Topic: Indiana jones 4

[Surprise me.]

Saw this yesterday, some of it was very predictable but otherwise it was a decent movie.

[Red_Isle_Chap]

I downloaded the HD trailer for this and to be brutally honest i thought it looked like utter dogshit. Couple that with the fact it's got that irritating c*nt from the transformers debacle in it and i'll be avoiding this like the plague.

[Rusty Oysterburger]

I remember reading Spielberg saying while ago when the started shooting this film that they will not use any CGI. That couldn't be further away from the truth ,I mean almost the entire film is CGI. I thought the whole movie was joke to be honest, I mean come on, surviving nuclear bomb by hiding in fucking fridge. Also the ending was as far fetched as you can get. even for blockbuster movie, Reading people review on IMDB it seems almost everyone is disappointed by this film.

He didnt say that he wouldn't use it, but only use it in a non-invasive way i.e. minor things like wire removal or the odd digital backdrop.

The warehouse and motorbike chase look like they use hardly any CGI (except the the wide shots of the endless warehouse which are fine with me) and are all the better for it in my opinion.

However the jungle chase does use a lot of it. I'm pretty sure that none of it was shot on location, it all seems to be green screen or studio based. Its pretty good studio work admittedly, but there is always something a little 'off' so you can always tell its not a real environment. I think it would of made the world of difference if they'd just got a few second-unit, long shots of trucks driving through the actual South American rain forest.

I know its impossible to entirely shoot a chase of that scale in the jungle but a little more effort in making the backgrounds more convincing would of helped.

The one real bad shot is when Shia and Cate are sword fighting on separate moving vehicles. Its just so obvious that they are standing in front of a green screen with a some half-arsed fan blowing in their faces. Their trucks aren't not even bouncing a little as they would on a jungle track and it looks like they are not being knocked off balance. That's the shot that really took me out of it.


Also, IMDB and their "reviews" are probably the worst place on the internet to go for opinions on film. Its full of reactionary morons and kids, everything to them is "THIS ROXXXS!!!111!!" or "Teh MoViE sux". Stay well away from there mate...

[coct3au]

It's hardly random is it?

It's dipped into 50s America where paranoia, little green men, area 51, 'commies', shadowy government agencies and the Cold War were all the rage.

And Indy in this film WAS seeking ancient treasures and investigating ancient legends.

The Cold War stuff wasn't covered well either. On the one hand, there were vague illustrations of the assaults on academic freedom, and critical allusions to 'paranoia', 'witch-hunts', etc. On the other hand, though, the Commies really were a clear and present danger - Indy was frequently depicted as heroically standing firm against the evil 'comrades' (all eight of them), and the closing shot with the star-spangled banner, etc. All a bit confused.

It did typify the kitchen-sink approach, though.

Spoiler

How did the nuclear explosion bit add or fit in to the story? What happened to the two FBI guys who had a "strong interest" in Indy but then promptly disappeared for the rest of the film? (the fact that Jim Robinson and the janitor from Scrubs were wandering around in this scene didn't do much for the general air of plausability, either). Who were the mysterious natives guarding the temple before being summarily dispatched en masse?

[close]

There were the seeds of some interesting ideas, but none of it was pulled together enough to form any sort of coherent plot, unfortunately. It felt like they came up with all the set-pieces first, and the stuff to link it all together was a slightly desperate afterthought.

[Brian Blessed]

I think it's a close call between IMDB and Aint It Cool News.

[Walter Sobchak]

got to say i was VERY dissapointed with the ending and parts of the middle dragged along a bit but otherwise it was very enjoyable with some great stunts

[Bob Loblaw]

Had no intentions of seeing this. But now i'm intrigued to find out for myself how utterly shite or brilliant it is.

[USgooner]

I think maybe the whole

Spoiler

aliens

[close]

thing may be to help influence the newer audience and set up a new franchise. Back in the eighties I think the subjects the Indiana Jones movies were something that intrigued people a lot at that time. Now times are different maybe, they are trying to freshen it up I guess...

[-Sad Fuck-]

Never thought I'd say this but 'I wish the Nazis would come back'.

[Walking Through A Storm]

It's a kid's film at heart. When you look at it compared to the others, especially the last two, it's no more ridiculous until right at the end. The less said about the rope-swinging the better, too. They could at least have him muck it up a bit, to give a bit of humour. CGI animals were nauseating. Stinks of Lucas, unfunny, and out of character. Other than those gripes, a good flick.

