|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Nov 24, 2018 1:33:40 GMT
Time has passed and Ford has brought back other old properties. But the question arises: was Indy 4 really worth all the anger and bile it recieved, the second coming of the 'Phantom Menace', or do you think the film has qualities people overlook and it's better than usually claimed?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2018 2:13:58 GMT
I very distinctly remember Cate Blanchett as the Colonel and I don't understand the ire occasionally directed towards the aliens, but the rest of it draws a bit of a mental blank.
A film set in the 1950s would've played into the nostalgia of the 1980s, maybe even the early part of the 1990s. Film in the 2000s, though... I think it might've come a little too late, all things considered. Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out about ten years after the original series had concluded, which seems a fair enough time, but twenty years for Crystal Skull is a hard thing to push against. It didn't quite capture the genre-bending ability of its predecessors, I just can't see it as a blueprint for a decade's worth of film like Raiders or Crusade.
It also had a swathe of proxies, expies and direct inspirations to contend with by that point. Across multiple mediums, some of them interactive, which likely made hitting that mark all the more difficult. Uncharted was released just a year prior, The Librarian in 2004 and Tomb Raider had been out since 1996.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2018 11:14:09 GMT
Time has passed and Ford has brought back other old properties. But the question arises: was Indy 4 really worth all the anger and bile it recieved, Yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2018 11:22:54 GMT
Tbh i only really really dig last crusade. The first ones alright, second ones a bit crap and this was again pretty alright...its just about an archaeologist going on adventures its not like it was ever high art 🤷‍♂️ So i guess no, people probs over-reacted like always, like with doctor who and star wars and star trek and everything else. Its certainly a fine film thats put together correctly, and theres nothing overtly offensive, people just always like to think what was in the past was better than now lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2018 11:38:35 GMT
It's a bad film but I never get the hatred for movies. We get bad movies released every Friday. No point getting worked up about them. What went wrong? Bad concept, bad script, Mutt was a bad character poorly played, the Russians were poor villains following the Nazis, Aliens seemed silly given the historical based adventures of the OG films, Ford was bored, Spielberg deffered to Lucas on the story, Mac's constant switching sides didn't work at all, the CGI was awful, you cast John Hurt (with a world famou voice) and make him a grunting neanderthal .... You could go on and on. But who cares? I don't like it but I ADORE the original triilogy and I've still got them on my shelf (along with this!). I've got nothing against Indy 5 if Ford is as engaged as he was in Force Awakens and Blade Runner 2049 where he was fantastic. In this he didn't want to be there. Spielberg too. But if that sucks....I can still watch Last Crusade and love it as much as ever. "I suddenly remembered my Charlemagne, 'Let my armies be the rocks, and the trees, and the birds in the sky'." As with the Star Wars prequels, Redlettermedia have done the ultimate assessment of this film. HIGHLY recommended. www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zphhfHon_I
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Nov 24, 2018 12:44:26 GMT
The only "Bad" Indiana movie is Temple of Doom and that's only because the leads have zero chemistry IMO.
As for Kingdom, its only Drawback is SLB who is nowhere near as good as he think he is.
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Nov 24, 2018 13:37:21 GMT
Uhmm.... I actually LIKED the movie. Yes, it was not as good as the previous ones, but when I saw it I thought there was nothing too wrong about it. But I admit I just saw it as some light entertainment and I did no take it too serious. So maybe that was the reason it did rub some people the wrong way?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2018 16:37:29 GMT
The only two I loved were The Temple Of Doom, which I saw 5 times at the cinema, and Skull which I only watched on TV. I didn't care much for Raiders and can't even remember the third one.
|
|
|
Post by agentten on Nov 28, 2018 0:57:23 GMT
It's not the worst film ever made, but it is boring. It's in possession of many of the all time legendary talents of cinema, but it's some of the weakest material from all of them. Spielberg, for one, is pretty much asleep at the wheel. Compare, for example, the scene when Indy and Sallah uncover the ark in Raiders and how the film fuses awe and dread to create a suitably powerful moment, with the moment in Crystal Skull when Indy uncovers the crystal skull, which is a very flat, medium shot of Indy simply pulling the thing out of the wall. Spielberg would never miss a moment like that if he were invested in what he was doing. There are many issues with the script as well, such as Marion going from the vibrant, independent woman we met in Raiders, to the person who drives the truck in Crystal Skull. Other issues I had with the film were the odd cinematography choices, John William's surprisingly perfunctory score, the misuse of John Hurt, the poor CGI that appeared to be from a low budget film 15 years prior and well below ILM's level and resources, and some pretty ragged editing.
Despite my dissatisfaction with it, I don't hate it. I just don't really care about it. Perhaps that's worse, actually, but despite my love of the original trilogy, I've only ever seen Crystal Skull once, when it came out, and have had no desire to ever watch it again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 1:57:14 GMT
Uhmm.... I actually LIKED the movie. Yes, it was not as good as the previous ones, but when I saw it I thought there was nothing too wrong about it. But I admit I just saw it as some light entertainment and I did no take it too serious. So maybe that was the reason it did rub some people the wrong way? Yeah, I'd say so. Twenty years worth of hype damaged its prospects, but it was also released in a decade that nowadays looks rather angry. Based on what I learnt in film history, I think if Temple of Doom had been released when Skull was would have been heralded as a popular hit and a classic. Mainly because it would've engaged with the dystopian zeitgeist of the 2000s, particularly those scenes in the mines. It was a very serious and rather cynical decade. In contrast, I think Crystal Skull may have gotten a gentler reception if it were released in the past five(ish) years, riding on the tone of superhero films we've had.
|
|
|
Post by J.A. Prentice on Nov 28, 2018 7:48:21 GMT
Blasphemy, I know, but I actually liked it better than Temple of Doom. Nowhere near as good as Raiders or Last Crusade, of course, but those are masterpieces. My biggest problem was Shia LaBeuof. Lucas wanted a daughter for Indy instead and I feel that would have played better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 8:03:20 GMT
Blasphemy, I know, but I actually liked it better than Temple of Doom. Nowhere near as good as Raiders or Last Crusade, of course, but those are masterpieces. My biggest problem was Shia LaBeuof. Lucas wanted a daughter for Indy instead and I feel that would have played better. I could be mis-remembering but I think on the Redlettermedia vid I linked to above Spielberg said he wanted the daughter and it was George who fought for Mutt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 8:06:35 GMT
I may have massive nostalgia goggles because I wore the video out in the early 90s but I LOVE Temple Of Doom and am surprised some like Crystal Skull more. Yeah, Willie and Short Round suck (even if I quote "no time for love, Doctor Jones" more often than anything from the series, with "Fortune and glory, kid...fortune and glory" not far behind) but I LOVE so much about it. Just a few things: Spielberg was bold enough to make a sequel (a prequel really, before the concept became popular) that wasn't just a rehash and pays tribute to films like She, Terror Of The Tongs and especially Stranglers Of Bombay. The set pieces are wonderful,with the mine and the bridge being heart stopping. Mola Ram is one of the scariest villains ever "You will become....a true believer....Doctor Jones) I adore the Busby Berkeley opening Anything Goes sequence with the poison ("Antidote...to poison....you just drank") The wonderfully horrible sequences with bugs and creepy crawlers as they leave the palace. The general tone being much, much darker than the cartoony Nazis of Raiders. Dan Ackroyd's cameo. David Yip from Destiny Of The Daleks getting a lovely world building death scene at the start. That while Willie sucks, Ford's exasperation with her is a joy and a great contrast to the worldly wise Karen Allen of Raiders. Ebert and Kael both thought it was the perfect adventure film - who am I to argue with two of the greatest critics ever? It's got "problematic" scenes now of course but it the context of an old-school serial...I can ask for little more. I love it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 9:09:18 GMT
The script for The Temple of Doom is rather interesting for just one throwaway line during the dinner feast. Close one eye, tilt your head and the British captain's story about an encounter between the Army and the cult sounds an awful lot like Gunga Din, the 1930s Cary Grant film that the screenplay used as a blueprint. Similar to how Secret of the Incas played a very significant influence on Raiders of the Lost Ark. So not only is it a prequel to the original, it's also an indirect sequel to the RKO film as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 9:17:17 GMT
