Zarles wrote:
I really want an Indy animated series now. Or at least a new freakin' videogame. Emperor's Tomb was the shit.
burlivesleftnut wrote:Ten points deducted for linking to CHUD! We're watching you!
Hermanator X wrote:Zarles wrote:
I really want an Indy animated series now. Or at least a new freakin' videogame. Emperor's Tomb was the shit.
Like this one?
Its using the same engine as GTA4, and the trailer is a year or so old, so I expect the finished product will be a lot more polished.
Yahoo! News wrote:"Our movie-goers are teenagers who are completely unaware of what happened in 1957," St Peterburg Communist Party chief Sergei Malinkovich told Reuters.
"They will go to the cinema and will be sure that in 1957 we made trouble for the United States and almost started a nuclear war."
"It's rubbish ... In 1957 the communists did not run with crystal skulls throughout the U.S. Why should we agree to that sort of lie and let the West trick our youth?"
so sorry wrote:Just saw it this afternoon...Vegeta, you are WAY to kind in your review.
I'd give it a 3/10, and also tell everyone left to wait until DVD.
so sorry wrote:Everything about this film, except one or two fleeting moments, was an ugly ugly mess.
Makes me appreciate The Phantom Menace a bit more now...
bastard_robo wrote:it has. I can understand not everyone is going to like it. Theres a high expectation, but crap...some of the complaints are just stupid
so sorry wrote:Just saw it this afternoon...Vegeta, you are WAY to kind in your review.
I'd give it a 3/10, and also tell everyone left to wait until DVD.
RogueScribner wrote:Wow, today's batch of reviews are really scaring me off this movie!
bastard_robo wrote:Good god!
...
END THE MADDNESS!
...
..
I don't know, the movie does have its tone problems, but I think people are going way out of their way to nitpick the hell out of this film.
RogueScribner wrote:The average review rating is still just above 6 here in the Zone. The new Indy flick couldn't even manage a 7. *sigh*
Dee E. Goppstober wrote:bastard_robo wrote:Good god!
...
END THE MADDNESS!
...
..
I don't know, the movie does have its tone problems, but I think people are going way out of their way to nitpick the hell out of this film.
Hallelujah and AMEN to that!!!
Glad someone feels the same way. To me- this particular instance of movie-dissection is a clear-cut case of losing perspective due to having a nose buried too deep in the prairy dog's fur, and spoils the hell out of a thoroughly enjoyable Indy-adventure.
As ToD and the Last Crusade both have plenty of faults as well, I don't see why anyone would have expected this movie to be perfect.
Lady Sheridan wrote:Well, I voted a one.
This movie was ten kinds of stupid. I went in with optimism, understanding that it was "ok" and forgettable, but still kind of enjoyable.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I wanted it to be over twenty minutes in.
Harrison Ford wasn't Indy...he was cranky Ford in a hat, getting a paycheck.
Karen Allen wasn't Marion Ravenwood -- she was Marion filtered through the Ditzy and Dumb Machine that took Amidala's brains.
Cate Blanchett should be absolutely ashamed of herself -- first, for not managing to keep a credible accent (save for the scene in the tent), second for turning such a cheesy ass performance. When brilliant actors decide to have fun, they always suck.
Ray Winstone, surely you could have protested and won the omission of at least one Jonesie? I don't think I have a lot of confidence in you anymore, you've managed to be in THREE lousy adaptations of work I once enjoyed.
A few good action scenes, but lousy CGI, silly script, and actually more unbelievable than Temple of Doom.
Just a lame movie all around. My childhood wasn't raped but it was definitely molested. However, I think I will forget about it quickly.
So, what's next, George? More Star Wars? Indy V? There's gotta still be more lameness to come.
DaleTremont wrote:Lady Sheridan wrote:Well, I voted a one.
![]()
I haven't seen it yet but I heart LS.
...that is all.
Lady Sheridan wrote:So, what's next, George? More Star Wars? Indy V? There's gotta still be more lameness to come.
JpPrewitt789 wrote:Lady Sheridan wrote:So, what's next, George? More Star Wars? Indy V? There's gotta still be more lameness to come.
No, another Indy movie starring Shia! (I'm being serious)
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cannes_film_festival_2008/news/1729138/
I'd love Shia forever if he actually turned down this offer, but I don't see that happening.
George Lucas wrote:"I haven't even told Steven [Spielberg] or Harrison this but I have an idea to make Shia LaBeouf (who plays Mutt) the lead character next time and have Harrison come back like Sean Connery did in the last movie (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). I can see it working out."
Vegeta wrote:JpPrewitt789 wrote:Lady Sheridan wrote:So, what's next, George? More Star Wars? Indy V? There's gotta still be more lameness to come.
No, another Indy movie starring Shia! (I'm being serious)
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cannes_film_festival_2008/news/1729138/
I'd love Shia forever if he actually turned down this offer, but I don't see that happening.George Lucas wrote:"I haven't even told Steven [Spielberg] or Harrison this but I have an idea to make Shia LaBeouf (who plays Mutt) the lead character next time and have Harrison come back like Sean Connery did in the last movie (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). I can see it working out."
Maybe he'll invite the pompadour monkeys along too... we could only be so lucky.
Vegeta wrote:Dee E. Goppstober wrote:bastard_robo wrote:Good god!
...
END THE MADDNESS!
...
..
I don't know, the movie does have its tone problems, but I think people are going way out of their way to nitpick the hell out of this film.
Hallelujah and AMEN to that!!!
Glad someone feels the same way. To me- this particular instance of movie-dissection is a clear-cut case of losing perspective due to having a nose buried too deep in the prairy dog's fur, and spoils the hell out of a thoroughly enjoyable Indy-adventure.
As ToD and the Last Crusade both have plenty of faults as well, I don't see why anyone would have expected this movie to be perfect.
Sorry, but I disagree... I personally don't care for TOD for similar reasons. In my book it goes something like:
ROTLA = 10+
TOD = 5.5
TLC = 7
KOTCS = 5
tapehead wrote:You're not going to watch it at the movies, you're going to wait and watch it on DVD?
RogueScribner wrote:tapehead wrote:You're not going to watch it at the movies, you're going to wait and watch it on DVD?
Yeah, I think I will.
Retardo_Montalban wrote:Vegeta wrote:JpPrewitt789 wrote:Lady Sheridan wrote:So, what's next, George? More Star Wars? Indy V? There's gotta still be more lameness to come.
No, another Indy movie starring Shia! (I'm being serious)
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cannes_film_festival_2008/news/1729138/
I'd love Shia forever if he actually turned down this offer, but I don't see that happening.George Lucas wrote:"I haven't even told Steven [Spielberg] or Harrison this but I have an idea to make Shia LaBeouf (who plays Mutt) the lead character next time and have Harrison come back like Sean Connery did in the last movie (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). I can see it working out."
Maybe he'll invite the pompadour monkeys along too... we could only be so lucky.
I want the monkeys to all have combs and they will comb their hair back in unison along with Shia.
Lady Sheridan wrote:Do you know one of the biggest plot problems for me?
The fact that the KGB's most notorious somehow managed to slip into the U.S. unnoticed.
Ms. Spalko wasn't exactly a master of disguise type -- so I would very much like to know how she, her Tomb Raider belt and her rapier, got here from the Soviet Union without raising a red flag.
I'm willing to believe the FBI is inept and all, but the fact that Indy's involvement with them is carried far and wide within hours, Cold War paranoia is at its height...but no one notices Ms. Spalko?
Please.
Retardo_Montalban wrote:RogueScribner wrote:tapehead wrote:You're not going to watch it at the movies, you're going to wait and watch it on DVD?
Yeah, I think I will.
Do you at least have a bitchin' sound system?
Vegeta wrote:JpPrewitt789 wrote:Lady Sheridan wrote:George Lucas wrote:"I haven't even told Steven [Spielberg] or Harrison this but I have an idea to make Shia LaBeouf (who plays Mutt) the lead character next time and have Harrison come back like Sean Connery did in the last movie (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). I can see it working out."
Maybe he'll invite the pompadour monkeys along too... we could only be so lucky.
I want the monkeys to all have combs and they will comb their hair back in unison along with Shia.
And I want there to be a little monkey temple with paintings of Shia, and their version of a crystal skull -- except made out of coconut. Or whatever they have in their jungle. Plant life is not my specialty.
Bob Poopflingius Maximus wrote:Lord Voldemoo wrote:Ok, so all of the above makes it sound like i HATED it...i swear i didn't. There were less cringe-worthy moments than there were in the prequels. Many of the humorous moments worked pretty well without being over the top Lucas-stupid (plants to the nuts, monkey scene and snake/quicksand scene notwithstanding). As I said the chemistry between Ford and Shia worked. Unfortunately the chemistry between Ford and INDY was lacking.
I think the problem I had with it is the cringe-worthy moments that WERE in it were so cringe-worthy that I cringed into a little ball...Lord Voldemoo wrote:Anyway...overall a few fun moments. A couple of nice nods back (Ark), but not quite as many as I'd feared (i thought it'd turn into a nostalgia fest). No real lasting power here though...and when I think about watching an Indy marathon with my kids someday I doubt it'll even occur to me to watch 4 movies instead of 3.
I was afraid of that too and was glad that happened, but I did feel that the Ark did not need to be seen. Anyone who is a fan is going to know what that warehouse is.Lord Voldemoo wrote:edit: oh yeah, had Shia been allowed to put on the hat in the last shot I'd have changed my score to -3000/10
co-sign (see what I did there!)
I liked it overall as well and I did not want to come across as a hater. I think the reason that I was bored is that Harrison has some how lost his charisma that fueled his past movies. (I blame Six Days Seven Nights)
Lastly I cannot wait for the movie with Shia and the monkeys. Ha ha ha. Cause the monkeys had pompadours and he had a pompadour so he was king of the pompadour monkeys...Hahahahahahahahahaha....Oh man. I am writing to Lucas now and pitching the script idea!!
Dee E. Goppstober wrote:Vegeta wrote:Dee E. Goppstober wrote:bastard_robo wrote:Good god!
...
END THE MADDNESS!
...
..
I don't know, the movie does have its tone problems, but I think people are going way out of their way to nitpick the hell out of this film.
Hallelujah and AMEN to that!!!
Glad someone feels the same way. To me- this particular instance of movie-dissection is a clear-cut case of losing perspective due to having a nose buried too deep in the prairy dog's fur, and spoils the hell out of a thoroughly enjoyable Indy-adventure.
As ToD and the Last Crusade both have plenty of faults as well, I don't see why anyone would have expected this movie to be perfect.
Sorry, but I disagree... I personally don't care for TOD for similar reasons. In my book it goes something like:
ROTLA = 10+
TOD = 5.5
TLC = 7
KOTCS = 5
Well, actually- we don't disagree that much at all then. Me too I liked the original film best- and I liked TLC heaps better than ToD.
Except maybe I liked KotCS a bit better than you- I will admit the alien story was a little weak, but I still liked the movie. That's why I find the nitpicking slightly overdone.
Lady Sheridan wrote:Oh, Bob -- monkeys are cool. Too cool to be reduced to an Indy prop...
And they weren't even REAL.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests