Film of the summer: Indy vs Batman

[Beefy]

So the day has come. Critically, the reviews have been warm. 4/5 from Empire, Telegraph, Rotten Tomatoes etc.

But I know of several people that have seen it today. One refused to talk about it saying something along the lines of "It's another Phantom menace. Only worse cos I love the character more" with another refusing to ever acknowledge it's existence.

I'm scared...

Get's a six out of ten from me. May go down to a five after I've slept on it. It's not a Phantom Menace bad but it's not much better than Superman Returns. That was certainly the last time I've been this disappointed coming out of the cinema.

I'm tempted to say that the CGI is straight out of the mid-90s although that's an insult to T2 and Jurassic Park. There's too much of it too. Cate Blanchet is really bad and Ray Winstone is so bad it's almost untrue. But the biggest problem is the story which tries to be clever, and just ends up being extremely confusing and makes very little sense. One thing you could always say about the first three is that the stories flowed - this one seems to bounce all over the shop.

It's such a shame because the first 20 minutes or so are really good and there's some very good character stuff in there, especially in the relationship between Indy and Mud. Don't get me wrong, I know you shouldn't be looking for Oscar-winning material from an Indiana Jones film but Last Crusade, Raiders of the Lost Ark and even Temple of Doom at times are good films in their own right. I can't say that about this one.

I'm tempted to go and watch Rocky Balboa now just to remind me that Hollywood doesn't always take such delight in stamping all over my childhood.

 

[Pubey]

Get's a six out of ten from me. May go down to a five after I've slept on it. It's not a Phantom Menace bad but it's not much better than Superman Returns. That was certainly the last time I've been this disappointed coming out of the cinema.

I'm tempted to say that the CGI is straight out of the mid-90s although that's an insult to T2 and Jurassic Park. There's too much of it too. Cate Blanchet is really bad and Ray Winstone is so bad it's almost untrue. But the biggest problem is the story which tries to be clever, and just ends up being extremely confusing and makes very little sense. One thing you could always say about the first three is that the stories flowed - this one seems to bounce all over the shop.

It's such a shame because the first 20 minutes or so are really good and there's some very good character stuff in there, especially in the relationship between Indy and Mud. Don't get me wrong, I know you shouldn't be looking for Oscar-winning material from an Indiana Jones film but Last Crusade, Raiders of the Lost Ark and even Temple of Doom at times are good films in their own right. I can't say that about this one.

I'm tempted to go and watch Rocky Balboa now just to remind me that Hollywood doesn't always take such delight in stamping all over my childhood.

100% agreed. some stunning bits but bad casting and a clunky plot really let it down. the cgi was really annoying, the monkey swinging took it too far but the whole opening sequence was up there with the best of any action film... absolutely stunning.

 

[Beefy]

Yeah the opening stuff in Nevada, and the chase scene on the motorbike in the City after that were very good.

"Clunky" is also the exact word I used to describe the plot coming out of the cinema.

 

[Beefy]

Indy's "this is intolerable" line almost saved the film on it's own, to be fair.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Hows Shia Leboeuf? They're pipping him as a future Oscar winner... How i'll never know, considering the only other blockbuster he's been in was Transformers, but he's supposed to be a top, top actor.

Not sure I want to watch this now if it's not up to scratch, why taint something so good?


Also, I read that they're remaking Short Circuit... Destroy that film and I will go on a massacre, My single favourite film of my early childhood.

 

[Beefy]

I thought he was good but I liked him in Transformers too. He's a very natural actor who has made the best of some bad dialogue in both of the films I've seen him in. I've read that he's very highly rated too. Seems like the new Tom Hanks.

Hadn't heard that about Short Circuit, although they ran a trailer about the new Pixar film before Indy and that looked like it was heavily based on Number Five. I read yesterday that they are re-making Robocop too, but toning it down so it's a PG....

I really hate Hollywood at times.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I thought he was good but I liked him in Transformers too. He's a very natural actor who has made the best of some bad dialogue in both of the films I've seen him in. I've read that he's very highly rated too. Seems like the new Tom Hanks.

Hadn't heard that about Short Circuit, although they ran a trailer about the new Pixar film before Indy and that looked like it was heavily based on Number Five. I read yesterday that they are re-making Robocop too, but toning it down so it's a PG....

I really hate Hollywood at times.

Yep, 99.9% of what comes out of it is utter tripe. Remaking classics is the sign that they're pretty much of out ideas.

