Indy IV

[Nicky B]

And Ray Winston was pointless and annoying. 'Jonesssssssseeeeeeeeyyyy!'

[Section_31]

I hate Ray Winstone, I've done a thread on it in the past.

 

"guest starring Ray Winstone as...Ray Winstone."

[Sut]

Best Will Scarlett, though.

[RedKnight]

I liked the "slow down you don't know him, you don't know him!" bit.

[05 Milan]

Bit dissappointed. Like when I watched Phantom Menace. Good entertainment, but just not the same. And he's too old. Too much cgi as well.

[sh#t waffle]

"Not outer space, but the space between spaces."

*shakes head*

[Section_31]

Just come back now, thought it was alright myself. Not a patch on Raiders and Crusade but certainly not shit.

 

They tend to depress me a bit these films now, this and Rocky Balboa, the whole 'last swansong aren't I old, all my old friends and family are dead' type of thing. Nice to see the characters off like, depressing none the less though.

[05 Milan]

SPOILER ALERT*******************************

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crushing disappointment.

 

It wasn't that the movie was bad, it wasn't, it was that it was so limp. The Macguffin (the crystal skull) was a shit piece of kit, it looked shit, it didn't do anything; shit.

 

Shia Laboeuf wasn't that annoying but Lucas and Spielberg look like their positioning him as a possible succesor, which is pointless as if you can't use Harrison Ford then there's no point at all. There was one sequence with Laboeuf and some monkeys that quite frankly, made me wanna cringe. Awful.

 

The bad guys were rubbish too, no real threat and no stand out sadistic villain like the other movies. Cate Blanchett might as well not been there. Ray Winstone must've just watched the Mummy for notes on his character.

 

There was too much CGI used (I'm blaming Lucas for that) and lots of plot points weren't tied together very well.

 

Last, for now, is Harrison Ford. Yeah he's too old but he just didn't seem to do much in the film. Everything was too easy for Indy, he didn't really struggle and there never seemed any real danger. The movie is very far removed from the originals and you know it's going to be like that as soon as the credits start at the beginning.

 

I sound like I didn't enjoy it but I did, it's just that I expect more from an Indiana Jones movie and I didn't get it. I'll probably prefer to look at this movie as a stand alone film rather than a continuation of the series, that way it doesn't seem as bad.

 

Very well summed up.

[Neil G]

I saw it last night, and I'm afraid I have to add my name to the ranks of the disillusioned and disappointed.

 

The thing that really crushed it for me was the desperately lazy ending. I've always loved the whole ancient aliens mythology, and the climax of the film could have been turned into a really imaginative and memorable take on it. Instead it seemed as though it couldn't be bothered to throw any light at all on the central element of the mystery – who the creatures were, why they came to Earth and why they were stuck here. Don't give me any of that "ruining the magic of the unknown" or "leaving it up to the audience to decide" shite, Indy is an explorer and an archaeologist who seeks to uncover the truth behind mysteries.

 

I thought the film was ticking along and building up quite nicely until the final reel, so I managed to push aside my misgivings until then and could have let them go if the climax had made it all worthwhile. The fact that it didn't exposed the flaws even more for me. The action sequences didn't feel particularly satisfying, partly because the excessive CGI stripped many of them of a real sense of danger, and partly because none of them really stood apart from anything that had gone before in the saga (the exception being the part with the ants which I thought was pretty well done). Also I agree with what others have said about a lack of memorable characters: none of the sidekicks had an ounce of the warmth or wit of Marcus, Sallah or Henry Senior, and none of the villains had anything approaching the swagger of Belloq or Donovan or the gleeful nastiness of Toht, Mola Ram or Colonel Vogel.

 

For the length of time we've had to wait and for all the talent that's been involved throughout the process of conceiving and making the film, I thought it was a massive damp squib.

[Guest TK-421]

I thought it was fucking terrible. Flying monkeys, Ray Winstone, everyone, even Indy himself.

[Anubis]

My advice, go in with low expectations and the acceptance that it will be nothing like the originals and you'll be ok.

That part of your post has been bugging me since I saw the film. You're right, it doesn't feel like an Indiana Jones movie, and I've been trying to work out why?

