Indiana Jones 4

well i figure i may as well put in my 2cents... everyones a critic, right? I saw the midnight showing of indie... and it is the most people i have ever seen at my local theater, they had it playing on six screens... and for me, this may have been the reason that indie4 was not what it could have been. it just seemed that Lucas and Spielberg where trying to make it too mainstream, and in my opinion, childish! whats up with the prairie dogs in the desert? whats up with the corny wedding at the end... whats up with Mutt? The CG was also a bit over the top... but i was sort of expecting that, based on who was involved in the project! but the biggest problem was the script, they had almost twenty years to work on this, and they could still not bring the amount of screen talent to their full potential!

Now the good stuff... it was still thoroughly enjoyable... i liked the alien thing quite a bit, and as soon as i saw the 51 on the hangar doors i thought "i hope this has aliens"! i also liked them bringing back the chick from raiders... i cant stop thinking about the drinking competition scene... awesome. there were really never any dull moments to the film, and i was thoroughly drawn into it, even if it did seem a bit cartoony at times! and i think they did a good job of working harrisons age into the story... all the jokes about him, and such!

bottom line, a rip roaring film... but Spielberg and Lucas need to retire, they have not been able to make true cinematic gold since the 80's... they are old news, sorry guys!
 
futureman said:
bottom line, a rip roaring film... but Spielberg and Lucas need to retire, they have not been able to make true cinematic gold since the 80's... they are old news, sorry guys!
Click to expand...

lucas correct. but spielberg? Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan, Munich, AI, Minority Report.... all after the 80's and are amazing films.
 
well, lets say eighties and early nineties! although i have to say that i did not care for Munich or Saving private Ryan... Minority Report was cool, and Jurassic Park was cool, but that came out 15 years ago, within 4 years of Last Crusade!

i should also add, that i don't necessarily, think Spielberg and Lucas are bad "directors", they are just atrociously bad at scripting and casting in their older age... it is sort of the exact opposite of the latest Jason Bourne movie, which had great casting and scripting... but the directing was so horrendous it was virtually un-watchable... ever heard of a tripod?
 
Last edited:
I would love to read a book about the 20 year development of this movie. I would like to know all the different drafts that were written, what Lucas wanted in, what Spielberg wanted in, all the points of argument between the two. Because I'm sure that knowledge would explain the somewhat schizophranic nature of the script (the nuclear bomb scene simply did not have to be in there but it was obviously written into one of the previous drafts and either lucas or spielberg loved it and hence forced it into the final script - that's what I don't get about older filmmakers. they'd be the first ones to tell you, when writing a script, to only include a scene if it drives the story forward. and yet they complete ignore the rule themselves and throw in a scene like that that's purely there for "cool factor". I guess the rule is "only include a scene if it drives the story forward... unless you're us." And therein lies the problem in why these once great filmmakers aren't nearly as great anymore. they believe they're above the rules that got them there. i'm not saying that would be easy to avoid if you became successful, but come on, set a good example).
 
Well, I just got back from seeing it and all I can say is with that time between the last crusade and today, The movie should have been damn near perfect. Still slightly better than episodes 1&2 though IMO.
oh well
my last hope for this summer is The Dark Knight....
now if someone could offer some insight into my problem in the premiere forum I could get back to work....
 
***** SPOILERS *******

Just saw the movie. I absolutely hated it.

I read the posts on this forum. I saw the new TV spots with driving off a waterfall and fencing between two cars. I lowered my expectations significantly, prepared myself as much as possible.

And I hated it. I really tried hard to like it. But this movie WAY missed the mark, and I cannot even sympathize with the lukewarm views, let alone understand the actually POSITIVE reviews of this film??

I read the posts here and though, certainly people are way too hard on this movie, I am a true Indy fan, I've seen the old ones no joke over 100 times, and this movie failed me in every possible way.

From the opening scene with the mountain being a mole hill with a CG mole I knew something was wrong. You opened the film with a freaking CG mole?? I don't want to see any CG let alone a freaking cutsie CG mole. But ok, forgiven.

Until the first shots where the Russians split revealing the men with machine guns and kill the guards. Something was wrong, and it was in the technical style, and this persisted throughout and really hurt the film when being compared to the other. Supposedly this was supposed to be like the other three in lighting, cinematagraphy and style??

- The look is too diffused and "smooth; a totally different look/feel than the previous films.

- The colors are too saturated and bright in many places, and the color pallette feels very different

- The camera work is noticeably different; often too close, too dynamic, and just plain inconsistent with the original films

- As mentioned, I certainly did notice that the filming seemed sloppier and the lack of storyboarding shows. I was skeptical of those comments, but they were spot on.

