-
Website
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/ -
Original page
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/sound-off-what-did-you-think-of-indiana-jones-4.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
However, I think this one is going to grow on me and once I get past the fact that this is the first Indy movie in 19 years and just let this be one of his adventures, it will be a more enjoyable film. There were definitely a lot of things I did like about the film, but it feels like it would have fit better after Temple of Doom than the Last Crusade.
The reason it didn't totally work was that there wasn't a giant theme attached to the movie - or at least the one they had didn't work. World domination through religious weaponry is a sick concept that works really fantastically well for two of the films. Without that deep resonance, Crystal Skull ends up being on par with Temple.
The small issue - why is Indy so skeptical about everything? I know he's cynical and sarcastic, but after seeing all the crazy stuff he's seen - he just comes off as stubborn and unimaginative this time around.
All of that hate to say that I liked the movie - but I wish that I liked it a lot more. I wish it was more epic.
With that said, the rest of the movie got a little better. The chase scenes were fantastic; the notion of Harrion Ford being too old were thrown out very early on in the film, the creepiness of the archeological sites impressed me, the acting was good, the characters worked fine, and the punching sound effects remind me why the Indiana Jones series is the epitome of action. I had a fun time watching the film!
The whole alien element did throw me off a bit, and I personally wasn't a fan. But (maybe in an attempt to justify what Spielberg, my hero, was trying to do) I think it fits for several reasons:
1) this film is working off the style of 1950's B-science fiction movies, many of them dealing with the mysteries of UFOs and aliens.
2) the idea of connecting alien life forms and ancient archeology is not too far-fetched if one is looking for an Indy story-line
3) the previous three movies have many science-fiction elements, so the idea of having a fantastical sci-fi spin on this movie shouldn't be surprising
4) Spielberg's power of using imagination is freshly used in this film. It was a very creative film, anyone should admit, and we do not get many of those films any more.
Did I love it, or will it be my favorite in the series? No. But does it please me as an Indy and Spielberg fan? Absolutely. Spielberg did not mess this one up, therefore it will not be his "Phantom Menace". Could it have been a little better, a little less cliche, a little less sci-fi? Maybe, but I am pleased with it, the more I think about it.
Seeing it at midnight with tons of dressed up fans didn't hurt either.
I had the good butterflies of the original, the timing, the sound effects, the music, the enemy and friend betrayal quips. BUT, then it happened . . . . Indy climbs into a fridge, and apparnently at that same time, Speilberg left the movie making to George Lucas, as the cgi refridgerator takes Indy to to new heights of disbeleif never seen before, and then it happens, again . . . after the mile of fake cgi atomic flight, Indy opens the door exiting the fridge (unharmed - cripes ) to meet one of George's cgi ani-muppets (George when are you going to realize that you are what they call a "flash in the pan" director with ZERO story telling skills and even less script writting ability!).
The deconstruction of Indiana Jones then began. Oh we got some vintage vibes; the plane map travel segways, Marcus's statue, Harrison's classic Indy excitement when explaining to Mutt the riddle of the map. But then the Lucas sneaks in again; Mutt swinging on vines with more Lucas dumb cgi muppets (monkeys), a jungle shredder gets destroyed yet there seems to be two ten mile roads for the chase afterwards(?!), Mutts motorcycle is flown to Peru to not be ridden, and then the waterfall?!?! Jesus christ! Obviously that scene was just using us for the next big water ride at the amusment parks!
It is sad Speilberg did not see that this was his first Inidana Jones without a single original "Indy" quip (knife to a gun fight went over so bad I almost left then), escape, or story to share with others afterwards. This version was dull, and when not was either cgi, or some dumb wall hiding pygmies (do they sleep in ruins waiting - dumb)? When the end scene of the UFO became the Wachowski/Lucas turd we've been forced to smell before, I was glad for a moment that my father, who took me to the first Raiders of the Lost Ark, and looked at me like "wow" when we watched the pygmies chasing Indy over the rolling hills reveal (Towards the byplane), has now passed away, as will never see the ill use of cgi replacing good writing, storytelling, and directing, as well as any sense of beleivability.
I think if it were'nt for the throwback smarts of Deathproof's absence this last year, I would not go the the movies anymore. Give us real! Give us the raw humor and ingenuity! We are tired of cgi -- and we are tired it as your sole movie crutch George Lucas!
Aliens in a Raiders movie?!
As for the movie, it was fine. For any that said there was not an underlying deep theme such as world domination through religious artifacts...you might want to wake up before going to a midnight showing. The deep theme was WORLD DOMINATION THROUGH THE USE OF PSYCHIC OBJECTS....PSYCH OPS.
Please, people, lets make intelligent comments if we are going to critique.
An illustration:
Last Crusade - Reconciliation with the father as a theme of reconciliation with God (The Father), Eternal Life as man's last great search, returning to the cradle of civilization (your beginning) as a means of escaping death (your end), the leap of faith, the immortality of evil and good, the humility of power, sacred honor, sacrificing one life for another, and disregarding what you know for what you might know.
v.
Crystal Skull - WORLD DOMINATION THROUGH THE USE OF PSYCHIC OBJECTS...PSYCH OPS
Using all caps does not make you correct, and being passive aggressive when calling me unintelligent just makes me angry. And you wouldn't like me when...forget it.
Although I will commend you on being the first ever to claim that people
"just didn't get" an Indiana Jones movie in defense of it being not-that-awesome.
After having seen Indy 4 last night, I can say that I was underwhelmed and dissatisfied by it, especially because I had to wait 19 years for it and the best that they could offer was Crystal Skull. It's unforgivable. The talent involved, the people involved, the money involved, and the time they had to work on this should've yielded better results. Most of all, I feel heartbroken and crestfallen.
I'm going to list the things I didn't like about Indy 4 (I can't think of things I liked, unfortunately). The reason I want to list those things is because I feel like venting, otherwise, I'll just walk around all day weeping after having been through the trauma of watching Indy 4.
I'm not interested in any mean-spirited, immature, or obnoxious posts. Please. If you have something interesting or useful to say, then by all means share it with us, we all love movies here, we all love Indy, just don't call me names just because I hated the movie and you loved it. We all have different tastes and moods when it comes to movies. Don't take my post as a personal attack on you and your family. After all, you had nothing to do with the movie. And don't tell me "dude, it's just a movie!" as if that statement by itself is the be-all and end-all of all arguments and states your case as fact, because it isn't and it doesn't. Indy is not "just a movie" and even if it was, I still expect a solid, compelling, competent piece of work from some of the best people working in the business. I still expect good storytelling, I still expect some REALITY in my FANTASY.
So here we go: -----SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS-----
I hated the CGI monkeys!
I hated the idea of the Tarzan swinging. I hated just how fake the Tarzan swinging looked.
I hated how Indy survived a nuclear explosion just because he was in a lead-lined fridge. It's not like the entire fridge was lead-lined and even if it was, it would be thin lead-lining, not enough to protect Indy from a blast, much less a nuclear blast. And he walks away from it all unscathed. This is Indy, not Superman!!!
I hated just how boring a villain Spalko was. It's like Blanchett didn't know where to go with her character. Her accent was also the conventional Russian accent that we've come to expect in Hollywood movies, so I expected better from this Acadeny-Award-winning actress. But we can fault the writing too.
I hated just how adept Mutt was with the sword-fighting. He was fencing with a pro on top of those moving vehicles yet he never missed a beat!
I hated how boring the music was. The first 3 movies had memorable themes and tunes that I could whistle to, this one didn't.
I hated the cinematography! The cinematography of the first 3 was beautiful when it had to be and gritty/realistic when it had to be. With Indy 4, the cinematography made it look murky, hazy, out of focus, with annoying light flares and no crispness or sharpness. In fact, the cinematography gave the movie this fake, artificial, inauthentic look and feel. Kaminski's style worked in Private Ryan and Minority Report, for example, but not here.
I hated how Mac (Winstone) was a completely unnecessary character that didn't advance the plot forward. He was also a confused character but that's the writers' fault.
Karen Allen was bad! I'm sorry people! And she was too eager to please which came off as desperate.
Indy and Marion were never given a moment to reconnect as characters after not having seen each other for so long and after having been through all these events. They just launched into their schtick immediately after they met. There wasn't a single romantic moment between them like in Raiders.
I hated the CGI. Too much CGI (apparently Spiely was lying to us when he said that this movie was not going to rely on CGI and was going to be old-fashioned), it felt like Spiely was copying The Mummy and Lara Croft, which is ironic, since those awful movies were inspired by his work. The ending, for example, when the entire city whirls around and gets engulfed in a whirlpool of dust, debris and water... that was CGI overkill and it reminded me of the endings to the Mummy movies. Not only that, but to add insult to injury, the CGI was shoddy. Is it me or is CGI getting worse every year?!
The whole chase scene in the jungle felt and looked absolutely fake! Almost all of it: the swordfighting, the swinging, the monkeys, the racing-near-the-cliffs, the CGI jeep landing on top of the other CGI jeep that had Indy and co. in it...
The design and look of the aliens was boring. Been there, done that. And the moment when the alien looks at Spalko and frowns in her face was just plain stupid.
The entire bit INSIDE the temple at the end of the sequence when it starts to fall apart and the portal to another dimension opens up and sucks everything up was just not detailed enough as a piece of CGI. It looked terrible.
If Area 51 housed all the top secrets of the US government, why did it only have 3 guards protecting and securing it?
Indiana (or maybe Harrison Ford) just seemed out of place, like he didn't fit with his environment/surroundings or something. I can't quite explain it, but he just seemed a bit...off. Even when he wore his Indiana Jones attire, it just didn't feel right.
The whole 1950s time period didn't carry through the entire movie. At some point early on, I felt that the movie might as well have taken place in the 20s, 40s, or 30s again.
