad. Like a musician so rooted in technicality that he cannot play an album without involuntarily analysing it. Either way, there's a reason movies like that aren't made anymore, movies like Indy specifically. It's because they are out of date and out of touch.[quote]Don't be an idiot, idiot. And shall I really correct you for - you are hilarious you know - saying that movies like Indiana Jones are out of date and out of touch. Of course, maybe films for the idiot generation like Stealth would serve you better.
[quote]The movies that Indiana Jones pays homage to are less important to me than movies I sit down and get enjoyment out of. That is your crucial flaw, Exanda. You invest so much in history, that movies with hardly any are considered a flaw. You feel that history of cinema has to be acknowledged and recognised, and the fact is, it doesn't. You are hypocritical, actually.
They are usually crap movies too, by the way. Again, you've gone off on one again, making up your own argument, painting someone else as flagbearers for a target you find easy, despite not adhering to the argument you are trying to deride. It's not your crucial flaw, I don't know you enough to know that, but it is god damn annoying to keep correcting you. I have to say, again I guess, that the influence of those two men is moot to their output. However, if they also still make good films, why not praise them?
You plug on about how the state of cinema today is important, and that's great, but how do you expect to even know what today's cinematic position is when you are too busy focusing on two men who did stuff for it decades ago? If anything, I am doing what they would wish. Focusing on cinema today, not the past that is irrelevant to me. I'm not entirely ignorant, I can acknowledge and respect what they HAVE done, but that does not entitle them to instant points on whatever movies they made.
Yes, yes, I am quite in key with cinema today cheers kid, but that still allows me the pleasure of enjoying cinematic heritage. And of course I shall return again to say that it does not give them any divine advantage over less established filmmakers like Favreau, but at the same time (again I'll say it) if they are on form, then surely we can praise them. And that's why I enjoyed Crystal Skull. People were on form. It isn't a massively greater than Iron Man by any, any means (and you can quote me on that, there isn't alot in between) but I enjoyed it more.
I'm not attempting to sit here and discuss old, irrelevant-to-me movies or styles of cinema. I'm not here to discuss reputation or influence.
Then get wise and don't go for the failed 'Indy is dated' argument. That argument is dead.
I am here to discuss the latest Indiana Jones movie. I went to see it, I didn't like it THAT much, but it was fun. What more do you need to know? You can throw all the technical and historical jargon you wish at me, I've never claimed to be a film scholar, I've claimed to have an opinion on a movie that I have the right to, and mine is that it was out-dated, very ridiculous and at times, very fun.
Of course, I respect your opinion as a fellow member of the audience, even if you have poor taste in general (*puts bourgeuis tricorn on*), but you first disagreed with my initial comparative assessment between the two movies, and on your terms, tried to deride the opinion I have a right to with knowledge you can only claim that have.
If you cannot handle that because I do not share your affinity for history and names, then go for it, but don't attempt to debate with information that doesn't matter.
Agreed, as long you don't try and swindle that old argument again. You'll just get more names you don't care about.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I didn't like The Phantom Menace, but I wasn't immensely let-down, because I simply haven't got that much invested in Star Wars as a series. I love the original Indy trilogy, but that's it. This film could have been a lot worse, and it was enjoyable at times, which is good. I think it's out-dated and I think a lot of it was utterly ridiculous and takes liberties with suspense of belief that insult me as a viewer.
I heard audience members talking about how, comparatively, that the power of God melting the faces of Nazis off, ripping hearts from chests with bare hands and an 800 year old Knight, were hardly sterling examples of neorealist cinema. I think I may agree with them, although I clearly appreciate the sentiment expressed by those unhappy with such a strange last act. Again, it has to return to the longshot of Indy standing over the scene.
If you have issues with that because you hold on to irrelevant, totally subjective important influence, then fine. If someone has to watch a shitload of old, irrelevant cinema to appreciate something happening NOW, then your argument about it not being out of date stabs itself in the chest.
Way to miss your stop. Of course, Indiana Jones has always been self indulgent for some, its creators included, and the references and homages only induce that sense of enjoyment gained from watching it, but Indiana Jones is widely popular, widely appreciated and I have to say that I was happy to see some kids around the cinema who seemed to really enjoy it. While, not being a parent, I can hardly confirm whether children are raised on 50s Bmovies nowadays, I'm sure it isn't common at that age and they thoroughly appreciated the film, as did adults in the audience.
