The 2nd OFFICIAL Indy IV Thread

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

The second time the film is better. The ending still bothers me. The problems is that none one (of the protagonists) really needs to be present there. Without them it would play out exactly the same, if you think about it. So the whole chases and fights before seem kind of pointless.

Actually,

Indy is inconsequential to the ending in Raiders too.

EDITED BY MODERATOR: Use the SPOILER tool, it's much more useful than changing the color

[Josh500 1,615]

I think some people just need to chill.

We had 19 years and more to enjoy the previous three movies. We came to love them!

All we need for us to fall in love with KotCS is another 19 years! (For some of us, anyway--I already love it.)

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I just realized that my previous post nullified crocodile's efforts at spoiler hiding.

[Josh500 1,615]

I just realized that my previous post nullified crocodile's efforts at spoiler blocking

So what are you doing pointing it out! Go and correct it. Jeez...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I apologize for what will probably be a less then cohesive review.

The opening, nice variation on the Paramount Logo gag. The title sequence, Russians disguised as an American military convoy being chased and taunted by 50's teens in an open top convertibnle with some rock and roll playing.

I suppose this sequence was done to establish the change from the 1930's, to the 1950's. The first part of the film is actually loaded with stuff reminding us that we are in the 1950's.

The warehouse scene, nice intro for Indy. Harrison Ford looking noticible older and weathered, but the hat still fits. And he can still kick ass, as shows in a few good action/chase scenes.

The quotation of The Ark Theme for the warehouse was nice, if pointless.

The scene with the fake village and the nuke going off, what the hell was that about? This part of the film keeps hammering the point

home that it is the 50's. McCarthy-ism, nukes, frequent references to Indy's heroic war years, hot rods, motorbikes, teens with greaser haircuts.

I think Lucas' was a bit overeager in showing his great love for those American Grafiti times. Or he was trying to demonstrate that Indy, and 30's adventurer is out of time with these politically charged times. (that does not explain him getting into an ice-box though)

Enter Mutt.

Shia does a good job as Indy's sidekick, and he and Ford play very well off each other. The film starts to work better the moment he enters the picture and the story shifts more to the films actual plot then the background it takes place in.

Ray Winstone has fun playing Mac, but nothing is really done with the character. He's there for the purpose of the plot, to become a turncoat when the story requirs him too, then switch sides, and then switch them again. (actually the last switch was very obvious beforehand). Some more carefull screenwriting and this character, who resembles in many ways Beni Gabor from 1999's The Mummy, could have taken out all together.

John Hurt has the difficult role of being in most of the second half of the picture, but not having that much to do. I do like the way he add's little touches in his dialogue, little facial gestures. He's always a fantastic actor to watch. I was relieved that he did NOT play Abner Ravenwood. wink.gif

Cate Blanchett is pretty good as Spalko, rather intimidating, but I disagree with Lucas that she's the best villian of the Indy films. That will always be Belloq.

Karen Allen is back as Marion. And she and Ford have a good time arguing once again. They do seem to fall in love again rather quicky, especially considering Indy bailed on their wedding, and Marion never told him the little matter regarding Henry Jones III.

I did not actually see any reason why Marion is in this film, except to appeal to fanboy tastes, or Lucas' need to "tie everything together".

Visually the film looks very good. Janusz Kaminski did a good job sticking to the look of an Indiana Jones film. advances in technology does make that in it's action scenes this film looks different.

Some of the CGI looks so convincing, that it actually passes you by. I liked one particular shot of the ants though, when Spalko crushes one and some cgi bug-splatter hits the camera lens.

The editing is relentless during the action scenes, but during the big jungle chase it's a bit hard to follow who's chasing who in what car and were. Mutt's Tarzan antics with those monkeys did not help (The comic relief brought back memories to Lucas' brilliant comedy in the Conveyor Belt scene in AOTC).

The music. I don't have the CD yet so I only heard it in the film, and it sounded good. I liked Marions Theme, but did not like the times when Williams simply rehashed Raiders version of the Indy theme in certain scenes. Particulary the warehouse. The music for the many chase scenes sounded energitic and fun, and I cannot wait to hear them on CD. Raiders March in the End Credits sounded good, and it was shocking to hear Williams having fun with the theme and deviate from it's traditional arrangement.

Now we get to the really big question. Was Harrison Ford to old to play Indy again.

In the early scenes I really was not sure. I was trying to decide if Ford was out of place in this role, or if Indy was out of place in this first part of the film.

Once the film really gets rolling, once the real mystery and adventure and archealogy starts, all my doubts went away and I was simply looking at Indiana Jones again.

Harrison Ford Is Indiana Jones, PERIOD!

The Alien angle. This was downplayed as much as possible and they thankfully avoided techno-babble of to much sci-fi mumby-jumbo. I'm at this point, after my first viewing not sure if it worked, or if it worked the way Spielberg and Lucas intended it.

It did occur to me that this films climax is basically identical to that of X-Files: Fight The Future.

This is by no mains a second Raiders Of The Last Ark, and there is plenty wrong with it.

But I had tremendous fun watching it and I want to see it again.

It IS an Indiana Jones film!

[crocodile 8,010]

I think some people just need to chill.

We had 19 years and more to enjoy the previous three movies. We came to love them!

