Lol...I knew it was a light argument full of holes.
But I will also add that the majority of Spielberg's corpus is all about the fulfillment and completeness of having a family together (not divorced, etc.)- he preaches that pretty loudly. It would not surprise me if, in JURASSIC PARK 4, Grant or Malcolm finally "settles down" and gets married. I didn't have to look too hard for that in INDY 4- he's been saying it for so long that I guess I just automatically look for some application of that "family subtext" in everything he does. Nor does he have to develop it much- he has already developed that theme in the majority of his films and in the other three INDY films. Maybe that's why they finally made this film- to get Indy married off and close the series on a positive note. So I'll defend that position since I started it...lol...
Anyway- whatever the case may be it doesn't make the film any better. I agree with a lot of what y'all are saying about it- it was a "lazy" movie where characters and all were involved (totally agree with what you said about Cate's character).
Lol...anytime THE LOST WORLD is brought up it pains me to read it...I can only imagine how hard that was to write Andy!!
If I remember correctly, wasn't John Hurt supposedly to play the part of Abner Ravenrwood? At least, that's how I remember it being listed on IMDB.com (Anyone else recall this?) There seemed to be a connection to his character and Mutt (Henry Jones Jr III), but what ever that connection was apparently went right over my head. I wonder why?
And shame on you Andy on not really being able to recall anything specific. Don't you remember the really awesome Tarzan scene? All I can say is.... wow!
SH -- lol. Actually I was trying to forget that particular moment!
The Abner Ravenwood situation was obviously just a rumor. I think people, including the usually inaccurate IMDB, assumed he was playing Abner, when it didn't turn out to be the case. It's not just you -- everyone in the western world basically believed that's who he was playing, but they never made a formal announcement on it.
What I'd really like to know is what John Rhys-Davies did to get on Spielberg's blacklist! Here's a movie where Sean Connery is not only referenced a few times but his theme even plays in certain sections -- and not only is Denholm Elliott's character referenced, we see a plaque AND a statute dedicated in his honor.
Sallah....gets no love at all in this movie. He must've done something to the powers-at-be to not even get a reference point!
Yeah, that Tazan scene is just about the worst thing that I've EVER SEEN in a film. Can't think what might rival that. Not even ISHTAR.
Who I'm truly wondering about is actor Pat Roach, who was in all of the 3 previous Indy films, except this one. This guys indomitable presence would have made for one intimidating Russian thug.
As to John Rhys-Davies, looks like he's got at least 5 films in post production this year, so perhaps he was just way to busy to be in this stinker of a film. All I can is, lucky for him. There's no way that "Anaconda 3: The Offspring" can/will make nearly as much money as INDY 4, but it's not likely to be as bad, either.
; )
Scorehead
Last edited by scorehead on Sat May 24, 2008 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This is also one of those movies where the more you think about it, and the further back you get from it, so to speak, the worse it becomes. And I'm someone who liked two of the STAR WARS prequels -- PHANTOM MENACE and SITH especially.
This movie was better than ATTACK OF THE CLONES, but not by a whole lot. (And not that it says much either!).
AndyDursin wrote: What I'd really like to know is what John Rhys-Davies did to get on Spielberg's blacklist! Sallah....gets no love at all in this movie. He must've done something to the powers-at-be to not even get a reference point!
Sallah (aka Gimli) might have been asking for more money...lol...JUST KIDDING!!!
scorehead wrote:Who I'm truly wondering about is actor Pat Roach, who was in all of the 3 previous Indy films, except this one. This guys indomitable presence would have made for one intimidating Russian thug.
I put on THE LAST CRUSADE in high-def this morning -- that opening sequence alone with River Phoenix beats anything in the new Indy film: the cinematography (they're really outdoors!), the fight choreography, the editing, the music (nothing in Williams' score in CRYSTAL SKULL comes close)...it's like watching a whole different manner of filmmaking. I'm sure when I go back to RAIDERS and TEMPLE OF DOOM that feeling is only going to be magnified.
Here's something interesting...Jeb Stuart's mid '90s draft of INDIANA JONES AND THE SAUCER MEN FROM MARS...if this is the same as the synopsis I just read apparently there are a load of similarities between this and what we (kind of) got with the CRYSTAL SKULL.
A few folks thought this was better written as well...find out for yourself
I agree with everything you had to say Andy, and I'll add...
Lucas and Spielberg have influenced so much of our popular culture over the past 30 years, and have spawned countless knock-offs. But this latest joint effort not only mines their own previous work, but also that of their imitators. The scene where the characters ride over the waterfall reminded me a lot of the one in Romancing The Stone. The hordes of army ants are very reminiscent of the scarab beetles in The Mummy (right down to the way they swarm over the guy and crawl into his mouth). The old "Roswell / alien bodies" idea has been around since Hangar 18 -- and used countless times since. Heck there was even a TV show called Roswell! And building a story around alien "visitors" and their influence on ancient cultures smacks heavily of Stargate, while other scenes play like an expensive episode of The X Files.
