Indiana Jones 4

Ok, upon a second viewing, I think this may sum up the problem(s) quite well with both the story, pacing, ART DIRECTION (camera, cinematagraphy, colors, framing, etc):

-> It was a cheesy Sci-Fi 50's serial B-movie with a slight Indiana Jones feel; NOT an Indiana Jones movie with a slight Sci-Fi 50's serial movie feel.

This explains all that I disliked about the camera/lighting/framing/color pallette/pacing/story/etc.

Combined with wooden character chemistry and development, a mixed bag of dialogue (some great, some terrible), pacing that felt a bit off, cheesy CG and some far too silly action. The old 1992 name "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars" actually would have fit the feel of the movie better.
 
I think the reason they had commies instead of nazis is because spielberg has announced that the nazis will no longer be the villains in any of his movies... i gues he thinks he has played them out!
 
futureman said:
I think the reason they had commies instead of nazis is because spielberg has announced that the nazis will no longer be the villains in any of his movies... i gues he thinks he has played them out!
Click to expand...

True, but also it was 1957. Not like there were no Nazis in 1957, but they were not the 'hot topic' of society.
 
Just saw it tonight.

Most of you were way too hard on it.

The whole family loved it. Wasn't harrison ford of 30 years ago... but it was a fine Indy film.

George and Steven should be proud. I'm happy I saw it!

Loved it.

CaptM
 
I hated the film.

But, see, I could have handled the bad dialogue, bad cinematography, even the moments that made you go "what?" — the monkeys — if it weren't for the fact that by the end it was a science fiction film that happened to have Indiana Jones in it. The plot was the worst, must distracting/destructive element of the film.

I wrote this to a friend, attempting to remain calm:

SPOILERS (though, I think everyone should know it, because nobody should see this film — I'll have to spend the rest of my life pretending it doesn't exist, and I don't want anyone else to have to do that)


"Decent movie, bad Indian Jones movie. Strayed WAAAY too far into science fiction — Indiana Jones has ALWAYS been about adventure with the supernatural. This film just tried to completely alter the formula, and I think it monumentally backfired. You can't take an established character and mythos and then introduce something completely (pardon the pun) alien — the audience (meaning me and everyone I saw it with) will reject it, which in turns destroys the suspension of disbelief. How do you go from Arc of the Covenant, Ancient Sankara Stones, and the Holy Grail, to supermassive flying saucers and interdemensional aliens?

I had some fun watching it because, come on, it was still Spielberg and Ford. But I left the theater a sad and angry at Spielberg and Lucas. It feels like they just didn't really care that they were radically altering a franchise that so many people love; there's no way they didn't see the negative reaction (and there's been quite a lot of negative reaction) coming.

I was really hoping Spielberg had the power to offset Lucas' tendency to destroy the beloved franchises he creates. He didn't."


There were moments in the film I liked — I really enjoyed the first segment (up until Indy is taken in by the FBI). The fridge scene, while WAY over the top, was fun and felt correct for the character. And, surprisingly, Shia Lebouf was good — in fact, I think he was the best part of the entire film. And the motorcycle chase scene (notably the scene with the least visible CG) was very good.

But then all the other crap came in. Especially the story. Filled with completely-misplaced, tone-destroying aliens.

I read a very insightful comment about the last alien scene (when the giant saucer rises from the pyramid): It is composed almost EXACTLY like the Halo 3 teaser trailer (when Master Chief watches the Ark portal open). Looking back, the two are SO similar that there must have been some influence.

And that, my friends, is a travesty.
 
Last edited:
Ok, since many have already seen this, I'm going to follow-up my previous post with a more in-depth analysis...




**************SPOILERS BELOW! ************

My problems with this film:

1) Apparently, prairie dogs are incredibly difficult to find, because we see an incredibly expensive CG shot of a prairie dog...just sitting there. Not acting in any way, not reacting to someone, just sitting there. Wow. They really needed CG for that??

2) The beginning establishes that Indy was a Colonel, and that he had served in the OSS during WWII. Hmmm... if he was supposed to be about 41 in Last Crusade (which shows him about 15 in 1912, and is then is set in 1938), then we're supposed to accept that he was able to join the special forces at that age?

3) Mutt feels the need to act all tough and cool, and doesn't seem to care one way or the other than his mother was missing. Oh, and the name "Mutt" is incredibly stupid. Which they must have known, since he is only referred to by name once or twice in the whole film.

4) We all know there won't be a fifth Indiana Jones movie, because a week after the events in this film, Indy dies of extreme radiation poisioning... Come on, hiding in a fridge to survive a nuclear blast??

5) Marion could have been left out of the film entirely, and almost nothing would have changed. Except the worthless scene where she drives off the cliff without having any idea that there was a tree there to save them. This movie would have been far better had they all plummeted to their death. At least that would be dramatic.

6) Sword fighting between vehicles? Tarzan swinging? Unacceptable.