All we need for us to fall in love with KotCS is another 19 years! (For some of us, anyway--I already love it.)

I just decided that all the bickering is pointless and it's just better to let it go. It was never serious, nor it should be. And you know what? I feel relieved.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

The second time the film is better.

I don't think I could manage another screening, the middle section was just too slow. I'll wait for the dvd now.

Also, I know my half-arsed 'review' sounds like a downer, but I just want to stress that this is by no means a bad movie. It's fun, but it has some major problems. I would still tell anyone to go see it.

I'm just gonna list off some random thoughts about the movie, with no spoilers at all:

1) Shia was fine, I liked him. Apart from his first brilliant action sequence, his later action sequences were bad. Not his fault so I won't hold it against him.

2) Winstone was just as effective. He character worked.

3) Marion, damn, what a waste.

4) Each film has it's centrepiece action sequence: Raiders Truck chase, ToD mine cart chase, LC Tank sequence. The Jungle chase in Indy IV does not compare to any of those moments. Doesn't even come close. It is almost ruined by too much bullsh*t, which may become clearer after you have seen it. I've forgotten it already.

5) There is one REALLY bad moment during the Jungle Chase. It's just horrible.

6) The cgi is there, but it's quality is good. Its actual usage is what is bad about it. The artistic wizards who created it are clearly not to blame, since they are just following orders from Spielberg and Co.

7) The MacGuffin is actually pretty good. The setup is fine, but the journey to the climax is a bumpy one. The MacGuffin's payoff doesn't live up to the setup. This is no opening of the Ark, or drinking from the Grail moment. I was unsatisfied.

8) John Williams music is fine and Irina's theme is surprisingly effective (and audible), but other than that, there are no strong original themes. There is not a single moment of Ooooo, Ahhhhh throughout the score and movie. There is a money shot, but it failed to stir me.

9) Ford did look too old, but he still looks great throwing punches.

10) I am surprisingly not gutted here. My childhood remains decidedly un-raped. That must be because Indy IV is not a bad movie, but it ain't a great one either. They said that about Temple Of Doom. They won't say it about this one though.

[Josh500 1,615]

I think some people just need to chill.

We had 19 years and more to enjoy the previous three movies. We came to love them!

All we need for us to fall in love with KotCS is another 19 years! (For some of us, anyway--I already love it.)

I just decided that all the bickering is pointless and it's just better to let it go. It was never serious, nor it should be. And you know what? I feel relieved.

Karol

Yeah, we just need to enjoy the fact that we have a brandnew John Williams score and a brandnew Spielberg movie . . .

Everything else is beside the point.

[crocodile 8,010]

Ray Winstone has fun playing Mac, but nothing is really done with the character. He's there for the purpose of the plot, to become a turncoat when the story requirs him too, then switch sides, and then switch them again. (actually the last switch was very obvious beforehand). Some more carefull screenwriting and this character, who resembles in many ways Beni Gabor from 1999's The Mummy, could have taken out all together.

I agree. pity, he's a good actor.

Karol, who needs the CD NOW!

[Josh500 1,615]

Ray Winstone has fun playing Mac, but nothing is really done with the character. He's there for the purpose of the plot, to become a turncoat when the story requirs him too, then switch sides, and then switch them again. (actually the last switch was very obvious beforehand). Some more carefull screenwriting and this character, who resembles in many ways Beni Gabor from 1999's The Mummy, could have taken out all together.

I agree. pity, he's a good actor.

Karol, who needs the CD NOW!

Have you ordered it yet? Or are you buying it in a store . . . "do it the old-fashioned way" as Irina would say?

[crocodile 8,010]

It should arrive tomorrow, but it probably won't, because we have a holiday today so it probably means some delay. I won't get it until monday

But I will probably see the movie once more before that, so I should be fine. Ah, the addictions!

Karol

[Genius_Gone_Insane 5]

I don't agree with this nonsense about the ending not being climactic. It doesn't get any better than

sitting atop a ruin watching a UFO rise out from underneath an ancient temple, only to see it disappear and its footprint washed away.

That was magical!

[QMM 4]

I loved the action sequence at the college, especially

the shot of Indy getting pulled into the car and fighting his way out and back onto the motorcycle

Needed more of it though

[Quintus 5,399]

I don't agree with this nonsense about the ending not being climactic. It doesn't get any better than

sitting atop a ruin watching a UFO rise out from underneath an ancient temple, only to see it disappear and its footprint washed away.

That was magical!

I'm glad Spielberg's desired effect moved you as it did. It just failed to hit home with me.

Anyway, another random thing I just remembered: As worryingly reported, there is no peril in this movie. At no point was I concerned about the safety of ANY of the 'Goodies', let alone Indy himself. Not a good sign.

[Josh500 1,615]

I loved the action sequence at the college, especially

the shot of Indy getting pulled into the car and fighting his way out and back onto the motorcycle

Needed more of it though

Yeah, loved that too! Later, I was wondering which scene would be accompanied by Brahms, and it was a nice surprise! I was wide-eyed and laughing . . .

[Quintus 5,399]

^ Indeed, that was a great and brilliantly seamless moment.

