Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Early Review Calls New Indiana Jones Film Dreadful

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the yeah-that's-just-like-your-opinion-man dept.

Movies 643

bowman9991 writes "Hope this one isn't true! An early negative review calls the upcoming "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" movie predictable, lacking in tension, and a fan's worst nightmare. SFFMedia believes this new Indiana Jones movie could create a similar reaction a lot of people experienced after watching the first of the last three Star Wars movies, 'The Phantom Menace': you wait for years and years, the anticipation building, and then it's so awful it taints your view of the original movies. Of course George Lucas was involved with Star Wars too." The SFFMedia piece refers to this review on Ain't it Cool News. The trailer I saw (before Iron Man) actually looked great to me, so I'm taking this with a grain of salt.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That, my friends, is... (0, Redundant)

sheepoo (814409) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420024)

heartbreaking!

To be honest ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420542)

Harrison Ford and Stephen Spielberg are overdue for a stinker. Despite what we like (and don't like) about directors and actors, they don't always make good movies every single time.

Disclaimer: I have not RTFM or watched the flick yet.

Re:That, my friends, is... (4, Insightful)

paganizer (566360) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420680)

Not for me. I'm going to enjoy it.
I saw temple of doom, hoping it would be as good, if not better, than raiders. It didn't even come close. But it didn't "suck", it wasn't heartbreaking, it just wasn't as good as Raiders. How exactly could it have been? Raiders, and Star Wars (yes, just Star Wars. that was what was on the theater marquee when I sat through it 6 times on the weekend it came out), are Masterpieces; expecting a sequel to even be a tenth as good would be silly.
Taken by itself, if Raiders or Star Wars had never been made, what do you think the worlds reaction to Temple of Doom would have been? or the Phantom Menace? they surely are not in the same league as the prior 2, but they are still great movies.
So, I'll watch Indy at the theater on May 22nd, my Birthday, and I really, really, really doubt it will be as good as Raiders. or even Last Crusade. if it's as good as Temple of Doom, I'll consider myself lucky.

Re:That, my friends, is... (5, Funny)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420814)

There is no standard in the universe by which the Phantom Menace can be judged a 'great movie'.

Re:That, my friends, is... (3, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420744)

No, a bad review is good news - for me. It seems that I absolutely HATE most movies that the reviewers love, and LOVE the ones reviewers hate.

I mean, how did the original Star Wars movie fare? Not well. How about Dirty Harry? Again, they hated it. The Terminator? Of course, if the movie turns out to make tons of money they somehow start giving it good reviews... funny, that.

If the reviewers gave this new movie kudos, I'd wait until a human being told me it was good before wasting my hard earned money on it. So hooray for the critics and their bad but predictable reviews! I'll probably be in line on opening day, thanks to the critics.

This ONE is dreadful (2, Funny)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420070)

Weren't they all? Well, at least I haven't been counting down the days to see the next IJ movie. they certainly weren't that good.

Mod parent funny . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420422)

. . . because, obviously he can't be serious!!

no (3, Insightful)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420426)

temple of doom was too over the top but Raiders of the Lost Ark was a damn good movie. the grail one wasn't terrible either.

I'd like to make up my own mind (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420074)

So, torrent plz so I can see for myself?

No lack of tension at all! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420100)

The opening scene is a total heart attack. Indy barely escapes a huge stone ball despite being slowed by his walker. He pulls his colostomy bag out of the way just in time. It was a real heart pounding experience. But that was easily fixed with an emergency room visit and some clot-busting drugs.

A good trailer (5, Insightful)

Rurik (113882) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420104)

The trailer I saw (before Iron Man) actually looked great to me, so I'm taking this with a grain of salt.

Unfortunately, trailers have little to do with movies anymore. Trailer designers and technicians have made an art out of what they do: making the most boring movies look exciting and fun. Honestly, they're good at what they do! By just changing transition graphics, music score, sound clips, and some of the shots, they can make an action movie look like a: comedy, drama, or documentary.

Re:A good trailer (5, Funny)

L Boom (1274024) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420220)

Absolutely. I'm at work so I can't actually check the link, but this [youtube.com] should be a link to a great clip job. They took scenes from The Shining trailer and recut it to look like a romantic comedy. Really excellent job.

