Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indiana_jones_4/

Its chillin at a 76%.

I bet it clocks in at a final 65%

I'm sure this movie is fine, but tons are just ready to question and hate it

Up to 80% now. Personally, I can't wait to see this movie (at midnight of course).

So far the reviews have all pretty much said that Ford and Shia are very good and that the remaining characters play their parts well, but aren't given much to do. But apparently the action scenes are really good, and there's a lot of them. yay!



'

i was hoping to keep away from the internet concerning reviews from the Cannes premiere, but after reading a few it looks promising. I think all of us Indy fans out there are assured a great time Just remember how Temple of Doom was criticized? i still love that film, so it's all good!

I must admit, even I looked at the ratings when the news began pouring in, despite neither wanting to nor going as far as to read a full review.

Almost there. Unfortunately, I have to wait till Friday.

Originally posted by Spartan005
Up to 80% now. Personally, I can't wait to see this movie (at midnight of course).

So far the reviews have all pretty much said that Ford and Shia are very good and that the remaining characters play their parts well, but aren't given much to do. But apparently the action scenes are really good, and there's a lot of them. yay!

I think it's going to stay there too. I don't see it going any higher than 80% unless maybe after the movie premieres on Thursday.

Oh yeah.

Go Indy go!

I'm going @ Midnight.

I talked to my co-worker who I gave my special screening tickets to last night, I couldn't make the show, but he went and said it was great. He's a very critical guy too. He said it was very much an Indiana Jones movie; it had big action, it had great humor, and he said it was good Spielberg. So, if my co-worker Devin liked it, trust me, if you like Indiana Jones you will like part 4.

Apparently, the film got a 3 and a half minute standing ovation from the critics at Cannes! Admittedly, many films shown at Cannes do , but still ... could this be a sign that the early internet naysayers were wrong? Was their doom-mongering for nothing? Could "Indy IV" *actually* be ... as we've hoped and prayed it would be ... good?

Let's hope so; not long now to wait !

i read a review in 'The Sun' this morning at work (i always read the paper when i should be working ) and it was very positive to say the least. "Was it worth it? absolutley." - just one of their quotes

Originally posted by Ahnold
Apparently, the film got a 3 and a half minute standing ovation from the critics at Cannes! Admittedly, many films shown at Cannes do , but still ... could this be a sign that the early internet naysayers were wrong? Was their doom-mongering for nothing? Could "Indy IV" *actually* be ... as we've hoped and prayed it would be ... good?

Let's hope so; not long now to wait !

just dont anticipate it to be (as Lucas put it) "the second coming." mind you, Raiders' wasnt far off the mark

I just hope that Lucas' other statement doesn't come true - that this will be the "Phantom Menace" of the Indy franchise scared ! True, he was probably just referring once again to the inevitability of the film not being able to live up to the enormous hype associated with it ... but still, what a spine-chillingly frightening thing to say to people .

on a side note i enjoyed The Phantom Menace, but no i wouldnt want it to turn out that way either. Was that an actual statement Lucas made? what source?

interesting, never saw that before thanks for the link i'm no longer worried about this film. I expected the worst when the Premiere reviews came in (that it would be critically slammed for years to come) but it seems quite the opposite. If Lucas was ever gonna ruin it, Spielburg would be there to save it - that's what i think, and you cant deny Spielburg's track record - apart from films like (1941, Hook, A.I) i doubt that Indy 4 will join that group somehow. The best thing to do? pick a good review and read it - then wait for the film

Originally posted by Stun
1941, Hook, A.I

All enjoyable, interesting films in their own right. No need to take note of the exception when other so-called maestro's best work pales in comparison.

Sounds like Spielberg does a better job revisiting old success than George alone.

Well I just saw it, I give it a 9/10.

This is classic Indiana Jones, lots of action, a few nods to the previous movies, a few laughs, plot moved pretty fast and was pretty interesting.

Only drawbacks I found were that it takes a bit of time to adjust to the setting (1957 I think it was), so theres plenty of stuff that just kinda seems a bit out of place in an Indy film, but you get used to it about 1/3 of the way through. The whole movie is a good ride, but the climax of the film...without spoiling.....you REALLY have to suspend your disbelief. Other than that, no flaws.

Okiday... PLeasant review.

Originally posted by Outbound
Well I just saw it, I give it a 9/10.

This is classic Indiana Jones, lots of action, a few nods to the previous movies, a few laughs, plot moved pretty fast and was pretty interesting.

Only drawbacks I found were that it takes a bit of time to adjust to the setting (1957 I think it was), so theres plenty of stuff that just kinda seems a bit out of place in an Indy film, but you get used to it about 1/3 of the way through. The whole movie is a good ride, but the climax of the film...without spoiling.....you REALLY have to suspend your disbelief. Other than that, no flaws.

In a way, you have to suspend your disbelief with all the Indiana Jones films. I haven't seen the fourth one yet, but in the first you had to accept the demons or whatever they were that flew out of the Ark and melted people's faces. In part two you had to accept magical stones and still beating hearts being ripped out of people's chests. Then there was that ghost guy at the end of the third one.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
In a way, you have to suspend your disbelief with all the Indiana Jones films. I haven't seen the fourth one yet, but in the first you had to accept the demons or whatever they were that flew out of the Ark and melted people's faces. In part two you had to accept magical stones and still beating hearts being ripped out of people's chests. Then there was that ghost guy at the end of the third one.

yeah, well just wait until you see this one

I'll make my review brief.