[crocodile 8,010]

I'm not talking about that. What I'm saying is that it all happens beyond the characters, if one may put it that way. Indy has nothing to do in the chamber. If he wasn't present there and Spalko would take the skull to the temple alone it wouldn't make the difference. The resolution would be the same. That was anticlimactic. The characters didn't have anything to do in there. There was no such problem with the previous movies, including Raiders.

Karol

[Bowie 45]

Way too much CGI. People confuse "looking realistic" with "not looking unrealistic". This film certainly didn't look unrealistic, but by golly... it didn't look realistic either! Go back and watch Indy in the first three films, getting all sweaty, bloody, tired, aching, really reacting to the harsh environments, his clothes becoming dustier and more torn apart throughout the film while the sun shines fiercely onto the set (or a dark, cold wetness permeates cave scenes, etc), and then come back and tell me the CGI in this film looks ACTUALLY realistic, as in real-life realistic. You know? Remember what it's like to go outside? That REAL thingo?

[Josh500 1,615]

Way too much CGI. People confuse "looking realistic" with "not looking unrealistic". This film certainly didn't look unrealistic, but by golly... it didn't look realistic either! Go back and watch Indy in the first three films, getting all sweaty, bloody, tired, aching, really reacting to the harsh environments, his clothes becoming dustier and more torn apart throughout the film while the sun shines fiercely onto the set (or a dark, cold wetness permeates cave scenes, etc), and then come back and tell me the CGI in this film looks ACTUALLY realistic, as in real-life realistic. You know? Remember what it's like to go outside? That REAL thingo?

Hmmm, perhaps it has partly to do with location.

Remember, the 3 previous movies were shot all over the world. Hawaii, Venice, London, Austria, Tunesia, India (or some neighboring country).

This one was shot only in Hawaiia and the US . . .

[crocodile 8,010]

I don't buy most of the arguments of the CGI haters. After all they didn't plan to use old technology back in 1981. If there was CGI back then, then I'm pretty sure they would go with it. Which doesn't mean CGI can't be awful, because it is sometimes (to put it delicatly).

Karol

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Looked realistic enough for me. The only moment that really stood out as being an effect was the shot of Mutt being hit in his danglies by the branches as he straddled the cars.

[Josh500 1,615]

Hey, I'm starting to wonder . . . did they use ANY real-live animals this time around? Or were all the animals and critters CGI created? ?

[Bowie 45]

Way too much CGI. People confuse "looking realistic" with "not looking unrealistic". This film certainly didn't look unrealistic, but by golly... it didn't look realistic either! Go back and watch Indy in the first three films, getting all sweaty, bloody, tired, aching, really reacting to the harsh environments, his clothes becoming dustier and more torn apart throughout the film while the sun shines fiercely onto the set (or a dark, cold wetness permeates cave scenes, etc), and then come back and tell me the CGI in this film looks ACTUALLY realistic, as in real-life realistic. You know? Remember what it's like to go outside? That REAL thingo?

Hmmm, perhaps it has partly to do with location.

Remember, the 3 previous movies were shot all over the world. Hawaii, Venice, London, Austria, Tunesia, India (or some neighboring country).

This one was shot only in Hawaiia and the US . . .

Well that's exactly what I mean, because, when you get down to it, the decision to use CGI or not goes hand in hand with the costly decision to shoot the remaining few scenes on location or not bother... a shame in my eyes, especially for THIS.... I mean, you wait 19 years to film your "baby" but you can't be bothered going to the effort of shooting it for a few months in the heat, and coming up with crafty solutions to the limitations of live-action stuntwork?

[Charlie Brigden 7]

To be honest, he did plan to shoot more footage on location, but got waylaid by a hurricane. That's not really the easiest weather to shoot in.

[Bowie 45]

To be honest, he did plan to shoot more footage on location, but got waylaid by a hurricane. That's not really the easiest weather to shoot in.

Boo hoo. You deal with it, write it into the script if need be, perhaps rely a bit on actor and crew adlibs, pay them a bit more to be held back a month... old-fashioned film-making. Still holds up, apparently...

[Delorean90 42]

Crocodile: On climaxes - What are you talking about?

TOD was the only film where Indy actually was instrumental in the villain's demise. In Raiders, Belloq and the Nazis would've opened the Ark with or without Indy. LC is halfway there--Indy got them to the chamber, but Elsa was going to mislead Donovan either way.

I went to the midnight opening (my first!), and I'm really glad I went! Overall, I really, really liked it. There was hitting and missing, but when it hit, it really hit. I'm going to need to see it again I think. It's still settling in. But I'm definitely going back, and it was a lot of fun!

The cinematography, for me, was going to be one of the make or break things for selling the transition. There were times when it could have been done better, but there were also times that he really nailed it. The Orellana's Cradle sequence was a big one for me. I love the two shots where Indy and Mutt's faces are only partially lit. Classic! For me, the biggest thing was the overlighting. It seemed like generally the case was that it was better when the scene was darker. The biggest exception would be the motorcycle chase, which was thoroughly fantastic, and didn't seem to suffer from the brightness. I also must say that the establishing shot of the college looked dead-on like it was shot at the same time as Raiders. It would've been terrific if it could've looked spot on like the an 80's movie, but overall, it could've been worse. I also think that I'm adjusted to the look of home video/DVD. I thought Spider-Man 3 looked weirdly different from SM2, but when I saw it on DVD, it jived with it just fine, because I had only seen the previous films on DVD. I suspect that my thoughts may be affected once I see the DVD. We'll see. Admirable job, though. Another shot, though minor, that I thought looked dead-on like Slocombe was that one shot of the step receding into the wall--the darker one that was in a TV spot. There's stuff like that scattered throughout.

