logo Sign In

Indiana Jones IV — Page 19

Author
Time
Post link
Boy, you said it vbangle. This was heartbreaking to watch. I was really holding out hope that Spielberg would be able to reign Lucas in. But, instead, the whole thing was perverted into another big CGI cash-grab.

What a shame.

I think I'm done with Lucas and Spielberg for a while. Time to grow up I guess.

Author
Time
Post link
What did you think of it, ChainsawAsh? Am I being too hard on it?

Author
Time
Post link
I thought it lived up to the standards set by "Doom" and "Crusade," which, in my humble opinion, aren't very high standards, especially considering how perfect "Raiders" is. All three sequels were about 50/50 on the "Holy shit was that awesome!" moments versus the groan-inducing, cringe-worthy moments (though KOTCS's climax is arguably one of the lowest points of the series, right up there with the first 30 minutes of "Doom" or the book-burning sequence of "Crusade").
Author
Time
Post link
zombie84 said:

Oh I agree, but after a 19 year absense, a 65 year old Harrison Ford, George "I lost my mind somewhere between 1977 and 1997" Lucas, and a script that was by all accounts rushed, realistically why should we expect greatness?... I'd say thats not as bad as wee've deluded ourselves to believe.

Yeah, I understand those reasons, but I just hoped that Spielberg at least would have held Lucas more at bay, and then even Spielberg let me down.

After all the talk that he was going to dial his directorial style back to his earlier years and that his DP was going to attempt to match the photography style of the original retired DP all to match the filmmaking style of the original Indys, it felt like this movie was directed by someone who really didn't know what they were doing.

Maybe it was mostly the editing (which I can imagine Lucas weighed in on seeing as it was uneven and sloppy ala the SW prequels), but I would never have guessed that it was Spielberg behind the scenes. In almost no way did the film recall the kineticism of Duel, Jaws, E.T., or the Indy originals.

I guess I can only fault Spielberg for his loyalty to friend Lucas.
Author
Time
Post link
If Steven dirtected the filma nd you didn't like it then your qualm is with him. This was a movie he CHOSE to direct based on a Script presented to him. He's not a child being led by the hand.

No it wasn't awesome but who HONESTLY expected it to be after all these years? I went in with that in mind, and for the most part it was enjoyable. I was also treating it as a distraction while waiting for more hotly anticipated films...

Granted the plot went pear shaped towards the end. I'd have to echo what others have said and say my biggest disappointment aside from the ending was the sheer lack of music.

Author
Time
Post link
I also think that this is a movie that will grow on us over time as we get used to/desensitised to some of the more "out of place" aspects. I wasn't around for Raiders, but I imagine that if I was seeing Temple of Doom would have been a traumatic, confusing and disappointing experience--and Temple of Doom is my favorite of the four. I mean a horror film, peoples hearts being ripped out, some 5 year old asian sidekick, Evil Indy being brainwashed as a cult member, no butt-kicking leading lady, gross-out humor like the dinner scene, not much character development, no build-up just action all the way, more unrealistic stunt scenes...I imagine I would have though, "hmm thats a good movie, but its not Indiana Jones, and it can't a candle to the original."

So, right now, I'm going to say that I need at least a second viewing of Crystal Skull--which I intend to see in theaters again--to begin to have a larger perspective of how I feel about the film. My initial reaction is "that was pretty good but nothing that special, and its not a classic like the others," but I have this strange suspicion that over time I'll eventually start viewing it on more equal terms with the others.
Author
Time
Post link
I still think I am going to rent this movie, cause I it sounds like a typical sequel, which really doesn't get me juiced to goto the theater. Even people who have liked it from what I heard on the internet are doing what I call the PT excuses, "Well, what do you expect....it was never going to be like the originals.....you are expecting too much......"

To me a sequel should strive to be as great as the original, and that is all I ask for when goto the theater, as you look at a director like James Cameron, when the man does a sequel, he wants it to be better then the original. He did Aliens and T2, and we can debate which ones are better then the originals, but damnit, they are great sequels, and Cameron could have easily done a paint by numbers sequel of both films, and they would have been good enough for the time, and just be considered so-so 20 years later.

For me, the Indiana Jones sequels are entertaining, but forgettable years later, as they just don't come close to Raiders, so anyone who has seen this 4th Indy, is it on par with a T2 movie where it is a great sequel, or is it just a Lethal Weapon 4, where it is a sequel that is living off its name.

Thanks.
Author
Time
Post link
Its pretty much on par with the previous two sequels. Trust me, its not a prequel thing, it has good acting and decent writing and its a fun adventure, people just hoped it would be "great", but none of the original sequels are "great" in that sense either, but they are still considered great simply due to time and growing up with them. Like I said, I imagine if I was around for Temple of Doom my first reaction would be "better than most sequels, but you can't expect it to be better than Raiders," which is not a prequel-esque deluding myself into liking it type of excuse, you just need time to step back, have some perspective and watch it again. Thats my impression of Crystal Skull. I honestly don't think its really that much worse than the two sequels, I'd say its the weakest of the three in my personal opinion, but the difference is kind of negligable. T2, Aliens , ESB and Godfather II are all total anomolies, its totally unrealistic to expect or hope for that in any movie but when they happen you're thankful that somehow they improved upon the original, but I can't say that Indiana Jones series was an example of this either, they were just consistently entertaining films like Back to the Future trilogy, which has "average" sequels to a "great" original, but over time looking back we consider them all classics even when most series (Rocky, Jaws, etc) aren't, because those other series weren't consistently entertaining the way BTTF was. Indiana Jones was this way like BTTF and Crystal Skull is no exception, in my opinion. Like I said, its difficult to look at it from this perspective because this perspective requires time, which we have not yet had.
Author
Time
Post link
I agree 100% with zombie on this - although I still think KOTCS was better than TOD.

