MovieChat Forums > spurtle467 > Replies
spurtle467's Replies
I like how in the scene in the cave, he complains to Helena about his age and the punishment he has been through in life. Seemed to neglect mentioning experiencing a nuclear bomb which is quite a biggie.
Let's be honest, the only reason she was able to is because she's a woman and we're living in woke times. 60 year old Indy couldn't even be knocked out by that big Russian dude in Crystal Skull during their fist fight. But no, slim build young woman can incapacitate him with one blow. That character was the main focal point of what was wrong with this film.
I thought at first the ending was silly but having time to think about it, I didn't mind the setting. It's not so silly that it doesn't fit in with the Indy series, because the franchise has already laid the foundations for it to be a bit out there in terms of the supernatural and logic defying historical themed surrealness. Some things bugged me though:
The plane that Indy was on appeared to take collateral damager numerous times from the battle. The plane following seemed to fly around problem free and land safely.
The death of Voller and his cohorts was very anti-climatic. Old Indiana Jones used to make an event of the deaths of these bad guys. Now they just die by getting shot and a plane they are on crashing.
The ending of it with Indy being knocked out by the woman and dragged onto the plane. No such thing as damsels in distress anymore. It's old legendary male heroes that are in danger that need saving by young women, who have the strength to incapacitate them with one blow, when no other man before was capable.
Chalamet was fine. The character may have been a little too on the sentimental and nice side for me, and missed some of the zaniness that Wilder brought to the role, but that's on the writing rather than the actor.
I thought the girl Noodle was the weak link. She can't really act.
That's true in terms of Raiders being the first film and seeing it for the first time. Although by the 4th film I guess you could say we are already acquainted with Indy and his abilities to escape the unescapable enough, that it no longer matters where you happen to show such a moment in the film.
I think if anything the unrealistic moments in Raiders have maybe been more highlighted in retrospect, on account of Skull presenting such unrealistic moments, that people feel the need to compare with the first film in order to offer some sort of justification.
What I would say also about the moment on the submarine, we assume that Indy was able to stay on the submarine because it didn't submerge enough while travelling (you can even see in deleted scenes that he held on to the periscope), and if this hadn't been the case he'd have just abandoned the idea and swam away. This is unlike the nuke the fridge scene where there is no abandoning anything. He is faced with a nuclear bomb going off with literally no means of escape. But the movie decided the fridge needed to be nuke proof and fly into the air to a safe distance.
The way they are presented helps. One leaves it up to the imagination. The other leaves nothing to the imagination and relies on CGI to absurdly show the same fridge Indy gets in flying through the air from a nuclear bomb going off, ridiculously overtaking the truck of Russians on its way while they get wiped out by the blast, then landing and bouncing around and having Indiana Jones fall out of it unscathed to a CGI prairie dog, or whatever that thing is. It's a series of unbelievable events all rolled into one. However unbelievable Indy riding on the submarine might have been it's made more believable than what we see in Skull by comparison.
It has enough Christmas elements to warrant it being a Christmas movie. If It's a Wonderful Life can be considered a Christmas movie, then so can Die Hard. Neither movies have Christmas as an integral part to their plots, they just happen to have plots set at Christmas. Die Hard has a Christmas party, various Christmas references and a Christmas song playing during its end credits, and if I'm not mistaken one at the start too.
I was bored by The Irishman and based on the plot of this I thought maybe Scorsese would be a bit more back on track. I have a feeling that I'd be bored again sadly. If this is Scorsese's standards slipping then he's had a good run. You don't have to go as far back as Goodfellas for a film of his I liked - The Departed, Shutter Island, Hugo were all films I liked and would happily keep rewatching
How old was Scorsese though when he made The Departed, or Shutter Island? Many would consider these top movies of his, even classics. He was old enough for one to say he's probably well past his peak, considering the gap in time between those and let's say, Goodfellas. He's done remarkably well to stay as consistent as he has when other film makers who have experienced a peak of sorts, had become well past their best by that age and incapable of making films as good as their earlier ones.
Plot looks from what I've seen of the trailer quite intriguing but have to agree about the woke angle they seem to have taken it in.
Covenant was worse. More stupid and further trampled on the legacy of the original. There is no way I consider either canon but sadly, having watched Alien recently, the damage has already been done. Whereas before I used to be in awe at the sense of mystery and wonder created by the alien planet they land on, and the space jockey and spaceship they investigate, I now can't get the idea out of my head that it's just some bodybuilding white giant baldy wearing a helmet. The sense of mystery has gone. I want to ignore it but it'll be forever etched in my mind. The same with the mystery of where the Xenomorph came from.
