Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[EyesWideOpen]

I will be buying and playing Lego Indiana Jones though.

[Sven]

all the funny bits are wink-wink references to the previous movies.

Nooooooo! So lame.

[Dukefrukem]

movie is dreadful?

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36667

[Morris Schæffer]

Keep telling yourself that.

No, he's mostly right. The negative reviews aren't really damning and the positive ones, of which there are quite a few by now, are tremendously encouraging.


Uh, huh. And Die Hard is a terrible film, right?

Oh wait.

Ho ho ho, I just quoted a douchebag.:P;)

[megladon8]

I always thought LaBeouf's character was supposed to be Indy's son.

But no, he's named "Mutt Williams".

[Rowland]

I always thought LaBeouf's character was supposed to be Indy's son.

But no, he's named "Mutt Williams".I'm pretty sure he is Indy's son, they've just been estranged so the son has a different last name.

[megladon8]

I'm pretty sure he is Indy's son, they've just been estranged so the son has a different last name.


Oh, OK.

I read a synopsis that said Indy and Marion "meet up with young traveller Mutt Williams", and that seemed to dispell the whole son-angle.

[Sycophant]

According to some Indy wiki, he's Marion Ravenwood's son and Spielberg has denied that he's Indy's son. Is that a spoiler? I don't know! Is he actually Indy's son and Spielberg is just resisting giving us spoilers? I also don't know!

[Watashi]

The House reflects on the first three Indy films in preparation for this Thursday. (http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2008/05/smitten-with-whip-three-appreciations.html)

Anyone going to have a Indy Marathon this week? I am.

[number8]

The fact that he's Indy's son is a twist in the film.

[Sycophant]

The fact that he's Indy's son is a twist in the film.I'm looking forward to the New Testament film that has the third act plot twist that Jesus is the Son of God.

[Rowland]

The House reflects on the first three Indy films in preparation for this Thursday. (http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2008/05/smitten-with-whip-three-appreciations.html)

Anyone going to have a Indy Marathon this week? I am.I'm actually running out to Best Buy tonight to grab the new set. I haven't watched them in ages, and that House piece has me all excited now. I especially enjoyed Zoller Seitz's appreciation of Temple of Doom.

[Rowland]

The fact that he's Indy's son is a twist in the film.How do they discover this? Alien probe?

[megladon8]

I wonder if the aliens are actually shown...

[MadMan]

That's it. I should stay the hell away from this thread until I see it on Wed. night at the midnight showing. Also I'm glad that my expectations have been tempered, but I'm still excited. The only reason I didn't buy the box set is because honestly I don't want to own Temple of Doom, which is the weakest of the trilogy. I did buy Raiders of the Lost Ark separately though. I may still purchase The Last Crusade however.

[Scar]

I'm actually running out to Best Buy tonight to grab the new set. I haven't watched them in ages, and that House piece has me all excited now. I especially enjoyed Zoller Seitz's appreciation of Temple of Doom.

The set is a blatant double dip. Only get it if you don't have the set that came out a couple years back. Plus, there's less extras on the new set!

[dreamdead]

I'm not all that excited, but I think I'm being (willingly) dragged to a midnight showing tomorrow. We'll see. Hopefully it'll be at least formally exciting.

[Morris Schæffer]

My excitement is building again after the very encouraging reviews. Indy's back and I suspect that his return will transcend the (probably) minor weaknesses that this film will sport. I felt similarly about Die Hard 4.0 which I found more engaging than innumerable other "crowdpleasers" released in the past three years knowing full well it is the least of the Die Hards.

[Watashi]

How can anyone not be excited about a new Spielberg movie coming out?

Only on Match Cut...

[Watashi]

So Spielberg at Cannes pretty much confirmed a 5th Indy movie.

[Raiders]

How can anyone not be excited about a new Spielberg movie coming out?

Only on Match Cut...

...


So Spielberg at Cannes pretty much confirmed a 5th Indy movie.

This is kind of why I am somewhat less than overly enthusiastic. I just feel they are running this into the ground and that Spielberg, particularly after his masterful 2005, could really be doing different and more interesting projects. The final shots of Last Crusade were a great ending to the series and as a serial work, there is great nostalgia in that riding off into the sunset. Now, we're just digging up Indy's bones and trying to put life back into them. I can't really get that excited, despite always being a voice that was looking forward to this film.

[Watashi]

It's not like Indy was made to only be a trilogy. There are so many places you can take this character and it's better now than 10 years when Ford can barely stand.

Plus he has Lincoln, Tintin, Chicago 7, and Interstellar, and that Ghost in the Shell project all lined up.

[lovejuice]

So Spielberg at Cannes pretty much confirmed a 5th Indy movie.

i hope not, and i don't think so. there has always been an outcry for another indy. i believe the problem here is it's coming too late, when perhaps it's better to not happen at all. i think i will like it, but general public and studio will find it "unsatisfactory."

[Raiders]

Plus he has Lincoln, Tintin, Chicago 7, and Interstellar, and that Ghost in the Shell project all lined up.

And with the exception of the last (didn't care much for the anime), I look forward to them all.

[number8]

How can anyone not be excited about a new Spielberg movie coming out?

Because they don't think Spielberg is all that jazz?

[Watashi]

Because they don't think Spielberg is all that jazz?
Clearly those people are loony.

[megladon8]

Spielberg's one of the most brilliant directors who ever lived, but over the last few years he has been missing the mark a bit with his story-telling.

His visual compositions, pacing direction - everything's still very "him", but the stories haven't been as timeless as they used to be.

[Raiders]

Spielberg's one of the most brilliant directors who ever lived, but over the last few years he has been missing the mark a bit with his story-telling.

His visual compositions, pacing direction - everything's still very "him", but the stories haven't been as timeless as they used to be.

I don't really know what this means, but some of the images in his most recent films have stuck with me far more than most from his older work. I think his double-header in '05 was the pinnacle of his filmmaking.

[megladon8]

I don't really know what this means, but some of the images in his most recent films have stuck with me far more than most from his older work. I think his double-header in '05 was the pinnacle of his filmmaking.


Not being much of a fan of War of the Worlds, I sadly cannot agree with you.

Munich was wonderful, though.


And yes, many images have stuck with me from his recent films, but the stories haven't felt as timeless and universal.

I always thought Spielberg was like a live-action Walt Disney. Growing up, movies like Jurassic Park, Hook, Schindler's List - these were like the biggest films of the year, and they told stories with such ease and magic that they were, like I said, timeless.

I think Spielberg - over the past few years - has been trying to change his act a bit. With A.I., Munich, and even something like Catch Me If You Can, they haven't been as unviersally appealing. And while I think these were three great films, they were certainly different from what he had been doing 10 years prior.

Of course filmmakers have to change and grow, but I'm not sure that the way in which Spielberg is trying to do this has been beneficial on the whole.

[lovejuice]

i'm with meg that older spielberg is better than later, but perhaps for different reasons. i am not even sure why, except for the nostalgia.

[Rowland]

If anything, he's still trying to be too universally appealing. It's one of his chief flaws as a filmmaker, that excessively populist streak.

[lovejuice]

Because they don't think Spielberg is all that jazz?

that's encouraging though. you think, your negative reaction to the new indy is from your reaction toward the man?

[megladon8]

If anything, he's still trying to be too universally appealing. It's one of his chief flaws as a filmmaker, that excessively populist streak.


Exactly.

He's trying to be both "different" and universally appealing, and it just hasn't been working the way it used to.

[lovejuice]

Exactly.

He's trying to be both "different" and universally appealing, and it just hasn't been working the way it used to.

for me, his chief flaw is trying to be too "growing up." i don't know if i'll say the same ten years from now, but lately my respect for tim burton has start to increase based on his consistently being "him" while having some fun and still managing to pull a surprise. (sweeney todd is a good film which i couldn't have seen him directed before.)

spielberg seems to have some identity problem lately.

[Sven]

If anything, he's still trying to be too universally appealing. It's one of his chief flaws as a filmmaker, that excessively populist streak.

There's nothing inherently wrong with attempting universal appeal. Look at the Muppets. Look at Pixar.

[Qrazy]

Spielberg's one of the most brilliant directors who ever lived, but over the last few years he has been missing the mark a bit with his story-telling.

His visual compositions, pacing direction - everything's still very "him", but the stories haven't been as timeless as they used to be.

I agree with this. His direction is still superb but his scripts haven't been as finely honed as they used to be.

[Ezee E]

How can anyone not be excited about a new Spielberg movie coming out?

Only on Match Cut...
So when is Lincoln finally going to happen

[Ezee E]

Spielberg's best double-feature in a year is clearly Schindler's List/Jurassic Park.

Minority Report/Catch Me If You Can is right up there though, and better then the also great 2005...

[Raiders]

Spielberg's best double-feature in a year is clearly Schindler's List/Jurassic Park.

Not a chance.

But whatever. I am obviously in the minority.

[number8]

that's encouraging though. you think, your negative reaction to the new indy is from your reaction toward the man?

I don't see how. I think Spielberg makes great populist entertainment and I believe Jaws and the Indy trilogy are his best work, much better than drivels like Saving Private Ryan, Munich or Schindler's List. I think he's a very technically adept director but very lacking in inspiring storytelling or any lasting imageries beyond big spectacles. The only time he's ever impressed me with character moments is in Sugarland Express.

If anything, Indy 4 still had some real fun action sequence staging. It's just an incredibly shitty story by Lucas and a really boring script by Koepp.

[Grouchy]

The one way in which I can testify that today's Spielberg is worse than yesteryear's is the endings. It's like he doesn't know when and how to end a movie anymore. Jaws - now that's an ending, the movie wraps up when there's nothing to tell anymore.