Re:A good trailer (1)

Rurik (113882) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420316)

Or, you could be rick-rolling us :)

No, that's the real clip.

Re:A good trailer (2, Funny)

Splab (574204) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420352)

Or you could be aiding in rick rolling us.

The plot thickens! //crawls under his table and puts on his tin-foil hat

Re:A good trailer (5, Funny)

L Boom (1274024) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420468)

I would never rick-roll you. Also, I would never give you up, let you down, never ever run around, or turn around and hurt you.

Re:A good trailer (2, Interesting)

peipas (809350) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420282)

Not to mention the inclusion of scenes not actually in the movie. Take Spiderman's trailer with the helicopter getting stuck in the web between the twin towers-- this was created explicitly for promotion and was never intended to be a part of the movie (not a cut scene or anything). The Negotiator sold itself using a line in the trailer that wasn't in the actual movie, "Now you have to deal with both of us." I wanted to know how that would work into the plot and it wasn't there.

Re:A good trailer (5, Informative)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420536)

Actually, I believe that scene was cut from the movie due to the collapse of said towers and the implications of that.

Re:A good trailer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420748)

Uh, the Spiderman clip you are referencing was taken out of the movie for a good reason... They had a similar situation that is in the movie where spiderman has to choose between the tourists and MJ... they were going to do that with the twin towers and it was taken out after 911 happened...

Re:A good trailer (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420602)

So why don't they put the trailer designers and technicians in charge of making the actual movie? (:-)

Re:A good trailer (3, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420688)

So why don't they put the trailer designers and technicians in charge of making the actual movie? (:-)

Great idea! Movies would be only 3 minutes long and completely filled with explosions. You would of course, charge full price.

Then think of all the trailers you could put on the DVD!

Brilliant!

Re:A good trailer (4, Insightful)

boris111 (837756) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420690)

Depends.. the IJ trailer was good. Many other trailers give away the whole movie making me have no interest in seeing it. I find this way too much in comedies.

BTW that new Mike Myers movie looks horrible! In this case I'm glad they gave the whole movie away so I know not to see it.

Re:A good trailer (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420710)

Unfortunately, trailers have little to do with movies anymore. Trailer designers and technicians have made an art out of what they do: making the most boring movies look exciting and fun.

Indeed!! A lot of work goes into making some crappy movies look good in 45 seconds.

I have seen movies in which all of the good scenes make it into the trailer. And, I've seen trailers with footage I'd swear never actually made it into the film.

Cheers

Re:A good trailer (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420810)

Yep, the trailer is okay if you let it wash over you, but if you watch carefully you can really tell how old Harrison is, and the whole thing seems like it might be a bit of a farce. Of course the other Indy films had farcical moments too, I didn't realise how funny the kid beating up adults was in the Temple of Doom when I was a kid, but watching it more recently I realise how over the top it is. Not that it's a bad thing :)

This singular review on aintitcool needs to die. (5, Interesting)

Darth Maul (19860) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420108)

This one guy rants about the movie, but there have been several other positive reviews. Just now media is picking up on this one aintitcool review and running with it. The original poster, ShogunMaster, just wanted a lot of attention and he got it.

It's an odd phenomenon we're seeing: One original poor review, then it gets written *about* in several other places, now all of a sudden people think there are lots of bad reviews. Huh?

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die (2, Insightful)

ElrondHubbard (13672) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420354)

Don't buy the media echo-chamber effect, especially when the thing being echoed is a fanboy "review" off AICN. Almost everyone who reads /. already knows if they are going to see the new Indy Jones movie or not (I am), so why bother?

But then again, my favourite Matrix movie was the second one, so what do I know... For what it's worth, Ebert [suntimes.com] agrees with me.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die (1)

elwinc (663074) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420566)

I hate the kind of review that tries to imply "if I [the reviewer] had made this movie, I could have fixed X,Y, and Z." I mean, if s/he's so smart and all, why isn't s/he making movies? I think Harrison Ford brings lots to any movie he makes. It'll take more than one silly 2nd-hand anonymous review to convince me he phoned this one in. For all we know, some other studio planning to release on the same weekend could be playing dirty tricks!

Is Anyone Surprised? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420114)

Anyone?

Also - early review syndrome strikes again.