7) Why exactly does Indy go from being fired to being Assistant Dean? He has no proof he discovered anything. Sure, he brought back Oxley (mostly) intact, but aside from that he didn't do too much. Oh, except participate in ripping apart the school's library.

8) Marion and Indy get married, why? They had basically no dialog together, and most of that was yelling/bickering. Doesn't exactly demonstrate any actual care...

9) Snakes don't work as ropes. This was almost worse than the Tarzan scene. In the previous films, Indy was afraid of snakes in a "get those away from me" way. In this film, he was afraid of them in a "oh god, please provide me with a knife so I can slit my own throat" kind of way. He was almost crying like a little kid. Unacceptable.

10) Alien bodies from Roswell are fine. Alien crystal skulls, that's pushing it. Flying saucers and Aliens causing Commies to explode??? Stupid. That's about on the same level as if the Knight at the end of Crusade had pulled out an AK-47 and started shooting at Indy.




I went and saw this with a couple of friends, but two people who wanted to go with us had other plans. I had joked that I would call them up and spoil the movie for them since they refused to join us. When we left the theater, my friends and I literally wondered if the others would believe us if we told them the ending. Seriously, if someone told you earlier in the week that Indy gets hit with an atomic bomb, falls off a cliff, and finds a flying saucer, would you have believed it?
 
TwistedLincoln said:
OFlying saucers and Aliens causing Commies to explode??? Stupid. That's about on the same level as if the Knight at the end of Crusade had pulled out an AK-47 and started shooting at Indy.
Click to expand...

I think that's one of the best way to conceptualize how out of place and wrong the alien plot felt to me. Actually, if the knight in Crusade had turned into MC Hammer, jumped on a unicorn and fought Megatron over Belgium — that's a better approximation.
 
I just saw it. I don't have anything to say here that hasn't already been said. My biggest disappointment was the wasted opportunity to recapture the Indy/Marion chemistry.
 
I think I've nailed down the fundamental flaw in the script for me. Indy doesn't seem at all that interested in the artifact he's pursuing. His reaction to first hearing about it is, meh, "some interesting craftsmanship." The coveting of the artifact has always been the driving force behind the Indiana Jones films. He pursues the ark not only to keep it away from the Nazis, but because as an aracheologist its discovery excites him. He pursues the Sankara stones for Fortune and Glory. Last Crusade is a little weaker, he first pursues his father, then takes up his father's quest, which is why that film always seemed lazier and not as urgently paced. Still, you can see he's excited by the pursuit of the object. Here, he's basically coerced into action by a secondary character. There is a brief section in Crystal Skull when searching the first ruins for the skull where the film comes to life for me, because you see Indy's fascination with solving the riddle, but then they find the skull without much drama. Weak writing.
 
CaptainMench said:
Just saw it tonight.

Most of you were way too hard on it.

The whole family loved it. Wasn't harrison ford of 30 years ago... but it was a fine Indy film.

George and Steven should be proud. I'm happy I saw it!

Loved it.

CaptM
Click to expand...
You're right. It was the older indestructible Harrison Ford. I think he's still glowing from the nuke! :D

I'm happy that you liked it though. I also expect that many young families will like it as well. It just doesn't hold a candle to the original or even the third installment. IMHO

Mike
 
Saw it with my brother and the twins on Friday. Skull is a disappointment of incredible proportions.

Everything has been said in the posts above.

I would offer that anyone who states that they "liked it" might've seen the sequels before they saw Raiders. There really can be no other explanation.

The opening. The prairie dog opening shot was less problematic for me than others. The race was interesting, if not boiler-plate in concept and execution. I thought the kids in the hot-rod were Russians. I was wrong here - though it would be the one time in the film where I was.

When the Russians storm Area 51, the way it was realized was very strange and predictable. BEGIN INCREDIBLY STRANGE CINEMATOGRAPHY HERE.

Where the hell are all the Americans? Was all of Area 51 detonated in the nuclear blast? If not, I'd like to know why we only had six inept guards (at one desolate gate, a mile away) watching over (somewhat nefarious, in the wrong hands) items like alien corpses and the Ark of the Covenant?

I watched the cinematography very closely through this scene. The art direction was fine, if not good. All the elements were there, but the high-key, over-saturated Last Crusade lighting simply wrecked what could have been quite lovely to take in. Additionally, the deep focus work outside the hangar betrayed the filmmakers - it looked like a set-piece from a third-rate 1940s b-picture. From a continuity standpoint, it looked like a marriage of stage and practical location - which is much more jarring than on or the other.

I won't comment on the on-again, off-again magnetic properties of the sarcophagus. Well, I guess I did.

The nuclear scene was fun for me. Unlike anyone born before the '70s, many of us grew up watching the old black and white nuclear test footage from the height of the cold war. This stuff was (or felt) very real, and in the 80s we got closer to nuclear war than we had since the Cuban Missile Crisis. I totally bought that Indy had stumbled into this scene - along with a carload of hapless Russians. The fact that the dummies were watching Howdy Doody felt a bit cartoonish, but I really enjoyed the hyper-saturated Good Housekeeping production design and color palette. Again, this sequence went by so quickly that I was left feeling like I needed just a bit more. Note to Spielberg: Leaving the audience wanting for more is a good thing.

He seems to have forgotten this since he went on to direct "serious and weighty" pictures these past twenty years.

So, Nuclearville, USA. Liked it... right up to the high-bounce of the refrigerator. Had those shots been tempered just a bit, I would've not been taken out of the moment. It was just too over-the-top. Again the prairie dog didn't bother me as much as the first shot.

Now, the goons from the government. With Joe McCarthy as an influence, I'd believe this scene could happen. And it does, in awkwardly staged and acted splendor. Who the hell is General Ross? Never mind, but he's just another decades-old influence from Jones' past - just like the lamentable George "Mac" McHale.

Which brings me to Marion. What a tragic mis-handling of a great character. She was, in the real and original Indiana Jones picture, the young, vibrant counter to Ford's well-traveled - if not road-weary - Indiana Jones. They walked off into the sunset together at the end of Raiders. We all knew that she was his lifetime love. He asked Brody about her before going off in search of Abner. Funny that. I remember Abner's name after all these years - something that won't be said about any character in this newest, orphaned installment. Consider that Abner Ravenwood was never seen in any part of the franchise - perhaps not even in a photograph in the shadows of Jones' bungalow or in Marion's bar. That's a character!

What Spielberg allowed Lucas to do to Marion is a crime. Allen is a good, solid actress who was used as a stunt driver and comic foil. The Brodyization of Marion was a terrible mis-calculation on the filmmaker's part. That terribly staged moment where they see each other should have led to an incredible reunion. But it didn't. She walks right past him, and they never connect through the rest of the movie. Criminal misuse of a legacy character. Her costume, hair and make-up don't give her the appearance or stature of a 1950's era woman either. At least not in the cinematic standard. She is a quite stunning woman who might've made an incredible entrance - given the chance.

This one point bothered me more than all the ridiculous CGI, poorly blocked scenes and God-awful dialogue. Spielberg made no secret during the production of Raiders that he disliked Karen Allen, and I fear that his shabby treatment of her [character] during Skull is a testament to his true feelings for her. After all, she isn't half the actress that Ms. Capshaw is.

I will never watch this picture again. That is the one distinction Skull has over the other three in the franchise. Most of the Young Indiana Jones episodes had more depth, better pacing, realistically achieved VFX and, the most important element - heart.

e
 
Last edited:
Watch the shot where the Soviet soldiers are entering the Area 51 hangar as the doors are opening. The solders on the ends do a bizarre slide to get around the door. It looks really odd. Almost as odd as the army of swinging CG monkeys.
 
Erik Olson said:
I would offer that anyone who states that they "liked it" might've seen the sequels before they saw Raiders. There really can be no other explanation.
Click to expand...

Dude...

I'm old enough to have seen all of them on opening weekend... and did.

Thankfully I'm not one (like many hacks here) who 1) cares about film art and 2) runs my life on Spielberg/Lucas.

I just enjoyed the movie with my family because my children enjoyed it.

CaptM
 
spidey said:
you know speilberg doesnt come on dvx user lol.
Click to expand...

You know, maybe he should.

CaptainMench said:
Dude...

I'm old enough to have seen all of them on opening weekend... and did.

Thankfully I'm not one (like many hacks here) who 1) cares about film art and 2) runs my life on Spielberg/Lucas.

I just enjoyed the movie with my family because my children enjoyed it.

CaptM
Click to expand...

I have no response to that.

My kids, who are a twin boy and girl of six, both wanted to know who each character was as they were introduced. I had to tell them that I had no idea and to keep watching. Maybe we would find out together. We did not.

My son, who is a fan of the first three films, said (upon seeing Marion in Skull), "Daddy, why do Steven Spielberg and George Lucas hate Karen Allen so much?" Then he started crying. Needless to say, I felt bad for what those two did to him and worse for dragging him to Skull instead of Iron Giant.

e
 
Last edited:
Erik Olson said:
My son, who is a fan of the first three films, said (upon seeing Marion in Skull), "Daddy, why do Steven Spielberg and George Lucas hate Karen Allen so much?" Then he started crying.
Click to expand...

I find this absolutely more absurd than Indy flying a mile in a refrigerator and surviving a nuclear blast.

I honestly can't see a six-year old reading the relationship of a director and actor through the actors performance. It's absurd. If so, he wouldn't have had to ask you what was going on in the story because he would have read into that as well.

If Steven doesn't like someone, he won't work with them again. Period. It's how he works. If he hated Karen that much, he wouldn't have brought her back for a second film regardless of what the story dictated. And only in the most recent work by Koepp did Marion's character resurface. Steven wouldn't have agreed to it if he didn't want it. And that any "distaste" for Karen came through in her performance is silly. That was merely bad writing for her character.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top