- Overall, the entire look just felt "weird" and completely non Indy. Not as realistic or gritty, different framing and camera style, different lighting... this is one of my biggest gripes.

Ford's delivery and voice just felt a bit off in the entire opening segment, and a few other places throughout - but mostly the opening. While Harrison looked clumsy in many scenes and some of his lines were a bit off, I thought he overall did very well with what he was given. The majority of his stuff felt very Indy, he certainly got back into the role correctly. BUT...

The pacing was rushed and felt off throughout. From dialogue delivery, starting with the opening lines with mac (this ain't gonna be easy; put your hands down, etc.) - the pacing was much better in the trailer. Felt too fast.

The pacing on the movie was either too fast or too slow, and rarely just right. Transitions often felt "off."

The character development and interaction felt contrived, shallow, and stiff. SO much more could have been done with Indy and his son and Indy and Marion; rather it felt weak and cheesy (not in a Last Crusade cheesy way, in a BAD cheesy way.) I never felt connected, I felt that very little happen between the characters, and the dialogue and chemistry felt wooden.

Indy was made "uncool" throughout. He took the role of the wise, careful old guy and lost his coolness for the majority of the film. Did he fire a single bullet? He used his whip but a few times, and in the opening scene only (except at the very end, but that doesn't count, and it felt like a rip off on the end of Last Crusade with Mac trying to gather the treasure).

Shia consistently took the limelight; everything cool or daring was done by him, with Indy generally following behind, with only a few cool Indy segments. I never got the sense of Shia developing respect for Indy.

Ants carrying off and consuming people looked terrible and was ridiculous.

The tarzan monkey swinging was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.

Driving off a cliff, onto a tree, which lowers them down, and then swings back to kill a bunch of people? Could this be any dumber? Not only did the effect look incredibely cheesy, the entire concept was completely lame.

"What are you, a triple agent?" - "No I just lied about being a double agent" --- really?? It took you 18 years to come up with dialogue like this?? UGH!

The film had about 20 minutes that felt "close" to being right and true to the originals; never spot on, but close. Overall I actually enjoyed the motorcycle chase at the start, I found it to have MOSTLY the right Indy feel to it. The humor was mostly right, and the action was pretty strong, and it had a good pacing and feel to it. Even if Indy was made to look like the tag along weak old man "get on gramps!" and he lived up to that throughout.

Everything just felt cheap and corny; even the pictures on the desk of dad and marcus; the way it was filmed, the pacing, etc. Could have been much better.

The most true to Indy parts all felt like complete re-enactments of the previous films. It felt Indy like, but only because it was an exact Indy repeat, not brand new content in the same vein. Examples:

-- "It's not a drawing, its directions!" ie Last Crusade talking about it being a MAP! Don't you see what dad was after? (dont remember the exact location of the line)

-- "I've heard this bedtime story" ie Last Crusade when talking to Walter

-- "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ..... 7" counting roman numerals 3, 5, 7, 9... 10, where's the 10... in Last Crusade. Not to mention in Auxley's cell, very similiar with brushing off the floor.

-- The ending section felt VERY much like Last Crusade; the circular room, Cate Blanchet meres Elsa's expressions almost perfectly, everything felt so similar to Last Crusade, even the escape with things falling apart

- The shot where Indy first sits down with Auxley to have him draw perfectly mirrors the shot in Raiders in the tent where they call Sallah in, who informs them the truck has been loaded on an ark

- The scorpion crawling on the skeleton and Shia falling back into another skeleton, just like Raiders in the well of the souls.

I could go on and on, but the point is, all the stuff that felt "almost right" only felt so because it mirroed a previous scene or line of dialogue or expression nearly exactly. There were a few exceptions (loved Indy's look of dissaproval towards Shia when the car crashes into Marcus's statue; the Library scene with the cycle; a couple parts of the diner convo; Indy teaching (though the camera was too close when his coworker approaches the door, needed to be slightly wider).

The CG was WAY too prevalent. WAYYY too prevalent. I don't know what happen to the 30%/70% ratio.... maybe they meant 70% CG.

And the ending wedding scene... WHHAATT?? This was the most ridiculous cornball thing ever and felt completely out of place.

I could vent forever on this movie, but suffice to say it pissed me off how untrue the whole thing felt to the original. There was hints of greatness spattered throughout, but the film as a whole felt wrong, looked wrong, was paced wrong, contained weak character developed and dialogue, and was overall untrue to the originals for the majority of the duration.

Shame on you Lucas AND Speilburg. The potential was there, and thats what makes it worse. This was more than a disappointing Indy movie, it was a bad film in general.

Terrible.
 
Last edited:
Weston said:
I think if there is one thing that disappointed me most about this film it was the filmmaking technique. I don't know that the story wasn't necessarily good enough, but the way they went about making it just didn't feel right.

