[quote]MODOK wrote:
Indiana Jones was a Coloniel in the US Army in WWII, “fighting the nazis in Europe?” Wasn’t he running around finding the Holy Grail and Ark of the Covenent during WWII, and not on the Western Front of the war?[/quote]
Temple of Doom was set in 1935.
Raiders of the Lost Ark was set in 1936.
Last Crusade was set in 1938.
Spoilers
I can’t help but laugh when I read someone not liking the waterfall scene, thinking it was unrealistic. Do you remember the beginning of Temple of Doom? Lol.
The outlandish stunts didn’t bother me, but one thing that did was the cinematography and super-soft lighting. I know all the actors except Shia are older than dirt, but I missed the rich, weathered look of the first 3 Indy movies. It made the whole first scene look like it was obviously done in a studio and not some remote military facility. The Lucasfilm gang did the same thing in the new Star Wars epidsodes and I didn’t like it there either.
Oh, and George Lucas sir, turn-off your after-effects CGI applications and step away from the computer. We don’t need no stinkin’ fake prairie dogs in an Indy movie.
I’m very happy at the end when Indy took the hat and put it on. If Shia wound up wearing the hat, I would’ve thrown up in my mouth.
Even though I’m nitpicking the shit out of it, I thought it was a decent movie. I’m sure I’ll wind up buying the DVD when it comes out.
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Spoilers
I can’t help but laugh when I read someone not liking the waterfall scene, thinking it was unrealistic. Do you remember the beginning of Temple of Doom? Lol.
The outlandish stunts didn’t bother me, but one thing that did was the cinematography and super-soft lighting. I know all the actors except Shia are older than dirt, but I missed the rich, weathered look of the first 3 Indy movies. It made the whole first scene look like it was obviously done in a studio and not some remote military facility. The Lucasfilm gang did the same thing in the new Star Wars epidsodes and I didn’t like it there either.
Oh, and George Lucas sir, turn-off your after-effects CGI applications and step away from the computer. We don’t need no stinkin’ fake prairie dogs in an Indy movie.
I’m very happy at the end when Indy took the hat and put it on. If Shia wound up wearing the hat, I would’ve thrown up in my mouth.
Even though I’m nitpicking the shit out of it, I thought it was a decent movie. I’m sure I’ll wind up buying the DVD when it comes out.[/quote]
I watched the three previous movies last week and it is surprising me that so many are referring to how over the top it is. Temple of Doom was about as unrealistic as you can get. Jumping out of an airplane in an inflatable raft and not dying because the raft inflates in mid air and sets you gently on the slope of a mountain where you ski to a river? Was the lady thrown in at the last second for comedy relief or was she sleeping with Lucas?
I haven’t heard anything yet that tops that from those who have seen this one.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Was the lady thrown in at the last second for comedy relief or was she sleeping in Lucas?
[/quote]
If you’re referring to the woman in Temple of Doom, she wound up being Steven Spielberg’s wife.
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Was the lady thrown in at the last second for comedy relief or was she sleeping in Lucas?
If you’re referring to the woman in Temple of Doom, she wound up being Steven Spielberg’s wife.
[/quote]
I am SHOCKED!!!
it was not a “good” movie but it was very entertaining. end was just a little too far if you ask me but otherwise it was worth watching. some theaters if you go before 12 on Friday,Saturday or Sunday it is only $5 per person.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Jumping out of an airplane in an inflatable raft and not dying because the raft inflates in mid air and sets you gently on the slope of a mountain where you ski to a river? [/quote]
They did that on Mythbusters!
I agree that it is surprising that so many people are saying that this movie was over the top, when the previous three were just as over the top.
I think it is Indiana Jones snobbery. People that nitpick at these kinds of movies are annoying.
This movie was great, the haters need to back off.
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Jumping out of an airplane in an inflatable raft and not dying because the raft inflates in mid air and sets you gently on the slope of a mountain where you ski to a river?
They did that on Mythbusters![/quote]
I didn’t see that episode of Mythbusters. What was the result?
Death?
I haven’t seen the movie yet so I quickly scrolled past potential spoilers…
You have to understand that the Indiana series were an hommage to the serials of the 1950’s (1940’s even), short episodes of “cliff hanger” type stories/situations before a movie was shown, I.E. Flash Gordon, batman, superman etc. Spielberg wanted a movie (Raiders) to be like those serials put into a movie and succeeded with it. Temple of doom was OK. The opening sequence up to the raft falling over the falls and the mining car scene was about the only hommage placed in the movie with a sprinkle here and there of the same.
Crusade was weak in this regard IMO and they went more “Hollywood” and lost the essense of these serials.
Here are the problems and how to fix them (Spoiler Overkill, but read it after you see it): http://www.geekscape.net/features/view.php?featureID=4d0c583c76faa5455999ca5bd75e9cf9
[quote]AngryVader wrote:
I didn’t see that episode of Mythbusters. What was the result?[/quote]
They finally got it to work, I believe, after several trials to figure out a way to keep the raft from flipping over.
Whey they did it just right, it really looked like you could survive the fall unharmed.
[quote]Bauer97 wrote:
AngryVader wrote:
I didn’t see that episode of Mythbusters. What was the result?
They finally got it to work, I believe, after several trials to figure out a way to keep the raft from flipping over.
Whey they did it just right, it really looked like you could survive the fall unharmed.[/quote]
Don’t get me wrong…if I were in that situation (as often as it happens), I would probably use the raft too. I just don’t see myself making as smooth a landing as they did…with three people in the raft…on a mountain…that they ski down…safely.
Actually, they got it to work by using the raft as a parachute, every other method resulted in the dummy falling out of the raft.
Even using the parachute method, you still can’t do it while jumping out of the plane.
But anyway, I thought the movie was great and the box office sales seem to reflect that.
Now I feel like eating some tacos for some strange reason…
Sweet Jesus. That was absolutely terrible. It was actually worse than The Mummy.
Almost everything was poorly done, nonsensical, laughable, and/or insulting. The only people I respect less than the makers of this atrocity are the people that actually fucking liked it. I swear, not an ounce of thought went into this train wreck.
Shia was good at least.
Sure, stupid shit happened in previous Indy flicks, but not on such a large scale. And the charm that made the stupid shit forgivable in the previous movies was completely absent…at least when it wasn’t being forced.
Tuesdays are cheap movie nights at $4.20, and I feel I paid way too much.
Was it just me or did all of his one-liners fall incredibly flat? I also can’t imagine one line or one scene that will become a classic like the gun draw on the swordsman or the rolling boulder. Oh well. Entertaining, but hardly a classic, in my mind.
[quote]Bergman wrote:
Was it just me or did all of his one-liners fall incredibly flat? [/quote]
It wasn’t a one-liner, but I was absolutely cringing up a storm when Indy started rambling about the difference between quicksand and whatever the hell they were stuck in. Seemed like it was thrown in there with a complete disregard for his character.
The movie was bad ass, totally lived up to the other indiana jones movies. There were times even I had to call bullshit. But over all, bad ass movie. Would watch again, and recommend.