Indiana Jones, the Crystal Skull

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by omegapoint, Nov 5, 2008.

  1. Terrrible -- couldn't even finish watching it. I think he makes these movies for the theme park ride revenue. If there can be such a thing as the opposite of a thinking mans movie this is it.
    I think every possibility for "action" in film has been exhausted ..three times over.
  2. I've seen worse.
  3. I agree. It was a yawner. I don't watch a lot of actioners, but I do like to see them on the big screen. I'm looking forward to the latest Bond installment, though. Judging by the last Bond movie, the current guy is second only to Connery and the franchise has improved its production values. So I'm hopeful for a good show.
  4. Yea, I share that belief in the previous Bond film and the new 007. This may sound hypocritical relative to my comments on action in the Crystal Skull film but the chase sequence in the
    Bond film beginning was at least interesting to watch and not cliche. I think the new versions of the Bourne Identity films were good too.
  5. Yes, the Jason Bourne movies are must see. My only beef with the last one is that the cameras were a bit too kinetic. I think that the action sequences were outstanding on their own without the need to accentuate them with shaky cameras. Even so, if they make another one, I'll be there to see it. (Hopefully, they'll stabilize the cameras a bit.)
  6. theres a gadget that the camera is mounted on that sort of makes it float, to keep the film from shaking otherwise it'd shake unacceptably. On the kinetic business, I saw Terminators and everything seemed to be filmed from two feet, I don't know what possessed me to. Filming Megan Fox from two feet I can stand all day long though.
  7. Anti-shaky-camera crusader here, anyone seen "How to lose friends and alienate people"?
    From the maker of Shaun of the dead and Hot Fuzz, the shorts suggest Megan Fox is in it, and she looks better than before.

    Plastic surgery? She was smokin before, but.....
  8. I meant Transformers not Terminators above ...brain flatulance.
  9. Yes, I know. But I think they were going for a shaky effect intentionally at times. At least that is my recollection between the third movie as compared to the first two. At times, it just made the action seem a bit too hyper, with all the activity and the camera shaking. Plus, as you noted, some stuff was also filmed really up close, adding to the Gravol moments. It was still a great movie, but I recall leaving the theater from the first two movies a little less dizzy.
  10. Never heard of Gravol. They make movies for younger temperments and the accompanying biorhythms I guess ...alot more of them going thru the turnstile. That leaving the theater experience you touched on when I'm walking out the door into
    the world, after a particularly engrossing film that drew me in, is always strange for lack of a better description. Some small percentage of my perspectives are left there still in the theater.
    A mild shock.
    #10     Nov 6, 2008