Munich features almost half an hour of dialogue after the mission that was best left to the viewer's private judgment and discussions. And both Minority Report and War of the Worlds ruin their momentum by trying hard to wrap up things nicely after they'd found perfect, more somber, endings. Catch Me if You Can also ends way after everyone stopped caring - there's just no excuse for a movie like that to last 140 minutes.

[Barty]

I see this motherfucker tonight.

[Morris Schæffer]

Spielberg's best double-feature in a year is clearly Schindler's List/Jurassic Park.

Oh yes. Far better than the 2005 combo.

[Sycophant]

Catch Me if You Can also ends way after everyone stopped caring - there's just no excuse for a movie like that to last 140 minutes.Especially when you're in a theater and you need to pee really badly and every scene looks like an ending. I need to watch that film again some time when my bladder allows me to give it a fair shake.

[lovejuice]

The one way in which I can testify that today's Spielberg is worse than yesteryear's is the endings. It's like he doesn't know when and how to end a movie anymore. Jaws - now that's an ending, the movie wraps up when there's nothing to tell anymore.

Munich features almost half an hour of dialogue after the mission that was best left to the viewer's private judgment and discussions. And both Minority Report and War of the Worlds ruin their momentum by trying hard to wrap up things nicely after they'd found perfect, more somber, endings. Catch Me if You Can also ends way after everyone stopped caring - there's just no excuse for a movie like that to last 140 minutes.

not to mention AI, the pinnacle of the problem.

[Watashi]

By the way, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button trailer premieres on Indy.

[Grouchy]

not to mention AI, the pinnacle of the problem.
Heh, I didn't mention that because I love the ending and the movie (best he ever made along with Close Encounters and Temple of Doom) but it's true that it takes way too long to unravel. I like the fairy ending as much as the alien/robots one.

[lovejuice]

Heh, I didn't mention that because I love the ending and the movie (best he ever made along with Close Encounters and Temple of Doom) but it's true that it takes way too long to unravel. I like the fairy ending as much as the alien/robots one.

indeed i don't mind the crux of the ending. it's just the execution.

[Ezee E]

I see this motherfucker tonight.
the lack of exclamation points and splooge is not a good sign.

[EvilShoe]

Ouch, that wasn't very good.

[Sycophant]

So, Barty saw this right? Did he survive?

[Qrazy]

I don't see how. I think Spielberg makes great populist entertainment and I believe Jaws and the Indy trilogy are his best work, much better than drivels like Saving Private Ryan, Munich or Schindler's List. I think he's a very technically adept director but very lacking in inspiring storytelling or any lasting imageries beyond big spectacles. The only time he's ever impressed me with character moments is in Sugarland Express.

If anything, Indy 4 still had some real fun action sequence staging. It's just an incredibly shitty story by Lucas and a really boring script by Koepp.

Come on now you have to at least give him lasting imagery... Jaws, Close Encounters, Empire of the Sun, Jurassic Park, ET, Indiana Jones... the majority of what he's done really is jam packed full of memorable imagery. I can understand the character complaint although I don't agree with it but his imagery is absolutely iconic.

[Winston*]

Meh is too kind. This movie sucks.

[EvilShoe]

To sum it up: The whole thing feels neutered, the look is off, Harrison Ford is too old, gone is the sense of discovery, the story's not very interesting, the jokes are rather lame, the alien angle out of place, etc...

[Winston*]

To sum it up: The whole thing feels neutered, the look is off, Harrison Ford is too old, gone is the sense of discovery, the story's not very interesting, the jokes are rather lame, the alien angle out of place, etc...
And CGI gophers...wtf?

[number8]

http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull/review/

[EvilShoe]

And CGI gophers...wtf?
At least the movie opened with one of them. Helped me to lower my expectations.

[SirNewt]

Harrison Ford is too old


No kidding. Did they even use makeup? Were they trying to use the fact that he's old to some purpose?

[Watashi]

So Barty and I just saw it....

[Barty]

The film has a lot of phenomenal stuff in it. Harrison's Performance, Shia, Dialogue, and the Aliens all exceeded what I expected.

[Winston*]

I can't get over how awful this movie is. Tarzan Shia with the monkeys...my god.

[Watashi]

You should have heard Barty's reaction to the ending. It was like he was giving birth to awesome and Spielberg delivered it to him perfectly.

[Watashi]

The film as a whole was ok. I didn't mind the aliens at all and I really liked Shia's performance, but man... a lot of it just felt off. There was hardly any breathing room between setpieces and Marion was kinda just thrown in just for the fans. I know the artificialness is intentional, but some scenes are way too shiny.

[Watashi]

Oh, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button teaser was fucking amazing. So beautiful. It's going to be a huge Awards contender.

[Winston*]

Hey Barty, as an Indiana Jones afficianado, can you explain the gophers?

[Watashi]

I'm pretty sure Barty loved the gophers.

In fact, I'm pretty sure Barty will be the only person (with the exception of Spinal) on this site to really love this movie. Others like Boner, iosos, syco, and KF will hate, hate, HATE this movie.

[Boner M]

Hmm... I'm more excited for the Benjamin Button trailer now. Winston, did you get it?

[Dillard]

The film is good fun. The set pieces are awesome. I particularly liked the attention to detail in the conquistador "grave-robber" scene and the '50s diner, but really, all of the settings were enjoyable. Shia has a great entrance and is generally enjoyable, Indy is wonderful, Marion isn't given much to work with. Interaction between Indy and Marion is clunky, Shia and Indy work fine together and are given alone time, as opposed to the former. Spielberg's visual direction was top notch as you might expect, and I appreciated many of the little touches thrown in (we get more than one silhouette of our hero and the lighting was often gorgeous). Though the CGI monkeys and gophers were a little hokey, I expect some hokeyness from an Indiana Jones movie. Oo, actually, one of my favorite sequences is in the model town in Nevada. It has an eerie quality: when the camera flashes between close-ups of the dummies, I felt like I was watching a Twilight Zone episode. Anyway, good fun. No need to expect more.

[dreamdead]

Yeah, this was meh to the extreme. Just not thrilling at all and the only way to enjoy it is as an ode to the metaness of the very concept of Indy. Never gains its own identity and frequently becomes too silly for its own good.

Blanchett is wasted and denied any depth, which makes her whole storyline an exercise in plot mechanisms. More later down the road, but I'll be interested in others' responses...

[Barty]

Hey Barty, as an Indiana Jones afficianado, can you explain the gophers?

Nazi monkeys.

[Spinal]

In fact, I'm pretty sure Barty will be the only person (with the exception of Spinal) on this site to really love this movie. Others like Boner, iosos, syco, and KF will hate, hate, HATE this movie.

Hmmm, I've been kind of hesitant to see it. What makes you think I will like it?

[Qrazy]

Hmmm, I've been kind of hesitant to see it. What makes you think I will like it?

I believe he's referring to your monkey avs.

[Barty]

The ultimate problem with the movie is Indy does feel out of place in some of the movie. I don't say Ford, but the character itself, because Ford is great in the role again. But there's definitely an intentional playing up of the new era Indy is in, and with certain unfortunate circumstances that have happened both before the movie and during this particular adventure, we can definitely tell Indy is a shadow of his former self.

However, thinking back, it's simultaneously it's greatest strength and weakness because it makes the impact of Indy's rekindling of his spirit, especially emotionally, much better, however it's hard to buy into this new Indy movie because it IS different than the previous three, sometimes greatly. But I think luckily, and I know many people will disagree with me simply because of the Alien angle, that the finale is one of the strongest sequences of all four movies. Both in it's visual execution, as tribute to the 50's Sci-fi B-movies, but more importantly because the coda brings back the old Indy. Granted, people may have problems with Indy essentially taking on the mantle of his father, but there's few more satisfying moments than Indy quietly watching his long lost son and ribbing him, because well, he can.

[Pop Trash]

The film as a whole was ok. I didn't mind the aliens at all and I really liked Shia's performance, but man... a lot of it just felt off. There was hardly any breathing room between setpieces and Marion was kinda just thrown in just for the fans. I know the artificialness is intentional, but some scenes are way too shiny.
Says the guy who gave fuckin' Speed Racer four stars. :crazy:

[megladon8]

Barty, I'm supremely happy for you.

I feel like you probably would have receded into a cave for several years if it had been bad.

Glad you enjoyed it.

[lovejuice]

Says the guy who gave fuckin' Speed Racer four stars. :crazy:

considered the motive of indiana jones being archeology and speed racer futuristicity...

[Winston*]

Hmm... I'm more excited for the Benjamin Button trailer now. Winston, did you get it?

Nope.

[SirNewt]

The diner scene was one of the best.

Greasers vs. Jocks brawl > heaven

[MadMan]

I loved the film, although not as much as Barty did. The entire alien section sucked, but the rest of the movie was pretty damn good. And in the end that's all that really mattered. Oh and Cate Blancett's accent did make me want to crack a "Moose and squirrel!" joke. She was the worst villian since the cult leader guy in Temple of Doom. I really didn't feel like posting the thoughts on the flick and the previews here, seeing as I already posted them in FDT.

[eternity]

Not quite a mess of Phantom Menace proportions, but there is so much wrong with this movie that it pains me to say that George Lucas may have fucked me over for the fourth and last time (I never learn). This film is saved by Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg, the former especially, as he's just as great as he ever was in the role, maybe even better, and the entire cast does their job with enthusiasm and skill. Spielberg counteracts basically every Lucas inspired misfire in this film, doing the best he can with what Koepp's script and Lucas' micromanaging, but the script, oh my god, what the fuck was this thing. A badly plotted, absurdly realized mess. There's a huge sense of "Fucking seriously, guys?" throughout, the dialogues suffers immensely, the set pieces suspend logic so much that even though I can buy the impossible being possible in the Indiana Jones films, I just can't with the kind of lame taking place here.

