I have read/heard alot about the anger over the new Indy Jones film...and I have to say whats the problem?

Theres people complaining about every little thing in that film like the Lead Fridge and Swinging with Monkeys...well if a guy can rip out your heart and set it on fire while you are still "alive" or drinking from the "poorly chosen" chalice you age faster than a fly or Ghosts inhabit the Ark and do crazy ass shit to Nazis I very much think thats just as believeable...

Others point out that the whole BLANK theme is stupid well its the 1950's and BLANKS were a big thing to talk about then...

Yes I know Speilberg was gettin lazy but remember hes also gettin old (how else could you explain AI?)

Indiana Jones was meant for 12 year old boys, it had action and comedy, the best things you could offer to a 12yr old, so cut the..."Oh its not the Fourth Indiana Jones film because its all about BLANKS and not religion in some way or another... Its still just as funny and fast paced as the others...plus its hell of alot better than Temple of Doom

The beginning was fine, the middle was fine, the end not so much. I liked the earlier parts of the movie better before the CGI fest that all lucasarts movies eventually become. Just at the end with the whole, "Really? REALLY? I mean come on really!". Hell, everything else was fine with the movie just the end could of been better is all that I have a problem with. Also Sheia Lebouf is not that bad, annoying sometimes, but he has some good comedic timing and I am sure he will get better as he gets older.

I've heard that a lot of the plot line was cut and paste from the other films. So for people who haven't seen the other films, it's not bad. A bit of a rip off for long-time fans though. I haven't actually seen it though, just random chatter that I heard.

You really don't know? Lucas ruined it with the aliens. Good at the start and crap at the end.

@ ANTI-SANTA - Whoa, there! Spoiler alert!

I actually enjoyed it. It really doesn't make any difference if there's aliens in there; in fact, Indy 4 is slightly more feasible than the other 3.

It was fun, and was a good ride: That's my opinion.

There was nothing wrong with it. Adversely everything was wrong with it. If you went there expecting the same ol' Indy, you were disappointed.
If you went there expecting a final adventure into the unknowable before hanging up the travelling cloak, then that's what you got.

People decry Indy 4 for simply having aliens.
But they miss the entire movie in that aspect. Indy 4 was Dr. Jones becomming old, there were no more religeous flights of fancy. Indy's time was ending. And in the time it's set sci-fi was just starting to kick off. So, as such movie-wise, Indy is finding that his time has pretty much ended, and there's no need for his kind of archaeology anymore.
If you went there just to see an old man try to portay what he used to, yeah, you were disappoitned. But if you went there, knowing that he's old and there would be no more young Indy, then you got the point of the movie. The movie, was closure, the moving on from the old to make way for the new.

The movie started slow for me, the middle part with the actual looking for the skull and the high adventure was classic Indianna Jones. The ending left me dissapointed, the big reveal could of been something more original. Still a solid adventure film, but it does pale in comparison to the previous three.

Lord Krunk:
@ ANTI-SANTA - Whoa, there! Spoiler alert!

I actually enjoyed it. It really doesn't make any difference if there's aliens in there; in fact, Indy 4 is slightly more feasible than the other 3.

It was fun, and was a good ride: That's my opinion.

I agree with Lord Krunk on this on. I thought Indy 4 was quite enjoyable, even though it was nowhere near as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I thought it was good. But that's just me.

And they weren't aliens, they were extradimensional beings. If you couldn't get that right, no wonder you didn't like the movie. (Kidding)

im mean aliens.. wtf?, keep that to your star wars films lucas!, other than that, it is a good film.

It started well enough but...well... where was the snappy, witty dialogue? It kinda came off like someones fanfic. And that bit with Shia swinging on the vines, suddenly becoming the monkey king and leading them to attack the russians...seriously, what the hell? and the ending, that frigging *BLANK*?

The problem is, it got made. When folks are cynical enough to stop throwing money at bloated cash cows whose only reason d'etre is to profit from nostalgia, I'll start going to the cinema again. Until then, I just don't bother wasting my money on something I know will probably be crap.