I was thrilled to see that they did indeed use the original Paramount logo--it kind of took me by surprise, though.

There was no break between the trailers and the film--I'm used to seeing some kind of "Enjoy the show" message or something between, so when there wasn't a break, and I saw the Lucasfilm logo, I thought they were going to show the trailer for The Clone Wars.

But then the logo came up, and I thought it was starting--and then the prairie dog came up, and I almost thought maybe it was another trailer winking at the logo transition!

But then the credits started, and they were old-school also! Yeah! It was a different way to start the opening sequence, but I think it worked once I realized what they were doing.

I think the theater I went to had an audio thing going on, though--it was REALLY loud. When I go again (and I most certainly will!), I'll probably go the one I usually go to instead. Did anyone else find that some of the music at the start almost seemed a bit synthy? Again, this may have had to do with my theater, as

when I listened to "The Spell of the Skull," there were no such problems.

Shia LaBeouf did a great job as Mutt, who was a very good character. Nicely done.

I had no issues with it being a family thing. The way I see it, this is likely the last film, so let him end with a family. Also, I did like the ending. The hat moment was terrific--there were people in the audience going "No! Don't do it!" and when Indy took the hat, there was a big round of applause. I did like the last shot--there was just something classic about it. It had that old-school look and feel to it.

Also, when Marion came on the scene, the audience applauded. It was clear that a lot of the audience were fans.

I'll have to see what I think when I watch again, but I didn't think she was really poorly handled. She still has some roughness--she's cussing out a Russian soldier when we first meet her--but she's a mom now, too, and that softness is there.

Somewhat related to the Marion thing, I think perhaps the pacing could've used a little work. I would have liked them to not have gotten recaptured as soon as Indy finds out he's Mutt's father. It would've been nice to have some more quiet, personal stuff going on as they try to go on their own. A scene with Indy and Marion reconnecting on their own would've been great. It was funny and effective in the scene in the back of the truck, but I would've liked a bit of a breather there.

Easily one of my favorite sequences was the motorcycle chase. The humor and action were nicely balanced--

and the preceding diner scene is good on its own as well as in its segue to the chase. It almost seems like it could've ended with them escaping after the KGB guys hit the statue of Marcus, as opposed to the library bit, giving the moment a bit more reverence, but the library coda was good.

As far as the music goes, it didn't seem like it was always as clear and present in the mix as in the previous films, but I was also trying not to pay too much attention to the music and just experience the movie overall. I kind of wish the action cues had it bit more individual melodic personality, but they do have their moments. I understand why people speak of the action cues as more reactionary and less structured than the previous scores. A lot of the majestic moments were very good, though--it almost seemed like at times these and the underscore tracks were more effective and had more personality, interestingly.

The opening of the door to the chamber of the alien skeletons particularly stood out in its magnificent rendering of the Crystal Skull theme, and the saucer's exit was a great moment. Very well done.

The end of the end credits was also a nice surprise. I laughed in delight when it finished! I'm also really digging the Crystal Skull theme particularly, and I've been humming Mutt's Theme off and on since I saw the film. The concert suites are quite enjoyable. Very nice!

While "Temple Ruins and The Secret Revealed" is certainly no "The Miracle of the Ark"--nor is "The Wrong Chalice," for that matter--it's pretty good, I'd say. Nicely done. Very menacing and awesome. I'm liking it. The last grand, major statement of the Crystal Skull theme for "The Departure" is easily a major highlight of the score, too, and was quite powerful in the film.

I think someone else mentioned this, but I was actually surprised by

the lack of gore. Probably the most graphic stuff in the film was in the Orellana's Cradle sequence with the mummies and the rapid decay. Despite the lack of gory details, I must say the ant bit still managed to be fairly disturbing. I had expected to see the results of the ants' work, but just the image of the big goon having the ants go into his mouth, then completely cover him and drag him into the ground squirming was rather effective. Irina's fate was interesting. I couldn't quite tell what happened to her. I don't think she died per se, but rather got transformed in ways she might not have expected. I did notice the Grievous eye thing, but I think it worked fairly well. It would've been better if the alien hadn't been CGI, though. It didn't really have any need for it, IMO.

I think having heard rumors of aliens being involved and seeing the crystal skull beforehand sort of conditioned me to accept it more once I actually saw the film. I think it worked well, and after speculations that the aliens were related to the Ark and stuff, I'm glad it was focused to that particular culture, and not being some worldwide thing. It was neat that they were shown to be collectors and archaeologists in a way. I think it was also done tastefully enough and rooted in the ancient relics motif, only revealing the conventional sci-fi stuff with the ship, that it wasn't too harsh a transition from the others. It was also rooted in the Mayans' religion, so it still has that religious connection with the other films. It could've been handled much worse. Wasn't the Saucer Men From Mars script (I wonder how many fans got that reference in the tent scene) more overt in the sci-fi elements? Also, if I'm remembering correctly, I think there may be some ancestor to the refrigerator scene in that script. I'll have to read it again, given the fact that Spielberg and Lucas never let ideas go to waste.

