Indiana Jones And The Lost City Of Jaded Fans

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 16:27
VIEWED: 6814
PAGE 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

CHRISISALL

Monday, October 20, 2008 11:12 AM

The latest Indiana Jones movie has been getting some negative reviews from certain long-time fans, and I find this somewhat unsettling. The phrase "It's not like the first three" is being bandied about the way jocks in High School trade lies amongst themselves concerning who they've bedded. Suddenly, it's hip to dump on your heroes, it seems.
Okay, so Lucas drove Star Wars into the ground with the prequels, but here, with Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, I feel he made up for some of that...problem is, many rabidly dissed fans of the SW series don't wanna let that happen.
Look guys, Temple Of Doom was waaaay different than Raiders, but NOW it's a fine entry compared to this latest one??? I remember back in the day hearing "It's not like the first one"...sound familiar?

Yes, KOTCS is different.
More modern look to it, but hey- set in more modern times...
Older Indy, but hey- older Ford...
Digital vs. optical FX, but hey- that's how it's done now...
And here's the one I've seen most (I'd warn against spoilers here, but really, if you don't see this coming from the trailers or from the first six minutes of the flick itself, you shouldn't be advanced enough in age to be able to read this): Indy's moved on from the occult/religious world to B sci-fi territory.
"Dude- aliens?!?!" Well, not precisely, and SO WHAT ANYWAY? You wanted Indy to be stopping the theft of the Ark from Area 51 so that God can..er, slam the lid shut on it AGAIN or something?? Indiana Jones And The Comfy Copy???
I personally found it bold to go in a new (if somewhat older for SF movies in general) direction with the franchise.
Sure, it has some stupid moments (Shia 'Chewie' Labeouf's Tarzan yell while swinging from a vine *ughhh*), but what Lucasfilm production doesn't?

Bottom line: You wanted Indy back? Well, you got him, in an entertaining as all getout popcorn extravaganza.

People, enjoy the nostalga. Enjoy the movie. Life is too short to go looking for a Jar Jar Binks where there isn't any.

Review (c) Chrisisall 2008

CHRISISALL

Monday, October 20, 2008 12:59 PM

bullwhip bump

ZEEK

Monday, October 20, 2008 2:28 PM

I just finally put 2 and 2 together. chrisisall is butters!

If you haven't seen the South Park episode where they rip the new Indy then that won't make much sense. It's a pretty hilarious episode though. You should check it out.

For the record I haven't seen the new Indy and I don't think I ever will. I'm done with Lucas.

CHRISISALL

Monday, October 20, 2008 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:

For the record I haven't seen the new Indy and I don't think I ever will. I'm done with Lucas.

Dude, this is what I'm talking about- it's not like he's Satan or anything, and anyone who likes the earlier Indy movies should remember the line from Temple Of Doom: "Yes, I understand it's power now." THAT right there tells you this is just popcorn nonsense!!! If you try to groove to any other level, in the words of Skywalker, you are sadly mistaken.

No one knows how to just have fun anymore...

isall

CHRISISALL

Monday, October 20, 2008 3:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:

If you haven't seen the South Park episode where they rip the new Indy then that won't make much sense.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/latest-south-park-hates-on-indy-
4-will-paramount-spielberg-lucas-protest/
Oh now, that is just so wrong....

My sense of humour only goes so far....

Chrisisall

THESOMNAMBULIST

Monday, October 20, 2008 3:22 PM

...These are cynical times my friend and people find it easier to mock than to applaud. Just look at TV. It's littered with people gladly allowing themselves to be humilitated in front of a criticizing public. The mass populace have lost their dignity in front of the 'all-seeing, 'all knowing' camera, (The 21st century 'eyes of God') and they do so gladly. Whatever befalls the camera's lense is forfeit, fair game to a blood thirsty, soulless society who speak in safe soundbites - yet say nothing.

So we've become accustomed to ridiculing that which flickers in front of us wether it be TV, or cinema. Good or bad is irrelevant. It's the 'bark' that counts.

If you're the kind of person who watches an Indiana Jones film scrutinizing the legitimacy of the action, then you're better off not going at all. This aint the film for you. Much like the folks who watched Edward Scissorhands and came out wondering how he went to the bathroom...

Flames flying into the heavens with charred Nazi's in it is no more substantial than Indy surviving a nuclear blast! It's a flight of fantasy - a moment of pure cinema.

Indy 4 never stood a chance with these people...

This world is no more for dreamers.

CHRISISALL

Monday, October 20, 2008 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

Indy 4 never stood a chance with these people...

This world is no more for dreamers.

Take heart friend- Indy 4 was the (EDIT: third) highest grossing flick of 2008; we cannot be alone in our appreciation of the whip-wielder!

Simplepleasuresisall

STORYMARK

Monday, October 20, 2008 4:44 PM

I didn't hate it, but it's my least favorite of the series. And not becuase of aliens, old Indy, or over-use of CGI (though that did get annoying).

My problems were:

1) It got too silly. Starting with the groundhogs - which would have been fine once, but really bugged my by their third appearance. The fridge bit is so over-the-top and implausible that it took me out of the movie completely for a bit. Shia and his army of monkees coming to the rescue, and the jeep jump into the treetop stretched it as well.

2) No sense of danger. In all the other movies, there was alsways a feeling of real danger toward the characters. There were stakes. This time, it all felt so staged and hokey, that never once did I buy that something bad could actually happen to anyone (compare this with the feeling at the end of Serenity, where I was convinced every single character was doomed).

