Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

Good grief. It seems even Spielberg is off-limits now, let alone saying anything negative about the Author. 😁
I'm out of here!
👋

Karen Diaz32 said:Yikes. Apparently, you can't even mention Spielberg without getting canceled, let alone say anything bad about the author. 😁
I'm out of here!
👋

Figures...😛

quietdriver3 said:In other words, we all agree it could have been better... just a little bit... maybe even just a tiny nudge... 😁

You’re seriously asking me—someone who is a total pain in the neck, by the way—that? 😁

Look, obviously, there's always room for improvement, but I'm saying this movie is "way better" than it's bad.

That’s why I think the film works just fine as it is. Sure, some scenes could've been polished up, but I don't think that makes the whole thing any worse. 😉

I’d like to weigh in on those famous first ten minutes too.

A movie's opening has to feel fundamentally different from the rest of the story, mostly because neither we nor the characters actually know what's going on yet. It's like pulling back layers of a veil with every new piece of information until everything finally becomes crystal clear—except, of course, for those little gaps left intentionally to make us wonder how things were actually achieved and stuff like that. *

If they had tried to explain everything upfront, we would have ended up with either a) three hours of pure, unadulterated boredom or b) a total disregard for the laws of physics that would have required endless explanations involving Hesenberg's compensators and whatnot.

The movie avoided both of those traps, and honestly, I'm really glad it did.

To me, the mark of a great film is that it doesn't get bogged down in tedious, unnecessary details. As far as I'm concerned, this one hit that sweet spot perfectly.

* (Of course, there are certain movies where you're just thrown right into the heat of the action at the very start, and part of the fun is playing catch-up to figure out what's happening.)

quietdriver3 said:In other words, we can all agree it could have been better... just a tiny bit... a smidge... a hair more polished... 😁

If we really take that logic to heart, then absolutely everything—without exception—could always be improved, even if it's just by a fraction.

It actually brings to mind those perpetually dissatisfied mothers-in-law who make life a little harder for their daughters-in-law by constantly finding something to nitpick. It’s always something; maybe the soup is a tad too salty, or perhaps it needs a pinch more salt, or maybe it’s slightly too hot, or maybe it’s a bit too lukewarm, or the coffee is just a touch too sweet, or maybe it’s a little too bitter, or the room feels a bit stuffy, or maybe it’s a little too drafty, or the curtains are just a bit too bright, or... well, you get the picture, right?

This is what happens when you don't listen to Richard Howard2 while he’s walking you through it page by page...
...besides, Adam Wright56, aren't you getting a little too worked up over this movie? 😁...you're acting like it was poorly directed on purpose...I think you're lowballing the director here. "On purpose"? Good grief, making something look that bad takes just as much talent as making something look good.:-)...

I’m not setting my expectations too high since it doesn't look all that promising, but honestly, I can't wait to see if I'm wrong in a few days.😁

Jose Miller17>...besides that, don't you think you're getting a little too intense about this movie, Adam Wright56?

Look, I think this movie is great, but not in the way that classics like "Murder on the Orient Express," "Star Wars," "Dr. Strangelove," "The Godfather," "Metropolis" (Tezukin), and some other films I love are great.

It’s good to me because it’s essentially bad, but it isn't bad in the way that movies like "Alucard," "The Matrix Revolutions," or "King Arthur" are bad.

If you know what I mean. 😉

Jose Miller17> So you're saying it was intentionally poorly directed...

No, no, no... what I'm trying to say is that it's actually a good thing the director wasn't much better. If a far superior director had handled this and tried to take it in that direction, we would have ended up with either some pretentious garbage, a long and exhausting slog, or some totally soulless "Disney-style" flick for kids.

As it stands, we have a movie that we can always laugh at—something you watch with a group of friends and just have a blast with, without feeling like it's treating you like an idiot.😉

I don't think it's really about the director as a person, but more about the direction itself, regardless of who was behind the camera.

Adam Wright56 said:Look, I think this movie is great, but not in the way classics like "Murder on the Orient Express," "Star Wars," "Dr. Strangelove," "The Godfather," or "Metropolis" are great.
It works because it's essentially bad, but not "bad" in the way movies like "Alucard," "The Matrix Revolutions," or "King Arthur" are bad.

No, wait... what I mean is that it's actually a good thing the director wasn't better. If a top-tier director had handled this, we’d probably be stuck with some pretentious garbage, an exhausting slog, or a soulless Disney flick for kids.
Instead, we have a movie you can actually laugh at—something you watch with friends and enjoy without feeling like you're being treated like an idiot. 😉
I'm not talking about the director as a person, just the direction itself. Whoever directed this, they hit the sweet spot.

I don't follow your logic entirely. To me, this movie isn't quite bad enough to be "good." If it were, it would be in that realm of pulp stuff like Peter Jackson or whatever. I didn't see that here. There are hints of it, but the director and producers seem like they just panicked and tried to please everyone. They didn't commit. They wanted to be halfway serious and halfway funny, but you can't really do both without losing the flavor.
..Anyway, happy birthday, and take it easy on the beer!! 😬 😁

What an absolute idiot I am 😵

I just realized what was missing from this movie...

