Indy 4 still as infuriating as ever

[2takesfrakes]

Those are some great pics from Secret of the Incas! Charlton Heston seems like he was really cool, back in the day. Now, let me ask this in all seriousness:

Does anyone expect there to be another INDIANA JONES movie? And - if so - will it suck even harder than KINGDOM of the CRYSTAL SKULL?

To be Frank & Ernest, I'm confident that another INDIANA JONES film will kill the franchise. I haven't heard anything more about their being another one, so I'm hoping that George & Steven just wanted to milk the series one last time, for a quick buck, whilst Harrison was still ... ambulatory.

 

[davejames]

If Ford gets his way I think there will almost certainly be a new one. As to whether it would be any better, I think probably only by a little.

Because while I'd love to think that Spielberg and Ford would fight to go out on as high a note as possible, to make up for the disappointment of the last movie, I'm just not sure they'd really have much of a choice with Lucas still in charge of the story.

 

[davejames]

Besides, in the end I think I'd much rather watch the younger 1930s Indy of the first three movies in action. It was kind of cool catching up with the character again 30 years later, and seeing Ford in the iconic costume again. But now that we've already seen that I don't really feel the need to revisit the idea.

I'd frankly rather see a new actor take on the role than see the further adventures of Old Indy.

 

[Shazam!]

the first 30 minutes are actually pretty good (fridge scene included). But after that it just goes completely off the rails.

I've been saying this since the movie came out - the first 30 minutes is the ending to a better film that we never got to see.

 

[JarodRussell]

The movie falls apart immediately after the find the skull (already there, they. Just. Find. The. Skull. No traps, no tasks, no suspense, nothing. How fucking boring was that?).

I agree that the film feels aimless. One example is the scorpion bit. It just happens, but leads to nowhere. It's so isolated you can cut it out and lose nothing. Or when they introduce this cool forest cutter, but do nothing with it (in the 80s, there would have been a pretty gory fight scene involving it). Or when Indy introduces himself to William Hurt and stresses that he's Henry Jones Jr, but we never get to know why. Or when they just make a throw away mention that they are interdimensional beings. Or that triple agent thing. Maybe they wanted to turn expectations upside down or something, but it just feels aimless.

What annoyed me the most are the extremely crappy visual effects. Not only did they promote the film as being not as VFX heavy (in one interview Lucas compared it to Die Hard 4.0, saying you won't get people surfing on jet planes). The effects themselves looked extremely bad. Maybe they wanted to go retro with obvious bluescreen effects or something. But you can't go retro when the effects are digital.

I also blame the color palette/color grading for the movie feeling off, subconsciously.
http://whatthemovie.com/movie/indiana_jones_and_the_kingdom_of_the_crystal_skull/snapshots
http://whatthemovie.com/movie/indiana_jones_and_the_last_crusade/snapshots
http://whatthemovie.com/movie/raiders_of_the_lost_ark/snapshots

 

[davejames]

Don't forget how they escape the russians... only to get stuck in quicksand and then caught again moments later. Which I suppose was supposed to be funny, but just made the heroes look like the biggest idiots imaginable.

And then later the Skull gets passed back and forth so often between the heroes and villains that you even don't care anymore who gets it.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Matter of taste, I suppose, but I loved this movie. My wife and I took our son to see it after he and I had watched the original three movies on DVD & he loved it as well. He insisted that we dress and Indy and Mutt for Halloween that year.

 

[Captrek]

Anyway, after his experiences with the Ark and the Holy Grail, death would be less appropriate than being carried away to Heaven in a chariot of fire.

I would really like that, maybe you can write the next movie.

If I have the job, I'm going to troll the Tea Party. Get ready for Indiana Jones and the Twelfth Imam.

 

[Shazam!]

And then later the Skull gets passed back and forth so often between the heroes and villains that you even don't care anymore who gets it.

And the finale confirms that it actually didn't matter who got it.

 

[Mage]

Matter of taste, I suppose, but I loved this movie. My wife and I took our son to see it after he and I had watched the original three movies on DVD & he loved it as well. He insisted that we dress and Indy and Mutt for Halloween that year.

I quite liked it aswell, and I think if this was on of the original three Indy's, people would be a lot more forgiving on some of the faults they see now. I mean, a lot of imagery, editing, style and even the way the plot moves, is very similair to the 80's Indy movies. Thing is, those things worked back then. Now, they don't. The reason people still love those same aspects in old Indy movies, is because they grew up with them, loved them and now find them flawless. I know of some youngsters (12-15 y/o) these days that grade the older Indy movies and Crystal Skull equally bad. Does that make them wrong? No, they just grew up with different movies and a different approach to style when it comes to movie making, so they'll find just about anything from that time period lame.

 

[JarodRussell]

Can't agree with that theory.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Even RAIDERS I can't claim to be flawless! And I'm not just talking about FX. There are problems with some of the direction - for example, when Toht shoves the hot iron in Marion's beautiful face, she should've reacted to the heat. While not a "flaw" so much as a directorial choice, it didn't serve the tension of the scene. Instead of going for "realism," Speilberg is more concerned about framing the shot. Also, when Indy flips the date in the air and Sallah "catches" it and squeezes it in his hand, it's fairly obvious Ford has the date he tossed in his mouth. But these are very minor distractions that have nothing to do with the story telling. Despite its flaws, RAIDERS succeeds very well at everything it set out to do. KINGDOM of the CRYSTAL SKULL, on the other hand ... doesn't - outside of its wholesomeness, being directed at families. In every other way, this movie's shortcomings are apparent and prevent it from being an awesome picture.

