Indiana Jones 4

[Zombie]

I didn't see a thread about this yet so...

2 more days! I am beyond exited for this movie. I hope to be seeing it thursday night, and many, many more times after. :)!!

Anyone else exited as I? No one exited at all? Discuss the new movie here.

[Tables]

Reviews are saying was disappointedly average, but then again you can't trust them critics no sir. The trailer looks neat, so I'll probably end up seeing it.

I'll just put on my 'low expectation' goggles and those make every movie awesome.

[mattoco]

I have my doubts that it will be as awesome as the original trilogy, but I will still be going with my friends to see the midnight showing on Thursday...

http://mail2.someecards.com/filestorage/mov_10.jpg

[Hy Bound]

Being of the very strong opinion that there need to be more good adventure movies, I'm extremely excited about this movie. I know it isn't going to be as good as the old ones; I knew it wouldn't from the time it was announced. I do know however, that even if no one else likes it, I know I will just based on the fact that I love Indiana Jones.

Seriously, I even get stiffies for the flawed adventure movies like The Mummy, Sky Captain, and the like. Of course they're cliched, thats the point, they aren't supposed to be pushing huge dramatic boundaries or aspiring for Oscars. They're supposed to be fun! Anyone who expects otherwise is not only a moron, but a sniffy movie-school-dropout twat.

...Anywho, basically what I'm trying to say is that I know the new Indy isn't going to be great, but thats what I've expected and am hoping for. As long as it isn't utter shit, its gonna be great by my standards.

[X]

With George Lucas co-writing the story, you almost have to wonder if the movie will be worth going to. Then again, since Spielberg's still at the helm, it should at the very least be better than any of the recent Star Wars prequel trilogy (pretty much a given).

I think I'm still gonna go into it with lowered expectations though... just in case....

I am, howevered, quite saddened that some favorite characters won't be making a return. Sean Connery turned down an appearance so I don't expect to see the senior Jones in the flic. Unfortunately, I haven't heard any mention of Short Round at all. I have heard that there's some other good cameos though.

I just hope they don't have any botched references in this movie. Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade were great movies, but there were still too many contextual and referential screw ups. Of course, the action makes up for all of that. Here's to hoping that KotCS keeps the story straight without any weird "altered history" this time.

[Monobrow]

Unfortunately, I haven't heard any mention of Short Round at all.

Yeah, that's one I really wanted to see honestly. Him all grown up. I think it could have left a neat parallel for this whole father/son thing that's in this movie anyway, since Short Round had that experience in a way.

Plus he's a stunt coordinator etc.... Still useful for a Hollywood action flick! :/

Oh well, here's to hoping it's good enough for me!

[JCvgluvr]

In before dashed hopes and dreams...

I'm wishing for this movie to blow my expectations outta the water, but I'm not holding my breath.

[I-n-j-i-n]

Watching Harrison Ford's interviews and guest appearances in talk shows recently, the man is really, really old. I mean, he borderline slurs his speech and every word out of his mouth seems to have to do with helicopters and planes.

Pretty sad. I'd rather not see a senile Indiana Jones.

[FuriousFure]

yeah, I just saw it tonight. 11 pm central standard time.

first things first!

overall impression after re-watching the first three movies in a row and then watching the 4th a few hours later: Indy's Back! and He's not pulling any punches.

secondly... the movie dares to veer off into uncharted territories instead of playing it safe with the same old stuff. (I'm being vague to hide any spoilers)
so Props for doing that

its hard to describe how I feel about this movie.

I'll say that there are a few main feelings that I had during the movie. it was a mixture of entertainment, disappointment of unbelievability (even for a Indy movie!), awed at the awesomeness, and sometimes just getting lost in the action/story.
The disappointment went away as fast as it came, and the rest of the sentiments were predominant for most of the film. I was impressed with Shila Labeouf's performance and Ford is still believable as the famous Archaeologist!
Best Scene? Mine at this moment is the 50's diner scene (you'll know the one)

Final thoughts:
Go see this movie, you won't regret it. although it bases itself in reality ( only by a thread at some points) it sticks with its promise: Its an another Indiana Jones movie. Fast, Fun, and Full of action!

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

I predict this movie shall destroy the box office. And it will be good for everyone.

[Jam Stunna]

I predict this movie shall destroy the box office. And it will be good for everyone.

Yes. I'm re-watching all three of the originals before I see it. Pretty soon the wife and I are going to watch The Last Crusade.

[dPaladin]

It was definitely worth seeing. I'm not sure if I can compare it to the other three yet.

Best Scene? Mine at this moment is the 50's diner scene (you'll know the one)

Hahaha, yeah.

There were a few moments that made me go, "Whaaaaaaaat? That's ridiculous," like (being intentionally vague) the refrigerator thing. And I did absolutely no reading up on it before hand so the plot was a surprise, but it wasn't bad.

Shia's acting was much better than I expected. It was actually pretty damn good. I don't know why I pegged him for lousy. It must have something to do with Transformers.

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

The movie was beyond incredible. Simply put, the best Indiana Jones movie made thus far, and you can believe me when I say there WILL be more. Everything about the movie took everything that makes Indy awesome and turned it up a notch. And rest assured, Shia Lebouffe is no slouch. He does his role and he does it well.

I loved how everyone pretty much admitted that Indy is now old, and just played with it by having him do some seriously outrageous stuff.

[Poke'G]

I'm going to mull it over before I rank this one with the other three. That's not to say this was a bad movie though. I liked it, and it was full of Jones humor and action, which is the most important part. It was awesome to see the man in another era too.

As mentioned earlier, this one dares to be different, and my group of friends were sharply divided over it. Cryptic, but once you see the film, you'll know.

I had heard rumors about George Lucas purposely not approving the earlier script treatments because he wanted Indy to face a certain something. Looks like he got his way.

[Nekofrog]

Rewatching the first 3 films before seeing this. The Last Crusade (the best of the original trilogy) is up tonight.

Watching Ark last night made me realize how disjointed that film really is; it's hard to make sense of what's going on unless you've seen it many times and are already familiar with the characters. Easily the weakest film of the trilogy (though nearly everyone would argue ToD is, I find it superior to the first due to it being easier to follow; more linear).

[Xaleph]

I loved spike tv for this - playing the old versions of Indiana Jones within the last week was a nice 'prep' for this new film.

This way we can see all the new wrinkles and gray patches the guy has =D.

Seriously, Harrison Ford rocks, but dude is old.

[BardicKnowledge]

I saw it last night, and was pleased. I'm still having a difficult time getting over the believability aspect (as mentioned above, it pushes the limits of belief even for an Indy film), but it was definitely a solid film.

The thing I noticed is that the music isn't nearly as good -- the orchestrator is lacking Williams' talent with the brass section, and it shows.

[Zup]

I thought some of the plot devices-hell, all of the plot was stupid. It passed my suspension of disbelief. Although, I guess when you get Spielberg doing an adventure movie in the fifties, certain cliched plot devices are necessary.

I was disappointed, but I still had a good time.

[dPaladin]

The thing I noticed is that the music isn't nearly as good -- the orchestrator is lacking Williams' talent with the brass section, and it shows.

I can't imagine why that would be, since the orchestrator is the same guy it's been through all the Harry Potter movies. John Williams almost never orchestrates his own work. Also, I thought the music was alright. The credits music was great, but it drew pretty heavily from Raiders, so there you have it.

[Hum4n After All]

Most amazing adventure of the year.