3) The script - Too much exposition. In the prior films, there was generally one big expository scene, usually near the beginning, that set up the MacGuffin, and then the story flowed from there. This time, they stop and explain, in unnesesary detail, what is going on, and how, several times. Just not very efficient storytelling.

4) Characters use - Ray Winstone's character did essentially nothing, and was pretty pointless. And Indy himself, while great to see, was more or less a passive character. He almost never took action himself, and was mainly just swept up in the actions of others. And, he had literally no bearing on the end of the film. He could have gone home after the ant scene, and the plot would have essentially played out the same.

5) The fake look of it all. Even that which was shot live-action looked fake after all the digital processing. That might be how some movies do it these days, but it's hardly a requirement. And after all Spielberg's talk about not going overboard with the CGI, was a dissapointing easthetic choice.

Those were my main problems.

And for those who say that anyone critisizing the movie isn't into the spirit, isn't a dreamer, or whatever - I find that not only insulting, but disengenuous. Just because something has fantastical elements, does not mean that just ANYTHING can happen, without thought to reason or internal logic. For those who would call those of us who critisize such things haters or "jaded" or whatnot - I'd respond by asking if you just eat up anything handed to you, as long as it has the right name in the title.

Like comparing the energy from the Ark to the fridge bit. Yes, it's a fantastical story, but one of the first rules of writing - even for a fantasy - is to remain true to the rules of the given world. The "power of God" lashing out from a supernatural religious artifact, is not the same as a human being - who has been shown to be human with all the physical limitations that implies - surviving something that no human could survive (setting aside the idea that that one fridge - and nothing else at ALL survived the blast) is not the same thing.

And one final thing - while it may have been the third highest grossing movie of the year - it's still the least successful movie of the series, in terms of ticket sales (adjusted gross).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

THESOMNAMBULIST

Monday, October 20, 2008 5:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I didn't hate it, but it's my least favorite of the series. And not becuase of aliens, old Indy, or over-use of CGI (though that did get annoying).

My problems were:

1) It got too silly. Starting with the groundhogs - which would have been fine once, but really bugged my by their third appearance. The fridge bit is so over-the-top and implausible that it took me out of the movie completely for a bit. Shia and his army of monkees coming to the rescue, and the jeep jump into the treetop stretched it as well.

2) No sense of danger. In all the other movies, there was alsways a feeling of real danger toward the characters. There were stakes. This time, it all felt so staged and hokey, that never once did I buy that something bad could actually happen to anyone (compare this with the feeling at the end of Serenity, where I was convinced every single character was doomed).

3) The script - Too much exposition. In the prior films, there was generally one big expository scene, usually near the beginning, that set up the MacGuffin, and then the story flowed from there. This time, they stop and explain, in unnesesary detail, what is going on, and how, several times. Just not very efficient storytelling.

4) Characters use - Ray Winstone's character did essentially nothing, and was pretty pointless. And Indy himself, while great to see, was more or less a passive character. He almost never took action himself, and was mainly just swept up in the actions of others. And, he had literally no bearing on the end of the film. He could have gone home after the ant scene, and the plot would have essentially played out the same.

5) The fake look of it all. Even that which was shot live-action looked fake after all the digital processing. That might be how some movies do it these days, but it's hardly a requirement. And after all Spielberg's talk about not going overboard with the CGI, was a dissapointing easthetic choice.

Those were my main problems.

And for those who say that anyone critisizing the movie isn't into the spirit, isn't a dreamer, or whatever - I find that not only insulting, but disengenuous. Just because something has fantastical elements, does not mean that just ANYTHING can happen, without thought to reason or internal logic. For those who would call those of us who critisize such things haters or "jaded" or whatnot - I'd respond by asking if you just eat up anything handed to you, as long as it has the right name in the title.

Like comparing the energy from the Ark to the fridge bit. Yes, it's a fantastical story, but one of the first rules of writing - even for a fantasy - is to remain true to the rules of the given world. The "power of God" lashing out from a supernatural religious artifact, is not the same as a human being - who has been shown to be human with all the physical limitations that implies - surviving something that no human could survive (setting aside the idea that that one fridge - and nothing else at ALL survived the blast) is not the same thing.

And one final thing - while it may have been the third highest grossing movie of the year - it's still the least successful movie of the series, in terms of ticket sales (adjusted gross).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Well Storymark I hope you don't think I'm insulting you. That's not my intention. Not at all. We're all entitled to our opinion of course. I'm happy to concede that there are hugely preposterous notions in Indy 4, and of course that's not going to sit well with people. Fair enough. Can't force people to like things. However same can be said when Raiders came out, it too had for it's time as equally preposterous ideas, but that exaggeration is what made it so fun. In Indy 4 the exagerration is there and then some, because frankly it needed to notch up a gear, but for some reason people aren't as

MSB

Monday, October 20, 2008 5:55 PM

I liked the movie.. I enjoyed the others... I guess it's because I like the willing suspension of disbelief and honestly it's just for fun.. why get so caught up in finding flaw and dissecting angles that you miss the fun...

and as for the uninvolved in the action.. he was no more uninvolved than Sean Connery was mainly because they're both too damn old to be the action and flash action hero... now they're more about the thought and the adventure

____________________________________________

Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength; loving someone deeply gives you courage."
Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it.”-Dave Barry

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE