Spoiler-Free Review of Indiana Jones 219
Following last week's sour review of Indiana Jones, Seamus123 links us to
"A spoiler-free review of the brilliant new Indiana Jones film, The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Much has been made of the revival of the series: is Harrison Ford too old, is Shia LeBeouf any good and can it live up to the three previous movies? All these questions — and some surprising answers — are found in Den of Geek's review." Personally I'll see it no matter what.
My review: (Score:2, Insightful)
Next.
Spoiiler Free ...HA! (Score:5, Insightful)
When I do know the ending from hearing it from others, it has no affect on my enjoyment of the movie. Great film making is great film making. Everyone knew the ending of "Titanic" but it is the biggest blockbuster ever.
I want to know everything about the movie before I go a spend $10 on a ticket to see it. Nothing pisses me off more than going out with the wife and spending $20 on shit.
CGI (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank god. CGI made Star Wars 3 one of the worst movies I've ever seen. "This chair doesn't look quite right, can you paint it orange?" "I'll just make a quick 3d model of it instead. You know -- to ensure the movie doesn't look too real."
Re:Spoiiler Free ...HA! (Score:2, Insightful)
Why couldn't they have just left this alone? (Score:2, Insightful)
If it weren't for the creative young directors coming out of independent cinema and the new paths of distribution now available for the few original films out there, I would have given up on film a long time ago." I haven't seen a quality blockbuster in years, but at least there are still a lot of brilliant smaller films out there (you know, the ones that AREN'T prequels, sequels, and remakes).
honestly now (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? Just because of the first two words in the title? That, frankly, is a piss-poor reason to see a movie.
Yours is the exact attitude that causes movie studios to continue producing terrible sequels and re-makes instead of movies that are worth watching. Why innovate when you can imitate for cheaper and people will eat it up anyway, right?
Re:honestly now (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares that Hollywood spits out a ton of shit, there are quality movies in circulation anyway. But if I want to slip back in my 12 years old self I go and see 'crap' movies like this, or even Rocky VI. Why? Because.
Re:honestly now (Score:2, Insightful)
See, innovation isn't cheap, it has a cost and a risk. If a company has plenty of income and revenue and spare cash, when they get asked 'do you want to take a risk with this?' they are more likely to answer yes, than if they're strapped for cash and are struggling to make it through.
There's plenty of quotes around from people in production companies who say 'we mass produce all this stuff to make a profit so that we can afford to make minority stuff that doesn't.'
That's not a review... (Score:4, Insightful)
I can only take so much sugar in my reading material.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:CGI (Score:5, Insightful)
I really think directors need to stick to using "real" effects instead of cgi simulations. We can still tell the difference, so all it does is interrupt the movie and make me aware that I'm really watching a movie. The goal should be to immerse the viewer, no matter how outlandish the plot may be, and not to make him say 'wow, that looked so fake.' And while I'm at it, I'd rather see some sort of puppet/animatron than a cgi character to be completely honest, however, LOTR did a good job with Gollum.
Re:CGI (Score:4, Insightful)
The move back to "the old-fashioned way" is a wise choice. I do not want a CGI Ford bouncing around like Yoda. Even Del Toro (for the Hobbit) seems to agree http://www.ifitsmovies.com/2008/04/28/guillermo-del-toro-talks-the-hobbit-plus-its-sequel/ [ifitsmovies.com].
And why not CGI? Well, look at Blade Runner, Alien, and the original Star Wars movies. They felt so real because the models were real.
Re:Short -term memory syndrome. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My spoiler-free Review of Indiana Jones (Score:2, Insightful)
*whipcrack*
*wisecrack*
*swiiiiiiing*
*punchpunchpunch*
INDY!!!
Dah-nuh-da-da!
Indy: I'm too old for this shit...
Re:honestly now (Score:3, Insightful)
Get over yourself, shithead.
Re:honestly now (Score:5, Insightful)
How did you come to that conclusion? It is the fourth film in a franchise that has produced, at the very least, some entertaining movies.
And if there is imitation going on, it is all the people from the first three imitating themselves. This isn't some Flavor of the Month franchise that they handed to a no name director because the guy that handled the first one moved on to bigger and better things. This is the team that brought us one of the most iconic action movies of recent times taking another stab at the character.
In my book, that's a damn good reason to see a movie.
Yes, even if it turns out to be crap. How am I going to know until I see it? Reviewers? (insert sounds of maniacal laughter)
I understand what you are trying to say, and with almost any other sequel (hell, any other movie) released lately I would be agreeing with you, but in this case I think your ire is misdirected.
No CGI? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Memento (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh rally? (Score:5, Insightful)
OMG by bullshit detector just exploded.
Re:My review: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Review seems forced... (Score:3, Insightful)
Like the classic scene where he decides he can't be bothered by the ninja, and instead just shrugs and pulls his gun. There are quite a number of little moments like that, where he reveals that Indy Jones is just a normal human and not a superhero like John McClane.
I guess I'm kinda hoping this will deliver a graceful this will have to be the last in the series and you can see why---I'm too old for this-kind of message.
I can well imagine the new movie would play on that, and being all the better for it (eg. by making him fall clumsily instead of a perfect roll, or letting him be out of breath every once in a while).
Re:honestly now (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone enjoyed the previous movies, then seeing the sequels just because of the name is a perfect reason to see them. What else should you base your desire to see a movie on? Critic reviews? BS. Friend's word-of-mouth? Even more BS. Budget size? BS. Director, Producer, Studio? Wrong again. They all have their own hits and misses.
There is no better reason to see a movie than if you saw a first version and liked it, then of course you should see the next entries.
That would be like saying I liked this can of Chicken Noodle soup, but I'm going to wait and see what Julia Child thinks of this next can before I warm it up.
I'm not saying you have to automatically like the sequel, but it sure as hell is a good enough reason to see them.
I doesn't fit with the franchise style. (Score:3, Insightful)
An UFO is as much appropriate in a franchise which up to now focused on ancient civilisation and magic, as it would be in, say, a Fantasy movie such as Conan, LOTR, Harry Potter, etc...
What's next ?
A microbiology based explanation in a franchise which was based on mystic / spiritual pow...
no, wait ! [wikipedia.org]
Re:Memento (Score:3, Insightful)