|
Post by General Silliness on May 29, 2008 10:36:25 GMT -8
there is an important difference between stupid fun and just stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Armin on May 29, 2008 18:32:14 GMT -8
Yeah, there is, but all 4 Indy are the same stupid fun. Now the new Star Wars, that's a whole different story...
|
|
|
Post by General Silliness on May 30, 2008 13:35:58 GMT -8
Yeah, there is, but all 4 Indy are the same stupid fun. Now the new Star Wars, that's a whole different story... as jens said, the missing feeling of real danger hurts the movie a lot amongst many other problems.the waterfall scenes were like watchibg someone on a disney park wildwater ride.everyting is just forced, up to the redicoulus hat scene at the end.god i hate this f****** movie.and please no talk about star wars prequels.the hate and dissapointment they produced would cause a second big bang if combined.lucas tries to destroy the universe.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Jun 1, 2008 0:01:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Southall on Jun 1, 2008 1:11:43 GMT -8
Saw this yesterday. Great film. Loved it.
|
|
Joe Irvin
Conductor
(I'm the one in the middle)
Posts: 815
|
Post by Joe Irvin on Jun 1, 2008 11:55:47 GMT -8
I saw the film recently, and enjoyed it in the sense that I laughed when I was told to laugh, and was excited when I was told to be excited. The problem with Crystal Skull is that it is not organic or natural by any stretch of the imagination, the way the others are. I don't want to recap any points that have been talked to death already, so let me just say this:
The main defense the way I see it (and this seems to be the same as the Star Wars prequels) is that people take the originals too seriously and aren't willing to turn their brains off to enjoy the new films, though they were able to for the originals. That in itself shows how unnatural and forced the new ones are. It might be indefinable, but the originals have the capacity to entertain effortlessly, whereas the new movies force everything. If I have to constantly remind myself to enjoy the new movies (and have no problem enjoying the old effortlessly), all that's telling me is that the new films lack something that made the originals seem natural and organic.
That said, Indy IV seems cold and lifeless. It's like a vampire: it might move around and look just like a regular human at a glance, but it's dead on the inside.
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on Jun 1, 2008 12:49:02 GMT -8
The main defense the way I see it (and this seems to be the same as the Star Wars prequels) is that people take the originals too seriously and aren't willing to turn their brains off to enjoy the new films, though they were able to for the originals. That in itself shows how unnatural and forced the new ones are. It might be indefinable, but the originals have the capacity to entertain effortlessly, whereas the new movies force everything. If I have to constantly remind myself to enjoy the new movies (and have no problem enjoying the old effortlessly), all that's telling me is that the new films lack something that made the originals seem natural and organic. Do you think that maybe it's because you're older now and so it might take more to entertain you than when you first watched the originals?
|
|
Joe Irvin
Conductor
(I'm the one in the middle)
Posts: 815
|
Post by Joe Irvin on Jun 1, 2008 13:27:30 GMT -8
no
|
|
|
Post by Southall on Jun 1, 2008 15:46:27 GMT -8
The main defense the way I see it (and this seems to be the same as the Star Wars prequels) is that people take the originals too seriously and aren't willing to turn their brains off to enjoy the new films, though they were able to for the originals. That in itself shows how unnatural and forced the new ones are. It might be indefinable, but the originals have the capacity to entertain effortlessly, whereas the new movies force everything. If I have to constantly remind myself to enjoy the new movies (and have no problem enjoying the old effortlessly), all that's telling me is that the new films lack something that made the originals seem natural and organic. Do you think that maybe it's because you're older now and so it might take more to entertain you than when you first watched the originals? There's no "maybe" about it. It would be interesting to hear from someone who was maybe 30 when Raiders of the Lost Ark came out to see what he thought about that, compared with someone who is 30 now and what he thinks about Crystal Skull. Now, I don't actually think KOTCS is as good as the others, but it's not far off, and most of the reasons given for it not being as good apply equally to the first three.
|
|
|
Post by franzridesagain on Jun 1, 2008 17:20:19 GMT -8
Well, I must say I am surprised at INDY IV. So much talent to counteract George Lucas's tendencies, and so little evidence of success. It's comparable to fan-based attempts to write sequels to PRIDE AND PREJUDICE...
The only thing really worth complaining a great deal about though is the look of the film. Kaminski really bungled this. The look is shocking, and the overall integration of CGI within the naturalistic elements is a shadow of the superb work done in parts of WAR OF THE WORLDS. (But then Kaminski was shooting that film like Cold War Krakow, and the effects probably integrated better there.)
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Bat on Jun 1, 2008 18:08:23 GMT -8
Kaminski is really a terrible DOP. The two best DOPs Spielberg has worked with are Dean Cundey and Douglas Slocombe.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Jockolantern on Jun 2, 2008 22:52:51 GMT -8
Kaminski is really a terrible DOP. Then apparently we have viewed completely different versions of Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report, A.I., and The Terminal, all of which are beautifully photographed films. However, Kaminski did screw up Indy 4... badly. -Jockolantern
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Bat on Jun 3, 2008 8:15:01 GMT -8
Schindler's is the only Kaminski-Spielberg film I like.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by franzridesagain on Jun 3, 2008 17:13:16 GMT -8
I think MUNICH was beautifully shot. A nice avoidance of the usual tricks and blown-out skies. (Mind you, most of it is set at night.)
|
|
|
Post by indy2003 on Jun 4, 2008 6:08:37 GMT -8
Hmm. I typically like Kaminski's work... particularly on "Munich", "Schindler's List", "War of the Worlds", and "Saving Private Ryan".
Back at ya later
|
|