These are the types of movies where a professional film critic's word is about as useful as an umbrella in a hurricane.
The "I've Seen Indy IV" Thread (No Spoilers Please)
- Thread starter Gruff Old Bear
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
These are the types of movies where a professional film critic's word is about as useful as an umbrella in a hurricane.
plasmid303
Super Freak
Yeah, you're right. I read through a few reviews (spoiler-free), and one remarked on how CGI heavy the film was while another review praised the film for it's sparse use of CGI. Arg I need to see this film for myself. Thursday can't come quick enough.
Dr.Mirakle32
Super Freak
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,855
- Reaction score
- 20
I don't know if this would be considered a spoiler, but without giving anything away, are there any surprises for the fans?
I bet you dollars to donuts that the "heavy" CGI that one review was barking about was actually the use of practical models and fullsize sets.
For example, the collapsing/contracting pillars that are in all the trailers that some people scoff at? Not at all CGI... that was a full-scale set piece that was engineered to do that. I guess some people are just automatically inclined to assume CG when they see something fantastical now.
It just goes to show that some people already have the knives sharpened... so they have to throw them at SOMETHING.
Still, I don't care. And I won't read a single review by anyone (professional critic or fanboy) until Sunday at the earliest. I probably won't even discuss/debate the film until I've seen it a couple of times, at least.
For example, the collapsing/contracting pillars that are in all the trailers that some people scoff at? Not at all CGI... that was a full-scale set piece that was engineered to do that. I guess some people are just automatically inclined to assume CG when they see something fantastical now.
It just goes to show that some people already have the knives sharpened... so they have to throw them at SOMETHING.
Still, I don't care. And I won't read a single review by anyone (professional critic or fanboy) until Sunday at the earliest. I probably won't even discuss/debate the film until I've seen it a couple of times, at least.
Ktjn
Super Freak
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,636
- Reaction score
- 2
Seems the majority of early reviews so far are... good.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indiana_jones_4/
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indiana_jones_4/
Trevolver
Browncoat
Thanks for the review, Gruff!!!!
man, am I PUMPED to go out Wednesday night and see this film.
Trev
man, am I PUMPED to go out Wednesday night and see this film.
Trev
Darren Carnall
Formerly hunky_artist
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 2,777
- Reaction score
- 311
I'm seeing this on Friday night (Jane's work shifts wouldnt allow Thursday)
Can.
Not.
Wait.
oh and trev? ....love the Signature
Can.
Not.
Wait.
oh and trev? ....love the Signature
dunedain
Video Games and LOTR Mod
That's not funny! Now you made the monkeys cry...I can't believe Indy dies at the end ... :eek :eek :eek
D
DarthNeil
Guest
Hi.
I know that the title of this thread says no spoilers but without having read anything past the first post I KNOW that some things are going to slip out
and so I graciously refuse to look at this thread until I get to see the movie...
So for now I say "good day" and I hate you all who have ha the good fortune to see it. I'm putting my fingers back in my ears and saying
LA
LA
LA
LA
I know that the title of this thread says no spoilers but without having read anything past the first post I KNOW that some things are going to slip out
and so I graciously refuse to look at this thread until I get to see the movie...So for now I say "good day" and I hate you all who have ha the good fortune to see it. I'm putting my fingers back in my ears and saying
LA
LA
LA
LA
What do you mean? That's not true at all. I was more than critical of SW prequels... and I've made it pretty well known how flawed I think THE LAST CRUSADE is.I eagerly await your review Irish, but something tells me you won't be particularly impartial.
In fact, TLC is my bellweather as a successful/passable INDY film. I'll have to think KOTCS is at least on par with that to not consider it a disappointment, especially after the 19 year wait.
This is a big reason why I will avoid all other opinions until I have seen the movie myself multiple times and fully digested it. I want to form my own opinion without any influence from expectations or buzz (positive or negative) whatsoever.
I'm completely on the fence at the moment... this movie can go either way. But I DO trust in Spielberg.
That said, I'm looking forward to how you, Murderofcrows71, Wor-Gar, Josh and other longtime INDY fans react to the movie as well.
I doubt we'll have a consensus opinion on the flick. But if we did, that would say a lot.
Last edited:
Murderofcrows71
Super Freak
Longtime fan is right, in fact this very year I turned the age Indy was in Raiders 37. Personally from the early reviews I've read, and the bits I've gleened off the Indiana Jones Journal and Ultimate Guide, I think I'll like it. Hell, I'll probably have goosebumps just seeing Ford and Allen on the screen with the Raiders March playing once again. We'll see, unfortunately I have to work nights Wed and Thurs so I won't be able to catch it until the weekend. I was really hoping to catch a midnight show Wed.
Murderofcrows71
Super Freak
Most of the professional reviewers have a pre-set agenda and I swear I find them as useless as anything. Why we even have professional reviews anymore is beyond me....:emperor
Karma
Jack's Smirking Revenge
What do you mean? That's not true at all. I was more than critical of SW prequels... and I've made it pretty well known how flawed I think THE LAST CRUSADE is.
In fact, TLC is my bellweather as a successful/passable INDY film. I'll have to think KOTCS is at least on par with that to not consider it a disappointment, especially after the 19 year wait.
This is a big reason why I will avoid all other opinions until I have seen the movie myself multiple times and fully digested it. I want to form my own opinion without any influence from expectations or buzz (positive or negative) whatsoever.
I'm completely on the fence at the moment... this movie can go either way. But I DO trust in Spielberg.
That said, I'm looking forward to how you, Murderofcrows71, Wor-Gar, Josh and other longtime INDY fans react to the movie as well.
