Comments on: Ebert inspires me: no infantile celeb news over film appreciation!

By: Kenny

Kenny — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 02:35:28 +0000

The last Indiana Jones movie was a good film in its own right, but it’s certainly hard to compare it to the other Indy films. At least Eric’s review was a reasonable one that brought a perspective to the review. Most critics do not bring the film to a certain light, they just analyze it the same predictable way every one else does.

By: Alan Rapp

Alan Rapp — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:04:14 +0000

It’s gonna be a lot of work, but the new Scene-Stealers will rock.

As to Indy 4, although I wouldn’t go so far as to call it worse than the latest Mummy movie (is that even possible?) I agree whole-heartedly it is a far drop off in terms of the quality of the previous films (much more so than the Star Wars prequels compared to their original trilogy).

It will be fun to discuss the great films everyone loves, and the truly awful we all lament, but one of the things I’m most looking forward to with Scene-Stealers relaunch is having fun debating and discussing the countless films which fall somewhere in the middle.

By: Eric Melin

Eric Melin — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:12:53 +0000

Tru dat. We’ll have a page for each movie and a spot for each members’comments, all linkable back to your own page. Anyone who wants to help build the movie database (kinda boring, but all about movies!), let me know at eric@scene-stealers.com! This is all DIY-style. Great comments!

By: RCM

RCM — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:46:03 +0000

See, this exactly why we need film critics. Not because the critic is always “right”, but because they open a door for the rest of us cinephiles to engage in logical debate and think critically about the what we are watching.

By: Overseer

Overseer — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:57:27 +0000

Hey, don’t get me wrong, if you like it you like it, I just find that (positive) review quite out of place compared to the other ones and the way you criticize them (and, frankly, compared to the fact that last IJ movie was plain and simple bad).
Previous films simply feels better, somehow. When I watch them (especially now), I really enjoy every scene, beside the fact that I grow up along side them. The acting, the dialogues, the characters, Harrison Ford’s expressions, the overall chemistry between the cast, the way the scenes are composed and directed… And don’t get me started on the action scenes. Beside the silly airplane rescue from the second movie (btw look at the Mythbuster take of that, not that silly after all, I guess), everything else is pure action adventure fun: truck chase, fistfights, airplane chase, traps and contraptions, you name it (even the mine cart chase is pretty much good most of the time). Frequently, it really look like something a real person can do (truck chase from the first movie, and particularly the tank scene from The Crusade), and after all that Indy looks beaten and dirty like the real person would. Compare that to fake action trash-fest from the Crystall Skull, infested with mediocre (at best) CGI crap, and totally bland feeling of (non existing) danger our heroes are suppose to be in. Action scenes in Skull are stupid, boring and only interesting thing about them is to see what other Road Runner gimmick they are going to pull out of their hat (fridge scene aside, what the hell was with that cliff-drop followed with the unharmfull-diving-into-three-deep-waterfalls-of-death (or not) scene?!). There are no danger, no tension, nor will you care what happen to charecters at all. All I can think of during the movie is that Shai la Buttfuck (thank Spoony for that expression) has become the part of the Indiana Jones mythology, and that is just plain wrong (the way that delinquent barks out “split, split” and “that’s a matter of opinion” makes my guts twist in pain just think about it).
And then, there are the vilains. Every nazi is either calculated, creepy or downright scary (not to mention that Mola Ram….character from the Temple of Doom). Compare that to soviet fencing psi-uberwoman who is looking like a bad joke throughout the entire film (the way that she is discarted like a roadkill accident at the end, suit her flawlessly)
Oh, and shoul we mention the “story”? I mean, I don’t have any objections on the whole alien aspect (IJ movies was always with the little fantasy-SF feel to it), it’s just doned wrong, very wrong. I mean, can anyone keep track of how many damn skulls are there in this movie, actually?
The following sentence pretty much sums it all: “Mummy and the Tomb of….whatever, was worst than previous Mummy movies (which doesn’t says much), but it was better than new Indiana Jones movie (which says a lot!)”. Even if you pretend it’s not a IJ movie, it’s unbeareably bad. Really, I mean, imagine .. .. Tom Selleck in it, shift the timeline to seventies, drop the Indiana Jones logo, music and other (tinny) references and keep everything else just the way it is, and it would be the laughing stock of the decade, I’m sure.

Sorry for my english again, and keep out the good work, I actually otherwise really enjoy your reviews and other stuff. Greetz.

By: Eric Melin

Eric Melin — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:35:04 +0000

I knew this line of questioning would open up a debate on a particular movie review on which somebody disagreed with me. I’m also the first to admit that in a 4-minute on-camera review with clips, it’s tough to cover all the bases. I liked the “nuke the fridge” scene. I thought it was a funny and clever way to begin the film and introduce the Cold War setting. Most of the criticism I heard of “Crystal Skull” was directed at how over the top or unlikely scenes like this were (that and the aliens especially). None of that bugged me. I mean, this series is based on old adventure serials– not the most realistic of things. Also, have you watched any of the old Jones movies recently? As fun as they are, they are all completely over the top, especially in the action scenes. I think most people had a problem with their age. That is, realizing that they are not a kid anymore like they were back then when they saw the 80s Jones flicks. Funny how tastes change. That said, what disappointed me was the lack of chemistry and forced banter with Marion (even though I loved the idea of tying up their romance and was glad to see Karen Allen back) and the fact that the crystal skull mystery, although in theory an interesting concept, didn’t unfold with any, uh, mystery. All I can promise to do is be honest. If you disagree with me, that’s great. You’ll have all the tools you need to do that on the new site. I hope you’ll stick around until then.

By: Overseer

Overseer — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:14:49 +0000

I agree with all that is said, but on the other hand I found it quite er, strange, that all this is written on the site that praised that last Indiana Jones turd movie so much. That movie didn’t fail on couple of fronts, it faild on all of them, yet it get high, uniform, marks without any kind of desire to be really insightfull and objective about it.
Sorry for my english.

By: Kenny

Kenny — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:54:06 +0000

Yes, you summed up what I’ve been thinking about film and film critics lately very well. Though I don’t really read too many reviews, I’ve seen to found the ones that I find perfectly necessary for me. I do visit Ebert’s site quite regulary and read his blog also. I do believe that the tabloid culture has infiltrated and turned people off to things they used to enjoy, and it certainly is frustrating. This process is inevitable and will continue, but there are things that we can do and places to go to have our voices heard.

I’m glad you and critics like Ebert emphasize that film is art as well as entertainment and that it should not be dominated by other cultures or interests. I found this article ironic because I just watched Magnolia last night and it is certainly one of my favorite films. I totally agree with you that films should transport an audience, whether it be a franchise blockbuster or a smaller film. Keep on truckin’ film fans!

By: RCM

RCM — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 03:38:20 +0000

Roger Ebert’s blog has gotten really personal over the last few months and he’s written some really interesting things about himself and his philosophy of film criticism. A few entries have shown a more simplistic political perspective he felt he needed to express in our heated political climate (not that I’m against his views so much as think he lacks the political savvy to write about politics) but for the most part I’ve really enjoyed his little essays lately. It’s nice that Ebert has maintained his integrity as a critic and journalist.
Maybe in the new site we can debate both film and the point of the film critic with one another.

By: Matt Brown

Matt Brown — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:43:36 +0000

OOOOooo a place to rant! I love it. I hope plenty of people participate in this, I’m curious as to what bugs the average Scene-Stealer. While I could name minor annoyances all day, the first thing that comes to mind does so as I sit in front of a recent issue of Entertainment Weekly. This magazine has been putting out the sh*#test lists on random film topics that I’ve ever seen. I absolutely hate a publication that is supposed to be credible that limits its attention to include basically only the blockbuster films that have come out in the last five years. Film has been around a while and there are a lot of them worth looking in to. I understand they need to connect with as many readers as possible, which means references that appeal to the masses, but good God. I don’t mind reading a film review or ‘best’ list that addresses films I haven’t heard of. In fact, I wish they could limit themselves to attempting just that. Are they just afraid to add their own opinions? Are they just printing what they think we want to see? All I’m trying to say is, my Netflix queue is getting pretty sparse, and I need help! Isn’t that what this stuff is for?
Having said that, keep up the lists on Scene-Stealers!