Soundtrack Central The best of VGM and other great soundtracks

Please sign up or log in for the best forum experience!

    Pages:
  • 1
  • 2

Ryu May 24, 2008

Jay wrote:

To drown my 360 RRoD sorrows, I went out and bought an excellent Indy Lego set. It's the opening of Raiders with the idol, boulder and the plane. Why did it have to be snakes? It's excellent. I really can't wait for the Indy Lego game and hope my 360 is back by the time it comes out.

Sorry to hear about your 360.  I had an interest in Lego Indiana Jones until I found out it only has the first 3 Indy movies.  What's up with that?  I'll probably rent it, but I anticipate they'll double-dip like they did with the Lego Star Wars games, just to add Crystal Skull... and any subsequent sequels?  Will there be more sequels?

Jay May 24, 2008

Hard to know. I'd be surprised if there weren't.

But, yeah, it doesn't seem quite right leaving the new one out of the game. I could understand it if, like Star Wars, there were already (or were about to be) three more movies. But, even if they make two more, it will be a long, long time before that last one comes out. They really should have gone for all four movies.

Still, a Lego game based on the first three movies? How could I possibly resist?

longhairmike May 24, 2008

Jay wrote:

Still, a Lego game based on the first three movies? How could I possibly resist?

i wonder if the lego nazis give off toxic plastic fumes when the ark melts their faces off...

XLord007 May 25, 2008

Saw Indy 4 last night.  I think the problem here is expectations.  What most people seem to forget is that the Indy movies are all pretty campy and pulpy.  Those expecting Lord of the Rings are definitely going to be disappointed.  I liked what I saw -- the film was fun and entertaining, if nothing special.  It's certainly worth seeing for its heritage, if nothing else.

Ryu May 25, 2008

longhairmike wrote:
Jay wrote:

Still, a Lego game based on the first three movies? How could I possibly resist?

i wonder if the lego nazis give off toxic plastic fumes when the ark melts their faces off...

No Nazis will be in the game...

Jay May 25, 2008

I guess if you're expecting a well-crafted film and you don't get that, I'd put the blame on the film rather than the expectations. Why shouldn't anyone expect a great movie?

Angela May 25, 2008

Two words: Prairie dogs.  Toooooo cute~!

Crystal Skull.  Yes, I liked it.  I liked it a lot.  But..... I didn't LOVE it.  At least, not "love" in the same sense that I did with Last Crusade, but certainly "like" on the same level as Raiders.  (And, it edges out Temple by a good measure.)

I give credit to Crystal Skull for providing a nice, long journey; even if it's reportedly shorter in time length than The Last Crusade (if just by a few minutes), the film feels like it covers a LOT more ground.  The blending of classic Indy "mysto-crypto" historical exposition and well-staged action sequences is punctuated by a far greater number of interesting location shots and scenery. 

To speak of Indy himself, I think Ford was fantastic all around.  Old man pants or no (a distinction I barely noticed - really Jay, were you staring that hard? o_O), he looked pretty damned good for 65.  He certainly got the overall look and physicality of the character down.  Karen Allen, on the other hand, looked a little more wear for tear.  I do think they could've done more with Marion in terms of her character, and I don't feel that the resolution between she and Indy was as fulfilling as the story dictated.  Still, she provided a welcome foil to Indy that, while nowhere near as strong as that in Raiders, is still familiar and fun to watch.  I don't think I'll ever be able to fully dissociate LeBeouf from his Stanley Yelnats role, so I found the tough-guy mentality of Mutt hard to swallow.  He was pretty good otherwise; the disparity and jokes between age and youth didn't come off as excessive as I thought it might have been, thankfully, and he had a good presence in the action bits.

Blanchett's Spalko turned out to be a lot tamer than I first imagined.  Even as a villain, there was no immediate urge for her to have Jones disposed of, and there's actually a fun moment where......  we're watching him get all passionate and so swept up in cracking the riddle with her that he sort of forgets he's helping the enemy.  He was "giddy as a school boy," if you will. :)  That said, the head villain of the Indy movies was always more passive than his second-in-command (in Raiders and Last Crusade at least), and I guess Colonel Dovchenko this time fits the bill of brute adversary.  Irina, however, does get in on quite a bit of the action, particularly during the impressive jungle chase sequence.  Hurt as the demented Oxlay was fascinating, but the character that didn't work for me at all was Ray Winstone's Mac.  Winstone played it to the best of capacity, but the character felt completely unnecessary in the grander scheme of the plot, and proved to be a complete throwaway by the end.

