If it's too obscure for most people to get, then it's too obscure for most people to get, and they made the right edit.
The sad paret is, when you watch the scene the words, "Mickey Mouse!" come out of lips saying "Jesse Owens!"
Now, addressing Skull, besides it myriad mentioned flaws, the film is super confused about what it's story is, and it serves only to dirty the series's already shaky mythology. In Skull, Indy gives us two explanations which are somewhat exclusive by saying the aliens are collectors of ancient human artifacts having come to study us and also that they're Chariots of the Gods style ancient aliens; besides the racist implications of this last point put forth yet again and supported by the film, it also begs the quesion of what the other artifacts Indy has collected were. Are they items given to us by aliens? So the Ark doesn't have the power of God but of saucer men? It's so dumb.
That's always a big inconsistency between the original 3 Indy movies and Crystal Skull. Before KotCS, Indy and Co live in a world that is pretty much explicitly Christian in nature. In their world, God is real, and he is definitely a Christian God, hence the Ark and the Grail having the powers they do. Then we get to KotCS, and SUDDENLY, ALIENS.
It's a technically logical progression from Adventure serials of the 30s and 40s that the first 3 Indy movies are based on to the Sci Fi serials of the 50s and 60s that KotCS is based on, but it doesn't fit with the established world. We take a radical leap from "Holy Grail, guarded by an immortal knight, heals James Bond's death wound" to "Aliens did it".
We are human, after all. Flesh Uncovered, after all.
The Descendants is a disappointingly dull movie. It feels like any and all edges that are buried in the characters and the plot have been scraped off with sand paper, leaving a very unengaging and ultimately unsatisfying story. It's a bad sign when the most dramatic and complex character of the film spends the almost the entire running time in a coma.
If it's too obscure for most people to get, then it's too obscure for most people to get, and they made the right edit.
The sad paret is, when you watch the scene the words, "Mickey Mouse!" come out of lips saying "Jesse Owens!"
Now, addressing Skull, besides it myriad mentioned flaws, the film is super confused about what it's story is, and it serves only to dirty the series's already shaky mythology. In Skull, Indy gives us two explanations which are somewhat exclusive by saying the aliens are collectors of ancient human artifacts having come to study us and also that they're Chariots of the Gods style ancient aliens; besides the racist implications of this last point put forth yet again and supported by the film, it also begs the quesion of what the other artifacts Indy has collected were. Are they items given to us by aliens? So the Ark doesn't have the power of God but of saucer men? It's so dumb.
That's always a big inconsistency between the original 3 Indy movies and Crystal Skull. Before KotCS, Indy and Co live in a world that is pretty much explicitly Christian in nature. In their world, God is real, and he is definitely a Christian God, hence the Ark and the Grail having the powers they do. Then we get to KotCS, and SUDDENLY, ALIENS.
It's a technically logical progression from Adventure serials of the 30s and 40s that the first 3 Indy movies are based on to the Sci Fi serials of the 50s and 60s that KotCS is based on, but it doesn't fit with the established world. We take a radical leap from "Holy Grail, guarded by an immortal knight, heals James Bond's death wound" to "Aliens did it".
If it's too obscure for most people to get, then it's too obscure for most people to get, and they made the right edit.
The sad paret is, when you watch the scene the words, "Mickey Mouse!" come out of lips saying "Jesse Owens!"
Now, addressing Skull, besides it myriad mentioned flaws, the film is super confused about what it's story is, and it serves only to dirty the series's already shaky mythology. In Skull, Indy gives us two explanations which are somewhat exclusive by saying the aliens are collectors of ancient human artifacts having come to study us and also that they're Chariots of the Gods style ancient aliens; besides the racist implications of this last point put forth yet again and supported by the film, it also begs the quesion of what the other artifacts Indy has collected were. Are they items given to us by aliens? So the Ark doesn't have the power of God but of saucer men? It's so dumb.
That's always a big inconsistency between the original 3 Indy movies and Crystal Skull. Before KotCS, Indy and Co live in a world that is pretty much explicitly Christian in nature. In their world, God is real, and he is definitely a Christian God, hence the Ark and the Grail having the powers they do. Then we get to KotCS, and SUDDENLY, ALIENS.
