THERE’S SPOILERS IN THE COMMENTS. YOU’VE BEEN WARNED.
I went and saw the new Indiana Jones movie today. Everyone is great in it, and the cast has good chemistry. That said …
… We’ll all have differing opinions, but for me … oof. George Lucas ruins another movie. D:
This entry was posted on Thursday, May 22nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm and is filed under Rant. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
George Lucas is the reason the original Indy movies were so BIG! He and Spielberg are the creators of the Indiana Jones Trilogy!! And GL is a great, and legendary, director!
It’s a matter of opinion … I’m not crazy about the newest Star Wars movies either.
Spielberg and Ford were on one side of the fence, and Lucas was on the other. In the end they had to compromise, but I believe Lucas largely won out.
I haven’t seen the new Indy movie yet. But from being a huge Starwars fan, and seeing how the newest movies don’t hold up a mere few years aftr they were released, and seeing how well the original trilogy holds up even today, I have to say that George Lucas seems to like finding new toys (like CGI, cameras, etc) and build his movies around them.
He seems to forget the importance of story and character development in favor of going for his “impossible image” method of wowing the audience. Unfortunately while this does create a memorable experience it also creates one that doesn’t have a lot of replay value.
I think movies actually improve the lower the budget you can get. When you have a large budget people tend not to think as creatively because they can throw money at any problem and come up with a passable solutions. But when you have no money, and very little resources that is the time that true genius reveals itself. Unfortunately I believe George Lucas forgot the fact that he used to be a good movie maker specifically because his movies were low budget and his ideas pushed the limits of what he could do with his budgets.
Serious?! damn I knew it. I was worried… UGH. guess I will wait until after the utah saints to see it.
Don’t take my word for it … as you can see, a lot of people disagree with me. Go see it!
I saw it today as well and I have to disagree. Well it is quit different from the old movies, you have to realize that they had more to work with in regards to special effects so they could do a more fantastic story than they could with the originals. Also, I feel that Shia LaBeouf did a good job for the role he was given. I think going into the theater with an open mind, knowing that this movie was not going to be like the old ones, helped me appreciate the movie than if I would have been biased about it in terms of how it compared to the old ones.
p.s. I couldn’t have been worse than Temple of Doom, could it?
Here’s what I think: It was an Indy movie in every way. Everyone who was in the movie played their role beautifully, and Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones. He’s still got it.
What I didn’t like was how it went from the the realm of mysticism and ancient civilizations (original 3 movies) straight into sci-fi, aliens, and interdimensional travelers. The awful CG alien and the UFO taking off at the end were stupid.
Thank you. People didn’t get what I was talking about when I commented on the whole alien thing. I mean it still tied into ancient mysticism but aliens. Come on they could have done better than aliens.
Well, most people when they look at the complexities of the pyramids and most temples, there’s that understanding that no human could make it, along with the fact that aliens keep coming up in some myths.
I liked the movie. But towards the end, I was waiting for a Predator to show up and clean house. :)
Thats what I was trying to say, I realize a lot of people will think the whole alien thing was stupid, and thats your opinion (along with many other people). I found it to be an interesting deviation from the religious themes of the first 3 movies, not that I hate religion. What I can say, and I think many will agree with me, is I might lose faith in the Indiana Jones series if they go on to do more movies with Shia as the main character, not that he isn’t a good actor (I felt he did a really good job in Transformers as well as this movie, though in reading through some of the other comments, I agree that the swinging through the trees was pretty bad) its just that I personally think that no one can replace Harrison Ford as Indy.
I’m going to likely see it over the weekend. Why didn’t you like it?
It just strayed too far from the usual Indy fare. I felt like Lucas had an idea he really wanted to do, and he didn’t consider the context in which he was doing it.
I disagree; I think Lucas knew exactly the context in which he was working. The original trilogy was set in the 30s, when pulp adventure was huge. Now that Indy’s older and it’s the 50s, it makes perfect sense for his next adventure to be a pulp sci-fi romp. I don’t think it was a work of brilliance, but I think it’s selling Lucas short to say he was unaware of the context in which he was working.