I have a personal distaste to people who decide their opinion before seeing a film, then do not have the guts to admit that it wasn't what they expected or hoped for. I knew, as I'm sure anybody did, that you were going to love this movie before it even came out. You were never going to not enjoy it or praise it.
I enjoy it and praise it, but as I have said and said again (you can concede your stupid point now by the way) the film isn't without flaws. As I have also said, I didn't have high hopes (depends if you consider Phantom Menace quality or not) for the film, especially when the opening reactions from Cannes hit the news. But I enjoyed it, even for its flaws, as I do many films like The Fountain, There Will Be Blood and Magnolia (They too old for you?).
I know F all about the subject?
Yes.
Bad films coming from someone of your stance isn't really a crippling counter attack. There are plently of people who agree with both of us regarding say, Fight Club, American Psycho or other movies that you hate. That doesn't stop me from enjoying (Genuinely) The Godfather trilogy, the Indy trilogy, Jaws, May (An underrated but solid horror movie), Heat, A Dog Day Afternoon or Taxi Driver.
Oh dear, I hate Fight Club and American Psycho now? When did that happen? Any others films you want to decide I don't like?
I like movies I enjoy, couldn't care less what their reputation is. Some are massively revered, some are hated, doesn't matter to me, since I'm not critiquing from the point of view of some film scholar. That's irrelevant.
Then stop trying to use an argument that someone in that position would. You've jumped onto the defensive there, despite attacking another of my flawed favourites beforehand. You're as unneccasry and impudent as those CGI goafers. I enjoyed Crystal Skull because of the film, much in the same stance as you (despite better taste), yet you are being hypocritical by applying that exempt rule of simply 'enjoying' the film to yourself.
I'm not sitting here trying tobate filming techniques, I'm discussing why I didn't enjoy Indy 4 that much, and you have taken exception because you enjoyed it for reasons that have nothing to do with the movie.
Come on. Don't repeat yourself. I liked Crystal Skull for what it was, and again I acknowledge its flaws - I still hope to get a better taste for them when/if I see it again soon too. And to recap aswell, you first disagreed with my analysis of the movie - I only stepped in because you generalised about Spielberg - and suddenly I'm the big bad MacGuffin that you don't like.
By the way, this would be a good discussion I am happy to continue if only you put a cap on your childish superiority complex.
Another flaw (least compared to its fellows) of Crystal Skull was the opening salvo. I enjoyed it (got know problem with fridges etc) but it was weak compared to the others.
Originally posted by exanda kane
It was purely a response to your generalised comment about Spielberg's use of CGI. If you have to balls to run right in and say something like that seriously, it leaves your ability to give a reasoned argument open to criticism. I have nothing against Favreau, the man has done well to create a good film with confidence out of a lesser known Marvel commodity, but just to put things into perspective considering your brash generalisations, his direction is pretty devoid of any of the warmth Spielberg invests. But that no longer has any place in the discussion. It was simply worth saying at the time.
Yes, and I retracted my comment, although it was more regarding the film itself than his filmography. I don't care about warmth anyone "invests", they can invest whatever they wish, or do not wish, as long as they make a movie I enjoy.
Originally posted by exanda kane
I have to earnestly disagree with you their. My erratic pleasure from knowing this film wasn't a disappointment would have been evident from brief posts like "it was the nuts" I would have thought. I can honestly say that reaction was from sheer elation that the film didn't fall to the pits, rather than a firm judgement on the film itself. I feel I am going to have to repeat myself again and again (reading through your posts), but the film was nowhere near perfect. Again, I'm going to have to say that I know the film was flawed, certainly wasn't anywhere near Raiders' level (perfect adventure movie), but I enjoyed it, despite its flaws. If it was anything to do with the names involved, then it was only because they delivered (at least Spielberg's direction).
How can you hypocritically sit there and say it was only because the names delivered? As if, had they not, you'd have admitted it. You clearly state, if not imply, that they deliver simply by being involved. Your admitted their names alone were worth your time and live up to your standards, so far as admitting you find it mind-boggling that anyone wouldn't be biased toward these two men. To claim that and then expect me to believe you only cite those names because they delivered is a bigger stretch of belief than a lot of Indy 4.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Perhaps you are precisely right. Yet it was a major talking point of the film to say the least, and particuarly a dividing point for many of the audience it seems. I don't think the last act of Iron Man is anywhere as comparable. It was forgettable. Goodbye Jeff Bridges, the ride was nice, roll up next film. As said in my reaction to Iron Man after it was released, a weak last act is hardly uncommon among its 'genre.'
