Indiana Jones KOTCS

m83 · 26-05-2008 2:14am

what a crock of ****. i feel like vomitting now.

JangoFett · 26-05-2008 7:26am

I thought the fridge bit was deadly

COMPLETELY over the top and unrealistic! Brilliant! I never watched an Indiana Jones movie expecting it to be realistic, I wanted everything to be over the top and fantactical, and the new one provides that in spades

Beanstalk · 26-05-2008 8:33am

Yeah, I loved it, think they gave too much character time to Shia La Beouf though (not that he was bad, they just could've given more to Ford), all in all tho a class movie, I wasn't dissappointed at all. 'call it a rope, CALL IT A ROPE'

P.S. not sure why people keep saying the plot in involving

aliens

is ridiculous, I mean surely if you're gonna have that line of thinking then a violent ark that melts peoples faces, cult leaders that can rip out your heart with their bare hands, little brown stones that prevent famine and a holy grail is just as ridiculous!

Indiana Jones films are supposed to be fun and unbelievable are they not?

JCDenton · 26-05-2008 9:58am

Beanstalk wrote: »

P.S. not sure why people keep saying the plot in involving
aliens
is ridiculous, I mean surely if you're gonna have that line of thinking then a violent ark that melts peoples faces, cult leaders that can rip out your heart with their bare hands, little brown stones that prevent famine and a holy grail is just as ridiculous!

Indiana Jones films are supposed to be fun and unbelievable are they not?

I actually liked the use of the

aliens

.

Their “speculated” influence on history fit into an Indiana Jones film perfectly.

My only problem was actually seeing them. Aren’t things kept more mysterious when you know very little about them, i.e. “Why do people want that funny golden box so much, what does it actually do??”.

To me, seeing the

aliens

in KOTCS was the equivalent of seeing God himself jump out of the Ark in Raiders…

faceman · 26-05-2008 10:11am

CuLT wrote: »

It certainly felt like a film my parents would get more enjoyment out of. I expect the "original Indie generation" are at least in their 40s. 1981 is a long time ago.

I take exception to this statement on the grounds of ageism!

Im only 30, have no kids but im part of the Indy generation!!!

Beanstalk wrote: »

Yeah, I loved it, think they gave too much character time to Shia La Beouf though (not that he was bad, they just could've given more to Ford), all in all tho a class movie, I wasn't dissappointed at all. 'call it a rope, CALL IT A ROPE'

I reckon the Shia bit was thrown in as a safety net for the younger non indy generations. After all on paper a film about a 65 year old saving the day doesnt stack up!!!

I have to admit Im a bit surprised at some of the critcisms of the movie on this thread. Im not blaming lucas for the film, i blame Spielberg. Although Lucas may have rejected a great script (remains to be seen, afterall the rejected version of the Exorcist prequel that was claimed to be great, was poor), he cant be blamed for bad direction, or more so bad spielbergism.

Take the movie Heat for example. Great movie. Compare it with LA Takedown, the latter is a pile of shoite. However it has the same script. Therefore, the script has only 1 part to play. A good director is restricted by the binder of the script in front of him.

The Indy series are movies which move from one big set piece to another. Indy 4 is no different. Despite its overuse of CGI, i dont think it would have improved much if it didnt use CGI.

On another note, did anyone her FM104's review of the movie over the weekend? The reviewer said it was brilliant and would really appeal with original Indy fans because "it is just like the originals and has no CGI whatsoever!" No joke.

johnny_ultimate · 26-05-2008 11:51am

Beanstalk wrote: »

Yeah, I loved it, think they gave too much character time to Shia La Beouf though (not that he was bad, they just could've given more to Ford), all in all tho a class movie, I wasn't dissappointed at all. 'call it a rope, CALL IT A ROPE'

P.S. not sure why people keep saying the plot in involving
aliens
is ridiculous, I mean surely if you're gonna have that line of thinking then a violent ark that melts peoples faces, cult leaders that can rip out your heart with their bare hands, little brown stones that prevent famine and a holy grail is just as ridiculous!

Indiana Jones films are supposed to be fun and unbelievable are they not?