I just saw it a few hours ago, and I also liked it. I wasn’t floored by any means, but I was entertained. My only complaints are on end of the movie. Too many special effects and the plot just got too weird for me. I’d give it a 4/5.
My compaints:
1. Shia Lebouf swinging through the trees: This was just stupid.
2. Aliens + Indy = WTF
Everyone played their roles really well, though. It’s just that they’re dropped into a scenario that is kind of wacky.
I totally agree with you. Roles were played awesomely. Only things I didn’t like were: Psychic woman, Lebouf swinging through the trees (seriously, that was just really retarded), and the aliens?
Now I did like the Ark being in there. That was great.
Hahaha, that was AWESOME.
…and Brody’s head falling into the bad guys lap… and Marion saying she didn’t think he planned that far ahead- though i really was waiting for the “i’m making this up as i go along” from Indy.
Couldn’t agree more about George, it had the Indy feel from everybody else though imho. The action felt right, the little funny bits were good but a bit over done, and the cast had a good chemistry. Unfortunately you could tell Lucas got hold of the story because it felt like a big middle finger directed at my childhood. I went in there and up until i found out how the skull “was made”. Which led to one of those are you F’n serious moments. All and all I feel like I watched an Indy movie, its just that last bit of the plot that really felt like a cop out.
I 100% agree. Everyone was great, but like I said above, they were dropped into a serious WTF scenario.
I liked it too. I don’t think the climax was any more absurd than the ark, the temple of doom’s secret, or the cup of christ, in the end. It was kind of out there, but I think they did it well.
I’d disagree in that every other movie’s secret had an element of magic of mysticism to it.
But no worries … to each their own.
Hadn’t thought about it that way, but I can see why it would distance some from the previous Indy fare. I guess we do have Lucas to blame for that, since he did work extensively on the script. Incidentally, the nuclear blast bothered me more than the aliens.
I don’t know what it was about this movie, but it also seemed to have lost the suspense and rooting tension of the previous three (particularly The Last Crusade, my favorite of the 4). I think the whole quests, puzzles and interchanging acts of leading/pursuing the bad guys were really better put together in the originals, too.
Even lacking fancy CGI, I prefer the originals. There’s something about watching Indiana Jones navigate the three traps/puzzles on the final stretch to the cup of Christ that trumps cross-car sword-fights and man-eating ants. The first 3 were more epic, somehow. Sigh… the good old days of moviemaking: I will miss them!
I think you really hit on something regarding the suspense. You’re absolutely right. They didn’t build it like they did in the other movies.
I did like some of the script, though. I like how his son’s name was Mutt, which is another name for a dog, just like Indiana was the dog’s name.
And as bad a choice as it might have been, I found it very ironic that there were aliens, since Spielberg also made E.T. and Close Encounters.
Oh if u see Aliens as a kind of modern mythos it will fit nice. All these alien and ufo wierdos createt a kind of own religion there. The film reminds me of a german pseudo-scientific guy who claimed “proofs” that the aliens guided ancient civilisations as there gods.
The only drawback was that is was faster / more action driven than the old movies and i missed some slower scences.
I have to admit that I was entertained by the new Indy movie. However, I admit it had a few WTF? moments. Overall I liked it.
Like I’ve been saying, I think everyone was fantastic - I just couldn’t get over how bad the plot was.
I was expecting it to be bad to some extent, given Lucas and the horror that is The Temple of Doom, and I was pretty much justified. It’s not ToD bad, but it’s not Lost Ark good, and it’s certainly no Last Crusade. The main stumbling point is, of course, the plot; it whiplashes all over the place, and all the Van Daanikenisms bring me out in hives. I guess I prefer bizarre superstition when it has thousands of years of obfuscation behind it. The actors, on the other hand, did quite well with what they were given. It’s just a pity what they were given was Lucas-tainted. The man has a kind of reverse Midas touch these days.
Totally agree, although I liked Temple of Doom better.