And are we suggesting the last act of Indy wasn't forgettable? If anything, it will be remembered by me for being an unnecessarily over the top, insulting liberty take that demeaned what was, until then, a passable excuse. That's worse, in my opinion.
Originally posted by exanda kane
I'm flattered. You seem to be implying I have some kind of gay obsession with Harrison Ford, which is quite decieving for yourself. It's funny and I see your point; it's okay if you can't deal with someones appreciation for a film you're intent on criticising in ways you don't care for (I understand not everyones going to enjoy Spielberg's genius in the way I do - call me pretentious if you want) but really, it was a great shot and to me, despite the far fetched event of a flying saucer arising from a Mayan temple, to me it felt like Spielberg was simply trying to reach people who would be shocked by such a jump. It was a highlight in a film was its share of flaws. I have bad words to say about the movie, but I think I need to hold off on posting them until I've seen it again.
Nice shot does not make it a relevant, necessary or good part of the movie. It could have not been there and Spielberg, with his talent, could have had an equally rousing shot of Indy at the end, heroic stance and all. He didn't, for some reason. Maybe it was the Lucas influence, maybe it wasn't, but that was one of the biggest, unforgivable flaws of this movie. You are suggesting it was a great addition because it was a "nice shot". That's not relevant.
I can take Indy surviving a nuke blast by hiding in a fridge, but that was ridiculous. The C.G.I. didn't even allow for it to be a pretty moving moment in the movie.
Originally posted by exanda kane
I accept it because its there. It's a bit disconcerting considering the MacGuffin's of the others, but I have to say, that shot was Spielberg (or the cinematographer) trying to bridge the gap between the audience and disbelief. It's like a reconciliation for that jump. It doesn't entirely work, but I appreciate the gesture.
It doesn't work at all, and you're making excuses for it, sadly.
Originally posted by exanda kane
See, this is the bit you don't get. Yet I don't mind if you don't care about the specifics, you've admitted that you don't have interest beyond a casual if interested viewer, as long as you stop trying to berate the series for being dated when it is clearly self conscious. It wasn't the pulp Treasure Hunter finding MacGuffin aesthetic that is evident (despite its fair shair of heirs; Mummy, National Treasure, Lara Croft, Sahara) but the whole formula that Indiana Jones is responsible for. You might think the aesthetic is dated, even if you allow that is it knowingly so, but the formula is the backbone of the blockbuster.
So what if the FORMULA is the backbone for a blockbuster? The movie itself, specifically, just isn't made for these times. It doesn't strike ME as relevant, or anything of the kind, but it's not meant to be, so I can't grill it for that, because that's subjective. However, the fact that Harrison Ford himself is older, doesn't mesh well. It's the wrong place at the wrong time.
That's precisely why the Mummy movies, though not as good, work better in that area. Set in the 50s or whatever, but I can belief Brendan Fraser is a young, hot shot explorer capable of having fist fights and making exciting, if not amazing, scenes. I don't get that from Ford now.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Well, I'm pretty sure it has alot to do with Harrison Ford being Indiana Jones. People doubted he could do it, and he did. As for the character, I think it still works. I said it in an earlier post, but I think it is pivotal for the character. He has never been a young character, flashbacks are exempt of course, he has always been a world-weary, grumpy red-blood American everyman. I think its central to the character. Not every protag needs to be a young, clean cut farmboy/dislocated teen that develops superpowers, or a seasoned anti-hero. Even Tony Stark (as his publication history developed) has something to thank Indiana Jones for.
He "did" it in so far as putting the outfit on, starring in the movie and such. He didn't "do" it like he needed to, for me. I have no issues with him being an old soul, he's always been one, but an old soul and old body, in an "old" film? It's just not happening for me.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Film appreciation is one thing. I've already stated that the film is, like Iron Man, quite clearly flawed. However, why not enjoy yourself while you can? Indy films are enjoyable films, despite the names involved. Iron Man was an enjoyable film too, and I hope the sequels live up to the expectation that Raiders gave for the rest of the Indy films (although judging on Indy's record, they won't). They both have flaws, they both have strengths. Criticising fun films has to come second to enjoying them, in my book. Perhaps that is just a result of someone burnt out over the pretentions of independant cinema, but that is what Indy caters for. I don't see anything to gain by going to your pedantic, childlike level.
