SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: May 22 2008 06:12 pm

Last night me and two of my friends went to a midnight release of Indiana Jones. We were excited. I mean, Indiana Jones movie, Speilberg directing it, how can you go wrong? We get there, and the movie doesn't start on time. The projecter breaks, and it takes a good hour to get it back up and working again. How could we have known that the projecter was trying to save us?

Every bit of dialogue right from the start is bad. Its awkward and pointless. He ends up flying through the air in a refrigerator, having survived a nuclear explosion. The first part of the movie has some reference to paranoid 50's style communism paranoia, complete with Indiana losing his career. At a certain point two individuals who were following him reveal that they are KGB, and all the first part is forgotten. Commies are all evil, deserve to die, and you should be paranoid about your friends.

There is no tension, none. The fights are bland. When Shia LePoof is swinging on vines like tarzan, one of my friends gave up, and the other was at the point that he said "Why not?". Lotsa CGI.

Remember episode three of stars wars? Ya know, the one with terrible acting done by actors who can normally act? Lotsa CGI? Ships that recalled the 50s? This movie reeks of George Lucas.

The whole affair is schizophrenic. Turns out the crystal skull belongs to an alien, who goes home when he gets it back. If your pissed that I spoiled it for you, don't worry, cause shit doesn't spoil when you leave it on your table for three days.

Instead of this, go see iron man again. Or speed racer. Or a blank screen.

Posted: May 22 2008 06:32 pm

While I have nobody else but myself to blame for reading some of your post and you didn't really reveal much of the plot up until I stopped reading (after the KGB part) it still would have been nice if you had put the word SPOILER somewhere in there.

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

yeah, but you seem to hate everything, gumshoe.

Posted: May 22 2008 09:49 pm

im still gonna see it saturday. me and my dad go to every big blockbuster the saturday they come out. we eat after and discuss the movie. even if the movie is bad we still have fun ripping it apart.

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

that sounds really fun actually.

I'm gonna go next week when I get payed.

Posted: May 22 2008 10:15 pm

if you have any amc movie theaters its 5 buck sbefore noon on friday saturday and sunday.

Posted: May 23 2008 08:25 am

here are some other thoughts on the movie:
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3167938

i personally didnt hate the movie as much as RGS did. i didnt think it was a great end to the legacy of indiana jones but it wasnt that terrible. i do have some gripes though:

-too much CGI
-too many over the top scenes (reminded me of pirates of the caribbean 3):
-the fridge scene in the beginning
-the vine swinging
-the stupid tree scene w/the aquajeep
-the sword fight on the jeeps
-the cheap ending

other than that, the adventure elements weren't bad. it was still indy and harrison ford can still pull it off even if he does look old.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

SPOILERS BELOW
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Saw it last night, and I am 100% in Gumshoe's corner. George Lucas should die. He's again taken one of the most solid franchises in cinema history and managed to fuck up an impossible-to-fuck-up movie.

As far as I'm concerned, Indiana Jones movies should have three elements: a foreign enemy, an indigenous people, and an ancient artifact. That's ALL you need. While you could argue that this latest version had at least some form of all three of these, the incorporation of fucking aliens into the plot ruins it. Aliens, Lucas? Really... ALIENS?! In a spaceship that takes the fuck off at the end?!

I was mildly annoyed at the campy dialogue up to the middle of the movie. Then Cheesy Beefy (I think this is the name Syd gave him) fucking ended up with monkeys in the heights of the trees. Then he swung with them through the forest like fucking Tarzan. THEN the fucking monkeys allied with Indiana and company and attacked the foreign enemy. What... the... fuck. It was at this point where I gave up on this movie.

Awkward dialog. Way too campy. Shia Labeouf is a tard. Way too much CGI. And Harrison Ford looked too old. I hate to say it, but they shouldn't even have tried.

As far as I'm concerned, this movie is analogous to The Next Karate Kid. A weird anamoly that I'm going to pretend doesn't even exist for the sake of saving my attitude toward a formerly awesome franchise.

Posted: May 23 2008 01:59 pm

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

UltimateFierce wrote:

I'm so going to save that gif.

Ultimate Fierce has indirectly open the door for one of the points i wanted to make about Indy '4'.

Spoilers!!!!

First off the supernatural elements that are in the Indy series are usually very subtle, to the point where it puts you on edge. A UFO and crystal skeleton aliens is about as subtle as a donkey punch.

