[Thelomen Toblerone]

Aptorian, on Jul 25 2009, 08:14 PM, said:

Did you know they are making a 5th?

Provided it doesnt have crystal aliens in a chamber that needs a skull to get into but mysteriously and completely inexplicably a skull has been removed from with no visible means of entry and no skull to get in with in the first place, doesnt end with an enormous spaceship, doesnt have Shia The Beef swinging through trees with the ease and confidence of a coked-up Tarzan, and doesnt have a fridge/atomic blast scene, Im sure it'll be fine.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Indy 4 wasn't the best of the bunch imo, but it was decent and much better than it's given credit for. Ok, so the ending got a little out there. If only they had kept it believable, like when they had the zombie voodoo guy who could pull people's hearts out through their chest who had stolen magic rocks. Or the time when God killed all those Nazis. Or the time when God's boobytraps killed all those nazis. Yep, it's a shame they couldn't keep it believable like that.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Boobytaps are more believable by a long way, but we'll put that aside for now. In each of the films, the ending was fine because it made sense/meshed with the rest of the film. (I'll spoiler the rest)

Spoiler

Ark of the Covenant = mental war weapon thingy = kills Nazis - accepting the premise that there IS an Ark, then you can accept it kills people. Same with the Holy Grail, magic stones, etc.

I accepted the Crystal Skull thing, I thought it was a great idea. The magnetism, the psychic stuff, all of it, no problem. Did I have a go at that? Non, monsieur.

What I was exasperated by was the room where the aliens were in. Seperate skeletons (hive mind) awaiting return of one skull. Fransisco what's his face took the skull. But you cant get into the room without a skull. I was immediately confused. But that's only a small plot hole, I like Michael Bay films, I could deal with that by itself. But then when the skull goes back, all the skeletons crash together and form a single alien. So if that's the alien's form when everythings back, how did someone take away just the one skull before? Why didnt the super-powered aliens stop them? Why are the people Mayan in an area where there were no Mayans, it was Incans? How the hell did he survive in that fridge? Why does it feel like Spielberg watched "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns" and thought "ah, I can use some of those ideas!" And so on.

Those are all just plot holes though, and I can live with them. The real reason the end pissed me off was that it was fucking living aliens with spaceships. It just doesnt fit the feel of the movies. I know im not alone in feeling that it seemed like a completely different ending had been lumped onto it that wasnt really in keeping with the theme of the series, so I dont think my view is invalid. It just felt a bit out of place, is all. A city preserved, aliens sitting there doing fuck all for ages and ages, then get a skull back big spaceship appears and they all fuck off home. Just abit...well, weird. I still like the film,I bought it after all. It's just not in the same class as 1 & 3, and even 2.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

While you do have valid points, I think you're succumbing to nostalgia. I love the Indy movies too, but if you can put aside your childhood love of them, there's a lot of bad and silly things about the first two. If either of those were released today, they would not seem as good as they do now in hindsight.

[Aptorian]

I repeated this over and over again in the discussions of Indy 4 back when it came out... the old films are really not as amazing as you remember. They're like the old star wars films, they're great in hindsight, but if you watch them today they are sorely lacking in many ways.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Aptorian, on Jul 26 2009, 01:48 AM, said:

I repeated this over and over again in the discussions of Indy 4 back when it came out... the old films are really not as amazing as you remember. They're like the old star wars films, they're great in hindsight, but if you watch them today they are sorely lacking in many ways.

Lacking in more ways than the Star Wars movies. INdy 3 was legit. The first two, while beloved and a lot of fun, were cheesy as shit in a lot of places.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

To be fair, Temple of Doom has always stuck out as a bit...well...crap, so I suppose you are right. I think Indy 3 definitely rescued the franchise (anser for Indy 5 - bring back Sean Connery - he can be a zombie I dont care), and I always make allowances for the Ark cos it's the first one of an adored franchise.