What pedantic, child-like level? The fact that I called you on liking this movie because there was a degree of saving face? I agree with you, any artform should be enjoyed first, critiqued second. What you fail to understand is that throughout this thread, you have been massively hypocritical. You criticise me for not caring about bygone eras of cinema that are not relevant to me in the slightest, despite the fact that I care about enjoying a film, then go on to say enjoyment is the main aspect. If someone says they enjoyed it but highlight some flaws, you're all over them trying to make excuses for the flaws.
If someone ignores the flaws, you leave it.
Originally posted by exanda kane
I've rambled, yes, but I can certainly admit that Crystal Skull was a fun film, and for that I enjoyed it. Does it really hurt if Spielberg's direction was one of the aspects that I did enjoy?
Who said that is wrong of you to enjoy? We've come a long way. Now it's "Spielberg's direction was one of the aspects I enjoyed.", as opposed to "Look at everything they've done, I find it hard to believe anyone with a remote understanding of film can not be biased toward Indiana Jones.", or something to that effect.
I like the direction in both The Fountain and Requiem for a Dream, I'll probably like the direction in his next movie, but if it's a shit movie, I'm not going to be biased toward it. I will single out what was good, and praise it, I will not suggest that makes the film excellent, if I even cared about that.
-AC
Originally posted by exanda kane
It works in exactly the same way however. You're intent on casting me up as a staunch defender of Indiana Jones. I like Indiana Jones, 'everybody does,' so to that extent I am biased, but of course I'm not going to go as far as shielding them from the criticism people want to level at it. As I remember, it was you who insisted on disconcerting my initial reaction of the film in relation to Iron Man. Iron Manwas fault ridden, but it doesn't mean it wasn't enjoyable and ultimately, flaws fall by the way side.
And of course you are entitled to your opinion of Iron Man, and it was not without flaw, but the flaw was what...a slightly underwhelming last fight? That, to me, was massively overwhelmed by the good the movie did. There was not enough in Indy 4 to overwhelm the flaws, in my opinion. I still had fun, if it was on TV I'd probably watch it, but I just don't think it was that good.
Originally posted by exanda kane
However I clearly did not dismiss the actual film in favour of the names on the page. I said I'd have to repeat myself, but again, if those names deliver, what isn't to praise? You certainly seem to like the Hulk too much, and are keen to deliver your ultimate opinion on anything vaguely involved with comic book adaptations, so it stands to reason that you might enjoy Iron Man more than Indy. I've been quite clear that Indiana Jones is not above fault, yet you insist that I can find nothing wrong with them, insist I am 'bitter' (come on, 'av a word) because you do find fault with them. Stop levelling underhanded criticisms that have no basis, no knowledge of. You might try and deny yourself as a schoolboy film scholar, but yet you still insist on giving the same contrived arguments. You can have it that way and look like an idiot, or you can reserve any argument out of your depth to yourself. That's the way it is.
Praise them if they deliver, don't praise them because they have, in the past, delivered. Fight Club is one of my favourite movies ever, as is American History X, Ed Norton was great in both, but then I can list three or four more movies he was shit in. I didn't assume they'd be good and praise him before seeing them, simply because I had liked films prior. What's this "too much" bs? As if your liking of Harrison Ford is conservative.
Nothing here is out of my depth, because I am not discussing shit that I am no capable of discussing. You are the one desperate to drag it into the are of old Hollywood movies and influence that have no relevance to this debate, nor interest to me.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Again, I'm just clearing up your messy points; by levelling criticisms of Indiana Jones being dated, you have dug yourself a hole that you can't get out of. You try and take the road of arguing like an informed debator, but you end up a masturbator.
I haven't dug any hole. It's a dated movie, the formula may not be, but just because Indy laid the groundwork for a lot of movies to come, doesn't entitle it to the same reaction today. Mostly because it was only formula. There are film critics way more educated than either of us who have detracted from this movie for it being dated. It's not just me.
It's like Wolfmother, really. Led Zeppelin are, to me, amazing, and they laid the groundwork for most bands, but when Wolfmother come out in the past couple of years, playing that kind of music, it sounds dated. It doesn't matter that it adheres to a great blueprint, it just doesn't fit today. Arguably, neither would Zeppelin. Indiana Jones worked wonders back in the day, now I don't think it does, and I will not say it does just because it laid groundwork for movies I enjoy.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Exactly. But at the same time, I'm not going to claim that JJ Cale is the bees knees, invented the cuckoo cluck and was the founding member of the White Stripes. I'm not going to raise criticisms in an area I am not familiar with, which was your mistake. But if you take that back, then fair game to you.
I'm familiar enough to have an opinion on it.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Don't be an idiot, idiot. And shall I really correct you for - you are hilarious you know - saying that movies like Indiana Jones are out of date and out of touch. Of course, maybe films for the idiot generation like Stealth would serve you better.
You're not correcting me. You're saying "They're not dated.". I've seen no correction, and it's not doing you any favours to go out of your way and suggest a movie we both know is probably shit, because I do not hold the latest Indy movie as high in regard as you do. I like a lot of the same movies you do, so to imply I have shit taste is to do the same of yourself.
Originally posted by exanda kane
They are usually crap movies too, by the way. Again, you've gone off on one again, making up your own argument, painting someone else as flagbearers for a target you find easy, despite not adhering to the argument you are trying to deride. It's not your crucial flaw, I don't know you enough to know that, but it is god damn annoying to keep correcting you. I have to say, again I guess, that the influence of those two men is moot to their output. However, if they also still make good films, why not praise them?
Praise them for the work they've done, after they've done it and it happens to be praiseworthy. Not because they've done good before.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Yes, yes, I am quite in key with cinema today cheers kid, but that still allows me the pleasure of enjoying cinematic heritage. And of course I shall return again to say that it does not give them any divine advantage over less established filmmakers like Favreau, but at the same time (again I'll say it) if they are on form, then surely we can praise them. And that's why I enjoyed Crystal Skull. People were on form. It isn't a massively greater than Iron Man by any, any means (and you can quote me on that, there isn't alot in between) but I enjoyed it more.
It's not an issue I have, praising well-established filmmakers. The issue I have is you being so massively biased toward Lucas, Spielberg and Harrison that you'll give them praise regardless. You said YOURSELF that nothing else matters, it doesn't matter what they do in this movie, because it's Indy, that you didn't understand how anyone couldn't be biased. That's my issue with you.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Then get wise and don't go for the failed 'Indy is dated' argument. That argument is dead.
Indy is dated, and it's burning you inside to know there's nothing you can ever do to prove me wrong.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Of course, I respect your opinion as a fellow member of the audience, even if you have poor taste in general (*puts bourgeuis tricorn on*), but you first disagreed with my initial comparative assessment between the two movies, and on your terms, tried to deride the opinion I have a right to with knowledge you can only claim that have.Agreed, as long you don't try and swindle that old argument again. You'll just get more names you don't care about.
I pretty much have the best taste in the history of Earth, but that's besides the point isn't it?
Indy is dated. You're not gonna prove me wrong, so it's your choice whether or not you continue piping on about it.
-AC
Originally posted by exanda kane
Way to miss your stop. Of course, Indiana Jones has always been self indulgent for some, its creators included, and the references and homages only induce that sense of enjoyment gained from watching it, but Indiana Jones is widely popular, widely appreciated and I have to say that I was happy to see some kids around the cinema who seemed to really enjoy it. While, not being a parent, I can hardly confirm whether children are raised on 50s Bmovies nowadays, I'm sure it isn't common at that age and they thoroughly appreciated the film, as did adults in the audience.
Because it still does have elements that anybody of any age can enjoy, that isn't gonna vanish, and I enjoyed those too. My point was, it's still a dated movie. If they continue to make more, my opinion will be more and more echoed.
Originally posted by exanda kane
I enjoy it and praise it, but as I have said and said again (you can concede your stupid point now by the way) the film isn't without flaws. As I have also said, I didn't have high hopes (depends if you consider Phantom Menace quality or not) for the film, especially when the opening reactions from Cannes hit the news. But I enjoyed it, even for its flaws, as I do many films like The Fountain, There Will Be Blood and Magnolia (They too old for you?).
