New Indy movie

[noelani72]

I was disappointed...
-Dave

Ok, safe for me to post since you did the spoiler plug...but I agree.
Here's our scenario...
I have not followed any Internet Spoilers...neither has my son.
My 13 year old son has really grown to like Egyptology and Archeology..so naturally, the Indy stuff fits him. He was so excited, he wanted me to take him to the Midnight showing on Wednesday..but I was too tired..told him we'd go see it Thursday at 7pm. Yesterday was my wedding anniversary and I had already promised Sean we'd go to the movies. So I told him it would have to wait until Friday night so the Mrs. and myself could go out to dinner. Well, Sean was disappointed...I told the wife what I did and she didn't mind if dinner went short...so i took Sean to the show.
Yeah, we laughed here and there..thought "this" was cool or "that" was cool...but ya know..it just didn't feel right to me....he looked like he was enjoying, so i let the magic do its thing.
As we walked out...he asked me what I thought...i kept the poker face on...saying it was alright...well...he blindsided me.
A 13 year old boy, who is into this stuff...told his father it wasn't worth the excitement. He was totally upset it centered around Aliens...he was wanting indy to chase down that illusive treasure...he kept sayin "aliens? how could they have done aliens?"

WOW.
Totally was not expecting that, even though that is how I felt.

It was a good summer popcorn movie..but I am completely and utterly tired of Lucas *******izing these shows. I am done with him. getting me to pay for a ticket to see his stuff is over. Having the backbone of Spielburg, Frank Marshall and that gal who produced ET...gave me a sense of security...made me feel it was actually going to be a great Indiana Jones flick....it was not. I could have waited for dvd.

harrison is a great actor, but was too old to play the part...not to be an oxy moron, but he was physically fit...at least portrayed so. it was really nice for me to see the nod to Marcus Brody and Jones Sr. in that one scene.

Now. Stop reading this and go see Iron Man if you haven't already...THAT was a fun, action packed exciting movie.

[David Lee]

Of course he's un-phased! He's our tough-as-nails, seen-it-all hero. After experiencing the supernatural wonders that he has (from the previous movies), the idea of "little green men from Mars" would just seem like another "...bedtime story..." to him... until he experiences it for himself up close.

I love the "hinted-at" history that is revealed about INDY in this film! He's been a busy boy since we last saw him! Working as a spy for the US government, and recruited as part of the recovery team at the alien crash site at Roswell New Mexico... Sheesh!! This is NOT the same Indiana Jones who first walked into that South American temple back in 1938, and could not see past the "reality" of the nose on his own face.

I did like the hint at what Herr Jones had been up to, that was nice... The "Mac" character, who was the only tie in to these exploits, is very underdeveloped though, and I didn't buy into him at all. Oh and who were the graveyard "undead" type guys? Who were the temple protectors? These elements were very "thrown in" and not even explained, much less developed. And while I don't have a problem with Aliens per se, where is the build up, the misdirection the mystery? You know where this is headed from Scene 1!

Back to Aliens; the reason I am always hesitant on this direction is because it a plot "cop out", need and explaination? it's Aliens... got a thin plot? sure it up with unexplainable Alien technology/Anatomy/Powers... This is a prime example, IMO, of how this is all to often done. Why not keep it shrouded, and give more backstory to the mysterious Mayan benefactors... why did native bind their kids heads? to look like aliens! This was a cursory explaination that would have been a great addition if explored just a bit more.

I guess what it comes down to is; I expected more from Lucas and the Indy Franchise... I know folks will disagree, but I am not giving it a pass just because it's Indiana Jones...

-Dave

[Vortigern99]

Really? [Raiders of the Lost Ark] "Extremely realistic"? Which part? You mean the moment where he his hurled out onto the hood of a speeding truck, crawls underneath it, is dragged behind it by his bull whip, and then climbs up along the back? Or maybe you're referring to the part where he rides outside / atop a sealed, submerged sub-marine all the way to a remote island... without drowning.

No, no, no wait! I know which "extremely realistic" part of the film you mean: It's the bit with all the flying ghosts that come out of the opened Ark of The Covenant, and all the nazis are melted and exploded with the magical power of the wrath of God... a firestorm that literally sweeps through the island... but INDY and Marion survive because they... close their eyes.

Sure things got bigger and more outlandish with each successive INDY film. But that outlandishness was built on the shoulders of the established otlandish style of the original fim. Incredibly outlandish by 1981 standards. But actually pretty tame by today's cinematic action picture standards.

As time passed, the appetites of audiences for bigger, bolder, and more outlandish set pieces just grew exponentially. And George and Steven and Harrision delivered in spades... just like with this latest film.