[Hector]

4th best movie ever. I don't even need to see it to know.

[Hy Bound]

Ugh... Why is everyone saying this is the "best movie"? I got back 2 minutes ago and I am sooooo damn disappointed.

I ask you to look back at page one for my criteria I was judging this movie off of... yeah, I didn't care what it was, as long as it was an Indy movie... Well, there ya go.

Don't get me wrong, I would have given this movie my badge of "best movie ever" if it kept on the path it was starting off at the beginning of the movie, but nooooooooooooo, it had to add a bunch of cheesy special effects and Tarzan moments to it and then wrap it all up with a complete and total shit-tastic climax. Why?! It had started off soooo good, and then got a bit more out there... ok fine, its a little more crazy than the others, then it got a little more out there and then ended with the likes of nothing any Indy movie has ever wanted to be.

Long story short, it was pretty disappointing. Sure, Shia LeBouff (sp) did a great job, there were some pretty awesome chase scenes and throwbacks to other movies and a few damn awesome moments all rolled in. Those moments saved the movie in my opinion, but not quite enough. Its just disappointing it had to go the way that it did.

[Hemophiliac]

the movie was too farfetched for me.

indiana jones was always finding objects with a supernatural flavor to them...and even then there didn't seem to be as much stuff in them that felt so far out there as with this one.

i enjoyed it as a fun movie...but not very satisfying.

[Bleck]

8/10 and anyone who thinks any lower of it is basically an idiot

[dPaladin]

8/10 and anyone who thinks any lower of it is basically an idiot

Careful, someone might assassinate you and start WWIII!

Uh, yeah...

I agree though. After a quick plot comparison to the others, it seems like complaining about it being outlandish is a bit of a double standard.

[Poke'G]

the movie was too farfetched for me.

indiana jones was always finding objects with a supernatural flavor to them...and even then there didn't seem to be as much stuff in them that felt so far out there as with this one.

i enjoyed it as a fun movie...but not very satisfying.

I ask you to look back at page one for my criteria I was judging this movie off of... yeah, I didn't care what it was, as long as it was an Indy movie... Well, there ya go.

The crystal skulls are a "real" artifact, and the film dealt with a "real" theory behind them which is no different than the other three. The film was pure 1950s B-movie just as the others were pure 1930s adventures. I felt the artifact was well within the bounds of Indiana Jones.

Jones doesn't have to deal with something purely religious in nature. Much of his expanded universe deals with other fantastical archaeological finds, such as Atlantis or the ruins of Babylon. And the television series dealt with purely historical material.

I agree this is not the best Jones film, but it's no travesty either.

[tgfoo]

I saw it last night. I think of it like Die Hard 4. It was a good movie, but it was different that the originals. 65 year-old Harrison Ford still kicks ass as Indy, but some aspects of the movie were disappointing. I wasn't exactly thrilled with the whole last 10 minutes of the movie either. But, action and effects wise, this movie rocked. It's plot was a little bit off from other Indy movies, but it was still a fun movie to watch. I'll currently put it down there with Temple of Doom (ok, maybe above Temple of Doom) but it's no Raiders of the Lost Ark, and doesn't even come close to Last Crusade. For me it just lacks some of the magic that made the originals so much fun. However, it's still one of the better movies I've seen thus far this year.

[PhiJayy]

8/10 and anyone who thinks any lower of it is basically an idiot

:lol:ahahah yeah. In other words the movie is probably somewhere around 4 star or 3 1/2. It was a decent movie, overall pretty good.
Don't ask me to compare the older indys. Not gonna. :)

[Nohbody]

Shia LeBeau needs to get his ass back on Even Stevens.

[megadave]

I have yet to see the movie, and I eventually will, but I'm going to see Prince Caspian tonight. Don't get me wrong, I have fond memories of the Jones movies, but it's all about priorities.

I think that critics tend to lash out harder at movies that involve nostalgic ties to past iterations. Those movies are always going to get judged because of the expectations that they are expected to live up to, and at the same time, even if they do manage to make the nostalgic people happy, then the critics will bash the movie for doing nothing new. What few people realize is that the movie may have been really good, but the critic themselves may be the ones to blame.

For example, many of my friends and I have been fans of the rock band 311 since the early years in their career. This band tried doing new things over the shitload of albums they've released, yet they still kept that core there for every evolution they had as a band. Well, the latest album 'Don't Tread On Me' came out, and I loved it. It had a good feel too it, but my friend heard it and said "I just don't feel it man. It's like they've lost it."

I thought "What? It's actually more like their old stuff than the last few albums". The problem is, in my opinion, that the listener himself was the one who changed. That person wasn't feeling those emotions that older albums invoked. In fact, he listened to the older stuff, and he just didn't feel it anymore. He changed, but most people tend to point the finger before they analyze themselves.

Yet,

[megadave]

I have yet to see the movie, and I eventually will, but I'm going to see Prince Caspian tonight. Don't get me wrong, I have fond memories of the Jones movies, but it's all about priorities.

I think that critics tend to lash out harder at movies that involve nostalgic ties to past iterations. Those movies are always going to get judged because of the expectations that they are expected to live up to, and at the same time, even if they do manage to make the nostalgic people happy, then the critics will bash the movie for doing nothing new. What few people realize is that the movie may have been really good, but the critic themselves may be the ones to blame.

For example, many of my friends and I have been fans of the rock band 311 since the early years in their career. This band tried doing new things over the shitload of albums they've released, yet they still kept that core there for every evolution they had as a band. Well, the latest album 'Don't Tread On Me' came out, and I loved it. It had a good feel too it, but my friend heard it and said "I just don't feel it man. It's like they've lost it."

I thought "What? It's actually more like their old stuff than the last few albums". The problem is, in my opinion, that the listener himself was the one who changed. That person wasn't feeling those emotions that older albums invoked. In fact, he listened to the older stuff, and he just didn't feel it anymore. He changed, but most people tend to point the finger before they analyze themselves.

Yet, some things do stand the test of time. I can watch Neverending Story every year, and every part of the movie just wows me to frikkin' tears. I can put the old Smashing Pumpkins CDs in the stereo, or their latest album, and just rock out like it's 95.

But if you're riding on nostalgia alone, you're thinking wrong. You have to be willing to move forward while giving a smiling nod to your past, or else you're going to wind up disappointed, and it seems that a lot of these critics will continue to make that stupid mistake for a long time.

[PhiJayy]

I'm going to see Prince Caspian tonight.

Shoot. I forgot the movie was even out.:tomatoface: I gotta see that, virtually everyones saying it's good.

[Zombie]

Gah... I have been unable to post here the last few days.

The movie was epic. Loved every minute of it. Shia was suprisingly good in the movie, I thought. I was skeptical of him being in the movie, but he seemed to pull it off, imo. :nicework:

Also, Alot of people I saw it with seemed to be wierded out about the whole alien thing - its lucas and spielberg together people. :<

[Poke'G]

Wait, can we start talking spoiler material now? Cause I've avoided using the A word, as have others here, seeing as it was such a guarded secret.

[Zombie]

Good point Poke G. Totally spaced that. Post edited for minor spoilers.

[Txai]

How could anyone who studies archaeology have so much danger in life?

[Bleck]

How could a farmboy be such a great pilot?
you just lost the game

[Txai]

Hmmm...

Uh?

[Makai]

Ridiculous is the only word that does this movie justice. I did enjoy it, however.

[I-n-j-i-n]

I have yet to see the movie, and I eventually will, but I'm going to see Prince Caspian tonight. Don't get me wrong, I have fond memories of the Jones movies, but it's all about priorities.

I think that critics tend to lash out harder at movies that involve nostalgic ties to past iterations. Those movies are always going to get judged because of the expectations that they are expected to live up to, and at the same time, even if they do manage to make the nostalgic people happy, then the critics will bash the movie for doing nothing new. What few people realize is that the movie may have been really good, but the critic themselves may be the ones to blame.

Ew. I heard Caspian is butchered from the books and they added an unnecessary romance aspect. Not to forget the excessive use of CG. There you go, movies butchering books again.

As for judging Indiana Jones, I think the criticisms are pretty valid. As much as a lot of reviewers are loving it, I'm hearing a lot of bad reviews too, so I don't think the views are so lopsided (Speedracer). Adding a 'hip' teenage son in Shia LaBeouf never sounded right. And I believe the real history behind the Crystal Skull is much more interesting than any movie can weave it.

Really, I think the best 'reviving an ancient franchise' act goes to Rocky Balboa. I think Live Free or Die Hard should just move onto a movie channel where it belongs. Same to Indiana Jones.

[Bleck]

Really, I think the best 'reviving an ancient franchise' act goes to Rocky Balboa. I think Live Free or Die Hard should just move onto a movie channel where it belongs. Same to Indiana Jones.

Yeah, but think for a second.

Indy 3 and Die Hard 3 were both still fine endings for their series - they just added on more, so it didn't seem as good in comparison.

Rocky V was complete shit. Rocky Balboa could have been a ten minute anime short and have been better than it.

[jayc4life]

It wasn't really a necessary movie to make, per-sé, but I still enjoyed it loads. I thought the story arc it took (without mentioning spoilers) worked pretty well, despite what I'd heard from people who seen it the day before, and the internet gossip and all that jazz.

I'd nearly go and see it again for the fun of it, it was that good. Still not as good as The Last Crusade though.

[megadave]

Shoot. I forgot the movie was even out.:tomatoface: I gotta see that, virtually everyones saying it's good.

Oh, it certainly was. It was more of an action movie than the last one and it was a bit more grown up as well. That fits the nature of the book, which is more straightforward and action oriented, so it doesn't have the variety that the first film had, but the movie is 60% battle and it rocked. There were a few subplots etched in to the script, or more accurately, they were exagerrated. I can't lie though, the movie wowed me and left me wanting even more.

Back to Indy though.

[Toadofsky]

But if you're riding on nostalgia alone, you're thinking wrong. You have to be willing to move forward while giving a smiling nod to your past, or else you're going to wind up disappointed, and it seems that a lot of these critics will continue to make that stupid mistake for a long time.

Saw the movie last night, and really enjoyed it. Just as funny as Last Crusade in my opinion (and I'm usually odd man out on that). I knew going into that theater that if I set my expectations real high, I'd be dissapointed, so I just watched the film to enjoy it, nothing else. Not to see it top the original three (something that I don't think can be accomplished),but just to see the film as a continuing story, and following the classic old adventure serials (just like the original three).

Speaking of which, it may just be me, but does anyone else notice how somebody thinks x amount of movies need to be realistic (I'm not talking about anyone here on the forums)? Or you watch a movie with someone and they say, "Well why didn't they do ...", I know I've done it in the past, but it just ruins the enjoyment of watching the movie to me.

I wonder if that's how some of the critics are reacting to the film (haven't read any critics reviews, not like I need to).

[Makai]

Speaking of which, it may just be me, but does anyone else notice how somebody thinks x amount of movies need to be realistic (I'm not talking about anyone here on the forums)? Or you watch a movie with someone and they say, "Well why didn't they do ...", I know I've done it in the past, but it just ruins the enjoyment of watching the movie to me..

You have to admit the movie completely did away with suspension of disbelief.

[dPaladin]

You have to admit the movie completely did away with suspension of disbelief.
This would mean that it's so realistic that suspension of disbelief is unnecessary.

Also, I don't see how people can say this one's ridiculous but Raiders isn't. Are people so mired in American Christian culture that they can't tell fact from fiction anymore?

[Blake]

Saw the movie last night, and really enjoyed it. Just as funny as Last Crusade in my opinion (and I'm usually odd man out on that). I knew going into that theater that if I set my expectations real high, I'd be dissapointed, so I just watched the film to enjoy it, nothing else. Not to see it top the original three (something that I don't think can be accomplished),but just to see the film as a continuing story, and following the classic old adventure serials (just like the original three).

Speaking of which, it may just be me, but does anyone else notice how somebody thinks x amount of movies need to be realistic (I'm not talking about anyone here on the forums)? Or you watch a movie with someone and they say, "Well why didn't they do ...", I know I've done it in the past, but it just ruins the enjoyment of watching the movie to me.

I wonder if that's how some of the critics are reacting to the film (haven't read any critics reviews, not like I need to).


Well, while critics overreact a lot, it's been really disappointing seeing a bunch of live action movies insert pointless crap. Transformers and Spiderman or Ironman, I can understand because you can't really do those movies without CG. But when you have Bruce Willis in Die Hard (the last one) where nothing is supernatural, why throw in a CG car rolling down the street or a helicopter spinning out of control if you can have a real one?

Cheap little things like that, with fake shrapnel flying out of an explosion and zooming towards the screen. It gets tiring. I think the reason so many early action movies were awesome was because people admired the fact that directors/stunt people/whatever staff took the time to choreograph real shit happening, as opposed to throwing in a random flipping car that in no way matches the lighting or size perspective of the rest of the scene. It's been in movies such as Air Force One, Live Free or Die Hard, this Indiana Jones.

Hell even in Ironman they constructed a real suit for Downey Jr to wear during up close scenes, and that little mask/neck thing that flips up in the movie actually functions and isn't a tired CGI pizazz thing.


But I do hate when people argue over the decisions a character makes, or nitpicks all the details of a scene. "Uhm, there's no way a piece of metal can fall out of a sky and then hover in mid air before its thrusters kick in." Yeah who cares, it's freakin Starscream and it's a freakin sci fi movie. The only movies that I think do deserve some kind of nitpicking are those claiming to tell the true story of some political event, or a film claiming to be historically accurate. But people sure missed it with 300.

[Dhsu]

Well, while critics overreact a lot, it's been really disappointing seeing a bunch of live action movies insert pointless crap. Transformers and Spiderman or Ironman, I can understand because you can't really do those movies without CG. But when you have Bruce Willis in Die Hard (the last one) where nothing is supernatural, why throw in a CG car rolling down the street or a helicopter spinning out of control if you can have a real one?

Cheap little things like that, with fake shrapnel flying out of an explosion and zooming towards the screen. It gets tiring. I think the reason so many early action movies were awesome was because people admired the fact that directors/stunt people/whatever staff took the time to choreograph real shit happening, as opposed to throwing in a random flipping car that in no way matches the lighting or size perspective of the rest of the scene. It's been in movies such as Air Force One, Live Free or Die Hard, this Indiana Jones.
Well bad CG is just bad CG. :P If you do it right, it's a lot cheaper and safer than the real thing. You really expect them to demolish real helicopters? And film real shrapnel flying at the camera?? Although I actually think some of the "bad" CG was intentional, to simulate the compositing artifacts in the older movies.