Is it actually crap? I don't know, I haven't seen the movie. The general view seems to be "yes" but there are dissenters. Nowhere near enough to convince me to spend my hard-earned cash on it though.

The movie was great up until the part where the ewoks fired their walkie-talkies at the ghost of Hayden Christensen, who took revenge upon them by making three starwars prequels. Oh and the dewbacks.

I haven't actually seen Indy 4, but after watching the "Free Hat" episode of South Park I'm pretty sure if I do it will just melt my face off.

The difference between the heart ripping and Indy's Nuclear Adventure is that we have no mechanism for how the heart ripper actually does it. so we can accept it as magic when we suspend our disbelief. But most people understand the basic idea behind a nuclear bomb and their power. Thus because we have that infomation it's harder to suspend disbelief in this situation.

My personal pointless nitpick is when Indy is fighting the Russian by the ants, they are punching each other's lights out. But the Russian Military practiced Sambo. Sambo generally uses throws and trips (Its founder was trained under Kano Jigoro, the founder of Judo) and yet I don't recall him using any. Of course I might have just missed them. Its a pointless nitpick but it annoys me. Of couse that doesn't make it a bad film.

Then the aliens were a case Indigo Prophecy Syndrom. Aliens in the plot gets a tick, but actually seeing them? I'm not so sure. Its just a little to blatant. It would be like Jesus comming out of the Ark in the first film and beating the Nazi's to death with a giant club.

This isn't to say it was a bad film. In fact I quite enjoyed it and overall it was a good film. But I can understand why some people have a problem with some parts of the story. Other people will just complain because it's not the same as it used to be.

I personally liked it. I think a lot of people were jarred because of how different it was (by which I man CGI, aliens, Indy's "sidekick" etc) - but it had to be different. It's 19 years later - a new beginning for both franchise and character, so they need to change certain things about the whole 'feel' of the film. I thought it was a great fourth instalment, and as good as any follow-on to the trilogy could have been. Oh, and I don't class aliens as spoilers since you find out in the first 5 minutes.
God knows it was better than Rambo.
I thought Shia LaBeouf played a good part in it, too - carried his own weight but didn't usurp the hero, just like any sidekick should.
Oh, and to all those ripping on the fridge scene, you DO remember the scene in Doom where they jump out of a plane several thousand feet up and survive without a scratch from landing in an inflatable dinghy, right?

As i step into my flame proof suit i will give you simple answer. It is Indiana Jones. A cheesy adventure movie about a cocky annoying guy.

I do not like Steven Spielberg all together i find his movies typical, cheesy, sentimental and overly stereotype. The only one i enjoyed the tinyest bit was AI. Coupled with another hugely overrated director George Lucas Indy cannot be good IMO.

I could see it was a fan service and when a movie is a fan service and not an origional film (see: the last 2 pirates of the Caribbean movies) so it got a bad rap for that probably.

All of the Indiana Jones movies were really far-fetched, but this one with the aliens and the mothership and all of this craziness just took it way too far. Good movie, though.

Kenny, none of the Indy films were made to be clever. And I'm apparently in the extreme minority by thinking that Shia LaBeouf did a good job with the role he was given. Personally, I'd see an Indy V, featuring Henry Jones III.

thebobmaster:
Kenny, none of the Indy films were made to be clever. And I'm apparently in the extreme minority by thinking that Shia LaBeouf did a good job with the role he was given. Personally, I'd see an Indy V, featuring Henry Jones III.

I am not saying it was meant to be clever but really they just crystal skulled everything. Really any bit of trouble and out came the skull, i'm just saying some variation would be nice.

