It's great to see this wonderful actress back in the franchise! Even if many were not happy with the movie, it was still entertaining. It is great to see her and to tie up the open ended love affair with Indiana. It was better than having him shack up with some young bimbo!
shareThis message has been deleted by an administrator
shareTrue, I was glad Karen was back. It was nice to see that they wanted her back and not some younger woman. I hope Karen gets more roles after this one, she's so underused and it's sad. I don't care if people weren't happy...it was for the FANS,and I know many were pissed with the CGI, but dude, it's not the 80's anymore. Technology changed since then.
Updating the Katey fansite--set for re-release Fall 2009!
To be fair though it wouldn't have made sense for Karen's character to successfully win a fight against Blanchett's character in Indy 4.
For relaxing times, make it Suntory time...
Why not?
If you think I am a troll, report me.
Ones is a trained fighter and young, the other is not trained and is getting on in age, furthermore, one had a sword, the other did not. I thought the reason was obvious, then again it is Indy and anything is possible in these films. It however would have also undermined her as a villain.
For relaxing times, make it Suntory time...
Indy is an archaeology professor. Does this undermine any of the trained killers he is fighting? Marion Ravenwood is established from her introduction as a bad ass, easily capable of handling herself against any number of trained opponents. Anyone who thinks otherwise should watch Raiders of the Lost Ark again.
One of the greatest things about Indiana Jones movies is the ability for the heroes to use their cunning to defeat a superior force. So, no, it is not obvious.
If you think I am a troll, report me.
Not the 80's anymore and technology has changed? But CGI isn't better than shooting on location or using models and real explosions for effects, it's CHEAPER, not better. Less money it costs to make a movie means more profit for the suits.
Are you REALLY fooled by the cartoons in todays action movies? I really think people need to get glasses if all these cartoons fool people into thinking they are watching real images instead of computer generated images. It does not fool me for one second.
Not the 80's anymore and technology has changed? But CGI isn't better than shooting on location or using models and real explosions for effects, it's CHEAPER, not better. Less money it costs to make a movie means more profit for the suits.They did shoot on location. They had to use digital enhancements for the jungle because there is not a real-life exotic jungle resembling those in South America where they could drive the vehicles through and film the scenes. The final results are impressive.
Other digital effects, such as the ants, couldn't even be fathomed 20 years ago.
And before you go on about how the results don't look extraordinarily impressive.......go watch the first 3 movies, because the special effects are far from 100% realistic. That argument holds no water with me.
Are you REALLY fooled by the cartoons in todays action movies? I really think people need to get glasses if all these cartoons fool people into thinking they are watching real images instead of computer generated images. It does not fool me for one second.Yep. You're so sharp.