I have to admit though, I was half-expecting the Dramatic Chipmunk to make a cameo. :D

[Shadow Wolf]

I liked it a lot. Make no mistake, it totally crossed any thresholds of believability, and well more than the first three movies ever did. EVER. But I made a conscious decision to not care about all that and just watch it for the B-movie campfest it was deliberately created to be, and in that light it was amazingly fun.

I didn't like it as much as the first three, but I think that's because the other 3 are covered in 2 decades of nostalgia to make them prettier. Had this one been made a couple years after Last Crusade, I think it would still be considered kind of a black sheep, but every bit as much an Indy movie as the others. Very fun.

EDIT:

why (blah) if you can have a real one?

cheaper, safer

Truth. It's way cheaper and easier to do this stuff with CG now, because you're guaranteed your exact creative vision in one easily modifiable shot that is guaranteed to cost less than a helicopter.

[Brycepops]

I don't think anyone wants another Twilight Zone: The Movie incident :sad: Hell, I don't think they can even DO any of that sort of stuff anymore because of what happened.

[Poke'G]

This would mean that it's so realistic that suspension of disbelief is unnecessary.

Also, I don't see how people can say this one's ridiculous but Raiders isn't. Are people so mired in American Christian culture that they can't tell fact from fiction anymore?

I find the timing of recent announcements by the Vatican suspiciously convenient in that respect.

As for suspension of disbelief, the only part of the film that I thought defied common sense where it mattered was the fridge scene.

Is that even possible?

(Damn this is hard to do without saying too much)

[Monobrow]

Just saw this.

I'd say 8/10. I enjoyed it, I left satisfied.

However, as far as Indy movies go, I think it's the worst one. In the realm of Indiana Jones movies, I'd give it a 6 or 7.

Honestly, if this movie had been made 10 years ago, for a number of reasons, I think it would have been up to par with the others, and maybe could have surpassed them, and that's pretty much the only major thing that held it back... The spark wasn't there quite as much as before.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of the action was great, and the fast paced moments in acting were good too, although a lot of the slower dialog, especially early on, seemed a little forced.

I enjoyed the chase scenes a lot. The fighting was great too, from the stuntmen to the actors. But I do think that when someone (Harrison especially) was explaining some plot device... I just wanted to space out. When things got slow, they really got slow.

Like in the Diner... I found myself not even pay attention to what Indy was saying, I payed attention the beer and the reactions of the people in the background. Then again maybe I wasn't supposed to follow what he meant? I heard key words and that was enough? Maybe so, who knows.

Another thing that bugged me was how disjointed the pacing seemed. I hardly remember where they went or why they were supposed to go there, which seems weird because they spent so much time explaining everything! Some things just seemed pointless and probably could have been cut IMO.

One last thing that really bugged me... The monkeys the monkeys the monkeys... wtf... I mean really lol. Does George Lucas have to have a moment like this in every damn post CGI movie? The prairie dogs were enough!



BUT I don't think I've laughed as much as I did in any Indy film as I did in the snake/rope scene, and the nuclear family part was ridiculous but I didn't care. In Temple of Doom, I think three people jumping out of a crashing plane with an inflatable raft in the mountains, and ending up down river in some Indian Jungle is ridiculous beyond belief, and why I love Indiana Jones movies in the first place. They are supposed to be like this.

I also enjoyed the diner part, and the motorcycle chase, the waterfall had me cracking up too...

Also I'm not exactly sure why, but I laughed at that picture of Sean Connery... Probably shouldn't have.


As for the plot... I didn't mind it, just some scenes that seemed a little arbitrary in comparison to the other films... Just some things missed their mark to me.

But overall, good movie. Worth seeing.

Oh yeah and the score... Not that great. I can remember Temple of Doom having a certain theme to it, as Raiders had the Ark theme (which we hear reprised in the warehouse) and Last Crusade had an awesome theme... But I can't even remember it the Crystal Skull had anything thematic behind it.

[Drack]

(not a spoiler) Why were there so many moles in the beginning?

Overall a decent movie. One of the movies to come out in the past year or two.

It's Indiana Jones. You know what to expect, and it doesn't deviate much from the working formula, though I feel that where it did deviate, it went a little overboard, but not in a completely bad way - just another facet of the 1950s.

And Jones says "nukyular" instead of nuclear. It seems no one can ever get that right -_-

[The Author]

Was I the only one to hear the notes from Encounters at the end, during the big twister ?

[Bleck]

(not a spoiler) Why were there so many moles in the beginning?
groundhogs

[Blake]

This was the first movie to truly disturb me as far as tombs/artifacts go. I thought the crystal skulls were really creepy. The refrigerator thing was out there, but still hilarious. I'm more worried about people's ability to survive three waterfall drops.

[Dhsu]

groundhogs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw

Was I the only one to hear the notes from Encounters at the end, during the big twister ?
I didn't catch it, but the whole scene was a very obvious Encounters homage (perhaps even a direct crossover), and it doesn't surprise me that Spielberg couldn't resist throwing in the musical cue to complete the reference.

[Nekofrog]

I still haven't seen it, but to people ragging on its pacing and editing:

Go back and watch Raiders of the Lost Ark. I watched it a few days ago for the first time in 15 years, and was amazed at how utterly lost I was. Protags are here -- bam they're there -- wait where are they now? -- who was that? -- what just happened?

Its linearity seems extremely compromised, as it just jumps at random and only makes sense cognitively if you've seen it multiple times.

Unlike Temple of Doom/Last Crusade, which are both so incredibly easy to follow that they're just far more enjoyable. The characters don't just randomly appear in a new location, you see the journey there or at least have it mentioned before they make it.

That's why I rank Ark dead last in the original trilogy. Is the editing in that regard more similar to Ark or the other two?

[dPaladin]

I find the timing of recent announcements by the Vatican suspiciously convenient in that respect.

As for suspension of disbelief, the only part of the film that I thought defied common sense where it mattered was the fridge scene.

Is that even possible?

(Damn this is hard to do without saying too much)
I could give you the whole "anything is possible" blah blah blah, but:

No, he should have been dead three times over from that.

[The Author]

The guy should have died in the first 5 minutes of the first movie.

[Lotd2242]

Completely fails as an Indiana Jones movie, but still not as bad as some of the other sequels I've seen recently.

Also there's suspension of disbelief...and then there's what they did with this movie.

[Zup]

The guy should have died in the first 5 minutes of the first movie.

I would have watched that. And enjoyed it more than Indy 4.

[The Author]

I would have watched that. And enjoyed it more than Indy 4.
Do you even know how to enjoy movies anymore?

Indy 4, or any Indiana Jones movie are not movies you should think too much about. The trick is to turn off your brain and enjoy the ride. And as that kind of movie, it worked perfectly.

If you want to have a debate about the intellectual worth of a movie, go in a small theater where you can eat an apple and read the Serbian subtitles.

They never promised anything more than an adventure movie about an dude with a whip. They delivered. The plot wasn't any worse than any other Indiana Jones movie. It was on the same levels as the other, however you saw the first three with the eyes of a kid, and you never actually judged them as harshly as people are judging Indiana Jones 4 here.

[LuckyXIII]

When they introduced the psychic and the premise of psychic military might, it reminded me of Metal Gear. At the moment I'm going through MGS3, so with the jungle setting it made me think of what a Metal Gear movie may be like if Indiana Jones replaced Solid Snake. The characters are kind of similar, but Indy isn't as bitter as Snake.

Then there's a scene where it suddenly felt kind of like a Metroid movie.

All around, this film reminds me more of Temple of Doom than Raiders or Last Crusade.

[Hylian Lemon]

Do you even know how to enjoy movies anymore?

Indy 4, or any Indiana Jones movie are not movies you should think too much about. The trick is to turn off your brain and enjoy the ride. And as that kind of movie, it worked perfectly.

If you want to have a debate about the intellectual worth of a movie, go in a small theater where you can eat an apple and read the Serbian subtitles.

They never promised anything more than an adventure movie about an dude with a whip. They delivered. The plot wasn't any worse than any other Indiana Jones movie. It was on the same levels as the other, however you saw the first three with the eyes of a kid, and you never actually judged them as harshly as people are judging Indiana Jones 4 here.
I agree with all this. Sure, it wasn't an amazing, groundbreaking movie, but it did what it set out to do: entertain. I don't think I could really rank the Indiana Jones movies if I wanted to, but Indy 4 was definitely on par with the older ones, in my opinion.

I mean, seriously. All the other movies had equally ridiculous parts in them. They're not trying to be believable. They're trying to be entertaining.

[Zup]

The problem was is that I was willing to believe it, but after a certain point they began not trying. I did enjoy the movie, but I would have enjoyed it more if it were less like a B-Movie and more like Indiana.

[DarkeSword]

less like a B-Movie and more like Indiana.

You've missed the point.

[The Author]

The problem was is that I was willing to believe it, but after a certain point they began not trying. I did enjoy the movie, but I would have enjoyed it more if it were less like a B-Movie and more like Indiana.
Indiana Jones is SUPPOSED TO BE A B MOVIE.

That's he big idea: A simple relaxing movie. The first ones were made as a parallel to adventure films, this one would have betrayed its origins if it has been any different, and it would have been a bad Indiana Jones movie.

[Zup]

Indiana Jones is SUPPOSED TO BE A B MOVIE.

That's he big idea: A simple relaxing movie. The first ones were made as a parallel to adventure films, this one would have betrayed its origins if it has been any different, and it would have been a bad Indiana Jones movie.

No. The first ones were homages to 1930s serials. This one was an homage to 50's b-movies. I didn't like the change in style, so sue me.

[Bleck]

In before Zup's idea of an A movie is like Spiderman 3 or something

[The Author]

No. The first ones were homages to 1930s serials. This one was an homage to 50's b-movies. I didn't like the change in style, so sue me.
What was so different with this one?

The pacing? It seemed pretty close.

The plot? Mystical artifact with supernatural powers, sounds about right.

The action? Fight scenes, kinda gross types of deaths, and traps in a ruin, there again.

What was so different between this and all three other movies (which I watched fairly recently thanks to global.)

[burnham909]

Im getting me one of those refrigerators, I dont know about you guys.

[Lotd2242]

For the record, I don't disagree the movie was mildly entertaining, but it failed completely as an Indy movie.

A B movie is not a "simple relaxing movie." A B movie is a cheap, half-assed flick made for people who want to go to the drive-in and not feel bad about missing most of it. Indy is based on the action serials of the 30s and 40s, not the SciFi horror crap in the 50s.

The B-movie feel might have worked given the timeframe, except that they took it to the point of absurdity.

Indiana Jones always stuck to the realm of the plausible, mixing in a little fantastical of which Indy was always skeptical until the end. This movie gives the plausible the finger in the first 15 minutes. A 5 year old knows that fridge thing is bullshit.

Indiana Jones was always supposed to be an ordinary guy who happened to get into trouble when out digging in the dirt. He got out of his scrapes with mostly luck and quick wit. In this movie, he's just superhuman. This script would've been far better served for a James Bond movie than an Indy film.

[The Author]

For the record, I don't disagree the movie was mildly entertaining, but it failed completely as an Indy movie.

A B movie is not a "simple relaxing movie." A B movie is a cheap, half-assed flick made for people who want to go to the drive-in and not feel bad about missing most of it. Indy is based on the action serials of the 30s and 40s, not the SciFi horror crap in the 50s.

The B-movie feel might have worked given the timeframe, except that they took it to the point of absurdity.

Indiana Jones always stuck to the realm of the plausible, mixing in a little fantastical of which Indy was always skeptical until the end. This movie gives the plausible the finger in the first 15 minutes. A 5 year old knows that fridge thing is bullshit.

Indiana Jones was always supposed to be an ordinary guy who happened to get into trouble when out digging in the dirt. He got out of his scrapes with mostly luck and quick wit. In this movie, he's just superhuman. This script would've been far better served for a James Bond movie than an Indy film.


While I don't deny the fridge was a stretch, they did show that it was Lead lined, and it was blown away at the first shock wave, and not the second. However, in the second movie, he survived someone having his hand in his chest. That one was a lot less plausible if you know a bit of medicine.

Also, as for the plot in general, visitors bringing knowledge is not only a frequent theory, it is a respectable one considering the unique spikes in technological evolution mankind has known. The pre-colombian religions in south america have interestingly common references to celestial beings, chariots made of gold, and other "alien-like" elements. I personally believe that the proof of the existence of aliens may very well rest in our past, rather than in the sky.

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

For the record, I don't disagree the movie was mildly entertaining, but it failed completely as an Indy movie.

A B movie is not a "simple relaxing movie." A B movie is a cheap, half-assed flick made for people who want to go to the drive-in and not feel bad about missing most of it. Indy is based on the action serials of the 30s and 40s, not the SciFi horror crap in the 50s.

The B-movie feel might have worked given the timeframe, except that they took it to the point of absurdity.

Indiana Jones always stuck to the realm of the plausible, mixing in a little fantastical of which Indy was always skeptical until the end. This movie gives the plausible the finger in the first 15 minutes. A 5 year old knows that fridge thing is bullshit.

Indiana Jones was always supposed to be an ordinary guy who happened to get into trouble when out digging in the dirt. He got out of his scrapes with mostly luck and quick wit. In this movie, he's just superhuman. This script would've been far better served for a James Bond movie than an Indy film.

I think it's pretty much a given that you fail at movie-going.

[Zup]

Well, let's see. My problems with the new Indiana are multiple. One: too many sidekicks. In the originals, I got to know Short Round, or Marion, or Marcus Brody because they were all treated with the same respect and character development. In this one, I hardly know Mac, who switches sides more than once as if it was funny, Marion is a ghost of her former self and the only one I even connect with halfway decently, Mutt, is not given the same level of depth that was given to Henry Sr. that made you enjoy watching the movie.

And another problem: what's with the crappy CGI everywhere? I can name two or three instances in the original where the special effects were noticable and detracted from the movie (ie, the Ark finale, the Doom finale, and, well, the Grail finale). In this one, the special effects were everywhere and visibly took me outside the movie. The ants were probably the least fake, but even they looked terrible. The CGI was used far too much. Does anyone else remember the awesome stunts in the others, such as fighting on a plane just before everything blows up, or maybe the boat chase in the Holy Grail, let alone the opening boulder-chase scene. The fencing scene looked just as fake as the other shots, taking me once more out of the film.

While I can seriously enjoy an Indy movie, it's the ability of the movie to take me there instead of constantly reminding me of it's falsity that I can't connect at all. That is why this movie fails. And I would say this about any movie, not just Indy; I'm not letting my nostalgia tainted eyes glorify a film that doesn't deserve it. I'm basing my judgment on what makes a movie good on just that; not other Indy films, regardless how much I loved them.