It's a technically logical progression from Adventure serials of the 30s and 40s that the first 3 Indy movies are based on to the Sci Fi serials of the 50s and 60s that KotCS is based on, but it doesn't fit with the established world. We take a radical leap from "Holy Grail, guarded by an immortal knight, heals James Bond's death wound" to "Aliens did it".
What about Kali?
Follows in the christian religion sense, the artifacts were powerful because the people believed (including Jones at the end with his talk of betraying shiva and killing mulderam). The alien shit just comes out of nowhere, its a bad patch of like two ancient "I'm not saying its aliens, but its aliens" myths, and is so lazily written the movie doesn't even know which story it wants to tell.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It's pulp, dude. Pulp was full of Nazis, magic, and aliens. I
That's why I said it was technically a logical step forward. Indy was always about the kinds of pulp adventures, specifically the Adventure type of stories from the 30s and 40s. If they were to continue that trend forward into the setting of the 50s and 60s, aliens is a logical choice. They just did is so sloppily and without regard for their own established world that it fell flat before it had a chance to start running.
We are human, after all. Flesh Uncovered, after all.
It was a real departure from the plausibility of the first film, where a magical, divine artifact burned the faces off of some Nazis. :P
Hey, it was still following an established mythos, realistic or not. The fridge thing, along with the rest of that film, was just out of nowhere and didn't fit in with anything they'd established thus far.
We are human, after all. Flesh Uncovered, after all.
If it's too obscure for most people to get, then it's too obscure for most people to get, and they made the right edit.
The sad paret is, when you watch the scene the words, "Mickey Mouse!" come out of lips saying "Jesse Owens!"
Now, addressing Skull, besides it myriad mentioned flaws, the film is super confused about what it's story is, and it serves only to dirty the series's already shaky mythology. In Skull, Indy gives us two explanations which are somewhat exclusive by saying the aliens are collectors of ancient human artifacts having come to study us and also that they're Chariots of the Gods style ancient aliens; besides the racist implications of this last point put forth yet again and supported by the film, it also begs the quesion of what the other artifacts Indy has collected were. Are they items given to us by aliens? So the Ark doesn't have the power of God but of saucer men? It's so dumb.
That's always a big inconsistency between the original 3 Indy movies and Crystal Skull. Before KotCS, Indy and Co live in a world that is pretty much explicitly Christian in nature. In their world, God is real, and he is definitely a Christian God, hence the Ark and the Grail having the powers they do. Then we get to KotCS, and SUDDENLY, ALIENS.
It's a technically logical progression from Adventure serials of the 30s and 40s that the first 3 Indy movies are based on to the Sci Fi serials of the 50s and 60s that KotCS is based on, but it doesn't fit with the established world. We take a radical leap from "Holy Grail, guarded by an immortal knight, heals James Bond's death wound" to "Aliens did it".
What about Kali?
Follows in the christian religion sense, the artifacts were powerful because the people believed (including Jones at the end with his talk of betraying shiva and killing mulderam). The alien shit just comes out of nowhere, its a bad patch of like two ancient "I'm not saying its aliens, but its aliens" myths, and is so lazily written the movie doesn't even know which story it wants to tell.
Aliens might have worked better had the films gone into how Indy's world has many myths and weird things that existed there, which were consistent and the audience discovered it's a crazy place where anything can happen. It'd still be a long shot though. They'd have needed to make the story better quality, as well, which unfortunately wasn't an option with Spielberg and Lucas in charge.
It was a real departure from the plausibility of the first film, where a magical, divine artifact burned the faces off of some Nazis. :P
Not even compareable. Even the inflatable raft scene from temple had "Ok that might work maybe." The fridge was just a retarded thing from multiple angles.
I mean its not like there is some kind of science behind the ark of the covenant, but you don't even have to be a physics nerd to know that if the fridge got thrown as far as it did in crystal skull indy would be indy goo.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It was a real departure from the plausibility of the first film, where a magical, divine artifact burned the faces off of some Nazis. :P
It's consistency, not plausibility. All the prior movies involved magic artifacts or gods involvement putting aliens in there changes the genre into science fiction which makes it difficult for the audience to accept since all we've seen before that doesn't match up. Another thing against it was the terrible execution and a bad story. Had the other films implied aliens existed or something that opened the possibility for science fiction elements that lent itself well to introducing aliens it wouldn't have stuck out so much.