[cornelius]

CGI animals

Fucking hell it just gets better and better. Fuck this off. I know it won't make a dent but I've now decided that Lucas ain't getting a penny out of me. I'm not going to see this out of principle.

[Rizla]

Any film involving George Lucas these days has a definite  factor...

But when I do resolve to see this, think I wont be too fussy about it, having seen all 3 films before, I enjoyed them for what they were, light hearted, innocent fun, not too deep but entertaining nonetheless

Indiana Jones movies have never been like watching the 'Cherry Orchard' at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre or a deep meaningful classics like Schindler's List etc, they are not made for critics and never have been, they are made for entertaining the masses by essentially keeping things simple. From all those I know who have seen it, this one appears to be no different, and think for those intent on not analysing every detail or nuance it looks to have been recieved quite well 

[-Sad Fuck-]

Ford's a twat now

[coct3au]

Any film involving George Lucas these days has a definite  :-X factor...

But when I do resolve to see this, think I wont be too fussy about it, having seen all 3 films before, I enjoyed them for what they were, light hearted, innocent fun, not too deep but entertaining nonetheless

Indiana Jones movies have never been like watching the 'Cherry Orchard' at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre or a deep meaningful classics like Schindler's List etc, they are not made for critics and never have been, they are made for entertaining the masses by essentially keeping things simple. From all those I know who have seen it, this one appears to be no different, and think for those intent on not analysing every detail or nuance it looks to have been recieved quite well  :)

I appreciate what you're saying. But surely you must agree that it's possible to differentiate between a good 'light-hearted, entertaining' film, and a bad one?

I don't think we're all saying that it's a poor film because it doesn't analyse Indy's motivation sufficiently, or because it fails to address existential alienation - we're saying that in the parameters of the genre, and in comparison to the previous films of the series, it's not very good. And we're trying to support those opinions by giving some examples that illustrate them. I don't think we're just pathologically 'intent on analysing every detail and nuance'.

If a critique of a fictional film is inherently worthless, what is this thread for, exactly? ;P

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I appreciate what you're saying. But surely you must agree that it's possible to differentiate between a good 'light-hearted, entertaining' film, and a bad one?

I don't think we're all saying that it's a poor film because it doesn't analyse Indy's motivation sufficiently, or because it fails to address existential alienation - we're saying that in the parameters of the genre, and in comparison to the previous films of the series, it's not very good. And we're trying to support those opinions by giving some examples that illustrate them. I don't think we're just pathologically 'intent on analysing every detail and nuance'.

If a critique of a fictional film is inherently worthless, what is this thread for, exactly? ;P

I think this one was way better than the Temple of Doom (Which was OK - but nowhere near the other 2 (or this one either))

[coct3au]

The warehouse and motorbike chase look like they use hardly any CGI (except the the wide shots of the endless warehouse which are fine with me) and are all the better for it in my opinion.

However the jungle chase does use a lot of it. I'm pretty sure that none of it was shot on location, it all seems to be green screen or studio based. Its pretty good studio work admittedly, but there is always something a little 'off' so you can always tell its not a real environment. I think it would've made the world of difference if they'd just got a few second-unit, long shots of trucks driving through the actual South American rain forest.

I know its impossible to entirely shoot a chase of that scale in the jungle but a little more effort in making the backgrounds more convincing would've helped.

This is spot on, incidentally. I coudn't quite put my finger on why a lot of it seemed so claustrophobic and 'un-epic', but that must have been a large contributory factor.

Another depressing moment was the revelation that

Spoiler

Indy became some sort of legendary CIA operative,

[close]

which seemed rather out of character to me. Oh well.

[Live4pool]

went to see this last night and thouroughly enjoyed it, have to agree with Andy on this one, but can see where some people would get a bit miffed.

Spoiler

thought the bit with the swinging through the trees with the monkeys, and the bit where yer woman with the grinch grin drives onto the tree to get to the water stank of Lucas over doing it, same with the alien especially when it grimaces to disintegrate the woman, it would have been far better to just cut the alien out complteley and have the skeleton relics do that, thought it would have added more...mystique, to the alien beings done that way. all in all though thought it was really good, not better than raiders or Last Crusade but better than Temple of Doom.

