• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Indiana Jones: Worst movie ever.

#101
It was entertaining. People are pathetic when it comes to films. So the aliens were a bit lame, could've twisted the plot a bit, but it was still a good film, worth seeing and I'm sick of people whining about it not being perfect to the last detail! :mad:

And for gods sake Eleonn, please find somewhere with all the geographical featues used in that film before you criticise it, it was necessary to move around to get the clips wanted, it's like that in every film you see. :bawl:

The only complaint other than 'Aliens... :eyebrow: ' is that the theme tune gets dull eventually :p
 
#102
Insanity^2 said:
And for gods sake Eleonn, please find somewhere with all the geographical featues used in that film before you criticise it, it was necessary to move around to get the clips wanted, it's like that in every film you see. :bawl:
Click to expand...

I wouldnt care if there were only one or two little wrong things. The ones a mention are just those that had in mind in that moment. There were much more. One thing is to have a movie with multiple geographical features and another mix and blend peruvian and mexican history and move the desert to forest. Those are HUGE mistakes and those are not in every movie filmed.
 
#103
Just got back from seeing it...definitely not 'worst movie ever', probably stupidest movie though. Everything in the movie felt forced, and there were bits where I was starting to get into it where something ridiculous happens and I'm left rolling my eyes and not enjoying it any more. The movie lost me for good shortly after they get to Peru.

Shia swinging through trees like Tarzan with monkeys? ***?! Also, the Russians bothered me. One-dimensional, and no sense of purpose for whatever it is they are doing.
 
#104
Mon Rominee said:
Drat. Having been given the "premise", I have to say I cannot blame Lucas on bit on this one...it's ALL Speilburp on this one, given his penchant for ________/

Drat.
Click to expand...

Seriously, I haven't heard anything about the plot and I know nothing about it. So lets see, without knowing anything about to movie, I can throw out some spoilers.

My guess is that the blank has something to do with nazis.

Lesbian robot nazis from outer space.
 
#106
Add me to the list of people who really do not like this film.

Spoiler list of why this film sucks:

1. The gophers
2. The fridge
3. The traitor. A best friend turns to the enemy for a rubbish reason like money for the sake of tension or something.
4. The rekindled romance (the cheap love theme, let bygones be bygones)
5. Indies 'son'
6. Swinging through the trees
7. His son taking a beating many a time and just keeps getting up..
8. The assumption that Indy could get out of any situation, however dangerous or unreasonable
9. The Russians or nazis or whoever it was constantly keeping up and 'trapping' Indy
10. The unrealistc ending
11. The obvious special effects (I love classic movies as they feel so much more authentic, this was just lame)
12. The selective magnetism of the skull (it was more magnetic at times for effect, other times seemingly non magnetic)
13. The skull looked like it was filled with clear, screwed up plastic
14. The alien. As someone said above, a light instead would have worked.
15. The skull affecting the ants. The skull repelled the ants when they got like a foot from it, so they ants go round the skull. Instead of comming in from behind and attacking the old guy (who as way out of the area of effect of the skull) they just completely ignore him.
16. Surviving 3 waterfalls in a boat! Yeah..
 
#107
Aaiieeee said:
Spoiler list of why this film sucks:

...7. His son taking a beating many a time and just keeps getting up..
8. The assumption that Indy could get out of any situation, however dangerous or unreasonable
9. The Russians or nazis or whoever it was constantly keeping up and 'trapping' Indy
10. The unrealistc ending...
Click to expand...


what you have described in those 4 things is the premise behind indiana jones
 
#108
Ripper said:
what you have described in those 4 things is the premise behind indiana jones
Click to expand...

I loved the previous 3 films and I know what your saying but it just felt those points were taken for granted.
Indy can get up after any beating (natrually), but his son, who we know nothing about just keeps getting up, it really bothered me.

Oh add this to the list:
17. Dodging bullets. Sure any James Bond film he somehow never gets hit, but in this there were so many oppertunities and clear shots there was no way he could have gotten away without being hit!
 
#109
Insanity^2 said:
It was entertaining. People are pathetic when it comes to films. So the aliens were a bit lame, could've twisted the plot a bit, but it was still a good film, worth seeing and I'm sick of people whining about it not being perfect to the last detail! :mad:


The only complaint other than 'Aliens... :eyebrow: ' is that the theme tune gets dull eventually :p
Click to expand...

Wait a minute!!! You just listed a bunch of reasons why the movie was lame, but then claim it was good??? :confused:

-Lame Aliens (2x...must have really bugged you!)
-Plot was messed up
-theme song is redundant
-not perfect to the last detail
 
#113
Ripper said:
what you have described in those 4 things is the premise behind indiana jones
Click to expand...