If it's too obscure for most people to get, then it's too obscure for most people to get, and they made the right edit.
The sad paret is, when you watch the scene the words, "Mickey Mouse!" come out of lips saying "Jesse Owens!"
Now, addressing Skull, besides it myriad mentioned flaws, the film is super confused about what it's story is, and it serves only to dirty the series's already shaky mythology. In Skull, Indy gives us two explanations which are somewhat exclusive by saying the aliens are collectors of ancient human artifacts having come to study us and also that they're Chariots of the Gods style ancient aliens; besides the racist implications of this last point put forth yet again and supported by the film, it also begs the quesion of what the other artifacts Indy has collected were. Are they items given to us by aliens? So the Ark doesn't have the power of God but of saucer men? It's so dumb.
That's always a big inconsistency between the original 3 Indy movies and Crystal Skull. Before KotCS, Indy and Co live in a world that is pretty much explicitly Christian in nature. In their world, God is real, and he is definitely a Christian God, hence the Ark and the Grail having the powers they do. Then we get to KotCS, and SUDDENLY, ALIENS.
It's a technically logical progression from Adventure serials of the 30s and 40s that the first 3 Indy movies are based on to the Sci Fi serials of the 50s and 60s that KotCS is based on, but it doesn't fit with the established world. We take a radical leap from "Holy Grail, guarded by an immortal knight, heals James Bond's death wound" to "Aliens did it".
What about Kali?
Follows in the christian religion sense, the artifacts were powerful because the people believed (including Jones at the end with his talk of betraying shiva and killing mulderam). The alien shit just comes out of nowhere, its a bad patch of like two ancient "I'm not saying its aliens, but its aliens" myths, and is so lazily written the movie doesn't even know which story it wants to tell.
Aliens might have worked better had the films gone into how Indy's world has many myths and weird things that existed there, which were consistent and the audience discovered it's a crazy place where anything can happen. It'd still be a long shot though. They'd have needed to make the story better quality, as well, which unfortunately wasn't an option with Spielberg and Lucas in charge.
That's what sucks about Crystal Skull, is that the alien stuff could have worked under a more competent writer/director. If handled with a little more finesse and acknowledgement of the previous films mythos, most of the major ideas of Crystal Skull could have worked.
We are human, after all. Flesh Uncovered, after all.
Well also if the movie wasn't involved with George Lucas post last crusade also known as the last time he had anything creatively to give to the world.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It's pulp, dude. Pulp was full of Nazis, magic, and aliens. I
That's why I said it was technically a logical step forward. Indy was always about the kinds of pulp adventures, specifically the Adventure type of stories from the 30s and 40s. If they were to continue that trend forward into the setting of the 50s and 60s, aliens is a logical choice. They just did is so sloppily and without regard for their own established world that it fell flat before it had a chance to start running.
It was a real departure from the plausibility of the first film, where a magical, divine artifact burned the faces off of some Nazis. :P
Not even compareable. Even the inflatable raft scene from temple had "Ok that might work maybe." The fridge was just a retarded thing from multiple angles.
Which angles? What are all these multiple angles?
I mean its not like there is some kind of science behind the ark of the covenant, but you don't even have to be a physics nerd to know that if the fridge got thrown as far as it did in crystal skull indy would be indy goo.
So basically just the plausibility angle after all. Confirmed.
I would get it if people had issues with the fridge as a narrative device, a cheesy deus ex machina. It's clearly a pretty weak way of getting Indy out of trouble. It is not what anybody would point to as good writing.
But this check Slashdot headlines, push glasses up, clear throat, ahem, "No WAY could that happen!!" said in a nasally pitch stuff is baffling.
All this talk and no mention of the terrible CGI / overuse of the green screen?
