2519 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

Cool.

[DamnCoffee]

Ford: 'We don't need Sean Connery!

Harrison Ford has revealed he doesn't think Sean Connery will be missed on the new Indiana Jones film, WENN reports.

The former James Bond star insisted he was retired from acting at the end of last year and wasn't tempted by an offer from Steven Spielberg to reprise his role as Indiana Jones's father.

Ford said: "We don't need Sean. I'm old enough to play my own father.

"I would have loved to have had Sean back. But I think he prefers golf to acting nowadays and probably makes more [money]."

Connery was quoted as saying last month that he'd consider an offer to play a Bond villain but "I don't think they would pay me enough".

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is released on May 22.

[Loomis]

This film.... I don't know. I mean, I'll see it, obviously, but I'm so un-pumped for another Indy Jones it ain't even funny. Won't surprise me if it's barely any good at all.

[stamper]

I am the only one unimpressed by Kate Blanchett ? Her acting as the vilain seems just real bad. She also looks ridiculous in all pics I've seen. Indy would break her in half in two seconds and move on to the real thing. The way she orders around in that trailer is just laughably bad.

[DamnCoffee]

I'm worried about the lack of publicity and how late the teaser trailer was. It seemed a little strange if the film itself wrapped filming last november, forgive me if I'm wrong, and then for it to take months for a trailer to be released.

[zencat]

I'm starting to see posters and billboards around town. Getting excited...

[Harmsway]

This film.... I don't know. I mean, I'll see it, obviously, but I'm so un-pumped for another Indy Jones it ain't even funny.

Lucas and Spielberg haven't really done anything to build anticipation. We've gotten a few posters and photos and one okay trailer that didn't show much of anything. I want to be excited for KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, but I don't have much of anything to fuel the anticipation with beyond my spoiler knowledge of the film (which I find promising... though it's all controversial).

Won't surprise me if it's barely any good at all.

You were more excited about it before. In conversation you brought up the point that Spielberg hadn't had a film that was a total wash in many years, and

Spoiler

you're one of the people that really supports the alien angle (and yes, I now believe that we'll see live aliens in the film due some recent sources of information), which is one of the major sources of controversy among fans.

Why the change?

[Loomis]

This film.... I don't know. I mean, I'll see it, obviously, but I'm so un-pumped for another Indy Jones it ain't even funny.

Lucas and Spielberg haven't really done anything to build anticipation. We've gotten a few posters and photos and one okay trailer that didn't show much of anything. I want to be excited for KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, but I don't have much of anything to fuel the anticipation with beyond my spoiler knowledge of the film (which I find promising... though it's all controversial).

Won't surprise me if it's barely any good at all.

You were more excited about it before. In conversation you brought up the point that Spielberg hadn't had a film that was a total wash in many years, and

Spoiler

you're one of the people that really supports the alien angle (and yes, I now believe that we'll see live aliens in the film due some recent sources of information), which is one of the major sources of controversy among fans.

Why the change?

Well, funnily enough, the bit you've just put in spoiler tags has just got me excited anew!

But not that excited. What's changed? you ask. Well, I happened to catch some of LAST CRUSADE on TV the other day, and, man, it was poor. In fact, it was excruciating - there's no Bond film that's as bad, with the possible exception of TWINE, and even then I think TWINE is probably a bit better.

So? I hear you say. We're not talking about LAST CRUSADE, we're talking about an all-new film made nearly twenty years later. Well, sure, but the trailer - which you admit is only okay - hardly promises anything better.

And it's true that Spielberg has been on decent form recently - for my money, AI and MUNICH are two of the most interesting films of this century, if not necessarily two of the best. Heck, I even liked THE TERMINAL. But I suspect - and this may be unfair, because it's not actually really based on anything - that Spielberg doesn't have his heart and soul in INDY 4. He's kind of doing it as a break from his "serious" stuff, and probably also to finally shut people up from asking when he's ever going to do another Indy Jones. He's not Stallone making ROCKY BALBOA with every ounce of passion and flair he possesses (and he's not coming back from many years in the wilderness, either, determined to prove himself). I see no eye of the tiger in Spielberg here - hell, he ain't been hungry since JAWS! He's not Eon trying to turn the Bond series around after DIE ANOTHER DAY. What's more, his partner in crime is the man who committed EPISODEs I - III. But perhaps I'm wrong. Like I say, this isn't based on anything. For all I know, INDY 4 may be one of the films Spielberg's been burning to make, but if that were so I wonder why it's taken him so long.

Not being an Indy fan (in the sense that I'm a Bond/Bourne/Rocky, etc. fan), I suspect that my reaction to the CRYSTAL SKULL trailer is similar to yours to the RAMBO trailer. I don't get the sense that the film is reaching out to me with anything new.

But, heck, of course I'll see CRYSTAL SKULL. There's probably no one on CBn (and indeed few people with any interest in film in the wider world) who won't. It's almost a case of a film that we'll all end up watching pretty much whether we want to or not. But I'm certainly not feeling particularly excited or curious about it.

[Harmsway]

Well, funnily enough, the bit you've just put in spoiler tags has just got me excited anew!

Well, I happened to catch some of LAST CRUSADE on TV the other day, and, man, it was poor. In fact, it was excruciating - there's no Bond film that's as bad, with the possible exception of TWINE, and even then I think TWINE is probably a bit better.

Really? I'm no fan of LAST CRUSADE, but I have to say it's better than a good many Bond films. Comparing it to TWINE strikes me as more than a little over-the-top. Methinks you need to give TWINE another viewing.

Well, sure, but the trailer - which you admit is only okay - hardly promises anything better.

Granted. But the trailer hardly promises anything at all other than the presence of Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. It's clearly in line with Spielberg's super-secrecy ethic. "Show 'em enough to know Indy's back, but not anything more." So it's underwhelming, but all Spielberg's doing is trying to get awareness out and hide everything else for the film itself.

I can't really get excited about that trailer, but I can get excited about the story of the film as I hear more and more.

But I suspect - and this may be unfair, because it's not actually really based on anything - that Spielberg doesn't have his heart and soul in INDY 4.

I think this is a little unfair. Spielberg has repeatedly how much he loved working on INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. He said recently: "It was awful the last day of shooting because I didn't want it to end...It was one of the best experiences I've ever had." It seems to me he's been quite invested in the project.

And he's also happy with the finished result: "The best news is that, when I saw the movie myself the first time, there was nothing I wanted to go back and shoot, nothing I wanted to reshoot, and nothing I wanted to add."

For all I know, INDY 4 may be one of the films he's been burning to make, but if that were so I wonder why it's taken him so long.

Well, he has been working on it for close to 5 years now.

[Loomis]

I'm no fan of LAST CRUSADE, but I have to say it's better than a good many Bond films. Comparing it to TWINE strikes me as more than a little over-the-top. Methinks you need to give TWINE another viewing.

Nah, I stand by what I said. TWINE does - barely - take down LAST CRUSADE.

I can't really get excited about that trailer, but I can get excited about the story of the film as I hear more and more.

Well, this is certainly encouraging. I shall avoid any more spoilers, just skim the reviews (which I'm sure will be largely positive, just as they were for LAST CRUSADE) and sit down to the film and judge for myself. That there even seems to be a "story" there seems refreshing in this day and age.

Spielberg has repeatedly how much he loved working on INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. He said recently: "It was awful the last day of shooting because I didn't want it to end...It was one of the best experiences I've ever had." It seems to me he's been quite invested in the project.

And he's also happy with the finished result: "The best news is that, when I saw the movie myself the first time, there was nothing I wanted to go back and shoot, nothing I wanted to reshoot, and nothing I wanted to add."

Well, there's an obvious cynic's response to that. He's hardly going to be saying anything else. I'm sure he was also bigging up THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK back in the day. Anyway, regardless.... there's nothing to be done except for us to see this flick for ourselves.

[Harmsway]

I'm no fan of LAST CRUSADE, but I have to say it's better than a good many Bond films. Comparing it to TWINE strikes me as more than a little over-the-top. Methinks you need to give TWINE another viewing.

Nah, I stand by what I said. TWINE does - barely - take down LAST CRUSADE.

Well, suit yourself. I can't go with you on that one. LAST CRUSADE might be lackluster, but from my stance, it's nowhere near as offensively bad as TWINE. At least Indiana Jones never goes prattling on about "Stockholm syndrome."

[Loomis]

At least Indiana Jones never goes prattling on about "Stockholm syndrome."

But at least James Bond never had someone calling him "Junior" every two minutes. And TWINE is merely a bad Brosnan Bond flick, while LAST CRUSADE commits the greater crime of wasting the real Bond, Connery.

[zencat]

Running time 140 minutes!

[freemo]

Too long!

Why can't they keep these things to under two hours anymore?

[zencat]

Normally I would agree. But as with Bond, I'm fine with a 2 hours + running time. More Indy to love.

[freemo]

I'm no fan of LAST CRUSADE, but I have to say it's better than a good many Bond films. Comparing it to TWINE strikes me as more than a little over-the-top. Methinks you need to give TWINE another viewing.

