The last movie you saw...

[Jynks]

@Dinky
Raiders is defiantly the better film... I just enjoy doom more is all, that whole death cult thing is more my style. Also the humor in doom works well against this heavy kind of subject stuff in it.

@Spud
If that is what you are looking for when you go in that is exactly what you get.. this is a nostalgia pic. Fun... silly.. not trying ot be anything... Radiers and Doom were both trying to be something.. a serious attempt at film.. Crusade and this is just a "woot lets go on the rollacoster again daddy!!"

This I would say that this Indy 4 is one of those films that peopel watch and "say" they hate it but end up watching it everytime it comes on TV.

[spudthedestroyer]

I've been beat down so much over the past decade when it comes to sequels and "can't fail" hollywood pictures that frankly, I'd be stupid to get my hopes up on this one

Shame it has to be like that, but there's a reason movie fans are derogatory when it comes to hollywood... this about sums it up for me:
http://www.dead-donkey.com/modules/news ... php?id=409

[dinky]

Crusade and this is just a "woot lets go on the rollacoster again daddy!!"

as opposed to the movie actually built around a roller coaster sequence? TEMPLE is darker. it's self-contained. it's not more serious.

[Jynks]

more than cursadr i think. Doom has a more adut themes in it. Same way Raders did.

[dinky]

heh. iunno. it has scarier shit in it. it's darker</i>. it's claustraphobic. if that's more adult/mature, it has nothing to do with seriousness. and maybe I'm just hazy here, but isn't the object of mystical powers in TEMPLE a few rocks that line-up in a certain way to give someone some mystical magical power that's sort of related to mind control or something even though he already has control over everyone anyway? Are you sure CRUSADE isn't the more focused?

whatever. I think they're both great movies. I just don't care for one. not worth arguing. remind me of that at the end of your next reply so that I don't.

[spudthedestroyer]

Well I just got beat down again by hollywood. That was well below expectations for me

That film was just plum bad. The motorbike bit was okay, but that's all that stands out and I'm rapidly forgetting the rest of it. It wasn't nostalgia like I was expecting, it was more like a Michael Bay movie. Shame really, I always liked indy films and this one just felt bad. The bad guys were lousy, the nazis always seemed more menacing, and Cate Blanchett or whoever was just awful.

The over-indulgence in CGI from the offset, terrifyingly in the place of action sequences (and that's bad for an action/adventure movie), just made it worse for me... I really didn't find that appealing and think it so often ruins movies. Too much bluescreening and greenscreening... the George Lucas of the jungle bit was the vines was where i gave up. Some nice frames here and there but not a whole I really enjoyed.

There's no point talking about plot, if this is all they could come up with in 20 years I really don't have anything to say. Even the music was crap, John Williams didn't seem to even bother turning up by the sounds of it.

As I kept it short at fh; I won't be buying this, it was barely worth the cinema ticket.

Confirmed my previous view:
Raiders > Temple >>> Crusade >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crystal

In story, in credibility, in cinematography, in enjoyment and, from what I could see, effort in its creation.


However I did watch the new Stephen Chow film, CJ7 and for a kid's film I thought it was really pretty damn good. Chow is great in the film, but he's not the centre, although the scenes he's in are great. He seems to be a really capable writer and director and hope he's able to get into big budget films without being ruined by hollywood as so many have before him.

The film is a little bit like a ET kind of movie, alien/robot/whatever befriends kid, they fall out/in, something happens and the loveable alien/robot/whatever goes out on a limb and solves the problem. The alien robot is chinese/japanese pop culture cute, but there's some good bits in it, like the construction worker scenes (including the big plot one ) I thought were very well done.

Well worth watching

[dinky]

never really cared for E. T. much more of a GREMLINS kid. GREMLINS also play much better with time. always wanted a bike that could fly though.

[Jynks]

+1 Gremlins

[spudthedestroyer]

what's gremlins got to do with anything?

[dinky]

gremlins "stole" one of the signature shots from E. T. with the cute furry creature hiding in a shelf of stuffed animals. at least that's what got me thinking of it.

[spudthedestroyer]

That wasn't a stuffed animal, that was Drew Barrymore.

However, I'd point out saying Joe Dante 'stole' something is missing the point (and i get why you'd use quotes for it), Gremlins borders on the self-parody (and is actually the purpose of its companion piece)... most shots are nods to other films. All of his films revolve around his deep passion for bmovie/horrors. He used to assemble trailers for lots of horror flicks, roger cormans, etc. in the 70s. Its all pretty much nods to other films, cartoons, and parody.

Its why its so great, and why the sequel works so well

[dinky]

That wasn't a stuffed animal, that was Drew Barrymore.

touché!

[spudthedestroyer]

That wasn't a stuffed animal, that was Drew Barrymore.

touché!

well not when she was a kid, I'm not a catholic priest or a burma aid worker.

[dinky]

nah. that would be "touchy."

sadly, I don't even "get" the burma aid worker, but the implication is pretty obvious.

[spudthedestroyer]

Watched Jumper (2008).

Didn't go anywhere, new or old... all premise and a bit of stuttering all over the place, but I just didn't really care for it and couldn't help feel they were just setting up a superhero without there actually being a superhero, and clearly was getting ahead of itself setting up a sequel.

Watched it through, but not really that entertained by it.

[dinky]

I was also unimpressed. only one scene in the coliseum managed to hold my interest. the girl was cute too. I guess she was some reality show contestant.

watched PERFECT CREATURE (2006) the other night. it was a take on vampires that I hadn't seen before and was interesting in that regard. I thought what they did with the premise was mundane though. It felt like someone put CHILDREN OF MEN and BLADE 2 into a blender, and the result was PERFECT CREATURE.

anyway, it was stv fodder in the US, so I can't complain. it's actually pretty good from that perspective.

also: interview in this week's EW with tricia helfer. she's joining BURN NOTICE s2 (bruce campbell co-stars). I'll give it a go.

[spudthedestroyer]

Blade 2 was shit, but Children of Men was an excellent film... are you saying it was excellent? or not?

[dinky]

no. I didn't mean to compare it to either film qualitatively. the plot is similar to the two mixed together. basically, there's some virus in an alternate 1950s earth (london, I think). vampires (which are kinda like a different species of human?) aren't reproducing. they do all sorts of genetic engineering to get female vampires. shit goes wrong. crazy strong infected vampire gets out on the loose and decimates human population.

It's intellectually better than BLADE 2 (not saying much, I know). the imagery/atmosphere is close to what you find in CHILDREN OF MEN (I didn't love CoM, but I wouldn't put PC on par with it). There's an ethereal/surreal-ness to it that is kind of like CITY OF LOST CHILDREN (not as trippy). the strongest part of the movie is probably the atmosphere. lots of close shots that don't require cgi. so you might like it. story is half-baked (doesn't really follow through).

[spudthedestroyer]

You make it sound really good, then dropped mundane and other words into your description

Going to have to watch it now you bastard!

[dinky]

excellent! my nefarious plot to flood your movie queue with shite proceeds apace.