Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Spoiler-Free Review of Indiana Jones 219

Posted by CmdrTaco from the something-to-read dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spoiler-Free Review of Indiana Jones More

Spoiler-Free Review of Indiana Jones

Comments Filter:

  • Shia LeBeouf to Carry on the Franchise? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@noSpAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @08:52AM (#23491182) Journal
    I can deal with LeBeouf in this Jones movie but I've already heard (and I hate to sound like Entertainment Tonight) that Spielberg has asked LeBeouf to carry on as the main character in a string of potential sequels.

    Could this be good? Maybe. But I sure will lament the loss of Ford. In any event I hope to god that LeBeouf's character doesn't assume Indie's role or character or name directly in the coming movies. I haven't seen Crystal Skull yet so I can't say if they're setting us up for that the end (I hope not).

    You know, I love the attitude of Indiana Jones and everything about the character but I'm going to get tired of it if you keep rehashing it. You know, it's ok to try out new things and introduce new personalities. In fact, it's almost required for the audience not to lose their interests. Hell, I wouldn't even mind if Lucas kept stealing high level plot lines from Akira Kurosawa films--so long as I don't get the same thing in 6+ movies of a diluted film franchise.

    I joked with my roommates that we're not far from Lucas re-releasing a "Special Edition" of The Last Crusade where River Phoenix is superimposed with the image of Shia LeBeouf for continuity (a la Anakin Skywalker's apparition in Return of the Jedi). I know he's not the young version of Indiana Jones but I'm so sick and tired of that kind of stuff. Where's Drew Berrymore so she can step in and convince Lucas we should take this chance to replace all the scary whips in Indiana Jones with licorice sticks.

  • My review: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) *
    Harrison Ford is too old, Shia LeBeouf is too young to even remember the original Indiana Jones movies, and the Crystal Skull looked fake.

    Next.

    • Re:My review: (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Creepy ( 93888 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @09:55AM (#23491896) Journal
      Most if not all of the Crystal Skulls are fake artifacts. All of the ones tested date to the 19th century.

          The most famous one, the Mitchell-Hedges skull has not been allowed to be studied, but it was reportedly found in Lubaantun in Belize (when it was British Honduras). The problem is, no one acknowledges the finder, Anna Mitchell-Hedges was at the dig, though later her adopted father said in his autobiography (I think) the skull was at least 3600 years old. I severely doubt that it is authentic and believe it is more of a money/attention grab, but it fits well with Indiana Jones since all of the movies have been about mythological objects that may or may not be real.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Khisanth Magus ( 1090101 )
        The Crystal Skull found in Belize will teleport you to a huge cavern on another planet inhabited by giant aliens I will have you know!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pubjames ( 468013 )
      Yes, Harrison Ford is as old as my dad, and I think I would be too old to play Indiana Jones.

  • Meesa gonna see it too! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @08:54AM (#23491216) Homepage

    Meesa no wait for poodoo reviews! Meesa gonna give bigsa clink-clink to franchise rightawaysa! What could go wrongsa?

  • RIP Denholm Elliott (Score:5, Funny)

    by InvisblePinkUnicorn ( 1126837 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @08:56AM (#23491224)
    It's a shame there won't be a Marcus Brody role in this one, as the actor died a few years after the Last Crusade. One of the funniest scenes in the trilogy was from this one:

    Elsa: It's perfectly obvious where the pages are... he's given them to Marcus Brody.
    Henry: Marcus?! You didn't drag poor Marcus along did you? He's not up to the challenge.
    Donovan: He sticks out like a sore thumb. We'll find him.
    Indy: The hell you will! He's got a two day head start on you, which is more than he needs. Brody's got friends in every town and village from here to the Sudan, he speaks a dozen languages, knows every local custom, he'll blend in, disappear, you'll never see him again. With any luck, he's got the grail already.

    (next scene)

    (Brody disembarks from the train along with the other passengers, a cross-section of Arabs and Turks.)
    Brody: Is there anyone here who speaks English? Or maybe even ancient Greek?

  • No matter what? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @08:59AM (#23491264)
    > Personally I'll see it no matter what.

    Then the terrorists have already won

  • Spoiiler Free ...HA! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hankapobe ( 1290722 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @09:06AM (#23491334)
    I don't know about you guys, but when I see the ending of this movie, I guarantee that I won't be surprised. Hollywood has become too predictable. The only time I've ever been surprised by a movie ending was "The Sixth Sense". Even "Crying Game" didn't surprise me because I recognized the actor from "Stargate".