I just watched the old trilogy over the last 3 days and the whole thing is pretty tight....cinematography, direction, choreography.....etc. They feel of the same mold.

Spielberg used to storyboard everything but as he got more confident in his abilities he tossed that aside. So now in this Indy its the new Spielberg...the one who shows up on set with no plan and figures things out as he goes. Because of that nothing feels classic...or crisp...or as good as it should be. Its just...ehhh..

And Kaminskis cinematography is plain disappointing. I thought he was going to make an effort to match Slocome...even slightly, but I guess not. Lots of diffused, highlight-laced shiz that doesnt match the old trilogy at all. Most of the sets in this are lit so poorly its more obviously studio than the old films...and that was the 80's.

Then theres the CG.....all those practical effects from the old trilogy feel 100% more real to me.

Spielberg is showing his age...and hes getting complacent. He talks alot of jive about shooting on film, but he'd be better off worrying more about how he makes the film than what he shoots it on.

Its not a bad film though...its just not as good as I would have hoped.
Click to expand...

YES! Exactly! Except the last part about it not being a bad film. It sucked terribly IMO. The only good thing was Ford who did very well; it was the only thing that felt right. But the script, dialogue, some of the direction, etc... even still manages to mess this up at times.

GRRRRRR.

I could not possibly be more disappointed. This movie was more than a let down. It angers me.
 
c.g._eads said:
I would love to read a book about the 20 year development of this movie. I would like to know all the different drafts that were written, what Lucas wanted in, what Spielberg wanted in, all the points of argument between the two....
Click to expand...

Here here. I'd love to see the 17 some odd year process that led to this masterpiece(of ****).

Again, Spielberg has never done wrong in my eyes before this fiasco. I have defended him for Hook (which I know many here hate, but I see as his only true "children's" film...E.T. was anything but a children's film.)

I have fought the good fight on behalf of Temple of Doom and Last Crusade (both of which many of you here find terribly disappointing...but I have already seen as part of a great trilogy.)

Hell, I even laugh my balls off at 1941.

But this Indy film...jesus, the plotline would have better suited a 5 or six minute long ride at Disney World.

I saw it with my family, and tried to keep the kids quiet at first. Then came the ants. I yelled out at the screen, "What the hell?! We're back to "Mummy" effects?!" and then to the CG Monkey/Tarzan scene, "This is ****ing STUPID!!!"
Needless to say, my kids told me to "Shhhhh."
 
It was hilarious, the people who wore indy outfits walked in the theaters like they owned the place.

At the end, they had a look of embarrassment, like all of us were going to direct our outrage at them.
 
Where were the damned Nazis?!?!? Sorry but the commies just arent as good at being villains. The accents were pretty awful and in scenes where Indy wasnt centre frame, i might've mistaken it for some sort of National treasure prequel, what a load of balls.

I can only hope that if Lucas follows through on his threat to push Shia as the lead in a further film there's some sort of CGI animators strike forcing him to go back to the old school.
 
Jhundiboy said:
Where were the damned Nazis?!?!? Sorry but the commies just arent as good at being villains. The accents were pretty awful and in scenes where Indy wasnt centre frame, i might've mistaken it for some sort of National treasure prequel, what a load of balls.

I can only hope that if Lucas follows through on his threat to push Shia as the lead in a further film there's some sort of CGI animators strike forcing him to go back to the old school.
Click to expand...

The thing about the Nazis is that you didn't need much set up to know how evil they are. Everyone knows what they did and what they stand for. Using the communists they needed to tell us more about WHY they were a threat, and more importantly, show the villainess Spalko being more evil. She really doesn't do anything that makes us hate her. What they should've done is have her kill Mac in the opening scene, which would have shown you how ruthless and evil she is, and gotten rid of Mac, who I think needlessly took away time from Mutt's relationship with Indy.
 
Ultimatelly the sad thing is that this film may not beat Spidey 3's Memorial Day weekend record. I thought Spidey 3 was an absolute turd on a plate. I don't feel that Indy 4 was as bad but it's sad to see such an iconic franchise bow to a superhero and not have the legs for return viewings.

I'm sure it will be in the dollar theatres soon enough so I can at least let the kids see it.


cheno
 
Wow, I am so disapointed. I couldnt stand it for more than 20 minutes, so we left and got our tickets refunded.
I loved the old Indiana Jones movies and couldnt stand to watch this horrible film.
Thats it, I will never go to the theatre agian to see a film written by George Lucas. After this and his new Star Wars films, I have lost faith in his ability not to ruin his old work.

Main issues: Cheesey dialogue, bad lighting and over diffused (since when is sun light pure white? Can you say, bad sound stage lighting?), it just felt horribly disjointed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top