[Lotd2242]

While I don't deny the fridge was a stretch, they did show that it was Lead lined, and it was blown away at the first shock wave, and not the second. However, in the second movie, he survived someone having his hand in his chest. That one was a lot less plausible if you know a bit of medicine.

Also, as for the plot in general, visitors bringing knowledge is not only a frequent theory, it is a respectable one considering the unique spikes in technological evolution mankind has known. The pre-colombian religions in south america have interestingly common references to celestial beings, chariots made of gold, and other "alien-like" elements. I personally believe that the proof of the existence of aliens may very well rest in our past, rather than in the sky.

There is no way to defend the fridge bit, certainly not by comparing it to something that's part of the mysticism of an artifact Indy went to find. He's dead in SO many ways it's not even funny. Spoilers: First, he would've been incinerated. The air in the fridge would've superheated from the flash and cooked him like a Nazi oven. Then it would've been sucked out and he would've suffocated. Then the initial shockwave would've hit, killing him by smashing his body against the inside of the fridge as it accelerated him to some speed faster than that car was going, not to mention the sudden repressurization of the fridge. Then if that did not do the trick, getting smacked against it again as it hit the ground and tumbled would've no doubt killed him. Not to mention the door mechanism almost certainly would not have survived those stresses, and thus tossed him out into the air as it tumbled. Also, despite being in a "lead lined" fridge, he would've received a lethal dose of radiation being that close to the explosion and having that little lead protecting him. Even if he didn't get it in the fridge, he sure as hell would've after he got out from either the radiation in the air or the radioactive debris raining upon him. And if, IF, by some utter miracle he survived that, he probably would've died wandering around the desert absorbing that much more radiation while trying to find help, which would've been miles away especially with all of the soldiers dead. This is all assuming the fridge got launched, which it probably would not have. More likely due to its weight it would've been one of the last things to move from the initial shockwave and thus be more likely to either be sucked towards the blast by the backpressure or essentially remain in place.

There are only two reasons I can think of that someone would allow such an egregious depiction. One is that Lucas likes CGI and the other is that they wanted to set up the washing gag.

The visitor theory is not generally considered a respectable one in the scientific community, even though I agree it's possible. Even still, the movie handled that aspect so badly that it didn't matter. I had no beef with that and would've given it a complete pass otherwise.

You asked what was missing from the movie that made it unworthy of Indiana Jones' namesake. There was no mysticism in the movie. There was no feeling of danger. The skull became a silly gimmick that had no purpose at all. It even looked goofy as hell, inspiring no awe, no wonder. The quest they're on is more of a fumbling run through the jungle than a search for something too powerful to let fall into enemy hands. And the enemy invokes no trepidation, has no barbaric quality to make them seem as though their getting to the goal first would be something to fear. Even the score was weak. Thus Indy is reduced to an invulnerable superhero who can do no wrong against a weak enemy that can do nothing right searching for something that doesn't seem worth the effort with an artifact that is laughable at best. It was, as I said, essentially a Bond movie minus the gadgets.



I think it's pretty much a given that you fail at movie-going.

I think it's pretty much a given that all you need to be entertained are some pretty, flashing lights.

[dPaladin]

I think it's pretty much a given that you fail at movie-going.
There was nothing wrong with his post. You shouldn't be this offended over a movie.

[Wintermute]

Just saw it this last weekend.

Average at best. Some very entertaining parts, but as a whole it fails as an Indy movie on many levels.

[cerberus86]

Lol, i agree though, the movie was only average. i'll give it a 5 in a scale from 1 to 10, for its action and CG. The movie does not score well cuz it does not really meet (at least) my expectation. Too little "swing" and udder indiana jones action move. Plus viewer can already guess bout the plots and stuff, no surprise and twist. And Harrison Ford IS getting old, LOL

I'm better off watching Lara Croft

[DJ Silly C]

You guys are sitting here saying how bad Indy 4 is.. I have no clue why? I understand I don't know your age... Nor do I know if you guys have actually seen the other three movies? I think the movie was very very good especially since Harrison Ford is in his mid 60's plus did all his own stunts... There is a sub story in the movie which I think most of you failed to see. I have been a long Indiana Jones fan since I was a kid.. Just so you guys don't think I'm like some 50 yr old comming down on ya.. I'm only 27. Indy 4 was better then "The Temple of Doom" and about the same as "Raiders of the Lost Ark." I don't care about wether or not other life forms were involved.. It's Indiana Jones!!!!! There's a boat load of Actuall history involved in the movie like all the others.. I liked the fact that Marion was re-introduced into the film. I like the fact that Indy has a son now.. You can start to see the relationship between them build.. Indy starts mildly treating him like Indy's father treated Indy in "The Last Crusade" as far as the use of special effects... WHO cares....!!! Seriously if you think about it.. .90% of all movies have special effects and lots of them... Indy 4 had about the same amount of Special Effects as the other 3 movies did.. I think that too many people went into seeing that movie with the Idea that Indy 4 was going to be exactly like the other 3 movies.. Go back and see the movie and consider AGE, The Era which it takes place in... LOOK FOR THE SUB STORY!! If you really think about it the movie was actually really good!! Sorry for the rant I had just woken up!! I'm sure you all know how brains work when you first wake up!!!! Lata

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

I always thought that suspension of disbelief was a major part of film-going in general. I guess I've been wrong for the past 20 years.

[Zup]

I always thought that suspension of disbelief was a major part of film-going in general. I guess I've been wrong for the past 20 years.

Unless you're watching avant-garde films, then yes, the suspension of disbelief is paramount in a Hollywood film. Indy 4 failed me several times on this account, which none of the previous three did.

[The Author]

Unless you're watching avant-garde films, then yes, the suspension of disbelief is paramount in a Hollywood film. Indy 4 failed me several times on this account, which none of the previous three did.

Actually, you failed it.

Movies provide you with something you have to "believe" and your job is to ignore your "disbelief" and enjoy the ride.

[jayc4life]

Are we all seriously debating about how this movie "failed" or "succeeded"?

You know, this film obviously succeeded. If we weren't talking about it, then it would have failed. Movie-makers aren't out to make good movies, they're out to make MONEY. Which we spent going to see it. Meaning that their job was successful.

[The Pezman]

Movies provide you with something you have to "believe" and your job is to ignore your "disbelief" and enjoy the ride.
But there's a limit. Would you be able to suspend your disbelief if it turned out Dr. Jones was actually a monkey in disguise? It sounds silly to even say because if it actually happened there would be no way to justify it. None. The point is that belief cannot be suspended no matter what. It only works to a certain extent. Gregor Samsa can turn into a beetle, but everything that happens afterwards is realistic, given that first event.

[CursedByFire]

the movie was good until the last 15 mins. the other 3 movies are great and this one is too, just a little disappointing...

[dPaladin]

Why is everyone talking about suspension of disbelief as though nothing crazy happened in the previous movies?

Also, it wasn't that ludicrous. I mean, it's not like it was The Core or anything.

[DarkeSword]

But there's a limit. Would you be able to suspend your disbelief if it turned out Dr. Jones was actually a monkey in disguise? It sounds silly to even say because if it actually happened there would be no way to justify it. None. The point is that belief cannot be suspended no matter what. It only works to a certain extent. Gregor Samsa can turn into a beetle, but everything that happens afterwards is realistic, given that first event.
Gregor Samsa turned into a cockroach. :whatevaa:

[dPaladin]

Um, how do you know?