Right of the bat...the film gets a 4 out of 5 from me.

Indiana Jones is back! But wait a minute...this isn't like previous Indiana films. This is a totally different setting. A much more challenging setting for our favorite archaeologist. He has enter the Cold War....and the McCarthyism era.

This is no longer the era of America united to fight Nazi Regime...this is the era of no trust and suspicion. And of course Indy is just another victim. This is also the era of the 50s. From Atomics to Jocks vs. Greasers (which there is a scene most of you will find quite funny) the whole Elvis and TV gang is there!

Best about this period is the Science fiction movie period. This is the entire theme through out the movie. Green Men from Mars coming to Earth...but we get so much more. This is where Spielberg put the mythos of Indiana Jones and set it right.

There is GREAT chemistry here! Indiana Jones + 1950s Science Fiction + Communist scare = Great formula! Spielberg became Tarantino for this Indiana Jones. The perfect mix blended together. Major props to Steven for sucha great feat!

The comedy was purely entertainment and clean. There is the scenes of the gophers in the desert, the malt shop brawl, Indy getting kidnapped and jumping from a car to a motorcycle, and so many others...oh, and of course "I hate snakes!"

Aside from the comedy and the fantastic combination I mention before there was also the memories to the previous installments. The Ark scene put a smile to my face, Marion return, the Picture of Henry Jones, An image of the statue of Kali...and others. If you are an Indiana Jones fan there is no way you can say you hate those parts of the movie. The memories were nicely put together for this film.

The acting was as good as the previous movies. Everyone exercise their skills to perfection. Harrison Ford with his charming style, Karen Allen and her lovely smiles, and of course the villains as always masterfully wicked and dangerous. I did enjoy Cate Blanchett performance the most. She looked great as the central villain.

Then we have the death scenes. You know, this is something that strikes me as odd. How can a PG13 film like Indiana can get away with such death scenes? They're not extremely gore or offensive but pretty disturbing. Every Indy film have these death scenes that kinda get you. How can they get away with it is a mystery itself.

The story for this film was way too large. Pretty much over the top. However, this shouldn't be a negative. It was expected that this film was going to top the previous films. Now, I'm not saying that this film was better than the previous films. But a story much more bigger than the others. Why? Well, why not? This film is very likely to be the last time we see the older Indiana Jones in action. This pretty much culminates the series.

There is SOOO much more I want to touch about this film. I don't want to get carry away (too late) but I'm just going to say. This is the Indy film that we were waiting for....

You prolly are asking this....if I like the film so much why the 4 out of 5?

Simple, read my thread in this forum:

NAZIS MAKE BETTER VILLAINS THAN SOVIETS.

That's why this film didn't get a 5 out of 5.

Nazis are far more sinister than soviets and I can't really take the soviet army seriously here...I think a Nazi She-wolf Cate Blanchett would have been perfect IMO.

So put on your hats! Crack your whips and go see Indy!

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull gets a

4 OUT OF 5.

Nice! Glad you enjoyed the film.

Im afraid my reaction to "Shia LeBeof and the occasional focus on the old man that used to called Jones" is less positive.

Once it was both established that Indy could survive being thrown a mile in a fridge thrown from taking a nuclear explosion, and therefore that any grounding in a believable world at all has been abandoned - every "danger" situation was a big exercise in flacid, impotent yawnsome predictability and the Indiana Jones movie levels of suspense/tension suffered all the way through, as the movie clearly was written by some of those cgi monkeys, who were assisted in smearing their cgi-faeces on the pages by randomly inserted comedy caddyshack rodents.

The whole Lucasfilm/Speilberg office party love-in vibe pissed all over the characters we knew and loved from the originals and Harrison Ford convinced me he was Indy in the 1st 20 mins like Ford convinced us with his enthusiasm in portraying Solo in the holiday special.
Actually, this is the Jonesian equivalent of that debacle, IMO.
The whole self-parodying tone was more 'Police Academy 4' than 'Indiana Jones'.

Bad script, weak plot shit villians.
Gutted for a great, great trilogy.

Speilberg'll never see another quid from me, if his recent run is what I'm paying for from now on.

Ouch. I had a similar feeling, but damn you just stomped and spit on that movie. lol. Did you find anything enjoyable and pleasing?

Yeah some of the more restrained bits of humor worked...
The coldwar paranoia thing in the US at that time..
But virtually everything else I felt got drowned....

yeah thats one point that I didn't like that a lot of critics complained about..... that the main characters never really felt like they were in danger. I think its because this one was aimed a bit more at kids then the previous installments. Well at least the first two anyway

Oh and when World War III comes around I'll remember to stay in my refrigerator in case any country decides to nuke us.

lol great movie though

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Yeah some of the more restrained bits of humor worked...
The coldwar paranoia thing in the US at that time..
But virtually everything else I felt got drowned....

Yeah agreed, the Indy quote in the tent was one of those better ones:
"Untie me, I'll give you a big hug"

The 50's era was done well agreed there too.

All in all I think Indy still felt like Indy, sure times have changed, but he still had the same grin, the same smart ass remarks(most of them) and still an all around badass.

Originally posted by Spartan005
yeah thats one point that I didn't like that a lot of critics complained about..... that the main characters never really felt like they were in danger. I think its because this one was aimed a bit more at kids then the previous installments.


Star Wars 2 anyone? Damn Lucas.

Yeah, that's our way out: blame all the bad stuff in Indy 4 on Lucas, and give credit for the good bits to Spielberg.

