comment #1

Bocephus says ...

The whole movie would have been redeemed if they had used the dancing Caddyshack puppet.

comment #2

Richardson says ...

I have to assume whoever wrote that hasn't seen 'Caddyshack' for a while, or has never seen a real gopher.

comment #3

Jeffrey Kunze says ...

The more I reflect upon Indy IV the more it seems like a combo of National Treasure/The Mummy and the more I hate it.

Hate.

It.

Still adore the original three though!

comment #4

Rosebudsthesled says ...

I can't say that I hate the 4th Indy film at all, but I can't say I particularly loved it either. What made RAIDERS great was the visceral thrill you got from watching real stuntmen. You lose that when you're trapped in a world of CGI effects for two hours.

Spielberg needs to concern himself less with making blockbusters and try to make a small thriller. He needs to make a LIVES of OTHERS or something and forget trying to deliver big huge spectacles.

comment #5

Richardson says ...

Rosebud - After I finally, belatedly, saw 'The Sugarland Express', I realized that Spielberg just isn't capable of doing a small thriller. It's not the way his cinematic mind works. (See also: "The Terminal"; nobody else could've made a story that small into a movie that big.)

comment #6

breadlymoore says ...

I saw Indy 4 again...and LOVED it.

Funny how this film is being picked apart while THE STRANGERS - a lousy chunk of cinematic swiss cheese - is left alone.

comment #7

Balthazar says ...

It wasn't the CGI that bothered me, it was the sets.

The only thing that truly bums me out about it are the number of scenes that were unnecessarily shot on sound stages -- the scene outside the secret hangar, the South American graveyard, all of the stuff in the Russian's Brazilian tent camp. That took me out of the film a little too much, realizing that nothing extended more than five feet past where they were shooting.

Beyond that, though, I can't deny it was entertaining. I enjoyed it and I was glad to see Indiana Jones again. I didn't feel like I was watching Harrison Ford try to act. I felt like I was watching Indiana freaking Jones, and that made me grateful and happy.

comment #8

D.Z. says ...

It's gone down to a 7.2 at IMDB. Any lower, and we're talking Phantom Menace territory.

comment #9

DarthCorleone says ...

Crystal Skull is a dungheap.

comment #10

twicks says ...

The first hour is genuinely fun and clever...which makes the whole thing almost more painful. A really good Indy movie was within their grasp, and they blew it.

It starts to go off the rails somewhere during that deadly long sequence in the tomb when they find the skull.

comment #11

MAGGA says ...

I agree, twicks, though I think the Ford-Shia conversation at the market prior to the tomb scene hinted that the film might be a little exposition-heavy. The scene in Doom-town was sublime

comment #12

Aris P says ...

Small list of things explaining why this movie sucked balls. Anyone who claims otherwise is giving this film points based on it's past. Period.

1. Was there one other memorable "whip" moment, other than the warehouse scene?
2. Were our heroes ever in real danger for one single solitary second?
3. Other than the first 45 mins, did anything in this film look like it wasn't shot on a stage?
4. After the heroic, triumphant return of MARION (!!!) did she and Indy share one real moment, in any respect, talking, mentioning, even hinting at their past? MARION (!!!) aka marketing gimmick.
5. The CG groundhog, or chipmunk or whatever it was at the, oh, 5 second mark of the film.
6. Shia swinging form vines like tarzan.
7. Some instances of truly bad lighting by Kaminski
8. Aliens. Been there seen that in countless books, tv shows, and movies, and to much better results. Yawn.
9. Ray Winstone being a triple agent. Why?
10. The evil russians show up every time Indy and crew do something. How fresh and exciting.
11. MARION (!!!!) putting on her adventure hat after all those years and driving a truck off a thousand foot waterfall. Of course! Brilliant.
12. The watered down, awful, by the numbers script.
13. John Hurt -- useless character, used as sad comic relief.
14. THEY GET MARRIED AT THE END. really? wow, thats not trite and obvious and lame.
15. Indy was in the CIA? ok, maybe that's cool. Of course it was never mentioned again. Indy was fired by the school for being a supposed Commie sympathizer? Ok maybe that's cool. Of course, it was never mentioned again.
16. etc etc etc etc etc

Please feel free to add to this list.

comment #13

breadlymoore says ...

Aris, was this your very first movie experience?

Sounds like it.

"Pandas can't do kung fu...DUHHHH!"

comment #14

Aris P says ...

Right. Suspension of disbelief is one thing. Laughing chipmunks, and driving off cliffs and a hollow script, however, throw that notion out the window completely.

We all know there were instances in all three previous Indy movies where we rolled our eyes and laughed, but I was invested in the rest of the scenes. This film was one big video game. It was paced like one, shot like one, plotted like one and looked like one.

I'm sorry but if i "just want to enjoy the experience", as most blindly do based on franchise history, the film has to make some kind of sense.

comment #15

Roman says ...

I loved this movie on it's OWN terms. I don't need anyone else telling me why I loved it.

And I will see it a third time (and more).

