No Tail on Henry Jones

For the discussion of Movies, Television, Comics, and other existential distractions.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
kevinkirby
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:24 pm
Location: Strode Island
Contact:

No Tail on Henry Jones

Postby kevinkirby » Thu May 22, 2008 2:21 pm

Don't worry, on my account, about spoiling the newest spinoff of Raiders of the Lost Ark. I've already seen it this morning at a matinee.

For some reason, it's showing in one of the still-operating "relic" theaters of this general vicinity -- The Castro. It's amazing to think that Mission Street was at one time a mini-Hollywood Blvd, but you can still see all the old theaters lining this street, to this very day. Not too much demand for them, though, in these parts...

SPOILER ALERT: This movie has no tail-end scene, appearing after the lengthy credits sequence. There is NO EXTRA SCENE waiting for credits to end.

User avatar
markabaddon
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:24 pm

Postby markabaddon » Thu May 22, 2008 2:32 pm

OK Kevin, so, without giving any spoilers, what did you think of the film? Reviews out of Cannes were somewhat mixed
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristrocratic forms. No gov't in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, gov't tends more and mroe to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class

User avatar
kevinkirby
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:24 pm
Location: Strode Island
Contact:

Postby kevinkirby » Thu May 22, 2008 7:42 pm

Well, not giving too much away, from an opening shot straight out of American Graffitti, this movie never claims to be anything but funny fun. It touches a lot of sentimental bases while running around the loop in the grandest of visual style. The filmmakers here have basically hit their respective homers already, long long ago, and part of their legend will be this latter-day tribute to an era long gone. That it even got made at all, at this stage in the game, is truly one of the odd wonders of this modern age of mass media.

I'm not sure why their promotional plans included a possibly risky display at Cannes. Sure, the movie does have a semi-political slant. However, it may have seemed crass to put up such a high body-count before an insular society of prestigious cinematic analysts.

Even so, overall, my viewing was enhanced by the idea that this movie avoiding any sort of ridicule or pillory...besides boring one reviewer "to death" apparently. Well, what should one expect from a film about stodgy archaeologists?

Anyway, there will probably be many nominations, and possibly the odd oscar(s) for the ever-greater advancements in fantastic sound and visual acuity by these folks. It's a movie for the ages, about aging and the generation gap that appeared in the American fifties. Still fresh in the minds of some; ancient history to others; and yet, to most of the world, perhaps it's all just another mysterious aspect of the English-speaking subcultures.

User avatar
David Loftus
Posts: 3182
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Postby David Loftus » Fri May 23, 2008 12:45 pm

kevinkirby wrote:...besides boring one reviewer "to death" apparently.


So . . . did he write the review at death's door, or post it in from the afterlife?


Reminds me of one of my favorite New Yorker cartoons by Lee Lorenz: a CEO is dressing down a subordinate from behind his desk, saying, "Confound it, Fenster, when I said I meant that literally, it was just a figure of speech!"
War is, at first, the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off. - Karl Kraus

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Fri May 23, 2008 1:22 pm

I'm afraid to see it.

User avatar
kevinkirby
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:24 pm
Location: Strode Island
Contact:

Postby kevinkirby » Fri May 23, 2008 2:48 pm

The oft-quoted "death" review is attributed to somebody from the following radio program in Spain:

http://www.rtve.es/radio/


The reviewer herself, however, doesn't show up on any searches there.

the_pauley
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:10 pm

Postby the_pauley » Mon May 26, 2008 10:39 pm

I saw this on Saturday night.

This outing for Dr. Jones lacked the heart, soul, wit, imagination and anything else that made the first three movies so enjoyable. It was a totally anonymous exercise that tried so hard to be an Indiana Jones movie that it ended up being like a poor imitation of one. It's the first time I can recall seeing a Speilberg movie that wasn't recognisably a Speilberg movie. It's as if his heart wasn't in it at all.

It was also way too far fetched, in terms of the plethora of unbelievable action sequences. The other three movies were fantasies too, but they maintained some level of believability in the derring-do which is what made them so hugely entertaining. This one went completley overboard in the action stakes and suffered for it.

The curse of CGI strikes again, I'm afraid. They didn't have it in the first three movies so they came up with realistic and exciting action sequences. In this movie it's over-use resulted in unbelievably ridiculous (and consequently, uninvolving) action set pieces. Not once was I emotionally engaged or on the edge of my seat, nor did I laugh with delight as I did throughout all three movies in the original trilogy.