I'll probably have more thoughts as I recall them and rewatch the film, but overall, this could have been a whole lot worse--it is by no means a failure, certainly not a disappointment on the level of any of the prequels. Highly enjoyable, and I look forward to seeing it again.

[Henry B 50]

God, wow.

What the hell.

I've been trying to formulate my thoughts, but I can't. I need to watch Raiders.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

So my guess, you didn't like it?

[Delorean90 42]

I don't think anyone who disliked LC will like this one.

EDIT: Let me rephrase that, so as not to give the wrong idea. If you actively dislike LC with true passion, you probably won't like KOTCS (I could be wrong, though). If you simply like it less, you might like KOTCS--and either way you might like elements of it.

[Henry B 50]

KotCS has NOTHING to do with LC. I'm not saying that LC is a better film in every way, but they are... completely different. I can't believe they were directed by the same man. I really can't.

[crocodile 8,010]

Crocodile: On climaxes - What are you talking about?

TOD was the only film where Indy actually was instrumental in the villain's demise. In Raiders, Belloq and the Nazis would've opened the Ark with or without Indy. LC is halfway there--Indy got them to the chamber, but Elsa was going to mislead Donovan either way.

OK. maybe you're right. But still there was something missing in that whole sequence,

between Spalko's entrance and the destruction of the temple. Some twist maybe?. It was a logical conclusion, but way too obvious. But at least in the LC it worked because at that point the whole reason behind Indy's motivation (to get the Grail) was personal. There is nothing like that in KOTC. After they escaped the villains there is no reason for them to continue (and Indy's explanation is not particulary strong)

.

Karol

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

KOTCS is to Raiders what War Of The World was to Close Encounters.

[Delorean90 42]

Crocodile: On climaxes - What are you talking about?

TOD was the only film where Indy actually was instrumental in the villain's demise. In Raiders, Belloq and the Nazis would've opened the Ark with or without Indy. LC is halfway there--Indy got them to the chamber, but Elsa was going to mislead Donovan either way.

OK. maybe you're right. But still there was something missing in that whole sequence,

between Spalko's entrance and the destruction of the temple. Some twist maybe?. It was a logical conclusion, but way too obvious. But at least in the LC it worked because at that point the whole reason behind Indy's motivation (to get the Grail) was personal. There is nothing like that in KOTC. After they escaped the villains there is no reason for them to continue (and Indy's explanation is not particulary strong)

.

Karol

I kind of see what you're saying. It worked well enough for me, but I can understand it not working for you.

I did anticipate Irina's fate being what it was--it was appropriate, I thought. A more old-school execution of it would've been nice, effects-wise. I think a puppet/rubber suit alien, done properly, might have been more affective, and something a little less Grievous-esque for Spalko's translation. But the build-up was nicely done, I thought, with the skeletons moving and the room rotating. The directing and cutting of that build-up was pretty good, I thought.

[QMM 4]

Ok I'm liking the music more now that I have the soundtrack. There's definitely a lot more cues on the album that I thought would've been left out.

[Murdoch 0]

Just got back from seeing it. I'm a pretty big Indiana Jones fan, and I must say, I thought this movie made The Temple of Doom look like Citizen Kane. The film was loaded with obvious intrusions from Lucas (way over the top cgi heavy sequences) and Spielberg's directing was absolutely mediocre. John Williams, who clearly I love, wrote a score that in no way added kinetic excitement to the action or aroused awe or mystery. It was dull and instantly forgettable. Harrison Ford seemed to be there to collect the pay check and get out.

Marion and "Mutt" were uninteresting and underused, the character development was non-existent. The two other supporting characters should have been taken out of the screenplay, especially Oxley (what were they thinking?).

The editing was choppy and the pace of the film was incredibly distracting...the set up took way too long, the middle period was forgettable and the third act was boring and had basically no transition from the second...and then, before I knew it, the film was over.

What blows my mind the most, was that Spielberg and Lucas had 18 years to get a screenplay they could all agree on. Koepp's writing is aweful---particularly his boring dialogue that walks us through every plot twist and the solution to every puzzle. Then there are the puzzles and mysteries themselves, which are never really clever and never really surprising. The finale of the film is loaded with special effects, none of which are new or interesting. There is simply no dramatic tension.

It seems that Spielberg and Lucas made an Indiana Jones movie, not for the fans, but for Generation MTV (and even by that standard it fails as a movie). Just like Lucas did we the prequels, he made the film for the younger kids with their parents disposable income. It's too bad, because I honestly believe that a group of fans with one of those crappy fan fiction screenplays would have made a better film than this...atleast they would have made it for people over sixteen.

The worst part of the movie, was that it was boring. The Indiana Jones films all have their flaws, but none of them inspired boredom. This one did.

Can I say anything nice about the movie?

I didn't like the opening transition from the logo, but I thought the opening shots showed promise, and the opening action sequence had its moments, of course until it went WAY over the top. Insanely OVER the top.

I really felt like the film was a parody of Indiana Jones, which in a small way, made me feel cheated. I wouldn't say they should have never made another Indy film, because I still feel like they could have made a decent Indiana Jones film...this one though, was certainly not it.

