Indiana Jones KOTCS

Karl Hungus

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/06/04/is-nuke-the-fridge-the-new-jump-the-shark/

monkeyfudge

But Gremlins 2 was awesome!

BlitzKrieg

gremlins 2 was brilliant!

Basq

monkeyfudge wrote: »

But Gremlins 2 was awesome!

Agreed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-GdmYc7RA

Sherifu

*cold sweats*

Mark Hamill

Karl Hungus wrote: »

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/06/04/is-nuke-the-fridge-the-new-jump-the-shark/

I think George Lucas has "nuked the fridge"

AlmightyCushion

Seen this the other night and I wasn't impressed with it. It was all right and had some good scenes but it was ruined by some awful scenes though. That whole scene with the sword fight and the swinging from trees was brutal and used way too much cgi.

What was the deal with the skulls magnetism? It just seemed to become magnetic all of a sudden and only seemed to attact certain items. Like the scene where he's looking for it in the army base. Indy throws the gun powder into the air, we hear a wierd sound and the gun powder flies across the room, yet none of the soldiers weapons moved. How does shít like that not realised when writing the script?

Necronomicon

I'm not a huge Indy fan so I didn't have many expectations going in to this. I thought it was enjoyable but not great by any means.

I think what bothered a lot of people about the

aliens

angle was that it didn't have the mystery of the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail. It was explained straight out, pretty early on in the movie. I take L31mr0d's arguement that the

presence of the aliens

wasn't the mystery itself, but after the early revelation it was largely forgotten about until near the end. I think the revelations in the last few scenes would've been more exciting had they not introduced the idea so early on.

Some of the action scenes couldn't be faulted though. The whole scene in the jungle had me gripped (apart from

seeing Shia Buff Tarazan-ing through the trees and a bit of dodgy CGI

).

Enjoyable enough overall but I wouldn't rush to see it again. It does make me want to refresh my memory on the original trilogy though.

Just back from seeing it for the second time and I have to admit that I enjoyed it a lot more second time round. Think my lack of expectations this time may have helped.

veloc123

Everything was like in slow motion to allow Harrison to catch up...couldn't wait until it was over!!

BurnsCarpenter

Thought it was enjoyable popcorn material.
Definitely not up there with the original trilogy though.
The opening shot was appalling, the

fridge thing

was a bit WTF, and overall it just didn't feel very natural. Ford didn't seem comfortable - not just age-wise.

maverickIRL

doesn't come close to the orginal trilogy - but you have to go see it because
it's indiana jones - 6/10.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

paying to see this movie will just send the wrong signal to speilberg/lucas. you know what you have to do people.

smcgiff

maverickIRL wrote: »

doesn't come close to the orginal trilogy - but you have to go see it because
it's indiana jones - 6/10.

That about sums up my take on the movie.

One last comment I'd make about the

Aliens

. It's not that it was so unbelievable that put me off - because, personally, this is infinitely more plausible than the God stuff - oh and we never saw God in the trilogy, here we get to see

a caricature of an ET - blah!

The book does go into slightly more back story. The biggest difference to the film was

Indy discovered how to get inside the pyramid and not Ox in the book - Unfortunately it contained the bloody Tarzan scene.

Pigman II

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

paying to see this movie will just send the wrong signal to speilberg/lucas. you know what you have to do people.

Cinemas are gonna have a set number of blockbusters every summer and I'd rather they filled this slot with another Indy movies as opposed to another Iron Man or Fantastic Four movie for example. Now there's total tripe in a canister if ever I saw it!

Anyway , KOTCS passed $500 million at this point so there probably will be Indy5 now whether one chooses to go see it or not at this point.

smcgiff

Pigman II wrote: »

whether one chooses to go see it or not at this point.

Oh, we'll see it - Whether we add to Lucas' millions in the process is another story! :pac:

Pigman II

smcgiff wrote: »

Oh, we'll see it - Whether we add to Lucas' millions in the process is another story! :pac:

Billions actually.

Full_Circle

Pigman II wrote: »

Cinemas are gonna have a set number of blockbusters every summer and I'd rather they filled this slot with another Indy movies as opposed to another Iron Man or Fantastic Four movie for example. Now there's total tripe in a canister if ever I saw it!

That statement seems to imply that you found this Indy movie preferable to the Iron Man movie. How is this possible?

Mr E

Frank Darabonts original script has been leaked to the internet.... You can read more about it here (explanation of the differences, and why it sounds like a much better film), and you can download it here!

Paramount will hunt and destroy the PDF links as they pop up, so grab it while you can...

ojewriej

Mr E wrote: »

Frank Darabonts original script has been leaked to the internet.... You can read more about it here (explanation of the differences, and why it sounds like a much better film), and you can download it here!

Paramount will hunt and destroy the PDF links as they pop up, so grab it while you can...

Very interesting, thanks for that

Hugh_C

I went with my 8-year-old son, I'm in my 40s so I guess I qualify as the original Indy generation. I enjoyed it for what it was, a lot, but I tend to leave my disbelief at the door of the cinema, I walk into a pure fantasy world. I suppose that also may be because I'm a film editor by trade and want to not have to think or over analyse stuff. Sure, the movie cheesy and unbelievable in places, but I think Ford pulled it off and I thought Kate Blanchett was a great baddie - there again she'd make a great anything in my book. CGI? It's there for a purpose and makes a great fight/chase scene. The

aliens

, well they're no better or worse than the spirits in Ark.

I've got a great kick out of reading the screaming indignation and outrage contained in places in this thread - ah c'mon - it's only a movie lad/ettes, it's only a couple of hours out of your lives and only the price of a drink or two or the packet of fags.

Thumbs up! 'roll on no. 5

PS did anyone notice the Ark being revealed in the opening act? Leaves a sequel on the cards ...

Mr E

I think the Ark at the beginning was a nod to the earlier movie (rather than a catalyst for a new sequel). You'll remember that the Ark was tucked away in a huge warehouse of wooden boxes at the end of Raiders... that is where the start of this movie was set.

Hugh_C

Mr E wrote: »

You'll remember that the Ark was tucked away in a huge warehouse

uhh, that's why I said it ..

FourMasters

Anyone know if Sean Connery was offered a cameo and turned it down (after he'd read the script :rolleyes:)?

I saw this yesterday afternoon - there were about 30 primary schoolkids there, well behaved, I think a teacher was with them on a school trip. As someone old enough to see the originals in the cinema, I ended up being more interested in watching their reaction. There was open derision at the Tarzan scene (well done, kids). The gophers didn't get much of a chuckle. The only scenes that seemed to provoke excitement were the

red ants pulling yer man into the anthill, and the waterfall scenes (personally, given that we've already had a waterfall scene in an Indy film, I thought it was pure laziness to stick in three.

I hear that this film is grossing huge at the box office - but I wonder if that's made up of adults reliving the old Indy experience. Didn't seem to me to do a good job in setting up the kid (Shia) as the next Indy for a new generation.

Jello

Finally saw it tonight and must say I really enjoyed it - good old fashioned, over-the-top entertainment. Thought Ford did a great job.

jackdaw

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?

Why are people using the fact that Raiders and Holy grail are far fetched as well ... ??

yes they are

BUT .. that doesn't excuse the poorness of this film, it's not that it's far fetched , its the

Alien

aspect of this movie that doesn't mix
with an Indy movie ... it's like Custard and Steak .. I love them separately but together ???


Another thing ... I can't find a bad review of this movie .. even respected
newspapers are giving this ****e a good review.. it's like they are being paid
by Paramount Pictures to give good reviews .. you have to come here or
other forums for the truthful opinions..

DeepBlue

jackdaw wrote: »

Another thing ... I can't find a bad review of this movie .. even respected
newspapers are giving this ****e a good review.. it's like they are being paid
by Paramount Pictures to give good reviews .. you have to come here or
other forums for the truthful opinions..

Hasn't that been the way for years though? Film and media enjoy a symbiotic, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" relationship for aeons now and it would take a ballsy reviewer to call a blockbuster movie made by any of the heavyweights such as Spielberg and Lucas as crap.

It can be amusing to see how reviews change the further away you get from release date i.e.
Release date: Excellent (5 stars),
DVD review: Good (3 stars),
A year later after all the money is made: Disappointing (1 star).

Of course I could just be a cynic......

Slightly off topic....

Mr E wrote: »

Frank Darabonts original script has been leaked to the internet.... You can read more about it here (explanation of the differences, and why it sounds like a much better film), and you can download it here!

Paramount will hunt and destroy the PDF links as they pop up, so grab it while you can...

That download link has been nuked but you can get it here atm.

jackdaw

DeepBlue wrote: »

Slightly off topic....



That download link has been nuked but you can get it here atm.

Great thanks!!

what about the discussion between the differences .. the other link ..
won't work for me ...

Mully

jackdaw wrote: »

Great thanks!!

what about the discussion between the differences .. the other link ..
won't work for me ...

At the top of the page, it says;
If you are not redirected automatically, click here to continue to g4tv.com


This fixes the issue.

Ardent

Sad Professor wrote: »

Why does Doom get so much flak? I watched it again a few nights ago and it's a great film, a helluva lot better than Crusade which was basically a slapstick, light-weight rip-off of Raiders. Connery is the only thing that saves it. I'd rather watch Capshaw take the brunt of all the jokes than Indy himself. It's partially because of the negative reaction to Doom that we ended up with KOTCS.

Agree wholeheatedly. Temple Of Doom, while not as good as Raiders, is an inifinitely superior film to The Last Crusade.

MisterAnarchy

Watched this last night.
The first hour wasnt too bad but after that it just degenerated into a horrific shambles.
It was like watching cartoon characters it was so preposterous.
Jones was pretty much indestructable in this film .
The cgi was atrocious and there were far too many camp and over the top scenes.
There was absolutely no suspense or tension in the whole film.
Didnt think the score was well used either.
Its about time George Lucas disappeared,his recent attempts at filmwriting have been appalling.
4/10