logo Sign In

Indiana Jones IV — Page 20

Author
Time
Post link
Yoda Is Your Father -

I didn't really make this clear in that post - in all honesty, I didn't like *any* of the Indy sequels. I LOVED Raiders, but the others were all just bad popcorn movies that had Harrison Ford in a hat with a whip and the name "Indiana Jones" on them. If I were completely objective, this would be my scale:

RAIDERS - A+
CRUSADE - D
KOTCS - D-
DOOM - F

But eventually (this is pre-KOTCS) I learned to judge the sequels by infinitely lowering my expectations. I'd watch 'Raiders' remembering how great it was, then I'd watch 'Doom' or 'Crusade' thinking before I put in the VHS tape, "Alright, this one sucked, but what the hell, it has a guy's heart getting ripped out," or "This one was awful, but Sean Connery was fun." I learned to like them in spite of themselves. That's the mindset I've had on all "Indy" sequels for the past ten years or so, and that was my mindset when I went into KOTCS. "This is gonna suck, but the bar's been pretty low since 1984 anyway." And I wasn't disappointed, because it lived up to those expectations.

So, even though I really consider 'Raiders' to really be THAT much better than any of the others, I give them the benefit of the doubt enough to like them, and give them grades of C+ or B-.

Was KOTCS good? No. But neither were TOD or TLC.
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
I think hearing about your guys reviews of Indy IV confirms the difference between the PT & Indy IV, Indy still had Indy, and the PT did not have Luke, Leia, and Han, and that is really the difference in people enjoying the movies.

Nobody has said Indy IV is as great as Raiders the same way nobody said the PT was as great as the OT, or atleast SW & ESB for that matter, so why not the hatred for this movie the same way I hear about the PT? I always said from day one the PT by not having those same characters from the OT never had a chance, and the bottom line is most of you enjoyed an OK Indy movie cause you still have that great Ford character to root for so you have an emotional investment walking in. Would you all felt the same way if the star of the movie was Shia? Would anyone shown up for Indy IV with Shia as the star, and no Ford? Same exact movie, same script, different actor? I suspect not.

My nephew wants to see it just cause he never saw in Indy film in the theater, so I will probably see this sometime in the summer, but I still contend all the way back when this movie was announced, this is about as much needed as those two average sequels, and really Raiders, IMO, is the only great movie of the set, and the only one that is still truly enjoyable 20 years later. I watched them all last weekend on USA, and Raiders is still in my Top 10 favs of all-time, and TOD and TLC are just knockoffs the same way Indy IV will be.

I don't begrudge anyone for enjoying Indy IV, but sequels to me are everything that are wrong with Hollywood, because from the sounds of everyones expectations, you didn't expect a great movie. Hollywood knows that, and as long as a 'lowered expectations' movie like Indy does 100 million in its first weekend, expect more movies that OK, but not great.
Author
Time
Post link
I can't believe there are so many people defending this film!!

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
ChainsawAsh said:

Yoda Is Your Father -

I didn't really make this clear in that post - in all honesty, I didn't like *any* of the Indy sequels. I LOVED Raiders, but the others were all just bad popcorn movies that had Harrison Ford in a hat with a whip and the name "Indiana Jones" on them. If I were completely objective, this would be my scale:

RAIDERS - A+
CRUSADE - D
KOTCS - D-
DOOM - F

But eventually (this is pre-KOTCS) I learned to judge the sequels by infinitely lowering my expectations. I'd watch 'Raiders' remembering how great it was, then I'd watch 'Doom' or 'Crusade' thinking before I put in the VHS tape, "Alright, this one sucked, but what the hell, it has a guy's heart getting ripped out," or "This one was awful, but Sean Connery was fun." I learned to like them in spite of themselves. That's the mindset I've had on all "Indy" sequels for the past ten years or so, and that was my mindset when I went into KOTCS. "This is gonna suck, but the bar's been pretty low since 1984 anyway." And I wasn't disappointed, because it lived up to those expectations.

So, even though I really consider 'Raiders' to really be THAT much better than any of the others, I give them the benefit of the doubt enough to like them, and give them grades of C+ or B-.

Was KOTCS good? No. But neither were TOD or TLC.


Fair enough... but this one had aliens in it!! ALIENS!!!

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Anyone who defends this film is just a gay fanboy. Terrible...just terrible.