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by xpuppykickerx ( 1290760 )
      Everyone also knew the how "the Passion of the Christ" ended, but it still made a ton of money.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by CrazedWalrus ( 901897 )
        And at the end if Titanic, the ship sinks!

        * spoiler alert! (Was I supposed to say that first?)

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @09:40AM (#23491688)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Spoiiler Free ...HA! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @09:43AM (#23491748)
      As far as "woa" movies go. Arlington Road was probably the one that caught me the most off guard. But so did Fight Club. No one says you have to watch NEW movies. I'll hear about an obscure older movie and see if I can find it somewhere there are a ton of Independent Films that never got exposure because they predated the internet.

      One of my favorite movies is The Man from Earth. Simple, 0 CGI and it's a great discussion and there's even a small plot twist at the end.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tim C ( 15259 )
      The only time I've ever been surprised by a movie ending was "The Sixth Sense".

      Meh, I guessed the secret of "The Sixth Sense" in the hospital after the kid has the attack/fit/seizure thing. I thought it was blindingly obvious, personally, although I guess it's one of those "either you can see it or you can't" things.

      "The Others", on the other hand (pun not intended) I guessed literally as it was being revealed - it hit me as she opened the door to reveal the twist. *That* was cool.
      • Out of curiousity, which order did you see the movies in?

        I saw The Sixth Sense first and was surprised, saw The Others second and wasn't, because it's very nearly the same twist with an otherwise different plot. That is to say, the twist didn't surprise me specifically because I'd seen The Sixth Sense and was looking for a twist of a similar kind. I have a feeling I'd have enjoyed The Others a lot more if I'd seen them the other way around.
      • Meet 'El Orfanato': http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0464141/ [imdb.com]

        It has some twists, but even if you guess all of them in the first five minutes of the film, you will feel the movie.

        In fact, it's quite scary/frightening if you're the right kind of person. And, it's better than both 'The Sixth Sense' and 'The Others'.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by erroneous ( 158367 )
      Stargate was made two years after The Crying Game, so you must've seen that movie pretty late. It's very difficult to avoid spoilers for that long.

      The Crying Game wasn't really a Hollywood film anyway.

    • I don't know about you guys, but when I see the ending of this movie, I guarantee that I won't be surprised.

      No, I guaratee that you will be surprised... ...at how much Holywood can manage to ruin a movie.

      [spoiler:]

      There's a damned giant flying saucer, that has nothing to do here and completely ruins the franchise.

      WTF? Did Spielberg run out of ancient culture to use as a historical background to Indy's adventure, so he was desperate to put some E.T. in there ?

      Or is "Putting flying saucers that have nothing to do with the movie" Spielberg's latest "signature" ?

      Thankfully, the movie it self doesn't depend on some "

      • Re:You *WILL* be surprised [spoilers] (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Lars T. ( 470328 ) <Lars,Traeger&googlemail,com> on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @11:38AM (#23493298) Journal

        [spoiler:] There's a damned giant flying saucer, that has nothing to do here and completely ruins the franchise. WTF? Did Spielberg run out of ancient culture to use as a historical background to Indy's adventure, so he was desperate to put some E.T. in there ?
        How is a UFO more unbelievable than a vengeful god who sends ghosts to turn Nazis aflame when you open a stupid trunk? The idea that these "gods" were actually ETs didn't start with Stargate.

        • How is a UFO more unbelievable than a vengeful god

          It just doesn't fit in the mood which was set by the franchise. I'm watching Indiana Jones movies to see exotic and/or ancient civilisation and mythologies ; not a damned E.T. which is missing one last part to be able to finally phone home. (Unless the movie is expressly advertised as a Indiana Jones / E.T. crossover).

          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

    • How about Vertigo? That story is so convoluted it's difficult to recount right after you've seen it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by uniquename72 ( 1169497 )
        I just watched "The Big Sleep" the other night -- a classic noir with Bogart & Bacall. A great movie, but I defy anyone to explain even some of the major plot points.

        Apparently, even the screenwriters couldn't figure out who killed one of the characters (the chauffeur). So they called Raymond Chandler, the author of the book, and he said he couldn't figure it out either.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mqduck ( 232646 )

      Hollywood has become too predictable. The only time I've ever been surprised by a movie ending was "The Sixth Sense".
      If that's true, why do you say it's "become" too predictable? According to you, Hollywood reached it's peak of unpredictability in 1999, which is relatively recent.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DeVilla ( 4563 )
      It wasn't like "The Sixth Sense", but "No Way Out" in 87 was a little surprising to me. I'm not a big fan of Costner, so I'll credit Hackman for it being a good movie.
    • If surprise endings are important to you, you should see "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". How do you deal with movies that have several alternate endings, like "Clue"?