Re:Is Anyone Surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420436)

Not surprising, we knew it was another story by George Lucas.

frist post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420116)

yay

complete BS (3, Insightful)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420120)

Critics are morons. Every movie I've ever done to see and checked Yahoo Movies for, the critic and users ratings have been opposite. IMDB is the same way if you consider the ratings before it actually comes out. Epic movie had an 8.6 by opening day! And a 2.3 a week later. Yahoo critics rated Epic movie like a B- or something and users gave it a D-. And they had the balls to give other movies I and other really liked really low ratings. They watch too many movies and they're douchebags so people should really stop listening to critics.

Re:complete BS (4, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420214)

You just need to find a critic or two that you usually agree with. Much better than random fan reviews, because you also know where you are likely to disagree with them when reading their new reviews.

Re:complete BS (4, Funny)

businessnerd (1009815) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420334)

Agreed. I suggest the Wall Street Journal for movie reviews. Usually they hate everything, so if they actually like something, you should probably see it.

Re:complete BS (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420522)

I don't really read that many reviews, but when I am on the fence, I go look at what Ebert has to say. He's probably overly sentimental for a lot of people.

Re:complete BS (1)

Psmylie (169236) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420588)

I have a friend who is my movie Guinea pig... He's a movie buff, and sees almost everything that comes out, and his taste pretty much matches mine. If he really likes a movie, I'll go see it. If he doesn't, I won't. It works pretty well for me.

Re:complete BS (3, Insightful)

slapmastered (1158643) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420322)

I completely agree with you. During College, every time my (now) wife and I saw a teaser/trailer for a movie that we thought looked interesting, we scanned the local papers and school paper for the reviews of the movie, and if the critics all hated it, we went and saw it. 9 times in 10 we were glad we did. The people who write those reviews are almost always elitist movie snobs, who are missing the point that it's a *movie*, not high art. People go to the movies to be entertained for 2 hours. A simple popcorn-muncher is sometimes all you really want. I'm personally looking forward to the new Indy. The other thing that ruins reviews like this is a fanboy gets his crush on, and waits in anticipation for 10-20 years, and has all these grandiose ideas of what the movie should or shouldn't look/feel/smell like, and then there's no possible way for the movie to live up to that much internal-hype. That's what happened with the new Star Wars trilogy (although Jar-Jar made me want to stab Lucas in the throat...) and it's apparently going to happen to more than a few people on the new Indy. If they want to be upset, let them be upset. Any review is just someone's opinion. And you know what they say about opinions...They're like armpits; everyone's got a couple, and they all stink.

Re:complete BS (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420760)

Critics are morons. Every movie I've ever done to see and checked Yahoo Movies for, the critic and users ratings have been opposite. IMDB is the same way if you consider the ratings before it actually comes out. Epic movie had an 8.6 by opening day! And a 2.3 a week later. Yahoo critics rated Epic movie like a B- or something and users gave it a D-. And they had the balls to give other movies I and other really liked really low ratings. They watch too many movies and they're douchebags so people should really stop listening to critics.

You obviously didn't go to see ultraviolet...

Re:complete BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420808)

Maybe because most people have terrible taste.

Re:complete BS (1)

BunnyClaws (753889) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420872)

Good point. The only rating I ever go by is the Yahoo user rating. Movie critics all have different opinions on movies and we all know what opinions are like. I prefer the Yahoo user rating due to it being based on a large set of opinions and the most common opinion (mode) tends to show up as the rating.

I'll take a conglomeration of everyones opinion as opposed to a few critics butt-hole smell, I mean opinion.

#4, PG-13.... (4, Insightful)

weston (16146) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420122)

Well, this fits two patterns with the previous movies:

(1) Odd numbers good, even numbers bad
(2) PG good, PG-13 bad

So I suppose now the question is -- how does Crystal Skull compare with the Temple of Doom?

Re:#4, PG-13.... (2, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420204)

Well, Temple of Doom sucked hell-a bad. Frankly, I blame it on "short stuff" and trying to be campy.

Putting that Shai LaBuff (spelling) kid in this one is probably what did it in. The success formula for Indiana Jones movies is number of nazis > number of kids. Nazis are exciting and mysterious, kids are just obnoxious and don't belong in an adventure film anyway... except for Goonies.

