dr.jones1986
Active member
I enjoyed it, there was some things that could have been done better and I still think it pales in comparison to the originals but I still loved it.
jonesissparrow said:Wow 38 liked it and 6 didn't.
Agent Crab said:It was okay...
Not face palmin' bad as say for.. Blues Brothers 2000. But it was okay.
The Stranger said:Were you really expecting something different from an Indiana Jones fansite??
The 99.9% of people who didn't like the film simply quit this forums and never showed up again. They couldn't vote.
DocWhiskey said:You know, Blues Brother is my favorite comedy and one of my favorite films period, yet I've never seen Blues Brothers 2000. I've only heard mind numbingly bad things about it. I don't even think the fan in me wants to see it.
Cole said:I thought "New Spielberg" had pretty much the same directorial style as the original films (as was John Williams' music). Within the first minute, it just felt like an Indy movie - through and through to me.
It was still rated PG-13, had a few brutal moments (soldiers shot at point blank range, ants swarm...). Did Spielberg make a conscientious effort to not show blood? I don't know, maybe.......but I don't particularly think you need blood and a high body count to make an entertaining/fun Indy movie. It's not exactly like any of the other Indy films were R-rated stuff here.
Spalko wasn't physically threatening (her henchman, Dovenchko, takes care of that). I think what makes Spalko an effective villain is that she is very cold, steely, and emotionally detached. She is prim, proper, and her obsession with psychological warfare and the skull also make her threatening. And the way Blanchett plays the character, and the look of the character she came up with.....all very memorable. She's a gifted actress and I think she proved to be an excellent choice.
Novels inevitably have the ability to expand on what is in a movie, because novels contain much greater detail.....that's why they make the novel companion to the film. You can read for two hours and only get through a few chapters. In a movie, 2 hours is all you have.
Given the action/adventure nature of these films, and the other dynamics of this film.........it is important to be "economical" with the relationships. They develop along the adventurents. With Marion - sure it is economical - but I think we know all we need to know, and those two are simply a lot of fun to watch on screen. And to me that's a big success.
We already get a sense of their strained relationship through their hilarious banter. We already clearly get a sense that they both have underlying feelings for each other (which isn't difficult to accept given their past history in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'). The fact that they now have a son brings them closer together.
I think the movie is about lost characters coming together, and finding what they needed in a family by the film's end. Indy loses Marcus and his dad. Without his job there is nothing to keep him in the States. The line "I think we've reached the age where life stops giving us things and starts taking them away" is gut-wrenching. Mutt's lost - he quits school, has a "tough guy" attitude (he doesn't have a true father). It was a natural progression that they find each other and solidify themselves as a family at the end. It continues the strong family bonds/values in 'Last Crusade.' I thought it was effective. I liked it.
Violet Indy said:Is anyone getting the feeling that this guy is working for Spielberg or is it just me? By the way, if you are, you're not the first I've caught out here.