Worse than Temple of Doom, much worse...surely these movies are made to make money, but there has to be some respect given to the material. This thing was just check writing and an example of lowest common demoninator writing to try to milk more millions out of the last few properties that Spielberg/Lucas can still bank on.

And God with the computer generated effects...Jurassic Park looked so good....why does it seem like these effects just look worse and worse as they years go on.

Just some thoughts. Btw, you might wonder why I "spoilered" the lines I did, just incase some insane people don't want to know ANYTHING. Don't want to piss anyone off, though I'm sure this review will. Seriously though, someone out there has to agree with me...entertainment standards are so low these days...it's amazing. I'm not even an old guy, i'm 24, and absolutely amazed.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Gah, I really need to start the TEMPLE OF DOOM fan club one of these days...

[fommes 153]

Has anyone seen that first MacGyver movie, with that lost treasure of Atlantis. The 'nature' of the treasure is quite alike, and it was awkward first to see MacGyver go Indiana Jones and now see Indiana Jones go MacGyver.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

I haven't seen that MacGyver movie, but you probably don't realise that these stories aren't in the heads of the screenwriters. They already exist and are only used.

[fommes 153]

Haha no don't worry I know that cliché.

I'm just making this particular connection because it was already very striking in that first TV movie that MacGyver went the Indiana Jones way, and to see it reversed (they almost say the same thing literally at a given moment I think) was weird.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Yay i loved the experience of watching an Indy movie for the 1st time on cinema!

Great fun and entertaining

I loved every moment of it, except

the tarzan Mutt

The score was loud and very cool. I did hear much 80's style there. But also new style, who cares.

I like the

Alien

finale, i'm sure many old fans will look down to it but its nothing new to the indy franchise and many stories and legends imply that.

Amazing effects, though the

monkeys and prairie dogs

were unnecessary (they were well done anyway)

Hearing the Cd right now

[GoldsmithFanatic2000+ 0]

What can I say? I was disappointed, and I expected to be. I guess I was hoping in the back of my mind to be proven wrong.

Not a patch on the original trilogy of films, especially Raiders which is one of my all time favourites.

The ending is what really hurt the film for me. Very anti-climatic. I was ready to let everything else slide as long as the ending paid off and was worth it, oh well.

I gave it a generous 6/10. I likely would have rated it lower if I hadn't seen a particular prequel trilogy by Lucas before hand.

Spielberg at least tried to make a new Indiana Jones film that respected its roots. I truly believe that for all its faults, the film would have been a complete car wreck if Lucas had been given full control over the project and directed it.

This film did have CGI work in it, like the background plates and soundstage shot footage. I would have preferred more use of real location shooting because there was some of it towards the earlier half of the film, but then again never did the alternative employed used come close to looking really fake like some other films I have seen, so I'm not going to get all fanboy irritable and spend the rest of my life complaining about that.

That all said and done... I will be picking this film up on Blu-ray upon its release.

I'm sure there is every chance I'll enjoy it all the more the second time in the comfort of my own home and knowing what to expect.

[Olivier 5]

Somehow sci-fi doesnt carry as much weight as supernatural religious objects...

Well, after retrievig The Ark of the Covenant and The Holy Grail, it was certainly hard to come up with something else; though I have not read them yet, I know the comics and novels have used other religious artefacts, but when you're making only one movie every few years and each one may very well be the last, finding something equal to the Grail is very hard.

I suppose there must be equally important artefacts in other religions, but I doubt it would be well accepted nowadays.

Aren't the skulls supernatural enough?

I think the word I should have used is 'mystical'. And talking about the skull, don't you think

that the relevation of its powers so early on diminishes its impact somewhat? That, and how it seems to be a Swiss Army Knife of sorts...

It's true I would have liked to discover what kind of a skull it was and where it came from later; the final poster was much too revealing already.

I'm won't be surprised if 99.9% or people don't like it. And I don't mind it.

The film is all I hoped for, and more! It's diferent from the previous ones, yes.

But I don't care! I loved it all, and this is a moment to treasure, this is what I've been waiting for 19 years... and it's now here, and I can't wait to watch it again

Well, not 99.9%, but I think maybe 50%. I think as many people are going to love it as hate it!

Temple of Doom: many complained that it was too dark & different

Last Crusade: many (the same?) complained it was too light

1989-2007: many (the same?) demanded a new movie

2007: many (the same?) complained a new movie was being made

2008: many (the same?) complain about the new movie, and hail all of the first movies as models of perfection

20xx: many (the same?) will complain if another movie is made, and regardless of the existence of a new movie or not, will hail all four movies as modes of perfection

In short: damned if you do, damned if you don't. Whatever the IJ team did and can do, many people who hail themselves as the only truest fans of and authorities on the one and only true IJ will complain.

Many complained Ford / Indy would be too old.

Now people (the same?) complain there is not enough action, that's it's too dull and talky.

Some people (the same?) appear to have expected "Indy of the Caribbean" and complain it is not.

When they see it again in the theater, or on DVD/BR, many people will forget their expectations (fantasies is more like it) & prejudice and like it.

Ten years from now (or even just two years), more people will admit to liking it than they do now.

It's the case with many movies; the reactions are more extreme with franchises.

The second time the film is better.

There: what have I just said?