HARMY RULES

Author
Time
Post link
flaming gay fanboy at that....

I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
Two things I'd like to point out before I post my thoughts.

1. I'm a huge Indiana Jones nerd, since 1981. I loved Raiders and it instantly became one of my top ten films of all time as soon as it was released. I thought Temple & Crusade were ok.

2. As you guys know by now, I'm not someone - even if the first film becomes a top ten for me - who blindly follows sequels and franchises no matter what is released. More often than not, the opposite is true.

I point those two things out so you'll understand my review and know that my thoughts on Crystal Skull could have very easily gone either way. I went in knowing the background of what it took to get the film made and a rough idea of what the story was. I went to see it Friday after work.

No spoilers below.

I really liked it. I thought they did a great job of re-introducing us to the character after two decades had passed. I'm a big fan of the quieter, more cerebral aspects of all the films - the character interaction, the dialogue scenes, etc. The action is always exciting, but never what I ponder when I think about the films. Crystal Skull had plenty of both. To me, the dialogue\cerebral moments seemed deeper and more realistic than the last two films.

It's Indiana Jones many years later and they address it both seriously and occasionally with humor. I enjoyed the story, the locations, the music, etc. It was fun to see an old friend again. I thought Shia also did a good job and it was great to see that big, honest, wonderful smile of Karen Allen again. I particularly dug the opening title sequence. I thought it was a neat way to show that it wasn't the 30s anymore.

There are the occasional silly and\or impossible moments, but they are small and don't detract from the narrative too much. I went in knowing I'd have to suspend belief at times. After all, this is an Indiana Jones adventure, not a History Channel documentary. It was what they all have been. Two hours of adventure escapism.

Overall, I don't know where I place it in the franchise, but I'm leaning toward putting it as my second favorite of the four. Hard to tell because I haven't fully absorbed it yet. However, all three will always be a very distant second to Raiders. This summer will definitely have an Indiana Jones feel - and for me, that's a great thing.

Oh, and it was even better when I went to see it again on Sunday morning. http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f20/stonetriple/smileage/wink.gif


Spoilers and more specific points if we have a thread discussing them later, after most people have seen it.
Forum Moderator
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
Owen-Lars-Kenobi said:

I just got back from seeing it and really loved it.... except for one thing.. the score! Where was the new music... themes! I want themes


I bought the soundtrack and really like it. On par with all the films. The second cut on the soundtrack - Call Of The Crystal is a really great theme that shows up several times in the film. One of the better themes Williams has written, I think. Deep, calm, and eery.
Forum Moderator
Author
Time
Post link
****Spoilers***

I just saw the movie yesterday. I thought Harrison Ford did a pretty good job in his role but thats about all that I liked. There were just too many things that were over the top and or outlandish, number 1 among all else was the plot. And having a few references back to the original movies would have been cool but bringing back Marion and making her kid his son was just too much I thought. Should have known it would have had a bad story with Lucas writing it.

"The Empire can't stop us now..now its our turn" -Luke-

Author
Time
Post link
I dunno, I kind of liked it. I hated the idea of Aliens in Indiana Jones myself, but for some reason when they were revealed to be from another dimension instead of outer space it made it tolerable. I guess because Indiana Jones has a precedent for other dimensional beings (Marduk in the video game The Infernal Machine, for example)...

But space men are too out there. Go figure.

4

Author
Time
Post link
If you like this film your some kind of retard, unless you are looking at it strictly as a comedy. The film was terrible, stop being so gay.

HARMY RULES

Author
Time
Post link
Don't be so sure, there are pickle twisters lurking around every corner.

HARMY RULES

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
I saw it a second time last night, and I have to say, the second viewing was a MUCH better experience. I guess it was just the fact that I knew where all the miscues were and knew what to expect, and could pay more attention to the plot, etc.

The one glaring thing I still have a problem with though, besides all the gratuitous CGI, is a missing scene telling us how the dean got his job back after resigning...and Indy being vindicated in the eyes of the FBI. I mean, a quick 30 second scene would've done it.

Can someone tell me how Indy's actions in Akator (which no one witnessed) would've somehow vindicated him and earned him his job back, AND a promotion on top of that?