Nah, I stand by what I said. TWINE does - barely - take down LAST CRUSADE.

I'm not huge on LAST CRUSADE either. If nothing else, it really lacks the sense of awe and wonder of the first two. Compare the moment they find the ark in RAIDERS, or the Temple in DOOM with the moment they find the grail in LAST CRUSADE. Compare the rich, detailed and lovably-hokey sets of RAIDERS and DOOM with the rather bland efforts of the third film, etc.

But "worse than TWINE"? Oh Loomis, honesty. Be serious. And Harmsway, "You need to give TWINE another viewing"???!!! I know what you meant, but come on. Think about what you're saying here!

Very disappointed in the pair of you.

[Harmsway]

But "worse than TWINE"? Oh Loomis, honesty. Be serious. And Harmsway, "You need to give TWINE another viewing"???!!! I know what you meant, but come on. Think about what you're saying here!

Very disappointed in the pair of you.

[Bondian]

I love 'Last Crusade' because it had so many good 'moments'. And as we know, a film is made up of 'moments'. The first two are like chalk and cheese. Both very different in almost everything. And how do you follow that. By giving our hero some depth, by bringing in his father and almost accomplishing a re boot unintentionally.

Connery in this proved that he could strip off his underpants (quite literally) by acting against his 'super star' status to bring an honest and self deprecating performance. It was totally almost anti Connery and anti anything he's done in the past.

IMHO. 'Last Crusade' is my favourite of the three because it's like a 'throw away' gag. The first two were made to impress, scare or try so hard to compete with James Bond. It takes a quite a lot of guts to change the image of the main man within a short series of films and suddenly make him even more vulnerable. Not with his 'alter ego', but with his own father.

I'm hoping that this new one goes in a different direction than the first three. If we can rely on Steven Spielberg (and we usually can). We could be in for a shift in the right direction.

As we get 3 entirely different movies, we maybe in for a treat with this one.

[Harmsway]

I love 'Last Crusade' because it had so many good 'moments'. And as we know, a film is made up of 'moments'. The first two are like chalk and cheese. Both very different in almost everything. And how do you follow that. By giving our hero some depth, by bringing in his father and almost accomplishing a re boot unintentionally.

But it didn't give Indiana Jones depth. It just made fun of him a bit more and gave him a very trite storyline with his father (who is too much of an idiot to ever really take seriously). I'm all for giving Indiana Jones depth, and I'm even for showing Jones relate to his father. I just don't like how Spielberg handled either.

It also doesn't help that LAST CRUSADE has the weakest action sequences of the three, and as Freemo says, no real sense of wonder or awe. It's really quite bland.

[sharpshooter]

140 minutes of Indy? Good. This can go either way though, the film could be the magic Indy of old and we want it to go longer - or it is not that good and it drags out.

[sark]

It also doesn't help that LAST CRUSADE has the weakest action sequences of the three, and as Freemo says, no real sense of wonder or awe. It's really quite bland.

I'm sure you're aware that you're going against the concensus that Last Crusade equaled or surpassed Raiders?

[Bondian]

But it didn't give Indiana Jones depth. It just made fun of him a bit more and gave him a very trite storyline with his father (who is too much of an idiot to ever really take seriously). I'm all for giving Indiana Jones depth, and I'm even for showing Jones relate to his father. I just don't like how Spielberg handled either.

On the contrary. It gave Indy even more depth because of his haphazard father. If I have any gripes at all is his Scottish heritage.

As I mentioned earlier. Movies are made up of 'moments', and there's some very fine moments here. Not a good monemt though when Indy meets his father. (it's comical but rather silly). But when they're tied up, and his father takes the wrath of Schneider's smacker and the ensuing fire scene is cinema magic. So is the 'tank over the hill' and the end sequence when his father calls him "Indy" for the first time. Any father would rather save their son than anything else priceless. This IS depth of character at it's strongest. Cannot image what other situation would give Indy more depth.

It also doesn't help that LAST CRUSADE has the weakest action sequences of the three, and as Freemo says, no real sense of wonder or awe. It's really quite bland.

I agree the action scenes are toned down somewhat. But they tally with the piece.This was never going to be a serious Indy. After two relatively rough movies. Having Indy taking a backseat in view of his father's logical worry about his son and his more down-to-earth ways of doing things, it made Indy more heroic. Especially in the last scene when his father gets shot at close range and Indy needs to prove himself by winning over the baddies and conquering death by retrieving the 'cup of Christ'.

Last Crusade brings in some heart to a rather egotistic hero.