I enjoyed it, I guess. It didn't really insult the viewer as much as it insulted itself. As a standalone, it's a B- at best, but based on pedigree and what ultimately shouldn't have been happening, it's a C. Minus.

[Boner M]

Yeah, this film is not good. Right from the opening shot of the CGI ferret poking its head out of the molehill, I had the weird sense that it'd be doomed. The film just doesn't believe in itself, feeling more like a dutiful museum tour rather than a kickass reinvigoration. And has there ever been a more visually unappealing Speilberg film? As Wats said, everything has a weirdly shiny, inhuman glow... felt like I was watching the whole film through a wet windscreen. Can't agree with those who think Ford's great; he plays his role like he'd just woken up and been forced to play it at gunpoint. Blanchett indulges in more tedious accent porn, Hurt looks like he's wandered off The Proposition, etc etc. By the last 20 minutes I was just staring at the film. Meh.

[Watashi]

Oh man, Raiders is going to love this film. I can just sense it.

[Winston*]

Right from the opening shot of the CGI ferret poking its head out of the molehill

I've decided this is one of the most inexplicable things I've ever seen in a movie. I just can't wrap my head around it.

[Watashi]

Dude, the gophers were fine.

You're just being weird.

[Winston*]

Dude, the gophers were fine.

You're just being weird.

All of the other many terrible decisions made in this movie, individually I can kind of understand how they might come about. But I can't understand the thought process that leads to "What if we open this Indiana Jones with an animated gopher?".

[eternity]

Or all the gopher shots. They were about as random but not nearly as awesome as it would have been to put that Dramatic Chipmunk in the film about 100 times like what will probably end up happening in Iron Hancock, or whatever the fuck they decide to call the next one of those.

[Spinal]

Caddyshack homage?

[Qrazy]

Caddyshack homage?

Lord knows Spielbergo loves his Caddyshack.

[ledfloyd]

You guys have me dreading seeing this on sunday, but I already promised a friend I would.

[Skitch]

Watched last night. I was disappointed.

[Raiders]

Oh man, Raiders is going to love this film. I can just sense it.

Why? Because nobody here likes it and I didn't like Speed Racer, the film practically everybody else liked?

We'll see. I already have my tickets for tonight.

[Pop Trash]

Why? Because nobody here likes it and I didn't like Speed Racer, the film practically everybody else liked?

We'll see. I already have my tickets for tonight.
Hi-Five for not loving Speed Racer. :)

[Sven]

Hi-Five for not loving Speed Racer. :)

Get an avatar, hippie.

[Fezzik]

I just got back from seeing it.

I didn't hate it. It's a step above Temple of Doom for me, but I did feel like I died a little inside.

There were some moments I really liked. Others, I quietly wished would end.

Despite the hate I see for him just about everywhere else, I liked Shia a lot in this, and his worst moment wasn't his fault.

The Tarzan swinging through the trees

It's almost as if Spielberg let Lucas direct a couple of scenes - they just didn't seem to fit with the rest of the movie to me. The aforementioend spoiler was one, and the entire weapons test scene seemed out of left field and totally unnecessary.

That said, it was nice to hear Ford say

I have a bad feeling about this

one last time, and the ending with Shia and the hat was brilliantly played.

[Watashi]

Armond White's review (http://www.nypress.com/21/21/film/ArmondWhite.cfm).

[Watashi]

Walter Chaw's review (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/indy4.htm).

[Boner M]

Armond White's review (http://www.nypress.com/21/21/film/ArmondWhite.cfm).
This makes my Armond parodies in the 2007 wrapup thread seem utterly timid by comparison.

[transmogrifier]

This makes my Armond parodies in the 2007 wrapup thread seem utterly timid by comparison.

*is vindicated*

The guy is useless as a film critic. Although he is well-versed in movie history, he peversely uses it solely to promote his staggeringly narrow sense of what art must be. Couple this with generally poor taste (particularly in comedies) and a complete inability to back up his proclamations (they aren't reviews) with common-sense explanations:


During a marathon Kingdom of the Crystal Skull chase scene—one of those non-stop, gear-shifting, three-ring-circuses-on-wheels that you expect from the series—a brief interval shows a character bounced from a hurtling jeep and then moving bodily through trees as if in an aerial ballet. The details of this swinging, rapturous jetée must be seen to be believed (and its humor instantaneously interpreted). Spielberg turns a jokey, lowbrow movie reference into a distillation of character and an anthropological theorem—without ever slowing the moment’s pace, or lessening its significance as a plot point.

In this tortured paragraph, he never actually deins to explain HOW it distills the character, nor why slowing the pace is bad, nor how having to interpret humor immediately is different from any other movie ever made. Instead, it slaps you with Latinate words and tries to have your forget it contains no actual insight whatsover.

Here is an excerpt from an interview available online that shows just how pointless White is as a film commenator:


ST: You've mentioned the "nihilism" of Van Sant, Fincher, et al in your criticism before, yet I'm still unclear what's meant by that term in this context. Taste aside, what disrespect do these directors show to the humanity of Griffith and Altman's films? In your review of Zodiac, for instance, you make it clear that Fincher values technical accomplishment over character, but Griffith and Altman (and Bertolucci, Godard, and the whole gang you mentioned before) are hardly technical minimalists. So why "nihilism"?

AW: Nihilism has nothing to do with "technical minimalists." Neither does technical mastery ensure any kind of moral complexity. Plainly put, the films of Van Sant and Fincher show that they believe life has no purpose, also denying that people believe in God or search for meaning in life-and that is the fashion of the nihilistic age. It's against humanism, the sensibility that links Griffith to Altman, Godard, Bertolucci, Pasolini, Dreyer, Terence Davies, Visconti, Buñuel, Mizoguchi, Julian Hernandez, Wes Anderson and the filmmakers whose work I most respond to.

These days, nihilist filmmakers are routinely celebrated without an examination of what they stand for. Reviewers (many who are nihilists themselves) swallow this anti-humanism whole (thinking it excuses Van Sant and Fincher's badly-constructed, illogical "art") and then willy-nilly spread the nihilistic philosophy throughout the culture. The end effect of praising There Will Be Blood, Paranoid Park, and 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days is to advance the idea that life is meaningless and that the world is wretched. Nihilists are hip; remember how the Coen brothers made fun of nihilists in The Big Lebowski?

[Qrazy]

*is vindicated*

The guy is useless as a film critic.

We all (the sane ones) agree man... just let it go... let it go... before it drives you to madness.

[Boner M]

To be honest, I am with him on a few things, especially when he offers "scuzziness is hip" as an explanation for the baffling acclaim for Judd Apatow. But yeah... what trans said.

[transmogrifier]

We all (the sane ones) agree man... just let it go... let it go... before it drives you to madness.

I don't know, I find it fun to hate on him. Righteous fury, and all that. It's liberating. :P

[transmogrifier]

To be honest, I am with him on a few things, especially when he offers "scuzziness is hip" as an explanation for the baffling acclaim for Judd Apatow. But yeah... what trans said.

I don't know, scuzziness is scuzziness is scuzziness - it's White who's trying to elevate it into some culture war by labelling it with his favorite pejorative when we all know movies are a lot more diverse than that.

I'm not a huge fan of Apatow movies because they have no real technical film craft to them - they are sub-80s TV level in terms of visual sophistication and scene construction, and that's just laziness. Of course, if the story and jokes are exceptionally strong, you can let it go in one-off cases, but there is no depth of thought there.

Which is ironic, because White really champions some modern "stylists" with little film craft because they happen to be nice about people with religion or appeal to my grandma (Charles Stone III, for example, Mr. 3000)

[Boner M]

I don't know, scuzziness is scuzziness is scuzziness - it's White who's trying to elevate it into some culture war by labelling it with his favorite pejorative when we all know movies are a lot more diverse than that.

I'm not a huge fan of Apatow movies because they have no real technical film craft to them - they are sub-80s TV level in terms of visual sophistication and scene construction, and that's just laziness. Of course, if the story and jokes are exceptionally strong, you can let it go in one-off cases, but there is no depth of thought there.
Scuzziness, laziness, same thing - what I mean is that when I watched Knocked Up I couldn't help but sit there, completely nonplussed that this was being hailed as 'an instant classic' by someone being labelled as 'the new Preston Sturges'. In this case, my bewilderment was so strong that I don't want to brush it off as simply different strokes, but find some sort of rational explanation for this. That's why I find a little shred of value in White's 'review the critical establishment, not what's in front of you' approach - not a whole lot, but enough that he remains something of a guilty pleasure (I have to admit to grinning with glee at his Cloverfield smackdown... completely insane, but so perfectly catered to my feelings toward the film's popularity that I couldn't help but feel elated and vindicated).

[Sven]

(I have to admit to grinning with glee at his Cloverfield smackdown... completely insane, but so perfectly catered to my feelings toward the film's popularity that I couldn't help but feel elated and vindicated).

I felt the exact same way about his The Host review. :)

[Qrazy]

Scuzziness, laziness, same thing - what I mean is that when I watched Knocked Up I couldn't help but sit there, completely nonplussed that this was being hailed as 'an instant classic' by someone being labelled as 'the new Preston Sturges'. In this case, my bewilderment was so strong that I don't want to brush it off as simply different strokes, but find some sort of rational explanation for this. That's why I find a little shred of value in White's 'review the critical establishment, not what's in front of you' approach - not a whole lot, but enough that he remains something of a guilty pleasure (I have to admit to grinning with glee at his Cloverfield smackdown... completely insane, but so perfectly catered to my feelings toward the film's popularity that I couldn't help but feel elated and vindicated).