Incidentally, I was having the same argument with a friend about the BTTF trilogy the other day (I was pretty much on the same wavelength as you, zombie) ...
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
Johnny Ringo said:

If Steven dirtected the filma nd you didn't like it then your qualm is with him. This was a movie he CHOSE to direct based on a Script presented to him. He's not a child being led by the hand... No it wasn't awesome but who HONESTLY expected it to be after all these years?

Whoa, there, JR! My qualm is with Spielberg. I just don't think you can discount the relationship Spielberg and Lucas have had over all these years or the possibility that Spielberg didn't sign onto the film without doubts over its production or script (he clearly was concerned over the quality of the effects with his attitude that CG be minimized [tenth bulletpoint from bottom] and his decision to shoot on actual film instead of digital).

Both Spielberg and Lucas were also on notice from Harrison Ford to get a movie rolling soon or for them all to cut bait if it didn't happen soon enough for him; a very plausible reason amongst other possible reasons, such as Lucas' apparent loss of cinematic sanity, for Spielberg to agree to a script that he may not have been 100% satisfied with.

That's my reasoning: supposition based on facts to the conclusion that Spielberg helmed a poorly executed movie (not that he's responsible for it all) with major trouble in its story, flow, characterizations, photography, editing, and score.

Much like zombie, I still want to see it again, though, to test my evaluation of it. I had had an extra long day at work and was quite tired. That being said, however, there were points in the film that just weren't believable. Maybe I can come to appreciate it as an Indy adventure much as I have come to consider TOD which I originally did not care for much.

In short, I feel that Spielberg's failing with KOTCS was the lack of believable emotional gravity in the characters, between the charcaters, and between the characters and the adventure they were on.
Author
Time
Post link
I saw the film in the theater yesterday, and I found it to be very good. Is it as great as the first three to me? No, it isn't and to me it won't ever be. But I did enjoy it. IMO it was much better than most of the theatrical garbage released these days and it was nice to see Indiana Jones return too. As for sequels to it, I believe I'll pass. Well, this is just my opinion, I know you all have yours too and I respect them.
Author
Time
Post link
Lan Hikari said:

I saw the film in the theater yesterday, and I found it to be very good. Is it as great as the first three to me? No, it isn't and to me it won't ever be. But I did enjoy it. IMO it was much better than most of the theatrical garbage released these days and it was nice to see Indiana Jones return too. As for sequels to it, I believe I'll pass. Well, this is just my opinion, I know you all have yours too and I respect them.


I totally agree with you on every point. I really enjoyed it and had fun. Lower your standards guys it's just a movie and when did this site become a bunch of whining babies? I do feel like there should of been Nazis instead of Commies, Nazis are easier to hate and how many times can they escape?
Author
Time
Post link
I saw this movie yesterday, and I must say that I was plesantly suprised. I didn't have high hopes for this film, but it was pretty good. The ending was weak, and Spalko was a very weak villian, but overall I think it was very worthwile. and as someone said, it is certainly better than most of the stuff out in theatres today. I think it was a good entry into the Indiana Jones saga. I personally enjoyed it.
Author
Time
Post link
I just got back from seeing it, and I enjoyed it very much. It was fun, action-filled and light-hearted. I think it's a good addition to the Indy Jones franchise. I actually put it right after Raiders in favorites. Altho, must agree on the over-CGI'ed ending. The saucer part doesn't bother me, but the part before that was a little much. I would like to have seen that handled a little better, but I'm sure Lucas was behind all that.

Good to see Marion, but would've liked to see her do more, but then this is a movie about Indy, not Marion, so I'm happy enough. I was a little worried about Shia, but he nailed, he fit perfectly.

Yes, would go to see it again.
Author
Time
Post link
Good film.As good as Last Crusade,better than Temple of Doom and not as good as Raiders.
Just loved seeing Indy again.Lots of action,good humour and good performances.Nice to have the character grow with me.Also glad I have some screen-used pieces coming from it!

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

<span style=“font-size:14pt;line-height:100%”></span>

http://www.bigbaddaddyvader.com

Original Star Wars Props and Production Material

Author
Time
Post link
I just got back from watching IJATKOTCS and I think the guys who liked it must be smoking crack. You're all entitled to your opinions and I'm really glad you enjoyed it, but I wish I could erase it from my memory. Why oh why didn't I learn my lesson with the prequels?

