Indiana Jones The Complete Adventures Blu-ray - September 18, 2012 - Review

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by ssjmichael

Made $90 million worldwide, not that bad, but not good either.

Well, it's true it made about $90 million worldwide, the bad part is that it cost an estimated $80 million to make, plus the marketing costs, which are thought to have brought the total investment to around $100 million:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Box-O...ped-23897.html

I mean, when it opened in theaters it was beaten by the "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" sequel.

By comparison, KOTCS had a worldwide gross of about $786 million, even with a production budget of $185 million, it was still a big money-maker.

All in all, it wasn't a bad showing for an 80s franchise after a nearly 20-year absence from theaters.

[Falaskan]

I never had a problem with Shia being in the movie, for some reason I like him as an actor (so far). I didn't like over the top things like the famous fridge nuke scene, driving off cliff onto trees, driving over other cars, all while leaving the heroes unscathed. Whose ideas were all of that??

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

I never had a problem with Shia being in the movie, for some reason I like him as an actor (so far). I didn't like over the top things like the famous fridge nuke scene, driving off cliff onto trees, driving over other cars, all while leaving the heroes unscathed. Whose ideas were all of that??

Is any one of those things more over the top than the stuff from the earlier movies? I think it's about the same. Maybe even more restrained, when compared to TOD.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Is any one of those things more over the top than the stuff from the earlier movies? I think it's about the same. Maybe even more restrained, when compared to TOD.

like ripping someones heart out and them living (just watched temple of doom today ) or the cup of christ or the ark.

yeah, 2 of those things are rooted in religious beliefs....but still.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Is any one of those things more over the top than the stuff from the earlier movies? I think it's about the same. Maybe even more restrained, when compared to TOD.

Yeah, because I'm a firm believer that if one were in a plane that was going to crash into the mountains, all you have to do is grab the nearest inflatable liferaft and fall to your safety.
Let's face facts: Raiders was pretty much perfection...all the others could never live up to the standard Raiders set. Which, actually, isn't a bad thing! It means that all together the series offers a lot, and should be cherished. Sorry, I'll always be a fan. Raiders was such a great movie that I've given all the others the benefit of the doubt because of Raiders.
I can understand people being let down by the Skull, but I think it's more of a SW fan ire w/Lucas thing. Be that as it may, and I'm sure it just may be that...I'll gladly be adding this set right next to my Skull limited BD set.
Instead of getting bent over the 4th film, I'm more concerned about the 1st film and how it will look. All indications(dvd upscale, OTA HD) look to be a fine transfer...so that's were I'll be focusing my interest.

[GuruAskew]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

like ripping someones heart out and them living (just watched temple of doom today ) or the cup of christ or the ark.

yeah, 2 of those things are rooted in religious beliefs....but still.

Or 3 people jumping out of an airplane in a rubber raft and surviving.

The people who criticized the unbelievable stuff in KOTCS are obviously completely ignorant in regards to the absurd sense of one-upsmanship present in cliffhangers in the adventure serials that inspired this series.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

Or 3 people jumping out of an airplane in a rubber raft and surviving.

The people who criticized the unbelievable stuff in KOTCS are obviously completely ignorant in regards to the absurd sense of one-upsmanship present in cliffhangers in the adventure serials that inspired this series.

i totally agree!! i for one found what they put in KOTCS inline w/everything else in the series to that point.

[ObiWanShinobi]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Is any one of those things more over the top than the stuff from the earlier movies? I think it's about the same. Maybe even more restrained, when compared to TOD.

For me? It's not so much it being more over the top than the previous films as much as most of the stuff in KOTCS was just...lame Indy running from a large stone ball, having a knock down drag out fight on the top of a german plane, watching faces melt when the ark is opened (which has become an iconic moment), the fight at the bar with the chinese gangsters when he hides behind a large rolling metal gong, jumping out of the plane in the raft, the dinner of bugs, snakes, and monkey brains, the heart removal, the minecart chase jumping from track to track, the epic ropebridge fight with people falling into a croc infested river, the boat chase, the tank fight, the test to achieve the cup of christ...these are memorable moments that IMO were cleverly done and a blast to watch. I just didn't get any of that with KOTCS. It felt so uninspired and made for the sake of getting another Indy film out there. If ya dig it thats cool im not saying everyone should feel the way I do but KOTCS is definitely the "Alien Resurrection" of the franchise for me.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi

I rather enjoyed Temple of Doom though. It wasn't quite as "serious" as Raiders of the Lost Ark but it added a bit more humor that I found refreshing and it was far more memorable than KOTCS. The cave with all the bugs, the disgusting dinner with monkey brains, the minecart sequence, the rope bridge sequence...those will stand out so much more to me than a nuked fridge, vineswinging with monkeys, a mind reading villain, and aliens. Nothing about KOTCS stands out to me as something I will always remember about cinema and film when the first three Indiana Jones films are FULL of moments that have and will stick with me for a long time.

Weird, most people dislike it because they think it's TOO serious and dark, but that's exactly why I think it's equal to Raiders. When it got campy with all the slapstick in Last Crusade is when the series lost me.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi

For me? It's not so much it being more over the top than the previous films as much as most of the stuff in KOTCS was just...lame Indy running from a large stone ball, having a knock down drag out fight on the top of a german plane, watching faces melt when the ark is opened (which has become an iconic moment), the fight at the bar with the chinese gangsters when he hides behind a large rolling metal gong, jumping out of the plane in the raft, the dinner of bugs, snakes, and monkey brains, the heart removal, the minecart chase jumping from track to track, the epic ropebridge fight with people falling into a croc infested river, the boat chase, the tank fight, the test to achieve the cup of christ...these are memorable moments that IMO were cleverly done and a blast to watch. I just didn't get any of that with KOTCS. It felt so uninspired and made for the sake of getting another Indy film out there. If ya dig it thats cool im not saying everyone should feel the way I do but KOTCS is definitely the "Alien Resurrection" of the franchise in my opinion.