 

I wonder if Koepp hasn't been too clever in trying to give the series a fresh injection. I've been wondering if he was influenced by the 50s being the decade of the Science Fiction B movie (particularly influenced by fear of a nuclear war with the Russians). Hence his choice of an 'alien' scenario. For instance, take a look at some of the films released in the 50s :

 

The Day the Earth Stood Still - 1951

The Thing - 1951

It Came From Outer Space - 1953

Them - 1954

Earth vs the Flying Saucers - 1956

Creature with the Atom Brain - 1956

The Invasion of the Body Snatchers - 1956

The Incredible Shrinking Man - 1957

The Fly - 1958

Attack of the Fifty Foot Woman - 1958

 

It could explain why this movie doen't feel right when compared to the rest of the series. The mythos of Indiana Jones has been clearly established in the first three films. The Ark Of the Covenant, Kali, and The Grail all have two elements in common. Each contains a mixture of religion and the supernatural.

 

This film differs. There is certainly an element of religion, but the supernatural element has been replaced with a science fiction element. How many archaeology professors do you see ijn science fiction films? Offhand, I can't think of any. Plenty of scientisits, but few archaeologists. That's because archaeology sits better with religion and it's attendant myths, not with science.

[odris]

Great film, going to see it again Monday.

[Paul]

That part of your post has been bugging me since I saw the film. You're right, it doesn't feel like an Indiana Jones movie, and I've been trying to work out why?

 

I wonder if Koepp hasn't been too clever in trying to give the series a fresh injection. I've been wondering if he was influenced by the 50s being the decade of the Science Fiction B movie (particularly influenced by fear of a nuclear war with the Russians). Hence his choice of an 'alien' scenario. For instance, take a look at some of the films released in the 50s :

 

The Day the Earth Stood Still - 1951

The Thing - 1951

It Came From Outer Space - 1953

Them - 1954

Earth vs the Flying Saucers - 1956

Creature with the Atom Brain - 1956

The Invasion of the Body Snatchers - 1956

The Incredible Shrinking Man - 1957

The Fly - 1958

Attack of the Fifty Foot Woman - 1958

 

It could explain why this movie doen't feel right when compared to the rest of the series. The mythos of Indiana Jones has been clearly established in the first three films. The Ark Of the Covenant, Kali, and The Grail all have two elements in common. Each contains a mixture of religion and the supernatural.

 

This film differs. There is certainly an element of religion, but the supernatural element has been replaced with a science fiction element. How many archaeology professors do you see ijn science fiction films? Offhand, I can't think of any. Plenty of scientisits, but few archaeologists. That's because archaeology sits better with religion and it's attendant myths, not with science.

 

The thing is though, that aliens can easily be linked to religion. There's loads of stuff on the net about how the ancient Hindu texts can be interpreted as primitive civilisation's encounters with aliens.

[Anubis]

But in the first three films the religion is linked with the supernatural. Here it isn't. It changes the mythos Indy operates in. The first three fims established the rules - religion and the supernatural. This film breaks those rules.

[Neil G]

It could explain why this movie doen't feel right when compared to the rest of the series. The mythos of Indiana Jones has been clearly established in the first three films. The Ark Of the Covenant, Kali, and The Grail all have two elements in common. Each contains a mixture of religion and the supernatural.

 

This film differs. There is certainly an element of religion, but the supernatural element has been replaced with a science fiction element. How many archaeology professors do you see ijn science fiction films? Offhand, I can't think of any. Plenty of scientisits, but few archaeologists. That's because archaeology sits better with religion and it's attendant myths, not with science.

 

But the ancient aliens mythology sits just as comfortably within the spheres of archaeology and history as any of the subject matter from the first three films does. Also it has enough of a sense of things beyond human understanding, that make the human race seem small and insignificant, to convey the same sense of awe as something that's outright religious or supernatural.

 

I don't think there was anything wrong with the subject matter, it could have worked really well if it had been used more ambitiously.

 

 

Edit - Paul beat me to it.

[Anubis]

At the risk of repeating myself, the first three films establish the mythos in which the character operates. That mysthos has three key elements - archaeology, religion, and the supernatural. Science fiction is not an element in any of the films. This film changes one of those elements. My argument is that is why it feels different.