(I'm not ranking you with the bashers, Karol; you just prove my point of opinions changing after some time or a second viewing-- or listen, when it comes to scores. Thanks!)

I think some people just need to chill.

We had 19 years and more to enjoy the previous three movies. We came to love them!

All we need for us to fall in love with KotCS is another 19 years! (For some of us, anyway--I already love it.)

There! Told you so.

(I'm updating my draft while going through the thread after typing my comments)

Someone on FSM copied a review by a critic-- for once, something argumented; the problem is that he contradicts himself several times; for instance, he deplores that Indy seems to be a superhero and criticizes the fact he can get rid of two or three villains, yet also notes that

he nearly falls of the motorcycle when getting back onto it

and that he gets beaten in a fist fight just as he was in Raiders.

There are two important things to bear in mind.

Firstly, even though as I said earlier Indy is not construed as a superhuman at all, fiction supposes a certain amount of suspension of disbelief-- especially this kind of fiction. Indy does not do fancy moves and outrageously impossible stuff; some effects were required (digging a trench to be sure to have enough room and safety for Raiders' truck sequence), but stuntmen did everything on camera.

Secondly, "in real life", you can really meet 50- or 60-year-old men who are in much better physical shape and health than 20-year-olds; it does not require that much of a stretch to accept that Indy can still do a few things (with some near misses) at his age, after years of rather intense physical activity.

What I do think the main and true weakness of the movie is, plot-wise, is that it lacks a big moment of crisis.

Raiders had the "let her go or I'll blow you to bits" scene.

Temple had a drugged Indy letting Willie being lowered into a lava pit, then the big rope bridge scene.

Crusade had a dying Henry Jones Sr and traps to be overcome to save him.

Skull lacks such a climactic moment of tension, suspense, doom, decision, and it's a pity.

Yet, as others (Miguel, Bryant, Josh, ...) have said, it is an Indiana Jones movie.

(Bryant: I liked the pairie dogs too)

Incidentally, it was the first time I saw an IJ movie in the theater.

[Olivier 5]

(continued)

This is a movie for a less cynical age, and it made me smile throughout.

Right.

Some people do not want to credit filmmakers with intelligence, and, while criticizing movies that spell everything out, criticize those that don't.

I am not satisfied with everything and anything, but I am able to go past a few flaws (ex: some loopholes can easily be explained away with a little imagination) to enjoy a movie rather than rip it apart to show how supposedly superior I am, which seems to be the only thing some people do when watching movies.

Criticizing certain bits in IJ for being somewhat over-the-top is missing the whole point entirely; they would not be what they are, and certainly not loving tributes to old serials and movies, without such moments as

Mutt swinging aroudn teh jungle and the characters escaping "three falls" unscathed

; these movies walk a thin line between suspension of disbelief and realism (what I've already said: a hero without being a superhero, extraordinary feats but not of a so-etraordinary-it-has-to-be-magic kind), corny and serious, funny and scary.

One example cited in an earlier message:

yes, the gunpowder trick at the beginning made me cringe a bit, because it was scientifically awkward, as it inevitably raide all sorts of continuity issues in the physics it established; yet I quickly let it pass and just enjoyed the image of the powder floating in the air, because that was the point: it was '50's Sci-Fi movie science, and it was there because it was an aesthetically more pleasant way of getting to the crate and introducing some facts about it than having someone go through files to find the crate's location/

Another example:

yes, Mutt's constant combing is silly, but that's the point; symbolically, it's about the superficiality of those '50's youth who just think of racing an army truck and of this young guy who wants to act tough (Indy tells him he need not talk loud to apear so and to really be), but it's also quite simply a metatextual joke for the audience, who often says criticizes the way any hero's hair is always perfect throughout a movie

.

Roger Ebert nailed it in his comments on the

falls sequence

on the page BurgaFlippinMan linked us to (thanks!): some flaws and exaggerationswhich some "geniuses" detect and guffaw at and bash are intentional-- not to make it a bad film, but as a wink to older movies, as a wink to the audience, because it's all adventure with a big heart and a big wink.

Ebert refers to The Matrix. I was extremely glad to finally see a modern movie which is entirely "readable", where the action is clear and understandable, and not a boring big blur of quickly edited extreme close-ups of faces and limbs you cannot make a single thing out of (I hope The Dark Knight will not be affected by this as Batman Begins was).

Speaking of professional reviewers, I have read a few that clearly did not know what they were talking about; some got the movie facts wrong; others just invented movie history-- for instance, an English paper (I don't remember which) believes long titles have been invented by J.K. Rowling; well, they were not, as Ebert hints at in his review (thanks again, Burga!); this goes to show you how much culture this professional reviewer has.

The title sounds fine (and not convoluted, as Lara Croft-- Tomb Raider 2: The Craddle of Life did), and is totally in line with years of movie titles and even novel titles (despite that British reviewer's obvious belief that literature was invented by British J.K. Rowling, it's much older than that, and a look through any serious book or site would have given him examples of novels by British and even-- yikes!-- foreign authors whose titles were a whole darn page long).

And I loved how

the Henry Jones Senior theme was used in the end of the film... the son became the father, Indy became Henry.

That's something some people obviously cannot grasp: real people change with age, and so does Indy; yet again, there's a contradiction, since those same people reproach him still being able to do some stunts (despite the differences I have already noted).