 

[loz]

is there any danger of Ghostbusters falling prey to remake-syndrome? I can't see any way that that wouldn't result in blood on the streets..

 

[seany t]

I wish I didn't have a £13 ticket for Leicester Square now...

I'm sure 1/5 of Lucas' possessions and wealth are down to my inability to remember how ****e a filmmaker he is. Oh well, I'll enjoy the first bit then and close my eyes for the rest and start counting down the minutes to Batman's return. Which was always going to kick this films *** anyway with Nolan at the helm again...

 

[seany t]

is there any danger of Ghostbusters falling prey to remake-syndrome? I can't see any way that that wouldn't result in blood on the streets..

Ghostbusters 3 is still being discussed mate, I hate to say. Ramis and Ackroyd have a rough script and idea for it...

The trouble is, all these things play on our nostalgia for their kicks and profit. The new Knight Rider + Bionic Woman TV shows, Indy, Star Wars, Transformers etc. But you can NEVER recreate those shows or that sense of blinkered love you have as a teen. Really, how many of them were 'that' good anyhow? My mate from Uni just spent £35 on the Cities of Gold boxset - a wise idea, really?

I think the only successful comebacks in recent years have been Dr. Who and Battlestar Galactica, by keeping the premise and basic rules but updating it for a modern audience. They might not be to everyones' taste, but they at least don't make you hate the original shows.

Hollywood hopefully has some interesting stuff in the pipeline, but is playing a broken record these days. I love the Bourne films, but even they are just cleverly made remakes of The French Connection / early Bond to a certain extent.

The sense of wonder is what I think is missing. No "big" scenes, or moments where your jaw is on the floor. No 2 hour wait to see the alien, or a setting no-one's ever been to before (due to such cheap travel). No twist you didn't see coming, or a SFX that benefited a films story, or a relationship you actually believe in.

The free-running opening in Casino Royale was great, but before that? I reckon you have to go back to The Sixth sense / Matrix or something to have a "wow" moment in a summer blockbuster...

And thats why I was /am looking forward to Indy, because you get those scenes. Well.... you used to anyway...

 

[Uncle Leo]

A mate just booked tickets to see the Indy film next Wednesday, really looking forward to it.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Yep, 99.9% of what comes out of it is utter tripe. Remaking classics is the sign that they're pretty much of out ideas.

Cloverfield, as good as it was, was nothing more than a remake of a classic idea with a bit of a spin on it.

I Am Legend... Good film. Remake.

Indy. New story of an old idea.

Batman. New story of an old idea.

I'm struggling to think of a genuinely good blockbuster that has been original....

 

[seany t]

Back to Indy for a minute: As long as it's got the theme tune, I'll give it 3 / 5 I think...

 

[blues_r_best]

It's pretty pap to be honest

 

[MK Shrimper]

Cloverfield, as good as it was, was nothing more than a remake of a classic idea with a bit of a spin on it.

I Am Legend... Good film. Remake.

Indy. New story of an old idea.

Batman. New story of an old idea.

I'm struggling to think of a genuinely good blockbuster that has been original....

I am Legend? Ferking awful! Terrible effects.

The only decent films I've seen this year are Son of Rambow (non Hollywood)and No Country for Old Men (Hollywoodish), but certainly not "blockbusters".

 

[SARF]

Hollywoods preoccupation with including a fiesty kid.. or a constantly screaming woman or in 'Indys' case a 'younger man' is effing tiresome... Batman will easily be the best film this summer if Bale keeps up the form he showed in the first one...

 

[Beefy]

Ghostbusters 3 is still being discussed mate, I hate to say. Ramis and Ackroyd have a rough script and idea for it...

The trouble is, all these things play on our nostalgia for their kicks and profit. The new Knight Rider + Bionic Woman TV shows, Indy, Star Wars, Transformers etc. But you can NEVER recreate those shows or that sense of blinkered love you have as a teen. Really, how many of them were 'that' good anyhow? My mate from Uni just spent £35 on the Cities of Gold boxset - a wise idea, really?

I think the only successful comebacks in recent years have been Dr. Who and Battlestar Galactica, by keeping the premise and basic rules but updating it for a modern audience. They might not be to everyones' taste, but they at least don't make you hate the original shows.

Hollywood hopefully has some interesting stuff in the pipeline, but is playing a broken record these days. I love the Bourne films, but even they are just cleverly made remakes of The French Connection / early Bond to a certain extent.