The story itself..... I'm going to say that, yes, there are more leaps of logic and belief suspending than what is normally expected.  The paranormal angle works if you consider the validity of Soviets and their psychic programs at the time.  The rest can better be accepted once you get past the X-Files set-in-the-50s sci-fi vibe you might initially feel.  As for the CG, yes, there are some spots of obvious usage for the more pertinent effects, but on the whole, the movie is still rooted in good old fashioned hands-on stunts and real life sets that it's hard to pinpoint where the argument is coming from that it's used excessively.  The reenactment of the 50s makes for a great looking period piece, especially the Marshall College campus and the socialite bar.  (While we're talking about the film's look, allow me to address my digital cinema experience.  Despite Spielberg's protest, I thought the picture looked spectacular - however, I understand where he's coming from as far as wanting to preserve the original artistic vision of the movie.  I peeked in at the beginning of another showing on a regular projector, and the look of the desert instantly brought to mind the original look of the 35mm-shot Last Crusade.)   

The music is all perfectly Williams, with the Raiders March and Irina's Theme being the key highlights for me.  The theme of the Crystal Skull leaves a more memorable mark in context, as its creepy, near-otherworldly overtones are all the more apt once you discover what it's about.  Taking another listen at the CD soundtrack release, you get the sense that the CD follows a more concert suite-based structure; there are cues borrowed and used from all the tracks, but many of them aren't so prominently 'whole' in the film presentation.  (To that end, the CD tracklisting isn't completely in chronological order either.)  Also, imagine my delight when I heard The Last Crusade's Holy Grail/Jones Sr. motif at an appropriate key spot in the film - and my equal chagrin when it played yet again at a totally INAPPROPRIATE moment. 

So, final verdict?  Like the rest of you, I'd say it's not the be-all comeback sequel that many wanted it to be.  But it's a film that's worthy of belonging to the Indy series, and quite an enjoyable one at that.  I might go ahead and see it again, only because the story and exposition bits have nuances that I feel are worth watching again.  (Yes, despite the awesome action stuff, the exposition moments are what I enjoy the most in any Indy film - and in this case, longer is better.  Do you dig, Daddy-O?)

XLord007 May 26, 2008 (edited May 26, 2008)

Jay wrote:

I guess if you're expecting a well-crafted film and you don't get that, I'd put the blame on the film rather than the expectations. Why shouldn't anyone expect a great movie?

Call me a blasphemer, but I don't think any of the Indy movies are "great films."  They're all fun and worth seeing, and I like them, but that's it.  I got exactly what I expected in Indy 4 and I'm happy with it.

Amazingu May 26, 2008 (edited May 26, 2008)

XLord007 wrote:
Jay wrote:

I guess if you're expecting a well-crafted film and you don't get that, I'd put the blame on the film rather than the expectations. Why shouldn't anyone expect a great movie?

Call me a blasphemer, but I don't think any of the Indy movies are "great films."  They're all fun and worth seeing, and I like them, but that's it.  I got exactly what I expected in Indy 4 and I'm happy with it.

Then call me a Double Blasphemer, cos that's what I think of ALL of Lucas's Movies.

shdwrlm3 May 26, 2008

I saw it earlier today and loved it on a purely entertainment level. In fact, I had a smile on my face the entire time. It certainly had a different, umm, tone than the other films, but I think it fit the 1950s setting perfectly.

I can certainly understand how some people might find the story outlandish. However, I just played through Fate of Atlantis again (thank you, ScummVM!), so I was more than prepared for it. Oddly, the one thing I did have trouble accepting was (Spoilers!) Tarzan LeBeouf. Uggh. I had no trouble with the inter-dimensional beings, but Mutt swinging around on vines just made me cringe. Wrong movie, pal!

One other slight disappointment (very spoilerish!): The wedding was a perfect way to showcase some of the previous characters that wouldn't have fit into the story otherwise. I want my Willie, Short Round, and Sallah! Heck, throw in Sophia and other random Young Indy characters for good measure. Sigh, a wasted opportunity.

Jay wrote:

I didn't find the movie too CG heavy at all (though just one single shot I could have done without)

Yeah, that shot was probably a bit too much. I have a feeling people would've been more accepting of the story had they not included that.

I think it's easily my fourth favourite Indy film - and, after the 19 years (or whatever it is), to lump it in with them at all has to be a good sign.

I pretty much agree with this. It does feel detached from the other films, but in a way it has to be. It has been 19 years, after all. It's a movie about a different era made in a different era.

I quite liked Irina. And in many ways I shouldn't - I'm no Blanchett fan (who is?), the character is entirely one-dimensional

I wouldn't say I'm a huge fan, but I did enjoy her in LotR and Elizabeth. "Serious" actors always have so much fun with action parts, and it showed with Blanchett's performance. Like I said, Elsa was already a more two-dimensional villain, so I wanted a good ol' badass villain. She's perhaps not as fearsome as Major Toht, but she's certainly more hands-on.

Angela wrote:

I do think they could've done more with Marion in terms of her character...

She really didn't do all that much here, did she? I think they could have substituted her with any other female and had the same effect, except, of course, for the familiarity aspect. On that note, I was sorely disappointed that she didn't punch Indy upon seeing him. Yeah, he (spoilers!) was there to save her, but I bet she harbored at least some resentment over being left at the altar. Plus, symmetry!.

Cram wrote:

Go see it and have some fun. It's one hell of a ride.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Angela May 26, 2008

shdwrlm3 wrote:

Oddly, the one thing I did have trouble accepting was (Spoilers!) Tarzan LeBeouf. Uggh. I had no trouble with the inter-dimensional beings, but Mutt swinging around on vines just made me cringe. Wrong movie, pal!

You know, I was gonna say.  But to me, the inclusion of the.... accompanying monkeys sort of kept the silliness of the whole situation valid. :p   

One other slight disappointment (very spoilerish!): The wedding was a perfect way to showcase some of the previous characters that wouldn't have fit into the story otherwise. I want my Willie, Short Round, and Sallah! Heck, throw in Sophia and other random Young Indy characters for good measure. Sigh, a wasted opportunity.

Aww man, that really would've been perfect.  Seeing Oxlay there placed me within the same mindframe that there should have been more present.  It might have made the resolution somewhat more fulfilling.

Shoe May 27, 2008 (edited May 27, 2008)

i don't understand why it's doing so well in the theaters.. This movie brought practically nothing new to the Indiana universe that we haven't seen in the other movies, had very little character development or genuine moments of nail-biting tension.

The only good thing about the ending was that it reminded me of the Stage 2 Boss Battle in Metal Slug 3 (minus the second part with those Falling Tombstones Of 'Crushing Reality'),

(spoil)





















..would it have been too much to ask to have some of the ending take place on the spaceship instead of just 'showing the ship to the audience and assuming they will fill-in-the-blanks for themselves'?

What a cheap way to end a movie, '..just spend some money on having a CGI UFO taking off into the night, that's Brilliant!!'

Yeah, whatever.

Wanderer May 28, 2008

This movie was a mess. There was only one moment that I found engaging (figuring out that sand puzzle, mostly thanks to John Williams' music) and the rest was one long, poorly paced incomprehensible bore. Aside from the ants sequence, even the action sequences were lacking energy, mostly because I never once felt that any of the good guys were in danger. I felt especially bad for Cate Blanchett because the script gave her nothing to do (same with Karen Allen, missing for half of the movie and then essentially invisible for the rest).

The climax (more of an anticlimax) was laughable. I really have no idea what they were thinking. Between the bad CGI and Blanchett overacting, the whole thing felt like a parody. And what was up with the prairie dog closeups? And that damned tarzan sequence?

shdwrlm3 May 28, 2008 (edited May 28, 2008)

Interesting article on what is and isn't believable about the new movie, from the view of a real archaeologist:
http://www.asylum.com/2008/05/22/indian … -and-lies/

The climax (more of an anticlimax) was laughable. I really have no idea what they were thinking. Between the bad CGI and Blanchett overacting, the whole thing felt like a parody.

I don't disagree with the final CGI shot being a bit much. I wonder if people would have been more accepting of the mythology had they not included that shot?

Then again, Raiders had spirits coming out of a gold box and melting people; Temple of Doom had mind-control blood, heart surgery, and voodoo; and Last Crusade had magic cups of immortality and Sean Connery playing Harrison Ford's father. I really don't get how anything in Indy IV was much of a stretch compared to those (except for the Tarzan thing, of course tongue).

Jay May 28, 2008

I certainly could have done without that shot.

But, for all the flaws of the story, I didn't have a problem with the subject matter. It fit well with the time period and was no more of a stretch than anything that was in the previous films. Actually far more believable.

But what the film did on occasion was break the rules of its own real world. Yes, it's a world that has an Ark that shoots out God's wrath but that doesn't mean that a guy can walk away from being right smack bang in the middle of a nuclear blast by hiding in a fridge.

You know the way the artefact they had was like a key to get in? So... how was it stolen in the first place? You know, it's like locking your keys in your car.

Wanderer May 28, 2008

Then again, Raiders had spirits coming out of a gold box and melting people; Temple of Doom had mind-control blood, heart surgery, and voodoo; and Raiders had magic cups of immortality and Sean Connery playing Harrison Ford's father. I really don't get how anything in Indy IV was much of a stretch compared to those (except for the Tarzan thing, of course tongue).

It's not, really. My problems with the movie started looooooooooooooooooong before the aliens showed up. Clunky pacing (I was starting to check my watch halfway through), gigantic exposition dumps (Raiders elegantly gets all of its exposition out of the way at the very beginning. Crystal Skull endures practically to the end), characters that are pretty much all plot devices... and so on.

The bottom line is that I was bored. Other people's mileage may vary, of course.

Latest Updates

Board footer

Forums powered by FluxBB