Jump to content

Are you disappointed with Indy IV?


Are you disappointed with Indy IV?  

80 members have voted

  1. 1. Yes or No?

    • Yes.
      27
    • No.
      53


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No!

Shame on you who did say yes.

The film was different, it was never supposed to be raiders. Indy is 20 years older, he is more like his father, it is in the 50's, it was great!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was, at first. And then I decided that I have life.

C'mon, that's a feeble argument and you know it.

That's not an argument, actually. It basically happened. I did what Anakin couldn't. :rolleyes:

Karol - still aware of all the flaws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

YES

Watched it two times already.

It’s just sad that Spielberg and Lucas didn’t even try approaching to the same level of artistic achievement as they reached before.

Old Indy films were not simply popcorn/fun/entertainment. They really had some intellectual layers. They, less or more successfully, were films for both who wants just see a fun adventure and for those who can appreciate the originality of artistic fantasy, cleverness of the author’s intellectual game. They gave you a pleasure of high quality entertainment and aesthetical joy of pure cinema, so to speak.

So what we got now is just a silly popcorn ride. Totally watchable and instantly forgettable. That’s why I'm dissapointed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it seems strange for your preconstructed little boxes, but: I'm 23, saw the original trilogy last year for the first time, wanted Indy 4 to be made. I had faith in Spielberg that he could still make a great adventure movie. I didn't expect him to "recapture old glory", I didn't expect another Raiders.

I didn't expect Williams to write another "I can't believe it didn't win the Oscar" Indy score.

I did, however, expect at the very least a good script, and original Williams music in the proper places. That wasn't too much to ask for.

I would have been perfectly content even with a paint-by-the-numbers Indy film, but they couldn't even pull that off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not disappointed at all. If I put my mind to it I can find flaws -- and I have done so -- but they just don't detract from the overall experience for me. I can sympathize with the folks who have been disappointed, but I don't agree with them, and that is that.

Almost every employee at my theatre who cares at all about movies -- and this is not all of the employees; some of them don't care about movies whatsoever -- watched it, and not one single person amongst them disliked it. My boss was underwhelmed, but he really and truly thinks that Adam Sandler is the finest working actor in Hollywood, so bear that in mind; he said it was okay, but nothing special.

Everybody else was positive in their remarks, and I'd say that about a third of them were not just enthusiastic, but wildly enthusiastic.

This is going to be a well-liked movie, as far as I can tell.

Which is not to say that those who are disliking it are wrong. The movie does have some problems, undoubtedly; but in my opinion, they don't detract from the things that work, at least not too badly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No disapointment.I saw the original ones 20 some years ago.When you watch it today you can't really expect to feel the same things you did 25 years ago,we all grow up...well some of us.I thought it was a very good Indy movie,nothing more,nothing less.A quadrillion times better than all SW prequels combined.

The score is good,tastefull and appropriate...just what you would expect from Williams.For me it worked for the movie,and the album is a very good listen,it'll come miles ahead ofat least the last 2 SW(Phantom was a very good sore).

It was a great 2 hours of entertainment.It had everything the previous Indy movies had,lots of bugs.

I don't really see what were people expecting from this film...man Harison Ford is 65...give him a break.It's an Indiana Jones movie,not Schindler's list.It probably won't win many oscars,but i really feel i got my money's worth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would definately include this film along the original 3 as part of the same series.

Me, too. Aside from a few moments in the first 10 minutes or so, it all felt like pure Indy to me. A lot of things were different that you had to accept, but it's not hard to do when you're sucked into the fun.

Nothing will top Raiders, and nostalgia colors all of them, but frankly, I think KOTCS deserves to considered a true part of this series, and the first three set the bar pretty high.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In some ways yes and no. I wanted to enjoy myself, and I did. However I wasn't quite so sure what I felt about the strong sci-fi angle at first, and was staggered with an 'eh' feeling for about two days. I came to terms with it today though, and I'm calling it just a hair's breadth below The Last Crusade. I voted no.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s just sad that Spielberg and Lucas didn’t even try approaching to the same level of artistic achievement as they reached before.

Technical one - sure. The best popcorn cinema has to offer - you bet! Artistic achievement - err....

Karol

Link to post
Share on other sites

No - I definitely enjoyed it, even if a few scenes were a little unbelievable (I'm with those who laughed their heads off at the fridge scene).

My reaction minutes after it finished were that Spielberg lied about how many SFX he was going to use, and that bringing aliens into it was perhaps not the best story idea. I knew at the start that it was going to be an updated Indy and that there was no way we were getting Last Crusade 2. I'm lookig forward to seeing it again sometime.

I think they should only do another one if Mutt is the focus. His character was a lot more convincing than I thought he would be - his face in the prison cell for example - the guy can act.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My reaction minutes after it finished were that Spielberg lied about how many SFX he was going to use

I don't think he lied. Frankly, only the mushroom cloud, the race along the cliff (jungle chase swordfight looked more like back projection with CG plants to whack Shia in his family jewels to me), some animal critters, some long shots of the pyramids, the escape from them and the departure were major SFX sequences. Added together, they don't take up much screen time at all. I think the 'few hundred shots' we were told it had is quite plausible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My reaction minutes after it finished were that Spielberg lied about how many SFX he was going to use

I don't think he lied. Frankly, only the mushroom cloud, the race along the cliff (jungle chase swordfight looked more like back projection with CG plants to whack Shia in his family jewels to me), some animal critters, some long shots of the pyramids, the escape from them and the departure were major SFX sequences. Added together, they don't take up much screen time at all. I think the 'few hundred shots' we were told it had is quite plausible.

exactly

And i think many people is confusing CGI with some real-model settings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a few here will agree with pretty much everything he says.

with FEW you mean the people who voted yes, i suppose.

The guys critisizes the title, and Mutt's hair. :lol:

The guy critisizes that is has the same formula as the other indy movies and feels that it should be something new :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

All valid criticisms, in the context of his remarks as a whole.

I personally might not agree with him, but I can see what he's getting at with regards to Mutt's hair. The part where he says it's 'crucial', I mean.

Mutt's hair didn't bother me in the slightest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting listen.

Funny how they couldn't get Shia's name right - neither could I until recently. And the caption calls it "the long-awaited fifth installement in the series."

I don't think it would've hurt to shorten the title to simply Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skulls or what not. Perhaps after multiple viewings my opinion will improve, but at the moment my biggest problems with the film are that the second half felt too rushed and there wasn't more classic Indy action.

I think it would have been great if near the end, there would have been a booby-trap filled temple (a la the beginning of Raiders) that he'd "lead" the Commies through before reaching the

alien throne room

, with plenty of whip crackin' action along the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Raiders of the Lost Ark has the same amount of words as Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

I haven't listened to the review, but I think that this is a VERY unique Indy film. The storyline was very different than the past ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Raiders of the Lost Ark has the same amount of words as Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Seriously, are you an idiot? I don't mean that in a negative way, but are you?

The title is "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Five words.

This new one is "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". Nine words.

How is that the same amount of words?

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.