My first post to the Indy forum in a while now - feels good to be back .
Believe it or not, it's now been exactly one year since "Indy IV" hit the big screen, ending a wait of almost 20 years. My question is, how do you guys feel about it now, distanced from all the hype, excitement, and - for some - disappointment that made it difficult to judge objectively at the time?
For my part, I'm still somewhat conflicted about the finished film. Yes, it was never going to live up to the crushing weight of expectation that had built up over nineteen years, and it's far from a perfect film - but I still very much enjoyed it, and certainly don't regret it being made. In truth, I haven't actually watched it yet for a second time (though I did buy the DVD) - I guess I've just been waiting until I felt "ready" to see it again. And y'know what? Now feels like the perfect opportunity to re-visit it at last ...
What are your thoughts on it?
Ahnold Sez: (From "The Expendables 2"): "My *shoe* is bigger than this cahr!"
I was disappointed with it...I mean seriously wtf!?! Indy survived a nuke via a led fridge and then they had aliens, why not just throw Peter Pan and Tinkerbell into the whole damn thing and then Indy can like fly into outer space and like beat up superman!! Whole movie was a mess...lets face it George and Steve were as high as a kite...they didn't go to the moon they went to f*cking Jupiter
I hated it the first time, I loathed it the second time but haven't come around to see it for a third time...
It's pretty simple: Spielberg wanted a classic Indy, Lucas wanted an absurd rediculous Indy. I don't mind the aliens (considering we already had the Grail & the Ark), but while the original stories were more about the search of the artifact, the new Indy was about ...well... stopping Commies? If they just had the alien-part in the end it would have worked much better (also, trim down or delete the last scene with the UFO flying off).
Oh and despite them saying they didn't use much CGI... it showed... badly.
__________________ Kyuzo: Don't you see? A real sword will kill you. Mr. Earl Brooks: If I were here to kill you, you would already be dead. Mercedes: My mother told me to be wary of Fauns. Mr. Le Chiffre: No, I believe in a reasonable rate of return. James Bond: Now the whole world will know you died while you were scratching my balls!
Roger Eberts review summed up my thoughts nicely: If you eat four pounds of sausage, how do you choose which pound tasted the best? Well, the first one, of course, and then there's a steady drop-off of interest. That's why no Indy adventure can match "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981). But if "Crystal Skull" (or "Temple of Doom" from 1984 or "Last Crusade" from, 1989) had come first in the series, who knows how much fresher it might have seemed?
It is possible ya know. But not if you just go out copying Raiders like tehy did on KOTCS, using teh excuse that that is 'what the fans want'. We don't a lame rip off of something that's been done before, we like something we HAVEN'T seen before.
If anything, LC was a blantant plagerization of "Raiders". And Sean Connery didn't do too much for me, neither did the other characters or the storyline. I like the movie, but I think its inferior to KOTCS. At least Indy IV has the virtue of being different. At worst, it's an interesting failure, but I liked it a lot.
It's hard to compare Indiana Jones to "Star Wars" or "The Godfather" because the latter two are more interested in their story arcs and characterization than Indy is. Indy is pure adventure, while the other two are bigger in scope.
Long story arcs.... from Young Indy all the way to the Last crusade....?
Some would say that that was a long ass arc.
(A lot longer hourswise than the Godfather trilogy.)
And I would defintely dispute the use of the word "interesting" that you popped in before the word "failure".
And why just use the one descriptive?
I admire your restraint sir, when you could have rightfully chosen any of:
"Sterile, uninspired and over cynical then overtly insipid."
"Catastrophic, souless and immensely boring"
"Glossy, shallow as a puddle and intellectually bankrupt."
"The pinnacle of the art of being 'the anus of filmaking'."
"The kids movie that immasculated Indiana Jones."
Not to mention the classic "shit".
"Van Zan is the Pinocchio of feces." - Lestov16
Last edited by Sadako of Girth on May 31st, 2009 at 12:58 AM