Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Indy 4

I watched Indy 4 yesterday.

It broke my disbelief suspension.

I cannot believe one can survive a nuclear blast inside a refrigerator. I also cannot believe that you can go down *three* waterfalls, survive without a broken neck or back, and be close enough to the boat to get the fuck back on!. I think Sunday's Sheldon comic says it very well.

I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more had I been 10 years old.



( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
Jun. 9th, 2008 10:50 pm (UTC)
Yeah. Those. I sent that comic to a co-worker of mine. :)
Jun. 10th, 2008 03:12 pm (UTC)
Old refrigerators were lined with lead. You really could survive a nuclear blast in one. The fallout might get you sick, but only if you stayed in the area. The NBC training I received in the Army basically showed that if you are far enough away from the initial blast and you take even partial cover, you will live. You just have to get out of the area (carefully) as soon as possible to avoid fallout - or you have to take complete cover (like underground) and wait for everything to settle. The main factor in survival is your distance from the blast which you cannot control. The second factor is how complete your cover is. Being inside a lead-lined refrigerator would be the safest place you could be short of an underground bunker.

As for the waterfalls, it's not the craziest thing Indy has survived, and is no more nuts than Jason Statham walking away from car crash 10 in whatever movie. Spine health isn't part of movie physics - and it never has been. There have been many people who have survived going over waterfalls... and Indy has always been insanely lucky in all of his movies and had whatever he needed close at hand.

I think you may be holding this movie to a different standard than other action movies I've seen with you that you have enjoyed, and I don't understand why that would be the case unless you *want* to dislike it. If that's what you want, I won't stand in your way, but I don't think it's a fair criticism based on what *doesn't* break your suspension of disbelief.
Jun. 10th, 2008 10:24 pm (UTC)
Ah, but being blown through half a county from ground zero and crash-landing?

I guess you're right. I was disposed to be disappointed in it after a lot of the reviews I was seeing of it. Finding out that Lucas was involved...with what he did to Star Wars, I guess I was biased against it from the start.
Jun. 11th, 2008 01:03 am (UTC)
I interpreted the visuals differently than you. I took the setting to be a fake town *at the edge of the immediate blast area* rather than exactly at ground zero. Second, see above premise about spine health being a non-factor, period. As such, while highly implausible it wasn't 100% impossible... like most action movie stunts.

I've stopped reading reviews as much as possible. I am more than happy to sit in judgment on a movie, but I would prefer *not* to.

In this case, I felt it was a worthy successor to the trilogy (which I reviewed right before seeing it) but it would have been better received about 10 years ago. Our tastes have changed - the bomb scene had a bittersweetness to it that was different and that I appreciated. We start this movie with Indy being old and vulnerable (and much more sensitive to world events) rather than epic but fallible hero, and the stunts also feel different in that context. It's all fine and dandy for a 20 something to go over a waterfall, or a 30 something man to jump out of buildings, or a 40 something man to play 007 (how many times has this happened?) but somehow seeing a 60 something man and we think "Grandpa, shouldn't you retire?"
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )



Latest Month

July 2012
Powered by LiveJournal.com