Temple of Doom gives me conniptions. It’s the whiny screamy helpless blonde bimbo female love interest, and the sickly cloying utterly graagh argh ack Kid Sidekick. Obviously they needed the Kid Sidekick to fight the Evil Raja Kid (Indy can’t clobber *kids*, after all), but it would have been much easier simply to make the Evil Raja an *adult*. And there’s no excuse for the annoying bimbo woman.
Haha, that is true. The female lead in the newest one is very cool. More capable than any other.
Don’t forget the “new” female lead is also the original female lead from Lost Ark…
@RealUnimportant: I didn’t realize that until Yuko pointed it out to me! That’s awesome.
Dude, you didn’t realize that? I noticed it as soon as they put out the roster. Well, technically, my sister did, then burst into my room and screamed.
Well I can’t agree any more that George just tainted another movie. I was liking the movie until you realize that George added aliens to the mix.
Agreed … !
*sparkle fingers* Aaaaaaaliens…..
Hahaha …
please please don’t say anymore stuff about the plot and the Aliens.There are still some peeps like me who have to see the movie for themselves. Please no more Spoilers…
I posted something in the rant that says there’s spoilers in the comments. Sorry about that! Can’t filter each post as they come. D:
I’m with Ananth on this one: George Lucas took a wrong left turn somewhere. The actors did a fantastic job, as has been said. It was the story-line that was lacking.
If George Lucas keeps at it, I’m thinking the next movie has Indiana Jones finding his own spaceship and then introducing himself as “Han Solo.”
Oh, you noticed he said “I have a bad feeling about this”? The same line he says in each of the original trilogy movies, and Obi-Wan is forced to speak in the prequels?
Cate Blanchett as Irina Spelko was very cool, though. But then she was also very cool as Galadriel.
Am I the only one who thinks GL is out to remake every major movie’s he’s ever done and ruin them for everyone who watched them growing up? I can understand wanting to use the splashy new special effects that are available now with the creations that you know and love, but at what point does GL attempt to just make another movie?
Let Star Wars and Indiana Jones die. They were titans in their time, and would have withstood just about everything… Why keep messing with a good thing with less than spectacular sequels until the originals also leave you with that dingy taste in the back of your throat?
It seems like everyone is out to do another take on the ones from the Good Ol’ Days(tm). take Live Free or Die Hard, Rambo 23 (or whatever it was), that new Rocky movie, Ocean’s Eleven… those are just the first four off the top of my head.
Die Hard and Ocean’s Eleven were great. Rocky and Rambo, not so much. The market for it is very much hit-and-miss and it relies entirely too much on peoples’ feelings of nostalgia and not enough on actually making good movies.
Personally, I prefer these newer star wars and Indiana Jones movies, as well as stuff like tranformers. But then again I’m 15 and I guess the fact that you grew up with the oldies while I prefer all the new movies, books, comics etc. The newer the better I say, and everyone at my school agrees with me. That just goes to show you how a few measly years can cause such a huge entertainment gap.
The sad part is, I’m 15, and I prefer the older movies by FAR. They are just that much better, they were just extremely fun movies to watch, whereas the newer, overblown stuff is just a chore to sit through.
Im going to have to agree with Cihan here. As a 17 year old person I really prefer the older indy movies, with last crusade being my favorite.
You are the only hope for humanity and literature! God bless you!
I also agree with the other guys, I’m 17 and th e old movies are waaaay better. Because they didn’t have the overblown CGI they couldn’t just replace everything with it. GL actually had to work to make things not incredibly…well dumb. Personally i will repeat, the acting was fabulous, the plot…not so much
ok, as a 23 year old who grew up with the “real” Starwars and Indiana Jones movies, hearing a “newer the better” comment just makes me want to claw out my eyes for humanity. PLEASE, sit down, culture yourself, and watch some Boggart, some Hepburn, Juno, and (Hawk will love this) the new Batman to learn how to appreciate a good STORY and not just the flash and bang that are constantly rammed down our thoat by hollywood. I’m all about a decent floof movie, and I’ve always been a scifi fan, but give me the Back to the Future trilogy (all HILARIOUS with a GOOD STORY throughout) before the Matrix trilogy(the first one was the only really good one) or the “new” starwars trilogy (all shit) anyday.