There Will Be Blood is one of my favourite films in recent memory, I love The Fountain and Magnolia I haven't seen. Too old? Oh, so you're one of those people who definitely equates quality with antiquity. Funny and hypocritical though, considering you are frustrated by continually having to tell me you acknowledge Indy's flaws, and yet you continue to insist that I enjoy movies like Stealth, and quality films that are not packed with action are beyond my reach, despite me telling you that's not the case.
You continue to ignore and deny my claims that I loved the original Indy trilogy a LONG time ago, so maybe when you drop that, we can talk about conceding/repeating.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Yes.
You know more technically, I know more in a relevant sense. Good to know.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Oh dear, I hate Fight Club and American Psycho now? When did that happen? Any others films you want to decide I don't like?
Hypocritical Exanda strikes back! I can't decide what films you dislike, but you can continually insist what kind of movies I enjoy? Hmm, not sure you're gonna wanna continue that.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Then stop trying to use an argument that someone in that position would. You've jumped onto the defensive there, despite attacking another of my flawed favourites beforehand. You're as unneccasry and impudent as those CGI goafers. I enjoyed Crystal Skull because of the film, much in the same stance as you (despite better taste), yet you are being hypocritical by applying that exempt rule of simply 'enjoying' the film to yourself.
True, despite my better taste based on enjoyment and not rep/antiquity, we can agree that it was enjoyable, if at different levels. I agree.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Come on. Don't repeat yourself. I liked Crystal Skull for what it was, and again I acknowledge its flaws - I still hope to get a better taste for them when/if I see it again soon too. And to recap aswell, you first disagreed with my analysis of the movie - I only stepped in because you generalised about Spielberg - and suddenly I'm the big bad MacGuffin that you don't like.
I retracted my general comment about Spielberg, though it was more a comment regarding the movie itself. Gophers, aliens, flying saucers, monkeys, ants.
Originally posted by exanda kane
By the way, this would be a good discussion I am happy to continue if only you put a cap on your childish superiority complex.
How does the hypocrite pill taste? You'll continue this either way because you need to save face, please don't act like you're done here.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How can you hypocritically sit there and say it was only because the names delivered? As if, had they not, you'd have admitted it. You clearly state, if not imply, that they deliver simply by being involved. Your admitted their names alone were worth your time and live up to your standards, so far as admitting you find it mind-boggling that anyone wouldn't be biased toward these two men. To claim that and then expect me to believe you only cite those names because they delivered is a bigger stretch of belief than a lot of Indy 4.
Well I wouldn't know whether I would have, because they did not. I gave Lucas a bashing for the prequels if anything is to go by though. Now, imply? Is that you thing where you concoct things out of thin air to improve the mindless saving of character masquerading as an argument you are using here? Don't be so stupid. I went to Iron Man because it had the pull of Robert Downey Jr and John Favreau. They delivered. It isn't any different from Indiana Jones.
[/b][/quote]
And are we suggesting the last act of Indy wasn't forgettable? If anything, it will be remembered by me for being an unnecessarily over the top, insulting liberty take that demeaned what was, until then, a passable excuse. That's worse, in my opinion.
Top marks for hitting the nail on the head. It will be remembered for the flying saucer.
Nice shot does not make it a relevant, necessary or good part of the movie. It could have not been there and Spielberg, with his talent, could have had an equally rousing shot of Indy at the end, heroic stance and all. He didn't, for some reason. Maybe it was the Lucas influence, maybe it wasn't, but that was one of the biggest, unforgivable flaws of this movie. You are suggesting it was a great addition because it was a "nice shot". That's not relevant.[b]
Oh look who cracked the fanatical can open. Unforgiveable? Surely you don't mean to be so melodramatic. But despite your lack of charm, yeah, you are right, it does make it a neccesarily good movie, but I enjoyed it.
[b]
It doesn't work at all, and you're making excuses for it, sadly.
I'm telling you why I enjoyed it. Surely no need to be sour.
So what if the FORMULA is the backbone for a blockbuster? The movie itself, specifically, just isn't made for these times. It doesn't strike ME as relevant, or anything of the kind, but it's not meant to be, so I can't grill it for that, because that's subjective. However, the fact that Harrison Ford himself is older, doesn't mesh well. It's the wrong place at the wrong time.
I don't think so, nor do I think it matters particuarly much.
That's precisely why the Mummy movies, though not as good, work better in that area. Set in the 50s or whatever, but I can belief Brendan Fraser is a young, hot shot explorer capable of having fist fights and making exciting, if not amazing, scenes. I don't get that from Ford now.