In retrospect it is probably at least on a par with Temple, I guess the subconsious problem with it I have is that there are some really good bits and the potential is there - rewrite a few scenes and it couldve been AMAZING. But you get that with all films I guess. A looooong wait and alot of hype built my expectations unrealistically high.

[Morgoth]

the big problem with indy 4 is not all the glaring plot holes, the cities placed in odd places, the countries with wrong names, the plastic crystal skull, the people living in walls, the magnetic crate that does not attract weapons, the sealed chamber, the insanely tall mountain and son on. It's not the visible wires or the half hour lasting days. It's an indy film after all, and though I get frustrated with the obvious lazyness of it all (I mean, how hard can it be to at least try to make an effort) that in itself does not take away the enjoyment, though it reduces it somewhat.

No, what ruined the movie for me, and yes, I say ruined the movie, is the obvious presence of George Lucas' grubby fingers. Furry animals showing up to make "funny" noises, bugs making "funny" noises when they die. People making "funny" noises when they die. The way too long car scene was a standard Lucas wank and it grinded on my nerves for most of its length.

Lets' face it. George Lucas is brilliant at special effects, at scenerey and world building. But he should never be allowed near directing, or god forbid the script.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Morgoth, on Jul 27 2009, 01:57 AM, said:

the big problem with indy 4 is not all the glaring plot holes, the cities placed in odd places, the countries with wrong names, the plastic crystal skull, the people living in walls, the magnetic crate that does not attract weapons, the sealed chamber, the insanely tall mountain and son on. It's not the visible wires or the half hour lasting days. It's an indy film after all, and though I get frustrated with the obvious lazyness of it all (I mean, how hard can it be to at least try to make an effort) that in itself does not take away the enjoyment, though it reduces it somewhat.

No, what ruined the movie for me, and yes, I say ruined the movie, is the obvious presence of George Lucas' grubby fingers. Furry animals showing up to make "funny" noises, bugs making "funny" noises when they die. People making "funny" noises when they die. The way too long car scene was a standard Lucas wank and it grinded on my nerves for most of its length.

Lets' face it. George Lucas is brilliant at special effects, at scenerey and world building. But he should never be allowed near directing, or god forbid the script.

True enough, but people are going on like this was the first Indy movie with these flaws. All I'm saying is that the franchise had always had some serious problems that people have forgotten about, and somehow expected not to be present in the new one.

[Morgoth]

well, the difference is between flaws of a low brow action movie, and flaws because the movie makers couldn't be bothered to put any effort into it.

[Mezla PigDog]

I think the making of Indy IV involved a lot of navel gazing by Harrison Ford and Spielberg so they focussed on introducing Mutt and the dynamic between Indy and Marion (which failed miserably) and foolishly left the action to Lucas. They were too busy looking ahead to rebooting the franchise and so it suffered from them trying to do too much in a single movie.

Not to mention, in my mind, Indy didn't need aliens.

[Cougar]

I really did think that this film was absolutely awful. The story was horribly disjointed.

I believe that one of the issues they had a problem with was finding a story that had no religious undertones. Since the 1st and 3rd films has been very arbrahmic in focus and the 2nd had been about crazy Hinduish cults.

[Macros]

Saw a few films recently that I had missed in the last year or two (possibly further back)

Alpha dog
Being slightly drunk made this movie a bit better for me, I forgot how it ended (I vaguely recall knowing the true story behind the film) but even though I forgot it, the ending was forseeable a conuntry mile off, this tainted it a bit for me. the premise of shoving a witness number on all new characters was a solid enough idea but there was no real suspense for me.
Timberlake was surprisingly competent and a few of the others were believable, timberlakes gf was hot.
Meh, 6/10. thats a slightly drunk 6/10

Yes Man
I really wanted to see this in the cinema, because I'd heard of the book the idea came from, some guy said yes to pretty much everything for a year, ended up winning a load of money, losing it, liuving with buddhist monks for a few months, a really wacky year.
I heard some pretty bad reports about the film so didn't bother with it, but was bored on friday night so I went and rented it.
Consideirng my low expectations I was pleasantly surprised. No, quite entertained.
Sure some of the gags are predictable, but thers enough laughs to carry the film, and pretty girl is pretty, and I liked her, shes future wife material.
Not much more to say about it, ending was a bit of a let down, but im giving it a sober 7/10

