Indiana Jones KOTCS

Full_Circle

Well that was a bit of a disappointment, and that’s putting it mildly! I’m not really sure how anyone whos a fan of the original trilogy can be so forgiving towards this latest release.

First off, (to echo "smcgiff"s point above) I would seriously disagree with anyone who suggests that the original movies are just being viewed through rose tinted glasses. I watched all three recently in the build up to KotCS. Not only do they still stand up after all these years, but they were just as enjoyable as I’d remembered.

As for this movie, I was glad to see that Fords still got it. Any change in Indys character can easily be attributed to his older age. I thought Blanchett was on auto-pilot throughout and the character was very under-written. The reunion of Ford and Allen was severely wasted and the dialogue had none of the life or zest of their original outing. All the other characters were throwaway and just seemed to be going through the motions.

There was very little sense of excitement in the movie. The only scene worth mentioning was the motorcycle chase and that happened near the start! The car chase in the jungle was FAR too long and the use of CGI during the scene was painful. And as for

Mutt swinging with the monkies?

Please.....

Every time the crystal skull was whipped out I started to cringe. It was very obvious from the start the direction in which they were taking the plot and it just got more and more hokey as the film went on.

Most defenders have brought up how unbelievable the quests in the original trilogy were, and granted………they were equally far fetched. However, the context of those quests was always grounded in some kind of myth or legend, which is more in keeping with the Indy character. But the general thrust of this plot had too much of a sci-fi edge else and just didn’t fit with the Indy mythos at ALL.

All in all, a very muddled movie with none of the charm of the original trilogy.

monkeyfudge

Full_Circle wrote: »

However, the context of those quests was always grounded in some kind of myth or legend, which is more in keeping with the Indy character..

There are a huge amount of myths and legends associated with the crystal skulls. In this case they've decided to tie it in with Von Däniken's ideas from Chariots of the Gods.

Is it simply that people aren't as familiar with the Crystal Skulls as they would be with the Grail and the Ark of the Covenant...? although you can bet most people only heard of the ark through the film Raiders of the Lost Ark.

faceman

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Is it simply that people aren't as familiar with the Crystal Skulls as they would be with the Grail and the Ark of the Covenant...? although you can bet most people only heard of the ark through the film Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Very true.

As Metatron said in Dogma:

"Tell a person that you're the Metatron and they stare at you blankly. Mention something out of a Charlton Heston movie and suddenly everybody is a theology scholar. "

norrie rugger

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Well they never played up the city of gold mystery

when you start in area 51 you are clearly saying *ALIENS!*

Actually I thought ark first


and should it not have been Hanger 18 and not hanger 51 (scene in the movie shows 51 on the hanger doors)

norrie rugger

Full_Circle wrote: »

Most defenders have brought up how unbelievable the quests in the original trilogy were, and granted………they were equally far fetched. However, the context of those quests was always grounded in some kind of myth or legend, which is more in keeping with the Indy character. But the general thrust of this plot had too much of a sci-fi edge else and just didn’t fit with the Indy mythos at ALL.

Are you serious??
It is probably the most believable

Holy dust? Only believable to Jews and Christians
Holy rock? Only believable to Hindu
Holy cup? Only believable to Christians


There are plenty of Mythological stories from the ancient world of beings visiting (even religion is theorised as being alien stories badly passed on)

L31mr0d

smcgiff wrote: »

Those that are of the opinion that the negative comments are coming from those viewing the original three with rose tinted glasses are completely wrong...

but for those of us that spent the last 19 years (I'm in my 30s :eek:) waiting for this movie it's a disappointment.

Full_Circle wrote: »

Not only do they still stand up after all these years, but they were just as enjoyable as I’d remembered.

nostalgia much? Sequels aren't like a fine wine, just because there has been a long gap between movies in a series does not mean a movie should be anymore amazing. Had this movie been in production for 19 years then I'd agree with you.

Also the way you remember a movie is usually clouded by nostalgia. I think Grease is a great movie, not because it is actually that good but because it was a good period of my life when I watched it first.

You can say what you want about how the originals where far superior but in the end of the day the dialogue was just as hammy, the plots where just as unbelievable but also grounded in mythology and the side kicks where poorly used.