OFFTOPIC! New Topic: Old Star Wars Trilogy (OT) vs New Star Wars Trilogy (NT)
I disagree with the notion that someone is “uncultured” just because they haven’t seen anything 20-years old or older (or 30- or 40-years old). It’s a different culture, now, and while those might be “classics,” they aren’t applicable to audiences, today. They serve as little more, now, than ways to revel in elitism, I think.
That said, I’m one of those people who didn’t like the old Star Wars trilogy any more than I did the new Star Wars trilogy. There, I said it. The acting wasn’t especially better in the Old Trilogy. The story wasn’t especially better. The Old Trilogy just benefits a lot (a lot) from nostalgia and rose-tinted glasses. It benefits because it was the first, and most people are unable to independently judge a work without comparing it to something else. Thus, the New Trilogy was judged according to the Old Trilogy, and it was found “different” and therefor most assumed it was worse since they remembered the Old Trilogy to be somehow amazing.
Let me explain, many people point at the quality of acting and see that it is inconsistent and then say the OT was clearly better. I disagree. The acting is the same quality, just different. Mark Hamil wasn’t an especially good actor as far as I could tell. He wasn’t bad, but I wouldn’t write home about him. Harrison Ford was pretty cool, but he had no real counterpart in the NT. Obiwan went from being an older actor in the OT to being a much younger actor in the new one. That in itself is an immediate inconsistency in acting since it was done by two completely different people from completely different eras of theatre. Anakin was played by a child–a child. Do I have to say anything?
The second thing people look at is the plot and story-line. Again, completely different things, but that doesn’t mean the new one is automagically bad, as most people consider it to be. They look at the OT where the Evil Empire rules all and subjugates the many–this takes the form of a more or less militaristic plot. In the NT, the Evil Empire isn’t around, but it’s being built up to in small, subversive steps–this takes the form of a very political plot. Two Completely Different Things. However, and this might seem odd saying it out loud, most people prefer militaristic plots. I don’t know why, offhand, but that’s what all signs point to. Does that mean political plots are bad? No, it doesn’t. But wait, which one was the most popular of the NT? The third one. Why is that? I would argue because it’s the only one that militaristic in nature, and I know a lot of people who actually liked the third movie in the NT.
The third thing people point at is the difference in film quality, where the NT looks cheesy with its new-fangled CG and stuff. “Why you young whippersnappers! When I was your age, I had to make a space-scene by tying models to strings and shoot them against a black background with randomly-spaced, white dots!” Strangely enough, around the time of the first movie in the NT, CGI was a lot more advanced than what they had in the OT’s era, but compared to today, the realism was severely lacking in some aspects. I think this is the only negative part of the NT, and I don’t even hold it as a major problem. It was an experiment, and evidently in the second and third movies in the NT, they got a lot better at this. It’s funny how practice leads to improvement, eh? Them’s the breaks.
Now, continue back to your regularily programmed Indiana Jones bashing.
(By the way, I also thought Jar Jar was amusing.)
Speaking of which… how long before Back to the Future 4? It’s looking more likely every day… Anyway, although I do like the old trilogy and the original Matrix, and certainly the new Batman, (I gave up hope for the Bat when Arnold made his 50th cold-related pun,) I don’t think you can really compare everything to those standards. They’re classics, and if they released now, we’d beat them to death before they even hit theaters. It’d be “Lame effects!” this and “A muppet, Yoda is!” that, and say how at least Phantom Menace had a villain who knew how to BREATHE, lolz and such. We were easier to impress, then. For the record, I’m 20, and I think the only truly classic films of my generation was The Lord of the Rings trilogy. So don’t be a hater, eh? Not all oldies are goldies.
No no no no no! Back to the Future should remain untouched! Do you want it to suffer the same fate the Indy and many other classic film series did? D:
WARNING! A NEW OFF TOPIC APPROACHES!
