logo Sign In

Post #319435

Author
Max_Rebo
Parent topic
Indiana Jones IV
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/319435/action/topic#319435
Date created
29-May-2008, 8:33 PM
OK so I saw this last night and here are my thoughts (spoilers obviously):

first off all I knew going into the film was:
Mutt was Indy's son
there were some aliens in it
and there was some bad CGI

My expectations were pretty low for this film but I really wanted to enjoy it.

The one thing I was really expecting to hate was Shia LaBeouf but to my surprise I actually thought he was quite good and the character worked fairly well.

Generally I thought the first half of the film was quite good but the gunpowder thing makes no sense and that skull is really inconsistent in how magnetic it is! I'm not so sure about the whole Nuclear explosion bit, at the time it amused me but it didn't make a whole lot of sense, why was there no running water in the house but outside there was? why was the TV on? and more to the point how did he not die or at least get seriously injured?

The bike chase was excellent and felt like classic Indy, I didn't like the bit where the statues head fell off, but basically I enjoyed from when Indy met Mutt up to them finding the crystal skull, although I wasn't sure why those guys in skull masks attacked them, who were they? it was just like they thought they'd gone too long without an action scene or something.

After they were captured I thought them having the Alien body just laid out on the table was just stupid not that I like the alien idea anyway but surely it should have been left and revealed at the end, and then you got the mess of CGI that was the jungle fight sequence, some of it was good, some was terrible I just wish they'd taken more effort to make it look good, but I did like the ants.

so then after they've passed the waterfalls they go though the ruins and suddenly a load of natives break out of the walls and start chasing them, I can only assume these aren't actual natives who spend there days hiding in the walls in case someone walks past so these must be the "living dead" who guard the city but if that's the case how do the Russians manage to kill them?? that is by far the worst undead army I've ever seen! either way it seemed like another excuse for a brief action sequence which had absolutely no consequence to the plot.

then we get to the ending when they were in the room full of treasures from all over the world I thought that would be a great time for someone to mention Atlantis which frequently comes up in the crystal skull myths and would of tied in nicely with the whole higher civilisation thing.. but no just Aliens, but wait not Aliens they're "Pan dimensional beings" from "the space between spaces" what the hell? if you're going to have aliens just have aliens.

but anyway 13 skeletons merge to form 1 alien what's that about? basically the whole second half of the film was one long action sequence which explained nothing I mean I could work out my own explanations for everything but if I have to do that why bother going to see the film? and then they are "inter dimensional beings" but they still have a flying saucer!

Obviously by this point I'd given up on this film, and then he not only gets his job back but he get promoted, why??? and the wedding, what rubbish! and then the worst line from LaBoeuf at the end of the wedding Ox says "well done henry" and Mutt and Indy say "thanks" why would Mutt think he's being congratulated on someone else's wedding day?


Sorry this turned into more of a rant than I expected, basically if it wasn't bad enough that there are aliens in an Indiana Jones film there was a whole load of other crap as well.

But although I blame Lucas for his influence on the terrible effects I think the real blame lies with Spielberg who was just too lazy to do a proper job, he didn't bother leaving the U.S. to do location shooting and he went back on his promise to do it old school, and worst of all he accepted a rubbish script. When did Spielberg last make a good film anyway? '93 had 'Jurassic Park' and 'Shindler's list', '98 'Saving Private Ryan'(I've not actually seen this but people say it's good so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt), has he made a single good film in the last 10 years?