      Artistically, a movie should be a unified whole. The ending MUST follow from the body of the film, otherwise the movie is incoherent and without purpose.

    • Most people were shocked by crying game, because they watched it in the two years preceeding the release of stargate.

    • Even "Crying Game" didn't surprise me because I recognized the actor from "Stargate".

      You must have seen them out-of-order as "The Crying Game" was released in 1992 and "Stargate" in 1994. If you'd seen them as released, you might have been more surprised.

    • The only time I've ever been surprised by a movie ending was "The Sixth Sense".

      I wasn't. Because the stupid newspaper decided to give the ending away. Ok, it had been several months after release, but still a spoiler warning would have been nice.

      Even "Crying Game" didn't surprise me

      Me neither. I figured out the secret before the surprise was revealed. Which was good, because I got to pay attention to a good movie instead of focusing on just one scene.

  • Shia The Cow (Score:3, Funny)

    by qoncept ( 599709 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @09:08AM (#23491356) Homepage
    I can't stand the guy and the only way I'll consider the movie a success is if he's playing the role of Short Round. Mister Jones! Mister Jones!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by barzok ( 26681 )
      At least get it right.

      Doctah Jones! Doctah Jones!

    • Re:Shia The Cow (Score:5, Funny)

      by rho ( 6063 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @09:45AM (#23491776) Journal

      You call him "Doctor Jones", doll!

  • CGI (Score:5, Insightful)

    by qoncept ( 599709 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @09:12AM (#23491382) Homepage
    "A conscious decision in production was made to steer clear of CGI effects when possible and perform stunts the old-fashioned way"

    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:CGI (Score:5, Insightful)

      by esocid ( 946821 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @09:40AM (#23491692) Journal
      Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth. Well, the Thank god part.
      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.
      • And that's why the Enterprise E does not look as believable as the Enterprise D: the E is CGI, the D is a model.

        Computer graphics can be realistic, but movie producers will not pay for the top-notch graphics packages and artists, making some CGI effects totally unbelievable.

        One such movie was Airforce One. The CGI plane looked worse than the ones in Crysis...

    • Re:CGI (Score:4, Insightful)

      by getto man d ( 619850 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @09:42AM (#23491732)
      Indeed. When seeing the opening of Star Wars III it felt as though I was entering a poorly made space shooter.

      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.
    • Even when it looks perfect, I know it's fake so I don't feel the creepy vertigo of the person standing on the edge of a skyscraper because the emotional part of my mind knows they are standing on a green screen.

      And you are correct- in MOST cases, it just doesn't look real yet. It's darn close- but even when it looks perfect, the subtle physics or lighting don't mesh with the movie.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mqduck ( 232646 )

      CGI made Star Wars 3 one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
      Funny, I thought the CGI effects was the *only* good thing about that movie.
    • > A conscious decision in production was made to steer clear of CGI effects when possible and perform stunts the old-fashioned way

      More like "a conscious decision was made by the marketing team to make press releases claiming that the production steered clear of CGI". Watch the movie and you'll see.

  • Spoiler (Score:5, Funny)

    by homer_s ( 799572 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @09:15AM (#23491418)
    Indiana Jones wins and the villain loses.
  • Sometimes I really hate Hollywood. There is absolutely no reason, other than sheer greed and laziness, to go back and exploit a good trilogy with a 20-years-later sequel featuring an embarrassingly aged cast and mediocre storyline. It's essentially a case of Spielberg and Hollywood throwing their hands up and saying "Well, we can't come up with anything ORIGINAL. Let's just make a open money grab by tarnishing one of our quality projects from the past."

    If it weren't for the creative young directors coming

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      Okay, who's the fanboy with mod points who labeled this flamebait? Is it now considered flamebait to even *dare* criticize this sequel?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Sloppy ( 14984 )
      I think sequelitis is a symptom of lack of imagination too, but I have just one gripe:

      an embarrassingly aged cast
      WTF? What's wrong with having old actors? People get old in real life, too. Are they embarrassingly aged also? Not fit to be portrayed in a movie?

      Old (as in "aged") characters: fine. Old (as in "recycled") characters: lame.

  • Short -term memory syndrome. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by owlnation ( 858981 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @09:25AM (#23491520)
    I have no doubt this movie will be a huge cash cow.

    However, I have absolutely no understanding why.

    Please can someone explain to me, why that when the 1st Star Wars Prequel was widely regarded as a crime against celluloid, and the 2nd Prequel proved, if anything, to be even worse that the 1st, that anyone at all went to see the 3rd Prequel.

    George Lucas is a filmmaker that has made an extremely large amount of money based on a very small number of good films made more than 20 years ago, while the majority of his work is very poor indeed. One might also say that for Spielberg too.

    If you have high expectations for this movie, then might I suggest that you are possibly suffering from amnesia, or are 5.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      At least Lucas had the goddamned sense to hire ghost writers for the second and third installments. That's why they got progressively better.
    • I forgot to add...

      It stars an elderly man, whom despite enjoying roguish Sean-Connery-esque charm has never actually had the ability to act more than "let's pretend". That being the method of acting he employs (and I quote).

      It also stars a young man who displays all the ability and hype of a young Ikea-nu Reeves. Popular with tweenage girls and middle-aged gay men, but devoid of any, you know, actual acting talent.

      It will however make squillions of dollars. And likely send indie filmmakers further

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Please can someone explain to me, why that when the 1st Star Wars Prequel was widely regarded as a crime against celluloid, and the 2nd Prequel proved, if anything, to be even worse that the 1st, that anyone at all went to see the 3rd Prequel.

      Morbid curiosity.

    • Re:Short -term memory syndrome. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JasterBobaMereel ( 1102861 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @09:46AM (#23491796)
      Because The original Star wars trilogy were some of the most watchable movies ever (note not the best) and the prequels were constantly compared to them and were not as good.... but compared with the rubbish touted by the studios nowadays they were still very watchable ...

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by segedunum ( 883035 )

        The original Star wars trilogy were some of the most watchable movies ever...

        Yes, because Lucas' directors took his stories and told him to take a hike over the implementation. Hopefully, Spielberg has laid it on the line to George here. If ESB had been left to Lucas, the thing would have sucked like a black hole. Not even light would have escaped, and I shudder to think at what we would have lost.

        The special effects were better in the originals (they actually looked real, and they actually were special

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mqduck ( 232646 )

      Please can someone explain to me, why that when the 1st Star Wars Prequel was widely regarded as a crime against celluloid, and the 2nd Prequel proved, if anything, to be even worse that the 1st, that anyone at all went to see the 3rd Prequel.

      I sympathize, but I think you're letting your hatred of the Star Wars prequels cloud your judgment. Surely you're jumping the gun to conclude that all prequels to classic movies will inevitably be new Jar Jar Binks movies*.

      *Those words at the end of that sentence came dangerously close to being "Jar Jar Binks, the Movie", something that sends a chill down my spine.

  • honestly now (Score:4, Insightful)

    by X_Bones ( 93097 ) <danorz13&yahoo,com> on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @09:26AM (#23491528) Homepage Journal
    Personally I'll see it no matter what.

    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I am very sorry Mister Rossellini. I solemnly promise that from now on I will carefully choose movies to watch in order to educate my poor soul.

      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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Blade ( 1720 )
      Actually, I think you'll find that people who go and see summer blockbusters no-matter-what are the ones that fun innovation.

      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
    • On the hand, don't knock it until you've watched it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LordKaT ( 619540 )
      I'll see it because I want to see it, not because some reviewer did/didn't like it.

      Get over yourself, shithead.

    • Re:honestly now (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cvas ( 150274 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @10:17AM (#23492158)
      That, frankly, is a piss-poor reason to see a movie.

      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.

    • Re:honestly now (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bonewalker ( 631203 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @11:21AM (#23493012)
      I like you man, but you're crazy.

      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.

    • Why? Just because of the first two words in the title? That, frankly, is a piss-poor reason to see a movie.

      Nope because it has the same writers directors producers actors as the first 3. I'm not expecting it to be the same epic movie as the first one but the sequels were never as good as the original anyways. I'm going to go see it because I love the original and if there is a hint of it in there it will be worth it.

      I'm not going to skip a movie because Lucas was involved like some people claim. Hes made some good movies in the past that I think are great even after I grew up. If I watched them now for the

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by brkello ( 642429 )
      What gives you the right to tell him what he should and shouldn't see? Indiana Jones is something a lot of Slashdotters grew up with and would love to see a new episode. Should they have stopped after the first Indian Jones? I am sure glad they didn't, I enjoyed all three movies.