Its a lucas movie post prequels, thats a given. I didn't even have to see Red Tails to know it probably had less than twenty minutes of actual on location shooting.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It's pulp, dude. Pulp was full of Nazis, magic, and aliens. I
That's why I said it was technically a logical step forward. Indy was always about the kinds of pulp adventures, specifically the Adventure type of stories from the 30s and 40s. If they were to continue that trend forward into the setting of the 50s and 60s, aliens is a logical choice. They just did is so sloppily and without regard for their own established world that it fell flat before it had a chance to start running.
Why would you do that?
Because the movie is set in 1957. The original Indy films were set in the 30s and 40s, hence the Adventure serial type stories. 50s and 60s means moving towards Sci Fi and Aliens. Again, not saying it was a great choice, just a technically logical progression.
We are human, after all. Flesh Uncovered, after all.
It's pulp, dude. Pulp was full of Nazis, magic, and aliens. I
That's why I said it was technically a logical step forward. Indy was always about the kinds of pulp adventures, specifically the Adventure type of stories from the 30s and 40s. If they were to continue that trend forward into the setting of the 50s and 60s, aliens is a logical choice. They just did is so sloppily and without regard for their own established world that it fell flat before it had a chance to start running.
Why would you do that?
Because the movie is set in 1957. The original Indy films were set in the 30s and 40s, hence the Adventure serial type stories. 50s and 60s means moving towards Sci Fi and Aliens. Again, not saying it was a great choice, just a technically logical progression.
That's the reason for the switch but they didn't need to move towards aliens and sci-fi if they didn't want to. The writers and directors can do whatever they want, restricting themselves like that because the era is different in real world is ridiculous. Indiana Jones is not a movie franchise that happens in the real world, they're not Jason Bourne they have Nazis melting to death by drinking from a false holy grail in a hidden place guarded (poorly) by an immortal knight templar.
It's pulp, dude. Pulp was full of Nazis, magic, and aliens. I
That's why I said it was technically a logical step forward. Indy was always about the kinds of pulp adventures, specifically the Adventure type of stories from the 30s and 40s. If they were to continue that trend forward into the setting of the 50s and 60s, aliens is a logical choice. They just did is so sloppily and without regard for their own established world that it fell flat before it had a chance to start running.
Why would you do that?
Because the movie is set in 1957. The original Indy films were set in the 30s and 40s, hence the Adventure serial type stories. 50s and 60s means moving towards Sci Fi and Aliens. Again, not saying it was a great choice, just a technically logical progression.
That's the reason for the switch but they didn't need to move towards aliens and sci-fi if they didn't want to. The writers and directors can do whatever they want, restricting themselves like that because the era is different in real world is ridiculous. Indiana Jones is not a movie franchise that happens in the real world, they're not Jason Bourne they have Nazis melting to death by drinking from a false holy grail in a hidden place guarded (poorly) by an immortal knight templar.
Oh I know they didn't have to, and I really wish they hadn't. I was just saying I understood why they did. The restrictions that kind of move created for them is definitely ridiculous and senseless when they could have just as easily stuck to the setting that's worked in the past.
We are human, after all. Flesh Uncovered, after all.
It's pulp, dude. Pulp was full of Nazis, magic, and aliens. I
That's why I said it was technically a logical step forward. Indy was always about the kinds of pulp adventures, specifically the Adventure type of stories from the 30s and 40s. If they were to continue that trend forward into the setting of the 50s and 60s, aliens is a logical choice. They just did is so sloppily and without regard for their own established world that it fell flat before it had a chance to start running.
Why would you do that?
Because the movie is set in 1957. The original Indy films were set in the 30s and 40s, hence the Adventure serial type stories. 50s and 60s means moving towards Sci Fi and Aliens. Again, not saying it was a great choice, just a technically logical progression.
That's the reason for the switch but they didn't need to move towards aliens and sci-fi if they didn't want to. The writers and directors can do whatever they want, restricting themselves like that because the era is different in real world is ridiculous. Indiana Jones is not a movie franchise that happens in the real world, they're not Jason Bourne they have Nazis melting to death by drinking from a false holy grail in a hidden place guarded (poorly) by an immortal knight templar.