Speilberg is to blame here definitely. But pattern thinking is abound these days.

Speilberg makes a shit, but flash looking "War of the worlds"....
Cruise is blamed.

Speilberg and his new "Mutt" ruined Transformers.
Bay (partially rightly) blamed.

Speilberg allows and is actively involved himeself in the ruination of Indy IV.... Lucas blamed.


When are we going to stop letting this guy piss simultaneously on all new ideas as well as the acoolades that he earned back in the day..?


The SW prequels are Citizen Kane next to this shit.
No more cash for Senor Speilbergo from me now.



This goes way beyond losing his edge.
He doesn't even know what the edge is nowadays.

Huh... What about Minority Report, Munich and Catch me if you can.... Fine films, IMHO.

I haven't seen Indy 4 yet, but I'll have my review later tonight.

Spielberg is a great director, but he's made his share of stinkers too. I would hardly call "Minority Report" a very good film, and neither was War of the Worlds for that matter.

Needlees to say, I don't know why it has become tradition to "blame Lucas for everything" He didn't even direct this film, yet he's still taking the heat. With Star Wars you guys all used to say "Well, Lucas is responsible since he ws the director." I guess you should all blame Rick McCullam for Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. It's ok to admit that ROTS was good.

Well... I wonder what you say when you see it. I have mixed feelings about it.

ROTS and Minority Report were both good films. MR better imo.

VEry... And better than Indy 4.

I just want more Indiana Jones now.

And a good one too.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Speilberg is to blame here definitely. But pattern thinking is abound these days.

What are you on about? Did you even watch the amount of great, classic Spielbergian shots he and his cinematographer pulled off? It was pure, classic Spielberg in that sense. I couldn't wipe the smile off my face for some of them.

Originally posted by queeq
Huh... What about Minority Report, Munich and Catch me if you can.... Fine films, IMHO.

Wasn't all that impressed with Minority report, and the script was the saver there, not Cruise and not speilberg, just a cool concept, IMO, yet to see Munich and CMIYC.

Originally posted by exanda kane
What are you on about? Did you even watch the amount of great, classic Spielbergian shots he and his cinematographer pulled off? It was pure, classic Spielberg in that sense. I couldn't wipe the smile off my face for some of them.

Yes I did.

But my mind wasn't sufficiently distracted by the nice shiny objects/shots, it was more horrified by the intelligence-redundant nightmare that was the lack of content in the movie.

Thats what Im talking about Indy films were about content over style.

Not so in this movie.

THe spielberg style is there. So are the great shots. But nice pictures don't a great picture make.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Wasn't all that impressed with Minority report, and the script was the saver there, not Cruise and not speilberg, just a cool concept, IMO, yet to see Munich and CMIYC.

Eh...You weren't impressed with Minority Report?

It's a benchmark in modern cinema, balancing great CGI technology with a strong narrative. It isn't praised enough.



There certainly wasn't a lack of content in the film. Of course, you've made your opinion of it pretty clear, and I respect that, but as always, Indiana Jones remains the enticing mix of Spielberg's style (it has always been in the Indy films, you know this) warm sentimentality and humour, and Lucas' pechant for great vision. It was more of the same, done in the same way and it was thoroughly enjoyable for someone abnormally cynical like myself and, from what I saw in the cinema, a whole new generation of people not old enough to be around when the first three films were about.

I'm a tad disconcerted with those CGI goafers and John Hurt being criminally underused or overused (they could have simply followed his trail and never found him), but it is more Indy fun. I fail to see any major flaw in a film that thrives on humour, wit and spectacle.

Speilbergs 70s and 80s style was something to be marvelled over, but In this day and age of spectacular vistas and effects, I can safely say that there have been Episodes of TV dramas like LOST and Battlestar galactica that topped the spectacular stakes in this movie.

Im 33 and saw the originals at the cinema, and I did not get that "More of the same" feeling due to the enormous shark-jumping detatchment in direction from the original trilogy and the dodgy, screentime consuming needless diversions that shatter the wall of believeability.
Speilberg is resting on his laurels in this regard.
He is too safe and fuzzy wuzzy for my liking these days.

They have to do more than get two things right (CGI/Narrative on M.R.)
Many films since have surpassed it. "The Wrath of Khan" did in the early eighties, for example it had CGI and strong narrative.

And series too, like BSG/LOST.

Im not impressed by mere competancy in filmmaking, its expected /a given when you pay to see a film..

I wouldn't say the Indiana Jones trilogy has ever pushed the boat out so to speak, for a talent like Spielberg. Braver filmmaking like he went for and achieved with his critically acclaimed work isn't neccesarily ripe for a family movie. The way he plays with a camera, since Duel onwards, was still evident in the film. It's slick filmmaking.

His direction made Crystal Skull a fun experience for me.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Im 33 and saw the originals at the cinema, and I did not get that "More of the same" feeling due to the enormous shark-jumping detatchment in direction from the original trilogy and the dodgy, screentime consuming needless diversions that shatter the wall of believeability.
Speilberg is resting on his laurels in this regard.
He is too safe and fuzzy wuzzy for my liking these days.


I'm 38 and I saw them also and I disagree. I was personally very impressed with Minority Report, Saving private Ryan, The Terminal and Catch me if you can... Impressed how he can handle all these different types of movies.

Here I felt he was maybe trying too much to make it look like previous ones instead of re-inventing a great character that has more depth any SW character has.