[close]

[Walking Through A Storm]

went to see this last night and thouroughly enjoyed it, have to agree with Andy on this one, but can see where some people would get a bit miffed.

Spoiler

thought the bit with the swinging through the trees with the monkeys, and the bit where yer woman with the grinch grin drives onto the tree to get to the water stank of Lucas over doing it, same with the alien especially when it grimaces to disintegrate the woman, it would have been far better to just cut the alien out complteley and have the skeleton relics do that, though it would have added more...mystique, to the alien beings done that way. all in all though thought it was really good, not better than raiders or Last Crusade but better than Temple of Doom.

[close]

Agreed.

[Redcap]

Saw it today. Worst Indiana Jones movie by a long, long way. Shia Labouef was awful. The script was spectacularly predictable at the best of times (how many people failed to guess the

Spoiler

alien

[close]

thing the minute the Russians took the corpse from New Mexico?), and plain ugly at the worst (very poor dialogue). Nevertheless, it was good to see the character return, and the Amazon car chase was a lot of fun.

Still, I really hope George Lucas will stay satisfied with his hundreds of millions of Star Wars merchandising money and keep his fat grubby paws from penning another script. I hear he's already hinted at the possibility of a new movie with the Labouef character in the lead. For the love of god George, create something original again like we know you can.

[Crackerjack Sam]

Thought it was nonsense. First couple of minutes were good, then it went downhill from there. Script was poor and so was John Hurt especially after all the films he's done.
Horrible ending as well, rushed and cheesily put together.

[cornelius]

Given that he desperately wanted Connery to do it but couldn't get him I'm surprised Lucas didn't just do him in CGI too!

[cornelius]

Indiana Jones movies have never been like watching the 'Cherry Orchard' at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre or a deep meaningful classics like Schindler's List etc, they are not made for critics and never have been, they are made for entertaining the masses by essentially keeping things simple. From all those I know who have seen it, this one appears to be no different, and think for those intent on not analysing every detail or nuance it looks to have been received quite well 

A lot of people are really missing the point on this issue. Yes you expect to suspend disbelief when you go and see an Indiana Jones film, just as you do when you go and see a Bond film, but it's the level of far fetchedness and dumb special effects that mark out the good ones from the bad ones.

People have been harping on about it being Lucas'/Spielberg's homage to the serials of the 30's but in fact, as Spielberg has said many times, James Bond was also a massive inspiration for the series. And you only have to compare Die Another Day to Casino Royale to understand the gripes surrounding Indy 4. Prior to Casino Royale, Die Another Day was the biggest grossing Bond film of all time but the fact is (dribbling morons aside) everybody knew it sucked on the grandest of scales. Indy and Bond are human characters after all and while you want to see them doing the improbable and seemingly impossible you don't want to see something on screen that is so far fetched and implausible that it takes you totally out of the film. Even Moonraker was more plausible than Die Another Day. Yes there are many implausibilities in the other Indy films but not too bad that they totally spoil the film. The classic scene in Raiders where he is being dragged along the ground by his whip attached to the truck is such an instance where you can laugh it off and ignore the preposterousness of it. It's brilliantly executed.

Bond always prided itself on doing the stunts for real. So when Roger Moore goes loop-de-loop over that bridge in The Man With The Golden Gun, you can smile at the silliness of it but are safe in the knowledge that in fact that stunt was carried out for real and successful on the very first take! So you know it's improbable but not entirely implausible. Die Another Day on the other hand cut it's own legs off the second Halle Berry does a CGI dive into the ocean from a cliff. The rest of the film was destroyed by the CGI mess that followed (and Berry's dreadful acting). It was little wonder that despite it's box office take, Brosnan never returned and they completely changed tack.

Lucas is just a fat fucking sell out who has spent most of his life milking to death a couple of brilliant ideas he once had.

[Brian Blessed]

A lot of people are really missing the point on this issue. Yes you expect to suspend disbelief when you go and see an Indiana Jones film, just as you do when you go and see a Bond film, but it's the level of far fetchedness and dumb special effects that mark out the good ones from the bad ones.

