Shia LaBeouf

I just saw the new Indiana Jones. Shia LaBeouf is excellent and an intriguing looking guy. Would love to see the total body.

I respectfully disagree- He is terrible in general and particularly poorly cast in Indiana Jones 4, which was a real piece of shit in my opinion.

JasonDawg: I scrolled through many screens of Celebrity Endowments to see if there were already threads, but I didn't find them. Sorry for the duplication.

Jacknapier: At 23 I think you're too young to fully appreciate the Indiana Jones saga. You've probably seen them all on video, but I think the gap in the theatrical releases over time made the series more exciting for me, waiting for the next one but having to wait. I think Shia is sexy and smart and a worthy successor to Harrison Ford. And Indy 4 is a lot of fun, admit it!

I respect your opinion but wanted to comment from my perspective.

On the contrary, Shia LaBeouf proves himself more than worthy of a sidekick to Indiana Jones. And the movie is still good to boot.
And Since you've only seen ONE of the Indiana Jones movies, what possible basis for comparison do you have that we should respect?

there I grouped them all together I could find, to bad we can't just merge all the shia threads. He's cute, can't wait to see him bumble his way thru the jungle with Indy.

Shia in Indy Four was good. The movie itself was fun, had a good time with it. They are not to be taken seriously, just enjoy the ride.

Indy 4 was entertaining. Just don't expect a storyline to engulf you in the world of Indy. The plot was so left field and the unrealism factor was a notch or two above the old Indy films. It was entertaining, but didn't leave me satisfied. All in all, it was entertaining. George Lucas and Stephen Speilberg must had a hard-on for CGI overuse, not to mention the "alien" plot which was so X-Files, not an Indy adventure. Above all, it was entertaining. Just don't expect anything deep.

But elegant, was it entertaining?

i say go away until you can afford a real name and leave the rest of us alone.

It was. Everyone can enjoy it. Don't expect a deep plot.

huh, what?

Aliens are infinitely more plausible than some invisible sky bully using a box as a laser cannon, or rocks that magically heat up, or some 900-year old immortal knight with a special cup that heals all wounds. At least aliens have some logic to them.

And a hard-on for CGI is hardly anything, considering the hardon on for old-fashioned optical effects in the first three.

And the original Indy adventures were a takeoff of the Saturday morning matinees in the 30s. The world of the 1950s was ray guns, aliens, and flying saucers, and the movie was meant to and did capture that world.

but the adding of aliens to indy seemed really odd, since the past 3 movies dealt with mythical stuff like the ark of the covenant and the holy grail. for me, the ending didn't feel like an indy ending.

and i read that they tried to use the least amount of CGI that they could for this movie. they wanted to try to keep it in the same style if the old ones, where the stunts were real, not computer generated.