Again, I don't understand how great epic filmmakers like Lucas, Spielberg, Ford and Koepp came up with this particular version of Indy 4.... I just don't get it. It's rather sub-par. Still pretty good, but not for this team.

I honestly think he did a great job... especially after watching National Treasure 2 last night. I remember watching the chase scene and comparing it to the jungle chase in Indy. Long story short, KOTCS won

I'm sure. And I'm sure it's better than the next Mummy film as well. But still.... it's closer to The Lost World than to Jurassic Park if you know what I mean.

Originally posted by queeq
I'm sure. And I'm sure it's better than the next Mummy film as well. But still.... it's closer to The Lost World than to Jurassic Park if you know what I mean.

I like both equally, lol. sorry

EDIT: I think age has a big part to play in these reviews. I read in one thread that you saw the first one in theaters, which apparently was incredible for its time. But then I'm 17 and grew up with these movies, but also more modern day films with more special effects etc. Kind of like jurassic park... I'm not even sure which one I saw first, but I'm sure a lot of the reason why the first one was so good was because audiences had never seen CGI like that before... while I was already used to it.

Well ... there we go; after waiting for this film for pretty much as long as I can remember, I am now in the very strange, still almost disbelieving position of finally being able to utter the immortal words ... I have seen "Indiana Jones IV". As with many of you on here I'm sure, for a very, very long time I was convinced that I would never speak those fateful words ...

So yes, I've seen it, and have now had two days to process the experience (and I guess it is an "experience" as well. My verdict? Cutting to the chase, is it a perfect film? ... no. But is it an Indiana Jones film? Thank God, the answer is a resounding "yes" !

Of course, after so many years of expectation and wondering what would be, it was never going to be the film that I (or most of us) had hoped for - I knew to expect that. All I wanted out of my "Indy IV" experience going in was to not walk away disappointed ... and the fact that I didn't is, at least in my case, good enough for me .

Admittedly, I don't think that the second half of the movie really matches up to the first, but, overall, this was still an extremely enjoyable, funny, and exciting thrill-ride of a movie; it may not scale the towering heights of its illustrious predecessors - in particular 1 and 3 (though few films do) - but it is still, to my mind, a very worthy addition to the series. Personally, one of the biggest reliefs for me was Harrison himself - though the guy is, of course, a living legend, for the past decade or so he's been languishing cosily (and dangerously) in mediocrity, and is more animated in this film than I've seen him since possibly "Air Force One", or maybe even "The Fugitive" (way back in '93!). Welcome back Mr. Ford ... we missed ya .

Well, that's my two cents anyway; I'm sure that many of you on here will disagree with me ... but there's still plenty of time for all that in the weeks to come.

And so then ... dare we hope for an "Indy V"?

the film - at it's core, is a very strong one. Just a few flaws here and there, but interesting ones. After a few more viewings, it will all become clear to me.

on a side note, the camera work was amazing - especially the (american graffiti) type chase at the beginning (well, not exactly a chase) but it was sensational to watch, one of my favourite scenes actually. It put the audience directly to the 50's!

Originally posted by Spartan005
I like both equally, lol. sorry

EDIT: I think age has a big part to play in these reviews. I read in one thread that you saw the first one in theaters, which apparently was incredible for its time. But then I'm 17 and grew up with these movies, but also more modern day films with more special effects etc. Kind of like jurassic park... I'm not even sure which one I saw first, but I'm sure a lot of the reason why the first one was so good was because audiences had never seen CGI like that before... while I was already used to it.

I think the age argument is lame. Some films I loved as a kid, I consider very sucky. Other films I liked as a kid I still like. A story is a story and that can always be considered on its merits, no matter what the age. Character can also be judged on its merits. And it doesn't take a genius to see how shallow all the side characters are (Mutt excluded).
Plus the story has a few major flaws. And crappy CGI is still crappy CGI. Even the crappy CGI in TLC looked crappy then and it still does now. Yet, teh acting is very enjoyable and the characters have more depth in TLC as well (Sallah, Brody, Elsa, Donovan)

saw it yesterday... damn lucky I didn't had to pay full price! It's a good Hollywood movie, but it is a lousy Indiana Jones movie. With a few minor changes they could easily have named it "National Treasure 3: Going International". There were little Indy-elements in it; they ripped off a lot of scenes (or how they will call it "paying hommage". In short: disappointing


and lucas should stop butchering movies with CGI. It's not always the best solution, y'know!

Originally posted by queeq
I'm 38 and I saw them also and I disagree. I was personally very impressed with Minority Report, Saving private Ryan, The Terminal and Catch me if you can... Impressed how he can handle all these different types of movies.

Here I felt he was maybe trying too much to make it look like previous ones instead of re-inventing a great character that has more depth any SW character has.

Again, I don't understand how great epic filmmakers like Lucas, Spielberg, Ford and Koepp came up with this particular version of Indy 4.... I just don't get it. It's rather sub-par. Still pretty good, but not for this team.

Ok, so you were older than I was at the initial screenings.

Interesting.

In that if age at-viewings was a factor, that with Kane being youngest, you being oldest that the middle guy has the problem with the film. Can't be just that then, therefore.

I totaly agree with Paragraphs 2 and 3.

Originally posted by queeq
I'm sure. And I'm sure it's better than the next Mummy film as well. But still.... it's closer to The Lost World than to Jurassic Park if you know what I mean.