Don't you think there's something wrong with the fact that his only claim to fame is that you can revel in his smarmy-ness towards a film you also happen to dislike? What about when he starts doing the same thing to films you happen to like (as I'm sure he probably has)?

Seems pretty weak to me for a critic's negative reviews to be their strongest asset.

[Sven]

That's a pretty empty slam.

[transmogrifier]

I can honestly say I have never been happy that he trashes a film that I also hate - because the same flaws and houlier-than-thou posturing still remain. I can't just dismiss that for a little voyeuristic smug self-congratulation.

I fulfill my smug self-satisfaction right here, in my own posts, thank you very much.

[transmogrifier]

That's a pretty empty slam.

Well, maybe in that respect it's a homage to White.

[Derek]

That's a pretty empty slam.

Which particular Armond White review are you referring to?

[transmogrifier]

Which particular Armond White review are you referring to?

:)

[Qrazy]

That's a pretty empty slam.

Stop assuming intent.

[Sven]

Well, maybe in that respect it's a homage to White.

Zingeroonies!


Which particular Armond White review are you referring to?

I don't know what you mean. Like, what review of his do I think is good in which I also agree with him?

Edit: Oooooooo, got it. Never mind. Double zingeroonies!

[Qrazy]

I can honestly say I have never been happy that he trashes a film that I also hate - because the same flaws and houlier-than-thou posturing still remain. I can't just dismiss that for a little voyeuristic smug self-congratulation.

I fulfill my smug self-satisfaction right here, in my own posts, thank you very much.

Armond White is the Jerry Springer of film snobs.

[Sven]

Stop assuming intent.

Was your intention not to attempt an illustration of Armond's sole facet being smug derision?

[Qrazy]

Was your intention not to attempt an illustration of Armond's sole facet being smug derision?

No it wasn't but I don't really feel like clarifying because you'll just misunderstand once more.

[Sven]

No it wasn't but I don't really feel like clarifying because you'll just misunderstand once more.

I'm not stupid, Qrazy.

[Qrazy]

I'm not stupid, Qrazy.

Again didn't say that, all I meant there was that you seem to enjoy misunderstanding me, case in point.

[Sven]

Again didn't say that, you just seem to enjoy misunderstanding me, case in point.

You imply that I am incapable of understanding. That is rather insulting.

[Qrazy]

You imply that I am incapable of understanding. That is rather insulting.

If you choose to interpret it that way, which you clearly do. It's not what I meant but don't let that stop you.

[Sven]

So what did you mean?

[Rowland]

I love how Armond hates on The Host for its supposed lack of cinematic craft, when Bong demonstrates more aptitude for visual storytelling than at least 98% of what dribbles out of Hollywood.

Sorry, that ridiculous review still annoys me.

[Qrazy]

So what did you mean?

Just that you seem to read in malevolent intent into a lot of my posts where none is intended, or if not that then just construing them in a way that I did not originally intend both of which lead to misunderstanding... having nothing to do with cognitive faculties.

As to what I meant about Armond White, I was not attempting a slam, I was just commenting on the fact that in rapid succession you both stated the glee you got from reading two of his negative reviews... and genuinely asking don't you think it reflects poorly on the critic when people primarily (other than you two, others in Y Tu Film and elsewhere as well) cite his negative reviews when they refer to him at all?

And I don't see how that's an empty criticism, although maybe it's an empty slam but it was not intended to be a slam in the first place.

[MacGuffin]

I hope that the Armond White Hate Bandwagon crashes.

[Sven]

Just that you seem to read in malevolent intent into a lot of my posts where none is intended, or if not that then just construing them in a way that I did not originally intend both of which lead to misunderstanding... having nothing to do with cognitive faculties.

I wouldn't say that my readings were malevolent so much as inconsiderate (meaning "without consideration" rather than "mean"). I think a lot of the time your writing is more ambiguous than you wish it to be. Clarity is a very difficult thing to achieve in writing (the last few weeks between us should be easy proof of that).


As to what I meant about Armond White, I was not attempting a slam, I was just commenting on the fact that in rapid succession you both stated the glee you got from reading two of his negative reviews... and genuinely asking don't you think it reflects poorly on the critic when people primarily (other than you two, others in Y Tu Film and elsewhere as well) cite his negative reviews when they refer to him at all?

To be fair to my construction of your comment, when anyone begins a statement with the rhetorical "Don't you think there's something wrong with the fact that...", one can immediately see where the speakers sympathies lie and where they are trying to draw the listener. You also mention his smarmy-ness as "his only claim to fame", which you state as a pre-accepted truth with both parties.

To continue with that discussion, now that things are a little clearer, I adore the man's positive reviews, and revel in them more than his bad ones. He's exceptionally strongly worded, so he, more than pretty much any other critic out there, is closer to conveying the unspeakable kind of intense passions one feels when one REALLY loves something or REALLY hates something. And me, I'm not a hater. I don't like wasting time, and there's nothing I love more than a great film. I will admit that I think White's older stuff is more level-headed than his contemporary writing. His reviews of Short Cuts, Michael Jackson's music video Black and White (a triumph of criticism), Do the Right Thing... all great. I'd suggest picking up his book The Resistance. Great read.

[Qrazy]

And me, I'm not a hater. I don't like wasting time.

Don't sell yourself short.

[Sven]

Don't sell yourself short.

I suppose I would probably label message boarding as a "waste" depending on my mood. But I definitely am not a hater.

[transmogrifier]

Ray Winstone's character in this is one of the laziest screenwriting crutches I think I have ever seen. And Blanchett's villian is probably the dullest I have seen in a summer blockbuster for a good five years.

A couple of cool set-pieces (NOT including the ending, which is a complete anti-climax), and Spielberg is on his game for the first 20 minutes with framing and iconography, but by God is the screenplay a complete mess of epic proportions. The character interactions are abysmally pointless.

[Ezee E]

Iron Man had great characters, a well thought out story, and mediocre action sequences, but in the end remained a great movie.

Indiana Jones is basically the reverse. Outside of Indiana Jones, it has only one interesting character. The story feels like fan fiction, but the action sequences are as good as any other Indy film. The progression of the action sequences is actually better then most action films we've seen in the last few years. Unfortunately, it seems like George Lucas got his hands on this a bit too much. Tarzan. Bland villains. And an incompetent helper that seems to know everything despite losing his mind.

Luckily, Spielberg manages to take the action sequences, and the character that IS Indiana Jones, and makes it into an enjoyable experience.

It manages to fit right in with Temple of Doom really, which has the same positives and negatives. What makes the first and third movie better then the others comes down to what they are searching for I think. In this movie and the other, the items are important, but really, nothing seems to be at line. Whereas in the other two, the world could potentially be at stake, which immediately makes the villains more interesting. The Ark of the Covenant or The Cup of Christ would allow the Nazis to rule the world. Special rocks and a Crystal Skull... Meh.

The atomic bomb shot though. Whew. The graverobbers. Phew. The action sequence in the jungle. Sweet.

[number8]

The Ark of the Covenant [...] would allow the Nazis to rule the world.

Well, no. It's an old screenwriter's joke that Raiders is a movie where the hero matters jack shit. You take Indy out of the movie, the Nazis would still end up with their faces melted off. In a way, Crystal Skull actually uses the same device. Indy isn't active at all--you take him off the story and the Russians either can't find the Incan temple or they do and get blown into another dimension. Both of these are the adventures of a perfunctory character, unlike in Temple of Doom and Last Crusade.

[Qrazy]

Well, no. It's an old screenwriter's joke that Raiders is a movie where the hero matters jack shit. You take Indy out of the movie, the Nazis would still end up with their faces melted off.

I dunno because there were probably more Nazis where those nazis came from and so yeah some of them would have had their faces melted off but then more would have come, seen their melted off faces and realized they shouldn't open the covenant except on the battlefield... if Indy hadn't been there and survived he couldn't have taken the Ark into custody.

[Ezee E]

I dunno because there were probably more Nazis where those nazis came from and so yeah some of them would have had their faces melted off but then more would have come, seen their melted off faces and realized they shouldn't open the covenant except on the battlefield... if Indy hadn't been there and survived he couldn't have taken the Ark into custody.
On top of that, the Ark of the Covenant is such an important artifact, that simply owning it creates power.

The Crystal Skull makes you stupid if you stare into it too long.

[Watashi]

If anyone wants to know what Matt Zoller Seitz thought of the film, here it is: http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2008/05/migration-and-exodus-indiana-jones-and.html (it's in the comments section, but Keith's review is quite good too).

He loved it. He actually think it's on equal ground with Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I really want to see this again now.

[Ezee E]

If anyone wants to know what Matt Zoller Seitz thought of the film, here it is: http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2008/05/migration-and-exodus-indiana-jones-and.html (it's in the comments section, but Keith's review is quite good too).

He loved it. He actually think it's on equal ground with Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I really want to see this again now.
Are you taking Rowland's place now?

[Watashi]

Are you taking Rowland's place now?

Just for Indy.

[Morris Schæffer]

Just for Indy.

Atta boy. Seeing it tonight.

[Skitch]

Lois: Peter, this is Mr. Carville.

Peter: Holy crap, did someone open the ark of the covenant?



I was disappointed with Indy 4. Yikes.

[Boner M]

If anyone wants to know what Matt Zoller Seitz thought of the film, here it is: http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2008/05/migration-and-exodus-indiana-jones-and.html (it's in the comments section, but Keith's review is quite good too).

He loved it. He actually think it's on equal ground with Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I really want to see this again now.
MZS - the man that never met a summer blockbuster that he couldn't muster a heroic defense/analysis for.

Good read, nonetheless.

[Sven]

Hmmm... I think I'll go see it. I'm a little disenchanted with MZS these days, as since his wife passed away he seems to be of a significantly less discerning taste. Still, I do like the lucidity of his writing.

