Cate Blanchett Confirmed For INDY 4

Message

AndyDursin · #16 Post by **AndyDursin** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm

Bill,
I agree on YOUNG INDY. It might have been a bit slow-moving and too obtuse for general audiences but it was certainly well-produced and had some fine scores and episodes. I'm guessing it's probably aged well too.

Eric W. · #17 Post by **Eric W.** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:43 am

DavidM wrote: Catch Me If You Can was fun and lighthearted. Atleast John Williams thought so, as evidenced in the fun and lighthearted score.

^^ That's true.

AndyDursin wrote:OK so how about a "light and carefree genre film"?

This is what I should have written.

Or, more over, a really good genre film...

I would not consider THE LOST WORLD, A.I., or WAR OF THE WORLDS "good" especially by Spielberg standards. MINORITY REPORT was solid but had a lot of weird, "adult" elements that put a lot of people off (as evidenced by its good, but definitely not great, box-office intake).

Bottom line is Spielberg has NOT worked effectively with this kind of "light," upbeat fantasy in quite a while. It was his forte but IMO he has lost his touch to some degree, no question.

Absolutely agreed. I thought all of those were medicore movies, at best. For me, it's gotten to the point now where if I see Spielberg's name on something I probably will deliberately avoid it.

It's either going to be stuff like that or political propoganda pieces like Munich, none of which interest me in the slightest.

P.S. Young Indy was a good show!

DavidM · #18 Post by **DavidM** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:47 pm

>>Absolutely agreed. I thought all of those were medicore movies, at best. For me, it's gotten to the point now where if I see Spielberg's name on something I probably will deliberately avoid it. <<

Wow, I feel the opposite! In fact, I'll see anything with Spielberg's name on it. I love the new "mature" Spielberg. I don't know how his darker style will translate on an Indy movie but I'll be there to find out, that's for sure!

Also Jack... is season 6 going to get GOOD soon??

Eric W. · #19 Post by **Eric W.** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:28 pm

DavidM wrote: Wow, I feel the opposite! In fact, I'll see anything with Spielberg's name on it. I love the new "mature" Spielberg. I don't know how his darker style will translate on an Indy movie but I'll be there to find out, that's for sure!

I hope it's good. I still feel like this Indy 4 is at least 10 years too late. Same goes for Die Hard 4, incidentally.

Also Jack... is season 6 going to get GOOD soon??

Meh, I'm starting to wonder the same thing myself.

AndyDursin · #20 Post by **AndyDursin** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:38 pm

DavidM wrote:>>Absolutely agreed. I thought all of those were medicore movies, at best. For me, it's gotten to the point now where if I see Spielberg's name on something I probably will deliberately avoid it. <<

Wow, I feel the opposite! In fact, I'll see anything with Spielberg's name on it. I love the new "mature" Spielberg. I don't know how his darker style will translate on an Indy movie but I'll be there to find out, that's for sure!

Also Jack... is season 6 going to get GOOD soon??

I don't know if I'd call it his "darker" side. To me it's more his "tired" side

especially when it comes to genre movies like WAR OF THE WORLDS and THE LOST WORLD. I just don't think he's invested as much emotionally in those films, and the end result clearly shows. THE LOST WORLD is pretty much his worst movie and WAR OF THE WORLDS is a mess that is not far behind it.

I also think this casting is totally symbolic of Spielberg "now." In the old days he would take chances with casting and go with people who aren't overly known and/or established in key leads.

Now he casts marquee names like Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise in those slots, and with INDY 4, instead of going for another less-than-known commodity to fill the female lead (or, God forbid, an actress relative to Harrison Ford's actual age), he casts another "movie star" instead.

To me there's a clear turning point in how he produced -- and cast -- films, and HOOK was it. With the exception of SCHINDLER'S he's basically been making "movies with stars" ever since and to a degree his filmmaking has suffered as a result. Note this is a GENERAL STATEMENT and does not apply to everything he's made, but I think HOOK was an unfortunate start to a downward trend that has continued -- especially with the genre pictures he's directed.

And of course I'll be there to see it but remember also this isn't entirely Spielberg's show so I'm hopeful Lucas' involvement can keep the tone on the right track.

But Janusz Kaminski still troubles me more than anything...

Carlson2005 · #21 Post by **Carlson2005** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:21 pm

I've liked most of Spielberg's recent films - War of the Worlds very much despite the ending (it's not ID4, it's meant to be a downer), but this really stinks of a hunk of junk to me, and more because of Lucas and Ford than anything else. With their recent script instincts they couldn't keep anything on track if God came down and showed them the way!

AndyDursin · #22 Post by **AndyDursin** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:00 pm

War of the Worlds very much despite the ending (it's not ID4, it's meant to be a downer),

I didn't have a problem with the ending, and I wasn't expecting ID4. The entire Tim Robbins sequence felt interminable. The dialogue was just hideous. I have no idea why they keep going back to David Koepp to write these movies but that's another problem this movie is going to have.

Eric W. · #23 Post by **Eric W.** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:10 pm

AndyDursin wrote:
War of the Worlds very much despite the ending (it's not ID4, it's meant to be a downer),
I didn't have a problem with the ending, and I wasn't expecting ID4. The entire Tim Robbins sequence felt interminable. The dialogue was just hideous. I have no idea why they keep going back to David Koepp to write these movies but that's another problem this movie is going to have.

No other way to say it: WotW is a terrible movie, flat out.

That's too bad. If they'd had some real writing and bothered to have some fleshed out three dimensional characters, among other things, this movie could have been phenomenal.

Carlson2005 · #24 Post by **Carlson2005** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:42 pm

For me, The Last Crusade was such a near total letdown - a tired rehash with a couple of good moments but definitely one time too many to the Well of Souls - that I pretty much lost interest then. And Connery's character was such a one-note bad joke ("Oh, I'm James Bond and I'm not used to this sort of excitement!") that I'm really hoping he sits this out unless the script gives him something better to do.

AndyDursin · #25 Post by **AndyDursin** » Fri May 25, 2007 5:08 pm

Just to go back to this, Cate Blanchett is apparently THE VILLAIN(ESS) in the movie. She's not the love interest.

Along those lines Karen Allen IS apparently returning, so that answers that question.

http://www.moviehole.net/news/20070525_ ... ana_j.html

Eric W. · #26 Post by **Eric W.** » Fri May 25, 2007 7:04 pm

AndyDursin wrote:Just to go back to this, Cate Blanchett is apparently THE VILLAIN(ESS) in the movie. She's not the love interest.

Along those lines Karen Allen IS apparently returning, so that answers that question.

http://www.moviehole.net/news/20070525_ ... ana_j.html

Two pieces of potentially good news right there.

Monterey Jack · #27 Post by **Monterey Jack** » Fri May 25, 2007 10:39 pm

After renting The Good German earlier this week, I can totally see Blanchett as a scheming, 40's-style femme fatale villainess (although this one will have to be set in the late-50's to adjust for Ford's age).