Ridley if he wanted to could have made a less canon-y Alien set of films, that doesn't touch the things that make the first Alien movie so great. Honestly though, I think he should have just not been involved full stop, unless maybe for the visuals. If you are greenlighting some of the stupidity that was allowed to happen then you're not up to the task.
Ridley shouldn't be involved either. His two prequels have been a disservice to his original film, full of bad writing and characters. Although they may end up better than the abomination this sounds like it might be. Shame it's in Disney's hands.
Caan is a decent shout. Maybe the film's actual producer, Michael Douglas? Martin Sheen, Dustin Hoffman, or for an outside the box idea that might have worked, Gene Wilder?
Personally I don't think Eastwood would have worked. Like someone else said, too physical a presence for the role, and as much as I think Eastwood is an iconic actor, I don't think he really has the range. Playing the gruff, serious type is him in his comfort zone.
The point is he doesn't know enough about the alien snake to take any chances. He doesn't know it doesn't have any teeth or fangs about its body anywhere, or how strong it is. And yes I guess he wasn't a normal person because of how stupidly he behaved around the animal.
Also, having to excuse the characters by saying Vickers handpicked morons so that the mission would fail, is as flimsy as it gets.
It should have been taken from Ridley and put into the capable hands of Denis Villeneuve, who has the same standards in visuals, but also better standards in writing. I always wonder how much greater it would have been had he directed it. Probably would have shown more respect to the original than Ridley had for his own creation as well.
He's in a suit that looks like it could be cut and we see later on that their helmets can also be broken with force. What we know about snakes from Earth is that they can bite and they can tightly wrap themselves around their prey to suffocate them. Any normal person would apply this logic and back away but this bozo is treating it like a little kitten just when it's about ready to attack. It's a scene that was presumably supposed to be scary only it's made frustratingly laughable by the actions of these characters.
The reason they're in this mess is because the guy next to him, who has access to all the mapping equipment, gets lost. They try to make contact with the captain of the ship who is away somewhere having sex. One idiot earlier in the film took his helmet off just because they felt it was breathable air, with disregard for any harmful pathogens that could be lurking about. Another member tries to later outrun a rolling ship by running in a forward direction under its shadow. The level of incompetence and lack of intelligence from this crew is unbelievable for the mission they are on. The writers treat their audience like morons. At least in Alien when someone did something wrong, like when Ash broke protocol and let the members outside the ship in, there was pushback from Ripley. The decision to begin with felt more believable because there was panic and the crew members were in a rush to try and get help for Kane. We later learn that Ash has an ulterior motive anyway. The crew members on Prometheus just make dumb decisions for the sake of it, because the writers can't think of anything better.
Whether he took his helmet off or not, they're still incredibly dumb people displaying very stupid behaviour.
I've heard people try to justify the biologist's behaviour by using Kane doing similar in Alien with the alien egg. They're not too comparable for me. Firstly Kane isn't a biologist who should know better, and secondly it's an egg that is in the process of hatching with movement inside it. Of course you're going to be curious to look inside to see what it is, and being a newly born creature your first thoughts are probably not going to be that it's dangerous at that stage. The Millburn character is literally standing right in front of an alien snake-looking species with quick movements that is hissing and striking a pose that is threatening, but the guy wants to carry on trying to get nearer and touch it. He knows nothing about what dangers it can cause.
I don't even understand how these 'scientist' people are taken on this voyage of exploration with the attitudes and personalities they have. The other guy, the geologist, whose job it is to scan the area, seems to hate everyone and gets scared easily in a new location with signs of death. How do people like this get hired? It isn't believable. The original crew in Alien weren't explorers but they still acted more rationally and professionally than these guys.
Yeah, only things I would change about the movie are the rather dated and repetitive score with that sort of thudding synth beat sound popping up all the time, and the way the ending was handled. I thought simply rushing through all the arrests and revealing in text what their sentences were felt a bit flat.
They absolutely dropped the ball with the writing for this film. Probably hired some hack writer who is used to writing for some of those awful modern slasher films. The characters in Alien at least felt authentic and acted in believable ways. Should have kept the tone similar to that but instead they made characters do and say incredibly dumb things. Was the same with the terrible Alien Covenant sequel.
These 2 characters in particular - Dumb (the man in charge of navigating the place who gets lost) and Dumber (the scientist guy who wants to pet an unknown snake-like alien species that looks set to strike out) shouldn't be anywhere near an Alien sequel attempting to do the original justice.
As much as it's a load of nonsense, it's yet more reason for this show to just pack it in.