I doubt we'll have a consensus opinion on the flick. But if we did, that would say a lot.
Ok, that's cool. I hope people are actually able to put the Indy fanboy aside for a bit and view the film for what it actually is and not what they want it to be, not just love it because it's the first Indy film in nearly 20 years.
I just know there's a tendency to want to like something so much one overlooks it flaws. I wanted so badly to love Episode I. I remember walking out of the theater, hyped from seeing it with a rabid Star Wars crowd opening night, trying to tell myself how awesome it was. Only later, once I had actually thought about the film, it's thin plot and shoddy editing and such did I realize what a lack-luster film it really is.
No offense to Gruff, but when I read stuff like KotCS should win the Oscar for best picture, I get skeptical and think the fanboy love has taken over a bit as I heard the same about Phantom Menace and such opening night.
That's cool, Chick -- especially since you have George Hall as your avatar. He was a dear friend of my wife's family, we all loved him, and I'm forever pissed at Lucas for taking him out of the Chronicles DVDs.
I saw Phantom Menace at a special preview that was also a LucasFilm experiment in digital projection for a digitally-shot picture -- other than that it was being screened off a hard drive instead of fed from a satellite, we got a glimpse into the future of film distribution. I remember walking out thinking that the only difference from a film projection experience was that the picture was clean from any scratches or dirt, and that the blacks were every bit as deep and rich as film. The technical part left me very impressed. I also knew that the dialogue was as stilted as the original, but the performances were no longer sending up Saturday matinee serials. It had become self-referential and overly explanatory. A real let-down.
This one's not like that. I'm obviously not going to touch the question a few pages back about what the crystal skull is, since it's the object of the chase, just as the ark and the grail were. But the larger concern -- is it of a piece with the series? My opinion is a resounding yes.
I've wished I'd said more about the two leading ladies, and if you don't mind, I will, though I'll keep it general. In the case of Cate, during the film I really thought to myself a few times, is there anything she can't do? It's hard to believe she's done Elizabeth, a schoolteacher in a sexual liaison with a pupil, and Kate Hepburn in just the last few years. Now she jumps into a very style-specific action picture and fits in seamlessly. My wife felt the same, though she thought Cate's accent slipped once or twice -- and I mean one or two words, not sentences. I think Cate's accent is probably perfect, just not always what we expect after hearing lesser actors do a generic Russian. I'll bet hers is specific to the area her character comes from -- her exact origin is mentioned in the dialogue when she's introduced, so she probably researched it.
And finally, Karen Allen. There's a review in Variety which should be avoided due to spoilers (and I disagree with the critic's quibbles), but Todd McCarthy, the critic, says that her Marion is the best Howard Hawks heroine ever to appear in a film not directed by Hawks, and that she was a huge part of why the first film worked so well. I think he's right.
Or, as my wife put it, Karen Allen is having just as much fun as Harrison Ford in the film, and it shows.
As for the Academy, they probably won't do it again so soon after LOTR, but I think that were they in that generous mood to think, it would be a way of recognizing the entire effort behind all four films, yeah, it could happen again. And in Ford's case: think of John Wayne finally winning for his Rooster Cogburn. It's probably a dream, but the audience I saw it with walked out, I think, full of admiration. Maybe it's a possible dream.
I saw Phantom Menace at a special preview that was also a LucasFilm experiment in digital projection for a digitally-shot picture -- other than that it was being screened off a hard drive instead of fed from a satellite, we got a glimpse into the future of film distribution. I remember walking out thinking that the only difference from a film projection experience was that the picture was clean from any scratches or dirt, and that the blacks were every bit as deep and rich as film. The technical part left me very impressed. I also knew that the dialogue was as stilted as the original, but the performances were no longer sending up Saturday matinee serials. It had become self-referential and overly explanatory. A real let-down.
This one's not like that. I'm obviously not going to touch the question a few pages back about what the crystal skull is, since it's the object of the chase, just as the ark and the grail were. But the larger concern -- is it of a piece with the series? My opinion is a resounding yes.
I've wished I'd said more about the two leading ladies, and if you don't mind, I will, though I'll keep it general. In the case of Cate, during the film I really thought to myself a few times, is there anything she can't do? It's hard to believe she's done Elizabeth, a schoolteacher in a sexual liaison with a pupil, and Kate Hepburn in just the last few years. Now she jumps into a very style-specific action picture and fits in seamlessly. My wife felt the same, though she thought Cate's accent slipped once or twice -- and I mean one or two words, not sentences. I think Cate's accent is probably perfect, just not always what we expect after hearing lesser actors do a generic Russian. I'll bet hers is specific to the area her character comes from -- her exact origin is mentioned in the dialogue when she's introduced, so she probably researched it.
And finally, Karen Allen. There's a review in Variety which should be avoided due to spoilers (and I disagree with the critic's quibbles), but Todd McCarthy, the critic, says that her Marion is the best Howard Hawks heroine ever to appear in a film not directed by Hawks, and that she was a huge part of why the first film worked so well. I think he's right.
Or, as my wife put it, Karen Allen is having just as much fun as Harrison Ford in the film, and it shows.
As for the Academy, they probably won't do it again so soon after LOTR, but I think that were they in that generous mood to think, it would be a way of recognizing the entire effort behind all four films, yeah, it could happen again. And in Ford's case: think of John Wayne finally winning for his Rooster Cogburn. It's probably a dream, but the audience I saw it with walked out, I think, full of admiration. Maybe it's a possible dream.
Last edited:
Similar threads