Oh I know they didn't have to, and I really wish they hadn't. I was just saying I understood why they did. The restrictions that kind of move created for them is definitely ridiculous and senseless when they could have just as easily stuck to the setting that's worked in the past.
It's pulp, dude. Pulp was full of Nazis, magic, and aliens. I
That's why I said it was technically a logical step forward. Indy was always about the kinds of pulp adventures, specifically the Adventure type of stories from the 30s and 40s. If they were to continue that trend forward into the setting of the 50s and 60s, aliens is a logical choice. They just did is so sloppily and without regard for their own established world that it fell flat before it had a chance to start running.
Why would you do that?
Because the movie is set in 1957. The original Indy films were set in the 30s and 40s, hence the Adventure serial type stories. 50s and 60s means moving towards Sci Fi and Aliens. Again, not saying it was a great choice, just a technically logical progression.
And away from pulp. Which they didn't actually do! If they wanted to go with aliens in homage those movies, Indy should have spent at least half the movie in a lab somewhere hanging out with scientists and generals trying to figure out how to beat the alien invaders :P
It's pulp, dude. Pulp was full of Nazis, magic, and aliens. I
That's why I said it was technically a logical step forward. Indy was always about the kinds of pulp adventures, specifically the Adventure type of stories from the 30s and 40s. If they were to continue that trend forward into the setting of the 50s and 60s, aliens is a logical choice. They just did is so sloppily and without regard for their own established world that it fell flat before it had a chance to start running.
Why would you do that?
Because the movie is set in 1957. The original Indy films were set in the 30s and 40s, hence the Adventure serial type stories. 50s and 60s means moving towards Sci Fi and Aliens. Again, not saying it was a great choice, just a technically logical progression.
And away from pulp. Which they didn't actually do! If they wanted to go with aliens in homage those movies, Indy should have spent at least half the movie in a lab somewhere hanging out with scientists and generals trying to figure out how to beat the alien invaders :P
And telling women that they don't understand science.
"Oh I'm sorry your poor female brain can't comprehend science, have a seat over there we'll go to lunch later where you can give me a blow job."
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It's pulp, dude. Pulp was full of Nazis, magic, and aliens. I
That's why I said it was technically a logical step forward. Indy was always about the kinds of pulp adventures, specifically the Adventure type of stories from the 30s and 40s. If they were to continue that trend forward into the setting of the 50s and 60s, aliens is a logical choice. They just did is so sloppily and without regard for their own established world that it fell flat before it had a chance to start running.
Why would you do that?
Because the movie is set in 1957. The original Indy films were set in the 30s and 40s, hence the Adventure serial type stories. 50s and 60s means moving towards Sci Fi and Aliens. Again, not saying it was a great choice, just a technically logical progression.
And away from pulp. Which they didn't actually do! If they wanted to go with aliens in homage those movies, Indy should have spent at least half the movie in a lab somewhere hanging out with scientists and generals trying to figure out how to beat the alien invaders :P
And telling women that they don't understand science.
"Oh I'm sorry your poor female brain can't comprehend science, have a seat over there we'll go to lunch later where you can give me a blow job."
Silly woman, you can't think science. Now go give birth to an annoying shitbird so we can develop his character as poorly as possible!
We are human, after all. Flesh Uncovered, after all.
Did Lucas or Speilberg explain why they made Indy into a solider during WW II? That came out of nowhere in Crystal Skull. Then they did nothing with it besides have him insult incompetent, paranoid government agents.
Did Lucas or Speilberg explain why they made Indy into a solider during WW II? That came out of nowhere in Crystal Skull. Then they did nothing with it besides have him insult incompetent, paranoid government agents.
Well he fought in WW1 in the young indy series I think. All it did was annoy the fuck out of me because thats where "mac" the annoying character they were trying hard to make it seem like we should know but actually gave less of a fuck about everytime he was on screen, came from.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I watched The Truman Show last night on a whim, and honestly this is how I learned not to just "trust rottentomatoes" if I am debating watching something. I haven't felt like I 've just wasted 90 minutes watching something (though it was really the last 50 or so, the beginning seemed somewhat promising).
Ugh. I'm gonna see if I can get my hands on Broadcast News next, if possible.
I watched The Truman Show last night on a whim, and honestly this is how I learned not to just "trust rottentomatoes" if I am debating watching something. I haven't felt like I 've just wasted 90 minutes watching something (though it was really the last 50 or so, the beginning seemed somewhat promising).
Ugh. I'm gonna see if I can get my hands on Broadcast News next, if possible.
Rotten Tomatoes can be a good helpful guide, but I don't rely on it for movie recommendations. It's best to either just jump in and experience movies for yourself and take the good with the bad, or follow a few reviewers that you have a tendency to agree with.
For me, I go to Roger Ebert and Portland reviewer Mike Russell. I usually agree with them on movies (sometimes I disagree with Ebert, but mainly about comedies), and I can usually trust them when they say not to see a movie.
We are human, after all. Flesh Uncovered, after all.
I watched The Truman Show last night on a whim, and honestly this is how I learned not to just "trust rottentomatoes" if I am debating watching something. I haven't felt like I 've just wasted 90 minutes watching something (though it was really the last 50 or so, the beginning seemed somewhat promising).
Ugh. I'm gonna see if I can get my hands on Broadcast News next, if possible.
Rotten Tomatoes can be a good helpful guide, but I don't rely on it for movie recommendations. It's best to either just jump in and experience movies for yourself and take the good with the bad, or follow a few reviewers that you have a tendency to agree with.
For me, I go to Roger Ebert and Portland reviewer Mike Russell. I usually agree with them on movies (sometimes I disagree with Ebert, but mainly about comedies), and I can usually trust them when they say not to see a movie.
Yeah, I generally don't give RT that much weight in the positive range--I think it's mostly useful if something has a super low rating (as opposed to the other way around), and mostly for newer releases. I guess this is jus a Forrest Gump situation (except that film is at least quite entertaining and competently made, if you just kinda stop your brain for 2 hours).
The Truman Show is little high on the tomatometer, but it is easily one of the best Jim Carrey movies.
I would have expected it to be ranked at ~70%
I never did see Truman Show, but I always heard it was pretty good. I think his best film is probably Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. That or Man on the Moon. Both are incredibly movies that prove Jim Carrey can be a good actor, if given the right director/script/motivation.
We are human, after all. Flesh Uncovered, after all.
Posts
That's always a big inconsistency between the original 3 Indy movies and Crystal Skull. Before KotCS, Indy and Co live in a world that is pretty much explicitly Christian in nature. In their world, God is real, and he is definitely a Christian God, hence the Ark and the Grail having the powers they do. Then we get to KotCS, and SUDDENLY, ALIENS.
It's a technically logical progression from Adventure serials of the 30s and 40s that the first 3 Indy movies are based on to the Sci Fi serials of the 50s and 60s that KotCS is based on, but it doesn't fit with the established world. We take a radical leap from "Holy Grail, guarded by an immortal knight, heals James Bond's death wound" to "Aliens did it".
What about Kali?
Follows in the christian religion sense, the artifacts were powerful because the people believed (including Jones at the end with his talk of betraying shiva and killing mulderam). The alien shit just comes out of nowhere, its a bad patch of like two ancient "I'm not saying its aliens, but its aliens" myths, and is so lazily written the movie doesn't even know which story it wants to tell.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
That's why I said it was technically a logical step forward. Indy was always about the kinds of pulp adventures, specifically the Adventure type of stories from the 30s and 40s. If they were to continue that trend forward into the setting of the 50s and 60s, aliens is a logical choice. They just did is so sloppily and without regard for their own established world that it fell flat before it had a chance to start running.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Hey, it was still following an established mythos, realistic or not. The fridge thing, along with the rest of that film, was just out of nowhere and didn't fit in with anything they'd established thus far.
Aliens might have worked better had the films gone into how Indy's world has many myths and weird things that existed there, which were consistent and the audience discovered it's a crazy place where anything can happen. It'd still be a long shot though. They'd have needed to make the story better quality, as well, which unfortunately wasn't an option with Spielberg and Lucas in charge.
Not even compareable. Even the inflatable raft scene from temple had "Ok that might work maybe." The fridge was just a retarded thing from multiple angles.