Get a crocodile for history why don't you. You get what you take to it.
He "did" it in so far as putting the outfit on, starring in the movie and such. He didn't "do" it like he needed to, for me. I have no issues with him being an old soul, he's always been one, but an old soul and old body, in an "old" film? It's just not happening for me.
So its your opinion again.
What pedantic, child-like level?
Well, if it isn't intentionally, then I pity you.
The fact that I called you on liking this movie because there was a degree of saving face? I agree with you, any artform should be enjoyed first, critiqued second. What you fail to understand is that throughout this thread, you have been massively hypocritical. [/b][/quote]
Call your own bluff on hypocrisy.
You criticise me for not caring about bygone eras of cinema that are not relevant to me in the slightest, despite the fact that I care about enjoying a film, then go on to say enjoyment is the main aspect. If someone says they enjoyed it but highlight some flaws, you're all over them trying to make excuses for the flaws.
Actually, sorry to disturb the flow of your concoted notions of hypcrisy (I know, you think you're on a roll) but I was simply responding to your despondent criticisms that Indy is dated, as if that is some kind of criticism for a film self-conciously embroiled in the history of cinema. If you understood it, then your point would have been better served. But you don't.
If someone ignores the flaws, you leave it.
You've moved onto to flat out ignorance? I haven't levelled any criticism in this thread about people who critique Indy apart from yourself, and even then it was in response to your own redundant attack.
Who said that is wrong of you to enjoy? We've come a long way. Now it's "Spielberg's direction was one of the aspects I enjoyed.", as opposed to "Look at everything they've done, I find it hard to believe anyone with a remote understanding of film can not be biased toward Indiana Jones.", or something to that effect.
Don't rinse your words and take things out of context. Indiana Jones is a treat for fans of cinema. If you don't get that, then respect it, or get the point where you can enjoy that added treat.
[b]I like the direction in both The Fountain and Requiem for a Dream, I'll probably like the direction in his next movie, but if it's a shit movie, I'm not going to be biased toward it. I will single out what was good, and praise it, I will not suggest that makes the film excellent, if I even cared about that.[b]
Well, we've got there. Welcome to enlightenment (of an extent).
Originally posted by exanda kane
Well I wouldn't know whether I would have, because they did not. I gave Lucas a bashing for the prequels if anything is to go by though. Now, imply? Is that you thing where you concoct things out of thin air to improve the mindless saving of character masquerading as an argument you are using here? Don't be so stupid. I went to Iron Man because it had the pull of Robert Downey Jr and John Favreau. They delivered. It isn't any different from Indiana Jones.
Well then we differ on why we go to movies. You preach enjoyment first, but go based on big name draws, I go because I feel I'll enjoy it.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Top marks for hitting the nail on the head. It will be remembered for the flying saucer.
Being remembered for something bad is worse than being forgotten. Forgettable in the sense that it should have been forgotten as an idea, left out.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Oh look who cracked the fanatical can open. Unforgiveable? Surely you don't mean to be so melodramatic. But despite your lack of charm, yeah, you are right, it does make it a neccesarily good movie, but I enjoyed it.
It's just a word. If we're talking about flaws you can forgive/overlook, and ones you can't, that was one I couldn't. Doesn't bother me now, movie is over, but then it tainted the whole experience.
Originally posted by exanda kane
I'm telling you why I enjoyed it. Surely no need to be sour.
I'm not bitter at you not liking something I'm a fan of, it's you.
Originally posted by exanda kane
I don't think so, nor do I think it matters particuarly much.
Then we differ, clearly. Not sure why you insist it's because you have better taste than anyone disliking it.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Get a crocodile for history why don't you. You get what you take to it.
Hey, if you can't handle the fact that not everyone got what you did, then fine, but stop denying it.
Originally posted by exanda kane
So its your opinion again.
As it's always yours, what's your point?
Originally posted by exanda kane
Well, if it isn't intentionally, then I pity you.
Lovely, I'll treasure that.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Call your own bluff on hypocrisy.
How? I went in to enjoy it first, I critiqued it second.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Actually, sorry to disturb the flow of your concoted notions of hypcrisy (I know, you think you're on a roll) but I was simply responding to your despondent criticisms that Indy is dated, as if that is some kind of criticism for a film self-conciously embroiled in the history of cinema. If you understood it, then your point would have been better served. But you don't.