Re:#4, PG-13.... (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420438)

While I do agree it wasn't on par with the rest of them, calling it hell-a bad isn't fair. Watched it the other day, while the special effects wasn't anything to write home about these days, I do remember back then finding it really cool and convincing - and I still enjoyed watching it.

Re:#4, PG-13.... (1)

evilphish_mi (1282588) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420500)

Short round didn't bug me. But the damn women screaming every 5 seconds did. To me she was that movies Jar-Jar.

Re:#4, PG-13.... (1)

Darfeld (1147131) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420792)

Jar Jar is just the two mixed in one...

Re:#4, PG-13.... (1)

holden caufield (111364) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420256)

If memory serves, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" was among the first, if not the biggest among the first of the PG-13 movies released. In other words, claiming "Raiders" was better because it was a "PG"-rated film isn't really a fair comparison. Well, it's not fair for many reasons, but that's just one.

Re:#4, PG-13.... (4, Informative)

Cowclops (630818) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420776)

Temple of Doom is the reason PG-13 was created. There was no PG-13 rating at the time but the heart-ripping-out sequence was just a bit too gory for the PG rating so somebody yelled THINK OF THE CHILDREN and thus PG-13 was created. Which means Temple of Doom itself is, in fact, PG.

Last Crusade is PG-13.

Re:#4, PG-13.... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420416)

Odd numbers good, even numbers bad
Same as the Star Trek movies. I sometimes wonder if there is some underlying cause ... /me dons tinfoil hat.

Re:#4, PG-13.... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420450)

Well, okay, same as the Star Trek movies, only the OPPOSITE. Sorry.

Re:#4, PG-13.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420718)

Well, it doesn't have former Spielberg squeeze Kate Capshaw screaming her head off every other scene, or yelling, "OH MY GOD!" every other other scene, so that's a plus in favor of Crystal Skull. On the negative side, Harrison Ford is a geezer.

Wait for years and years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420126)

Star Wars was one thing. Indiana Jones was another. Nowhere near as epic.

Nothing compares to original Anything (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420132)

Any new media can never compare to the beloved originals. Stuff from the past grows mythical in its goodness inside our aging minds, and the current stuff doesn't have a chance.

Old Movie - Krull (3, Insightful)

Dareth (47614) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420598)

I had this strange idea that this was one of the greatest movies of all time. Unfortunately, I completely ruined my memory of it by watching it again 15+ years after the original viewing. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085811/ [imdb.com]

I doubt that.. (3, Funny)

Cinnamon Whirl (979637) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420138)

..the reviewer is the master of any Shoguns either. So I'm not too worried.

Re:I doubt that.. (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420320)

Now you've done it! Keep a lookout for his friends [realultimatepower.net] .

star wars previews (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420172)

i remember seeing the episode 1 teaser preview for the first time and thought OMG yes! this is gonna be sweet. as we all know hindsight is 20/20.

do you like darth vader?
oh god yes! i love darth vader!
well in the first one you get to see him as a little kid.
is he evil like damien?
no he's just a little kid then he leaves his mom and gets sad.

do you like bobba fett?
hell yeah i like bobba fett.
well in the second movie you get to see him as a little kid.
is he like a badass bounty hunter in training?
no, his died dies and he gets sad.

Way to steal Patton Oswalt's bit without citiation (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420784)

Douchebag.

To the mods: That whole bit is by Patton Oswalt, not the anonymous coward.

Of course it will be true... (2, Insightful)

amstrad (60839) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420182)

Business decisions do not good art make....

If it makes money, the studio will do it. This movie will make money. If you want this nonsense to stop, we need to get people to stop going to see them. I pretty much flat out refuse to see anything with less than a 50% on the tomato meter (in the theater, I'll probably watch it when it comes on TNT).

As a man who... (3, Funny)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420202)

As a man who finds himself occasionally yelling out "INDY!!" in imitation of John Rhys-Davies, all I have to say is...

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Hold up (2, Insightful)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420246)

The reason these films are so bad is because people hype them up in their minds for years. Granted, The Phantom Menace was pretty poor, but it's largely to do with the excessive expectations of people and their over-hyped ideals.

Who listens to critics, anyway?

Re:Hold up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420510)

They aren't bad because people expect them to be good. They aren't bad because critics say they are bad (or good, or whatever).

