There is a difference between knowing intellectually that the protagonist is going to escape (after all, the film is named after him) and the action being so rote and contrived that it is obvious that he is not in any danger. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, the action sequences are awesome and frightful, even when they’re practically absurd; Ford looks terrified that he’s going to be killed when he’s hanging off the front of the truck, or when he’s running from the boulder in the opening sequence, and it keeps the audience clutching the armrests. On the other hand, in Temple of Doom, he never manages to look more than mildly distressed at, say, having to jump out of an airplane without a parachute or escape his pursuers in a bizarrely routed ore cart, which is one of the many things that sunk that film. From what I’ve seen of *Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the action sequences are so limp and without suspense that they might as well have just inserted a cue card saying, “Generic Action Sequence Here”.
We know that the protagonist isn’t going to be killed, but at least he or she should look like they believe that they might be killed. If he’s in on the gag that he is irreplaceable then there is no tension or suspense; he might as well turn to the audience and start narrating through the fourth wall.
Yeah, he and Coppola both need to stop making movies.
I did it for the benefit of those people who wanted to have a spoiler-free discussion of the new movie.
If one person wanted to know as little about the film as possible (even to the point of what it might be “likened to”), they would be perfectly free to not click on the link and stay comfortably in the dark.
For another who did want to know more, they could click on the link at their own (albeit incredibly mild) “peril”.
So congratulations! What I tried to do out of courtesy you managed to completely negate out of grumpiness!
I’m with InvisibleWombat on this one. That “one person” you mention sounds too spoiler averse even to be reading this thread. How, even in theory, could the OP “How scary is Indy?” be answered without saying what it might be “likened to”?
So, in deference to this “one person”, who is basically theoretically impossible, you annoy everyone who has to click your link, while squinting at the status bar to make sure they aren’t being Rickrolled, to know what you’re talking about.
I’m not going to comment on the quality of the movie at all; I’ll save that for a different thread. This is merely my opinion of the film’s suitability for a younger viewer.
This is on the mark. I’d say it’s perfect for a well-adjusted 10-year-old.
The worst violence:[spoiler]1. A group of soldiers gets set aflame when a rocket engine goes off in their faces. We see their upper bodies dissolving in the fiery blast for three or four seconds.
2. A huge swarm of army ants devours at least two people. We see the ants streaming up the body of the first one; he falls into the swarm and we see his struggling ant-covered body disappearing. The other, we see a closeup of his screaming face as ants fill his mouth, and then he’s carried by the ants into their hive. Neither death has any blood, but bug-sensitive viewers will definitely be creeped out.
3. In two separate scenes, large groups of people are machine-gunned to death. They’re shot off-screen; we don’t see the bullets hitting their bodies. However, we do see their corpses afterwards.
Plus assorted punching, swordplay, a couple of bad guys falling off a cliff into a river, and general mayhem. Overall, there’s a body count of, I’d guess, seventy or eighty, but very little blood and nothing I would describe as gore.[/spoiler]I think that covers it. Any questions?
Yeah. That’s way to cautious. Spoilers generally refer to plot points and not comparable levels of violence in two unrelated movies. Especially in a thread that’s asking about the level of violence.
Thank you shefDave for the link and Cervaise for reporting back. Everyone’s input is appreciated.
So the party’s on. Last year for Pirates of the Caribbean, we had one refuse to come and one who had nightmares. Two out of fifteeen’s not bad. Thank god my daughter likes easy movie parties. Throw some pizza and popcorn at them and let them sit for 2 hours. Her twin sister on the other hand likes sleepovers that feel like they last for days
…and there was even a fight on my first thread…cool.
I think you’ll be fine. In the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, Indy lives to be something like 102 years old. While I’m not sure how “canon” that is, I’m sure Indy will live a long and happy life after the Crystal Skulls.
We are taking five kids from the boys’ class out of school early to see the noon showing on Friday. The teacher’s cool with it- she figures she might only have a couple of kids left, considering the holiday weekend!
I’m not sure what parts they’re talking about, but I saw it this weekend (enjoyed it) and there was some war violence that was pretty well done as far as superhero movies go. Those parts got rather intense.
Iron Man: “Nongraphic sexual activity, torture, a graphic medical procedure, sci-fi violence, occasional crude language, a brief profanity, sexual humor and innuendo.”
From a now grown-up 10 year old girl’s perspective: The only scene I could imagine myself having had nightmares over would be the scene with the fire ants. But then I used to have an irrational fear of bugs climbing into my mouth while I sleep.
Well I have one kid who hates pretty much all intense action movies. The other one who is much braver hid her face a fair bit during exactly those scenes described by the British rating board. No lasting damage though…in the end she loved it.
My concern about how scary Indiana Jones would be, is that there is a pretty wide spectrum of maturity within my daughters’ peer group. I didn’t want to end up with parents not allowing their kids to come to the party.