Zulu

I dunno - at least the "incredible" stuff happened towards the end of the other movies, and the journey there was fun - what made the movie.
The

Alien[

was at the start of the movie, and set the mood. The journey was rubbish.

ojewriej

L31mr0d wrote: »

You can say what you want about how the originals where far superior but in the end of the day the dialogue was just as hammy, the plots where just as unbelievable but also grounded in mythology and the side kicks where poorly used.

I think (not 100% sure yet) I agree with you.

I'm curious what 15 year olds have to say about this film.

smcgiff

ojewriej wrote: »

I'm curious what 15 year olds have to say about this film.

Read the comments above by anyone who thought this was at least on a par with the first three.:D

BlitzKrieg

You can say what you want about how the originals where far superior but in the end of the day the dialogue was just as hammy, the plots where just as unbelievable but also grounded in mythology and the side kicks where poorly used.

Yes the dialogue was hammy

yes the plot was unbelievable

yes it was grounded in mythology

but I like hammy dialogue in this sort of films, I liked it in the original indy and star wars, i liked it in the new indy, I liked it in the phantom menace (to an extent) I hated it in the two sequels because it stopped being hammy and turned into gibberish

unbelievable plots are great, but keep them interesting, plot them at a good pace and keep a consistent and interesting atmosphere. Do those and you can show me a film with purple skies and talking fire hydrants and I'd love it. Showing your cards 10 minutes into the film and then just going through the motions for the next hour and half with nothing *interesting* plotwise is just not good movie going.

Mythology is a great source for films and I never have a problem with it, didnt have a problem with it in prior indy's didnt have a problem with it this time.


On the prior films. I love them for the fantastic set pieces both action and puzzle orientated combined with witty dialogue from appealing characters aall wrapped up in rollercoaster blockbuster ride...thats indiana jones in a nutshell. Indy 4 delivered on some of this, not all of it (puzzles and rollercoaster ride is missing) but it delivered enough.

L31mr0d

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

but I like hammy dialogue in this sort of films, I liked it in the original indy and star wars, i liked it in the new indy, I liked it in the phantom menace (to an extent) I hated it in the two sequels because it stopped being hammy and turned into gibberish

so do I. My point was that this is what I expect from an Indy movie and IV delivered on these fronts which is why I liked it, I was referring to the people that seem to hold the original 3 movies as somehow far superior to IV when in fact it uses the exact same formula as the other 3. It's like those people that went to see the new Rambo movie and where shocked that it was nothing but cheesy dialogue and violence.

Full_Circle

monkeyfudge wrote: »

There are a huge amount of myths and legends associated with the crystal skulls. In this case they've decided to tie it in with Von Däniken's ideas from Chariots of the Gods.

Clearly I should have brushed up on my Von Däniken's before I went to the cinema and I would have enjoyed this movie a hell of a lot more

norrie rugger wrote: »

Are you serious??
It is probably the most believable

Holy dust? Only believable to Jews and Christians
Holy rock? Only believable to Hindu
Holy cup? Only believable to Christians

I'm not arguing the believability of the myth put forward in this movie, but its sci-fi overtones simply didn't fit in with the world of Indiana Jones, in my opinion. Its quite possible they could have pulled off the idea behind the plot, if it had been handled differently, but in the case of KotCS, it just never felt right. I couldn't reconcile the image of Indiana Jones running around with

the head of an alien in his bag

.

L31mr0d wrote: »

Also the way you remember a movie is usually clouded by nostalgia. I think Grease is a great movie, not because it is actually that good but because it was a good period of my life when I watched it first.

Just because I saw and liked a movie when I was younger doesn't mean that I cant watch it now and be objective about it. Sheesh! I've re-watched plenty of movies from my youth and wondered how I could ever have found them as captivating as I did when I was a wee lad. The original Indiana Jones movies however, are still solid and very enjoyable.

ztoical

Wow what a way to waste $12.

i can't figure out why indiana jones felt way too long but also felt like we were being rushed through the whole thing, like the characters were on some obnoxious tour bus...

ok! here's indy! oh put on your hat! quick, uh oh here are some bad guys!! scary!! skeletons, snakes, bugs, remember that scene when you guys were driving on the side of a cliff in the old movies?? well here's another one!!! ummm, here's some aliens, but they really aren't aliens, like from space aliens but interdiminsional ones, wait isn't Karen Allen in this film? where is she? waiting, waiting, film nearly over O there she is and oh yeah, that guy is your son, umm, it's over!!!!