People have been harping on about it being Lucas'/Spielberg's homage to the serials of the 30's but in fact, as Spielberg has said many times, James Bond was also a massive inspiration for the series. And you only have to compare Die Another Day to Casino Royale to understand the gripes surrounding Indy 4. Prior to Casino Royale, Die Another Day was the biggest grossing Bond film of all time but the fact is (dribbling morons aside) everybody knew it sucked on the grandest of scales. Indy and Bond are human characters after all and while you want to see them doing the improbable and seemingly impossible you don't want to see something on screen that is so far fetched and implausible that it takes you totally out of the film. Even Moonraker was more plausible than Die Another Day. Yes there are many implausibilities in the other Indy films but not too bad that they totally spoil the film. The classic scene in Raiders where he is being dragged along the ground by his whip attached to the truck is such an instance where you can laugh it off and ignore the preposterousness of it. It's brilliantly executed.

Bond always prided itself on doing the stunts for real. So when Roger Moore goes loop-de-loop over that bridge in The Man With The Golden Gun, you can smile at the silliness of it but are safe in the knowledge that in fact that stunt was carried out for real and successful on the very first take! So you know it's improbable but not entirely implausible. Die Another Day on the other hand cut it's own legs off the second Halle Berry does a CGI dive into the ocean from a cliff. The rest of the film was destroyed by the CGI mess that followed (and Berry's dreadful acting). It was little wonder that despite it's box office take, Brosnan never returned and they completely changed tack.

Lucas is just a fat fucking sell out who has spent most of his life milking to death a couple of brilliant ideas he once had.

Well, I enjoyed it.

[Red Squiggle]

A lot of people are really missing the point on this issue. Yes you expect to suspend disbelief when you go and see an Indiana Jones film, just as you do when you go and see a Bond film, but it's the level of far fetchedness and dumb special effects that mark out the good ones from the bad ones.

People have been harping on about it being Lucas'/Spielberg's homage to the serials of the 30's but in fact, as Spielberg has said many times, James Bond was also a massive inspiration for the series. And you only have to compare Die Another Day to Casino Royale to understand the gripes surrounding Indy 4. Prior to Casino Royale, Die Another Day was the biggest grossing Bond film of all time but the fact is (dribbling morons aside) everybody knew it sucked on the grandest of scales. Indy and Bond are human characters after all and while you want to see them doing the improbable and seemingly impossible you don't want to see something on screen that is so far fetched and implausible that it takes you totally out of the film. Even Moonraker was more plausible than Die Another Day. Yes there are many implausibilities in the other Indy films but not too bad that they totally spoil the film. The classic scene in Raiders where he is being dragged along the ground by his whip attached to the truck is such an instance where you can laugh it off and ignore the preposterousness of it. It's brilliantly executed.

Bond always prided itself on doing the stunts for real. So when Roger Moore goes loop-de-loop over that bridge in The Man With The Golden Gun, you can smile at the silliness of it but are safe in the knowledge that in fact that stunt was carried out for real and successful on the very first take! So you know it's improbable but not entirely implausible. Die Another Day on the other hand cut it's own legs off the second Halle Berry does a CGI dive into the ocean from a cliff. The rest of the film was destroyed by the CGI mess that followed (and Berry's dreadful acting). It was little wonder that despite it's box office take, Brosnan never returned and they completely changed tack.

Lucas is just a fat fucking sell out who has spent most of his life milking to death a couple of brilliant ideas he once had.

Nail. Head. Hit.

[Buck Pete]

Went with my son last night.

I must say Cate Blanchett really did it for me. She is incredible

[walshys_mullet]

I loved the bit where indy realises he's in a nuclear testing area...

anyway the big question for me was WHERES SALLAH?!!!!!!!!

Anyway liked it apart from the daft monkey bit and the car on the tree.

[courty61]

Think the main issue with everyone is the 'McGuffen' which is the thing which Indy is chasing. But when you look at it is it that far fetched when compared to the other 3?

Raiders: The Ark of the Covenant- God comes down from Heaven and writes his 10 Commandments to Moses, these are smashed up and put in this 'mysterious' ark which has devestating power.

Temple of Doom: 5 rocks with diamonds inside which give power to the Kali accult when found, which involves Mola Ram taking out a fellas heart whilst he's still alive!

The Holy Grail: This guy called Jesus claimes he's the son of God- he is killed, the chalice he used at his last meal catches his blood and anyone who drinks from it will have eternal life- but only in certain boundaries.


These films are about having FUN, not fact.

[cornelius]

Think the main issue with everyone is the 'McGuffen' which is the thing which Indy is chasing. But when you look at it is it that far fetched when compared to the other 3?