Indy in this movie is in a transition period; in-between Raiders Indy and his father.

By the way, I'm astounded (dare I say shocked) some JWFans confused the father(/son) theme with the Grail theme in the music!

not nearly enough time on Indy himself. Like the last Rambo movie, the main character almost feels like a supporting role in his own movie.

Yeah. Right.

Yes, its not really cool how Indy drags along a gang

of 4

for most of the movie.

They fade in and out for the most part. It's just

Indy & Mutt

for a long time;

Mac disappears, Marion appears pretty late (I agree she does not have that much to do; and Stefan has a good point on this-- but where are your spoiler tags?

), along with Ox, who certainly cannot be said to steal the show

.

Note to Luke: Just stop reading this thread until you have seen the movie!

Instead of hurting yourself and indoctrinating yourself into thinking it's a bad movie because of a handful of comments, just go see it, enjoy it and judge it on your own!

Do not fall to the Dark Side and read this thread any longer!

[John Crichton 4]

Back from a beat the crowd, mid afternoon showing, and on the whole I'm pleased. Make no mistake, it's the least of the four, but that doesn't mean it's not good. Trying to put together the random flying thoughts:

The negative:

- Drags at times, particularly the first half.

- Mac (Ray Winstone) really didn't need to be in any of the film after the opening sequence.

- The whole

nuclear bomb

sequence was silly and unnecessary.

- Two subplots that don't go anywhere:

The FBI's suspicions of Indy and the "psychic link" between the skull and Indy.

- More a quibble,

but I would have liked Indy and Marion to have fought a bit longer, just for the fun if nothing else.

The good:

- Harrison Ford is Indy, even in his 60s. Great job all around from the old man.

- Shia Labouf is very good, he and Ford have good chemistry. Good performances from the rest of the cast too.

- Great action sequences without an over reliance on CG.

-

I've been fairly vocal about opposing aliens in Indy, but if it had to be done it's done well here. It's more subtle, doesn't try to change the world, and doesn't turn it into a technobabble-fest

-

Oxley's statement that the aliens are from a different dimension and are going into a "place between space" or somesuch was a pretty direct reference, intentional or not, to the aliens from The Dig, a classic Lucasarts adventure game Spilberg had some creative input to.

I don't do star ratings, but this one gets a thumbs up as long as you're not expecting too much.

Score wise, I'm liking it more than I did. There's definately a Russian theme that seperate from Irina's theme. The only unreleased music that really stood out was a great statement of Marion's theme right before the start of the jungle chase, and everything that was cut out from The Jungle Chase on the OST. Best cue of the score.

Oh, and I'm with Steef's statement from his seperate thread: Neil's gonna hate this movie.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

One question:

I was freaked out thinking they had switched movie reels at the beggining of the film because the movie started with the Universal logo.

Is just because universal distributes it in the rest of the world? (Iron man was by Sony for example) or is the same in USA?

[Delorean90 42]

Great points, Olivier. I have to say, one thing I forgot to mention was how easy it was to accept him as Indiana Jones after all these years. This isn't a big "INDY IS OLD!!!" joke. Once you get past Indy's house, you forget all about his age, and you're just along for the ride. I didn't even really think about it much at all.

[John Crichton 4]

I forgot to say that I really like Mutt's theme (except for maybe the near direct Hook lift for the B section). I would like to have heard more of it in the film, I think the concert piece is longer than all the film statements put together.

[Olivier 5]

Yay i loved the experience of watching an Indy movie for the 1st time on cinema!

Great fun and entertaining

I loved every moment of it, except

the tarzan Mutt

Wow! You actually had the time to see it while I was typing all this?!

I'm glad what you had read did not ruin the experience and you enjoyed the movie!

Hmmm, perhaps it has partly to do with location.

Remember, the 3 previous movies were shot all over the world. Hawaii, Venice, London, Austria, Tunesia, India (or some neighboring country).

This one was shot only in Hawaiia and the US . . .

Well that's exactly what I mean, because, when you get down to it, the decision to use CGI or not goes hand in hand with the costly decision to shoot the remaining few scenes on location or not bother...

Do you really think shooting this in the Amazon rainforest would have been better than shooting it in Hawaii?

Without having actually been to Hawaii, I know for a fact the locations they shot in were air-conditioned forests-- it was thus about as hot as it would have been in the Amazon forest, albeit with surely less humidity (a good thing for both people & equipment); logistically, it would have been hell, and the gain would have been nil.

-

I've been fairly vocal about opposing aliens in Indy, but if it had to be done it's done well here. It's more subtle, doesn't try to change the world, and doesn't turn it into a technobabble-fest

I don't remember who mentioned it earlier in the thread, sorry.

In any case, I like the way

the spacemen (I like the word

) mythology is linked to actual history-- which has often been done, including in the U.S.A. (to try and account for the Anasazi's disappearance)-- and archeology, and how the real treasure turns out to be knowledge

.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

yet the set of Jurassic park was destroyed by wheather

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

Indy does not do fancy moves and outrageously impossible stuff;

You're right.

Throwing him miles through the air in a refridgerator, caused by an atom bomb,

is perfectly feasable.

As is the scene where

Marion drives over the cliff and lands in a tree.

They've crossed the line on these, even by Indy standards.