I may have massive nostalgia goggles because I wore the video out in the early 90s but I LOVE Temple Of Doom and am surprised some like Crystal Skull more. Yeah, Willie and Short Round suck (even if I quote "no time for love, Doctor Jones" more often than anything from the series, with "Fortune and glory, kid...fortune and glory" not far behind) but I LOVE so much about it. Just a few things: Spielberg was bold enough to make a sequel (a prequel really, before the concept became popular) that wasn't just a rehash and pays tribute to films like She, Terror Of The Tongs and especially Stranglers Of Bombay. The set pieces are wonderful,with the mine and the bridge being heart stopping. Mola Ram is one of the scariest villains ever "You will become....a true believer....Doctor Jones) I adore the Busby Berkeley opening Anything Goes sequence with the poison ("Antidote...to poison....you just drank") The wonderfully horrible sequences with bugs and creepy crawlers as they leave the palace. The general tone being much, much darker than the cartoony Nazis of Raiders. Dan Ackroyd's cameo. David Yip from Destiny Of The Daleks getting a lovely world building death scene at the start. That while Willie sucks, Ford's exasperation with her is a joy and a great contrast to the worldly wise Karen Allen of Raiders. Ebert and Kael both thought it was the perfect adventure film - who am I to argue with two of the greatest critics ever? It's got "problematic" scenes now of course but it the context of an old-school serial...I can ask for little more. I love it. "I've followed you on many adventures...but into the great unknown mystery, I go first, Indy!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 9:30:21 GMT
The script for The Temple of Doom is rather interesting for just one throwaway line during the dinner feast. Close one eye, tilt your head and the British captain's story about an encounter between the Army and the cult sounds an awful lot like Gunga Din, the 1930s Cary Grant film that the screenplay used as a blueprint. Similar to how Secret of the Incas played a very significant influence on Raiders of the Lost Ark. So not only is it a prequel to the original, it's also an indirect sequel to the RKO film as well. I always assumed the gong is a reference to the Rank organisation films more than anything? Spielberg's certainly a fan of The Archers films which opened with that. www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwyRmRY7Eok
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 9:35:08 GMT
"I've followed you on many adventures...but into the great unknown mystery, I go first, Indy!" Exactly. One small line and it makes the Indy universe seem so much bigger than just the adventures we get to see in the films....or on that rather poor TV show, or rather poor novels.
|
|
|
Post by Timelord007 on Nov 28, 2018 9:43:32 GMT
The uncut Temple Of Doom on Blu Ray is awesome & i love the three Indy movies equally but KOTCS lacks drama, emotion & feels tired & i thought the pacing slow & in parts boring, there's a ok chase sequence & a interesting opening but the climax lacks any danger or excitement & is just plain dull, i expect better from Spielberg & Lucas.
2/5.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 10:03:09 GMT
The script for The Temple of Doom is rather interesting for just one throwaway line during the dinner feast. Close one eye, tilt your head and the British captain's story about an encounter between the Army and the cult sounds an awful lot like Gunga Din, the 1930s Cary Grant film that the screenplay used as a blueprint. Similar to how Secret of the Incas played a very significant influence on Raiders of the Lost Ark. So not only is it a prequel to the original, it's also an indirect sequel to the RKO film as well. [...] I always assumed the gong is a reference to the Rank organisation films more than anything? Spielberg's certainly a fan of The Archers films which opened with that. www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwyRmRY7EokCould very well be actually, it's a very pretty opening. I'd definitely recommend investigating Gunga Din, if you haven't seen it. Particularly if you enjoyed Temple. It's got many of the same elements and I think it's still in the public domain, so it's free to view. It's an interesting view into how the adventure film has/hasn't changed over the former century. Blasphemy, I know, but I actually liked it better than Temple of Doom. Nowhere near as good as Raiders or Last Crusade, of course, but those are masterpieces. My biggest problem was Shia LaBeuof. Lucas wanted a daughter for Indy instead and I feel that would have played better. That honestly sounds like a really interesting dynamic, I like the idea of Indy having an estranged daughter and knowing even less how to handle the situation than with Mutt. It would've been a nice opportunity for character growth like with his old man in The Last Crusade.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Nov 28, 2018 11:33:13 GMT
Reading the scripts of the unmade versions of Indy 4, I feel they picked the wrong direction. While KOTCS had some good elements (John Hurt being awesome as always, How Ford plays his reaction to finding out he's a dad), it doesn't make a great whole. Especially after what a great ending Last Crusade was
|
|