 

[Shat Happens]

The only thing I hate HATE is the CGI in Raiders.

What CGI? the jeep falling off the cliff was replaced for the dvd release.

 

[Lance]

Well having recently rewatched the original Indy trilogy, I decided it was finally time to give the 4th one another chance (having not watched it all the way through since since seeing it in theaters 6 years ago).

And it's still just as bad as ever.

I tried to approach it with as open a mind as possible, and I admit the first 30 minutes are actually pretty good (fridge scene included). But after that it just goes completely off the rails. The movie has a whole host of problems (the aimless storytelling, the cartoonish action, etc), but for me the two absolute BIGGEST are:

-- The central premise. Whether supernatural or no, I can at least buy the Ark of the Covenant, Sankara Stones, and Holy Grail as being real historical artifacts that might be buried deep under the desert or hidden away somewhere... but a crystal alien skull? Not for a second. And the fact Spielberg makes the movie such a cheesy, lighthearted romp, and barely even tries to ground the idea like he did with the other objects, certainly doesn't help. Every time Indy holds the skull next to him, it still looks just as ridiculous to me now as it did 6 years ago.

-- Indy himself. He starts out feeling somewhat recognizable in the first 30 minutes, but after that he suddenly becomes this... incredibly dull and boring fuddy duddy. Who's all about telling kids to pursue their dreams and stay in school, and who bickers with Marion like just another boring, put-upon husband. I mean, seriously?

I get that he's older, but by no means does this feel even remotely like how you imagine the gritty, hard-edged Indy of Raiders and TOD to be in their later years (or even the somewhat softer Indy of Crusade). And Marion is even less recognizable, doing nothing but grin like an idiot or gaze longingly at Indy for the entire movie.

I realize Spielberg didn't have much choice when it came to the crystal skull, but you'd think he'd at least try harder to get Indy and Marion right.


Ok, sorry, just had to get all that off my chest.

Regarding Indy himself, one of the alarm bells that rang for me when I first saw it in theaters was when he started name-dropping events from The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles TV series. It felt incongruous because obviously this was the first movie to be made after that show (all previous movies had preceeded the TV show), but it still felt like somebody was tampering with the Harrison Ford version of the character by trying to shoehorn Sean Patrick Flannery's Indy into his backstory, badly. Just didn't seem right somehow. Or maybe it was just the way in which it was done. "Oh yeah, well I've meet Pancho Villa..." It had all the hallmarks of George Lucas' infamous history changing pen, I'm just surprised he didn't rewrite it so that the Sword Guy from Raiders shot first.

 

[davejames]

I quite liked it aswell, and I think if this was on of the original three Indy's, people would be a lot more forgiving on some of the faults they see now. I mean, a lot of imagery, editing, style and even the way the plot moves, is very similair to the 80's Indy movies. Thing is, those things worked back then. Now, they don't. The reason people still love those same aspects in old Indy movies, is because they grew up with them, loved them and now find them flawless. I know of some youngsters (12-15 y/o) these days that grade the older Indy movies and Crystal Skull equally bad. Does that make them wrong? No, they just grew up with different movies and a different approach to style when it comes to movie making, so they'll find just about anything from that time period lame.

Sorry, but any kid from today who thinks Raiders is "lame" is just a naive idiot who has no idea of what a great movie is. And if they can't even appreciate Raiders, I'd hate to think of what their opinion is of even older classics!

Clearly they've been watching way too many mindless, overblown CGI spectacles in their youth.

 

[JarodRussell]

I forgot. Indina Jones being a secret agent, that was already when the film started to fall apart.

 

[Captrek]

And then later the Skull gets passed back and forth so often between the heroes and villains that you even don't care anymore who gets it.

And the finale confirms that it actually didn't matter who got it.

The same can be said of Raiders and Crusade.

 

[RoJoHen]

And then later the Skull gets passed back and forth so often between the heroes and villains that you even don't care anymore who gets it.

And the finale confirms that it actually didn't matter who got it.

The same can be said of Raiders and Crusade.

The lesson of the Indiana Jones series: Leave shit alone.

 

[Aldo]

I quite liked it aswell, and I think if this was on of the original three Indy's, people would be a lot more forgiving on some of the faults they see now. I mean, a lot of imagery, editing, style and even the way the plot moves, is very similair to the 80's Indy movies. Thing is, those things worked back then. Now, they don't. The reason people still love those same aspects in old Indy movies, is because they grew up with them, loved them and now find them flawless. I know of some youngsters (12-15 y/o) these days that grade the older Indy movies and Crystal Skull equally bad. Does that make them wrong? No, they just grew up with different movies and a different approach to style when it comes to movie making, so they'll find just about anything from that time period lame.

Sorry, but any kid from today who thinks Raiders is "lame" is just a naive idiot who has no idea of what a great movie is. And if they can't even appreciate Raiders, I'd hate to think of what their opinion is of even older classics!

Clearly they've been watching way too many mindless, overblown CGI spectacles in their youth.

What's the point of debate then if you're going to introduce blanket statements such as that one? Everyone has their own opinion and no opinion is the wrong one. Art is subjective, one man's "classic" is another persons "weak film." That's just the way it is.

That said, I enjoy Raiders, and seeing it in IMAX last year was just a blast.

 

[Mister Fandango]

The lesson I got from the Indy films, as well as the Star Wars films, and even E.T. courtesy of the horrors visited upon it decades after its creation, is that being a creative genius slowly turns into insanity with age.