No, the real reason these films (Indy, Starwars) are so bad is that... THEY REALLY ARE BAD!

Simple as that.

Not a bit afraid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420264)

It's directed by Steven Spielberg for christsake! Not a chance in hell of it being anything less then good.

Re:Not a bit afraid (5, Insightful)

lilfields (961485) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420800)

I back this poster, as cowardice as he/she is...Spielberg has hardly ever made a film that was just completely awful...A.I. was kind of weird, but it was pretty good. Anyhow, I can't think of a single Spielberg film I didn't get some enjoyment from, so I doubt Indiana Jones 4 will be any different

The streak continues. (5, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420274)

So far this has been the pattern:

1st film: Groundbreaking
2nd film: Great
3rd film: Ok
4th film: WTF was everyone thinking?

So help me if one character utters something like "Me-sa gonna get the skull, Indy?", I'm going to have kill myself right there in the theater. Maybe I'll humanley spare some fellow movie patrons by taking them out first. :P

Re:The streak continues. (1)

Osurak (1013927) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420356)

1st film: Groundbreaking 2nd film: Great 3rd film: Ok 4th film: WTF was everyone thinking?

Counterargument: Rocky IV.

Although, in this case, Rocky V was the stinker.

Re:The streak continues. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420410)

Uhhh, temple of doom wasnt great. It was good. And it also had its jar jar binks in the name of Short Round. Better character, similar idea, I think. Im still gonna see Indy #4, I dont care. I also happen to like the 3rd movie, whateve anyone else thinks.

Re:The streak continues. (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420464)

the 2nd one was great? g'ah.

Re:The streak continues. (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420644)

I think he was comparing it to Lucas' other trilogy that got updated. Which doesn't count because Empire was better than New Hope, but Temple of Doom was not better than raiders of the lost ark.

Re:The streak continues. (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420560)

This just in ... from the original script:

(Finale Scene: In the cave. Indiana Jones and company are surrounded by villains while the cave is collapsing.)

Jones (fighting off villains): HEY! Don't just stand there, DO SOMETHING!!!
Binks: Meesa gonna get the skull, Indy!!!

What the hell? (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420656)

The third Indy movie was complete awesomeness. The third SW movie was actually great (I refuse to acknowledge the existence of Ewoks. Sue me). The second GodFather movie was apparently better than the first (never seen either one, speaking from hearsay).

I'd say there isn't much of a pattern, unless you're looking for one.

Aliens. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420292)

Movies about aliens just ain't that popular anymore...

Well.... (3, Insightful)

Burnhard (1031106) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420298)

I must be the only one who didn't think the first prequel star-wars movie was awful. I thought it was well put together and entertaining. I suppose those who did were expecting something genre defining and ground-breaking. You can't do that twice. The same goes for the Indiana movies.

Re:Well.... (1)

jo7hs2 (884069) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420502)

If you subtract the Jar-Jar Binks crap, and deleted some of the kid's dialog, it certainly would be better than either of the two movies that followed it. It isn't that it was awful, I my mind the problem was that it was even more childish than the originals. The originals were at the teenage level, whereas the first prequel was at the Kindergarten level. Hey, at least the kid who played Skywalker was a better actor than the teenage version...

Re:Well.... (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420530)

depends, if we talk about it compared to the original movies, the first prequel sucked and I wanted to kill myself - however, if we are considering the movie as it self without comparing it to the stories to follow it, it was entertaining, had some nice fights and "car" chases. The problem is I went to see the first part of the star wars saga and was seriously let down.

Re:Well.... (4, Informative)

Lord_Frederick (642312) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420558)

There just isn't any excuse for Jar-Jar.

Re:Well.... (4, Insightful)

Wylfing (144940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420620)

I'm foregoing modding you up to reply. I completely agree with you. Although I really wish some things had been done differently for Phantom Menace, I found the movie quite enjoyable, and it's the film I like best among the three prequels.

Veering off-topic: the things I wish had been different include having Obi-Wan first meet Anakin as a young adult hot-shot pilot during the Clone Wars (c.f. A New Hope, "When I met your father..."), never revealing the origins of C-3PO and R2-D2 nor revealing why they are always together, and an expanded/more intelligent role for Darth Maul (we never needed to see Sidious during that movie, Maul was all the villain we needed, just like we only needed Dooku in the 2nd movie -- actually both Maul and Dooku are FAR more interesting characters than Sidious and should have featured large in all 3 movies).

