New Indy movie

[huedell]

Remind your wife the "aliens" were actually travellers between dimensions. I find this softens the astonished reaction of those who hate the idea of sci-fi in IJ. As interdimensional travellers they retain their mystique somewhat and also could still be considered "gods" as opposed to "spacemen".

the idea that gods are any more believable than spacemen has got a certain
uncomfortableness about it for me---probably best not to be dissected
here

[Vortigern99]

Remind your wife the "aliens" were actually travellers between dimensions. I find this softens the astonished reaction of those who hate the idea of sci-fi in IJ. As interdimensional travellers they retain their mystique somewhat and also could still be considered "gods" as opposed to "spacemen".

[Airdave817]

Indiana Jones & the Close Encounter with E.T Episode IV: A New Hope

We were coming out fo the theatre and my wife, Cathy, turns to me and says, "We could have seen Iron Man again!"

She didn't like it, didn't like it at all. Thought the atomic bomb testing was too graphic and the whole premise (aliens) was too far fetched.

I told her it was the '50's. Science fiction was HUGE. look at Back to the Future.

I put it in the same place - better than Temple of Doom, but not as good as Raiders or Last Crusade. I wouldn't gush over it as much as Ebert would.

The movie really didn't start to sparkle until Marion showed up. Who doesn't still have a crush on her, huh? She still looks hot.

I haven't read very much about the movie, but where was Sallah? Marcus and Indy's dad were covered, but there was no mention at all of Sallah. No John Rhys-Davies - what's up with that?

[huedell]

WARNING SPOILERS:
*****************************

-
-
-

I loved the movie---but was kinda puzzled by its weaknesses at the same time.

Hionestly, I didn't think Speilberg/Lucas/Ford could come up with a finished
product that I was so on the fence about as KOTCS.

The "riddles" or other such things that came together in the search for
the ultimate prize (The City Of Gold/The knowledge of the aliens) did
not come across as fun or understandable or nice and neat as:
the staff of Ra--or the grail tablets--
-nor did the story seem as sensible as a village's children
having to be rescued from a mass kidnapping by a religious cult searching
for spiritual stones

The double/triple (ha ha) agent guy's character was lame right up until his death
--and his last lines

I disagree about the "alien" aspect of the movie being a "bad ending" for
the sake of the aliens alone.
HOWEVER....
The overall ending and death of Blanchett's character seemed a bit forced
---something didn't seem paced right---or it was just too obvious what was
going to happen and when (aliens or not)
----(and Marion DEFINITELY should've asked if they should cover their eyes
when calamity set in soon after JONES uttered that famous "I've Got A Bad...F.A.T." line
from STAR WARS----"No Marion just GET out of here!")

All in all it was a great time at the movies for ME---I've seen it twice already and will
probably see it more times---(and buy the toys too!)

but would I recommend the movies to OTHERS?
I really--even though I'd LIKE to---don't think I can.

[BlackKnight]

Took the Boy Today.
I enjoyed the Movie. It was great to see Ford Play Indiana Again.

[saildog]

I still plan on going next Thursday, despite reading about the lame-o ending. Darklord1967 made some points that snapped me back to reality (thanks!), so I'm going to reserve judgment until I have actually seen the movie.

I plan on making an afternoon of it. We have a new theater a short drive South that is a throwback to when movie theaters were a big deal. I plan to shell out the extra cash to sit in the balcony. They have a call button on the seats, wait staff that will bring items from a lunch/dinner menu and adult beverages. (Must be at least 21 to sit in the balcony.)

[Steeler80]

I'm hoping that after I have some time, I'll come to appreciate it more. I'm very glad that there are some who loved it. I wouldn't wish the sinking feeling I had Wednesday night/Thursday morning on any movie fan.

[garagesale]

Without going into much detail, I can only say I thought it was GREAT FUN. It felt like we had come to a really nice ending for the IJ series.

I look forward to LaBoeuf taking up a new franchise as a different type of adventurer in some similar types of films. I would watch those. However, I think it's time to end IJ-proper once and forever.

JamesD

[toys2cool]

It was good I guess,not as good as the original ones,but good enough

[Evel KMego]

I liked it. I'd give it a "B". Unlike the return to the Star Wars franchise, that resembled the originals in name only ( and R2D2 was in them), This one felt like it could have been released only a couple of years after The Last Crusade and no one would have noticed. There were some corny scenes, etc. but overall, very nice!

[JPkempo]

The ending is still much much better then the end of ther POTA re-make

[Monkey Magic]

Yes, you are exactly right! I should have been more clear and stated a lame-o Deus ex machina plot device. I'm not opposed to all movies that have employed it (kind of the point of the Ten Commandments). An example of bad for me was The Abyss; a great movie until every problem was solved by a giant soap dish floating up and saving all parties.