LOL Excellent analogy lol

Originally posted by queeq
I think the age argument is lame. Some films I loved as a kid, I consider very sucky. Other films I liked as a kid I still like. A story is a story and that can always be considered on its merits, no matter what the age. Character can also be judged on its merits. And it doesn't take a genius to see how shallow all the side characters are (Mutt excluded).
Plus the story has a few major flaws. And crappy CGI is still crappy CGI. Even the crappy CGI in TLC looked crappy then and it still does now. Yet, teh acting is very enjoyable and the characters have more depth in TLC as well (Sallah, Brody, Elsa, Donovan)

"Lame" is so 90's... we say gay now, instead. but yeah I'm not arguing, it just occured to me when you made that jurassic park analogy, that maybe one of the reasons you liked the first one better is because you've never seen CGI that good before. By the time the second one came around, you already saw it and therefore it wasn't quite as good. Same thing with Jaws and Jaws 2. The audience already knew what the shark looked like and thats why the second one didn't do as good.

maybe just one of the reasons why you didn't like this movie as much as the originals is because there's nothing new or groundbreaking like in the originals. From what I remember reading the reviews of Raider and temple, the truck chase and mine chase was stunning... no one had ever seen anything like them. In KOTCS, the audience is already used to amazing CGI and special effects.

This might have nothing to do with why you didn't like it as much, but maybe for some other people it does.


Or maybe I'm just rambling on about nothing, because I just got home from a 10 hour shift and can't function properly.... whatever

Originally posted by Spartan005
"Lame" is so 90's... we say gay now, instead. but yeah I'm not arguing, it just occured to me when you made that jurassic park analogy, that maybe one of the reasons you liked the first one better is because you've never seen CGI that good before. By the time the second one came around, you already saw it and therefore it wasn't quite as good. Same thing with Jaws and Jaws 2. The audience already knew what the shark looked like and thats why the second one didn't do as good.


You still don't get it. I preferred JP3 over JP2... and I also consider myself a Spielberg admirer. I think the LW story was flawed, it was messy storywise and that didn't make me feel as involved as I felt in JP1... JP3 however was a pleasant surprise. Also due to its considerable shorter length, but it was honest, straightforward, to the point. I felt Jp2 was going over the same thing dealt with in JP1.

I don't judge films by the surprise of the CGI, but how the characters work, how the "world" created works and above all if the story can pull me in... now and in the future.. Raiders does that, TLC does that, even ToD did. This one just kinda keeps me at distance... it's fairly shallow. I think it compares to the Mummy films in many ways. And I think Spielberg is waaayy better that Stephen "I like a lot of crappy CGI" Sommers.

Originally posted by queeq
You still don't get it. I preferred JP3 over JP2... and I also consider myself a Spielberg admirer. I think the LW story was flawed, it was messy storywise and that didn't make me feel as involved as I felt in JP1... JP3 however was a pleasant surprise. Also due to its considerable shorter length, but it was honest, straightforward, to the point. I felt Jp2 was going over the same thing dealt with in JP1.

I don't judge films by the surprise of the CGI, but how the characters work, how the "world" created works and above all if the story can pull me in... now and in the future.. Raiders does that, TLC does that, even ToD did. This one just kinda keeps me at distance... it's fairly shallow. I think it compares to the Mummy films in many ways. And I think Spielberg is waaayy better that Stephen "I like a lot of crappy CGI" Sommers.

Fair enough. Now that I think about it though, the plot in Indy 1, 3 and 4 are all pretty much: Big quest to find artifact, use its power and then watch the bad guys die some horrible fantasy death. Honestly, I think the biggest thing that draws me into movies isn't so much the plot as it is the characters and the acting... one of the reasons why I like KOTCS and the mummy movies as well lol.

but I will hand it too you... the CGI in the Mummy Returns was pretty damn bad

So were the gophers and the monkey scene...

The movie was a huge disappointment! All i really liked was the characters. But the story was really weak. Why did Lucas decide to put aliens in the movie? That had to be the worst idea since jar jar binks!

JarJar in Indy... that would have been the worst. The moment they click the skull in place it transforms into Jar Jar saying: Mesa Back!

Ha. I would have stood up and walked out of the theatre.

No you wouldn't.

Originally posted by jcvaldez
The movie was a huge disappointment! All i really liked was the characters. But the story was really weak. Why did Lucas decide to put aliens in the movie? That had to be the worst idea since jar jar binks!
What was weak about the story? It had a few cheesy scenes but otherwise I liked it.

There was quite a bit weak about the story...

Originally posted by jcvaldez
The movie was a huge disappointment! All i really liked was the characters. But the story was really weak. Why did Lucas decide to put aliens in the movie? That had to be the worst idea since jar jar binks!
AND Darth Maul.okay I finally saw this movie last weekend and here is MY review.yeah I agree the story was REALLY weak and I found it to be a huge disappointment as well.I know i don't understand WHY he went with aliens in the movie. This movie did not measure up to the greatness of the original trilogy.It really felt like it was too rushed.Like they were just trying to get something out just in the nick of time.That they didn't think carefully about it when making this movie,no real thought process into it.

From the very beginning I just had this bad feeling it was going to be bad when it started off with that corny and unnecessary scene of that jeep driving over that chipmunk or whatever animal that was in the ground.totally unnecessary and corny.Just seemed to be going for cheap laughs.and that ant scene was also corny as hell as well and also totally stupid.real dumb.I could see it MAYBE the time when the trio was there and having them there,but the first time? totally corny and dumb. and then those ants coming out of nowhere and coming together like that.so stupid and ridiculous.

and the part where they went over the waterfall 3 times and survived with no bruises or anthing,not ONE person hurt at all.Okay I could swallow the first TWO times that happened,but that third time? that fall was much more dangerous than the other two and someone would have got hurt badly.not very good writing at all.I know the other indy jones had unrealistic moments in them as well but I was still able to enjoy THOSE films because like i said,they seemed cleverly well thought out where this one just seemed rushed.complete waste of a movie,should have stayed buried.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
AND Darth Maul.okay I finally saw this movie last weekend and here is MY review.yeah I agree the story was REALLY weak and I found it to be a huge disappointment as well.I know i don't understand WHY he went with aliens in the movie. This movie did not measure up to the greatness of the original trilogy.It really felt like it was too rushed.Like they were just trying to get something out just in the nick of time.That they didn't think carefully about it when making this movie,no real thought process into it.

From the very beginning I just had this bad feeling it was going to be bad when it started off with that corny and unnecessary scene of that jeep driving over that chipmunk or whatever animal that was in the ground.totally unnecessary and corny.Just seemed to be going for cheap laughs.and that ant scene was also corny as hell as well and also totally stupid.real dumb.I could see it MAYBE the time when the trio was there and having them there,but the first time? totally corny and dumb. and then those ants coming out of nowhere and coming together like that.so stupid and ridiculous.

and the part where they went over the waterfall 3 times and survived with no bruises or anthing,not ONE person hurt at all.Okay I could swallow the first TWO times that happened,but that third time? that fall was much more dangerous than the other two and someone would have got hurt badly.not very good writing at all.I know the other indy jones had unrealistic moments in them as well but I was still able to enjoy THOSE films because like i said,they seemed cleverly well thought out where this one just seemed rushed.complete waste of a movie,should have stayed buried.

Mr Parker,

For this Indiana Jones something different had to be used. The previous Indiana Jones films involved some sort of Religious artifact. Spielberg cleverly switched gears into a more aliens storyline. As I said before, putting Indiana Jones in the 50s was the perfect connection. That was the decade that Science Fiction kick into high gear.

I was glad to see other than a religious artifact as a plot device. Aliens are one of humanity greatest mystery.

Humanity's???? The point about aliens is that they don't have anything to do with humans.

Originally posted by jcvaldez
The movie was a huge disappointment! All i really liked was the characters. But the story was really weak.



All I can say Dwarf is that I think he said exactly the way I feel about it in these two sentences here.That he hit the nail right on the head about the story being weak.It felt rushed and not well thought out at all.I never felt that way about the other three.I know this is off topic here but since we talked about it before, till the next Batman movie comes out Im sticking to Ironman as the movie i will go back and see multiple times.I suggest you hurry up and see Ironman as well and do the same thing.

Originally posted by queeq
Humanity's???? The point about aliens is that they don't have anything to do with humans.

yeah thats a good point.

It is.

Gophers, Monkeys, aliens...

They're the way forward for humanity.

Don't fight it.

Even the CGI versions of them?

Originally posted by queeq
So were the gophers and the monkey scene...

I just knew from the beginning of the movie when they showed that totally unnessary CGI effects of that gopher coming out of his hole that the movie was going to be corny and bad.chessy as hell.They were clearly just going for laughs.The other INDY movies didnt have cheesy stuff like that in them.

Not that cheesy no.

Originally posted by queeq
Even the CGI versions of them?

Especially those.



You guys are right.
The forced-humour comedy tone ruined it as a stablemate of 'Raiders'.

Which is unbeatable it seems.

Especially with 2nd/3rd/4th rate tosh like that last one.

"Never park a 1986 Skoda next to a Bugatti Veyron" as they say.

I do not know how this movie received a majority of good review's. It was a sorry display of filmmaking all around. Either, Lucas was beating spielberg with is money hungry cock, hindering him from doing his job or Spielberg just realized he didn't have to try very hard because it's an Indiana Jones movie and people would pay to see it no matter the quality.

I think both answers are not satisfactory explanations. They lack motivation.

i cant believe some people are still crying because indy 4 wasnt quite the second coming they'd anticipated. It was a bloody enjoyable movie, so bloody enjoy it!

I agree Indy Jones IV was not perfect at all but it was damn entertaining to me and I enjoyed seeing Indy back in action.

Originally posted by Stun
i cant believe some people are still crying because indy 4 wasnt quite the second coming they'd anticipated. It was a bloody enjoyable movie, so bloody enjoy it!

That's your opinion. You enjoyed it, so good for you but if there are people that didn't enjoy it, let them be it doesn't physically or mentally hurt you

But we can do taht if they want to.

Originally posted by Jovan
That's your opinion. You enjoyed it, so good for you but if there are people that didn't enjoy it, let them be it doesn't physically or mentally hurt you

i see your point, but personally i couldnt continue discussing something i hate or didnt like. Mind you, i suppose there is only so much you can discuss for a film you love, but that just isnt the reason i'm here.

What is?

whats so wrong with discussing things that you like? yes, oddly enough that's why i post

it's good to see you liked it considering almost everyone else didn't like it... gives perhaps a new view on things if you can explain them

Stun can post whatever he likes.

Originally posted by Jovan
it's good to see you liked it considering almost everyone else didn't like it... gives perhaps a new view on things if you can explain them

'almost everyone'? - that's highly exagerated, and you know it. Why should i explain myself to you? do not cast me in the minority just because you think your opinion is a universal fact. 'If i can explain them'? was that an insult?