I’m sorry Blank, but I have to disagree with you there. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was absolute crud. The only things that might have made someone to watch it was the well-made CG stuff (classic motive), Legolas, trying to count how many times Smegle says “My Preciousssss” in any film and lots and lots of “what if?” scenes that would have done nothing more than kill the main story if they really happened in the actual book. The film didn’t even consider taking the book seriously, and that’s really sad, ’cause many of my generation have missed the true background settings LoTRs really withheld. The film is absolutely nothing compared to the book. Read it again if you have some doubts about which is better. (Btw, can you believe that there are some people who honestly think that book came after the film? URGH! Stupid party people… >.<)
Now Pirates of the Caribbean. The second one did give me doubts, but with the first and third in the picture, I believe that this is the only true classic trilogy of my generation, appreciated by this so called ‘easy-to-please’ next gen. or not. And I appreciate oldies more than this next gen. crap that makes money out of the blue. Too bad that most directors want to ruin the brought back to life film rather than settle it back in our hearts. For example, I’d pay lots of money in order to see “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” in the cinema. Yeah, like that’s going to happen.
… I’m quite scared to go see “The Mummy 3″ now.
I liked it. Everything was great. Except the plot. It did get out there but every other thing was right, the humor, the cast, the action. Except the Tarzan swings. I don’t think it was too out there in context in with the other films but it did feel like a Indiana Jones to me that is what mattered. It be hated and loved, this movie will have just as many people who didn’t like it to those that did.
I just saw It. I liked it, There were some very nice touches, although the alien idea threw me off a bit. Also the vine swinging could have not happened, or rather he could have tried it, managed one good swing then stuffed up, far more believable, And more in keeping with the feel of the first three that altho the people in IJ movies rock, they are only human.
Some touches i did like: well i had to laugh at the start when they knocked over that crate in the car chase and the Ark was in it. Also the motorbike chase felt like a true Indy scene. The bit where he blows the dart back down that guys throat, aesome. And the whole idea of Indy having a kid and getting back together with his woman was great.
… :) also, now i have the Indy theme music stuck in my head.
The Indy theme song shall always plague this nation!! lol.
I haven’t seen the movie so I don’t know how Lucas handled it, but the actual legend(s)surrounding the crystal skulls are quite alien-centered.
ps. @Freakingiant - When my friends and I first rode the Superman roller coaster at Six Flags Great America we burst out in song as we were starting up the lift. Afterwards I realized that it was actually the Indy song, which none of us had noticed as we were being pulled up the first hill. That song is a classic.
Some of the chase scenes really hit the old vibe, like the one in the jungle (that is, until LaBeouf pulls a Tarzan - he was a nice addition to the gang otherwise though). But with any subtlety gone out of the window (roaring Ark of the Covenant theme right when they open the storage - wtf?) and Spielberg (again) unnecessarily reusing Close Encounters props (what is this, “A.I.2 - Revenge of the Tacked On Roswell Greys”?) the old magic just evaporates an all that’s left are a few decent actors trying really hard to do anything with what they get.
It suck! Please don’t watch this movie. It had no story or plot, it’s as if any time they couldn’t think of what to they would switch scenes. It lack the old feel of the other films. Just like Ananth said “George Lucas ruins another movie.” So from here on out, if I see george lucas attach to a movie I won’t waste my money.
Here’s the thing… Indiana Jones is pulp adventure. The pulps set in the 30s tended towards the mystical, magical bent, and IJ reflected those values… Now that Indy’s older, they had to move the setting forward, and the zeitgeist of the fifties was weird science and aliens. It’s not just that Indy moved on, it’s that the genre did. I haven’t been able to get to the theatre yet, but the aliens fit within the genre conventions they’re paying tribute to.
This, seriously.
Also, for people crying that the old ones were so much better and that this one sucks in comparison: Did the movies change, or did you? I know that I, for one, when I go back and watch a movie that I absolutely loved 10 years ago, but haven’t watched in a long time, find that the movie generally isn’t as good as I remember it. The movie hasn’t changed, I have.