The sense of wonder is what I think is missing. No "big" scenes, or moments where your jaw is on the floor. No 2 hour wait to see the alien, or a setting no-one's ever been to before (due to such cheap travel). No twist you didn't see coming, or a SFX that benefited a films story, or a relationship you actually believe in.

The free-running opening in Casino Royale was great, but before that? I reckon you have to go back to The Sixth sense / Matrix or something to have a "wow" moment in a summer blockbuster...

And thats why I was /am looking forward to Indy, because you get those scenes. Well.... you used to anyway...

I don't think it's necessarily impossible to go back to an old franchise and get something decent. The most enjoyable film I've watched in the cinema in recent years was Rocky Balboa and the second most enjoyable was probably Transformers. Neither film was to the taste of everyone but they both did what they set out to do and did it well. Rocky Balboa in particular is a very solid story which is all you need when you have a character or set of characters who the audience love and are already fully engaged in.

I, like most who see Indy this weekend, had a lot of goodwill going in to Indiana Jones. I wanted it to be good and it would not have been difficult to keep me happy. But that goodwill has been destroyed by something that is an inescapably bad film. It's not lazy filmmaking it's just bad filmmaking. I said last night that this should have been a 'paint-by-numbers' job on behalf of Lucas & Speilberg. All they had to do was follow the structure that they themselves used in the previous films but somehow they've stuffed it up.

 

[seany t]

The most enjoyable film I've watched in the cinema in recent years was Rocky Balboa and the second most enjoyable was probably Transformers

I said last night that this should have been a 'paint-by-numbers' job on behalf of Lucas & Speilberg. All they had to do was follow the structure that they themselves used in the previous films but somehow they've stuffed it up.

Yeah this is my feeling too. I mean, the Star Wars flicks were very simple in premise. Good guy learns ropes, meets princess, has some action along his travels and there's a few good characters in the middle who keep things on track and grounded. Plus the flicks are seperated into 3 distinct acts, much like the Indy films.

Quite how the newer films got so obsessed with technology rather than a story is beyond me. Though I still feel it was always a tall order pleasing us all given the fact we knew the ending already, and the time that had passed.

Transformers was pretty good fun, agreed. But it walked that odd line of 50% realistic, 50% stupid, rather than just going all out one or the other. I know its basically based on some toys too, but the characters in it were just so wooden. Is it REALLY that hard to write some lines for a likeable lead?

TV shows manage it on a weekly basis, yet films can't do it given 2 years of development time?

 

[seany t]

May contain mild SPOILERS

Well I kind of enjoyed it, and agreed with the Empire review (though I'd give it more like a 3 / 5). The spirit was pretty spot on, and the tone for the first half felt great. It was good entertainment too. Liked all the setting, temples, old school cogs and the humour was there. I didn't think that snake scene would work, but actually found it pretty funny. In fact until that terribly long King Kong-esque jungle sequence, I liked nearly everything about the film.

I understand the new decade, advances in SFX and the far fetched (though no more far fetched than the rest really?) quest itself have deterred a lot of people, but as an old fan of those B-Movies and adventure films it made me smile from start to finish. Sure, there was a massive disconnect between the brilliant action sequences on the bike and trucks at the start compared to the decision making when it came to employing CGI (the crap animals, jungle scene, fridge bit, etc), but the bad didn't outweigh the good for me. On that fridge bit, wouldn't it have been more of an Indy moment to have the "event" happen, and then just have him stagger out of the fridge without it hurtling across a desert? I thought the CGI at times was a good thing, but they exercised it without any real judgement a few times too many. I didn't feel the last scene was played out in quite the way it should have been. And don't get me started on the vines bit...

Thats my only real criticism I guess, not enough Indy moments as such. Iconic shots were cheaply thrown away, the focus on having 5 people at the end stopped anyone from really getting any pivotal moments, Jones' lack of leadership. I guess they were trying to show that there was a new generation coming through and times had changed, but it did feel more of an ensemble mess than a pure Indy film.

True, the second half of the film was a bloated rollercoaster of a mess, and too many scenes took me out of the experience. But somehow, I think I still liked it more than Temple of Doom? Which still sucks ***.

Who knows - maybe George Lucas had already done all the damage he could to me after Attack of the Clones and I'm numb to the pain now...

 

[Beefy]

Watch Temple of Doom again. It's a much better film than Indy IV is.