Bruce Campbell in the lead role!!!!!

This movie is absolutely insane! 🙂 😎 :kulji: :najkulji:

quietdriver3 said:I really am a complete moron.😵

I just realized what was missing from this movie...

Bruce Campbell in the lead role!!!!!

If Quentin Tarantino had directed it, he probably would have included him. Though that would have resulted in a completely different film—not necessarily less childish, just fundamentally different in its execution.

A few days ago, I watched "Majestic" starring Jim Carrey; it’s a sentimental melodrama about a struggling little Hollywood screenwriter fighting against the oppression of a 1950s anti-American activities commission, which serves as a nice way to show... actually, the movie was garbage.

However, the crucial part is that Jim Carrey and his girlfriend go to the cinema at the start of the film to watch some black-and-white action flick from the 1930s titled "The Pirates of the Caribbean". An evil bedouin is just about to kill the leading lady when suddenly BRUCE CAMPBELL ARRIVES!!! Dressed exactly like those 1930s explorers, saber in hand! Here is the dialogue:
Evil Bedouin: "YOUR PRESENCE IS VERY IRRITATING!"
Bruce: "Yeah, I get that a lot."

Nice work, Bruce! A tiny cameo, but worth its weight in gold! 👍 👍

casualotter21 said:Nah, I think the big thing is that Jim Carrey and his girlfriend go to the movies at the start of the film to watch this old black-and-white action flick from the 1930s called "The Pirates of the Caribbean". And just when the evil bedouin is about to kill the lead actress, BRUCE CAMPBELL SHOWS UP!!! Dressed exactly like those 1930s explorers, saber in hand and everything!
Bedouin: "YOR PERSTIZTENZ IST FERY IRITATING!"
Bruce:"Yeah, I get that a lot."

On the DVD, Majestic includes "The Pirates of the Caribbean" as a special feature, which runs for maybe ten minutes or so.

Honestly, I’d say it was worth getting just for that alone.$4.00

🙂

But wait, why Quentin Tarantino? I guess I’d probably pick Sam Raimi or maybe even Tim Burton instead.

quietdriver3 said:The Majestic DVD includes some special features, including a full version of "The Pirates of the Caribbean" which runs about ten minutes.
In my humble opinion, it was worth the purchase just for that single inclusion.$4.00

Good grief, now I feel compelled to go hunt down that specific DVD just for that one feature.😁 😁 😁

But hold on, why Tarantino? I’d probably pick Sam Raimi or even Tim Burton over him any day.

Well, Sam Raimi certainly works. Burton is a decent second choice, though perhaps slightly less so. Tarantino was my initial thought simply because he wallows in cinematic trash and pulp fiction quite aggressively, much like a pig in the mud, though his true passion seems to lie more with the aesthetics of the 1970s.

I just finished watching an excellent copy of The Incredibles...

In my estimation, conceptually speaking, The Incredibles actually pulled off what Sky Captain failed to achieve.

That whole island setting and those robots? They bear an incredible resemblance to Sky Captain, though one leans heavily into a 30s aesthetic while the other goes for a more modern 60s vibe...

Ultimately, the point is that a film doesn't need to be somber—Sky Captain certainly didn't intend to be—but internal consistency is something The Incredibles maintains, whereas Sky Captain completely loses its way during the second half.

Richard Howard2 said:Look, my point is that a movie doesn't need to be some heavy drama—it's not like Indiana Jones was trying to be deep or anything. But there's this thing called consistency. The Incredibles actually manages to stick to its vibe, whereas I feel like Sky Captain just completely loses its way halfway through the second act.

You have to remember that The Incredibles is an animated flick, while GNISS isn't... there's a massive difference in both format and concept.

Besides, the whole point of these two movies is totally different. I guess you could compare GNISS to pretty much any other movie out there for all the good it does. 🙄

Icepick said:The Incredibles is an animated movie, while GNISS definitely isn't...

Well, almost... feels like they filmed nearly everything against a green screen anyway..:-)

Icepick said:The Incredibles is an animated film, whereas GNISS is not....

Really? I don't follow...

Regardless, they share a conceptual foundation—both deal with a fairy-tale-esque world defined by its visual aesthetic. That specific style is pushed to its absolute limit and fully realized in The Incredibles, whereas in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, it just isn't quite there.

Stronghold +
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen +
Metropolis +
Nick Fury and his helicarrier +
Indiana Jones
___________ =

GNISS

👍

Lloyd Dobler said:Stan Lee +
Justice League +
Metropolis +
Nick Fury and his helicarrier +
Indiana Jones
___________ =

SCREECH

👍

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Maybe throw in those Fleischer Superman cartoons from the '40s too.