      In other words, get a life and stop telling people how they should live theirs. Your attitude is exactly the problem with many Slashdotters. You are so judgmental and narrow minded.

  • My spoiler-free Review of Indiana Jones (Score:5, Funny)

    by Alzheimers ( 467217 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @09:37AM (#23491644)
    Dah-nuh-da-da!

    *whipcrack*

    *wisecrack*

    *swiiiiiiing*

    *punchpunchpunch*

    INDY!!!

    Dah-nuh-da-da!
    • DANGIT. Now you've completely wasted it for me. Now I'm just gonna stay home and cry.

      Actually, we have a two-dollar theater that's not half bad. I'll wait it out.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by aLEczapKA ( 452675 )
      Dah-nuh-da-da!

      *whipcrack*

      *wisecrack*

      *swiiiiiiing*

      *punchpunchpunch*

      INDY!!!

      Dah-nuh-da-da!

      Indy: I'm too old for this shit...

  • Review seems forced... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BobMcD ( 601576 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @09:38AM (#23491658)
    Is it just me, or is everything WAY too positive in this 'review'? This is less a critique of the film and more of a plug for it.

    Things like -

    He's really old, but that's a GOOD thing!

    - just wear thin on me.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by KlaymenDK ( 713149 )
      Actually, I don't think so, though I can see why you say that. I'm obviously biased here because I'm a big Ford fan, but I guess a guy like that, especially with a character like that, is exactly what it takes to pull it off.

      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 hop
    • Newflash - Harrison Ford has aged. Would the movie be better for pretending that was not the case? Very likely not. It's good to hear a report that that is handled well and with some depth, instead of being glossed over.

      I just thought it was a review from someone who really liked the movie, and wanted to give a few reasons why he thought it was done well.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by BobMcD ( 601576 )

        Newflash - Harrison Ford has aged. Would the movie be better for pretending that was not the case? Very likely not. It's good to hear a report that that is handled well and with some depth, instead of being glossed over.

        There are at least three roads I see here, when you want to do a story but the actors have aged:

        1) Do the golden years thing, as has been done here.

        Pro: Get to keep the same actors, etc.

        Con: Lose a lot of the original formula. (Because, and lets be honest here, if Indy was supposed to be an old guy, he would have been in all four films, starting with the first one.)

        2) Use a different actor, tell a spin-off story / prequel / what-have-you.

        Pro: Actor problem is circumvented completely, but you could poss

  • That's not a review... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ghostdoc ( 1235612 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @09:39AM (#23491682)
    that's a vomit-inducing puff piece. I only managed to read the first three paragraphs before my gag reflex kicked in and I had to look away for a while.

    I can only take so much sugar in my reading material.
  • Learn to properly manage special characters! The pullquote looks like this:

    "Punches make ridiculous sounds %u2013 it%u2019s not so much Sylvester Stallone punching sides of beef as Thor giving Zeus a damn good hiding with his hammer"
    Ha! I just reloaded and they already, um, pulled the pullquote. I guess a fix is coming.

  • Oh rally? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by McNihil ( 612243 ) on Wednesday May 21, 2008 @10:43AM (#23492500)
    "...Crystal Skull is an absolute triumph, and a picture-perfect tribute to one of cinema's great action franchies..."

    OMG by bullshit detector just exploded.
  • Sometimes you can get away with a few sequels. Star Wars had two sequels before it turned to crap. Matrix and the first Pirates were both fun but disappeared up their own assholes with the first sequel. Bond had been moribund for years until the reboot. Sometimes you can get away with a reboot like Batman. Sometimes you can keep the same general universe and setting while bringing in new characters (anime does that a lot, see the Gundam shows. Trek did that at first with TNG and DS9 but fell apart with Voya
  • Regardless of the reviews I have seen, I am going to wait till I hear feedback from some friends on it. Honestly, from the trailer alone the movie doesn't look that good. Sure, trailers only mean so much. But then again, looking at the trailer for Speed Racer, I knew it was going to be a train wreak.

  • What I feel was IJ's original brilliance was that it was a mashup of genres from a particular era of cinema: it took a pulp detective movie, an swashbuckling adventure, a Casablanca-ish winds of war story and a biblical epic and put all the elements and styles together into a single story.

    Rather than try to recreate the same story every time, the franchise should be aiming to create a movie each decade that mashes together all the genres that were most popular in the time period 50 years earlier.

  • Even with online ticket purchasing and five screens per complex, people still occasionally line up for hot movies. I recall the last Harry Potter opening midnight shows being the most recent.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close