Lord Voldemoo wrote:JUSTIFY THE MONKEYS! heheheheh
We dont have to be justified. We are just that cool. Sides, as proven by the movie, vine swinging is faster then driving...
Lord Voldemoo wrote:JUSTIFY THE MONKEYS! heheheheh
Bob Poopflingius Maximus wrote:Lord Voldemoo wrote:JUSTIFY THE MONKEYS! heheheheh
We dont have to be justified. We are just that cool. Sides, as proven by the movie, vine swinging is faster then driving...
Lord Voldemoo wrote:The lovely farewells to Marcus Brody ( painting and statue and photo ) and Denholm Elliot, who would have been there if he could.
Really?? I'm shocked the Brody-lovers who have been lambasting Last Crusade aren't out in droves about their last little bit of comic relief at his expense chopping off the head of his statue. Even I thought that was actually kinda in bad taste...but maybe i was just being overly sensitive.
magicmonkey wrote:Just when the Nazi's stopped moaning about Indy's previous outings (and probably the current one), it seems that Communists now are offended. Still, at least they can complain... I guess George and Steve vetoed Denholm Elliots little cinematic tribute, oh, that was a tribute.
Members of Russia's Communist Party are calling for a nationwide boycott of the new Indiana Jones movie, saying it aims to undermine communist ideology and distort history.
Lady Sheridan wrote:The Vicar wrote:Could it have been better? Jesus, couldn't everything? Does it fit nicely into the Indiana Jones Canon? In almost every way, yes.
And, in point of fact, you CAN use a boa constrictor to get yourself out of a sand trap. It's something Lucas/Speilberg borrowed from the old serials Indy was birthed by.
Old serials -- always bastions of factual accuracy...
Zarles wrote:Why is everyone suddenly so obsessed with maintaining realism in Indy movies?
Simon Quinlank wrote:Zarles wrote:Why is everyone suddenly so obsessed with maintaining realism in Indy movies?
Because the Ark spirits/Grail water/mystical stones were so grounded in realism.
That and they're struggling for anything to constructively criticise it for.
Zarles wrote:Why is everyone suddenly so obsessed with maintaining realism in Indy movies?
RogueScribner wrote:Especially if, as LS mentions, Indy had his whip handy.
The Vicar wrote:RogueScribner wrote:Especially if, as LS mentions, Indy had his whip handy.
He didn't.
Hermanator X wrote:So how exactly did using a snake as a rope be the straw that broke the camels back?
Hermanator X wrote:Suspension of disbelief is very important when watching almost any movie you can name. Try as they might, they just dont reflect real life in the majority of cases.
RogueScribner wrote:Still, they're in a jungle, right? No tree branches handy? Using a snake seems a bit more silly than normal for this series.
The Ginger Man wrote:There were really only 3 things in the movie that I didn't understand/couldn't roll with.
1) Shia sword fighting. They were in the jeep. I went to the bathroom. I came back and Shia was straddling between two jeeps sword fighting. Uh.....did I miss something?
The Ginger Man wrote:2) Shia swinging with the monkeys. I had no problem with the monkeys. In fact, the monkeys make sense to me. You want Shia to be hanging from vines and swinging like Tarzan, it makes sense for there to also be some monkeys. But when the hell did this kid learn to swing like that? Apparently when he learned how to sword fight...while I was in the bathroom.
The Ginger Man wrote:3) The eff'n gophers! This made no sense in any conceivable way. Sword fighting and vine swinging...ok, you want Mutt to be an action hero. Fine. I get that. But why were there gophers? Is this what passes for comedy relief? Oh, look. A gopher. Start movie. Hey, another gopher. Continue movie. Wait, now there are like 10 gophers. Are the gophers going to attack the Russian? Are they going to warn Indy of an impending nuclear explosion? Are they going to do a goddamn thing?!?!?!
tapehead wrote:Hermanator X wrote:Suspension of disbelief is very important when watching almost any movie you can name. Try as they might, they just dont reflect real life in the majority of cases.
Oh please, don't lets fall back upon that old 'suspension of disbelief' chestnut.
The Ginger Man wrote:Also, did anyone else find Karen Allen's acting to be exceptionally BAD?
