Spare us all! Another Indiana Jones film could be on the way (1 Viewer)

[Chuck Mayer]

I thought many fans were happy with it. I wasn't. But it was pretty well-reviewed at the time of release. Of all things, I thought it was lifeless and staid, with boring villains, a fairly reactive and low energy Indy, and completely toothless. I tried watching it with my son a year or so later, and he wasn't watching it, and it couldn't keep my interest at all.

 

It's not a terrible film, by any stretch. Pointless is the word I would use to describe it. If they want to make a fifth, then I'll reserve judgement until I read a few reviews (which won't be so nostalgia-fueled this time around, one hopes) and see some footage.

 

[WillG]

 

...and really, there is no room for Aliens in an Indiana Jones

movie

 

To me, that's one of the more overcritical complaints. I understand that many did not like the Alien thing, but in a world of faces being melted off by the Ark of the Covenant, magically pulling hearts from people's chest and the victims not dying, possession, voodoo dolls, immortality, aging hundreds of years within seconds, why can't there be aliens? It's a huge facet of Earthly myth. And if you want to keep with a religious angle like the other films do, remember, there's a religion out there that gets a lot of attention these days that seems to be founded on Aliens.

 

[cafink]

As I said earlier, I was disappointed with the film, but the alien thing never bothered me, and I never really understood the complaints of those whom it did bother. I thought it fit in well with the whole supernatural/fantastical Indiana Jones mythos, as Will points out.

 

For me, the one thing that really hurt the movie was Indy's pronunciation of "nuclear."

 

[Pete-D]

 

Crystal skull mythology is definitely the real deal:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_skull

 

Though the alien bit ... might've stretched it. There are stories/theories/myths that the Mayans and perhaps other past civilizations were visited by alien species though ... and they could've brought Atlantis into the whole thing too.
 

But it didn't quite all click in the film. I think the one thing I did like was the 50s angle with the teenage racers at the beginning and the soda pop shop ... but the movie really needed 1 or 2 extra doses of "fun/atmosphere" and a few script tweaks and character changes.

 

[Steve_Tk]

I welcome another IJ, however I forgot the 4th one ten minutes after the movie was over. In fact, I haven't seen it since the theater and will only catch it again when it comes on HBO. Obviously not the worst movie I have ever seen by a long shot, but I just remember being really bored in the theater and can't remember any of the details to this day.

 

[Chad R]

Originally Posted by Bryan X

Here's one thing that bothered me about 4. And maybe someone can correct me if I'm interpreting it wrong, but I felt that Indy was too cooperative with the enemy. To me it seemed way out of character. For example, in the beginning at the warehouse, I don't think the old Indy would have cooperated with the Russians. But here we get him leading them right to the artifact they wanted. Sure, he may have just been buying time to escape, but I still think it was out of character for him to be that accommodating. I picture the old Indy telling them to "go to hell", getting roughed up, and then finding some way to escape. I can't remember specifically, but even in the jungle camp, I think I remember him being a bit overly helpful to the Russians. It just seemed out of character for him.

 

Well, he did have the safety of Mac to worry about at the time, not just his own. Kinda the same reason he lead Donavan to the Grail room in Last Crusade. He didn't find out Mac was a traitor until after he lead them to the artifact. Not to mention his own intellectual curiosity of what happened to it got the better of him.
 

 

[Chuck Anstey]

Originally Posted by Chad R

Not to mention his own intellectual curiosity of what happened to it got the better of him.
 

See, to me that is exactly what was missing in IJ4. There was no sense of curiosity and wonder, just saving one's ass through the whole film. IJ wouldn't have even been looking for the crystal skull if it wasn't for the enemy forcing him to do it. It wasn't like Mutt showed up and pique Indiana's curiosity about some famous artifact that he had proof existed but couldn't find but Mutt was really being forced by the Russians to do it and trying to save what's his name under the influence of the skull. Dump the Mac character completely and eliminate everything to do with the warehouse and Nevada. Start with Mutt showing up at school trying to get IJ to help him find the ancient Mayan civilization and the crystal skull. Do some real adventuring before going into the obligatory car chases/fights with the enemy. IJ was both tough and extremely knowledgeable about all things old. Use that knowledge to track down the skull and interact with the locals. Instead all we got was the tough part.
 

 

[Chad R]

Well, it wasn't much different in Last Crusade, was it? He turns down Donovan's initial request until he learns that his Father has gone missing.Then he only goes on the adventure to save him, not because he wanted to find the Grail. He even tells Kazim that he isn't looking for the Grail, but rather his father. The actual quest in that film is to reconnect with his father, not find the Grail. And just like Crystal Skull, Indy spends some time retracing the steps of someone before him.

 

And he's always gone on his adventures for one reason, but winds up finding other emotional journeys. In Raiders he was only searching for the Ark because the government wanted him to.Through the course of that quest he reconnects with Marion and starts fighting for her. In Temple of Doom it was because the Shaman asked him to. And in that case he only does it for "fortune and glory" at first. Only later does he really learn the value of rescuing the children when he sees what they're being forced to do.

 

Like I said before, there are problems with each of the sequels, I just think the good outweighs the bad. I don't think there's anything as egregious in Crystal Skull as there is in Last Crusade which practically made Indy a thief and a murderer. He steals the Cross of Coronado from "looters" in the cave displaying his then ignorance between archaeological digging and looting, but that's to be expected of a young man. But then they flash forward to when he's a grown man stealing the artifact back from its rightful owner because it "belonged in a museum". Do you know how many historical artifacts reside in personal collections? Plenty. But Indy steals it from him and kills several people doing it. With that as the precedent, I'm surprised he didn't shoot Donovan to reclaim the grail tablet and the friar's diary "for the museum". But to me, the rest of the film makes up for that misstep in the beginning. Sometimes you gotta learn to take the good with the bad.

 

[Edwin-S]

^^^^^^

The difference is that Ford and Sean Connery had pretty good chemistry as a reconnecting father/son pair in Last Crusade. The Labeouf/Ford pairing in Crystal Skull was mostly just boring.

 

[Chad R]

Shia's and Harrison's chemistry was loads better than Harrison's and Kate Capshaw's. But, to each their own.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Chad R

Shia's and Harrison's chemistry was loads better than Harrison's and Kate Capshaw's. But, to each their own.

I'll give you that. Ford and Cate Blanchett's chemistry was almost non-existent. I also didn't like the way Karen Allen's "Marion Ravenwood" character was handled in KoTCS. Frankly, there were too many characters in the film. They badly needed to pare down the number of character arcs that they were following. For example, I think Oxley and Mac could have been dispensed with earlier.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

Bring back Short Round!

 

[Ron-P]

There's no question that this forth film is the worst of the bunch, by a long shot. But, if another is made, I'll see it. As bad as they are, there still fun to watch.

 

[Tim Glover]

Originally Posted by Ron-P /forum/thread/303247/spare-us-all-another-indiana-jones-film-could-be-on-the-way/30#post_3723990

 

[SilverWook]

 

Originally Posted by Chad R

Like I said before, there are problems with each of the sequels, I just think the good outweighs the bad. I don't think there's anything as egregious in Crystal Skull as there is in Last Crusade which practically made Indy a thief and a murderer. He steals the Cross of Coronado from "looters" in the cave displaying his then ignorance between archaeological digging and looting, but that's to be expected of a young man. But then they flash forward to when he's a grown man stealing the artifact back from its rightful owner because it "belonged in a museum". Do you know how many historical artifacts reside in personal collections? Plenty. But Indy steals it from him and kills several people doing it. With that as the precedent, I'm surprised he didn't shoot Donovan to reclaim the grail tablet and the friar's diary "for the museum". But to me, the rest of the film makes up for that misstep in the beginning. Sometimes you gotta learn to take the good with the bad.

"Rightful owner" by virtue of paying a bunch of goons to dig it up for him, and non existent laws protecting archeological sites in that era? It's been a while since I've seen the film, but I think it's open to debate whether Indy was working for someone in recovering the cross as an adult.

 

[Chad R]

Originally Posted by SilverWook

"Rightful owner" by virtue of paying a bunch of goons to dig it up for him, and non existent laws protecting archeological sites in that era? It's been a while since I've seen the film, but I think it's open to debate whether Indy was working for someone in recovering the cross as an adult.

Rightful owner as a decision made by the sheriff who took it from young Indy and turned it over to what he said was, "the rightful owner." Coronado lived in the 16th century making that piece very rightfully an archaeological artifact. By the laws then, whomever dug it up, owned it. Indy stole it. He would have better negotiated with the man to allow the museum to display it on loan, as many pieces are.

 

Then he turns it over to Marcus so it can take a "place of honor in our Spanish collection." And then Indy suggests they discuss his,"honorarium over dinner." He stole it for money. How was he any different than the "goons" that were paid to dig it up? Well, they were archaeologists on a dig, he just stole it and killed several people for it. So he's a lot worse.

 

[Brent M]

Originally Posted by Ron-P

There's no question that this forth film is the worst of the bunch, by a long shot. But, if another is made, I'll see it. As bad as they are, there still fun to watch.

This pretty much sums up how I feel. I thought Indy IV was very weak, but curiousity would still have me in the theater for a fifth movie. None of the sequels were ever able to top Raiders so I certainly wouldn't expect another entry in the franchise to top it, but I could at least hold out hope it would be better than the last attempt.

 

[Brent M]

Originally Posted by Brent M




This pretty much sums up how I feel. I thought Indy IV was very weak, but curiousity would still have me in the theater for a fifth movie. None of the sequels were ever able to top Raiders so I certainly wouldn't expect another entry in the franchise to achieve that, but I could at least hold out hope it would be better than the last attempt.

 

[SilverWook]

 

Originally Posted by Chad R

A lot of what Indy does in all the films could be considered theft from various points of view. Belloq even gloats there isn't much difference between them. Someone in Temple of Doom brings up the tomb robber accusation. It probably should have been set up a lot better, but I seriously doubt Spielberg was out to make Indy that deliberately crooked in Crusade. One could also make a case that Indy has gotten a lot of people killed over the years. Must be hard to hire guys to lug your gear into the jungle sometimes.

 

Was "Panama Hat" guy constantly on the run from Indy with the cross all that time? And IIRC, weren't those goons about to toss Indy into a storm tossed ocean? Mind you, if Indy had broken into the guy's house and shot up the place, that would put him in a pretty bad light.

 

[TerryRL]

I actually dug Indy IV and am looking forward to the fifth movie.

 

The only thing I really didn't like was the whole monkey-swinging-through-the-trees sequence, other than that I thought Indy IV was a fun flick.