Yet that doesn't seem to bother many people...at it's very core the Indiana Jones series harkens back to a time when people would either willingly temporarily suspend disbelief... or not know any better to begin with.
:D

Unless of course Indy Jr swinging through the trees with monkeys is somehow more ridiculous than fleeing from a gigantic round rock or going on an exciting mining car chase...

it's entertainment, folks. Not reality. Not a geography primer. Entertainment. At the theater I was in, people laughed whenever the gophers showed up (I didn't). So apparently it worked. And c'mon, the fridge clearly showed it was lead-lined. It's a known fact that lead blocks all kinds of stuff... like superhero x-ray vision and the effects of Kryptonite. What more do you want?
:smug:
:cool:
 
#114
Aaiieeee said:
I loved the previous 3 films and I know what your saying but it just felt those points were taken for granted.
Indy can get up after any beating (natrually), but his son, who we know nothing about just keeps getting up, it really bothered me.
Click to expand...

IRL Indy would've looked worse than the Elephant Man after the beatings they took. But via the magic of movies he might show a scar or a scrape.

Oh add this to the list:
17. Dodging bullets. Sure any James Bond film he somehow never gets hit, but in this there were so many oppertunities and clear shots there was no way he could have gotten away without being hit!
Click to expand...

And the same wasn't true when being shot at in the other movies?

I grew up watching westerns where the worst that would happen to a "good guy" was a "flesh wound". heck, the Lone Ranger would duck about a second after the shot was fired.

:D

In this movie the traitor was dropping tracking devices, that's how the Russians kept up.
 
#115
Ripper said:
correct me if im wrong, but arent some of the worlds largest water falls in the smaller rivers leading up to the amazonian river?
Click to expand...

On the afluents at Perú, Colombia and Venezuela yes but none in the Amazonas river itself.

In the movie they go to the Amazonas river and that is shown in the map that appears in the movie showing the route from Cuzco to El Dorado city. Its believed between archealogists that El Dorado is between Perú, Colombia and Ecuador and not between Perú and Brasil as the movie represents.
 
#116
eleonn said:
On the afluents at Perú, Colombia and Venezuela yes but none in the Amazonas river itself.

In the movie they go to the Amazonas river and that is shown in the map that appears in the movie showing the route from Cuzco to El Dorado city. Its believed between archealogists that El Dorado is between Perú, Colombia and Ecuador and not between Perú and Brasil as the movie represents.
Click to expand...

No offense but... it's a movie. I seriously doubt factual integrity was a big concern nor has it ever been with these movies...

It's like me watching a movie that's set in Maryland, DC or VA and watching people doing things that they couldn't possibly do in real life. Besides me and the other locals, who will actually notice.

:D
 
#117
Brad Johnson said:
Unless of course Indy Jr swinging through the trees with monkeys is somehow more ridiculous than fleeing from a gigantic round rock or going on an exciting mining car chase...
Click to expand...

See, if you put a boulder up a hill and push it, it rolls down. Basic gravity at work there. Same goes with in a minecart.
With the swinging through the trees, theres so much to go wrong, so many things that happen by chance or luck. The impeccable timing that he comes out of the trees and into the truck to hit whoever he hit (cant remember who it was), its absurd.

I like a basic level of realism, things that dont need to be stated, like gravity and laws of motion. Its there and its always in affect.
In any fantasy film, Im happy with whatever happens provided theres some basis for it. Indy and co. are just regular people with no special powers or abilities (appart from being a great historian/archaeologist) they can do these amazing things... That irritates me no end. I always end up thinking "it wouldnt happen like that in real life".
I guess this bit is just my opinion/preference, but still!

Brad Johnson: Thankfully I noticed that it was lead lined too and yeah, lead can stop anything, naturally!
 
#119
I saw it last night and didn't care for it.

Two strikes in a row for Spielberg sticking Shia Labeouf into roles that annoyed me in movies I should've enjoyed on subject matter alone.

I didn't like the pacing, and the plot as a whole seemed lame. Not just the concept, but the plot points especially. The characters just seemed there to guide the action, not the action to guide the characters... something that the earlier movies had done a fairly good job of avoiding. The only chemistry between actors were the brief moments between Karen Allen and Harrison Ford and even that was just a recap of their roles in Raiders.

Oh, and the special effects were obnoxious. Why do the supposedly superior digital effects look less convincing than the cheapo miniatures, puppets, props, and double exposed film that were convincing in the first series? Blue screen movies never. look. real. Stop it.

My girflriend watched the entire series for the first time this week, culminating in the new film. She said this one was the same as the rest of the series, the only difference being that it didn't have nostalgia holding it back from being appreciated. She may be right, but I still feel a better product could've easily been produced.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back