Maui wrote:The Ginger Man wrote:Also, did anyone else find Karen Allen's acting to be exceptionally BAD?
I wanted to see a little bit of her badassness (is that a word) that she played so perfectly in Raiders. Drinking people under the table, being cocky. I didn't see this. I know we are talking years later, but people just don't lose that over time. They still have that ballsiness.
The Ginger Man wrote:Also, did anyone else find Karen Allen's acting to be exceptionally BAD?
Seppuku wrote:Her worst acting moment has gotta be right after the whole triple waterfall sequence, when she was so shaken up she refused to let go of the steering wheel (no longer attached to the jeep). Gurning like a lobotomy patient is about right. I'd haveif I saw that in a school play, let alone an Indy movie.
Maui wrote:The Ginger Man wrote:Also, did anyone else find Karen Allen's acting to be exceptionally BAD?
I wanted to see a little bit of her badassness (is that a word) that she played so perfectly in Raiders. Drinking people under the table, being cocky. I didn't see this. I know we are talking years later, but people just don't lose that over time. They still have that ballsiness.
MasterWhedon wrote:Ugh. I was really, really disappointed with this movie, and I think I was 100% right with my early "this should not even be made" stance. Everything about this movie felt confused, muddled, phoned-in, and goddamn lazy. This is an Indiana Jones movie operating as Lowest Common Denominator.
My biggest complaint about this movie, aside from a script that never quite knows exactly what it wants to be, is that there was no restraint showed in its making. Sure, it's been 19 years since the last film was made and in that time technology has come along which allows you near-limitless possibilities in terms of what you can accomplish. If you want to make a movie that's big and fantastical and a blue screen extrvaganza, more power to you. But that's not Indiana Jones. The Indiana Jones movies were of a certain time and place, and while they may have used the height of special effects technology at the time, I don't think that justifies using the height of special effects technology today. Not when the first three movies line up next to each other so nicely as a gritty, real, unified world, and suddenly there's this extra chapter that's clean and artificial and utterly unrestrained in its ability to do anything. I had faith in Spielberg and his crew that they were going to take the necessary steps to make this fit into the series, and while they succeed on a very few levels, they fail spectacularly on so many more.
I've talked this over with friends this weekend, and while some of my criticisms are nitpicks and/or personal preference, I just don't think this movie works and it kills me to say that. I rewatched Raiders and Temple of Doom yesterday to wash the taste of of my mouth, and seeing how well those two succeed makes me even sadder to say Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is only a 5/10.
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.
TheBaxter wrote:ToD still stands out like a sore thumb, but despite the disastrous presence of kate capshaw, that film still managed to be slightly more entertaining, so i would have to rank it above KotCS.
Fried Gold wrote: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.
Not as much of a plot discrepancy as you might think.
There are numerous counts of KGB infiltrators into what, for most of us, are considered secret US military strongholds.
Los Alamos, White Sands, Edwards, NASA....so Groom Lake isn't such a stretch to the imagination.
Fried Gold wrote: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.
Not as much of a plot discrepancy as you might think.
There are numerous counts of KGB infiltrators into what, for most of us, are considered secret US military strongholds.
Los Alamos, White Sands, Edwards, NASA....so Groom Lake isn't such a stretch to the imagination.
The Vicar wrote:Simon Quinlank wrote:Zarles wrote:Why is everyone suddenly so obsessed with maintaining realism in Indy movies?
Because the Ark spirits/Grail water/mystical stones were so grounded in realism.
That and they're struggling for anything to constructively criticise it for.
![]()
Maui wrote:What about the action in the warehouse? The running across the beams in the ceiling. The swinging from the ceiling.
The motorcycle chase where the stuntman is crawling out of the car window back onto the bike.
That was pretty cool.
Vegeta wrote:Maui wrote:What about the action in the warehouse? The running across the beams in the ceiling. The swinging from the ceiling.
The motorcycle chase where the stuntman is crawling out of the car window back onto the bike.
That was pretty cool.
I agree, that was probably one of the coolest shots in the entire film. Way better than anything in the entire jungle jeep chase.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests