Indiana Jones 4

Wow, it seems like most people hated it... I really enjoyed it, ok yes some of the action was over the top- way way over the top (I won't say what, if you've seen it you already know), but I really liked it. Was it as good as the original 3? no but it was a fun film. I think you just have to really sit there and let the film take you it's pure popcorn and it's a fun flick.
 
traviscool said:
Wow, it seems like most people hated it... I really enjoyed it, ok yes some of the action was over the top- way way over the top (I won't say what, if you've seen it you already know), but I really liked it. Was it as good as the original 3? no but it was a fun film. I think you just have to really sit there and let the film take you it's pure popcorn and it's a fun flick.
Click to expand...

I don't flat out hate it, and that's part of the problem. I wish it were bad enough to hate as at least my emotions would have been roused in some way. It's just middling and forgettable, which is sad when you consider all the talent involved.
 
Just to clarify what I meant when I said the story didn't intrigue me. The older Indy films all had a goal in mind. Find the ark, Find and return the stones, Find the Grail. Why though? Ark was to keep it away from the Nazi's, Doom was to save a village and find the children, Crusade was to find the Grail before the Nazi's do.

Crystal Skull...find the lost city of gold and return the skull to uh....uh....o who cares.

Thats what I was talking about, the reason they were even on the quest felt like a bore to me. Just didn't feel the same I guess. I knew where they were going and was along for the ride but my care for that ride was pretty slim.

Spoilers
Anyone notice by the way that the shot from the trailer of Indy picking up his hat that everyone said hung too long (editing issue)....that shot was the exact same in the movie? lol.
END Spoilers

Also, none of what I'm saying is an attack on Spielberg at all...the script was the problem, hands down. All the rest could've been put up with if it wasn't for the script.

Films change because the director changes. Not many drastically different films were made inbetween 80-89 for Steven. There was lots of films yea but he didn't stray off from his usual style until later. Even farther out from his usual style when 2000 hit. So for Indy 4 to be expected to be like the old ones is pretty ridiculous. I didn't expect Raiders #2, I just expected it to be a bit more like the older films STYLE...I would've been happier just if the color palette and cinematography matched. Black,Brown,Gray,Yellow,Green. In this one we had lots of sunset sky's and all sorts of stuff unseen in the others that made it weird. Ah well. If Speilberg made Raiders OVER AGAIN one year after he made it the first time it would be a different film.
 
I just got home and loved it! In the theatre I heard people saying its so unrealistic and thats not possible. OF COURSE ITS NOT!!! Its Indy what did you expect. Not one is near real.

IMO people are taking the change to serious, 19 years ago was Crusade things change. The major difference I could see was Speilbergs camera work. If you watch the 3 they are planned much better but who really cares. I went to see INDY 4 and I got what I wanted action all the way with a good story and some sweet chases.

I give the movie a 10/10 and I hope they make 2 more so then my kids can grow up on Indy just like I did!
 
KyleProhaska said:
Just to clarify what I meant when I said the story didn't intrigue me. The older Indy films all had a goal in mind. Find the ark, Find and return the stones, Find the Grail. Why though? Ark was to keep it away from the Nazi's, Doom was to save a village and find the children, Crusade was to find the Grail before the Nazi's do.

Crystal Skull...find the lost city of gold and return the skull to uh....uh....o who cares.

Thats what I was talking about, the reason they were even on the quest felt like a bore to me. Just didn't feel the same I guess. I knew where they were going and was along for the ride but my care for that ride was pretty slim.

Spoilers
Anyone notice by the way that the shot from the trailer of Indy picking up his hat that everyone said hung too long (editing issue)....that shot was the exact same in the movie? lol.
END Spoilers

Also, none of what I'm saying is an attack on Spielberg at all...the script was the problem, hands down. All the rest could've been put up with if it wasn't for the script.

Films change because the director changes. Not many drastically different films were made inbetween 80-89 for Steven. There was lots of films yea but he didn't stray off from his usual style until later. Even farther out from his usual style when 2000 hit. So for Indy 4 to be expected to be like the old ones is pretty ridiculous. I didn't expect Raiders #2, I just expected it to be a bit more like the older films STYLE...I would've been happier just if the color palette and cinematography matched. Black,Brown,Gray,Yellow,Green. In this one we had lots of sunset sky's and all sorts of stuff unseen in the others that made it weird. Ah well. If Speilberg made Raiders OVER AGAIN one year after he made it the first time it would be a different film.
Click to expand...

All good points. I'll add that the Crystal Skull was regarded with zero sense of mystery. It was obvious from the get go that it was....


SPOILERS!!!

