comment #1

actionman says ...

I enjoyed this film. It was silly as fuck and surprisingly messy in more than a few departments, but I still enjoyed it. I just don't think I could ever hate on Indy.

comment #2

actionman says ...

Oh, and this trailer spoof is weak.

comment #3

Ryansi51 says ...

i love indy and really didn't want to hate on it either... but man, it's hard not to. definitely silly as fuck, but more than that seemed like such a squandered opportunity to make a great film.

goddamn i hate george lucas.

comment #4

Josh Massey says ...

I'm not sure what that footage is from, because there clearly wasn't another Indiana Jones sequel after Last Crusade.

You hear me? IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

(And neither did Rocky V, Superman III and IV, Vegas Vacation, and anything with Vs. in the title.)

comment #5

BurmaShave says ...

That was terrible. And there's no need to discuss or parody this film any further after the devastating SOUTH PARK rape scene.

comment #6

D.Z. says ...

On a related note, Howard the Duck is available for free on Hulu, and is out on DVD next month.

comment #7

actionman says ...

superman III is a masterpiece

molded plastic seats!

comment #8

Jake says ...

I just don't think I could ever hate on Indy.

And at the end of the day, it was Indy. Harrison Ford gave a surprisingly physical performance in this- especially for a 65-year-old man.

I just have a hard time believing that either Temple of Doom or Last Crusade would've fared much better with 2008 audiences.

comment #9

Chase Kahn says ...

I agree Jake, I watched 'Last Crusade' before 'Indy 4' came out: ummm.....

comment #10

MindlessObamaton says ...

Have yet to even want to see Indy 4. Just sayin'.

comment #11

BurmaShave says ...

To all those comparing this warmed over piece of crap with charisma and nostalgia at the center of it with the sheer pleasure than is LAST CRUSADE: You chose... poorly.

comment #12

Josh Massey says ...

Truth is, the character Indiana Jones has only been featured in one great movie. It was followed by two pretty good ones, and one seriously awful entry.

comment #13

Rich S. says ...

Despite all of Jeffrey's snark about the weed, you could not lay the failure of Indy IV at the feet of Harrison Ford (aside from his agreeing to do it in the first place). He was as good as ever, maybe even better than Last Crusade.

The movie itself, however, was disastrous. Spielberg working out his daddy issues - again - and Lucas doing everything he could to crap on his legacy.

Thank goodness the Lego Indiana Jones video game came out right around the same time to remind us how much fun the series used to be.

comment #14

markj says ...

LAST CRUSADE is a terrible movie, a bad remake of Raiders, replacing that films sense of wonder and mystery with lazy action sequences, terrible humour (especially the completely different characterisations of Sallah and Brody) and Sean Connery's tired schtick. At least Indy got to be Indy in Skull, and not Connery's sidekick.

comment #15

Jake says ...

I agree Jake, I watched 'Last Crusade' before 'Indy 4' came out: ummm.....

Exactly. There's no denying that the film was still created in the same spirit as the previous sequels.

Temple and Crusade also featured silly plots and included their share of shallow, stereotypical characters. Villains such as Mola Ram or Colonel Vogel weren't even provided backstories!

And for all the hate he received, Shia's character at least delivered actual dialogue. Compare this to Short Round, who spent most of the film saying things like, "Hold on to your potatoes!" and "Okey Dokey, Dr. Jones!" There is no way that his character- or Willie Scott- would've been warmly received by 2008 audiences.

LAST CRUSADE is a terrible movie, a bad remake of Raiders

This has long been an online complaint of Crusade, just as Temple has long been criticized for its broad comedy and weak stereotypes. It speaks volumes that many of Indy 4's biggest critics still failed to rank the film last in the series.

Ultimately, the argument against Indy 4 is just a tired, unimaginative one against Lucas. Both Lucas and Spielberg are 60-year-old men who were attempting to relive their youth while creating something for the entire family. This was never going to turn out well for fanboys that can't let go of the 1981 version of Spielberg.

Yes, there are things in Indy 4 that the younger Spielberg wouldn't have done. The same could be said of elements in Temple and Crusade. But the fact remains that Indy 4 is very much a Spielberg creation. Many of the film's most hated moments- such as the swinging monkeys or the shot of the little monkey surviving- were put in at his insistence.

comment #16

D.Z. says ...

Jake: Shortround wasn't the one who sucked, though. It was that love-interest. I mean she actually got her own friggin' dance number! What the hell was that about?! And Indy 4 actually has the worst IMDB rating and RT score of the series, and is the first one be up for a Razzie Award. So I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about, regarding rankings. As for Shia's dialogue, it was mostly about the treasure, which anyone could friggin' discuss. And last time I checked, it was George who ok'ed the script.

comment #17

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Actionman, you are such an easy lay with certain genres. I love me some Indy, but no way does this one get a pass...I'd easily rank it fourth of the series (but yeah, Last Crusade isn't very good, either). I knew that much after exiting the theater after the midnight showing last May.

Major suckage.

comment #18

Jake says ...

And Indy 4 actually has the worst IMDB rating and RT score of the series, and is the first one be up for a Razzie Award. So I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about, regarding rankings.

It's also the only Indy sequel to be released in the internet age. This means everyone got to vote on it at the same time- as opposed to judging it after 20 years of hindsight.

