Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Indy 4
WORF
The Burninator
in Zocalo v2.0
I just got back from seeing it and thought it lived up to the originals.
[spoiler]I figured out that would be is son from the trailer released a few months back. Interesting that there were aliens involved but then I suppose Indy has encountered extra terrestrials before with Fate of Atlantis. It was funny to see the Ark make a brief cameo as well.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]I figured out that would be is son from the trailer released a few months back. Interesting that there were aliens involved but then I suppose Indy has encountered extra terrestrials before with Fate of Atlantis. It was funny to see the Ark make a brief cameo as well.[/spoiler]
Comments
Worf
But unfortunately, that's all i can agree with. IMHO there was quite a bit of "George Lucas meddling" in the movie, and part of me thinks the main reason that this script was filmed is that finally he signed off on a script and Spielberg and Ford just were happy to produce anything...
What i have a big problem with is that it seems the only location shooting was done in the beginning for Spoiler: the approach to area 51 and the chase around the city. Everything else looks like it has been shot on a stage with bluescreeen. Also, way too much CGI for an Indiana Jones movie.
Storywise, one additional polish-pass on the script ( Spoiler: for example to loose the alien angle... really, the Indy movies were about religious artifacts with supernatural powers, now suddenly there are aliens?????) would have hugely benefitted the movie.
Though it doesn't ***** my childhood memories or dimishes the old movies, I do think that the overuse of CGI, the cobbled-together feeling of storyline and action sequences (I had quite a few moments where i thought "how did this chase/fight start?"), and the overall absence of anything new makes this, if not undeserving of beeing called an Indiana Jones movie, then at least the weakest entry in the series.
I liked the way they brought the franchise into the 1950s. Pretending the only a couple of years had passed since the last movie would have been a mistake for a number of (obvious) reasons. And I thought they did a great job of capturing the "feel" of the 1950s.
I liked how they kept making reference to Indy's age, acknowledging that he is getting too old to do this.
Nice use of humor. Spielberg is good at many things, but his subtle use of humor as well as his well placed jokes always make for a fun ride.
Action sequences were a lot of fun in spite of all the CGI.
It was just great seeing Indy back in action.
The bad:
Spoiler: I agree with RubberEagle: Aliens?!? Seriously?!? This is not what Indiana Jones is about.
The part where Indy survived a nuclear blast was WAY over the top. Lead lined fridge? OK, I'll suspend disbelief for that. Flying through the air like Wiley Coyote? That's just too much.
As stated above, there was entirely too much CGI in this movie. Each of the others had a small amount but this kind of was ridiculous. I officially hate George Lucas.
I want to play Infernal Machine and The Emperor's Tomb to get an idea on what else I've missed because those should count as entries in the series as well.
"No sir, I didn't like it."
And on the alien topic, no. Just no. I love aliens as much as the next geek, but they don't belong here. I had no problems with the "religious magic" throughout the trilogy. It made enough sense and had enough impact to suspend my disbelief easily. This movie could not suspend my disbelief, it was just way too overblown.
To sum up, it felt like several people were phoning in on this one, capturing the basic shell of Indy (action, action, action, two-dimensional fascist villains, wisecracks and thrilling escapes) without the proper substance. And the relationship stuff was cute, if cliched.
I was probably looking for something a bit more serious movie, it felt like it was aimed for 12 years old kids. I mean, come on... He is a Indy all right, but surviving a Spoiler: nuclear blast in a Spoiler: flying fridge... Then we had Spielberg and his Spoiler: aliens, just no, no thanks...
CGI was great, especially at the end. And it was great to see Harrison Ford as Indy again... But that's about it.
I was probably looking for something a bit more serious movie, it felt like it was aimed for 12 years old kids. [/QUOTE]
But that's exactly how I felt about Last Crusade originally which had a lot more comedy to it so it sort of works alright in these films. There are a few reasons why I don't quite feel like most of you about it. I went in with three basic expectations. First, nothing they do will ever be able to even match Raiders and Last Crusade. Second, there will be an excessive use of CGI. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg really never understood the concept of not always needing it even if they now have unlimited resources to do as much of it as they want. Third, there will be no Nazi's which are immediately associated as his nemesis.
Spoiler: I'm not bothered at by the use of aliens in the film. While the other movies deal with the supernatural they are actually more about the times they take place in. Being based in the 1930's the first movies onviously involve the Nazi's and their general obsession with superweapons and the occult. Taking place in 1957 the obvious enemy would be the soviet union. I think it would be a hard sell having a soviet agent looking for religous or supernatural artifacts considering religion was not exactly something they particularly cared about. With the all out technology race, the space race starting up and UFO era beginning, alien artifacts would be a good way to go in terms of the traditional ultimate superweapon of doom that can't be created by man. I'm actually quite satisfied how they pulled it off. There are aliens in the Indy universe now, so deal with it :D.
For the most part there were a few fairly minor things I didn't like. Indy's double agent pal didn't really serve much of a purpose in the movie. That role could have been easily written out and spared us one annoying character. The whole CGI ending was way too overblown and really took away from what should normally be a more character based ending. The action sequences is general were just a little too drawn out even for an Indy film. It got to the point sometimes were I want to scream out I get it Lucas, you have the resources to go all out on special effects, now make it end!!!
Spoiler: It just seems that lowering your expectations because it "can't be better" is a cheap way of saying "This movie shouldn't have been made" without actually asking Spielberg/Lucas for your money back. I just don't think one should have to force themselves to enjoy a movie when it's quite possible for something good to be made. I went in expecting it to be a good Indiana Jones movie, and I was sorely disappointed. It came so close on many of the marks, but felt like it was just barely holding on to what its predecessors built. I also can't get over the painful overuse of CGI, or the inability of the movie to actually advance itself, or the unsatisfying score, but I'll hopefully remember to cover those.
After watching The Last Crusade again today, it really became obvious that the biggest problems with this movie are to be found in the mountain of small changes in style. The fake bloom and "old-style lighting" reminiscent of older color films and exterior filmed on cramped studio lots/sets and the narrow camera angles were some of the biggest changes with no valid reason. Shooting on location is what allowed the previous movies to carry such a grand scope. Even in the modern world, where air travel is common and CG environments are everywhere, people are mesmerized by the splendor of decaying ancient cities and the civilizations that made them. The previously mentioned change in presentation only served to make this worse, with every scene feeling tight, cramped. Narrow were used to capture scenes in a way that is contrary to the predecessors' attempts to play up the environments. Even the wide-open spaces felt like studio shots, as the field of view was always on the conservative side. Cameras were floaty and "omniscient" (seeing events the main characters do not directly experience, and doing so on a regular basis), where the previous were almost entirely grounded in the scenery, other characters, and props. Crane shots were lightly used and even then, only when necessary. In Crystal Skull...they were dangerously abundant.
I also don't have any objection to Aliens as a potential storyline, but I didn't find the way they were executed to be very good. They were magical and of unclear and possibly conflicting motivations, working in a Deus Ex Machina way that undermined the very soul of Indiana Jones. They were used as a substitute for character development, crutches to carry the story from one location to another but not in a way that carried audience interest along with it. They could have been the perfect means to carry the story across multiple scenic locales and into previously undiscovered ruins. Too much development on the alien(s), not enough on the paranormal stuff or even the characters.
And the score...what happened?! It was weak! The best cues were all established in previous films. It had none of the classic IJ Punch. Perhaps I'll enjoy it in independent listening, but that would be a pretty sharp break from Jones tradition.
CGI...oh, the CGI. It almost seemed like it would be good. Starting off with some happy physical violence (something that seemed a bit unnecessary, but likely was one of the only things possible to make the villains seem genuinely evil), it seemed ok. Then things dove almost immediately into CGIland with the warehouse, and it was teetering on the line between good and bad. Sometimes, it felt like they'd do some real stunt work again and make things exciting, but out would pop a CGI explosion with priceless artifacts and mysterious technologies and people and wood and specks of dirt and mooses being thrown everywhere. Then came the rocket sled...but I was still good for it. The slugging match went on for what was ages, but it was still kind of fun, if a bit unbelievable. And then came the nuclear test. Really great setup and lead in....and then the CGI hit. That's when the audience groans began. This has been adequately covered. I'll skip ahead to the motorcycle chase, because it was pretty fun and made me believe that they were done with CGI and would have stuck to practical effects a bit more. It was neat, it was fun, and while some strangeness happened, it felt believable enough. Skip forward, and we've got sword fighting on the top of rough-riding circa-Korean War amphicars and monkeys and harmless waterfalls and ant colonies and alien deathray eyes....all with no peril whatsoever. I had some fun, but it was pretty bad at times. Once again, covered well by others.
I was talking with callista about it, and one of the bigger issues with the story became apparent: The Soviets became the Russians, who are our friends. the Nazis are most commonly associated as being evil incarnate, and thus don't need to be built up as baddies. Just seeing the arm straps, the uniforms, hearing the accent...it all evokes the loathing one needs for a good evil enemy. The Soviets, however, aren't something we see as evil in the modern day. This made it really hard to take them seriously as villains and made it so that the movie had to spend extra time building them up as such. It never quite succeeded. Shades of grey are all the rage, but Indy is about oldschool Black and White.
The movie has been profitable, so perhaps they'll make another before handicapped-accessible tombs become all the rage. If it looks like they've learned their lessons, I'll gladly pay to see it again. I can't turn down a good Indiana Jones movie. Hell, I even had some fun with this one, but it wasn't enough to actually like it.
Can we declare this a spoiler zone, please? I hate these fields of red.
