jameslowe
Posts: 42
Joined: 17/11/2005
|
Hehe, I love reading some of the comments on this site. So many of the movie goers really do look at things through rose tinted spectacles. I thought the last Indy movie was great and stuck quite faithfully to the atmosphere of the first three. No I did not like the skulls (I thought it was a bit naff),and the climax was a lot to swallow quite frankly. The stupid CGI was it's biggest downfall and I don't know how much of that is down to Spielberg, to Lucas or to the special effects people. I sense some considerable Lucas meddling as the worst bits of the three SW prequals were all CGI crap related!!! Still Speilberg has to shoulder the blame as director. Bottom line, I found it entertaining, the end was no more ridiculous than the end of Raiders, or for that matter Grail. I thought Shia was a great new character and complimented the aging Indiana well. I would've liked to see a bit more of the South American cities a la Raiders in Cairo, but it is a minor quibble! Sure it could've been better, but it was great for what it was. A pop corn movie. That said, I think the consus of opinion on monkeys and that stupid rodent are bang on, what made so many of the old movie 'look' so good is that things were real (same with star wars). Too many special effects spoil the whole!
|