Indy made some really dumb mistakes in the first two. In 'Raider's' we see him run from a massive round rock. He looks around, pauses, then runs in the same direction as the rolling rock. Surely that's silly. If only he had his father's influence and ran back under the structure.

[Harmsway]

I'm sure you're aware that you're going against the concensus that Last Crusade equaled or surpassed Raiders?

There's no consensus that LAST CRUSADE "equalled or surpassed" RAIDERS. There's a consensus that LAST CRUSADE is a pretty darn good Indy flick, though. And yes, I boldly dispute it. I'm not alone, though - there's a good-sized minority that doesn't care for THE LAST CRUSADE.

Movies are made up of 'moments', and there's some very fine moments here.

Not fine enough to make up for all the bad moments. There's not a single moment in LAST CRUSADE that is truly inspired. There are some that are good, but for the most part, the film is one bland moment after another.

I agree the action scenes are toned down somewhat. But they tally with the piece. This was never going to be a serious Indy.

TEMPLE OF DOOM wasn't serious. All things considered, it's pretty jokey with oodles of slapstick humor. And besides, a jokier tone is no excuse for boring action.

In 'Raider's' we see him run from a massive round rock. He looks around, pauses, then runs in the same direction as the rolling rock. Surely that's silly. If only he had his father's influence and ran back under the structure.

1) He didn't have time to run back under the structure.
2) If he ran under the structure, the boulder would seal him inside the temple and he'd die from starvation.

[jaguar007]

I for one cannot wait until Indy 4 is released. It is my #2 must see movie of 2008 (bet you can't guess what #1 is). I for one love the fun ride that is TLC. RotLA is perhaps the best action/adventure movie ever made and realistically, it is almost impossible for the other Indy movies to match or beat it. But I enjoy all three (TLC my second favorite with ToD my least fav).

[DamnCoffee]

Too long!

Why can't they keep these things to under two hours anymore?

Well Casino Royale wasn't a let down and that ran for almost the same length... give or take a few mins.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Running time 140 minutes!

Oh, now they're just copying CR...

[marktmurphy]

Well, I happened to catch some of LAST CRUSADE on TV the other day, and, man, it was poor. In fact, it was excruciating - there's no Bond film that's as bad, with the possible exception of TWINE, and even then I think TWINE is probably a bit better.

Really? I'm no fan of LAST CRUSADE, but I have to say it's better than a good many Bond films. Comparing it to TWINE strikes me as more than a little over-the-top. Methinks you need to give TWINE another viewing.

I don't understand that either. I can't think of any Bond film -even the good ones- that have every shot so thought through and every gag as well developed as even the worst of the Indys. They're so well-crafted; they really feel like they've been through dozens of drafts to create the best product they can. I love the Bonds but sometimes they can seem a little rushed off a production line.

Too long!

Why can't they keep these things to under two hours anymore?

Well if it's any comfort, going on Speilberg's recent form, the film proper will end at the 2 hour mark and then go on for an extra (and pointless) 20 mins extra!

[marktmurphy]

It also doesn't help that LAST CRUSADE has the weakest action sequences of the three, and as Freemo says, no real sense of wonder or awe. It's really quite bland.

I'm sure you're aware that you're going against the concensus that Last Crusade equaled or surpassed Raiders?

Ain't no such consensus. Raiders is generally held to be the best of three (because it is), and there's even a movement that says Temple is Speilberg's best directed film (Tarrantino says that), but I don't believe I've heard of a consensus which says Last Crusade is the best. I'd say it's probably the weakest, but that doesn't actually make it bad; everything's relative. A bad Indy movie is still better than most movies.

Indy made some really dumb mistakes in the first two. In 'Raider's' we see him run from a massive round rock. He looks around, pauses, then runs in the same direction as the rolling rock. Surely that's silly. If only he had his father's influence and ran back under the structure.

Missed the bit where we see that big heavy rock seal up the temple forever, then? If you hadn't made that dumb mistake like Indy you'd be a little dusty skellington by now!

Too long!

Why can't they keep these things to under two hours anymore?

Well Casino Royale wasn't a let down and that ran for almost the same length... give or take a few mins.

Mark me down as thinking that CR was too long, though. The house falling thing- ditch it. Just gets in the way of the ending.

[Bondian]

Missed the bit where we see that big heavy rock seal up the temple forever, then? If you hadn't made that dumb mistake like Indy you'd be a little dusty skellington by now!

Actually I did. Teaches me not to pay attention.

[Harmsway]

Just something Spielberg had to say about the Indy trailer and trailers in general:

[box]"I've always been stingy about the scenes I show in a teaser or a trailer. Because my experience has been