Thats exactly the arguement I made after coming out of the cinema with some friends. Indiana Jones has always been an absurd, fantastical franchise. I don't expect gritty realism when I see one, and this one has a great

sci-fi

story. It may be hard to accept the change for some, but if you just go with it its a very fun and silly story: which is exactly what I expected.

Still surprised at the negativity though. With the exception of the CGI arguement (which I still think has been exaggerated somewhat - its nowhere near as bad as I Am Legend or something like that) I think alot of it is just being overly analysed. Its just a truly enjoyable blockbuster, and thats all I expect from an Indiana Jones film: some style, humour and action, all of which I think KOTCS retains.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 26-05-2008 12:48pm

well you're just wrong.

johnny_ultimate · 26-05-2008 12:54pm

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

well you're just wrong.

Care to elaborate on that, rather than a simple 'witty' one line response?

norrie rugger · 26-05-2008 12:57pm

faceman wrote: »

Well im restrained from commenting in this last night and waited till i had a level head today.

For me the film didnt capture the magic. Maybe our expectations were high, but its just didnt wash.

Harrison did his best as Indy and tbh i cant really knock him. The script he had was dire. It lacked the witty comedy of the previous films with many of the jokes nods to previous films rather than something.

The plot was barmy.
aliens, wtf?

Many of the set pieces were poor imitations of the previous films.

The effects were poor, CGI the whole way.

The film is a bit of fun but depending on how much you cherish the previous films will determine your entertainment level. To many of us, Indy is an icon of our generation.

however if i take my indy fanboy hat off and view it as a standalone film how does it rate? Well its still a bit of fun. But it will be soon forgotten in the same vane as The mummy returns.

I can not understand the hassle about the

aliens

the first movie had magic dust, second majic rocks and the third an enchanted magic cup. All provided from some being from on high.

The ancients have huge amounts of

alien visitation

stories
Some ancient calanders are counting down to a date in 2012, with many thinking it is a

return date

Easily a valid extention of Indy's quests

The movie was weak but it was the handling of the plot (and not the plot itself) that caused it to be so. It played like National Treasure at times.

Still think that Nathan Fillion should have been given the part of Indy and had the story set in WWII

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 26-05-2008 12:58pm

nope

johnny_ultimate · 26-05-2008 1:00pm

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

nope

And hence your confrontational persona is retained.

Beanstalk · 26-05-2008 1:05pm

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

well you're just wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ8zWICKavE

Oh and to Norrie Rugger, the idea of Nathan Fillion as Indiana Jones is pretty good, he'd fit the role perfectly, but over Ford for this one? No way!!

johnny_ultimate · 26-05-2008 1:09pm

norrie rugger wrote: »

Still think that Nathan Fillion should have been given the part of Indy and had the story set in WWII

Nathan Fillion is good in anything really, but I think Indy should be left once Harrison decides to call it a day. It is his role really, and while James Bond may be an interchangable role at this point, always think Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones, and it would be pretty hard to accept anyone else in the role.

Maybe for a rejig in a few decades though...

BlitzKrieg · 26-05-2008 1:12pm

I think the problem alot of people have with the

aliens

is because of two things

1. Its bloody obvious from the first 15 minutes, there's no mystery to it throughout the film, this leads onto the problem with alot of the puzzles in the film not having any sort of logic or charm to them. Even the prior films despite being based on populer myths kept viewers interested and surprised them

Who would have seen the Ark exploding with spirits and eating people? Or the trials of the grail?

2. Its very blunt, there is something deflating when the conclusion of the film has

aliens

practically slapping the audiance in the face. there was no mystery to the conclusion, sure the ark and grail are well known jewish and christian symbols, but God never stepped out and hugged indiana jones at the end of either film.

My opinion I enjoyed the film, was good fun, but the story was very weak, characters were good and it kept very close to the indiana formula, the set pieces are good (despite some cringeworthy CGI bits. In fact the set pieces that were not heavy on CGI (

the bike chase and graveyard fight

) were excellent.

norrie rugger · 26-05-2008 1:16pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I think the problem alot of people have with the
aliens
is because of two things

1. Its bloody obvious from the first 15 minutes, there's no mystery to it throughout the film, this leads onto the problem with alot of the puzzles in the film not having any sort of logic or charm to them. Even the prior films despite being based on populer myths kept viewers interested and surprised them
Who would have seen the Ark exploding with spirits and eating people? Or the trials of the grail?

2. Its very blunt, there is something deflating when the conclusion of the film has
aliens
practically slapping the audiance in the face. there was no mystery to the conclusion, sure the ark and grail are well known jewish and christian symbols, but God never stepped out and hugged indiana jones at the end of either film.

My opinion I enjoyed the film, was good fun, but the story was very weak, characters were good and it kept very close to the indiana formula, the set pieces are good (despite some cringeworthy CGI bits. In fact the set pieces that were not heavy on CGI (
the bike chase and graveyard fight
) were excellent.

You are right, there was no need to see

aliens

and having the skull as a

beacon to begin transporting the ancient artifacts back would have worked just as well, along the lines of "they are calling for their stuff and anyone here will be taken too"

norrie rugger · 26-05-2008 1:19pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Maybe for a rejig in a few decades though...

Lol, it already has been a few decades (19 years like)
this so could have been the rejig

m83 · 26-05-2008 1:21pm

I just can't get over how bad this movie was on almost every level. No wonder Lucas and co are laughing all the way to the bank when the can make such utter drivel as this and completely get away with it.

Take the Indy franchise out of this movie and you're left with a sub par B movie. Not saying that the Indy theme added to the experience, merely that it has blinded peoples perception of the truth.

johnny_ultimate · 26-05-2008 1:21pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I think the problem alot of people have with the
aliens
is because of two things

1. Its bloody obvious from the first 15 minutes, there's no mystery to it throughout the film, this leads onto the problem with alot of the puzzles in the film not having any sort of logic or charm to them. Even the prior films despite being based on populer myths kept viewers interested and surprised them
Who would have seen the Ark exploding with spirits and eating people? Or the trials of the grail?

2. Its very blunt, there is something deflating when the conclusion of the film has
aliens
practically slapping the audiance in the face. there was no mystery to the conclusion, sure the ark and grail are well known jewish and christian symbols, but God never stepped out and hugged indiana jones at the end of either film.

My opinion I enjoyed the film, was good fun, but the story was very weak, characters were good and it kept very close to the indiana formula, the set pieces are good (despite some cringeworthy CGI bits. In fact the set pieces that were not heavy on CGI (
the bike chase and graveyard fight
) were excellent.

There is indeed a lot of exposition - that would be my major criticism of it. They do have a constant need to remind us that

"oohh aliens!"

. Definitely overdone plot on occasion. But I liked the ending, think it worked well.

the spaceship flying away was well handled, reminded me of the end of Close Encounters. The bit with the alien himself was excessive and probably could have been left out, although I liked Cate Blanchett's death - felt very similiar to the way the other villians were killed with face melting / exploding this and that / rapid aging

.

But the set pieces you mentioned were the reasons I enjoyed it so much - in particular the

motorbike chase, and Indy taking down the poison dart blower

. Even the central

car chase was a lot of fun, although it could have done without that stupid swinging sequence. That was the one bit that was cringeworthy - bad, bad decision.

faceman · 26-05-2008 1:28pm

norrie rugger wrote: »

I can not understand the hassle about the
aliens
the first movie had magic dust, second majic rocks and the third an enchanted magic cup. All provided from some being from on high.

The ancients have huge amounts of
alien visitation
stories
Some ancient calanders are counting down to a date in 2012, with many thinking it is a
return date

Easily a valid extention of Indy's quests

Im going to throw a theory i have about it out there. Given the massive oversatuation of mystery alien tv and film since the last Indy film, there isnt really much excitement or mysticism an Indy film can add to it.

One of the big draws for the plots of Raiders and Cruscade was the intertwining of Christian beliefs. (i.e. the Ark and the Grail) Da Vinci code had a similar affect. I cant really pin point why this has such a pull, but it just seems to work.

ojewriej · 26-05-2008 1:49pm

Watched it yesterday morning, and was quite dissapointed to be honest.

i didn't really have a problem with

aliens

storyline, but overuse of CGI did bother me. Indy films are famous for good ole fashioned stuntwork, and they could use some more of it here.

Jumping a'la Tarzan

was just too much.

I found dialogue pretty bad as well. Performances were not great either, but I did like Cate Blanchet.

But overall, I didn't think it was a bad film, just a bad Indy film. As someone said before, it looks like they went for a new audience, kids and teenagers, instead of maturing it together with it's original fans. It's not really that surprising, as LucasArts did the same thing with Star Wars. Someone has to buy the action figures i suppose.

All in all, I'll probably go and see the next one, but I certainly won't be looking forward to it as much as i did to this one.

Zulu · 26-05-2008 1:55pm

Let me see, what words would I use to describe this....

I'll need a "shit" anyways. Probably a "big" and a "bag" aswell. Oh and and "of" also.

0ubliette · 26-05-2008 3:26pm

If it had relied on traditional action, stnts and good sets a la raiders/crusade, and hadnt had such a ridiculous ending, i think this would have been a good indy film. As it is, george lucas needs to understand that just because you CAN make the most outlandish, ridiculous stunts known to man with the use of CGI, doesnt mean that you SHOULD.

Fizman · 26-05-2008 3:27pm

magick wrote: »

I mean Whaaa daaa f/ck ?!
John Hurt well known and respected actor completely wasted in this wreck of a movie.

That made the whole thing as weak as a bridge made outta butter in the hot summer with lepers doing the maintenance while being attacked by hungry rats, with bus loads of school children on their way to see the movie fall off the bridge and survive only to be raped by the lepers and eaten alive at the same time by the rats.

All in all id prefer getting stabbed than sitting though this again.

+742

You've vividly captured the experience of sitting through this film in that paragraph there! LMAO

Could not have put it better myself

jackdaw · 26-05-2008 5:18pm

Cactus Col wrote: »

I really enjoyed it. I think people are being far too harsh on the plot the
aliens
are no more far fetched then the Ark of the Covenant, or the Holy Grail.
.

Yes but the tradition of Indy films is more religious or Ghostly fantasy rather
then sci fci ... this is indiana jones meets The X files ... it just didn't mix..

smcgiff · 26-05-2008 7:48pm

In smcgiff's Dimension Indiana Jones is a trilogy and finished after TLC.

Zulu · 26-05-2008 8:12pm

more like indiana jones and the

stargate

smcgiff · 26-05-2008 9:41pm

Streaming it right now from a decent quality internet site. Hopefully it will have improved with "age".:cool:

Tusky · 26-05-2008 9:49pm

Just seen this today and I am terribly disappointed. Most of my frustrations with the movie have already been stated but I'll go through them again.

-The Opening

The openings to the original trilogy are fantastic set pieces. The escape from the temple in Raiders, the shootout/car chase in Temple & the chase on the train full of animals in Last Crusade are all iconic scenes. The opening to Crystal Skull doesn't come close to those scenes.

-Overuse of CGI

Not only was the CGI over used, it looked awful! I thought Harrison had said that the only way he would do the film without CGI ? Pretty much every action scene had lots of CGI which automatically takes away from the charm which makes the original films so damn good. As another poster has said, the action without notciable CGI (i.e the bike chase) were by far the best scenes.

-The Jokes

I barely laughed during the film and lots of the jokes fell on their face.

-Storyline

aliens?, UFOs ?

- thought that was pretty cringe worthy. I was never a massive fan of the

supernatural

elements in the original trilogy but I felt this took it way too far.

It felt like someone trying to make an Indy movie rather than a genuine Indy movie. There were things I liked about it. It had some great scenes, Harrison was good but seemed to struggle to get into it at the beginning. I thought Shia was very good and he really lifted scenes that he was in.

26-05-2008 9:52pm

Zulu wrote: »

more like indiana jones and the
stargate

First thing I did when I left the cinema was text a friend and tell him that I was pretty sure that the new Indy film may have started as a sequel to

Stargate

norrie rugger · 26-05-2008 10:23pm

For a condensed version see the stargate episode with the crystal skull, that did strange things when you looked into the eyes

it also had the skulls cut against the grain and large aliens taking people in the end

Indiana Jones KOTCS

Comments