I fully understand it. Its intentions to pay homage or not, it's still dated. It doesn't matter what it's paying homage to.
YOU think I'm on a roll, hence the need to reply.
Originally posted by exanda kane
You've moved onto to flat out ignorance? I haven't levelled any criticism in this thread about people who critique Indy apart from yourself, and even then it was in response to your own redundant attack.
Throughout this thread you have criticised people who have criticised Indy, putting it down to your taste simply being better, browse the earlier pages for proof.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Don't rinse your words and take things out of context. Indiana Jones is a treat for fans of cinema. If you don't get that, then respect it, or get the point where you can enjoy that added treat.
How am I any less of a fan of cinema than someone who puts more importance on the technical and the historical? I still enjoy great movies or good movies as much. I'm not claiming vast, historical knowledge.
There are many so-called "fans" of cinema that didn't like this movie, what's your explanation?
Originally posted by exanda kane
Well, we've got there. Welcome to enlightenment (of an extent).
It took you a while to get it, but we got there.
-AC
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I'm in no rush to see Iron Man.
you should be Dwarf.its easily by far the best marvel comicbook movie ever.Its 10x's better than any marvel comicbook movie ever made.No contest.also,thats what you said earlier as well.I was under the impression you HAD seen it.dwarf dont be saying that until you have actually seen the WHOLE movie.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And of course you are entitled to your opinion of Iron Man, and it was not without flaw, but the flaw was what...a slightly underwhelming last fight? That, to me, was massively overwhelmed by the good the movie did. There was not enough in Indy 4 to overwhelm the flaws, in my opinion. I still had fun, if it was on TV I'd probably watch it, but I just don't think it was that good.
Ignore my other criticisms if you want, just don't expect any payout at the end.
Praise them if they deliver, don't praise them because they have, in the past, delivered. Fight Club is one of my favourite movies ever, as is American History X, Ed Norton was great in both, but then I can list three or four more movies he was shit in. I didn't assume they'd be good and praise him before seeing them, simply because I had liked films prior. What's this "too much" bs? As if your liking of Harrison Ford is conservative.
Way to reiterate my point.
Nothing here is out of my depth, because I am not discussing shit that I am no capable of discussing. You are the one desperate to drag it into the are of old Hollywood movies and influence that have no relevance to this debate, nor interest to me.
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.
I haven't dug any hole. It's a dated movie, the formula may not be, but just because Indy laid the groundwork for a lot of movies to come, doesn't entitle it to the same reaction today. Mostly because it was only formula. There are film critics way more educated than either of us who have detracted from this movie for it being dated. It's not just me.
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.
It's like Wolfmother, really. Led Zeppelin are, to me, amazing, and they laid the groundwork for most bands, but when Wolfmother come out in the past couple of years, playing that kind of music, it sounds dated. It doesn't matter that it adheres to a great blueprint, it just doesn't fit today. Arguably, neither would Zeppelin. Indiana Jones worked wonders back in the day, now I don't think it does, and I will not say it does just because it laid groundwork for movies I enjoy.
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.
I'm familiar enough to have an opinion on it.
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.
You're not correcting me. You're saying "They're not dated.". I've seen no correction, and it's not doing you any favours to go out of your way and suggest a movie we both know is probably shit, because I do not hold the latest Indy movie as high in regard as you do. I like a lot of the same movies you do, so to imply I have shit taste is to do the same of yourself
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.
Praise them for the work they've done, after they've done it and it happens to be praiseworthy. Not because they've done good before.
Stop repeating yourself. I've said as much.
It's not an issue I have, praising well-established filmmakers. The issue I have is you being so massively biased toward Lucas, Spielberg and Harrison that you'll give them praise regardless. You said YOURSELF that nothing else matters, it doesn't matter what they do in this movie, because it's Indy, that you didn't understand how anyone couldn't be biased. That's my issue with you.
Yes, biased because Indiana Jones is one of the most watchable films out there. This installment carries on the trend. 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.
Indy is dated, and it's burning you inside to know there's nothing you can ever do to prove me wrong.
With crap melodrama like that, you could write a new Star Wars film. Save it for your typewriter sonnyjim.
Indy is dated. You're not gonna prove me wrong, so it's your choice whether or not you continue piping on about it.
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.
-EK