Page 2 of 2

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:59
by Lava89
StupidBunny wrote:I saw it last weekend. It was good for the most part, but I was REALLY disappointed by the ending. At the end of the other movies (the other GOOD ones; Temple of Doom does not count) we saw the main villains, all Nazis and therefore assholes, die in ways that make it obvious that they're dead as a result of meddling in things they shouldn't have been. But the KGB woman at the end of this last one just turns into wierd fire stuff and gets sucked into the UFO, which makes you wonder: is she really dead? It's hard to tell, coz she might have become some sort of all-knowing superbeing or something. I would have like to have seen an ending more on par with Raiders of the Lost Ark, or at least Last Crusade.
Well her eyes burn up and I read some excerpts from the book adaptation and in the book they describe her as dead. (as I was curious about the meaning about ending, even though I was already convinced she had died I didn't know how she died, but the book put it across as too much info all at once).

And on a side note, I didn't like the "aliens influence ancient cultures" explanation, as I see that in too many sci-fi shows, video games and the like. But-- I believe the villain got the same end as the other Indy villains have: they get what they want, but what they wanted wasn't they expected.

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 18:46
by StupidBunny
That's true. I had heard, though, that he was trying to convince Spielberg to use more computer effects in the film, and that Spielberg didn't want to do it that much. (Not that he doesn't do it also...)

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 21:08
by Lava89
That wouldn't suprise me, I remember hearing that Spielberg was trying to avoid CGI when he could when making Indy 4 (did CGI gophers really carry the movie at all??).

And look at the ever-updating Star Wars Special Editions..all of their changes either include CGI-ing over old scenes or connecting the old movies to the inconsistent new trilogy :barf

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 15:32
by xtraverse
Fun movie, but all of the action was over-the-top preposterous. Aliens were probably the most realistic thing in that movie.

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:53
by MortimerInBlack
I personally do not understand why or what ppl love about this movie. I cannot believe that Spielburg had the retarded audacity to put aliens in an indiana jones movie! (And yet it's spielburg so yea i do believe he would do it).

It played like a gay Disney film, like with the recurring groundhog theme. And it does not get more over-the-top than surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge that flies thousand of feet, and Indy just walked away... I hate spielburg for ruining a gr8 series, but then after 20 yrs, u have to expect that it will be nothing like the originals.

I have heard that Harrisson is picky about the movies he plays, so perhaps the biggest mystery is why he went back to it. I know he must have been at least somewhat concerned that it was going to be retarded.

and btw, i totally agree that the new starwars stuff has too much cgi and thus does not have the "feel" of the originals.

So yea in the end I think ppl r becoming desensitized by these new, pointless, degraded kiddie films that parents take their children to.

Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 21:20
by Shadow Master
I liked it. :) I watched it twice, actually. Not as good as the 3rd, but still good.