Indiana Jones 4

I will be taking my son to this film; I have to even with the lowest of expectations. But I am much more a fan of the posts that elaborate on what went wrong (Like Overlands comments; Eric) ...

Everyone is getting a weeeeeeeeeeeeee bit personal; lighten up, state your case, show some insight ....

Sides; we all know I'm the final judge on this one.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
I will be taking my son to this film; I have to even with the lowest of expectations. But I am much more a fan of the posts that elaborate on what went wrong (Like Overlands comments; Eric) ...

Everyone is getting a weeeeeeeeeeeeee bit personal; lighten up, state your case, show some insight ....

Sides; we all know I'm the final judge on this one.
Click to expand...

If you think this thread is bad, you should check out Aint it Cool's 4,000 posts on the film. Talk about ugly.
 
Mutt's entrance into the film is a joke.

He is riding a beautiful motorcycle from the future. Disc breaks were not around back then...

tisk tisk production designer... tisk tisk.
 
There's a much stronger thread for those interested in some great notes on the film over at Done Deal. Myself and about 50 others blab for pages and pages about how much this film sucks, it's a total blast and more informative! And, you wont get spanked (or deleted) by lame mods for throwing out a one liner.

Ciao.
 
alveraz said:
There's a much stronger thread for those interested in some great notes on the film over at Done Deal. Myself and about 50 others blab for pages and pages about how much this film sucks, it's a total blast and more informative! And, you wont get spanked (or deleted) by lame mods for throwing out a one liner.

Ciao.
Click to expand...

We just want a little more community than a bunch of 15 year old asshats flaming and threadcrapping into meaningless tirades that bring absolutely nothing to the table.

That's not too much to ask is it ?
 
I think most people have mentioned some pretty good reasons why this movie wasn't so good.

Its defenders are the ones lacking details:

"it was fun!"

"my kids liked it"

"its a popcorn movie"

"my dad liked it"

"temple of doom sucked!"
 
Last edited:
karapetkov said:
So much hate... :)

The Dark Side is tempting you, guys...

It's just a movie.

And a popcorn one,.. by default.

Raiders was popcorn, smart popcorn. So was Last Crusade.

Temple of Doom was stupid popcorn.

Let's see what kind of popcorn will we get now.
Click to expand...
it's popcorn someone took a giant dump in.
 
I did not enjoy that one. The action was cool and I only felt that Indy magic once or twice. It seemed like Ford was only acting like Indy, He was'nt Indy. I think this film should have been made 10 years ago. His stunt double must have worked overtime on this one. And as far fecthed as previous indy films were, there was still some degree of reality. This one was too far out there, and I don't mind "out there" at all. I did think Shia was good though. (minus the monkey thing) I don't want another one of these. But it is making a ton of money. But I did'nt feel I wasted my money as I did with Speed Racer which I hope gets a Razzie. That thing sucked. My daughter even hated that.
 
Erik Olson said:
I take it from the trailer that Mike Kahn is dead. Because the edit sucked.

For starters, what's up with this shot? Have we stumbled onto some BTS? It lingers and lingers. Think about who this is coming from and then think about just how terrible this trailer really is. Hmm... actually, not only is Michael Kahn alive and well, but he worked on this show! That can only mean one thing: Lucas broke into the edit suite after hours and mucked it all up. It's the only thing I can think of that can explain it.

:)

1203013369.jpg


e
Click to expand...

Well, it sucks to be right about something like Skull, but... a lot of us predicted (months earlier) how poorly executed it would be. So, that got me to thinking.

If we know so much, how could we have made it better? Who would have been a better director? Writer? Set-up Indy 4 on your own and let's see if we can agree on a better package. My easy vote would be not to make the picture at all. But let's assume, for the moment, that we're money-grubbing co-owners of the Raiders franchise and see what shakes out.

What about David Fincher or Steven Soderbergh to helm for starters? Both are highly technical directors who might've brought a little of the missing intelligence back to the show. Soderbergh, who operates, might have been able to better connect the dots back to Raiders, which, hands-down had the best aesthetic of any of the three.

Larry Kasdan should have had the primary writing spot. Period. The point of Russians versus Nazis is a mere detail and I'm certain that that could be sorted. The Nazis were played out to be sure and we certainly could develop better rounded and defined antagonists out of the reds than those seen in Skull.

e
 
They picked the right people IMO. a Fincher Indy? That's a stretch for me. It needed to be Speilberg. I wonder what a Michael Bay Indy would look like? that would have been really "fun" to bash..I mean watch.
 
I think they should have gone with the Excalibur script that someone (I forget who) pitched them. Or the Atlantis script that Darabont wrote. Spielberg and Ford LOVED it but Lucas in his infinite wisdom (sarcasm) vetoed it, because it wasn't his idea of "The Flying Saucermen From Mars"

What total B.S.
 
Weston said:
I think most people have mentioned some pretty good reasons why this movie wasn't so good.

Its defenders are the ones lacking details:

"it was fun!"