I haven’t actually seen the old ones. I have nothing that I’m comparing the new movie to except for general movie and story-telling standards. The acting was fine. The plot wasn’t appropriate to the majority of the audience (as can be seen by the large number of replies who didn’t appreciate it).
actually i saw the last crusade the day before i saw the new one. last crusade still much better. although i know what you mean by some series not aging well. watching the old spiderman cartoon is laughable.
Well, yeah, Last Crusade is better than Crystal Skull; it has Sean Connery in it (Last Crusade is my favorite). I didn’t say it was the best. I’m just saying that maybe a lot of people were looking at the older ones through rose tinted lenses and seeing (with Crystal Skull) that maybe the movies aren’t really what they remember.
I’m guessing that most of the people complaining are like the guys who were sitting behind me in the theater Wednesday night. All through the movie they laughed at the funny parts, cheered during the action sequences (midnight showings bring those kinds out), etc. and generally ruined the movie going experience (I’m not saying that most of the people ruined things , just these guys). Anyway, they enjoyed the movie and then, when the credits rolled, they started in with “Oh, that one was crap.” and “George Lucas ruined it.”
Seriously, just because you’re a netnerd doesn’t mean that you have to hate on it for no reason.
Disclaimer: I really didn’t mind anything I saw in the movie.
I entered into it knowing it had both Spielberg and Lucas in head roles, so I had to suspend disbelief…heavily.
Having suspended disbelief…heavily, it was a great movie. Though I still have to doubt the reliability of a lead-lined refrigerator for that purpose.
The lead-lined fridge would probably be an effective way to protect against the majority of the radiation (the primary kill-factor, and they /were/ scrubbing him down right after), but definitely not the concussion wave (which saw Indy being instantly accelerated to speeds faster than a car at top-speed). Look at that statement the other way: It would be as if he were hit by a car going at top-speed. Also, keep in mind the numerous bounces he took before coming to a stop.
Were someone really in that fridge before the explosion, there would have been little more than salsa in the fridge afterward.
I agree. I also want Mythbusters on that immediately.
Indy IV wasn’t bad.
But it was a far cry from good.
I consider Raiders of the Lost Ark to be a nearly-flawless movie. This isn’t just nostalgia talking; I catch Raiders every couple of years and even though I know it front to back, I still love pretty much every bit of it.
As movies go, Indy IV will make a great videogame, which is probably what George Lucas had in the back of his mind the whole time. Having read enough about what Lucas WANTED to do with Indy IV and what Spielberg and Ford would agree to, it’s all but certain that at some point Lucas must’ve had a tantrum and threatened to take his ball home if the others wouldn’t bend.
Crystal Skull is a non-stop action piece, which is good, to be sure. But it fails to take any time to give the characters any dimension or empathy. There’s one fleeting scene in Prof. Jones’ study that nods to both the late Denholm Elliott (Brody) and Sean Connery (Henry Sr.) and that’s about as human as the picture gets. And that sucks. Raiders had the scene reuniting Indy and Marion, after he thought she’d been killed. Temple of Doom had the scene of Indy and Short Round each giving the other his hat back. Last Crusade had a BUNCH of good moments between father and son (talking about Indy’s mom; saving Senior’s life, etc). There’s just none of that here.
And my other big complaint: there’s not enough Harrison Ford being Indy. Is he older? Yeah. Less headstrong? Sure. But he demonstrates several times in the early part of the movie that he’s still more than capable of being The Name that Adventure Has. Problem is, once LaBoeuf takes the screen, the camera focuses WAY the hell too much on him. Shia (aka “Mutt”) arguably gets the best fight scene (a swordfight with the villainess), while Indy is relegated to taking on hordes of nameless thugs. Don’t get me wrong, I love that Marion is back. But using “Mutt” as the plot device to bring her into the story pulled the focus off Indy… and it’s HIM I came to see.
It would be easy to say that Indy IV sucked, but it was still certainly enjoyable. It was as fun as any of the classic action serials that Lucas and Spielberg claim as inspiration. The acting and special effects were certainly better than any of that old B-grade fare.