For me, the problem with Indiana Jones 4 is that it strayed too far from the style of the previous films. It also suffered from a lack of really compelling villains.

nilcypher:
For me, the problem with Indiana Jones 4 is that it strayed too far from the style of the previous films. It also suffered from a lack of really compelling villains.

actually it DID follow the style of villains, that the thing most ppl don't realize. nazis were into the occult, russians were into physic stuff and were the major enemies of the 50s

but most of the issue ppl have with them is they saw the original movies when they were young, i personally saw them all in theaters when they originally came out. i liked the new one and thought it was pretty good. this also applies to the star wars prequels

most ppl are just complaining cause it's cool to bash Lucas. they saw the movies as kids and have this fantastical image of what the original ones were like compared to the new ones

I wasn't commenting on the style of the villain, it's just that it didn't resonate with me in the same way as they other villains.

cleverlymadeup:

nilcypher:
For me, the problem with Indiana Jones 4 is that it strayed too far from the style of the previous films. It also suffered from a lack of really compelling villains.

actually it DID follow the style of villains, that the thing most ppl don't realize. nazis were into the occult, russians were into physic stuff and were the major enemies of the 50s

but most of the issue ppl have with them is they saw the original movies when they were young, i personally saw them all in theaters when they originally came out. i liked the new one and thought it was pretty good. this also applies to the star wars prequels

most ppl are just complaining cause it's cool to bash Lucas. they saw the movies as kids and have this fantastical image of what the original ones were like compared to the new ones

well, having watched the original films right before we saw 4, i can safely say the originals are, much much better. ok, the woman in ToD is irritating, but it still has some very cool bits. The scipts had wit, charm. Indy 4 doesn't. And yes, the cgi is not quite right (plus its dodgy as hell- aren't ILM suppose to be industry innovators?), there was no equivalent to face melting, or super-agey death, and actually seeing the aliens was far too much. Shia La Beouf? meh, he's alright, i just don't think the franchise needs to be carried on- itd simply be another cash cow. Which reminds me- my screening of Indy 4 was preceeded by Indy toy adverts. I had a bad feeling (about this) after that.

I agree with Nil, I had a lot of trouble caring about the villains in this one. And not caring as in liking them, just caring at all. Right from go with the whole "You're a hard man to read, Dr. Jones," crap I labeled her a worthless character, and now we're supposed to see her as a worthy adversary for Jones for the rest of the film? Right.

Someone mentioned "Double Mumbo-Jumbo" in a different thread, but I'll drag it out again. Double Mumbo-Jumbo is the writing sin which doesn't take into account how far humans will suspend disbelief. In short, we can accept demons, and we can accept spacemen, but having both in the same movie pushes things. Indy always uncovered religious artifacts, and it's not like we ran out of those. The whole "The Russians cared about aliens" thing doesn't work either, because this is fiction, and in fiction, you have the story fit the character, not vice versa. It'd be like making "Lord of the Rings 4: The Future" where the son of Aragorn goes to fight the Death-bots, and it makes sense because "the future has death-bots". Okay, but why are you putting Lord of the Rings on this?

The fact is that both Spielberg and Lucas are excellent with business to the point that they've become film hacks. All Spielberg knows how to do now is aliens. How does AI end? Aliens. Why? No goddamn reason. All the best parts of Ford's pulp movies have been improved anyway. Did you know that the original reply to "I love you," wasn't, "I know," but rather, "I love you too." And that scene where Indy shoots the guy with the two swords in Raiders was because he had to pee. There was supposed to be a big fight scene there. Ford didn't do any improv to save Lucas and Spielberg from their horrible writing this time around, and it shows.

Need more proof of hack-dom? They can't tell the different between fan-service and threatening the audience. That bit at the end? With smarmy kid about to put on the hat, and everyone in every theater everywhere went, "DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE!" and then Indy took the hat back? That's not fan service. That's a threat, and then them saying, "Just kidding!"

- J

I've always thought the appeal of those films was the Christian relics. To a Western audience, it's very appealing to have all those religious stories be the setting of an adventure. There's confirmation in that, there's much less suspension of disbelief because I'm already very familiar with the story and imagery. Unlike a magnetic space alien, the ark of the covenant was something the average Western watcher was totally willing to accept.

Like the second film, the fourth suffered from straying away from the Christian stuff. If they'd combed the Bible or Torah for more topics and themes, they would've maintained the plot devices that kept the other 2 afloat.