Really? Most of the complaints on here are about needless CGI and aliens.

[gazzalfc]

Just got back from seeing it.

I thought it was really good. Sure there was loads of CGI and the fact it was aliens was a little OTT but it was fun. Had plenty of laughs in the right places.

It was never going to please everyone. But I'd put it on par with last crusade.

My order will be

Raiders (never in doubt really)
Last crusade/Crystal skull
Temple of doom

[ben]

Think the main issue with everyone is the 'McGuffen' which is the thing which Indy is chasing. But when you look at it is it that far fetched when compared to the other 3?

Raiders: The Ark of the Covenant- God comes down from Heaven and writes his 10 Commandments to Moses, these are smashed up and put in this 'mysterious' ark which has devestating power.

Temple of Doom: 5 rocks with diamonds inside which give power to the Kali accult when found, which involves Mola Ram taking out a fellas heart whilst he's still alive!

The Holy Grail: This guy called Jesus claimes he's the son of God- he is killed, the chalice he used at his last meal catches his blood and anyone who drinks from it will have eternal life- but only in certain boundaries.


These films are about having FUN, not fact.

all well and good but most peoples gripe is that is wasn't that fun. noone is moaning that it's too far fetched, just that it is far fetched AND crap.

[Buck Pete]

Anyway liked it apart from the daft monkey bit and the car on the tree.

That seems to be a general feeling throughout I'm afraid (including mine)

I absolutely hated that Marion Ravenwood character and her annoying son wasn't much better.  How the director deemed it necessary for her to drive that car off a cliff just to add that element of girl power was immensely annoying.

All those little 'That's my boy' sickly looks from Indy began to grate on me too.

On an added note the draw of immense wealth and fame has reduced one of my favourite actors of all time to the part of an idiot.  Long gone are the days of Scum, Sexy beast and Nil by Mouth.  Hope Ray hasn't deserted his acting career for good.

[Guz-kop]

Thought it was the worst of the lot but I think Andy is spot on in saying that some of us saw the Indiana Jones films when we were much yonuger. But that said, thought this one did go a little over the top a few times too often. I was enjoying it a lot till the swinging scene and it seemed to just go downhill from there.

Worth watching though I reckon

[safhossain03]

Spoiler

The vine-swinging. The Alien. The flying fucking saucer. Ray fucking Winstone.

[close]

What. The. Fuck. George Lucas is a dick. He can't get anything done without ropey CGI. He's like the new Michael Bay.

[rafathegaffa83]

The Cold War stuff wasn't covered well either.

There was a line in which after getting essentially fired for his supposed Communist ties, Indy suggests he may teach in Leipzig as an old friend owes him a favour. Why on earth would he want to do that when Leipzig was located in the heart of East Germany. 

The movie could have been much better within a Cold War setting, but it seemed too driven toward appeasing kids (i.e. Shia and the monkeys). Additionally, like any film George Lucas gets his hairy mitts on, the CGI was way, way over the top and spoiled much of the film, as did the idea that ancient civilizations were assisted by extra-terrestrial beings. I was however enthralled with Cate Blanchett and loved that in-joke to the Raiders of the Lost Ark in the warehouse.

[Kez]

Good film but hated the ending. Kind of ruined it a bit for me

[Chivasino]

Thought it was pretty poor. Marion Ravenwood was shockingly bad, and really made things a whole lot worse.

[Ryza]

Hated it. Felt too sentimental for my liking. And I thought the ending was laughable.

Massive let down for me.

[Dan86]

Well worth watching. There were some classic Indiana Jones action scenes and Cate Blanchett was superb. That tool from Transformers was terrible, I hope to god they don't carry it on with him and for Spielberg or Lucas to think the ending fitted is mind-boggling. Kept me entertained for 2 hrs though.

[Dan86]

Thought it was pretty poor. Marion Ravenwood was shockingly bad, and really made things a whole lot worse.

yes she was. She looked completely star struck, think it's the first time she's been in front of a camera for 20 yrs.

[daddymac]

Really looking forward to this after loving the other 3.

COMPLETE AND UNADULTERATED SHITE.

I held my head in my hands more than once and tutted throughout. How to ruin a 'franchise'

Surely people are using these spoiler threads far too liberally. Anyone who claims this has a rating higher than 2/3 out of 10 should have that with an accompanying spoiler tag