Look, I know that some folks are going to have issues with the Matt Williams vine swinging scene from this flick. But I gotta tell you, for me, it was brilliant. I saw it exactly for what it was: A clever homage / tip of the hat to the saturday-matinee serials and Tarzan adventures that George and Steven grew up with, loved and were inspired by.

These films have always been a clever blend of something old, something new, something borrowed, and lots of eye-candy that you've NEVER seen before.

I don't know. It just seems that George is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't: If he gives people similar stuff to anything seen in a previous "classic" film of his own, they'll accuse him of repeating himself or re-hashing. If he attempts to go in even a slightly new direction with any of his franchises, he is accused of "violating the integrity of the saga". The poor guy can't win.

I LOVE the original Raiders of the Lost Ark. But the truth is that if it were released today, it would NOT pack the kind of action-punch "wow-factor" that contemporary audiences have come to expect. It would be considered slow-paced and somewhat dull by today's standards.

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.

[noelani72]

and to also note- I do NOT like the ending...they left it open to Shia donning the fedora and becoming the next Indy.
If they migrate the franchise to a trilogy featuring Mutt as the next archeologist/adventurer....I will not support it.

This show also reminded me of how the Matthew Brodrick Godzilla fiasco...yea, we all wanted godzilla..we got something far from expectations. if it would not have been called "Godzilla", then yea, it would have done much better. So, if this Indy 4 would have been something else..not tied to the 3 Raiders movies...I would have probably liked it more.

[David Lee]

So, if this Indy 4 would have been something else..not tied to the 3 Raiders movies...I would have probably liked it more.

Exactly... and I second the IRON MAN comment, a great summer flick to check out!

-Dave

here's how I really feel...

http://www.cafepress.com/notdolls.264076799

[RG]

I loved it ... sure it has issues, and I still love Raiders the best. But This one has a lot of good stuff in it. I liked the additon of Mutt. where going into the film I wasn't too sure of the idea, but it works great. The Sci-Fi stuff I thought fit great with the time being set in the 50's.

I'd give it a strong 8 out 10

[Goblin19]

I liked it. It's not great but does fit in nicely with the sequels, neither of which hold a candle to Raiders. If Raiders is an A+, then this would be a B. BTW, Last Crusade would be a B+ and Doom would be a C+ in my book. I won't go into any spoilers.

[darklord1967]

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.

I can be a real a--hole sometimes in the way I forcefully, and snarkily express my opinion. For that I apologize. I can assure you, my words are meant to be expressed tongue firmly in cheek.

I know exactly what you meant, good buddy, and I was only yankin' yer chain.

Furthermore, you make some VERY good and valid points in regards to the different degrees of verismilitude in the two films (sometimes I think Richard Donner actually coined that term while making the first Supes film back in '78)

Interestingly enough, I went to see this film only hours after our last debate exchange regarding UFOs and extra-terrestrial visitation to this planet. I studiously avoided all plot points about this movie before going in, so it was a real surprise to me when the story went in that direction. And of course I could not help but think of you and our debate when the film was over.

But I'm glad that the film wasn't a total disappointment for you, and that you got some enjoyment out of it.

[Vortigern99]

Wow, thanks for thinking of me, darklord -- as I did you when I saw the film! And we only just met. Sometimes it's hard to get one's humorous tone across in these blankety-blank message boards, and I hope I didn't err in taking you too seriously. I'm glad we can talk about these things, and even disagree, and still have a good time doing it.

All the IJ movies are great, I love them, and beyond that it's fun to point out the flaws as one perceives them. I actually really enjoyed the new movie, I saw it with a riotous crowd at midnight and we all laughed and cheered all the way through. The "interdimensional traveller" angle was a real treat, I thought it was awesome. I can be a skeptic about that kind of thing and still enjoy it as a piece of adventure fiction. After all, I don't believe the Ark of the Covenant exists or has powers, but Raiders truly is one of the best films of all time.

This one is a close third for me in the series, just behind Temple of Doom, but before Last Crusade, which now has the disctinction of being the weakest Indy movie in my book. And it's still a damn good film.

[Brue]

Not a classic but a fun movie. I agree that the sci fi ending was foreshadowed to say the least but even still - I just didn't want my indiana jones adventures to go so sci fi. -then again maybe they are asking us to consider that it is not sci fi?

my friend todd noted that speilberg had gone full circle from Close Encounters.

[Brue]

I liked it. It's not great but does fit in nicely with the sequels, neither of which hold a candle to Raiders. If Raiders is an A+, then this would be a B. BTW, Last Crusade would be a B+ and Doom would be a C+ in my book. I won't go into any spoilers.

agreed !

[SlipperyLilSuckers]

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

[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.

[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

[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