Oh and also, Iron Man sucked balls. So there.

comment #16

GlassFamily says ...

Aside from the laughable CGI Groundhogs, the worst moment to me was the Shia LeBouf vine-swinging with an army of monkeys. Seriously?

Oh, and his entrance ripping off "The Wild One." Pee-Wee Herman looked tougher on his bike.

Oh, and were there not more songs around back then than "Hound Dog" or "Shake Ratte N Roll?" I mean, Back to the Future managed to dig up some songs that weren't beaten to death...

I'm just sore is all.

comment #17

Spacesheik says ...

Forget the Shia Tarzan and the other bullshit.

Did they go on location to shoot this? It certainly doesn't look like it. One bad movie set to another.

No booby traps. How the fuck can you have a Indy film with no traps?!

Used his whip maybe twice in the whole film, once during the warehouse scene more prominently.

Didnt use his gun.

Indy was wasted the last 30 minutes of the film. He had nothing to do or solve.

Marion was wasted, it was a thankless role.

Way too many sidekicks following Indy.

Where the fuck was the John Williams score? Or was the film so badly edited by Michael Kahn that Williams lost interest? So many damn scenes have no music at all.

Never end an Indy movie with a fucking wedding. End it with a cryptic occult reference (i.e. the warehouse in RAIDERS).

comment #18

Zimmergirl says ...

Nope, once is enough with this one. The waterfalls, the monkeys and vines, the aliens, poor Karen Allen - it is a serious turkey. And it's George Lucas' fault. This was your real chance to rip Spielberg a new one, Wells. Damned internet commerce....

comment #19

Matthew Lucas says ...

They're prairie dogs, not gophers or groundhogs.

comment #20

polarbear2 says ...

Give the monkeys a break everybody. The Indiana Jones movies were created as an homage to the thirties action film serials. People were always swinging from vines in those flicks. Sure it may seem silly to us film snobs today, but so did giant rolling boulders to the snobs back in 1981.
I don't mind absurdity. That has always been part of the Indiana Jones series. But another hallmark has been the exotic location shooting. The brilliant use of musical notes and lighting and cinematography that genuinely created an exciting, foreign and thrilling setting for the action. I never felt like I was in South America during the second half of this movie. I never felt like they left the back lot or the green screen room. The movie just felt..cheap.
Also I didn't like how irrelevant Indy was to the storyline. He wasn't being a treasure hunter or a grave robber. He didn't do anything important to the conclusion. He was just part of a tour group being led around by crazy guide John Hurt. And none of them had to work to figure out their next step. Every hurdle they had to overcome was solved by waving their magic skull around. Compare that to the beginning of 'Raiders', or the end of 'Crusade', where Indy, by himself, had to intelligently and independently deal with each crisis in turn.
I don't feel completely burned by the movie. The first part was fun, and cleverly played with the fifties setting. And the Jones family dynamics were cute, though ruined by the addition of the completely extraneous Ray Winstone character. Why was he there? Was he a leftover element from an earlier draft that Spielberg felt too attached to?

comment #21

Craptastic says ...

Please. No more Indy talk. Reading this thread just brought my depression from 2 weeks ago back. :(

comment #22

moorish says ...

Roman - Iron Man sucked and Indy IV is good? You are insane. Seriously. INSANE.

comment #23

Movie Watcher says ...

I was disappointed. This is all the Lucas/Speilberg crew can come up with? Ouf of the 4 Indy movies, this is the third best. As bad as it is, it is still better that Temple of doom, barely. At least that one had the bridge/mine/ action. The fact that Sex and the City beat it this past weekend is embarassing. The ending, where Shia almost gets the fedora was dumb. Of course he's going to move the franchise forward, so why did Indy snatch it? I won't be seeing it again.

comment #24

moviemaniac2002 says ...

I know in this day and age it's a heresy, but
I couldn't help getting a warm fuzzy nostalgic
feeling about the soundstage "exterior" they
used for Area 51. Reminded me of Hitchcock's
infamous(but now much beloved) "Baltimore
street" exterior in "Marnie", complete with
huge painted picture of a ship at the end of the
street.

comment #25

Spacesheik says ...

"The brilliant use of musical notes and lighting and cinematography that genuinely created an exciting, foreign and thrilling setting for the action. "

Absolutely, and that is one of the film's biggest blunders - the lack of those aspects.

If Spielberg is just a bored director, interested in 1 take shots and editing one film while shooting another, then why the hell did he agree to do this?

Everyone involved with this film did a piss poor job technically, Spielberg, Kaminski, Kahn, Williams etc - its like they all conspired to do the shittiest job they could.

Now I hate the MUMMY flicks, they are McDonald-Indy fast food flicks but at least they deliver the goods actionwise. I saw the trailer for MUMMY 3 and it looks like it has some major action setpieces and scope to it - something totally lacking in INDY 4.

comment #26

jany says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability solutions

comment #27

Cheap Sunglasses 2011 says ...

Life is a flower of which love is the honey.