[transmogrifier]

Yeah, I'm afraid that all of the defenses seem to be grasping at things that aren't there. It's a terribly constructed film with some nice framing. Thematically, it is all over the place and shallow to its absolute core.

[Bosco B Thug]

I'd like to support Armond White's lenience toward sensibility and his very idiosyncratic taste, but yeah, that Indy 4 review puts him in quite the bigger box.

I won't be able to get to this til next weekend (out of the country), but I can't wait. I've been meaning to cement a view on Spielberg and this film would be a good lead-in to a (gradual) re-evaluation of his work.

[Dukefrukem]

Ray Winstone's character in this is one of the laziest screenwriting crutches I think I have ever seen. And Blanchett's villian is probably the dullest I have seen in a summer blockbuster for a good five years.

A couple of cool set-pieces (NOT including the ending, which is a complete anti-climax), and Spielberg is on his game for the first 20 minutes with framing and iconography, but by God is the screenplay a complete mess of epic proportions. The character interactions are abysmally pointless.

I agree. The movie is a huge disappointment. Did anyone else feel that the chase sequences ended up ending exactly where they needed to be? So by accident every single time the story just chugged along like nothing really happened.

[Pop Trash]

I won't be able to get to this til next weekend (out of the country), but I can't wait. I've been meaning to cement a view on Spielberg and this film would be a good lead-in to a (gradual) re-evaluation of his work.
I wouldn't put too much creedence in the fourth entry of a franchise that didn't exactly need to be rebooted. Plus I think Lucas is too involved to be a total "Spielberg film." I had fun with the movie but it's a little unfair to put it against AI or Munich or something.

[Dukefrukem]

I wouldn't put too much creedence in the fourth entry of a franchise that didn't exactly need to be rebooted. Plus I think Lucas is too involved to be a total "Spielberg film." I had fun with the movie but it's a little unfair to put it against AI or Munich or something.

I immediately thought of AI after the ending.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I might go see this tonight. The wife and I are going out, but neither of us can decide how much we really want to see this. If we do go, my expectations will be the lowest of lows.

[Watashi]

I might go see this tonight. The wife and I are going out, but neither of us can decide how much we really want to see this. If we do go, my expectations will be the lowest of lows.

Dude, don't go in expecting to hate it. If you go in nitpicking every scene of implausibility, then yeah, you are going to hate it.

The most important thing is that it's fun and feels like an Indiana Jones movie.

[Raiders]

This film was pure greatness up through the scene in the bomb test village. The lighting and expressive "fakeness" of the scene where we first meet Indy with the landscape back-drop had me anticipating a great bit of throwback cinema (and even if it was tipping its hat too much, the Atomic Cafe being the turnoff was pretty funny). But, there was a lot of laziness in the writing here (Winstone's entire character arc was just stupid--something the film seemed to even acknowledge near the end) and I'm sorry, but...

the finale in the chamber with the "inter-dimensional aliens" was so hokey and ridiculous, not to mention void of any of the series' great religious/science dichotomy, that I felt no awe or wonder, only bemusement at somebody actually taking time to write this stuff.

Still, there were moments that shone brightly enough I find myself looking back with slightly more positive emotions than negative. I loved a small, throwaway moment with Indy boarding a train shrouded in steam that had a great melancholic atmosphere. It comes just on the heels of his acknowledgment of his age and there's a lot of emotion in the framing and Ford's sullen expression. That the scene ends with the emergence of Shia Labeouf's character riding on a motorcycle makes it among the series' finest moments. Too bad that by the time the film was ending, all this emotion seemed replaced by poor CGI-laden effects and plot developments that made even the Indiana Jones franchise groan.

[Winston*]

The most important thing is that it's fun and feels like an Indiana Jones movie.
I would say that it's not and it doesn't.

[Watashi]

I would say that it's not and it doesn't.

Well, you sure showed me my place.

[transmogrifier]

Dude, don't go in expecting to hate it. If you go in nitpicking every scene of implausibility, then yeah, you are going to hate it.

The most important thing is that it's fun and feels like an Indiana Jones movie.

I would say the last thing you want to do is go in with high expectations.

[Winston*]

I think this film feels like an Indiana Jones film only a little more than the Star Wars prequels feel like Stars Wars movies. It feels more like a Mummy movie, if anything.

[Teecee]

It's not without significant faults, but I liked Crystal Skull regardless. Ford as Indy is awesome as always, Blanchett is fantastic as an intentionally one-dimensional character with singular purpose, and the film is packed with more show-stopping scenes than most of the summer put together so far (Hangar 51, the "nucular" test village, the jungle chase...).

Overall and in retrospect, the film is narrower in scope than Raiders or Crusade, and more in line with Temple of Doom. In fact, I'd say that while they're the lesser Indiana Jones films, they're the ones that truly harken back to the preposterous, pulpy Saturday morning serials the series is based on.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Just got back.

The first hour or so had me grinning pretty continuously, and the last half hour had me thinking, "Really?"

It's a good flick, but I think there are two key problems with the film. Firstly, the Russians don't threaten in the way that the Nazis or the Thuggees do. We never see them do anything explicitly evil - hell, Jones spends a lot of his time translating and ruminating with Spalko. So the level of antagonism in the picture is very muted. Most of the tension comes in bursts, like during the jungle chase or the fire ant scene (both of which are fabulous).

Secondly, the Crystal Skull mythology goes nowhere and does nothing. The stakes are vague, the effects are arbitrary, and the finale is a bust. It seems like Jones is making up this malarky up as he goes - the consistent use of riddles by Oxley is especially grating.

All that said, there are at least three new action scenes to add to the Indy canon: the opening in the warehouse, the chase through the campus, and the jungle ride.

And Harrison Ford is still awesome.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I think this film feels like an Indiana Jones film only a little more than the Star Wars prequels feel like Stars Wars movies. It feels more like a Mummy movie, if anything.

This.

I just got back as well. This was one of the most brainless, uninspired, insipid messes I've seen in some time. Terrible. Absolutely terrible. From start to finish. And it seemed there weren't many in our theater who disagreed with me. Everyone walking out seemed to be remarking about how bad it was. If it wasn't Indy, and I wasn't trying to like it, I may have walked out.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The most important thing is that it's fun and feels like an Indiana Jones movie.

And this is so, so wrong. I lowered my expectations not expecting to hate it, but in the hopes that, knowing it was getting severely mixed reviews, I could take it for what it was and just have fun. Not a chance.

[Bosco B Thug]

I wouldn't put too much creedence in the fourth entry of a franchise that didn't exactly need to be rebooted. Plus I think Lucas is too involved to be a total "Spielberg film." I had fun with the movie but it's a little unfair to put it against AI or Munich or something. Oh yeah, of course I'll put it in a context and weigh it as appropriate compared to his other work. For example, I'll definitely put into serious consideration the fact that this was his first work during his "Shia LaBeouf phase."

[megladon8]

Oh yeah, of course I'll put it in a context and weigh it as appropriate compared to his other work. For example, I'll definitely put into serious consideration the fact that this was his first work during his "Shia LaBeouf phase."


If Spielberg/LaBeouf become the new Scorsese/Di Caprio, I fear I'll be seeing a lot less Spielberg movies in the theatre for the next few years.

[Winston*]

LaBeouf was really good in the one movie I've seen him in that was worth much of anything, A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints. I don't have a problem with him, other than that his surname's hard to spell.

[megladon8]

I don't have a problem with him, other than that his surname's hard to spell.


I get it wrong every time.

Sometimes I could swear it changes on me.

[Watashi]

And this is so, so wrong. I lowered my expectations not expecting to hate it, but in the hopes that, knowing it was getting severely mixed reviews, I could take it for what it was and just have fun. Not a chance.

You're so silly.

And Baby Mama is trash.

[Watashi]

By the way, what are your ratings for the first three Indy movies?

[Sxottlan]

Don't have time to go into it now, but I enjoyed it. The film never quite tops the opening Nevada sequence, but I had a lot of fun. I plan to see it again.

[Kurosawa Fan]

By the way, what are your ratings for the first three Indy movies?

Loved the first, the second is mediocre, the third a lot of fun, but doesn't top the first.

Did you see Baby Mama?

[lovejuice]

that's it. i don't think i'll see the film (not in theater anyway), and just pretend it did not happen. i don't want to be melodramatic but i'm afraid of what fezzik describes, dying a little bit inside. perhaps a year from now when i catch in on television, it might become a bit of a pleasant surprise. :cry:

[Sven]

So there I was, in a darkened theater, ready and willing to be one who accepts and understands and fights to the death for this movie.

Fate, and the fact that this movie is ass boring, conspired against me. What a drag.

[Watashi]

Loved the first, the second is mediocre, the third a lot of fun, but doesn't top the first.

Did you see Baby Mama?

I've seen well enough on my breaks to know Indy IV is miles above it.

[Melville]

I loved the use of 50s iconography in the first half: the drag race, the fight between the greasers and the squares, and especially Indy walking through the stereotypical 50s model suburb, which cleverly evoked a contrast of different pulp styles to suggest Indy's agedness. But the emphasis on cheesy humor and Jones family antics eventually went way overboard, reducing Marion to a grinning buffoon was a really bad idea, and Winstone's character arc was spectacularly irrelevant. Tarzan-Shia was amusing in its delirious absurdity, but it felt too much like part of a continuous devolution into ridiculous cheese rather than a cleverly incongruous 'wtf' moment.

[Sven]

I loved the use of 50s iconography in the first half: the drag race, the fight between the greasers and the squares, and especially Indy walking through the stereotypical 50s model suburb, which cleverly evoked a contrast of different pulp styles to suggest Indy's agedness. But the emphasis on cheesy humor and Jones family antics eventually went way overboard, reducing Marion to a grinning buffoon was a really bad idea, and Winstone's character arc was spectacularly irrelevant. Tarzan-Shia was amusing in its delirious absurdity, but it felt too much like part of a continuous devolution into ridiculous cheese rather than a cleverly incongruous 'wtf' moment.