Change the color :-P
[QUOTE=Sanfam;173314]
Spoiler:
After watching The Last Crusade again today, it really became obvious that the biggest problems with this movie are to be found in the mountain of small changes in style. The fake bloom and "old-style lighting" reminiscent of older color films and exterior filmed on cramped studio lots/sets and the narrow camera angles were some of the biggest changes with no valid reason. Shooting on location is what allowed the previous movies to carry such a grand scope. Even in the modern world, where air travel is common and CG environments are everywhere, people are mesmerized by the splendor of decaying ancient cities and the civilizations that made them. The previously mentioned change in presentation only served to make this worse, with every scene feeling tight, cramped. Narrow were used to capture scenes in a way that is contrary to the predecessors' attempts to play up the environments. Even the wide-open spaces felt like studio shots, as the field of view was always on the conservative side. Cameras were floaty and "omniscient" (seeing events the main characters do not directly experience, and doing so on a regular basis), where the previous were almost entirely grounded in the scenery, other characters, and props. Crane shots were lightly used and even then, only when necessary. In Crystal Skull...they were dangerously abundant.
[/QUOTE]
Spoiler:
The one shot where it all became abundandly clear for me was the establishing shot of the soviet camp in south america: a crane shot of a smal studio set badly comped into CGI jungle.
And Lucas and Spielberg actually stated before or during production, that, like with the old movies, they'd try and use as little CGI as possible. Huh... they must have made a different movie than the one in cinemas right now
I also don't have a problem with the crystal skulls beeing alien skulls, the handling of it was just so heavy handed. Indy having been there excavating a crashed UFO, the "mummy", the fact, that the skulls could not have been fabricated (on earth), and of course the aliens at the end. In neither Raiders nor Crusade did God appear at the end and smite down the evil nazis...
And so many of the effects scenes have been done in other movies before (and often also by ILM, and, surprisingly, better). The Ants: Scarabs in The Mummy (or the Scorpions in The Mummy Returns), and even the end where the temple disintegrates and rocks are circling in the valley with the UFO launching reminded me of the finale of The Mummy Returns, just with rocks instead of Trees...
And the music: well, it's OK, but the new themes are... meh. But at least it still sounds like an Indy score, not like the smooth, too much post-processing sounds of the last Star Wars scores...
However, [B]I still enjoyed the movie[/b] to some extent.
This made me laugh. :D
Thats why I mention that we just need to get used to the fact that he won't be fighting Nazi's anymore. Had this movie been done maybe 10 years earlier it could have been possible. It could have been cool to make one taking place during the war years but that would be hard to pull off now with Ford being 65 years old. Makeup can only go so far.
[quote=That guy in the article]"The only reason why they weren't using computer-generated effects back then is because they weren't invented yet, but they were using the most up-to-date technology at the time," said Helman, who finished his work on "Crystal Skull" in mid-April. "So it only follows that we would do the same thing now."[/quote]
Fail! They used CGI in Last Crusade, but only sparingly and where necessary to expand the visuals in a subtle way or to assist a stunt in a way to make it feel slightly more perilous, but almost always combined with practicals. Spielberg is even no record as having said that they used less CGI specifically to keep emphasis on realistic character actions.
[quote=The guy who wrote the article]"The result is a fictitious jungle, one with its own look, layout and laws of physics"
...
Even though they were going for something organic, Helman said the filmmakers took some liberties with the laws of physics -- more gravity, more mass, more wind -- to "make it more cinematic."
The result is a highly detailed chase scene that's far different from Indy's landmark escape from a giant rolling ball of a boulder in "Raiders of the Lost Ark." And it's just one of the many effects Helman and his crew created for the film.[/quote]
And therein lies the problem... We're long-term residents of a world with defined physics. If we see things happening that don't fit with this concept of physical properties, they stick out to us in a way that can't really be explained all too well. The believability is gone.
For me the film was a 6/10. The script was weak (Lucas has to take the blame... why did Spielberg have to use him?) and they wrote themselves into quite a few corners. They seemed to have had a few ideas for action sequences that they needed to string together (pretty much how I felt Pirates 3 went) and to be honest, they didn't string together all that well. The pace of the film felt off to me. Even with the action it never really 'got going' for me. On more than one occasion I found myself shifting uneasily in my seat as it just wasn't pulling me in. Another word I'd use to describe the film was 'labored'.
And yes I sure did find the [Spoiler]alien angle just daft. Why use that? It seemed cheap and easy. I actually felt like laughing when the saucer was taking off. It couldn't have looked more B-Movie if they'd tried.[/Spoiler]
Despite the flaws I didn't hate it. But it was no Indy 1,2 or 3.
I would agree completely. Sanfam will tell you I was doing the same thing. I had to keep moving to keep from falling asleep actually. That never happens to me in action-less movies let alone action movies. It just wasn't interesting enough to me.