Firetrap

I must be one of the few people who mostly liked it. Admittedly, the start was sort of clumsy and there was way too much exposition. More than what was needed really. It didn't really feel like an Indy film until he got into costume and started whacking baddies. Once that started, the film rattled along nicely until the end.

Eirebear

Firetrap wrote: »

I must be one of the few people who mostly liked it. Admittedly, the start was sort of clumsy and there was way too much exposition. More than what was needed really. It didn't really feel like an Indy film until he got into costume and started whacking baddies. Once that started, the film rattled along nicely until the end.

I quite enjoyed it, but there were a lot of things that annoyed me about it too.

It felt like it dragged quite a bit in places, especially considering the best "set piece" was the first one.

What where the ****ing gophers and monkeys all about?!

The plot was diabolical even by Indy standards.

But it was still good fun all in all

iMax

I knew it !!!

Lucas hints at Indy 5

JCDenton

I couldn’t help but be reminded of the “Young Indy” t.v. show at a few points during the film.

Akin to Forrest Gump, he seemed to run into dozens of famous historical figures in the series (was that a nod to the t.v. show when he mentions being kidnapped by some Peruvian dude?), goes on many fantastic adventures, and still answers to the name of Indiana; but it doesn’t “feel” like the previous trilogy.

In the same way that if you simply replaced Harrison Ford with Brendan Frasier, then you’d have a Mummy film instead. Simple as.


Being a nerd of the highest calibre that I am; I’ve also listened to the soundtrack for the film. Even the usually wonderful John Williams seems to be clinging onto the ideas of the past films. There’s an awful lot of re-use of themes; and whatever’s new is pretty non-descript. (Is it just me, or does the Crystal Skull “theme” sound like the Ark theme played backwards?)

smcgiff

iMax wrote: »

I knew it !!!

Lucas hints at Indy 5

With Mutt as the central character - No big surprise, but I'll be downloading it free from the internet when it does come out - Thanks Mr Lucas!

And don't you just love his defence at the negative comments for Indy IV. It's all our fault!

smcgiff

JCDenton wrote: »

(Is it just me, or does the Crystal Skull “theme” sound like the Ark theme played backwards?)

Don't know, but there was no point in the film where the sound track made any major impact.

Eirebear

You already can see this with "Sex and the City: The Movie" and it hasn't even opened everywhere. Fans and even some critics want some transcendent experience. They almost seem upset that all they got was … "Sex and the City."

No Mr Lucas, im dissapointed because i went to see Indy, and what i got was Pirates of the Carribean with

aliens.

gandalf

Saw this last Friday and enjoyed it. For what it is a "turn your brain off popcorn film" it works.

It is no where near the standard of 1 or 3 in the previous trilogy but it is better than the Temple of Doom.

Didn't mind the

aliens

and as others have said found it tied in well with the 1950's setting of the film.

Sad Professor

Why does Doom get so much flak? I watched it again a few nights ago and it's a great film, a helluva lot better than Crusade which was basically a slapstick, light-weight rip-off of Raiders. Connery is the only thing that saves it. I'd rather watch Capshaw take the brunt of all the jokes than Indy himself. It's partially because of the negative reaction to Doom that we ended up with KOTCS.

And everyone is focusing waaay too much on the "mcguffin". It's execution was poor but it's the least of the film's problems. The real issue is all the ridiculous slapstick action scenes and the fact that Indy is far too passive especially in the last act. I think Spielberg is more responsible for this that Lucas. His on-set comic improvisations are notorious. But at least there was some balance in the first two films, he earned his ridiculous moments. Post-Doom however he was too afraid of upsetting the little kiddies and decided all out comedy was the only way to go.

SP

The guy

Wasn't as good as the third one. In terms of quality it's down there with the second.

Once I saw Roswell written on the box I knew nothing good would come of it.

Basq

I just saw it... all-in-all, it's not a bad little no brainer film. Nothing spectacular but I've seen plenty worse sequels.

