Indiana Jones 4

[Nohbody]

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

[Devyn]

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,

[Devyn]

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. 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.

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.

[Tex]

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

[Tex]

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.

[Devyn]

Shoot. I forgot the movie was even out. 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.

[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. 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.

[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 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 ?