Kafka only describes him as a "vermin," and he goes through what I see as great lengths to avoid describing specifically which kind of bug Samsa resembles.

[Woe Is You]

My problems with Indy 4:

1) Excessive use of CGI. Can't they afford to use real ants instead of horrific looking CGI ants? An intro with a CGI prairie dog on a CGI desert? What the hell?
2) They really didn't leave anything up to the viewer's imagination. That's what I really loved in Ark: you don't really know what happened to the nazis in the end.
3) Completely, completely ridiculous and generic action scenes like the sword fighting scene with the jeeps.

And in general the whole movie just lacked a sense of peril and danger. By the time they get to the scene where Indy and Marion are having family talk on a pit of quicksand, it was basically clear that nothing's going to happen to any of these characters. Then the movie just got increasingly ridiculous.

What was most puzzling to me was that Blanchett's character knew that staring into the skull wasn't a good idea, but then during the last 15 minutes she forgets it and dies for it. What happen? :scratch:

As you can see, I didn't like the movie all that much. I liked Iron Man, which was also completely ridiculous, but at least it was consistent within itself. Indy 4 just felt bleh.

[The Author]

Villains in Indiana Jones always die by what they desire. That simple.


And we never knew what was in the ark, however, we pretty much knew, with the "painful" special effects, that the guys faces melted away.


I'm telling you, you need to all go back and watch the original trilogy, you forget how "bad" the first three were.

[zircon]

Guys, please preface your posts with SPOILERS or write spoiler text in white.

[DarkeSword]

My problems with Indy 4:

1) Excessive use of CGI. Can't they afford to use real ants instead of horrific looking CGI ants?

Okay, what? Are you really suggesting they pony up for tons of KILLER ANTS? :<

[The Author]

Okay, what? Are you really suggesting they pony up for tons of KILLER ANTS? :<
Giant, non existing killer ants?

I got some of those in a backroom somewhere, with my swift and silent invisible elves that only come out at night you cannot disprove.

[Aninymouse]

You know, I thought the cheesiness of it all was pretty charming. My only gripe was the monkeys. The ants I even liked, but the monkeys were too predictable.

I loved the film.

My parents and sisters thought National Treasure II was way better, but I found that one to be WAAAAAAAAAAAY over-acted to the point that it killed it for me halfway through.

We all have our tastes.

[Soma]

Giant, non existing killer ants?

I got some of those in a backroom somewhere, with my swift and silent invisible elves that only come out at night you cannot disprove.

The prairie dog thing irked me the most. it's not like prairie dogs have agents. The CGI prairie dog didn't do anything a real one couldn't do.

[Aninymouse]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v153/ANinyMouse/1180248185330.gif

[The Author]

The prairie dog thing irked me the most. it's not like prairie dogs have agents. The CGI prairie dog didn't do anything a real one couldn't do.

Stand still?

That posture is when they are ready to leave, that was more unbelievable than the fridge. The should not have stayed still.

[Poke'G]

I'm actually surprised the fridge sequence hasn't been getting more hate.

Most of the movie was pretty standard Indiana Jones fare, which is full of crazy unbelievable antics. I really think the doubters just went into the movie ready to harp on it no matter what they saw. The fact that Lucas tried to change up the formula just a tad didn't help them any.

I read most of the complaints and see:

"DIFFERNCES??? BAD MOVIE!!!"

It may not rank with the other three, fine, I'll grant that. It's not a bad movie though.

They really didn't leave anything up to the viewer's imagination. That's what I really loved in Ark: you don't really know what happened to the nazis in the end.

Um... the Nazis all pretty clearly died in horrendous ways in Raiders. I guess their pain was up to our imaginations, but not their fate.

[Wintermute]

Alrighty, since there seems to be more debate about this than I had originally anticipated, I will go ahead and clear up my thoughts on this film for you all.

All in all, a decent adventure flick. Scores higher than National Treasure 2 in my book. However, it ranks only just above Temple of Doom in my book as far as an Indiana Jones movie (I can't stand Temple of Doom because of the amazingly annoying female lead, but that's a whole different post).
My main issue with it wasn't the CGI, which I thought was perfectly acceptable for the most part, but was rather with the way the story was presented. I will try to be as spoiler free as possible, but those who have seen the movie will likely know what I'm talking about:
During the first 15 minutes of the movie, we are told what the final "twist" of the movie ought to have been. Frankly, knowing the origin of the object right at the beginning removed much of what could have been interesting plot development.
Second, no longer was Indiana Jones finding his own way. He was often being led about by other characters, namely Mutt initially (you've GOT TO COME HELP) and, in a much worse case, by John Hurt's character. John Hurt's character had already solved THE ENTIRE FILM, and the other characters merely followed him through it.
Much of what made Indiana Jones the character we all love is gone as well. Besides a few sparkling moments, the character is generally not witty, coy, or any of those things. He was merely along for the ride as the resident badass.. the film could actually have worked exactly the same without his character at all, if you made Mutt slightly more intelligent to figure out things up until the point where John Hurt's character entered the story.
And an Indiana Jones film where Indiana Jones himself is not necessary to the story arc... that's a bad thing.

[The Author]

John Hurt's character should have been Sean Connery's.

That aspect bugged me a lot more than the other complaints really. At the end of the movie, it was like: I wish they had gotten Connery for that one.

[Poke'G]

I don't know. I thought the relationship that came up instead sufficed. Connery may have been overkill.

Lucas himself has said Connery would only have had a cameo role had he accepted the offer.

[DarkeSword]

And an Indiana Jones film where Indiana Jones himself is not necessary to the story arc... that's pretty much every indiana jones movie.

Fixed it. :)

[djpretzel]

SPOILERS

Ooff...

Finally saw this tonight. A little late to the game, perhaps, but a huge fan of the first and third films and an occasional admirer of the second.

I have no idea why critics are being so nice to this one; I think it's because of the ages of those involved and unlikelihood of a fifth film with the same principles in play. I've read back through this thread, and there seem to be folk criticizing the film, and others defending it, and the main defense seems to be "but the other three films were like that, too!"... I sure hope not. The CG is bad to a fault... normally wouldn't be a huge issue, but it's overused as well, and applied to scenes that could have been shot traditionally (admittedly would have been much harder)... But it's a non-issue compared to the goofiness of the overall plot. How was it any sort of revelation that the skull was alien in nature? It resembles the stereotypical Communion-style alien form in every way, right from the beginning. Also, a little unclear.... 13 aliens, or 1? And they came to Earth for... what reason? To be worshipped awhile, have one of their heads stolen, wait a real long time, then fry a Russian woman's eye sockets because she wants to know stuff? Was her fate punishment for being inquisitive - which, in the face of alien intelligence, might actually seem admirable and preferable to running away - or for being Communist? Or perhaps being psychic... an ability she uses all of once in the film, and without actual results?

A couple problematically ridiculous lines:
"They've gone to the spaces BETWEEN spaces..."
(presumably where the good parts of the screenplay went, too...)
"Their treasure was knowledge. Knowledge was their treasure."
(...of what? What is it that they knew? Why'd they stop knowing it? What did it get them? If it's a treasure, why was Cate's wanting to know rewarded with disintegration? Because she didn't wear a thong and speak Mayan?)IJ 1-3 had NOTHING on that level of bad when it comes to writing.

This film needed racially insensitive CG Short Round on a CG elephant.