Unfortunately, the story was not.
i agree with you there, about there not being enough Indy… did you notice that half the time the characters called him Henry? That Oz guy didn’t connect him with Indiana at all, but with Henry Jones Jr. THAT more than anything bugged me.
Hmmm… I saw this yesterday as well for a friend’s 21st. I went hoping for an Indy film and thats what I got, I didn’t expect a brilliant film, nor did I get one, just simply Indy. The spaceship did leave the typical Indy genre however which annoyed me considerably. I did like the scene with Jim Broadbent (who didn’t get enough time on screen) where he says “They have us seeing Communists everywhere” or something to that effect which I think was also supposed to be a critique on the current state of affairs on both sides of the pond, and quite a good one. Possibly the best set of scenes in the film was the jeep chase where Blanchett has to fight LeBeouf and the rest of the crew, at the very end of it you nearly see her start crying as all her plans have been going to shit. I’ll buy it when it comes out on dvd if only to complete the collection, probably wouldn’t watch it very often though.
And there’s the difference between lucas now and lucas then. I’ll pull out the old set every couple of months to take one or two in for a good popcorn and a movie night at home. This one….not so much.
The film was amazing and I had this nagging feeling of. “Look what Lucas did to Star Wars… what’s he gonna do to mess this up for me?” And through 90% of the film I thought he’d got it RIGHT this time… but then came THAT scene. Thats OTT scene. Just THAT bit takes the film from a 5 to a 3!
I know people will disagree but. Please… somebody stop Lucas having his input!
I don’t know whose fault it was, but yeah, as far as I’m concerned, they definitely ruined that movie. It felt like some odd sort of self plagiarism to me. You had so many scenes in there that looked like as if Spielberg and Lucas wanted to copy their own three prequel movies. I felt as if those guys were desperately trying to recreate the atmosphere of the good old times but without being able to reproduce the quality.
Of course, the storyline has never been the strongest point of and Indy movie, but nevertheless, it had some more to offer than just one big chase lasting for 120 mins. The same applies to the characters. You don’t go to watch an Indy movie to get serious multy-layered personalities but in the first three movies all the important good and bad guys had their own defined character and habits. In the forth movie they all look like NPCs from a Tomb Raider game. Only in terms of humor the movie had its moments. There were those fractions of a second when I though: “Oh yes, THIS is Indy!” - And then came the next action scene that blew it all away.
Finally, there’s this strange thing with the special effects. They just looked cheap. I know they wanted to recreate the look of the old movies. But still, while the prequels had a strong art direction, lighting and atmosphere, this one just looks… yeah… poorly executed. More decibel, less character. I think that sums it up pretty well. Please guys, don’t make a fifth one!
A fifth one might be called for though… You know to salvage the lost Indy… I personally think if they adapted the story line from the XBox game that came out a few years ago they might have something…
Well… if you ever wanted to see National Treasure 2 and X-Files at the same time… you COULD watch Indy 4, but you’re better off watching them separately.
Lucas has no sense of pattern recognition. Nazis and Roman Catholic artifacts seemed to work, stick with it. Russians, aliens, and JarJar Binks don’t work.
I also felt that the characters got along too quickly. Previous Indy films had lots of tension and arguments between the characters, whereas 4 had them as a tight knit family way too soon.
Not for me.
Don’t be misled by the credits. It wasn’t George, but George Lucas’s Neck that was in charge of this one.
compared to 4, Raiders is like Casablanca.