(At this point you probably wish I had modded you instead. I'm sorry!)

Re:Well.... (1)

onkelonkel (560274) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420752)

I almost agree. I saw "Phantom Menace" first in the theater and there was enough whiz bang special effects to keep me entertained. I figured "not as good as the first three, but more or less ok"

Then I saw it at home on a small bedroom tv. No special effects to distract me this time. Instead I got to notice the bad acting, wretched, disjointed plot full of holes, achingly awful dialog and ridiculous scenes crammed in because they were "kewl" (pod race, flight through planet, etc). This time I thought "giant mountain of suck"

bah (2, Interesting)

lurgyman (587233) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420310)

The *TRAILER* looked good, so you're going to ignore the opinion of someone who's actually seen it in hopes that a piece of marketing will be a better reflection of what it is? What? "Yeah, the marketing was good, so it gets my $8-$10 for a ticket." On a site that focuses on technical detail, that should ring alarm bells. Who would respect an engineer who went and bought equipment based entirely on marketing hype without reading the specs? That sort of attitude encourages engineering companies to sell shitty products. Why would the same approach bring about a different result applied to the entertainment industry? Grumble..

And? (4, Insightful)

Enahs (1606) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420336)

The original three are "dreadful" by critics' standards. They're ALL predictable. Predictable is what made them funny, imho. They're supposed to be SERIALS, for Pete's sake.

The second one is dreadful by MY standards.

Re:And? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420778)

You have fucked up standards.

If it's not a success... (4, Funny)

ShinySteelRobot (674078) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420390)

...then I'm sure we can look forward to a multitude of Special Editions with various tweaks. Guns will be digitally replaced with walkie talkies, walkie talkies will be replaced with guns, and eventually Shia LaBeouf will be digitally replaced with an character that's more universally loved and admired, such as Jar Jar Binks.

media hype versus reality (3, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420418)

media hype:

OMFG there's a negative review of indy 4!

reality:

negative [aintitcool.com]

neutral [aintitcool.com]

neutral [aintitcool.com]

positive [aintitcool.com]

the nyt has the real story [nytimes.com] : studios are required by law to show movies to exhibitors before they buy films (which is how the party pooper reviewer shogunmaster got to see it), which in today's internet age means that studios (especially control-freak spielberg on this specific issue) are losing the ability to control pre-release media buzz

bear in mind (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420444)

Since they're are recognizing his age and not ignoring it, it will have a slightly different dynamic.

Plus, this was ONE review, others have been positive.

How many bunnies? (1)

terrywin (242544) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420480)

Until I see how many bunnies are given by Playboy I'll consider this a lopsided review ;-)

Modern Cash-In of Classic Film Series "Dreadful"? (3, Funny)

morari (1080535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420484)

Well no shit.

Slagging things off (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420640)

is the "in" thing to do at the moment. Why give something 9 or 10 out of 10 when you can go against the grain, give it a 4 and triple the amount of traffic (and therefore ad hits) to your site?

That said, if it turns out to be The Phantom Menace* of the Indy movies, I think I'll cry.

*On a second watch, I actually think Attack Of The Clones was worse

The time period is way way too late (3, Interesting)

DrBuzzo (913503) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420642)

I remember thinking the movie was likely not that good when I heard that it was set in the 1950's and that the Soviets had become the villains along with some Nazi hold-overs in South America. Indy needs to fight the Nazis. That's the point. The Nazis make the movies good because they're his enemy.

Also, they have to be strong and powerful and have all kinds of cool secret plans and weapons. This basically means the movie cannot be set any later than late 1943 and ideally it should be around 1942-ish.

Yeah yeah, I know Harrison Ford is a lot older now than he was when the first movies were made and so having the movie take place just five years after "The Last Crusade" would not be so believable when the actor has actually aged by close to 20 years.

I don't think it would be undoable though. Hollywood makeup artists can do a lot to change the age of someone. If you look at movies like Back to the Future, they did a very convincing job of making Christopher Lloyd appear as different ages. Harrison Ford's thinner hair would not be too hard to cover, especially if he's wearing a hat. His face has not aged *that* much. It could be covered with good lighting, editing, makeup and so on. Body doubles and digital manipulation can help too.