NOTE TO FILM MAKERS: Just because CGI is there doesn't mean that you have to use it.

As for the plot (you know, that story stuff they threw in occasionally to connect the action sequences), well, who didn't see exactly what was coming as soon as the word "Nazca" was mentioned in the first twenty minutes or so of the movie? Gee, there was a storyline we'd never seen before! Does Erich Von Daniken get royalties, I wonder? This movie had Lucas' dead hand all over it while completely lacking Speilberg's usually dependable deft directorial hand.

I'll always revisit the original three movies, particularly Raiders of the Lost Ark, but I can't see myself rushing to watch this one again anytime soon.

Big disappointment!

User avatar
JohnPacer
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:42 pm
Location: Limbo
Contact:

Postby JohnPacer » Tue May 27, 2008 7:18 am

the_pauley wrote:It was also way too far fetched, in terms of the plethora of unbelievable action sequences. The other three movies were fantasies too, but they maintained some level of believability in the derring-do which is what made them so hugely entertaining. This one went completley overboard in the action stakes and suffered for it.


I seem to recall a scene in Temple of Doom in which Indy and pals leap out of an airplane and land safely on the ground because they're in an inflatable raft. I'm just saying that I love the Indy movies, but I've never found any of them to be "believable." For the most part, though, I agree with your assessment.

User avatar
David Loftus
Posts: 3182
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Postby David Loftus » Tue May 27, 2008 10:20 am

I saw it on Sunday. It was fun. That's that.

I was never a huge Indy fan, so I didn't expect a lot. One of the biggest fantasies in the movie is the notion that a 66-year-old man could move that fast, and perform all those stunts!

The performance of Shia LaBeouf as the kid was excellent. For a 22-year-old, he already has a long list of film credits, though I don't recall ever seeing him before.
War is, at first, the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off. - Karl Kraus

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Tue May 27, 2008 10:28 am

I'm hoping to see it and Iron Man this upcoming weekend.

Good husband that I am I saw Sydney Pollack's last performance instead. Made of Honor.

Cute. If you like that sort of movie.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Jan
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Köln

Postby Jan » Fri May 30, 2008 5:34 am

They delivered what was expected of them. Lucas had learned from Star Wars Eps. 1 and 2.

What they should have done instead is update the franchise and bring some freshness into it, make it 2008 instead of 1981. Since the original trilogy there have been a large number of action movies - they should have taken the aspects of Indiana Jones that aren't action and one-liners and expanded on them. The pace of the movie was so fast you often couldn't enjoy it. The scene I felt was shot just about right was Indy's conversation with his son in the bar. The best sequence overall was probably Indy's visit to the testing site. Most actors were wasted, especially John Hurt and Karen Allen. They also didn't have many good locations in this one.

Can't believe they scrapped a Darabont script to film this one. It's not a bad film, but it should have been so much better.

The best Indiana Jones on film remains the first half of Temple of Doom.

User avatar
markabaddon
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:24 pm

Postby markabaddon » Fri May 30, 2008 12:56 pm

Jan,

You are just mad that the Germans were the bad guys in the first film. The original Raiders is a film I consider holy and one of the most rewatchable films in history. I loathe Temple of Doom. It is just a crapfest from start to finish. Kate Capshaw's character was one of the most annoying women ever on film and don't even get me started on his little sidekick.

Mark
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristrocratic forms. No gov't in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, gov't tends more and mroe to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Fri May 30, 2008 2:03 pm

Hell, I love the second film, much more than boring Raiders--yes, I said BORING!

Short Round is god.

Molerom, suderom.

User avatar
markabaddon
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:24 pm

Postby markabaddon » Fri May 30, 2008 2:13 pm

I oughta rip your heart out for that blasphemy. Go stick your Sankara stones where the sun don't shine, that second movie is a pile of shit
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristrocratic forms. No gov't in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, gov't tends more and mroe to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class

User avatar
kevinkirby
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:24 pm
Location: Strode Island
Contact:

A Whipped Up Tale

Postby kevinkirby » Fri May 30, 2008 2:19 pm

With its (relatively) new cinematographer, this movie is like greased lightning eye candy from top to bottom.

Like myself, most viewers seemed somewhat taken aback by what was nearly what I call a "Binks Moment" -- a scene so kid-oriented that it steps outside the boundaries of serious consideration. Suffice to say, it was that part during the jungled carchase where the duck-tailed '50's hero must avail himself of vegetation to catch up with the rest of the careening herd.


Return to “Pop Culture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests