Official INDIANA JONES Title is...

Message

Jedbu · #16 Post by **Jedbu** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:45 am

Definitely.

AndyDursin · #17 Post by **AndyDursin** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:03 pm

Monterey Jack wrote:I guess I'm in the minority that prefers the kinetic, thrilling Temple Of Doom to the jokey, defanged Last Crusade...

Yeah I think you are.

I love all three movies, but TEMPLE OF DOOM sits at the definite bottom as a dramatic experience. Great (phenomenal, in fact) score, sumptuous photography, and an opening that the rest of the movie struggles to live up to....but paper-thin characters are the weak point. Capshaw and the kid are just not very interesting and the movie just feels "gimmicky," packed with set pieces that feel individualized (i.e. "the dinner gross out scene," the "mine cart chase," etc.). If any movie feels jokey it's this one.

Now I do love it, but it's like an amusement park ride. I admire it for what it is, but it's the least of the series for me. And I wouldn't consider the magnificent interplay between Ford and Connery to be "defanged" at all in THE LAST CRUSADE, it's an element I think will be (but I hope won't be) sorely missed in the new film. The third movie is a definite throwback to RAIDERS and I prefer it over the second movie for that reason.

mkaroly · #18 Post by **mkaroly** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:52 am

I like TOD least, RAIDERS best, and LC in the middle. Actually, LC has my favorite music in the series and I love the "grail testing" scene and how Connery looks at the grail at the end. I don't know- just never really cared for TOD- though it would be REALLY NICE if SOMEONE out there would release a complete TOD score- I know there's a lot of stuff we're missing that I'd love to hear.

Jedbu · #19 Post by **Jedbu** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:19 pm

A friend of mine who works on the Sony lot in Culver City says that they are shooting there and that there are no signs or indications as to what film is on which soundstage. She has not actually seen any of the actors (co-workers have seen the major ones) but she has seen a number of clothes racks with distressed leather jackets and very familiar hats. . .

The security is tight, but she has also seen a number of "Russian types (chiseled blond features, almost like Dolph Lundgren in ROCKY IV)" hanging around for use as extras who when asked what they are working on become very tight lipped.

Guess Spielberg decided to return to the place that gave him so many happy production memories-the studio where he made. . .HOOK.

Monterey Jack · #20 Post by **Monterey Jack** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:17 pm

Official Drew Struzan teaster poster:

Nice to see no "giant floating heads".

Jedbu · #21 Post by **Jedbu** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:40 pm

Now that is a gorgeous one-sheet. Must seek one out for the collection. If the film is half as gorgeous, next summer will be good.

AndyDursin · #22 Post by **AndyDursin** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:47 pm

Great one sheet but...

Guess Spielberg decided to return to the place that gave him so many happy production memories-the studio where he made. . .HOOK.

So where EXACTLY are they filming this? He's not going around the globe as he did in the past for locales?

HOOK is a claustrophobic, set-bound piece that seems to get worse with each viewing, as much as I love Williams' score and certain sequences within it.

mkaroly · #23 Post by **mkaroly** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:18 pm

AndyDursin wrote:Great one sheet but...

Guess Spielberg decided to return to the place that gave him so many happy production memories-the studio where he made. . .HOOK.
So where EXACTLY are they filming this? He's not going around the globe as he did in the past for locales?

HOOK is a claustrophobic, set-bound piece that seems to get worse with each viewing, as much as I love Williams' score and certain sequences within it.

I recently watched HOOK and it is so difficult to get through. The look is so sound stage-ish...and the feel is awful. Aside from Williams' musical brightness I find the film arguably Spielberg's worst....but THE LOST WORLD (which I also recently watched) is not too far behind.

Jedbu · #24 Post by **Jedbu** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:41 pm

Someone I know works at Sony in Culver City (which is where HOOK was shot-maybe he's trying to replace the memories of the previous film with something a bit more pleasant) and that is where she saw what she saw (extras, costumes, etc.).

BTW, HOOK may be a misfire, but I'd rather watch that than ALWAYS. That film is my choice for Spielberg's worst for three reasons: Brad Johnson (the only wooden performance in any of Steve's films), zero chemistry between Hunter and Dreyfuss (which they managed to have in ONCE AROUND-go figure) and having Audrey Hepburn play a character named Hap.

Hap??!! Audrey Hepburn!!??

Give me a f*****g break!

Eric W. · #25 Post by **Eric W.** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:57 am

Monterey Jack wrote:Official Drew Struzan teaster poster:

Nice to see no "giant floating heads".

I won't lie. That made my heart beat fast and put a nice warm fuzzy all on me.

Hook was a misfire with a great score that sorely needs a remastered expanded edition released.

Always simply sucked. I can't state it any more bluntly than that.

Monterey Jack · #26 Post by **Monterey Jack** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:39 pm

Always strikes me as an Amazing Stories script padded out to two hours. At 25 minutes, it might have been sweet and diverting, but it's obvious and cloying at feature length. Granted, I haven't watched it in many years. Is the DVD anamorphic?

Jedbu · #27 Post by **Jedbu** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:34 am

If it were anamorphic, it wouldn't be any better. Audrey Hepburn as HAP!!?? HAP!, I beg of you-why?

AndyDursin · #28 Post by **AndyDursin** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:08 am

ALWAYS is a nice enough movie. Mikael Solomon's cinematography is OUTSTANDING -- I agree with Paul MacLean it's one of the most impressively shot films I've ever seen. No great shakes but it's pleasant enough. Obviously Brad Johnson's career went nowhere except PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT 2! lol.

Eric W. · #29 Post by **Eric W.** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:13 am

Monterey Jack wrote:Always strikes me as an Amazing Stories script padded out to two hours. At 25 minutes, it might have been sweet and diverting, but it's obvious and cloying at feature length.

Agreed.

And yes, I'll grant that it was shot wonderfully, but so what?

Willams put out one of his least memorable scores of that entire time period easily IMO and the whole affair is just better off forgotten entirely...again IMO.

John Johnson · #30 Post by **John Johnson** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:27 am

AndyDursin wrote:INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL

....forgettable? Lame? Too long? All of the above?

I keep forgetting it. Sure, we all might've thought THE PHANTOM MENACE sounded weird off the bat, but at least it was short.

RAIDERS, TEMPLE OF DOOM, LAST CRUSADE...and this title? Which one doesn't fit?

Crystal Skull? Reminds me of an episode to Stargate SG-1. That dealt with a Crystal Skull.
http://www.gateworld.net/sg1/s3/321.shtml

Official INDIANA JONES Title is...

Re: Official INDIANA JONES Title is...