I don't see why it had to be made so late after the hayday of the Nazis.

Classics (2, Insightful)

willyhill (965620) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420648)

Many of the movies we consider "classics" of the 80s and 90s were panned by critics. Aliens? Check. The second and third Indy flicks? Check. Episode IV and V? Check.

I stopped listening to movie critics a long time ago. I prefer to make up my own mind. And if I have ny doubt whatsoever about a film, I'll just wait for it to come out on DVD and see it for free (basically) by exchanging it at Blockbuster for one of the ones I get in the mail from my eclectic-but-steady movie list (takes time to go through 350 movies...)

sh1t (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420652)

that have 8a6ed

Fear not... (2, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420660)

In the special edition Indy will whip first.

Seriously though, anyone with high expectations of this movie hasn't seen a movie made by George Lucas in the past 20 years. It'll make a ton of cash, regardless -- that's the really tragic thing.

For all the money spent on this movie you could fast-track the careers of at least one thousand, really talented, new filmmakers.

Of course it does (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23420674)

Of course it does, because if an early review didn't generate controversy, it wouldn't get as much press and instead people would want to avoid the spoilers.

YOINKS! = Boring (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420706)

When I grew up watching Indiana Jones, I was into the adventure, the action, and RIPPING A GUYS HEART OUT OF HIS CHEST! Then I saw the previews for this new one and it looks like a disney ride. It looks like a Scooby Doo episode! Its as if they took the adult-material and trimmed it down to "slappy's ghost house surprise" or something. I am afraid to spend $9 on a movie ticket with the current implications of the movie. I think I will have to wait for a trusted friend to tell me what they think. I just can't convince myself to do it with the chance that I'd have to walk out pissed.

Well... (1)

Is0m0rph (819726) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420724)

It's Ain't it Cool News. It inspired Kevin Smith's MoviePoopShoot.com for Jay and Silent Bob for a reason.

Save us from crystal skulls!!! (4, Funny)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420728)

There was also an episode of The A-Team towards the end of its run about a crystal skull. It, too, was widely regarded as the worst episode ever, a fan's nightmare, and such.

The lesson: if it says "crystal skull" anywhere, avoid it like the plague.

Shia LaBeouf co-stars... (0, Flamebait)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420754)

...of course it's going to suck.

High hopes? (1, Insightful)

Torinaga-Sama (189890) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420766)

Okay, it's probably going to suck.

George Lucas has given up creativity in order to wring every possible cent out of his franchises. Star Wars had begun to take a beating due to poor product quality and overexposure so he is switching horses.

The new Indy flick will probably make a mega-shit-ton of money. I will probably watch it (on DVD), I am just hoping that if I tell myself it is going to suck, then when I see it I might be able to walk away from it and say "It was better than my expectations".

Why... (3, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420768)

does anyone pretend that the critics matter?

Anyone who takes any critic's word for it deserves what he gets.

As for me, I can't really nail down my decision criteria for what movies I want to see, but I can assure you that the words "critic review" don't enter into it in the slightest.

You Can't Satisfy Nostalgia (3, Insightful)

llZENll (545605) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420856)

No movie can live up to what your brain remembers as one of the best movies ever made. If you go into the movie expecting it to be no less than the best of the first movie, then guess what, you will say it sucked. If you have realistic expectations though and are hoping it to be a decent movie without destroying the franchise then you at least are giving the movie a fair chance. It takes a lot of guts to revisit old and successful franchises such as Star Wars and Indiana Jones because you can't satisfy peoples nostalgia, even if the movie is one of the best ever made.

Nothing can match the feeling of seeing the movie with friends and family who may be gone now, or remembering a time in your life when things were better, we tend to forget the bad and remember the good, anything current simply can't compete with your memories all else being equal.

20 years too late (1)

Dillenger69 (84599) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420876)

This movie is 20 years too late.
I would have gladly seen it in 1988.
Now, I'll wait for it to come on cable.

The trailer for the Phantom Menace looked great (1)

Werthless5 (1116649) | more than 6 years ago | (#23420880)

If I go in expecting the 4th Indiana Jones movie to suck, then at least I won't feel disappointed.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?