Jump to content

Indiana Jones 4


Zombie
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...