...an alien head. I would have preferred if the whole extraterrestrial element had been more submerged, that what the skull was and from whom was only revealed in the end, and when it was revealed, done so in a subtler way. As for the look, Janusz Kaminski's work has often felt too artificial for me. His best stuff is in Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, where the black and white and muted color palette helped nullify the phoniess. They should've gotten a more no-nonsense DP like Dean Semler who shot The Road Warrior, Dances With Wolves, and more recently Apocalypto.
 
Okay - just got back from seeing it for the 2nd time. Probably the one time I've seen the same movie twice in 12 hours. First with my buddy from high school whom I sluffed with to see Last Crusade and second to take my wife.

I've got a lot of mixed feelings as Raiders was THE film that made me want to work in the film industry, first as an fx artist, gravitated to camera / editing and now is ending up with screenwriting ;)

Overall I have to say the second time around was much better and I watched it for pure entertainment, hokey as it is and while being less critical the second time around, it made for a more enjoyable experience.

Was it sequel that should have been made. I'd have to say no, but 19 years later, it is what it is and they could have done a much worse job with it.

Where to start... I'd have to blame Uncle George "The Flanneled One" at the get go. He just doesn't know when to say when. He's run the SW franchise into a complete farse of its original self and the same can be said with Indy 4, although not nearly as awful as the SW prequels were. You can thank Spielberg for that one. I liken George Lucas to a crazy old inventor. The kindof guy that comes up with some really great and briliant ideas but once the idea is on paper, you kindly take him by the hand and lead him to a closet where you can lock him away during the next few months / years or he'll just get in the way and ruin things more. I've done video work for 3 inventors and they're all cut from the same cloth. In fact I think Harold Oxley in Indy 4 was a character based on Lucas. That's about how wacked out he is at this point and I think I can safely say most of the more silly and far out ideas / scenes in the new film are a result of his not being locked long enough in the closet.

Spielberg... I still think the guy is a great and talented director. There isn't anyone that has worked with him that would say otherwise. Spielberg was born to direct. Aside from AI and War of the Worlds, I have enjoyed every one of Spielberg's films, but like the best of the best, everyone has a bad story or two in them. I don't think Spielberg purposely set out to ruin Indy 4 but I feel that there was a sense of "Let's play again this one last time." It was very obvious that this was a fun film for them to do and very tongue-in-cheek, however I think it's a sign that Spielberg has indeed grown up and adventure to him now is not the adventure we grew to love in the 80's. I still think he has some wonderful films left in his career and I'm very much looking for ward to Lincoln being one of his greatest landmark films yet to come.

Ford... Ya gotta love the guy still. He's cantakerous and officially a senior citizen but he played Indy as a 65 year old and did a pretty good job with it. I think Ford's biggest problem was that the script just wasn't as polished as it needed to be. But Indy was back in character and Ford after 19 years did a wonderful job in the role. We'll see what's to come, I about laughed myself silly after watching his last fight in Firewall. Indy 4 redeemed him a bit regardless of his age.

Koepp.. I think he's a good screenwriter. Is he a brilliant screenwriter? Not sure I'd go that far but he's got a good track record for the most part. His biggest problem script IMO, War of the Worlds, another Spielberg film. Another I didn't like? Lost World: Jurassic Park, another Spielberg film. Both of them lacked any serious character development and became mostly forgotten films. I see the same with Indy 4. There's so much going on there just isn't time to really develop the new and returning characters like I feel he should of. The Russians were as wooden as any Indy baddie and there was just so much mixed about it really came across muddled by the time it was shot and edited. I will give Dave Koepp the benefit of the doubt though and that's the fact that this script has been in more hands than a cheap whore and isn't really any fault of the writer more the guy who kept passing it around until HE felt it was right and that was George Lucas who hasn't been a good storyteller since about 1981. After that, the third parts of both the SW and Indy trilogies were very much a retelling of the first in the series. A sign that he was running out of material fast.

Cinematography - I have great admiration for Janusz Kaminski and have had the priviledge to interview him. He's a brilliant DP and he knows his craft. I don't believe he was the right artist to paint this Indy canvas though. It just didn't fit. Nor was it his best work and I feel he wasn't quite in his element with this film. He and Steven very much have a non-verbal and very visual way of communicating on set and I think that relationship will keep Janusz shooting everyone of Steven's films regardless of if he's the right man for the job or not.

As for the other issues, effects, goofy scenes... you can pretty much just put Lucas to blame for those. I think ILM is not near the powerhouse they used to be and most of their stuff now looks inferior to many of the other post / fx houses now.

Well.. that's all I have to say about that. All in all, it was a fun, popcorn flick and sure a nice change from all of the recent more crappy sequels to other franchises.

cheno
 
Everyone on this forum loves film in one way or another and im sure Raiders has started their love for film. Raiders hands down is in my top ten, I saw it when I was 3 and have watched it atleast 50 times over.