Second, this supernatural element most of the time kills or screws the main baddy. While it did in indy 4 it was . . . how shell i put this . . . the pussy and poorman's way to off the villain. The three baddies in the first indy, the ark microwaved them (although having the ark reveled in the 4th one was a nice touch though), Indy 2, the main baddie and his goons get eaten by gators and finally the main baddie in Indy 3 ages into dust in a matter of seconds (plus the main goon goes off a cliff with a tank).

How they off the main baddie in indy 4, they disintegrated her which is the pussy poorman way to off the villain because it relies solely on CGI and let me tell you there was enough CGI movie to clam George and Steve as CGI addicts. I think the main goon had a cooler death (being eaten by killer ants is the most original thing i've seen recently). Also the traitor guy getting sucked into the ship was bogus, if anything, Indy should have taken him as a prisoner.

Third, am i suppose to believe that the aliens from "Close Encounters" were the same aliens that gave the ancient people technology. Infact the whole thing with aliens is just too over the top.

Some may argue that the whole aliens, red paranoia and a-bomb fit the time period. I say yes but so what? I know the fridge was made of lead but i doubt Indy would have survived that blast even in George's warped world. Although, i would defintily want a screen shot of indy next to a mushroom cloud, it was pointless but bad ass none the less. In fact, i think it was the most awesome scene in the whole movie.

I'll agree with gumshoe on several points about this movie but i have to say it was decent. It was nothing to recommend though, Iron Man was more suited for recommendations.

Now will you excuse me, i have a melting nazi to copy and paste.

Posted: May 23 2008 07:36 pm

here's a review on collegehumor.com that makes some sense of how i feel. i especially like how he summed up his bottom line: http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1755718

Posted: May 24 2008 02:47 am

I can sum this movie up in about one sentence, seeming how its nearly three AM and I want to go to bed.

Just let this movie entertain you and dont ask questions. Otherwise you will find a reason to put it in your head that its crap. Which it isnt.

It is certainly way more over the top than ANY of the other three movies. It certainly has some wickedly unbelievable action sequences and some super campy dialogue ("the space between spaces"). I also found in this movie, other than the other ones was that the main villain was not as menacing and I never felt scared of her like I was of say the melting face guy or the Nazi general part in Last Crusade. Also, there were a few plot holes, like when they were going to that cave in the waterfall, what did they just climb up there? Another thing, how did Cate Blanchett get down there if the stairs receded into the wall when they went down there? '

It was nice to see Karen Allen again. Shia Leiboufenneger's part was fine, he didnt over or underact it. I thought that there was a bit too much CGI in it, especially near the end when someone behind us shouted "SPACESHIP!". Thank you, dickass.

Overall, it was clearly not as well "done" per se as any of the other three, but if you just throw everything out of the window, it is a good movie. I do enjoy this one more than Temple of Doom. I can see why some people hate it, but you just have to lower your guard and let the film entertain you without stupid expectations and opinionated feelings getting in the way. I say 3 stars on a good day, but in a week it will be 2.5 stars.

Posted: May 24 2008 09:53 am

Shut up, Dorn wrote:

Just let this movie entertain you and dont ask questions. Otherwise you will find a reason to put it in your head that its crap. Which it isnt.

I want to preface this by saying that I LOVE the other 3 movies. Having said that, I saw it last night and I was not at all impressed. The great thing about the other 3 movies is that, even though you KNOW it's campy and you KNOW his escapes are supposed to border on ridiculous, you can follow along and enjoy and it's not out the realm of possibility to "suspend disbelief". This movie just plain assumes that we'll eat every piece of tripe Lucas wants to feed us as long as it's stamped with an IJ4 logo.

There was too much CGI, too many jumps in logic from one plot point to another, and too many ridiculous survivals. Surviving 1 waterfall drop? Sure. 2? Meh. 3? Just plain stupid. It seemed like at times either the actors, director, or screenwriters were mailing in the dialogue and plot.

Even for an Indy movie this was just too over the top and insulting to its audience to enjoy. I definitely would not go see it again.

Posted: May 24 2008 05:20 pm

JEW wrote:

yeah, but you seem to hate everything, gumshoe.

Yeah, I need to stop complaining so much. I DID like iron man if thats any consolation.