Author
Time
Post link
InfoDroid said:

I saw it a second time last night, and I have to say, the second viewing was a MUCH better experience. I guess it was just the fact that I knew where all the miscues were and knew what to expect, and could pay more attention to the plot, etc.

The one glaring thing I still have a problem with though, besides all the gratuitous CGI, is a missing scene telling us how the dean got his job back after resigning...and Indy being vindicated in the eyes of the FBI. I mean, a quick 30 second scene would've done it.

Can someone tell me how Indy's actions in Akator (which no one witnessed) would've somehow vindicated him and earned him his job back, AND a promotion on top of that?


Well as many Commies as Indy and Co killed I'm sure that earned him some points with the FBI... but I agree, that was a loose end they shouldn't have left untied.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Too bad Marcia Lucas wasn't around to point that out the way she pointed out the lack of resolution at the end of Raiders (which they re-filmed).
Author
Time
Post link
zombie84 said:

Too bad Marcia Lucas wasn't around to point that out the way she pointed out the lack of resolution at the end of Raiders (which they re-filmed).


Really? what was the original ending like?
Author
Time
Post link
During the rough cut screening everyone felt it all worked until Marcia spoke up and said there was a lack of emotional resolution because Marion disappears, she's presumably left on some island with a lot of melted Nazis. So they filmed a new scene in San Francisco for the ending where Marion is waiting for Indy outside the building and Indy comes out saying they're all fools and they have some dialog and go off together. Its a small change, but a very effective one.
Author
Time
Post link
Anchorhead said:

Owen-Lars-Kenobi said:

I just got back from seeing it and really loved it.... except for one thing.. the score! Where was the new music... themes! I want themes


I bought the soundtrack and really like it. On par with all the films. The second cut on the soundtrack - Call Of The Skull is a really great theme that shows up several times in the film. One of the better themes Williams has written, I think. Deep, calm, and eery.


I too just bought the soundtrack actually, and I have to say that I think I was a bit hard on it. Ive seen the movie again since that post, and I think it has more to do with the way the film was mixed. Like the prequels, I think the music was very overwhelmed by sound effects in certain scenes. I mean during some of the action, the music almost sounds like ambient noise lol. I really liked the score and, now, do agree that it is on par with those of the other films. Although it still bugged me when Williams reused the theme he wrote fro TLC, the like pensive father son one.
Author
Time
Post link
I am suprised at the amount of variation in the reviews here. Some people loved this film, others hated it. I thought it was pretty good myself. I don't see how people hated it so. Its almost like there is a good version and a lousy version out there. LOL
Author
Time
Post link
I can understand some people being less than enthused, but what UTTERLY perplexes me is the people that HATE it, like personally harbor hatred towards it, when they liked the sequels. I mean, the people that say "Raiders is a classic, but with Temple of Doom it just went off the deep end, and Crusade was too funny and budd-buddy and it was the same movie as Raiders but done poorly"--I can understand those people, even if, in spite of these criticism, I can say "yeah, but the films are still entertaining!" Because Crystal Skull is just more of the same. It really is. I think it has more flaws than either of the two sequels, but there are tons of people that thought Temple of Doom was mediocre at best as well, and Crystal Skull is pretty consistent with what was established in the previous two entries (in fact, its sort of a weird amalgum of the two if you think about it).
Author
Time
Post link
zombie84 said:

I can understand some people being less than enthused, but what UTTERLY perplexes me is the people that HATE it, like personally harbor hatred towards it, when they liked the sequels.


I haven't seen the film yet, but I trust the opinions of the people on this forum who are expressing dislike enough to where I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. My brother sort of liked the movie, but he said it was like a cartoon at too many points for him to treat it as seriously as he treated the others. So, ending my consideration with the fact that I'm not a gigantic Indy fan, I think I'll be waiting for home video.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
Well I saw it yesterday, and thought it was pretty good. I'm not the biggest fan of Last Crusade and was hoping for a film a little better than that, which I thought it was.
Yeah the ending was a WTF moment, but so were all the others really, if you think about it.
All in all, not a bad movie. Looking forward to seeing it again.

http://www.facebook.com/DirtyWookie

Author
Time
Post link
Which ending do you guys think is worse? This one, or Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes?

Author
Time
Post link
Nothing could be worse than Burton's Planet of the Apes. But then the whole film was on that kind of level anyway. It was like a final dump in the toilet to a two-hour bowel movement.