I mean its not like there is some kind of science behind the ark of the covenant, but you don't even have to be a physics nerd to know that if the fridge got thrown as far as it did in crystal skull indy would be indy goo.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's consistency, not plausibility. All the prior movies involved magic artifacts or gods involvement putting aliens in there changes the genre into science fiction which makes it difficult for the audience to accept since all we've seen before that doesn't match up. Another thing against it was the terrible execution and a bad story. Had the other films implied aliens existed or something that opened the possibility for science fiction elements that lent itself well to introducing aliens it wouldn't have stuck out so much.
That's what sucks about Crystal Skull, is that the alien stuff could have worked under a more competent writer/director. If handled with a little more finesse and acknowledgement of the previous films mythos, most of the major ideas of Crystal Skull could have worked.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Why would you do that?
Which angles? What are all these multiple angles?
So basically just the plausibility angle after all. Confirmed.
But this check Slashdot headlines, push glasses up, clear throat, ahem, "No WAY could that happen!!" said in a nasally pitch stuff is baffling.
Its a lucas movie post prequels, thats a given. I didn't even have to see Red Tails to know it probably had less than twenty minutes of actual on location shooting.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Because the movie is set in 1957. The original Indy films were set in the 30s and 40s, hence the Adventure serial type stories. 50s and 60s means moving towards Sci Fi and Aliens. Again, not saying it was a great choice, just a technically logical progression.
That's the reason for the switch but they didn't need to move towards aliens and sci-fi if they didn't want to. The writers and directors can do whatever they want, restricting themselves like that because the era is different in real world is ridiculous. Indiana Jones is not a movie franchise that happens in the real world, they're not Jason Bourne they have Nazis melting to death by drinking from a false holy grail in a hidden place guarded (poorly) by an immortal knight templar.
Oh I know they didn't have to, and I really wish they hadn't. I was just saying I understood why they did. The restrictions that kind of move created for them is definitely ridiculous and senseless when they could have just as easily stuck to the setting that's worked in the past.
Okay.
And away from pulp. Which they didn't actually do! If they wanted to go with aliens in homage those movies, Indy should have spent at least half the movie in a lab somewhere hanging out with scientists and generals trying to figure out how to beat the alien invaders :P
And telling women that they don't understand science.
"Oh I'm sorry your poor female brain can't comprehend science, have a seat over there we'll go to lunch later where you can give me a blow job."
pleasepaypreacher.net
Silly woman, you can't think science. Now go give birth to an annoying shitbird so we can develop his character as poorly as possible!
pleasepaypreacher.net
"Like a playground swing?"
*slap* DAMN YOU WOMAN! Vine swinging lessons!
Well he fought in WW1 in the young indy series I think. All it did was annoy the fuck out of me because thats where "mac" the annoying character they were trying hard to make it seem like we should know but actually gave less of a fuck about everytime he was on screen, came from.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Ugh. I'm gonna see if I can get my hands on Broadcast News next, if possible.
Rotten Tomatoes can be a good helpful guide, but I don't rely on it for movie recommendations. It's best to either just jump in and experience movies for yourself and take the good with the bad, or follow a few reviewers that you have a tendency to agree with.
For me, I go to Roger Ebert and Portland reviewer Mike Russell. I usually agree with them on movies (sometimes I disagree with Ebert, but mainly about comedies), and I can usually trust them when they say not to see a movie.
That's uh...that's pretty high for that film.
They did; the American release was retitled "Taken"
I would have expected it to be ranked at ~70%
Yeah, I generally don't give RT that much weight in the positive range--I think it's mostly useful if something has a super low rating (as opposed to the other way around), and mostly for newer releases. I guess this is jus a Forrest Gump situation (except that film is at least quite entertaining and competently made, if you just kinda stop your brain for 2 hours).
I never did see Truman Show, but I always heard it was pretty good. I think his best film is probably Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. That or Man on the Moon. Both are incredibly movies that prove Jim Carrey can be a good actor, if given the right director/script/motivation.
Man on the Moon, ESotSM, The Majestic, I Love You Phillip Morris, The Truman Show.
All movie that prove Mr. Carrey can act...he just chooses not to most of the time.