Yeah. I was kind of liking it all the way through that chase sequence on the campus (I loved the "nucular" bit), but after that first half hour or so... draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag. Shockingly devoid of involvement. Loathed the production design. Like... there's no ambiance in the picture. It's all so impeccably composed that it becomes lifeless--the lighting was too good for it to be anything but artificial, which extended far too effectively to the plot.

[Melville]

the lighting was too good for it to be anything but artificial.
Yeah, I agree with Wats: the aesthetic was much too shiny and carefully manicured. I preferred the dust and grit of Raiders.

[Grouchy]

Seen this yesterday.

I'm gonna work on a review now and post it here.

[Milky Joe]

I've seen well enough on my breaks to know Indy IV is miles above it.

After seeing Indy IV yesterday and Baby Mama today, I can safely say that you're wrong about this.

[monolith94]

Man, I really don't want to see this, but I feel like I have to, because everyone else is. And because it's Indy. Man... Decisions, decisions.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I've seen well enough on my breaks to know Indy IV is miles above it.

Yeeeaaahh. That's the end of this conversation.

[Spinal]

Man, I really don't want to see this, but I feel like I have to, because everyone else is. And because it's Indy. Man... Decisions, decisions.

When I have these feelings, I just remember one word: aliens. Indy ... and aliens. That does it for me.

[Grouchy]

I have to agree with the majority here. The movie was a disappointment.

Check out the link on my signature for extended thoughts on why.

[Watashi]

When I have these feelings, I just remember one word: aliens. Indy ... and aliens. That does it for me.

The alien angle is keeping you from seeing it? That's probably the most fascinating part in the entire film which Keith Ulrich illustrates real well in his review (did anyone actually read it?). Plus, Spielberg and aliens go hand in hand like Scorsese and crime.

[Spinal]

Aliens in the Indy universe makes zero sense to me.

[Watashi]

Aliens in the Indy universe makes zero sense to me.

*shrug*

It makes perfect sense to me considering there was actual archaeological studies about Mayans worshiping aliens as gods and stuff back in 50's. Indy has always been about spiritual/supernatural stuff.

[Watashi]

I have more posts in this thread than Barty does.

How did that happen?

[Qrazy]

*shrug*

It makes perfect sense to me considering there was actual archaeological studies about Mayans worshiping aliens as gods and stuff back in 50's.

Huh?

[Grouchy]

*shrug*

It makes perfect sense to me considering there was actual archaeological studies about Mayans worshiping aliens as gods and stuff back in 50's. Indy has always been about spiritual/supernatural stuff.
You're right, the fact that the film is about aliens is not the problem. I can even back the Lucas statement that for the 1950s, science-fiction is the equivalent of pulp adventure and the pass of time has to be acknowledged.

The fact that the aliens story is contrived, explained by Mr. Exposition Mad Professor in a tiresome way, and that the E.T.s themselves look goofy is what destroys it.

[transmogrifier]

I have more posts in this thread than Barty does.

How did that happen?

I see you've bumped your score up, and you've spent an inordinate amount of your time defending a film you were originally so-so on.

Theory: Barty killed Watashi because of the original **1/2 star rating and has now taken over his username in an attempt to rectify matters.

[Sven]

I loved how the alien gave Blanchett (who was totally awful) a crusty I'm-going-to-set-your-eyes-on-fire look before setting her eyes on fire.

[Dukefrukem]

My two favorite scenes in the film were...


1. When Indy jumped off the bike into the car, then back onto the bike...

2. when Indy jumped onto the Jeep and kicked 4 Russian's asses

[[ETM]]

Aliens in the Indy universe makes zero sense to me.

They played around with the foundations of Christianity, the supernatural, black magic etc. I don't see why aliens would be a problem in that universe.

[Morris Schæffer]

I loved how the alien gave Blanchett (who was totally awful) a crusty I'm-going-to-set-your-eyes-on-fire look before setting her eyes on fire.

She was exceptionally bland and non-villainous. Of course no one over at RT seemed to be alarmed - I started a thread - because she's a great actress and all, but she was a disastrous non-event. In retrospect, isn't it supremely ironic that after the numerous "Shia La Douche-is-going-to fuck-this movie-up" threads, it was the venerable Blanchett who made even less of an impression?

More irony: After all the stupendously lame age jokes about Harrison Ford, isn't it a bit frustrating that the crappiest CGI scene in the entire movie involves Mutt rather than Indiana himself? Yeah, that tarzan shit was completely unnecessary.

And it doesn't stop. The first Kate (Capshaw) wasn't exactly adored by the fans because she was annoying, but put up against Cate with a "C" she was downright electrifying with great chemistry between her and Ford.

But basically, in the words of Spielberg himself: "This one is for you all. We're making this for the fans!"

Seriously, isn't that the most discouraging thing a director can say? Especially about this movie? I'd rather he had said "fuck you fans. I'm making this one for me and me alone."

Considering that Ford was rather fit in this movie, Indy IV could have been genuinely awesome on its own terms. Instead, with the exception of the very enjoyable first hour, nostalgia had to lend a hand and sort of save the day for me. And it did. I really sort of enjoyed it, but the aftertaste I just can't seem to get rid of.

Some of the situations actually made me cringe. The bit with the snake, initially surprising and amusing, overstayed its welcome when Indiana wanted it to be called a rope. Flatout terrible. And Marion was such a waste of a character. Indy's reaction when seeing her was hilariously bad. Not sincere and emotional at all. He seemed to be wanting to say "No fucking way, you're in this as well?" What I feared, that it was all going to come across as a glorified reunion movie, came through to a certain extend. For fuck sakes, They have a wedding scene!! A wedding scene of all things!!!

Although the scene right after that with the hat was good and more than welcome! Even now, and considering Ford looked more than up to the task, I believe a fifth Indiana Jones movie can be genuinely stupendous. Unless it's made for the fans. Then I'm going to start pacing the room, biting my nails.

**½ (I think. :cry:)

@Duke Frukem: Yep. A simple punch in this film delivered by Indiana was so much more satisfying than the generic light show that passes for a finale.

[Spinal]

;68449']They played around with the foundations of Christianity, the supernatural, black magic etc. I don't see why aliens would be a problem in that universe.

That's just it. It is a world where the Bible is literally true. I don't understand how aliens fit into that world.

[Morris Schæffer]

That's just it. It is a world where the Bible is literally true. I don't understand how aliens fit into that world.

That's a good rebuttal actually. Perhaps if they had hinted at the presence of extra-terrestrial life - like what the X-Files often did - rather than flatout showing it, complete with super-duper generic UFO, the results might have been more satisfying. It feels lazy here in a "hey-it's-the-50's-so we-obviously-need-UFO's" kinda way.

[[ETM]]

That's just it. It is a world where the Bible is literally true. I don't understand how aliens fit into that world.

I don't see why would the Biblical events negate the existence of extraterrestrials? Okay, the Holy Grail is real, so is the Ark, but that doesn't mean the Christian doctrine is.

[Raiders]

;68472']I don't see why would the Biblical events negate the existence of extraterrestrials? Okay, the Holy Grail is real, so is the Ark, but that doesn't mean the Christian doctrine is.

But their powers are real in the films, and one would have to assume this power is gleaned from God.

But, I take your side in that I see the Indy universe as a land where all faiths have equal opportunity and where all things supernatural can be real. The aliens here exist more as extensions of the ancient faith that they spawned and that worship them as opposed to War of the Worlds-type modern-day invasion. These are ancient beings, not aliens just arriving.

[Sycophant]

;68472']I don't see why would the Biblical events negate the existence of extraterrestrials? Okay, the Holy Grail is real, so is the Ark, but that doesn't mean the Christian doctrine is.I think their evident supernatural powers quite easily leads one to an understanding of the films taking place in a world where Christian and Jewish traditions are literally true.

[Spinal]

;68472']I don't see why would the Biblical events negate the existence of extraterrestrials? Okay, the Holy Grail is real, so is the Ark, but that doesn't mean the Christian doctrine is.

It's mixed mythologies. It's just my personal hang-up with the idea. My sense of it is that in the Indy world, the events of the Bible are real and that God takes an active role in the universe. This is different from a movie like Signs for example, which has characters of faith, but no explicit miraculous events. The dark magic of the second film is just the flip side of the coin which works to affirm the stuff with the Holy Grail, etc. I'm willing to buy into that for the sake of a film. I suppose that technically the Bible doesn't rule out the existence of alien life (as far as I know), but it also places humans at a central position in the make-up of the universe. What use would such a universe have for aliens who are intelligent enough to travel through space and time to bother humans? They would have to be more technologically advanced. Why didn't God make them in his image instead of humans? My assumption is that the film does not address such questions. My assumption is that the filmmakers break out the aliens because they are desperate. Maybe I'll change my mind when I see it, but it seems kinda dopey to me.

[Raiders]

It's mixed mythologies. It's just my personal hang-up with the idea. My sense of it is that in the Indy world, the events of the Bible are real and that God takes an active role in the universe. This is different from a movie like Signs for example, which has characters of faith, but no explicit miraculous events. The dark magic of the second film is just the flip side of the coin which works to affirm the stuff with the Holy Grail, etc. I'm willing to buy into that for the sake of a film. I suppose that technically the Bible doesn't rule out the existence of alien life (as far as I know), but it also places humans at a central position in the make-up of the universe. What use would such a universe have for aliens who are intelligent enough to travel through space and time to bother humans? They would have to be more technologically advanced. Why didn't God make them in his image instead of humans? My assumption is that the film does not address such questions. My assumption is that the filmmakers break out the aliens because they are desperate. Maybe I'll change my mind when I see it, but it seems kinda dopey to me.