The character of Mutt was not as integral to the plot as, believe it or not, Short Round was in Temple. Mutt hardly did anything to save the day even if it LOOKED like he was doing stuff to save the day. Think about it again, or watch it again, and you might realise that he was an easily expendable character and a badly-written one too.
I hated the waterfall sequence. No one, not even in a fantasy movie, can survive such a waterfall, THREE TIMES IN A ROW!!! And most of them were over 50 years old, yet not a broken bone or even a chipped finger nail among them.
The heavy, magnetic, quartz, mystical crystal skull looked like a light, cheap, plastic prop!
Mac didn't really have to die. He could've easily saved his own life or have been saved by Indy.
If Indy blew up the tree-cutting vehicle from the side using the rocket launcher, why did the huge round sharp steel blades fly toward him? And they had not one, but two of them flying toward him, vertically!
The dialogue was too expository or flat. A lot of the jokes and quips fell flat. There was something muted and lethargic about the non-action scenes and their dialogue. My favourite scenes in the previous three were the non-action scenes: Indy and his dad reconnecting in Crusade, Indy and Marion falling in love all over again in Raiders, just to name two. Indy 4 had none such thing.
I didn't feel the "magic" of the first three... or a sense of re-discovery after all this time had passed. There were no surprises or, even worse, tension!
The nuclear explosion was not necessary to the story even if it was a comment about the bugeoning atomic-age of the time period.
Who the hell where those karate-playing Ecuadorian natives at the cemetary? And how and why did they disappear so quickly? And whatever happened to the Amazon indians at the lost kingdom? We saw them for a little bit and then they all got killed by Spalko's men (we don't really see the massacre and we don't really see how Spalko's team of 5 men dominated hundreds of natives) and why even include them in the story if they're not going to be used properly?
I hated almost every movie that David Koepp had written! Now I'm wondering what Frank Darabont's script looked like, especially because Spiely and Ford liked it and Lucas didn't! I don't trsut Lucas. I wish Lucas didn't have such a powerful influence on this movie because the Lucas of today is much much worse than the Lucas of yesteryear.
Why on Earth would all hell break loose at the lost kingdom once the skull was returned to the temple and attached to the rest of the skeleton? After all, at one point, the skull WAS attached to the skeleton before somebody snatched it. So why on Earth would a portal to another dimension be activated and a saucer be launched and an alien skeleton come to life and a whole city destroyed just because a skull was returned to its rightful place?
Half way through the movie, we learn that the skull has power over people's minds, yet up to that point we get no indication of that until Spalko conveniently happens to mention it to Indy when he was tied to the chair.
Well, that's all I can think of right now. When I walked out of the movie at the end of it, I fell into a depression. Today, I refused to get out of bed and face the world because of the damage that had been done to me last night during the screening.
Feel free to share your comments guys (and gals... are there any gals by the way?), and please, let's all be nice to one another on this post.
One woman at my screening last night (AMC theatre on 84th & Broadway in NYC, 8:15 p.m. Thursday show) looked at her boyfriend at the end as the credits were rolling and said simply : "It was just boring."
They are indisputedly masters of their craft.
Now I'm reading all the same criticism for Crystal Skull that I originally felt about Crusade. Well, Crystal Skull wasn't everything I was hoping for, but I knew that a two hour film could never fill a ten year expectation. When it finished I knew it was a better film then, say National Treasure, but was it Indy?
Hmmm? It looked like Indy and it sounded like Indy and now having seen it for a second time I'm happy to say Yes, it is Indy. Adventure has a name and it's still Indiana Jones, and I'm looking forward to seeing it again in a week or so and of course I'll buy the DVD. (that'll make George smile)
I was a little disappointed that Indy didn't fire his gun at all because I love that sound effect. But I only really have one criticism and that's that it should have been Indy 6 or higher.
Note to Steven (giant post on 23 may) : Watch it a few more times and you'll get over it.
alive) and the search for the holy grail and Ark is acceptable to us is because it had
good cinematography, among others. All aspects worked well together giving it a sense
of realism even if far fetched story boarding was used. The feeling of Dread and
anticipation of characters set the tonal values to these great movies whilst music score
set the mood, (that is if you are comparing it to the latest instalment). which was
disconnected. No depth in character or plot. It doesn't matter how good an actor is in
conveying a story. It also doesn't matter how good the directing, editing. cinema score,
cgi and camera work is. All aspects of a film must work together in harmony. It also
comes down to the source material. Who cares if its bibblical, alien or other. It's all in
character, plot summary, storyboarding and the way it's conveyed to screen.
Please don't be offensive toward others views and call them
"(DORKS!!!!!)" debating is healthy, People have opinions and they have a right to express
it. Im glad you found joy in watching this movie. But in the same token don't be
offensive to people who found it disappointing. It is niave to think everyone should have
the same opinion. And in that, show respect. I respect your opinion, but i do not respect
your unhealthy rude remarks to others posts. And as i recall I saw alot of families,
husbands and wives and couples on dates watching "INDIANA JONES AND THE CRYSTAL
SKULL".