Originally posted by Stun
i cant believe some people are still crying because indy 4 wasnt quite the second coming they'd anticipated. It was a bloody enjoyable movie, so bloody enjoy it!

People are crying because it was sold to us as the second coming by Speilberg, who once again along with Lucas, screwed us.

The opinion on how enjoyable the movie was definitely varies, Stun, certainly enough to warrant the bad feedback that it did.
Fair enough if you liked it, but don't expect everyone to have reacted to the movie with the tolorance that you have shown it.

If you are one of the millions walking out of the cinema angry and swizzled feeling, then Im sure you'd think the enjoyability of the film be questioned by those viewers.

Even hardcore shizier movies are enjoyable to some: but not most.

And this was the filmic equivalent to Speilberg lying on the floor under Lucas's bottom and begging him to unleash a russety torrent.

Originally posted by Stun
'almost everyone'? - that's highly exagerated, and you know it. Why should i explain myself to you? do not cast me in the minority just because you think your opinion is a universal fact. 'If i can explain them'? was that an insult?
no not at all, I'm interested in knowing why you liked it.

We all do.

oh i get it, i've been put on the spot now i've already explained why i like it, and if i put up a good enough argument (like it's necessary) i might not be burned to a stake I admit, it wasnt perfect. If a little confusing at times (second act), but a good homage to the 50's (as the originals were to the 30's) the test site was eery, unmoving, and reflected the general mood, fear and uncertainty of many people in the late 50's. I'd probably say that was my favorite scene. Everything in the first half, because the pacing was just right, you just didnt question it as much as the second half. Overall, i was pleased to see Indiana Jones return. To some fans (including myself) just seeing Harrison return to the role was pleasing enough. Now....let me be

heck, Harisson returning was indeed the highlight and indeed the things you wrote here pleased me too

We let you be. I liked the first half too.

When i re-watch the second half, hopefully i can make more sense of it. It just felt like a blur to me. Sorry if i got a little excited earlier, i do have a few problems with the film - it's understandable that everyone did, i tried to gel with it at times but i got lost somewhere along the way. Saying this, i did enjoy the ride, but it lacked that overall finish.

Anyway, wasnt Raiders' just plain awesome?

hell yeah

indeed.

It defines awesome.

It created the word.

something we all agree on, then?

Just saw it again yesterday. Boy, we are NOT kidding...

i rate it a 9.5. it is better them temple of doom and i liked the whole 50's feel. also i thought mutt was a cool charachter do to the knife throwing. so is it safe to say mutt jones is a knifer and not a whip user?

True. But 9,5... there are very few films in general I'd give a 9,5... That's darn near perfect... And which ever way you turn it, I know at least three Indy movies that do not get such high marks.

True that that was said Kazenji, but Speilberg had said in promotional vids before that that he felt Indy was back.

Regardless of phraseology, I disagreed.
(Unless "Back" in movie terms qualifies as "Popped in for 15 mins before becoming a train wreck/laughing-stock-for-all-the-wrong-reasons so that Lebeouf can be franchised up".)
Alot of people were repelled by the movie, including Queeq hence his totally reasonable non-eye-to-eyeage on the 9.5 for KOTCS.

The playing on the very name of Indy is bad enough, when the actual Indy content was this lame.

Hmmm.. I liked Ford, he was the best thing about the film, so to me he still felt as Indy...

Maybe Spielberg should have rephrased: George is back.


Reading in the Making of Indiana Jones book, I get this weird old-George-new-George feeling. The choices he made then, his sense of judgement then made a lot of sense. Compared to now... it's odd. I think the Howard the Duck experience fried his brain or something.

LOL I suspect youre right..

The holiday special was third-party, but Howard had Lucas bang-to-rights there.

I thought Ford's 1st 20 mins were his best in this flick.

Maybe not his fault though.
The script was clearly written by a caravan full of Baboons who were only that morning given their first sheets of paper with some crayons.

Just another addage-prover regarding the "Good Actor/Bad Movie - Bad actor/Good movie" hypothesis maybe.

I'd really like to have a peek in Frank Darabont's script... the one Spielberg loved, but Lucas didn't.

Yeah I wanna see that too. Without a doubt.

If Lucas turned down a superior script to this movie, then me and him are done, and I would apologise and take back a lot of what I have said here regarding Spielberg's input here, however TFS and WOTW etc still suck.

INterestingly enough... The Making of Indiana Jones doesn't give any script summary of Darabont's script. In all the other movie chapters there are movie summaries of all earlier story and script drafts. About KOTCS... there is none. Something fishy is going on.

Yep.

A deceased whale of such enormous size that it actually causes passing pedestrians to point saying:"Thats no moon....Thats a whaling station!!!" lies rotting somewhere close to the Danish, no mistake.

It smells akin to the poon of the devil herself..

DAMN YOU, LUCAS (You too, Speilberg...!)!!!!

Apparantly Darabonts script has been leaked online somewhere.

Found this about it



And this from the indy wikipedia

Plot


Similar to the finished film, the crystal skulls were remains of aliens worshipped by South Americans, and Marion Ravenwood as Indy's love interest. However, their child is a 13-year old girl, and the villains are Nazis hiding in South America.

It was alwasy about aliens and Roswell. Lucas insisted on that from teh very early beginning. And I don't think the topic is a problem per se, the execution might be. Point is: Spielberg loved Darabont's script... Lucas did not. And now we got this...