I agree the ending felt exactly like the Abyss

[Monkey Magic]

I just watched the film and although it has some good bits (good not fantastic)
all in all the ending is just crap

3 good film's, wait a few years then spoil it and pee all over the memory with a rubbish return to the franchise

guess you learnt nothing from going back to mess with star wars George
thats two times in a row now

[YoungOnce]

This is a simple difference of opinion over a question of aesthetic judgement, which is purely subjective. You have your feelings and perceptions on the matter, and I have mine. I am not "damning" George Lucas and I am not "damning" Steven Spielberg. Why should I? They are authors and filmmakers, and I've been admiring their works for decades. So please, do not consider my gentle criticisms of the new Indiana Jones movie as some kind of insult upon their genius, or as a slap-the-face to those, like yourself, who appear to unreservedy accept and adore every facet of their entire collected output. I like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and had a great time seeing it at a midnight showing, the minute of its release, with a legion of vociferous fans, including myself. But I have a few issues with some of the choices made, and with the style of filmmaking that is so different from the realistic presentation of the original, Raiders of the Lost Ark.

You may mock my calling Raiders "realistic" all you like, and you are free to point out all of the fantastical elements the movie includes. But when I talk about realism I am talking about the degree of verisimilitude (= "real-seeming") with which events are depicted. In Raiders the fantastical elements are presented as though they are happening in the real world. We know, of course, that such events as hanging by a bullwhip from the back of a moving truck, riding a large statue through a brick wall, and ghost-spirits being released from an ancient religious artifact could not actually happen in real life. But the movie shows us these happenings as though they could. That is the difference. In Crystal Skull, for example, Mutt swings on vines through the jungle as though he is a very skillful and impressive special effect rendition of a guy swinging on vines through the jungle. The filmmakers make no attempt to depict this event as though it's actually occurring in a real-world setting in which the laws of physics, gravity and human muscular potential are in operation. It's a cartoon, a wink-wink "Hey Kids! Look at this!" moment that utterly defies any sense of reality. It's an homage to Tarzan, certainly, and I loves me some Tarzan; but were there any such blatant and improbable "homages" in the original film? Raiders took itself seriously, even when it was making us laugh.

In Raiders, Jones suffers from the various injuries he has accrued through the course of his adventures so far; he hurts, and his experience of pain, and his unwillingness to be touched as a result of it, is cleverly woven into the romantic subplot of the story. In Crystal Skull the characters remain implacably cheerful and energetic, seemingly immune to pain, hardly disheveled in the slightest by their arduous cross-jungle and waterfall-descending journey. They are like cartoon characters, immune to the elements, resistant to all injury, and their clothes and hair retain a freshly-scrubbed, just-off-the-rack appearance that utterly defies the verissimilitudinous approach set down in the original film.

Again, I had fun with the movie. I like the interdimensional traveller sublot (and here I want to stress that the creatures of the crystal skull are not aliens from space, but rather travellers between dimensions, a subtle distinction which retains their supernatural mystique and their potential to be classified as "gods"). The dynamic between Mutt and Indy makes for some classic father-son moments, the script is lively and witty, and overall the film is a riotous good time. But it isn't in the same vein as Raiders, and it isn't as good -- not by a long shot.

Hey Vortigern99,

I agree. It seems like the creators become so concerned that they top their previous creations that they forget why they became so popular. I'm sure they go into production meetings thinking "ok... we have to top the last one...what can we do?"

The ending of the first Indy film was bought into by the audience exactly because the story didn't go too far testing the audience's suspension of belief. Yes it was a high-class send up of Saturday serials, but the fact that it was treated plausibly was satisfying to inner-geeks everywhere.

The next Indy film, Temple, was still fun to me but when they used an inflatable raft for a parachute and when the mining cart jumped off the track and landed back on the track over the abyss, it was like a switch was turned on... "ok... they are making fun of their own movie now...". That's all fine, and still can be entertaining as all get out, but the magic of believing dissappears.

Similarly, the tv show LOST is doing the same thing. It started out with the producers saying that everything fantastic that is happening on the island has some scientific explanation. That premise made the show so much more interesting because there were elements that defied rationality and you couldn't wait to see how they expained it.

Now they have gone full-tilt sci-fi and there is no longer that feeling that the show has a logical real-world premise. It's still fun, but the writers no longer have to worry about keeping the viewers suspension of disbelief intact.

It's a subtle thing but apparantly, hard to achieve.

[SlipperyLilSuckers]

I saw it tonight and was disappointed. If I could only use one word to describe it, I would have to say "corny".