Page 4 of 10

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 3:56 am
by The Master
...CGI fridge??

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 4:15 am
by psj3809
Considering how far that fridge was flung and bounced along the road when it landed i'm amazed he came out of it just a little bit stunned. I know it only a film but some parts (like that one) were totally silly.

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 6:10 am
by Guybrush
SirClive wrote:You are OK with 2000 year old undead Knights but not aliens???
I said I'd leave this thread alone but I have no self control! I don't think people's problems are with the aliens themselves. As a previous draft of the script was called Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars, it was always obvious there were going to be aliens in it. There's even an alien on the poster.

People are more pissed off that the setup and payoff of the ending was rushed, there was no tension, the special effects sucked, and well, it made no damn sense!

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 6:33 am
by Beakerzoid
The Master wrote:...CGI fridge??
Yup, used in a ridiculous scene which was more fitting to a Jar Kar Binks style 'comedy' moment in those Star Wars prequel things than in an Indy adventure.

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 7:32 am
by HEAVYface
i was really looking forward to this about a week ago, now i'm not sure.

i think the thing with old school indiana jones is the mysticism, which it looks like has been replaced with some xfiles sci fi hokum.

now i like all that nonsense, but for me indiana jones is about a bloke looking for mystic stuff thats familiar whilst tw atting nazi filth.

temple of dooms shankara stones which may or may not resonate with people- i certainly had never heard of them before the film. possibly why people don't like the film as much as the other two? no nazis in it to dispatch either. i think TOD is a smaller more human story than the other two, so didn't have the epic feel of the others, it is more gory with all the witchcraft and is still watchable though.

anyway all the films are pretty silly, but leave the sci fi to something more suited i reckon. will still go and see it a guess, even though everyones a bit down in it here

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 7:50 am
by JetSetWilly
i quite liked it. yes, the whole thing about the aliens was a bit rushed, but it had plenty of action in it for me. some may hate it, some may like it, but then its like Marmite: you either love it or hate it. remember though, everyones entitled to THEIR opinion. But I do think they should have got Jeffery Boam back to do this screenplay, not David Koepp, though.

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 8:16 am
by psj3809
Just thought it was weird seeing Indy in the 50's but i suppose they couldnt do the 40's and pretend he hasnt aged one bit.

I dont think anyones slating anyones opinion but i do get a hint of 'Phantom Menace'. As in some Star wars fans just refused to say it was a bad film as it was Star Wars . We all love Indy but cant be biased about the film due to loving the earlier ones.

Its still better than many films i've seen the last year, perhaps i've picked some duds or i'm just not gripped by as many films as i was when i was young (Eg Doomsday- dire), it was certainly watchable but i think lacked the magic

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 5:45 pm
by 1500graham
psj3809 wrote:Just thought it was weird seeing Indy in the 50's but i suppose they couldnt do the 40's and pretend he hasnt aged one bit.

I dont think anyones slating anyones opinion but i do get a hint of 'Phantom Menace'. As in some Star wars fans just refused to say it was a bad film as it was Star Wars . We all love Indy but cant be biased about the film due to loving the earlier ones.

Its still better than many films i've seen the last year, perhaps i've picked some duds or i'm just not gripped by as many films as i was when i was young (Eg Doomsday- dire), it was certainly watchable but i think lacked the magic
I may be madder that Mad Dog McCree, but i totally agree. Oh and the part where his son swings along on the vines.....ridiculous!

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 5:46 pm
by SirClive
1500graham wrote:Oh and the part where his son swings along on the vines.....ridiculous!
Absolutely ridiculous! Exactly what I want from an Indy film.

Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 5:50 pm
by 1500graham
SirClive wrote:You are OK with 2000 year old undead Knights but not aliens???
The grail kept the knight alive, totally believable.
I don't mind aliens as long as they're in the Aliens or Aliens vs Predator films and not bolted onto the end of an Indy film. It just doesn't work for me.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 1:42 pm
by necronom
I saw it last night and enjoyed it more than I thought. It was much better than The Temple of Doom. I'd put it in joint second place, together with The Last Crusade. Raiders is obviously the best.

I didn't like the snake rope bit, or the monkey bit, but the rest was great. It has collapsing underground temples, stone mechanisms, daft action/fight scenes, and seemed like a proper Indy film.

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 2:02 pm
by martin_lovick
great action film,


...but it had too many plot devices in it, aliens,nuclear blasts, communists,mind control/incas ......IMHO the writers approched this film with the plan of cashing in on the sucess of the previous 3....

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 8:04 pm
by Guybrush
Damn you all for liking this film. I really wish I did. ;)

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 8:12 pm
by paranoid marvin
It's just that they've had YEARS to plan and perfect it , so that when it was eventually made it SHOULD have been perfect. The fact is that it isn't , and what's worse , it's not as good as many similar films made since , never mind it's prequels

The same could be said of the new Star Wars films

He's basically lost the plot - perhaps it's because he calls all the shots , and there's no-one there to over-rule or disagree with him. How could the same guy who made Raiders and Empire Strikes Back have made Indy IV or Phantom Menace?

Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 8:49 pm
by paranoid marvin
so were they aliens or trans-dimensional beings? And if the latter , why the need for a spaceship?