Wow... Darabont's script is around on the internet. And I just read it... There are quiet a few elements the same, but it's rather a different story. The Alien element is reduced overall in te film, the ending is like the one in the film now. No Mutt, no Indy's son. But it does ahve a much more complex enemy pallete: it includes Russians, the Peruvian president and army, an ex-nazi and the American government fater Jones on suspicion of being a Russian spy. And there, sides change quite a bit. So the action is more dynamic and focused much more on finding the City of the Gods. The skull serves much more as a McGuffin than in KOTCS. The humor's great.

Even the snake bit has a nice twist: Indy's overcome his fear of snakes until he get swallwed by a huge snake (animals are a lot bigger around the City of the GOds, including ants), he cuts himself free. Later he's afarid again of snakes, screaming when he sees the tiniest snake in his tent.

I think Darabont got it better than Koepp to be frank. But hey...

I think I know why Lucas didn't like it: no Area 51, less aliens (except at the beginning). But the action is better, Oxley's role is much smaller (he's in a cage and used by a rival archeaologist to find the City of the Gods).

What about he kid part, Which one is better Mutt williams or the 13 year old girl character ?

In Darabont's script there is no kid, no Mutt, no girl. Just Indy, Marion (who's married to a rival archaeologist) and an an ex-friend/Russian spy.

perhaps it got rejected because of the toned down alien-part, but perhaps also because Lucas realised that without a kid, they couldn't start milking the Indiana Jones cow further?

No, it was because of the toned down aliens. Lucas wanted a 50's sci-fi flick.

sssssht, I'm bashing lucas for being greedy

And? Did it work?

he should get his head bashed, yes... did I succeed... no, what do you expect from a belgian?

A Belgian eh?

yes, it is even in my profile...

I noticed. Where about in Belgium?

That just reminded me: go see "In Bruges" if you get a chance.
Really dark comedy, but set out there and is excellent with a few Stellas.

and ignore Collin Farell saying it's a shitty town

Indeed.

"Its a like its from a fairy tale."



(Looks for Coke fuelled racist midget, erm.. dwarf, to Karate chop)

Originally posted by Jovan
and ignore Collin Farell saying it's a shitty town

I thought that was the best bit.

I haven't seen it actually, but I heard that part of the movie on some show

'Tis a really dark laugh.

Hohoho?

More like.......weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee....splat.

That bit was messed up. Only in a comedy as dark as that could that guy still have even a short conversation after that drop.

Originally posted by queeq
Wow... Darabont's script is around on the internet. And I just read it... There are quiet a few elements the same, but it's rather a different story. The Alien element is reduced overall in te film, the ending is like the one in the film now. No Mutt, no Indy's son. But it does ahve a much more complex enemy pallete: it includes Russians, the Peruvian president and army, an ex-nazi and the American government fater Jones on suspicion of being a Russian spy. And there, sides change quite a bit. So the action is more dynamic and focused much more on finding the City of the Gods. The skull serves much more as a McGuffin than in KOTCS. The humor's great.

Even the snake bit has a nice twist: Indy's overcome his fear of snakes until he get swallwed by a huge snake (animals are a lot bigger around the City of the GOds, including ants), he cuts himself free. Later he's afarid again of snakes, screaming when he sees the tiniest snake in his tent.

I think Darabont got it better than Koepp to be frank. But hey...

I think I know why Lucas didn't like it: no Area 51, less aliens (except at the beginning). But the action is better, Oxley's role is much smaller (he's in a cage and used by a rival archeaologist to find the City of the Gods).

This honestly sounds way more interesting than KOTCS...

It does.
But then staying in on a saturday night to do the dishes, vacuum and sorting through that pile of old tv guides you want really to throw away is too...
And my kitchen's fridge remains un-nuked.

That was in Darabont's script too.

Strange that Darabont got no script credit.... seems there was a lot of his in Koepp's version.

Baddddddd Darabont...!

Badddddddddddddddd...!!!!

*Smacks Darabont's nose with newspaper and rubs his nose in fridge scene in script before slinging him in the garden.*

Baaaaaaaaaaaddddddd dog!

Hehehe

Awwww He'll be ok.
Mind you, keeping a dog like that in the back yard is a challenge.
They tend to keep escaping through a mile long river of foul smelling sewerage and they emerge smelling of roses....

I'd like to see the "shitscript redemption".
Synopsis: "Frank Darabona is sent to serve a life sentence in Shawshank prison for the crime of allegedly having written portions of K.O.T.C.S... He denies writing the monkey scene, and later a young prisoner by the name of LeBeout. LeBeout tells Frank and his friends that he saw an old lag Lukazz approving that use of the insane script. Word gets round to the warden Speelberge that Darabona is innocent and as Speelberg looks to lose out if this gets round, his bumps off the plucky young prisoner, but will Darabona be able to escape with his last hope of name clearance seemingly erased..?"

Maybe it would star Axl Rose, Richard Simmons and David Hasslehoff as the sisters of D-wing

You are so dyslexic when it comes to names. And its getting worse. Time to get yourself a geriatric consultant.

I'm not too bothered, personally. Hence the disregard.

I definitely will sleep soundly given my reasonable command of English otherwise.

Reasonable indeed.

Oddly the postive reviews seem to have stopped.

How curious.

Have the critics actually seen the movie now..?
Or have Spielberg's PR employees masquerading as reviewer's cheques cleared or bounced..?

Hehehe... why would they review? New reviews will prolly surface when the DVD comes out. We'll see by then.