Indiana Jones

I want to see it so much. People say that its a great movie. People also say its a horible movie. From what they said I am between them. I don't know if it is good or horible.But we may get it for christmas.
 
Oh God. If you liked all of the previous movies, you probably won't like this movie at all. For starters:

Why did the monkeys all of a sudden decide to help that kid? I felt like I was watching Tarzan.

Why does the skull, which works as a giant magnet, attract pennies? Pennies are made from copper. Hmm...

How the hell did Indiana Jones and the gang survive falling down THREE waterfalls?! Funny how they weren't even wet when they got out...

And let's not forget the ants! All of a sudden thousands of ants decide to be like barrel monkeys and hold each other up, one by one, until they finally reach this bitch that's hanging from a tree. They also carry one of her sidekicks down into an ant hill.

Speaking of the bitch, she tells an alien in a Mayan temple that she wants to know everything about the world. He then grants her her wish, and she painfully dies. Forgot how she died, but it was painful looking.

Oh, and after that last scene, a UFO comes out of the temple. Brilliant.

Also, Indiana Jones and the bitch I was just telling you about have a SWORD FIGHT on a MOVING CAR! I kid you not, why there of all places?!

The fridge thing was pretty darn stupid, too.

To me, this movie was more
sci-fi
than adventure.

In conclusion, I think this movie sucks.

*waits for flames*
 
Yeah overall the 4th Indiana Jones was a great movie but it is kind of complicated but I really dislike the part with the red ants. The crystal skull is an alien Wtf for real.
 
I loved the first three Indiana Jones, especially the 2nd. The little asian kid was the cutest thing ever! But the newest movie was complete garbage. I agree with everything that previous posters have said above me.
The whole alien thing just didn't sit right with me. The concept didn't feel like an Indiana Jones movie.

AGREED to the power of a million that the CGI looked like CRAP. It was almost as if the older ones were more convincing. Plus, Shia's character was beyond annoying (and I actually like Shia).
The "hat scene" at the end of the movie was just about to piss me off, until Indie takes it away. Gawd, I hope they don't follow through with the idea of Shia as the new Indie -___-
Even still, I didn't really like the way they ended it, especially since the end to The Last Crusade was pretty epic imo :\

Though, to be fair, as bad as it was, it wasn't so bad that it ruined the legacy of the first three films. I still love the series, and next time I watch them I will happily enjoy them as much as I always have, while ignoring that a fourth film ever existed.
 
To all of you that are saying the 4th movie was far-fetched... It wasn't too much of a deviation from other Indies.

As an Indie fan myself it didn't seem too crazy at all. Yes it had odd and peculiar and almost cringe worthy scenes... But so did ALL Indies!

Inflatable raft out of plane scene anyone?
Intervention of God in Raiders?
Holy healing water in The Last Crusade?
A knight that had lived for hundreds of years in The Last Crusade?
Indie getting Hitlers autograph in The Last Crusade?!

Honestly, Indie isn't meant to be taken seriously. This film is just the same. Just because other franchises and films at the moment are becoming more and more serious doesn't mean that Indie has to follow suit.

But as an Indie film I didn't like it as much as Raiders Of The Lost Ark and Last Crusade. I wouldn't, however, rate it much lower than Temple of Doom. It was good to see Indie back, and back to good stuff. They did a better job of it than I was expecting, in my opinion.
 
In response to Argor, I can see your points, but as one review said, it's not that the ending to Crystal Skull is too hokey, it's that it's the wrong kind of hokey. Things like the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail are at least rooted in human history (whether you believe in them or not), Crystal Skull instead takes another jump entirely into something that doesn't feel like it fits into how the films work. But this is a point I've seen argued by a lot of people between those who think the ending was poor and those who say it's no different to what has happened before.

And though all the films have had their daft moments, I don't think anything beats
jumping into a fridge to escape a nuclear blast!
.

Also CGI prairie dogs - oh dear :(
 
Im still waiting to see this film! Dunno why because i absolutely loved the trilogy, one thing that put me off was that Harrison Ford looks fairly aged, and i wasnt sure if he could pull it off again. Actually think il go out and buy this at the weekend cause i am dying to see it.
 
charliepanayi said:
In response to Argor, I can see your points, but as one review said, it's not that the ending to Crystal Skull is too hokey, it's that it's the wrong kind of hokey. Things like the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail are at least rooted in human history (whether you believe in them or not), Crystal Skull instead takes another jump entirely into something that doesn't feel like it fits into how the films work. But this is a point I've seen argued by a lot of people between those who think the ending was poor and those who say it's no different to what has happened before.

And though all the films have had their daft moments, I don't think anything beats
jumping into a fridge to escape a nuclear blast!
.

Also CGI prairie dogs - oh dear :(
Click to expand...

I'll take that point. It's not the daftness of it that made it not as good as the others, but more the actual concept behind the plot.

Less based on historical fantasy.

It had a different feel though, which can be explained by it being set during the Cold War, and times when concerns for
alien invasion and nuclear holocaust were becoming increasly more apparant, and entered peoples fears
. So I think this movie was a great nod to that.

Also it did try to link the historical and the supernatural, the links it had to
the Roswell incident, I think
and
aliens or beings from another dimension set up the knowledge of the South American civilisation seen in the movie (can't remember if it was Inca's, Aztecs, or earlier)
.
Yes I cringed a little bit when I first realised what was happening, but I was willing to ride it out. It was a much bigger step than any Indie film had ever taken before, but I kind of like how it tried to show something that many wacky people have tried to believe for a while. In the periods it was set in (50's right?), I can imagine, was the start of the great rise in
extra-terrestial dreaming. The time when people would start theories that the pyramids of Egypt were built by aliens etc, because aliens are great and intelligent beings. This film tried to deliver that.

But yeah, for that, I would accept the criticism of this film. I understand that the plot would have been too much for many Indie fans. It was certainly the most cringe worthy.

What I do not agree with is the way people are saying the
monkey swinging scene, the fridge flying scene, the ant scene
are all over the top, by Indie standards. Indie films always had scenes like this. Things might not have looked as bad, however, as they weren't trying to be realisitic, unlike the new film, where they fail at trying.
 
Kafka the Crow said:
Hey!
You guys think that Shia(The third Indy) will be the protagonist in the next sequel?
Or is there another sequel?
Click to expand...

I've heard they were considering a new sequal. But I also heard that, while they at first were considering to continue the series with Shia, they then decided not to. Indie isn't the same without Indie. It needs its star character, and so they decided it was Harrison Ford, or no film. So I heard.


Hmmmm. Also. I've been thinking about my above posts and the posts of others and I think I've cracked it. The previous films were set in the 1930's, which is within the period of time that archeological fiction / fantasy is usually set (we have much to thank Carter and his excavations of King Tut's tomb for this). From the late 19th century to the early 20th century was when there was a rush of excitement and interest in exploration, and tomb searching etc. Hence why films and fiction about tombs and tomb robbing (eg, Indie and The Mummy) are usually set in these periods.

This new film, however HAD to be set 2 decades later. With Harrison being old and everything... So it had to be set in the 50's, an era when archeology less grasped the world. There was little note of big massive discoveries that caught the public interest as much as Carter's excavations did. The 50's became a time where fear of Russia started (seen in this movie), a fear of
aliens
increased seen in fiction and stuff (also seen in this movie) and a fear of nuclear war (begining of this sort of stuff, also seen in this movie). What I'm trying to get at is it tried to fit it to the period. The worlds concerns at the time. It isn't the 30's anymore. They had to advance, and it took a lot of effort to do that.

Then again they still COULD have tried to make it more like the earlier movies (in regards to the supernatural stuff behind the plot), but I appreciate what they were trying to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top