I agree with Chenopup about Janusz Kaminski, he wasnt made to do Indy mostly because I think he has a more serious visual style and Indy movies are just action packed adventures.

Harrison Ford is still doing good and fit the role the same. Sure he dosent look as badass as he did in Raiders but he could still whip (pun intended) your ass!

I think the problem with the people on the forum that have watched it is that automatically when you watch a movie you see some of the mistakes and you look at the cinematography, lighting, writting, I know I do. I looked at it and said why with the digital muzzle flashes and why couldent they have just blown the boxes up on the base... But once you get past that and get all giddy like you did when you were younger you still say damn I want to be Indiana Jones
 
Batutta said:
Watch Secret Window and ask me if you still think he's a good screenwriter.
Click to expand...

Was actually good until the end when they threw it all away - guess that can be blamed on him since he wrote and directed it. Okay... maybe "decent" then... :)
 
I thought it was a little fast & forward, but was good.


However I would love to know how these movie theaters get away with raping people on candy, popcorn, sodas, etc.. ?????????? :kali:


It was $6.00 for a medium size popcorn and $4.75 for a small soda.... That's more than the ticket. Luckily we brought our own, but I felt like a drug dealer smuggling it in. It's been a little while since I've been to the theater, and maybe it's where I live, but wow is all I have to say.




--
 
Last edited:
c.g._eads said:
where is Brandon's three word review: ("I loved it")
Click to expand...

Just got back....

I LOVED IT!

Yep.. I really did :)

And for this one, you're going to get a bit of a more in depth review... believe it or not, lol.


POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW

After having seen the movie I've allowed myself to read some others reviews, and the things I have picked up on are #1, the movie is too unrealistic... have you seen Raiders lately? A lost ark with magical powers? Come on... how realistic is that? And now I'll get into the characters... those expecting to see the brash, swashbuckling Indiana Jones from the original trilogy will be sorely disappointed... Indiana is now an older wiser man, he's a sage so to speak... Shia's character Mutt is truly the brash younger guy in the film, which I liked... I respect the guys for understanding how Indiana's character would change over the years.

Let's get one thing straight, I am not one of those "Lucas and Spielberg can do no wrong" kind of people... I bash some of their films (specifically the Star Wars Prequels) as much as the next guy... but at the end of the day I thought this was a really good film, that fits nicely in with the other films... albeit 20 years later...

Also, I LOVED the fact that they did the sci-fi alien thing... very 50's, and it just worked!

Can't wait to see it again! :laugh:
 
Brandon, I commend you for your long review.

Question to everyone: Would you go see an Indiana Jones film with Shia Lebouf starring (as Lucas has indicated he wants to do)? I know I wouldn't.

Lucas seems to be obsessed with anything that has to do with Indiana Jones and being "young".
 
Brandon Rice said:
POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW

After having seen the movie I've allowed myself to read some others reviews, and the things I have picked up on are #1, the movie is too unrealistic... have you seen Raiders lately? A lost ark with magical powers? Come on... how realistic is that?
Click to expand...
No no no. We know that Indiana Jones films have a sense of the supernatural and whatnot. This is why buying into the Alien from Area 51 was not a problem for me. I had zero issues with that part of the movie. We have also seen that Indy is a bad ass who can pull off some serious physical feats. No problem. This is why I have no problem with him smashing through windshields without taking a scratch.

SPOILER

But they went too far with the ground zero Atomic Blast, Boy Tarzan, Waterfalls, etc...

/SPOILER

Sorry, those stunts were absolutely ridiculous. I heard laughter during those scenes when I saw it on opening night, and not the good kind. This installment is a lot like their second one. Over the top and beyond! Like I said earlier... if the Temple of Doom is one that you loved... then you will really love this one! :thumbsup:

Mike
 
Last edited:
Excuses, excuses. Look, these guys had everything they needed. Decades to set up the perfect package, dozens of writers to polish it to perfection and a budget in excess of $180M.

I cannot fathom why Lawrance Kasdan didn't play a bigger role in penning the script. As I said months before the picture was in physical production, it would have been much better to bend Darabont's vision to their own somewhat.

Spielberg is Spielberg. He stated that neither he or Ford wanted such an obvious statement of what the crystal skull represented. One thing Raiders did with the Ark of the Covenant was keep you interested - wanting to know more.

Do you remember your emotions the first time you watched Raiders of the Lost Ark? It was crushing to see it wheeled into the archives at the end of that picture. Both for Jones and the entire audience. I remember asking my mom what they were going to do with the Ark. Her answer that they were going to lock it away incensed me!

It was Karen Allen who assured us all that it was all going to be alright - despite what the government had done to Indy.

And now we have... what?

e
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top