Zack and Miri make a porno
Loved it, plenty of laughs, and one holy fuck rofl moment that was almost worth the rental fee alone.
Plenty of people didnt like this film saying it was silly and shallow, suited me down to the ground.
8.5/10

[Obdigore]

Saw 'The Ugly Truth' - romantic comedy.

It was ok. Had some funny moments, but was about what I expected, and like all romantic comedies, the plot is easy to figure out, blah blah blah.

5/10 as a movie, 9/10 as a romantic comedy.

[coltainereborn]

I couldn't watch Indy 4 w/ a straight face, since I hade seen the South Park episode dealing w/ it. Lucas and Spielberg have suffered their wrath before, but I thought that was over the top-- until I watched the movie. They would have been better off just leaving Indy after the last movie, which was fantastic.

Spoiler

If you have never seen the South Park episode, Kyle and the gang hire a lawyer to sue Lucas and Spielberg for raping Indiana Jones. There are several dream sequences that mirror rape scenes from feature movies, with Lucas and Spielberg doing the honors on poor Indy. Its hard to make the subject of rape funny, but the visual gag of Lucas bending Indy over a log aka Deliverance, while telling him to 'squeal for me' was great I thought. And seriously, has there been anyone worse to his own movies than Lucas?

[Fist Gamet]

Watched The Wrestler last night.

I enjoyed this a lot, Rourke was excellent and I really felt for The Ram at the end. I found it quite poignant but not cheesy, and the frailty of the relationships between the characters was well done. He even looked like he had been wrestling all his life. I am no film critic so I won't go on about it but I cannot decide if I liked the way it ended, I mean, the final scene.

[Sir Thursday]

Watched Seven Pounds. It felt long and slow - they tried to keep the reasons behind everything secret for slightly too long, and as a result I found myself getting bored about 2/3rds of the way through. Nice idea though.


Sir Thursday

[Aptorian]

Watched Freedomland yesterday, without knowing what the film was about. I think if I'd known what the film was about or if the tittle had been different, I might have liked the film more.

As it is I think it's an awfull film that makes very little sense. The script and all the dialogue seems rough and unpolished. All through the film I was expecting some giant conspiracy to be revealed because everyone was acting so weird, turns out it was just wooden acting and a shit story. You could see the ending coming a mile a way and I didn't like a single character in the film.

What the hell was the matter with Julian Moore in this film? She looked like she was insane every second of the film and what is it with Sam Jackson always needing to have a scene in the film he's in, where he's shouting at the top of his lungs for five minutes in some crazy scene?

[amphibian]

Aptorian, on Aug 2 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

what is it with Sam Jackson always needing to have a scene in the film he's in, where he's shouting at the top of his lungs for five minutes in some crazy scene?

It's called acting.

[HoosierDaddy]

Movies I've seen recently:

The Incredible Hulk: Meh.5 or 6/10. Some fun action sequences. Liv Tyler isn't a good actress, imo.
In Brugges: 9/10. Very funny, very dark, very visceral. Extremely enjoyable.
BSG-Razor: Interesting, didn't like the main female character, or the admiral to be honest. Good riddance. 7/10.
The Other Boleyn Girl: BORING. 3/10. Not even Scarlet and Natalie can make this entertaining.
Watchmen: Entertaining. Nice storyline, a little strange. Good acting, I thought. 8/10.
Push: Pure popcorn movie. 6/10.
Gran Torino: 8/10. Good plot progression, interesting characters and story dynamic, good ending.
Knowing: Surprisingly I enjoyed this quite a bit. It's nothing more than popcorn, but it was at least an interesting take. 7/10.

Hmmm, that's all I can think of for now.