I went into thios expecting a below-par, belated, watered down indy. I did not expect greatness, just a half-decent albeit unnecessary bookend. But what I saw was bloody awful - there were times when I thought 'hey, this is ok', 'that was a pretty cool Indy moment' but generally it was just so, so bad.

ChainsawAsh said:

Best to least:

1. "Raiders" (A+)
2. "Last Crusade" (B-)
3. "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (B-)
4. "Temple of Doom" (C)

"Crusade" and "Kingdom" are vying very closely for the #2 spot. I might have to consider them tied, myself.
Are you kidding?!!!

Nanner Split said:

skyjedi2005 said:

The funny thing is Crystal Skull is the best of the summer blockbusters simply because it is Indiana Jones and stars Harrison Ford. it may be garbage in comparison to the originals, but is still worlds better than the hulk, iron man or any other hollywood dreck.


I'm afraid I'd have to disagree there. Iron Man gave me hope for the future of the film industry, that maybe movies would start getting better again, and then Indy 4 brought it back down. I can't help but wonder if I somehow saw a different movie from the rest of the posters in this thread, because I thought KOTCS was absolutely terrible.


Totally agree - loved Iron Man, hated this.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
sean wookie said:

Lower your standards guys it's just a movie


Um, howabout not? Why should i have to lower my standards & accept subpar material? This attitude is what allows crap to proliferate. If i keep my standards high, maybe i won't enjoy as many things out there, but maybe, just maybe, having high standards helps push people to greatness. It may not happen all the time, but i think it's worth it for the rare occasion when it does.

I mean, would you tell an engineer, when he's having difficulty designing a new airplane because it's challenging, "eh, just lower your standards, it only carries 15 people". Or, if comparing engineers to filmmakers is too far of a stretch, what about, say, Michelangelo painting the Sistine Chapel. Do you know what he had to go through to paint that ceiling? What would we have today if someone told him, "hey, it's just a ceiling, just lower your standards."? Man i hate that attitude & it seems so common these days.
Author
Time
Post link
canofhumdingers said:

sean wookie said:

Lower your standards guys it's just a movie


Um, howabout not? Why should i have to lower my standards & accept subpar material? This attitude is what allows crap to proliferate. If i keep my standards high, maybe i won't enjoy as many things out there, but maybe, just maybe, having high standards helps push people to greatness. It may not happen all the time, but i think it's worth it for the rare occasion when it does.

I mean, would you tell an engineer, when he's having difficulty designing a new airplane because it's challenging, "eh, just lower your standards, it only carries 15 people". Or, if comparing engineers to filmmakers is too far of a stretch, what about, say, Michelangelo painting the Sistine Chapel. Do you know what he had to go through to paint that ceiling? What would we have today if someone told him, "hey, it's just a ceiling, just lower your standards."? Man i hate that attitude & it seems so common these days.


So I shouldn't of had a great time, laugh, and enjoy myself?
Author
Time
Post link
I liked it, sue me. It had its moments (very funny ones, actually; cracked up a few times.) Disappointed at the amount of CG, but what's been done is done. One of the few movies I've bothered to go see that I've actually found myself without a doubt enjoying it, after leaving.

Yeah, I guess the ending sucked; ((SPOILER)))




















They shouldn't have shown the wedding, only implied it. And come on, aliens? I mean, it worked the way they did it, but you can do better George (Let the hate mail commence!)

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time
Post link
sean wookie said:

So I shouldn't [have] had a great time, laugh, and enjoy myself?


Not at all, if you liked it that's fine & i'm glad you did. Heck, i laughed & enjoyed myself during the parts of it i liked. But that's absolutely NO reason to lower your standards.

I think it's insulting to the audience to expect or especially ASK them to lower their standards in order to find entertainment in a piece. either you'll meet their standards & they'll praise you; or you won't, and they'll criticize you (constructively i hope) which will push you to improve & grow as an artist.
Author
Time
Post link
Saw the movie last night with a group of friends.

First of all, I do want to see it again. I feel like it's growing on me a little. It was over the top in some points. Too much CGI and some of it was stupid. The sci-fi elements were a little weird, but the more I think about it, the more it's growing on me. The plot actually seems more suited to one of those Indiana Jones comic books or a spin-off novel, not a movie.

I think the best analogy would be that the movie is like an old bike that's been hanging in the garage. You take it down and try riding it. It still feels the same, but it's a little stiff and rusty. That's this movie to me. The magic is there, but it was rusty.

It's clear that Spielberg and Lucas' best days are behind them though.

Some quick points:

1. Cate Blanchet was good, but she wasn't a good bad guy...nothing special.
2. Mutt WAS NOT annoying...and I thought he would be. Such a plus!!!
3. Too much fan wanks in the beginning. Ark, warehouse, etc. Not needed.

The Red Scare stuff was cool...but how come the Depression wasn't mentioned in the others. No complaint here or anything, just an interesting point to bring up.

Overall...it's good, not great...but it is growing on me and I want to see it again. That says a lot. There's no outrage like I had at the PT. It was a decent, but different Indiana Jones adventure.

BTW...anyone expect Mulder and Scully from the X-Files to pop up and tell Indy the truth is out there??? HA HA!!!