[Paul]

At the risk of repeating myself, the first three films establish the mythos in which the character operates. That mysthos has three key elements - archaeology, religion, and the supernatural. Science fiction is not an element in any of the films. This film changes one of those elements. My argument is that is why it feels different.

 

I think it feels different (in a narrative sense at least - the main problems are to do with characterisation and CGI, in my view) because they don't make any link between aliens and archaeology & religion. Religion is alluded to at best and the archaeological link is just a few pictures on a wall. The whole thing is basically just very fucking sloppy in every way, sadly.

[Neil G]

I think it feels different (in a narrative sense at least - the main problems are to do with characterisation and CGI, in my view) because they don't make any link between aliens and archaeology & religion. Religion is alluded to at best and the archaeological link is just a few pictures on a wall. The whole thing is basically just very fucking sloppy in every way, sadly.

 

Agree. The links were there to be made, in fact they were crying out to be made, but the script didn't use them.

[RedKnight]

Got to go out now but that's an interesting point that SM has raised and I'll be back later to get in on this new debate.

[Sut]

I hope Spielberg rediscovers his mojo in time for Tintin.

[Paul]

I hope Spielberg rediscovers his mojo in time for Tintin.

 

He's competing with Peter Jackson though, isn't he? That'll get him back on his game.

[Sut]

Apparently it's a trilogy in the offing - not sure who the third director is.

 

He's also got Lincoln, The Trial of the Chicago 7 and Interstellar due for release next year.

 

The problem is that Indy's always been to his rescue in the past... 1941 was followed by Raiders, the troubled shoot of The Twilight Zone: the Movie preceded Temple of Doom and the Oscar disappointment of Empire of the Sun was countered by the box-office success of Last Crusade.

[Section_31]

Tintin? I can erm, hardly wait!

[Bourbon]

Neil G is bang on it for me; I took a lot from the themes transmitted and thought a lot about where Spielberg, who must know a lot of inside shit as a very powerful man, sees us in the big picture.

 

Was obviously let down by all that we have mentioned here; the ants and swords, Winstone and Blanchette brought the film itself down a lot.

 

That said, I actually thought that that beaut out of Transformers was mostly great.

[RedKnight]

It may have had mixed reviews but it's raked in a shitload of cash at the box office; $300million in three days.

 

I see what SM saying about the rules being broken but here's my take. This film was forced into the '50s and as soon as that happened, Spielberg and Lucas decided to ape the alien pics of that era but they made some bad choices along the way.

 

The alien at the end? Would've been a hell of a lot better if the crystal skeleton had moved and come alive rather than them all combining to make one alien. By having something like the skeleton attack Spalko, it would have held a little of the macabre nature of the earlier movies. The ship at the end was well done, you saw very little and you never saw it fly off; less was the right choice.

 

The natives they had there were wasted. They chased Indy and backed off when Oxley showed them ths skull and then in their next scene they're already dead. Pointless and a waste of a decent Raiders style chase.

 

They didn't draw enough of a comparison between the ancient cultures and the aliens. Like Paul and Neil have said, the links and clues are there, see Stargate for another movie that drew the comparison.

 

But coming out of it's familiar '30s setting means that it isn't the same type of movie. There's rock music, televisions, atomic bombs and the bright vibrant colours of that atomic town say it all; this is not the comfortable surroundings we're used to. A lot was made of Janusz Kamiński trying to emulate Doug Slocombe's cinematography of the first three pics but he's enfused the screen with much richer, vibrant colours. It looks a lot different to Raiders, see the opening sequence there compared to the jungle scenes in Crystal Skull. When Mutt is between the two cars it looks like a bad cut-scene from a computer game.

 

The era is different and it makes us the viewer feel different too. Some people have problems with aliens being it, I don't. But a sci-fi alien feel isn't going to give you the wrath of God burning your face a la Raiders. It's not going to give you the mysticism and legend that the Sankara Stones gave you. And it's not going to give you the feeling of the weight of legend and history pressing against you like the Holy Grail. Aliens mean spacecraft, spacecraft means technology and technology means clinical precision and in the world inhabited by Indiana Jones, we want mucky, grimy, face-burning wrath, awe and legend. To present us with gleaming, lit-up metal technology irks us, we're not familiar with it and it sits badly next to what we've been presented with before.

 

That's why I think it feels different.