Posted: May 24 2008 05:26 pm

Indiana Jones and the great disapointment. it was just 1 sigh after another. me and my dad kept giving awkward looks like. really? they just did that? and people were clapping and stuff and whistling the theme. it was just bad bad bad

SIDE NOTE. THE MOVE HAS ONE OF TEH GREATEST ACTORS EVER!!!!!!!!!! ERNIE REYES JR HIMSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MOTOOOOOOOOOO SURFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Posted: May 24 2008 05:44 pm

I haven't seen the movie yet, and it may indeed be garbage. But I just wanted to say one thing. It is Lucas' franchise, just like Star Wars. If he wants to fuck it up, at least it is his to fuck up. But when somebody like Michael Bay, who has no business fucking around with my childhood, takes a massive shit on something as near and dear to my heart as the Transformers, its unforgivable. This is a far worse crime than Lucas fucking up his own shit.

Posted: May 24 2008 06:22 pm

lucas may have invented it but it was always spielbergs to direct and maintain.

and when will transformers fanboys quit bitching. its a movie for christsakes. not a 30 minute tv show. the stories and feel dont cut it when you have to appeal to a wider audience. the 80s movie was definately aimed at kids. and to me was more adhd complaint with the constant songs that broke out. as a fan of transformers it wasnt that bad.

Posted: May 24 2008 06:51 pm

haha, I've met ernie reyes jr. and sr.

they run a martial arts studio in the san jose area that my cousins used to go to

Posted: May 24 2008 06:55 pm

KWANN SUUUUUU DUDE!

Posted: May 24 2008 07:24 pm

everyone's rant about michael bay is that all hes about is explosions and effects. well if giant robots start wreaking shit in my town im gonna bet a few bucks some stuff is gonna explode and shit is gonna get broke. did you expect that they would settle arguments over a game of bridge and some tea? giant robots with lasers + evil giant robots with lasers = explosions. at least they got a director with experience in said explosions.

Posted: May 25 2008 02:08 am

I'd love to see giant space robots settle their differences over a heated game of Scrabble, followed by long hug sesh.

Posted: May 25 2008 03:23 am

Well, I'm not saying Transformers was a bad movie in and of itself. But the best way I have been able to describe it is that it was made for acquaintances of the franchise, not for friends of the franchise.

I know its not G1, so it doesn't have to follow any predetermined story or anything like that.

A big problem for me is that I knew when it was announced that I wouldn't like it. I knew that it was going to be a story about humans and the way they cope with a world invaded by alien robots. In a cartoon, you have the option of making the actual robots the main characters. This won't happen when you bring real people into the fold. Voltron would have been better suited for this since people are actually the main characters. Not that I am suggesting they should make a live action Voltron movie.

My biggest problem is that it feels like the business end took priority. It felt like Michael Bay was more worried about appealing to the main stream masses at the expense of the already established fanbase rather than trying to appeal to the people I feel he should have been making the movie for.

I know plenty of people who grew up transformers and love Bay's movie. That's fine. I don't have a problem with others liking it or not. And like I said, in and of itself, its not awful. But I do feel cheated. Just like they shouldn't be forcing sequels to 80's movies (like Indy), old tv shows, and old cartoons. Most of these seem to be made with the intention of hijacking an already established name to maximize exposure for a Hollywood blockbuster where the business end takes priority over the artistic end.

erock wrote:

everyone's rant about michael bay is that all hes about is explosions and effects. well if giant robots start wreaking shit in my town im gonna bet a few bucks some stuff is gonna explode and shit is gonna get broke. did you expect that they would settle arguments over a game of bridge and some tea? giant robots with lasers + evil giant robots with lasers = explosions. at least they got a director with experience in said explosions.

I don't have a problem with the explosion and the special effects. I expect it. I just prefer an animated cartoon as opposed to live action with lots of CGI. I would have also have liked to see if follow G1 story a little more closely, becasue they way I see it, the story they used, you could take out transformers and plug in any alien invading shapeshifting robots.

I dunno, I'm probably just being picky. But for me, 1986 move > this movie. I guess I'd rather just see a true sequel to the G1 series rather than somebody rewriting the story.

Posted: May 25 2008 07:36 am

considering how big the robots are did you expect them to make giant cardboard boxes? people demand huge action scenes with completely unreal objects but when it takes cgi to make them people bitch like hell.

Posted: May 25 2008 08:19 am

erock wrote:

considering how big the robots are did you expect them to make giant cardboard boxes? people demand huge action scenes with completely unreal objects but when it takes cgi to make them people bitch like hell.

No, I'm not complaining that they used CGI in the movie. What else would they do? They had to. But I would prefer an animated cartoon version compared to the live action. I also wish the story would have followed G1. I would also have liked the movie to be focused more on the autobots than the humans, although it was an interesting perspective.

Posted: May 25 2008 01:09 pm

If you want g1 then just watch g1. why would the public want to see something hey have already seen.