Remember, sites like IMDB and RT can only reveal how older films are currently regarded by an online community. They can't provide an accurate snapshot of how the films were originally received. If anything, those scores suggest that Indy 4 will be re-evaluated in time, just as its predecessors have been.

But my point with the rankings is that none of the Indy sequels have been unanimously panned. You're as likely to find someone citing Temple as their least favorite as Crusade or Kingdom.

comment #19

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Good points about the internet age, Jake. I even agree with your last point, but I would argue that the inverse probably isn't true. I don't think you are as likely to find someone citing Kingdom as their favorite Indy sequel as Temple or Crusade. But like you said, it's still early and its re-evaluation cycle hasn't yet begun.

comment #20

frankbooth says ...

Of the many regrets I harbor in life, skipping this movie is not one of them. Especially after watching this. Maybe I'll get around to it after I finally see Star Wars Episodes 2 and 3, the Texas Chainsaw remake, the last Mummy movie (or the first two) and Pluto Nash.

And Last Crusade is the second best of the original three. It's not half as annoying as Temple of Endless Screaming.

comment #21

MathewM says ...

I enjoyed the more non-sensical moments in Indy 4. The rest of the film is a bore though. The finale is just lame thoug with Indy going through the motions being along for the ride. Harrison is 65 years old though so I can forgive some of it.

What I get tired of is all the Temple of Doom hate. Outside of a few filler scenes the film is non-stop fun. Sure Mrs. Spielberg is shrill throughout but overall its the most fun of the Indy series and nothing tops the final half-hour of that film.

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

Jake: Yeah, and TPM is the first SW film to be released during the internet age. But people still think it sucks ten years later, and they'll likely feel that way about Indy 4. And the only reason that people are defending the last one was because of Ford. If Lucas goes ahead with his dumb idea to make Shia the lead in a fivequel, you can bet it'll be considered the TPM of the series.

comment #23

Jake says ...

I don't think you are as likely to find someone citing Kingdom as their favorite Indy sequel as Temple or Crusade.

I agree with you- to the extent that we are discussing movie fans in their teens or twenties.

But I've found it to be a generational thing, with the majority of people who liked it being over the age of 30 or 40. Now obviously, this is only based on my own observations since the film opened, but it's one reason why I find the topic interesting.

Older fans identified with Indy's realization that life has started taking things away, and how he ultimately has to grow up a bit. I believe Wells' cited a similar trend after those initial screenings: Younger audiences were puzzled, while older members felt it was the best of the sequels.

TPM is the first SW film to be released during the internet age. But people still think it sucks ten years later, and they'll likely feel that way about Indy 4.

TPM is actually a great example of what I'm talking about here. When it was released, there were very few people who didn't rank it behind the original trilogy. In the case of Indy 4, it was more common to find it ranked third- even among those who hated it.

My point is that the sequels have all been a mixed bag. Even looking over this thread, there's no clear winner for 2nd place. I maintain that Indy 4 finds itself in the same category. It may not have as many defenders as the ones everyone grew up with, but it still resonated with a lot of older viewers.

comment #24

Jake says ...

If Lucas goes ahead with his dumb idea to make Shia the lead in a fivequel, you can bet it'll be considered the TPM of the series.

Now on this we agree. Lucas quickly backed off the idea of a Mutt-centric film, and I don't think Spielberg or Ford would've agreed to it anyway.

But if they do make a fifth movie, turning it into a direct sequel won't do Indy 4 any favors. I suppose Marion will have to return, but otherwise it should be another stand-alone entry.

If not, Indy 4 will have a much harder time being re-evaluated as just another pulp adventure.

comment #25

D.Z. says ...

Jake: "Older fans identified with Indy's realization that life has started taking things away, and how he ultimately has to grow up a bit. I believe Wells' cited a similar trend after those initial screenings: Younger audiences were puzzled, while older members felt it was the best of the sequels."

Again, that had to do with Ford, not with the material.

"TPM is actually a great example of what I'm talking about here. When it was released, there were very few people who didn't rank it behind the original trilogy."

Actually, there were plenty of people who hated it. That's actually why Austin Powers 2 did so well on its opening weekend-because audiences figured they might as well see a film which was intentionally a comedy. TPM just got repeat viewings, because the fanboys booked the seats in advance for multiple screenings, and it took forever to get in, if you were a regular viewer.

comment #26

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"TPM is actually a great example of what I'm talking about here. When it was released, there were very few people who didn't rank it behind the original trilogy. In the case of Indy 4, it was more common to find it ranked third- even among those who hated it."

I have to be honest -- and I am in the teen to 20something demographic u cited earlier (so maybe you are onto something there) -- you are the first person that I've noticed (in real-life or actual reviews) who has mentioned anything about ranking it in front of one of the other 80s entries.

comment #27

Jake says ...

Perhaps I shouldn't have used that first sentence about it being a great example, since it just only served to confused my point.

What I meant was it was very hard to find someone who DID consider TPM to be better than the original trilogy. We're all in agreement here that it was- for the most part- unanimously considered to be the worst of the four movies.

So my point is that this was not the case with Indy 4. It was still quite common to find people who considered Temple of Crusade to be the weakest entry. (Unlike what we saw with TPM.)

comment #28

Jake says ...

And then I wrote that reply too hastily...so it's almost as confusing...but you get my point. (Sorry, but I was trying to add that reply before walking out the door! LOL)