Indiana Jone VI

Dr Sadako · June 02, 2008, 05:05:13 PM

I haven't seen it. A friend of mine gave it this review:

"It was OK for a Harry Potter movie. Once you realized it was it was a Harry Potter movie you started feeling better. Before I was mostly nauseous." :roflmao:

smilodon · June 02, 2008, 07:56:28 PM

If you want to make fast paced action movies you can't ignore the fact that the Bourne Trilogy and Casino Royal exist. They re-set the bar. The other route is to accept that the first Indiana Jones films were just big B movies in disguise and stick to that formula. This film fell down a great big hole between the two and became nothing. Agree with the Chimpster, they should have left well alone. What will Lucas murder next? ET: The Return ?

T-Bag · June 03, 2008, 12:29:32 AM

Firstly, compared to Star Wars, this graphics wise was alright. Secondly as far as indiana jones plots go...when you've already done a box from god which melts the face off of Nazis I don't see why people would complain about the alien plot. I think people are disappointed because they've built it up too much. Take it for what it is, an Indiana Jones film...which have wacky plots and scenes which can't be done in real life.
I found this movie exactly how I expected, nothing special but better than the average remake of an old series. I think that rather than completely changing the formula from B-Movie esque, to hollywood they kept it right where it should be. Anyone could start a new chain of films if they wanted to redefine the lead so much.

Anonymous · June 03, 2008, 09:37:09 AM

I'm with T-bag. Entered cinema, turned brain off, enjoyed film

Gone_Away · June 03, 2008, 09:44:52 AM

Couple of scenes were naff and the Alien thing at the end was just plain wierd. Other than that.. I loved it and had a good time. It's a good speilburg movie..

delanvital · June 03, 2008, 10:29:12 AM

Quote from: smilodon;233234What will Lucas murder next?

He might consider the Indy-series only skin-dead, since he has stated that if this Indy is a success (from a box office perspective, I take it :sideways:) there will be a fifth... some say moving the James Dean wanna-be in line for a take-over.

Carr0t · June 03, 2008, 10:58:59 AM

/agree

I went and watched it, and came out moaning that the ending was not Indiana Jones-y enough, it just didn't 'feel' right. But then i thought about it. As T-Bag said, how is space aliens any less believable as a plot than the Ark of the Covenant or the cup of Christ? Indy IV followed a similar formula to the earlier films, it just shifted the perspective a bit. Why? Well, as far as I am aware Stalin *did* have a bit of a thing about psychic abilities and paranormal stuff, so it makes sense if the time is shifting to after the war and the enemy from Nazis to Commies that they'd shift the plot in that direction too.

Having said that, I think it would have been better if they'd used the Karotechia hiding in South America stuff and gone after 'old gods' from Lovecraft literature like Dagon etc, more like Temple Of Doom than either of the other two films.

ChimpBoy · June 03, 2008, 08:24:58 PM

I think the deserved ire that the "aliens" ending is getting is due to the fact that it is totally out of place next to the 3 previous films.

Indy 1-3 all took on religious artifacts as the goal to drive the plot forward. They were never based on science-fiction. Supernatural, mythical, mysterious yes, but nothing to do with little green men or outer space. I can buy into the fact that the ark of the covenant had the power to melt Nazi faces, as it fits in with Greek myths such as that of Pandora's box. What I think people are struggling with is suddenly Indiana Jones is tackling "inter dimensional beings" instead of chasing artifacts solidly rooted in archeology. As one review said "the Holy Grail and the Ark of the Covenant (previous Indy fetishes) had unspoken gravitas. The 1950s-set alien themes of Crystal Skull, instead, are just silly".

The ending is great if you're making a new film in the Tomb Raider or The Mummy franchises, but it ain't Indy to me :sad: I don't remember having to disengage my brain in order to enjoy watching the first three Indy films, not sure why I have to now. But then again George Lucas has a habit of dumbing down these days to the detriment of film :g:

GhostMjr · June 04, 2008, 01:41:47 AM

I saw it as an advance preview the night before it was released nationally.

I was really looking forward to this film and so were many others in the cinema as we all sat down and cheered when the opening credits started. It did unfortunately fall far below my expectations. The CGI was very poor and some scenes were poorly crafted. However a few scenes did make me chuckle such as the quick glimpse of the ark which sparked a roar in the cinema.

All in all the alien plot wasn't what i was expecting, instead i was hoping for a storyline to do with new archaeological discoveries such as with the holy grail, which was an epic scene in the last and my favourite Indy film the last crusade. I was also looking forward to good action which did come in the form of the warehouse scene but other scenes were unfortunately low quality CGI which for the avid Indy fan was a bitter shame.

The talk to continue this "new" trilogy was mentioned earlier in the film's development and so i did think Indy's son was going to pick up his dad's cap but he didn't.

It did of course have nice elements and willl watch it again but it could have been in my opinion so much better

delanvital · July 09, 2008, 04:51:45 PM

This is such a blatant rip-off I could go and see it for that very reason:

Allan Quatermain and the Temple of Skulls

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1219671/