The ending was absolutely dire but there was enough decent action set pieces in there (loved the atomic bomb scene near the start) to set it apart from being too drab and formulaic.

I think people were maybe expecting too much from it.. it was never gonna be spectacular. At least in my mind!

Harrison Ford still definitely played the part well. "The Beef" wasn't bad and Karen Allen was.. very well... blended into the background.

I'd give it a 2.5 or 3 / 5.

Oh.. and the setting and soundtrack reminded me of 'Back To The Future'.

constitutionus

ojewriej wrote: »

I think (not 100% sure yet) I agree with you.

I'm curious what 15 year olds have to say about this film.

actually i'd aim even younger. this had a very definete goonies/grease vibe to it.

stupid stunt on how he survived it aside the scene with indy on the ridge with the rising mushroom cloud DID provide a very dramatic image.

certainly lets ya know your in a different age than the other films. in that light the concentration on science as opposed to myth isnt that bad.

JangoFett

I thought the roswell/alien angle was perfect!!

1950's America, that kinda stuff was RIFE, it was the perfect material to work from!!

I loved it!

Ruu_Old

Saw it today and enjoyed it. It was fun.

YeatsCounty

Once I knew that Indy 4 was coming out, I knew that it would not be able to hold a candle to the original trilogy. George Lucas reviving a much loved franchise? What can possibly go wrong? Spielberg hasn't been on his best form for quite a while now, so I walked into the cinema with low expectations.

The verdict? It's an enjoyable adventure but it is by far the weakest of the four Indy films. The journey seemed to severely plod along in places and some of the action sequences beggared belief. Three examples that come to mind are

the Tarzan scene, the sword fight on the speeding cars and the "nuke the fridge" abortion of a scene. For a minute there I thought I was watching "Indiana Jones and the skeleton of steel" FFS. Oh, and don't forget the multiple gopher appearances.

As for the

aliens

plot device, I didn't mind that at all as the Indy series has never been known for having believable storylines, so that wasn't the problem. That lay with the weakness of the overall plot and the scenes where it was clear that Lucas (I assume) had just gone nuts

(see: monkey scene)

.

In conclusion - enjoyable but the storyline would suit a Vin Diesel/Nicolas Cage vehicle better.

Thrill

I was disappointed with it. I was expecting a lot better from Spielberg and co.

Enjoyable, but not a classic like 1 and 3.

Mark Hamill

I thought people where just being too harsh before I went to see this. I mean I had heard bad reviews for "Speed Racer" and "Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden", but when I went to see them I found very enjoyable. But It seems that some people where being too nice in their bad reviews of this film, its probably the worst film I've seen in a long time.
First of all, the style was all wrong. The old films had believable (looking) locals for the most part, no CGI and proper stunt working. Supernatural scenes where used sparingly (usually just at the end), and there was no need for big explosions every five minutes because it was the story that kept you interested.
Secondly, ancillary characters where more real in the old films. They seemed to be better filled out. They seemed more like real people who happened to wander into the story, people with stories of their own, rather than convenient plot points for Indianas' story. The same goes for the villains. You had proper villians you could hate in the old films, not Cate Blanchett who you hate because her damn Russian accent kept turning into a posh English one.
Lastly the stunts where in no way believable in the new film. In the old films Indy would feel every pump and bruise along the way, but in this one he doesn't end up with a scratch (I think someone made that point already). But he survives some really stupid things, like a

nuclear bomb by hiding in a fridge, which then gets launched and bounces around for a few hundred yards. He gets out unharmed and turns around for a look at the explosion, never mind thefact he would have been completely blinded that close to the bomb (and no amount of scrubbing would get rid of the radiation from it either)

. If Lucas had any interest in a sequel with Shia Le Beof as the star, the he should have had Indy feel every bit his age the whole way through, made him tired and sore for most of the film, it would only have added to the realism and experience of the film.
There are far too many equally ridiculous scenes to enumerate here (

the monkeys!:mad:

) and I think Lucas has some nerve to say

George Lucas wrote:

I get worried when I hear fans say they’re expecting something different that will change their lives. This is 'Indiana Jones' just as you remember him

in that link that iMax gave. The problem was the exact opposite, he changed the formula from the original and thats what most people (and I) hated.