[Wintermute]

Fixed it. :)

You can argue that the other films would work with a similar character, and perhaps that Temple of Doom could work with most action heroes, but definitely 1 and 3 require a character with the same basic set of abilities AND personality to be pulled off.

[JCvgluvr]

I've seen all the movies now, with 4 just being added tonight.

Where is all this negativity and lack of support for IJ4 coming from? This was right up there with The Last Crusade in my book.

DJ, the villainess (Cate is her name?) was fried because the alien(s?) KNEW she was evil. How? We don't know that. But the aliens have been presented as superbly intelligent and given psychic abilities. That's all we need to know.

[FuriousFure]

I've seen all the movies now, with 4 just being added tonight.

Where is all this negativity and lack of support for IJ4 coming from? This was right up there with The Last Crusade in my book.

DJ, the villainess (Cate is her name?) was fried because the alien(s?) KNEW she was evil. How? We don't know that. But the aliens have been presented as superbly intelligent and given psychic abilities. That's all we need to know.

okay, yeah but here's what i want to say:

if they took out the obvious CGI (alien dude, ground hogs, tarzan boy and the monkeys) the movie would have been AMAZING. if the aliens in skeleton form blew up the evil commie lady and the outside of UFO wasn't seen it was just the rocks floating. and the kid drove a motorcycle through the jungle and jumped onto the badguy's vehicle crushing a few of them.

also, who the hell is mac and why should i care?

[Lotd2242]

Where is all this negativity and lack of support for IJ4 coming from? This was right up there with The Last Crusade in my book.

Blasphemy. :-D

[JCvgluvr]

okay, yeah but here's what i want to say:

if they took out the obvious CGI (alien dude, ground hogs, tarzan boy and the monkeys) the movie would have been AMAZING. if the aliens in skeleton form blew up the evil commie lady and the outside of UFO wasn't seen it was just the rocks floating. and the kid drove a motorcycle through the jungle and jumped onto the badguy's vehicle crushing a few of them.

True. Those things are some of the only negative points in the movie.

also, who the hell is mac and why should i care?

Well, did you care about Sallah, Marcus Brody, Willie, Elsa Schneider, Walter Donovan, or other such minor characters? I know I didn't. But they served just as much a purpose in their respective movies' plots as Mac did in IJ4.

[relyanCe]

I saw Indy 4 a few weeks back, expecting to be completely unimpressed.
It was waaaay better than I thought it would be, that's for sure, but a couple things REALLY annoyed me...
1. The very presence of Shia Labouf (sic probly). Am I the only guy who still thinks Even Steven's whenever I see his face?
2. ...Space aliens... Okay, this one may not be to far off from Indy's element, but still.
3. As stated before, Indy seemed to be a mostly disinterested party. It wouldn't even have mattered to him if Mutt and the KGB didn't drag him into it...
4. I just don't like Shia... complete idiot in Transformers, Tarzan boy in Indy 4... What will he ruin next!?

[DarkeSword]

You can argue that the other films would work with a similar character, and perhaps that Temple of Doom could work with most action heroes, but definitely 1 and 3 require a character with the same basic set of abilities AND personality to be pulled off.
Actually, Temple of Doom was the only Indy movie where Dr. Jones was kind of required to save the day. All the Nazis ended up dying when they opened the Ark (as they would have even if he wasn't there), and they never would have been able to remove the Grail from the temple, with or without Indy.

It's a staple of Indy movies that the macguffin ends up destroying the villains of its own accord. That was the case here, as well.

[FuriousFure]

Well, did you care about Sallah, Marcus Brody, Willie, Elsa Schneider, Walter Donovan, or other such minor characters? I know I didn't. But they served just as much a purpose in their respective movies' plots as Mac did in IJ4.

yeah, I guess the difference was that Mac (or Mack) was the traitorous type. like he did it in the beginning of the movie. if he had not done the whole double agent crap and actually showed some bond between him and Indiana. it would have actually meant something.

also in the past movies Marcus Brody, Sallah, and Short Round were protrayed better to be important to Dr. Jones. they just didn't take the time to actually make the audience get to know the small characters before they did anything with them.

[Admiral_C]

Is it still spoiler at this point? If it is, you really shouldn't be in this thread to begin with...

Moving on...

A couple problematically ridiculous lines:
"They've gone to the spaces BETWEEN spaces..."
...
"Their treasure was knowledge. Knowledge was their treasure."
...


Add Mack's "I'll be alright" at the end of the film... just before HE DIED!!!!!!! This little gem was the icing on the cake for me and my brother. What exactly was his grand plan? He let go of his lifeline and reassured his friend(?) that he was going to be "alright"... moments before he was ripped to interdimensional shreds.

I LoL'd.

[Wintermute]

Actually, Temple of Doom was the only Indy movie where Dr. Jones was kind of required to save the day. All the Nazis ended up dying when they opened the Ark (as they would have even if he wasn't there), and they never would have been able to remove the Grail from the temple, with or without Indy.

It's a staple of Indy movies that the macguffin ends up destroying the villains of its own accord. That was the case here, as well.

You're confusing "Required to save the day" with "Required to tell the story of the movie." Obviously 1 and 3 have endings where Indiana Jones doesn't end up taking out the bad-guy, but in order for the story arc to have played out we needed him. Sorry if there was any confusion, that's what I was getting at.

[Lotd2242]

It's a simple distinction between something that holds your attention for a couple hours and a work of art.

Crusade is like the Mona Lisa and Crystal Skull is like a child's fingerpainting.

Will Indy 4 hold your attention for its running time? Sure. Is it at least entertaining to watch? Yeah. Bombs and car chases and swordfights are always entertaining. Is it anything more than that? Absolutely not.

That's the problem with the movie. You can break it down into details, the CGI is bad and all over the place, the story is full of holes, the skull is possibly the goofiest artifact ever, the villains are hardly villainous, the supporting characters are useless, the score is hardly inspiring, the leaps of faith required for suspension of disbelief would make a scientologist laugh, and most of the dialogue would make even Anakin Skywalker roll his eyes, but ultimately, it's very simple. Indy 4 is something to simply keep you from leaving the theater, nothing more.

[Zup]

The main problem I see for Indy 4 is that it will not hold up over time. The other three were timeless in the presentation and, whether through nostalgia or just plain fun, they entertain just the same today as they did the day they came out and I'm certain my kids will enjoy them just as much as I did.

Indy 4 will not do the same. The holes that all of us are pointing out will only become more obvious as time goes on, expecially with the advancing rate of CG that we're currently seeing. Indy 4 will not face the future well at all while the main three will be classics for years to come.

It's the differnce between Indy pulling a gun on a swordfighting guy and Indy blowing the dart back through the dart gun. Both are unexpected; one still makes me chuckle while the other will elicit a laugh for only the first time and a strained one at that.

[The Author]

Oh please. I cringe when I see the painted special effects. I laugh when I see the rocks and boulders bounce like rubber balls. At this point, it's fairly obvious you went to the movies with the intention of hating IJ4.

[DarkeSword]

Yeah I mean...the special effects in the old movies are really cheesy too. xD

[Lotd2242]

The CGI is only one of many flaws and probably the most forgiveable. There are some obviously bad effects shots in the original trilogy. The problem here was not so much that the CGI was bad, but that it was both obvious and overused, especially when they spent all that time talking about how they were going to keep it to a minimum.

I did not go into this movie with the intention of hating it. I went in hoping it would pull a Transformers and surpass my low expectations. Unfortunately, it landed right about where I expected it to, on its face.