BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Indiana Jones

 
  

Page: 123(4)

 
 
Seth
21:15 / 27.05.08
What is The Janitor that you refer to? I guess I'm forgetting something about the movie....?

From Scrubs, dude.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
13:33 / 09.06.08
finally saw it yesterday with mother and girlfriend. loved it much and didn't want it to end. through part of the final act it actually seemed a bit dragging.

yeah, the nuke bit was a little bit too much even for Indy movies' standards [more for me than the flying saucer - the alien plot was cohetent with the premise, like a Kirby comic coming to 'life'], were we to believe Indy would turn into the Hulk? i felt old watching the movie, don't know if that was intentional, but it did feel like those were other new times, scarier ones.

the debriefing scene looked like from another movie altogether. despite Indy's military connections, the feeling of constant paranoia, from commie spying and anti-commie persecution, made me think those were uglier times for a classic [anti]hero like Indy to be in... oh, wait, those ae just like our times!

i hate ILM's CGI, and despite Spielberg stating they went for a classic way of shooting this, it was pretty clear to me a lot of scenes in the jungle had a green screen wall in the background, the lighting felt very studio-set, almost like '300'.

despite all that, and RAIDERS being unbeatable, it was a great matinée fun, just like it's supposed to be. and Indy was given some reward for all the shit thrown at him [father and friend dying, professional and personal failure etc]; ok, he was given an instant 'family package', but that was what the movie was about: returns. he seemed pretty happy at the end.

and i hope they don't make an fith movie. it's a nice farewell as it is. i'll have to watch the old movies again.
 
 
Seth
15:22 / 09.06.08
i hate ILM's CGI, and despite Spielberg stating they went for a classic way of shooting this, it was pretty clear to me a lot of scenes in the jungle had a green screen wall in the background, the lighting felt very studio-set, almost like '300'.

Rewatch the original three films (I refuse to ever use the word *trilogy*), or even just the obvious snippets. Many of the lighting set ups are very similar and there's extensive use of studios, matte painting, models and blue screen, with loads of clunky effects. This latest film used a lot of the same techniques and set ups, far more so than you would get in a typical modern movie, and the CG elements looked very in keeping with that style as though they were animated matte paintings. It's a style that runs the risk of looking like a poor effect, but I actually thought a lot of consideration had been put into it. Most modern films would throw in far, far more.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
23:57 / 09.06.08
O RLY?

so you got me there.
i kind of don't want to rewatch them not to ruin the memories, hehe
 
 
Axolotl
12:15 / 10.06.08
El Directo raises a valid point - I remember reading that Spielberg specifically set out to imitate his earlier style of the original movies, even instructing his new cinematographer to attempt to duplicate the original cinematographer's style.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:09 / 10.06.08
Is true. Look in particular at Pankot Palace in Temple of Doom. That's so obviously a painting. But a damn good one, so who's counting?
 
 
FinderWolf
16:09 / 10.06.08
IMHO, there's no danger of ruining the memories' by re-watching the original 3 because they're pretty terrific -- even regardless of whatever hierarchy you put them in (i.e. many feel that Temple of Doom is the weakest, and that Last Crusade is 3rd), they're great movies from the golden age of the 80s.
 
 
Dead Megatron
17:14 / 10.06.08
I would never call the 80s a "golden age", but seconded
 
  

Page: 123(4)

 
  
Add Your Reply