I did think the opening scenes had potential, but the action was so slow and bereft of any energy. There was nothing with the breakneck pace and breathtaking suspense of the escape from the temple in Raiders, or the "young Indy" prologue in Last Crusade. And that motorcycle chase was embarrassing. It had no tension or suspense, and lasted twice as long as it needed to. In fact it probably should have been cut from the film entirely.
I didn't care for the film's attempts at political commentary, and its apparent inference that the US in the 50s was just as much a police state as the USSR ("I hardly recognize this country anymore!"). Y'know, things weren't perfect in America in the 50s but, it was still a lot better here than in Russia (ask my Russian friends if you don't believe me).
What's the point of Indy's son being dressed like Marlon Brando in The Wild One?
Why do they have to reference the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles by having Indy say "I rode with Pancho Villa"?
And WHY does a fake neighborhood, built for the purpose of testing a nuclear warhead, having a functioning television showing Howdy Doody? (And who turned on the TV?)
And I must echo Andy's feelings about Junuz Kaminski. I just don't understand why Spielberg keeps hiring him. The early scene outside the warehouse is supposed to be a daylight exterior...yet Kaminski makes it plainly obvious in several shots that it was filmed on a soundstage because everyone has multiple shadows! And of course there is that grainy, high-contrast look to the overall image and Kaminski's odd fondness for blown-out backgrounds, as well as diffusion filters (which exacerbates the already unpleasant look of the blown-out backgrounds).
On the plus side, Ford handled the physical demands of the role convincingly, and I liked Karen Allen. And I have to say the film held my interest, but it was just so...perfunctory.
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Mon May 26, 2008 2:18 pm, edited 4 times in total.
And I must echo Andy's feelings about Junuz Kaminski. I just don't understand why Spielberg keeps hiring him. The early scene outside the warehouse is supposed to be a daylight exterior...yet Kaminski makes it plainly obvious in several shots that it was filmed on a soundstage because everyone has multiple shadows! And of course there is that grainy, high-contrast look to the overall image and Kaminski's odd fondness for blown-out backgrounds, as well as diffusion filters (which exacerbates the already unpleasant look of the blown-out backgrounds).
This movie looks NOTHING like the original pictures at all...no matter how much they said they were trying to imitate Slocombe and the "natural" look of those films, Kaminski can't ever help but use his "style" in every project he's associated with. I've never understood his technique or appeal, from the light pouring through windows for no reason at all to the grainy elements...bleccch. Frankly I think Spielberg's films, visually, have taken steps backwards since he began his collaboration with him...could you imagine JAWS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS or E.T. shot with Kaminski behind the lens??
AndyDursin wrote:This movie looks NOTHING like the original pictures at all...no matter how much they said they were trying to imitate Slocombe and the "natural" look of those films, Kaminski can't ever help but use his "style" in every project he's associated with. I've never understood his technique or appeal, from the light pouring through windows for no reason at all to the grainy elements...bleccch. Frankly I think Spielberg's films, visually, have taken steps backwards since he began his collaboration with him...could you imagine JAWS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS or E.T. shot with Kaminski behind the lens??
Obviously, being 95 and blind, I understand why Slocombe couldn't have done this one, but why didn't Spielberg use one of his other pre-Kaminski cinematographers like Dean Cundey or Allen Daviau? Either of them could have provided colorful images much closer to Slocombe's work on the previous Indy films.
Monterey Jack wrote:Obviously, being 95 and blind, I understand why Slocombe couldn't have done this one, but why didn't Spielberg use one of his other pre-Kaminski cinematographers like Dean Cundey or Allen Daviau? Either of them could have provided colorful images much closer to Slocombe's work on the previous Indy films.
I guess he feels Kaminski is as integral to his movies now as John Williams. Too bad.
Monterey Jack wrote:Obviously, being 95 and blind, I understand why Slocombe couldn't have done this one, but why didn't Spielberg use one of his other pre-Kaminski cinematographers like Dean Cundey or Allen Daviau? Either of them could have provided colorful images much closer to Slocombe's work on the previous Indy films.
I guess he feels Kaminski is as integral to his movies now as John Williams. Too bad.
Now, I think Kaminski has done some brilliant work for Spielberg over the past 15 years, especially on "documentary"-styled films (Schinder's List, Saving Private Ryan) and on his sci-fi efforts (A.I., Minority Report), not to mention his rightfully Oscar-nominated work on The Diving Bell & The Butterfly last year, but a big part of the retro appeal of the Indy films was the warm and colorful location photography of Slocombe, so shooting for 80% on a soundstage with blown-out, hazy, grainy photography was just wrong, wrong, wrong. It's also the reason why the pristine, antiseptic CG environments of the Star Wars prequels were less appealing than the compellingly dirty, "lived-in" quality of the OT.