"my kids liked it"

"its a popcorn movie"

"my dad liked it"

"temple of doom sucked!"
Click to expand...

You have obviously not read any of my posts

:beer:
 
Erik Olson said:
Well, it sucks to be right about something like Skull, but... a lot of us predicted (months earlier) how poorly executed it would be. So, that got me to thinking.

If we know so much, how could we have made it better? Who would have been a better director? Writer? Set-up Indy 4 on your own and let's see if we can agree on a better package. My easy vote would be not to make the picture at all. But let's assume, for the moment, that we're money-grubbing co-owners of the Raiders franchise and see what shakes out.

What about David Fincher or Steven Soderbergh to helm for starters? Both are highly technical directors who might've brought a little of the missing intelligence back to the show. Soderbergh, who operates, might have been able to better connect the dots back to Raiders, which, hands-down had the best aesthetic of any of the three.

Larry Kasdan should have had the primary writing spot. Period. The point of Russians versus Nazis is a mere detail and I'm certain that that could be sorted. The Nazis were played out to be sure and we certainly could develop better rounded and defined antagonists out of the reds than those seen in Skull.

e
Click to expand...

E...

The first three were all Spielberg. Lucas was responsible for getting Raiders financed, and he told Spielberg to be responsible with the budget and not to go over one bloody dime. That was that and that was all...Lucas wasn't there breathing down Spielberg's creative neck. He wasn't an overbearing boss. He let Spielberg trust his gut.

IMO, Indy 4 was the polar opposite of the abovementioned experience. Lucas pulled his substantial weight and then some.

I guess what I'm saying is that the perfect filmmaker would have been Spielberg and Spielberg's proven gut instincts alone.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
E...

The first three were all Spielberg. Lucas was responsible for getting Raiders financed, and he told Spielberg to be responsible with the budget and not to go over at all. That was that and that as all...Lucas wasn't there breathing down Spielberg's creative neck. He wasn't an overbearing boss. He let Spielberg trust his gut.

IMO, Indy 4 was the polar opposite of the abovementioned experience. Lucas pulled his substantial weight and then some.

I guess what I'm saying is that the perfect filmmaker would have been Spielberg and Spielberg's proven gut instincts alone.
Click to expand...

I hear you on this, but I don't totally agree. I am among those who feel that Raiders is in a class by itself and the other two are basically unwatchable junk.

That said, I agree with your assessment of Lucas' role.

However, it's not like everyone else was powerless here. I mean, nobody put a gun to Spielberg's head and made him do this. He doesn't need the money. And as for Ford, if he really disagreed, he could have just refused. I mean, without him there is no Indiana Jones. So what would they do? I guess it's not out of the realm of possibility that Lucas would just digitize Ford into it, but...:)

So though I agree with you, I also feel like the others are just as culpable.

But to the question of making the movie better, it's one issue in my view. And this issue pervades Temple and Last Crusade too. They just did not take it seriously.

The thing that made Raiders so great was it was A-list filmmaking applied to B-list material. Same thing with Jaws. Same thing with Empire. Same thing with the new Battlestar. Spielberg took it seriously as a filmmaker. His shots were extremely precise and exceptionally well chosen from beginning to end. He was very very careful about the whole thing and took it as seriously as a film as he would he current "serious" films.

From Temple on, that vanished. The use of montage, the compositions, the performances and writing, the casting of weird and marvelous actors like Ron Lacey and Karen Allen, all went out the window. The characters ceased being real people in a real world and immediately turned into puppets saying dumb stuff for cheap laughs and doing preposterous things in a horrendous minstrel show.

It's evident in how they wrote women through the series:

You went from Marion, who was a Bone Fide "Dame" in the vein of the great "Dames" of the 30s and 40s, someone who could hold her own against Jones, to whatever her name was in Temple, whom they wrote with basically one character trait: "Scream loud at gross ****." And by the time you got to Crusade, the woman was reduced to a fetishized Nazi sex doll who ****ed not only Indie, but his dad too( Yeesh, that gives me the willies. )

So my answer to making this better is just take it seriously on a filmmaking level, from story on up to production, and have some emotion for your audience beyond contempt. I've said it many times, the reason this is so awful is not that they tried and failed, it's that they didn't even try in the first place. They knew they didn't have to, because we would all spend the money anyway.
 
Brandon Rice said:
You have obviously not read any of my posts

:beer:
Click to expand...
I did. I even responded to it.

Here's yours...

Brandon Rice said:
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:
Click to expand...

Here's mine...
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
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
Click to expand...



I'll sum it up if I may... you say that we should like it because it's no different than the previous movies in the franchise. This is where I strongly disagree. The only movie that Indy 4 has anything in common with is The Temple of Doom. They both went WAY over the top and the quest was empty and hollow.

TOD was a movie which most people thought was the worst in the series.
Until now. :laugh:

Really though, I'm glad that you enjoyed it. I wish that I could.
I just found it lacking in just about every aspect.

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