The second film doesn't have anything as outlandish as aliens, but it certainly displays, respects and comes pretty close to affirming these Hindu faiths and Kali worshipers. The newest film just takes ancient Mayan myths and religion, which centered around the crystal skulls and were believed to possibly be higher beings (it is important to note the film calls them "interdimensional beings" as well as aliens, stressing they are not simply little green men). The film isn't set during some sort of 50s alien-invasion.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The film actually refers to them as interdimensional beings, which seems a bit different than aliens from another planet. But either way, the film sucks.

EDIT: Gah. Raiders beat me to it.

[Spinal]

The second film doesn't have anything as outlandish as aliens, but it certainly displays, respects and comes pretty close to affirming these Hindu faiths and Kali worshipers.

Yeah, I don't really even like that film anyway. The more I think about it, the more I feel that the first one is the only one worthwhile.

[Spinal]

The film actually refers to them as interdimensional beings, which seems a bit different than aliens from another planet.

I'll have to check out here until I see it. Just explaining my reluctance.

[Raiders]

Yeah, I don't really even like that film anyway. The more I think about it, the more I feel that the first one is the only one worthwhile.

:lol:

That may be, but it still seems to me your thesis sort of ignores the film. Like I said before, I think there are no ground rules for what can happen in these films. It just kind of accepts a multitude of faiths and superstitions. Kinda like X-Files.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'll have to check out here until I see it. Just explaining my reluctance.

Remain reluctant. I can't imagine you liking this film.

[Spinal]

:lol:

That may be, but it still seems to me your thesis sort of ignores the film. Like I said before, I think there are no ground rules for what can happen in these films. It just kind of accepts a multitude of faiths and superstitions. Kinda like X-Files.

Using the word 'thesis' really gives me way too much credit. Some phrase involving the word 'knee-jerk' would probably be more accurate. But, hey, I'm perfectly willing to dislike the film on other terms.

Errrr ... I mean, give it a fair shot.

[Dillard]

It's mixed mythologies. It's just my personal hang-up with the idea. My sense of it is that in the Indy world, the events of the Bible are real and that God takes an active role in the universe.Indy is an archeologist, first and foremost. Any ancient culture with a set of ruins and artifacts conveying a complex and interesting mythology is fair game for the Indy universe.

[Spinal]

Indy is an archeologist, first and foremost. Any ancient culture with a set of ruins and artifacts conveying a complex and interesting mythology is fair game for the Indy universe.

Not a fan of the 'anything goes' method of handling mythology. I like more internal consistency. But, as I said, my hands are tied until I see the film. Which will not be soon.

[Dukefrukem]

@Duke Frukem: Yep. A simple punch in this film delivered by Indiana was so much more satisfying than the generic light show that passes for a finale.

Agree. And yet of course Indiana knew not to stick around as the finale was occurring. Just like the finale in the first and third films. Do we even know what happened to the Russians that got sucked up in the vortex? They were taken into the ship? Another dimension? What?

[Watashi]

So am I the only one who thinks Spinal is going to really like this film?

[Kurosawa Fan]

So am I the only one who thinks Spinal is going to really like this film?

I will be floored if Spinal gives this film a positive rating.

[Watashi]

I will be floored if Spinal gives this film a positive rating.

I was semi-right about Raiders, who other than me and Barty are the only one here to give it a positive rating so far.

Plus Spinal was one of the few who loved War of the Worlds, which was another Spielberg film that was despised on this site except for a scattered few (mainly me, Barty, and Raiders).

[Kurosawa Fan]

I was semi-right about Raiders, who other than me and Barty are the only one here to give it a positive rating so far.

Plus Spinal was one of the few who loved War of the Worlds, which was another Spielberg film that was despised on this site except for a scattered few (mainly me, Barty, and Raiders).

For his sake, I hope he enjoys it. I just don't see it happening.

[Spinal]

The only thing I can see saving this for me is Cate Blanchett. And that certainly did not work for the Elizabeth sequel.

[Raiders]

I was semi-right about Raiders, who other than me and Barty are the only one here to give it a positive rating so far.

Morris gave it two-and-a-half stars, which is probably what my rating would translate to. I didn't really like it much, but for nostalgia's sake, I have done my best to focus largely on what it does do right.

EDIT: E gave it three and a half stars, I think.

[Watashi]

Morris gave it two-and-a-half stars, which is probably what my rating would translate to. I didn't really like it much, but for nostalgia's sake, I have done my best to focus largely on what it does do right.

EDIT: E gave it three and a half stars, I think.

Did you read the reviews by Keith Ulrich and MZS?

[Raiders]

Did you read the reviews by Keith Ulrich and MZS?

I think both seem to be reaching at motifs and themes to excuse a lot of the failings of the film. I'm glad they saw them, but in reading and thinking back, I ain't seeing it. I think I agree more with Chaw's review, by and large.

[Watashi]

I think both seem to be reaching at motifs and themes to excuse a lot of the failings of the film. I'm glad they saw them, but in reading and thinking back, I ain't seeing it. I think I agree more with Chaw's review, by and large.

I do think Chaw's review is great for a "negative" review (along with Schager's) and I do agree with him on a lot (except I do like the alien climax and the two parallel atomic bomb/flying saucer bookend shots), especially with him on Williams' score being very underused and not as bombastic as the original three (though apparently a lot of the tracks on the soundtrack didn't make it into the final film).

I also would like to remind you guys that I do fit in your area of giving it **1/2 - *** area (I mainly bumped it up to make my positive voice seem a bit higher) and probably wouldn't rate it higher. I just find it really silly that people can get so offended by a film and give it a nasty rating over really stupid things like Indy surviving a nuclear blast, a 10 second Tarzan scene, and 3 seconds of gophers.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I just find it really silly that people can get so offended by a film and give it a nasty rating over really stupid things like Indy surviving a nuclear blast, a 10 second Tarzan scene, and 3 seconds of gophers.

I was offended by much more than that.

[Barty]

The problem with William's score is that he doesn't use the theme enough, he's reduced it's use every film. Although everything else about the score is awesome.

[Watashi]

I was offended by much more than that.

The aliens then? I've already explained why I thought the alien angle worked and even if it didn't for me, I would never be offended by it. I guess I look at the Indy films much more as comedies than straight-out action pulp.

[Ezee E]

The Indy films are the essential action-adventure to me To look at it as a comedy before action-adventure doesn't work. Granted, there is much more comedy here then say, Die Hard or the James Bond films.

Why do I think the first three work so well?

The character of Indiana Jones. Much like the Die Hard movies work because of John McClain, no matter how ridiculous it got, it still worked. Whether it be the smirks, dialog or chemistry with other characters, Indiana beats them all. IV almost misses that because of the lack of a good villain and the forced use of Marion. Winstone and Blanchett are nothing compared to Mola Ram or the Nazis from the earlier movies. Sean Connery was a perfect match to Indiana in III.

Two, the action setpieces are almost a story of their own. There is a sense of progression in each action sequence instead of villains just shooting at each other, and ridiculous stunts. Again, Indy, even IV, outdoes almost any action movie from the past several years. Opening the Ark and the obstacle course to the Holy Grail are pretty much perfect.

IV may require another viewing from me. It still has Indiana, but it almost comes across like a Poor Man's Indiana Jones. It still works, but compared to those first three, I can see how many are turned off.

[Sven]

I liked the nuke bit, the Tarzan stuff was quite guiltily pleasurable, and the gophers too inconsequential to care about them. I didn't like it because it was booooooooooooooooooring. And sheeny. And bland.

[Morris Schæffer]

The problem with William's score is that he doesn't use the theme enough, he's reduced it's use every film. Although everything else about the score is awesome.

The real problem, and I've a feeling you're going to disagree with me, is that I no longer felt that the action scenes were as triumphant or jaw-dropping as they once were. Yes, the chase in the jungle is frenetic and elaborate, but the "magic" just isn't there. When Indy reclaims the truck in "Raiders" or even when villain Donovan screams "not him! the other one" in "Crusade" the accompanying Raiders theme is timed absolutely perfectly. A perfect synergy occurs between visuals and music at those precise intervals and all one can do is get up and cheer. The excitement and awe is definitely diminished in Indy IV and so I don't see the point in overusing the main theme everytime something blows up or a truck starts moving.

[Dukefrukem]

The real problem, and I've a feeling you're going to disagree with me, is that I no longer felt that the action scenes were as triumphant or jaw-dropping as they once were. Yes, the chase in the jungle is frenetic and elaborate, but the "magic" just isn't there. When Indy reclaims the truck in "Raiders" or even when villain Donovan screams "not him! the other one" in "Crusade" the accompanying Raiders theme is timed absolutely perfectly. A perfect synergy occurs between visuals and music at those precise intervals and all one can do is get up and cheer. The excitement and awe is definitely diminished in Indy IV and so I don't see the point in overusing the main theme everytime something blows up or a truck starts moving.

rep for you. Two amazing examples of when the hairs on your arms and back of the neck stand straight up. Esp in the "not that Jones! the other one" scene.

[Barty]

The real problem, and I've a feeling you're going to disagree with me, is that I no longer felt that the action scenes were as triumphant or jaw-dropping as they once were. Yes, the chase in the jungle is frenetic and elaborate, but the "magic" just isn't there. When Indy reclaims the truck in "Raiders" or even when villain Donovan screams "not him! the other one" in "Crusade" the accompanying Raiders theme is timed absolutely perfectly. A perfect synergy occurs between visuals and music at those precise intervals and all one can do is get up and cheer. The excitement and awe is definitely diminished in Indy IV and so I don't see the point in overusing the main theme everytime something blows up or a truck starts moving.

