Controversial Opinions About Movies Part II

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
Posts: 903
Joined: August 2012
ArmandFancypants wrote:what are we even talking about here KOTCS is appalling and fails on a BASIC level, i.e. there is not even a vague whiff of danger for 90% of the runtime and there's all manner of extraneous characters tagging along for the ride, including Oxley, Mac, and Marion.

What is Spalko even about? You don't have Paul Freeman's knowing smarm or Amrish Puri's wild unhinged histrionics, there's a very vague sorta mind reading shenanigans thing that goes on and then she'll pull out the sword and that's uh, scary. Shit, even Donovan is just plain unpleasant and arrogant, she doesn't even have that

Keeping the nature of the "power" a mystery is one of the most major critical errors that the film makes. We don't know what anyone is striving towards so the "knowledge was their treasure" is a reversal of nothing. Ark = Invincibility in battle, Stones = fertility and life, Grail = everlasting life, Skull = ?

Couple that with the sickly, very much not Doug Slocombe look that the film has and gee whiz, I don't understand how anyone can find anything to like that isn't contributed by John Williams (an underrated effort, he provides character where the script does not), Harrison Ford, Michael Kahn or, arguably, Shia who does nothing wrong.
I won't argue that the narrative is anywhere near as compelling as Raiders or Crusade, but now that I think about it, the whole Soviet quest for mind control is suddenly having startling contemporary relevance.

Posts: 13943
Joined: June 2009
Location: La La Land
Isn't Soviets and/or Germans looking for crazy mystical shit to do evil like a tale as old as time. Or as old as Raiders.

Posts: 12203
Joined: February 2011
On the contrary, I think if there is an obvious weak link in Kingdom it's LaBeouf. His attempts to appear as this tough dgaf type comes off as laughably bad and as a successor to Ford's Jones, Spielberg could have hardly accomplished a more ill-suited casting. Although admittedly he has the timing and does much better in his comical moments.

The film itself disappoints almost as much as it satisfies and the the ending is basically a duplication of Raiders', but at the end it does qualify as a solid piece of entertainment and Spielberg's theatrics with the camera movements and mise en scene are always fun to watch in his commercial films.£

Posts: 9757
Joined: October 2011
Location: Foot of Mt. Belzoni
Master Virgo wrote: His attempts to appear as this tough dgaf type comes off as laughably bad and as a successor to Ford's Jones,
That is either the point or the reason for its (IMO) success. It is, after all, the concept behind the film's final moment

I can't say I'm overly fond of the family angle of Crusade being extrapolated to the nth degree either. I mean, it's reasonable to expect the franchise to lose its edge as Ford gets ancient, but Indy 5's existence makes me happy at this stage purely by virtue of a geriatric wedding not being the send off for this character

Posts: 12203
Joined: February 2011
ArmandFancypants wrote:
Master Virgo wrote: His attempts to appear as this tough dgaf type comes off as laughably bad and as a successor to Ford's Jones,
That is either the point or the reason for its (IMO) success. It is, after all, the concept behind the film's final moment

I can't say I'm overly fond of the family angle of Crusade being extrapolated to the nth degree either. I mean, it's reasonable to expect the franchise to lose its edge as Ford gets ancient, but Indy 5's existence makes me happy at this stage purely by virtue of a geriatric wedding not being the send off for this character
Well granted, he shouldn't have been quite there yet but he needed to at least show some promise. In contrast to the likes of Michael B Jordan in Creed, McAvoy in Future Past, Pine in Trek, McGregor in PT or Andy Garcia in Part III, nothing in LaBeouf's presence and charisma convinces me that he's up for succeeding such iconic figures as Ford or Douglas. Hollywood has for some time struggled to find one who can be an acceptable substitute for the former, and personally I'm not holding my breath for Ehrenreich to pull it off either.£

Posts: 9757
Joined: October 2011
Location: Foot of Mt. Belzoni
Phoenix was perfect. :(
Jedisunscreen wrote: I won't argue that the narrative is anywhere near as compelling as Raiders or Crusade, but now that I think about it, the whole Soviet quest for mind control is suddenly having startling contemporary relevance.
Sure; the film never decides that it's about that though and keeps us strung along with the idea of El Dorado as well and even then we see no manifestation of a character doing things against their will, not in any compelling way. You have Oxley who goes mad and maybe some dissemination of information. You never have a moment like the Ark burning the swastika or, hell, even the Cruciform Sword characters or the stones being present for the crazy heart ripping ceremony. It's all extremely vague, even by the standards of this series which is saying something. It's trying to do all this stuff about the Red Scare as well early on and then decides to not have the CIA tailing the crew despite that maybe adding some interesting shades to the story or even some organic sources of comic relief (rather than the truly hideous ones that we get).

Even the set pieces don't offer a fresh spin - each of the chases in the previous films provided a genuine escalation, from the truck chase to the mine cart chase to the tank battle - each providing their own set of challenges and creating in each case really indelible, heart-in-throat level set pieces. The forest chase in this seems hugely concerned with swapping characters around from vehicle to vehicle with, again, terribly vague objectives and a kind of arbitrary hot potato being played with the skull itself.

It's just a mess. I can't even begin to brook the idea that it's even in the same parish as something as casually masterful and delightfully weird as Temple.
Last edited by ArmandFancypants on January 9th, 2017, 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 3283
Joined: October 2014
Location: Philly
yeah, disagreements about KOTCS aside - obviously it's not on par with the others, i just don't think it's as awful as some have suggested - there really aren't any young actors that have anything even close to the same camera presence that Ford had in his prime

he may be my GOAT for that category to be completely honest

i mean, c'mon - the guy is 74 years old and stole The Force Awakens from everyone except maybe Driver

EDIT: bad grammar lol
Last edited by Michaelf2225 on January 9th, 2017, 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 12203
Joined: February 2011
ArmandFancypants wrote:Phoenix was perfect. :(
I would have watched that Young Indiana Jones series if he was in it.£

Posts: 903
Joined: August 2012
ArmandFancypants wrote:It's just a mess. I can't even begin to brook the idea that it's even in the same parish as something as casually masterful and delightfully weird as Temple.
I probably rank Temple ahead of it as well, but not by a significant margin. The set pieces in Temple are tremendous, yet also lack joy. It also has the longest third act of all time, at times exhilarating but ultimately exhausting.

Posts: 2536
Joined: January 2015
Location: Poland
Yeah, I don't get the newfound love for Temple. I still think it's a disappointment when compared to 1 and 3.

Harrison was great as Indy, the dinner scene, the locations, the opening are all fantastic in Temple. Yet the story and the stakes feel pretty low when compared to the other films. Shortround, that stupid raft scene kill the momentum for it to be better.

However, it was still far more enjoyable than Kingdom.

Post Reply