Needs more Sean Connery

Yes, films nowadays are going overboard with the CGI effects. Seriously, has anyone seen Hell Boy 2? How much of that is CGI? or a better question would be how much wasn't made with computers?

countrysteaksauce:

Yes, films nowadays are going overboard with the CGI effects. Seriously, has anyone seen Hell Boy 2? How much of that is CGI? or a better question would be how much wasn't made with computers?

actually a lot of indy 4 wasn't cgi, it was plain old special effects done the old fashioned way, yes there was some cgi but not as much as you'd think

im not a massive indiana jones fan. but i watched the film and my main problem was the complete lack of any booty he got. in the others he got his hands on some shiny stuff. this ones treasure was 'knowledge'... what sort of poof wants that?

corporate_gamer:
im not a massive indiana jones fan. but i watched the film and my main problem was the complete lack of any booty he got. in the others he got his hands on some shiny stuff. this ones treasure was 'knowledge'... what sort of poof wants that?

Your teachers would be so disappointed in you right now.

cleverlymadeup:

countrysteaksauce:

Yes, films nowadays are going overboard with the CGI effects. Seriously, has anyone seen Hell Boy 2? How much of that is CGI? or a better question would be how much wasn't made with computers?

actually a lot of indy 4 wasn't cgi, it was plain old special effects done the old fashioned way, yes there was some cgi but not as much as you'd think

I wasnt talking about indy, the last bit with the saucer was about the scene with the most CGI. I'm just talking about the movie industry in general.

Somehow, movies made without an overabundance of CGI seem better. Or maybe if the CGI is executed very well, like on Jurassic Park or Terminator 2.

@ countrysteaksauce
Actually the majority of Hellboy2 was done with prosthetics and animatronics. You should read about Guillermo Del Toro's film-making process (there's a 2-hour video of it on the Hellboy1 DVD). The only things he really used CG for were the things that aren't physically/commercially/practically to make for real, ie giant robots. I'd much rather see a director that uses the little CG there is to stun me than to limit his or her vision for the sake of not being a 'CG fest'.

Also, am I the only one that got that the monkey thing was a reference to Indy 1? The chick gave him the monkey and sarcastically said 'he could be your son'. And Indy swung from his whip in much the same way. It was a joke people, and it wasn't THAT bad. Lighten up -_-

Spoilers here, though it's already been spoiled above:

Audiences delude themselves so much. It's just easier to pass off the aliens as a cheap plot, but that's probably because nowadays, such things are much less mystical to us. We've been so awash in alien fiction, especially at the movies, that we are desensitized to the mystery that they once held, particularly during this film's time period. My opinion is that Lucas picked an appropriate subject, sufficiently enticing to keep people curious throughout the movie, then let down his audience when he drew the curtain. We don't understand the Ark, the Stones, the Chalice; but alien technology? Ho-hum, been there, done that.

However, chances are we wouldn't want the old religious mysticism either. It's about as passé as aliens. What's left? Dr. Jones unlocks the secret of the internet? Time travel? Indiana Jones in space? We just refused to admit that the Indy franchise unfortunately exhausted itself, and needed to either be laid to rest or altered into something new. We would not like either option, of course.

I doubt anyone could have been pleased with any new plot. They never are. All of the retreading of the classics, like Terminator, Indy, Superman, Star Wars (sort of) and the possible Mad Max or Evil Dead, they could never amount to the originals. Why? Because the new ones can neither deviate from or follow the old standard. Either be a new movie and break the beloved code, or be a rehash and bore the audience. Lucas did a great job walking the fine line in the middle, and he did it against all these odds. It was not a great movie, but it was both a pleasant reward for fans and a fun immersion for new audiences. A smattering of old and new. Hopefully it's a transition to newer adventures, though Shia needs some coaching. He's good, but not Indy good.

Lastly, the ride in the fridge? Come on! It was utterly ridiculous, but you'll never enjoy anything if you insist on picking it apart. Enjoy the fact that it was silly and thrilling, and let the absurdity be an unspoken warning that this movie and others are not going to adhere to the facts of reality, so stop expecting them to.