The Jungle Chase is one of the best sequences of all the movies, so naturally I disagree.

However the reason we don't have those perfect moments of synergy is because Williams simply doesn't use the theme very much, not because the action is lackluster. Compare the Jungle Chase to the Desert Chase, and you'll notice how much Williams used the theme in the that chase as compared to this new one. It's almost ridiculously absent in this new movie.

[Morris Schæffer]

The Jungle Chase is one of the best sequences of all the movies, so naturally I disagree.

However the reason we don't have those perfect moments of synergy is because Williams simply doesn't use the theme very much, not because the action is lackluster. Compare the Jungle Chase to the Desert Chase, and you'll notice how much Williams used the theme in the that chase as compared to this new one. It's almost ridiculously absent in this new movie.

Well, I can't be certain whether more theme would have made some scenes more memorable, but I know for a fact it wouldn't have made the vine-swinging more triumphant.:)

[Barty]

Well, I can't be certain whether more theme would have made some scenes more memorable, but I know for a fact it wouldn't have made the vine-swinging more triumphant.:)

Well the Vine scene is shit, so naturally. Although Williams music is really good during it anyway. It's actually the Raiders March orchestrated like Mutt's theme.

[Wryan]

It felt like an Indiana Jones film enough times for me to like it, even when it looked/sounded uncannily unlike an Indian Jones film too many times for me to love it.

How's that, bitches?

[Watashi]

Well, I can't be certain whether more theme would have made some scenes more memorable, but I know for a fact it wouldn't have made the vine-swinging more triumphant.:)

Morris, you're arguing with a guy who's seen the movie like 4 times already.

[transmogrifier]

I just find it really silly that people can get so offended by a film and give it a nasty rating over really stupid things like Indy surviving a nuclear blast, a 10 second Tarzan scene, and 3 seconds of gophers.

This is the strawiest straw man argument in the history of straw.

[Watashi]

This is the strawiest straw man argument in the history of straw.

Are you done?

[transmogrifier]

Are you done?

I don't know, are you going to accept that the criticisms are a lot more complex than your rather petulant "summary" of them indicates?

[Watashi]

I don't know, are you going to accept that the criticisms are a lot more complex than your rather petulant "summary" of them indicates?

Have you been reading my posts? I just said I agree largely with Chaw and Schager's reviews despiting me liking it a little bit more than them.

Your criticisms here:
Ray Winstone's character in this is one of the laziest screenwriting crutches I think I have ever seen. And Blanchett's villian is probably the dullest I have seen in a summer blockbuster for a good five years.

A couple of cool set-pieces (NOT including the ending, which is a complete anti-climax), and Spielberg is on his game for the first 20 minutes with framing and iconography, but by God is the screenplay a complete mess of epic proportions. The character interactions are abysmally pointless.

are hardly what I would call complex, even though I agree with you on Winstone's character.

[transmogrifier]

Have you been reading my posts? I just said I agree largely with Chaw and Schager's reviews despiting me liking it a little bit more than them.

Your criticisms here:

are hardly what I would call complex, even though I agree with you on Winstone's character.

I was referring to, well, everyone, rather than just myself. Tapestry and all that.

[Weeping_Guitar]

I rather liked it. Ford was great and I think the "aged" Indy angle was handled very well. I liked the 50s sci-fi look to the film and I thought Blanchet was great in her role. I think in 4-5 years one will be able to watch this film after the rest and it will comfortably fit in as an "Indiana Jones" movie and not as a seperate part of the universe.

The warehouse and atomic town parts I think were my favorite and I really was loving the film up until about when Marion shows up and it can only feel like she's thrown into the mix just to please fans (though I doubt anyone seeing the film relied on her being in it). As good as some of the action pieces were, mostly in reference the jungle chase, I really got tired of them well before they ended. By the time they got to the Tarzan bit I really wasn't wanting to take in any cheesy action moves.

I think the other problem was that the film tried to throw in too many characters with a past with Indy that none got to develop the link in the least. Neither Winstone of Hurt ever really felt conncted to Jones for me. Even Marion's connection wasn't explored any beyond what we got from Raiders and I kept praying that Indy would not be the kid's dad because it seems even more overly contrived that having Marion being the boy's mother.

[Pop Trash]

I basically "liked" it more or less. I gave it a 7/10 which traslates to 3/4 stars or "good" on my scale. I do think I bumped it up a point simply because I like the Indy character so much. Personally I would rather watch an OK Indy movie than a pretty good Iron Man movie.

P.S. Fuck Speed Racer

[Sven]

Thinking about how much better Speed Racer is than Indy IV literally hurts me when I think about it. My body crumbles underneath the enormous weight of truth.

[transmogrifier]

I basically "liked" it more or less. I gave it a 7/10 which traslates to 3/4 stars or "good" on my scale. I do think I bumped it up a point simply because I like the Indy character so much. Personally I would rather watch an OK Indy movie than a pretty good Iron Man movie.

P.S. Fuck Speed Racer

You're nothing if not consistent. I would advise that to really fit in around here, try to spend less than 75% talking about the rating and how it translates across 15 languages and little more about the actual films themselves.

[Pop Trash]

Thinking about how much better Speed Racer is than Indy IV literally hurts me when I think about it. My body crumbles underneath the enormous weight of truth.

Sane people (i.e. prof. critics) disagree with you.

[Sven]

Sane people (i.e. prof. critics) disagree with you.

This is a laugh.

[Pop Trash]

You're nothing if not consistent. I would advise that to really fit in around here, try to spend less than 75% talking about the rating and how it translates across 15 languages and little more about the actual films themselves.
I don't really want to fit in anywhere that thinks Speed Racer is a better film than Southland Tales. Thanks.

[Grouchy]

Sane people (i.e. prof. critics)
None who watches the amount of movies critics watch in a week qualifies as sane in my book.

A sane person is a lawyer who makes shitloads of cash and doesn't have time to watch movies.

[Winston*]

Pop Trash, what is your deal?

[transmogrifier]

I don't really want to fit in anywhere that thinks Speed Racer is a better film than Southland Tales. Thanks.


Well, I don't see many people clamouring for you to stick around.

[Sven]

Damn, it's ON!!

[Grouchy]

Well, I don't see many people clamouring for you to stick around.
I do. I don't wanna fit in with you people. Ever, ever in my whole life.

I'm fucking clamouring around here.

[Sycophant]

Man, vendettas aren't very entertaining.

[Winston*]

Man, vendettas aren't very entertaining.

Much like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull! Snap! Kapow! Thread rerailed!

[Pop Trash]

Pop Trash, what is your deal?
My deal is that I thought this was the place to counter IMDB and RT's sometimes retarded forums with actual cinephiles but instead the forum is exalting a movie where a fat kid runs around with chocolate on his face with a monkey (Speed Racer) but seems to decry a movie (IJ4) for having the same slaptick bullshit (monkeys, prarie dogs) but much less of it. :crazy:

[transmogrifier]

I do. I don't wanna fit in with you people. Ever, ever in my whole life.

I'm fucking clamouring around here.


The thing I love the very most about this post is that it conveys the misdirected, kind of chuckle-worthy sense of furious anger it was obviously going for while still being totally incomprehensible. That takes skill.

[Watashi]

I like both Speed Racer and Indy IV and loathe Southland Tales with every fiber of my body.

[transmogrifier]

My deal is that I thought this was the place to counter IMDB and RT's sometimes retarded forums with actual cinephiles but instead the forum is exalting a movie where a fat kid runs around with chocolate on his face with a monkey (Speed Racer) but seems to decry a movie (IJ4) for having the same slaptick bullshit (monkeys, prarie dogs) but much less of it. :crazy:


"Pop Trash: where critiquing film is a simple matter of presence and absence of monkeys. Since (I'm guessing) the early to mid 90s."

[Pop Trash]

"Pop Trash: where critiquing film is a simple matter of presence and absence of monkeys. Since (I'm guessing) the early to mid 90s."
Fuck off. Why don't you go participate in the yearly consensus of 1966. I'm curious to find out if you like Au hasard, Balthazar or Persona better. Or perhaps you can be involved in a discussion re: if Je Tu Il Elle could be read as a lesbian version of the Brown Bunny. Or perhaps the influence of Godard or Warhol on the ideas behind Southland Tales. Oh wait you thought it sucked...

[transmogrifier]

Fuck off. Why don't you go participate in the yearly consensus of 1966. I'm curious to find out if you like Au hasard, Balthazar or Persona better. Or perhaps you can be involved in a discussion re: if Je Tu Il Elle could be read as a lesbian version of the Brown Bunny. Or perhaps the influence of Godard or Warhol on the ideas behind Southland Tales. Oh wait you thought it sucked...

How many monkeys do the movies in bold have? Otherwise, how am I to know how good they are?

[lovejuice]

My deal is that I thought this was the place to counter IMDB and RT's sometimes retarded forums with actual cinephiles but instead the forum is exalting a movie where a fat kid runs around with chocolate on his face with a monkey (Speed Racer) but seems to decry a movie (IJ4) for having the same slaptick bullshit (monkeys, prarie dogs) but much less of it. :crazy:

monkey and fat kid with chocolate fit in with the aesthetic of speed racer, but perhaps not of indy (since i haven't watched it.)

[Qrazy]

None who watches the amount of movies critics watch in a week qualifies as sane in my book.

A sane person is a lawyer who makes shitloads of cash and doesn't have time to watch movies.

I dunno in my experience lawyers tend to be even more insane than critics... let's say farmer... farmers tend to be sane.

[Sycophant]

My boss is an attorney. He has a brother who is a film critic. I should compare their respective sanities one day.