Some issues with the flick that bugged me. From the opening it rubbed me the wrong way, in that it didn’t start with an unrelated adventure to reestablish Indy, the pacing was weird and awkward from there on out, including that of the action sequences and set pieces. Indy was too tough, he’d just start punching guys and out and doing things he never could. He was indestructible, where as in the others he was kind of clumsy and got hurt, and would rather avoid getting his ass beat than jumping into a fight. It’s like they were overcompensating. On the other hand, Indy sure was willing to acquiesce and help out the Russians whenever they asked, he used to be much more believably defiant with the Nazis. Also the dialogue and characterization ain’t what it used to be, it’s either stilted, cheesy and cliche, or awkwardly deliberate and purposeful, like a bad movie. On that note, everything about Marion’s character, from her insertion and presence, is awkward, she’s just tacked on (like that quicksand scene). Even the cinematography was off (the previous guy had retired). Anyway, it is what it is, an Indiana Jones movie made 20 years removed from the others, a different kind of movie made by different people, even if the names are the same. It’s an Indy movie, but it isn’t.
I’m going to say one thing:
There were aliens in an Indy movie.
ALIENS.
Indiana Jones, to me, is using historical fact, but also being unrealistic sometimes, while at the same time you get a feel of historical nostalgia (Like the book burning in the last crusade). Sure the alien part was a little weird, but it is a theory for an ancient world, right?
There’s also a theory that the Atlantians survived their land’s sinking and spread their advanced technology all around the globe, that the Egyptians are the Atlantians decedents, that the Atlantians humped everyone and everywhere and that we owe our intelligence to them, that aliens exist outside our solar system (well, I believe this one), that Sweeny Todd truly existed, that our fate is written in the stars or that it has been decided long ago or only 90% complete..
The fact is that, what I just said above are just that- theories. Basing the whole film like Indiana Jones on that one theory is quite far-fetched, and come on; aliens? In the entire Indy series, there were ancient curses, deep archaeology, internal logic, legal oppression, human sacrifices, but aliens? Talk about putting your entire foot over the line.
Well, the videogame The Fate of Atlantis was originally going to be a movie =P
I don’t like including aliens, but accept Indy plots have never been scientific.
I watched this only yesterday with my sister and a couple of friends. I really looked forward to this film. The fact that Spielberg was the director and that they hesitated to produce the film until they had a ‘decent plot’ made it look worth to watch it on the release date, especially because the film was Indy, after all. But… come ON. This film was so bad. Extremely bad. Are most of you that easy to please? Just because there were aliens, choppy action scenes straight one after the other and, surprise surprise, NO archaeology, the film was good? W00t! No wonder Epic Movie got millions despite the heavy critic and the complete WTF settings!
This Indy film was practically a Legend of Zorro repeat. This film was weird from the very beginning (the ‘go faster’ scene was very WTF) and I ended up finding myself still waiting for plot to begin even five minutes after the film ended. Is this becoming some sort of fashion in decent series? I mean, the official insult to the series? Not only in films, but in all motion material in general. Like The Legend of Zorro (a classic in this category), Shrek 3, then Final Fantasy XII; the list is starting to never end. At this rate, I’m going to start reading the Wiki article of any film I like in order to see whether it’s good enough to see in the cinema or not. True, reading the article would ruin the point of seeing it, but frankly, I’d prefer knowing what I’m about to see and enjoy it rather than expect anything from a seemingly worth watching film to then get out of the cinema extremely disappointed.
I KNEW I wasn’t the only person who didn’t like Final Fantasy XII! I think FF X was the last true FF, and I weep for the future. (Can’t help it, I am a mage, after all.) A little off topic. Back to Indy.
Ananth, I agree with you that the movie was disappointing… I had high expectations and it didn’t meet them.
However, I disagree with you about the aliens bit. The first movie had three people’s faces get melted by divine power. The second movie had someone’s still-beating heart ripped cleanly out of their ribcage and then burst into flame. And the third movie had an invisible bridge and an ancient crusader guarding the holy grail. I don’t think aliens are that far fetched. Plus, Spielberg was going for a 50’s sci-fi b-movie feeling to match the era that the movie took place in.
The reasons I didn’t like the movie were
1) Shia LaBeouf swinging on vines. Right
2) Indy surviving a nuclear bomb in a refrigerator
3) General absurdity of events
I feel like they made Indy into a superhero in this one, whereas in the last ones he was more like a regular guy. There were awesome parts though (chase scene through Yale = epic).
The Sabre Duel wasn’t half bad either….