Indiana Jones
Out of context: Reply #140
- Started
- Last post
- 142 Responses
- rafalski0
Spoiling all the way!
The fridge part was still acceptable to me, even if there was no way he could have survived the fall sitting inside it, let alone protect himself from the blast.
It was a funny idea, a wink to the viewer of sorts. It went downhill from there though.The jungle: there was a tree cutting machine in front of the car cavalcade going through the jungle. In real world it would 'pave' the way for tanks, but cars still wouldn't be able to follow.
In the film, cars not only participate in a chase following the speeding (!) tree cutter, but continue their run through the jungle when the machine is blown away!
Emmet Brown once said: "Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads".Sword fighting on the trucks - come on, it wasn't even funny. Indy intercepting a truck in "Raiders" had a hint of "this would never really happen but still somehow seems possible".
Skull selective magnetism was so absurdly idiotic. It only attracted metal when the screenplay needed it to.
Waterfall bullshit. Times three.
Particularly bad was the visual approach to ancient interiors, graves and such. They looked more believable in previous flicks, even with skeletons springing out of coffins everywhere.
An example were the tribesmen coming out of the walls - that was over the top. They sat inside these who knows how old walls and pillars and had no other way to come out but to destroy them because Indy and his crew were about?
This was just pure crap.I refreshed all 3 old Indies before going to see this one. They were all kids movies with more brutality Bond films ever had. They were breaking laws of physics and all probability, but not to this extent.
Most of all, in the old ones actors seemed to see the scenography, while in "Skull" they seemed so detached it was clear they were talking to bluescreen a lot of the time.