Of course. The more sequels you make, invariably, the quality is going to diminish. This really isn't new territory here.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Of course. The more sequels you make, invariably, the quality is going to diminish. This really isn't new territory here.

Well, I half-agree with that... occasionally a sequel will be better than the original.

But it's true that it becomes harder to keep ahead of audience expectations in many ways, or sometimes you go totally beyond what the audiences wanted.

I've not had that problem with the Indiana movies, though. I enjoyed TOD when it first came out even though it was not really what I had expected and, yes, I did think it was a bit too dark sometimes (though about on the same level as "Gremlins", which came out that same year).

At the end of the day, if you want to have fun watching the Indy movies, you probably will.

[Blu-Benny]

for me....personally i think temple of doom feels so much more different than raiders was b/c it's set before raiders.

you get to see indy when he was younger and maybe not as sophisticated as he is in the "later" films.

i honestly think they made it feel that way on purpose.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Well, I half-agree with that... occasionally a sequel will be better than the original.

But it's true that it becomes harder to keep ahead of audience expectations in many ways, or sometimes you go totally beyond what the audiences wanted.

I've not had that problem with the Indiana movies, though. I enjoyed TOD when it first came out even though it was not really what I had expected and, yes, I did think it was a bit too dark sometimes (though about on the same level as "Gremlins", which came out that same year).

At the end of the day, if you want to have fun watching the Indy movies, you probably will.

A few do happen: Empire, Godfather2 to name a few. I think they are more of an exception to the rule though.
Of course we must keep in mind that the whole Skull debate is highly opinionated.
With that said, the good news is this:

[Show spoiler]Everybody is right!!!!!!!!!!!

[ObiWanShinobi]

Originally Posted by retablo

Weird, most people dislike it because they think it's TOO serious and dark, but that's exactly why I think it's equal to Raiders. When it got campy with all the slapstick in Last Crusade is when the series lost me.

Maybe its just me but I didn't think ANY of the Indy films were really dark. Raiders seemed a bit more serious at times and so did Crusade. I found Temple of Doom to be the campier of the three.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

for me....personally i think temple of doom feels so much more different than raiders was b/c it's set before raiders.

you get to see indy when he was younger and maybe not as sophisticated as he is in the "later" films.

i honestly think they made it feel that way on purpose.

Well, I think the filmmakers know pretty well what kind of a movie it's going to turn out to be.

And part of the problem, to paraphrase a filmmaker, is that with sequels, audiences want "the same, but different". You can't really please everybody, so I guess you might as well have fun when you're making it.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Yeah, because I'm a firm believer that if one were in a plane that was going to crash into the mountains, all you have to do is grab the nearest inflatable liferaft and fall to your safety.
Let's face facts: Raiders was pretty much perfection...all the others could never live up to the standard Raiders set. Which, actually, isn't a bad thing! It means that all together the series offers a lot, and should be cherished. Sorry, I'll always be a fan. Raiders was such a great movie that I've given all the others the benefit of the doubt because of Raiders.
I can understand people being let down by the Skull, but I think it's more of a SW fan ire w/Lucas thing. Be that as it may, and I'm sure it just may be that...I'll gladly be adding this set right next to my Skull limited BD set.
Instead of getting bent over the 4th film, I'm more concerned about the 1st film and how it will look. All indications(dvd upscale, OTA HD) look to be a fine transfer...so that's were I'll be focusing my interest.

I think the problem with Skull was more that the characters were just kind of bleh and it didnt have the heart or soul of the first Indy film. Its amazing how we suspend belief when we are watching characters that we can get into. That includes the bad guys, whom were totally lame and pointless in skull. At least Belloch(sp?) liked Marion and appeared to care a bit. That gave him some depth. Indys arab buddy Sallah(is that his name?) was a great complimentary character. Indy ended up on an adventure that neither he or his comrades were really expecting. In skull, the whole thing just seemed setup so we can get from one CG scene to the next. Even though they lasted just as long in Lost Ark, those action scenes seemed to go by faster. Because we cared. In Skull, every action scene dragged on for too long. Because we hardly cared.

Just a thought...

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

I think the problem with Skull was more that the characters were just kind of bleh and it didnt have the heart or soul of the first Indy film.

That's completely subjective. It may be true for you, but it's not true for me, not by any means. I liked the characters very much, and especially Mac and Irina, she was great and also, it was the first time that an Indy villain was played by an actor of her caliber - an Oscar winner, no less.

The other Indy movies had villains played by relatively obscure villains... Julian Glover? Alison Doody? Amrish Puri? Paul Freeman and Ronald Lacey?

I'm very glad this last time they were able to get an Academy Award-winning actor to play the main villain.

[GuruAskew]

Spalko is the most memorable villain in the series by far.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

Spalko is the most memorable villain in the series by far.

In your opinion, fwiw.

I would say Thot did a much better job and he had a fraction of screen time...but the few scenes he was in, he absolutely stole.

[colinrgeorge]

Originally Posted by cjones235

Sucker Punch destroys kingdom of the crystal skull on every fracking level. Kingdom of the crystal is the worst sequel of the decade period.

Couldn't disagree more. Sucker Punch is abysmally bad. Two hours of visual diarrhea with no semblance of a story. Crystal Skull is, at the very least, narratively competent.