Indiana Jones 4 discussion (Spoilers!)

How would you rate Indiana Jones?

  • Total voters
    26
They certainly did their homework correctly about the whole Crystal Skull legend. One rumor of it is that it is alien in origin, and they decided to go with that.

But yeah, it was still a good movie. Not the best Indy, but I liked it, too.


Also, some guy on interview was saying that if they did spin-offs, that the title would sound dumb because of "Mutt Williams," but the mother did say his real name was Henry Jones III. So I'm sure he could adapt "Indiana Jones" as well.
 
Last edited:
Joe Kalicki said:
I loved this movie, and I don't care what you haters say. It's not as good as Raiders, but I'd put it second to the others.

(although Indy and his dad was amazing, Crusade's Grail plot was pretty boring)
Click to expand...

Completely agree.


I saw it last night, and I loved it. Those who say it didn't "feel" like an Indy movie I just don't understand. It was great fun, and did what it set out to do: adapt the fictional stories of that time period, which were sci-fi/saucer movies. They kept that element toned down until the end so as not to overshadow the usual Indy tone of relic-hunting and adventure. Sure, some of it was hokey and unbelievable, but some elements of ALL the Indy movies are just as hokey and unbelieveable.

It was a worthy follow-up, and I hope it leads to a fifth Indy movie. I eagerly look forward to the possibility of a 5th film with Indy in the role of his father (from Crusade) and Mutt taking over the role Indy previously held. There were a couple of instances in KotCS where Indy seemed to be mimicking his father's (Connery's) facial expressions, etc from Crusade. Its all the more enjoyable given the entire scope of Indy's life and his strong desire to be different from his father, but ironically still ends up just like him. Another movie with Indy as the mentor/voice of reason and Mutt as the impetuous (though more matured compared to this movie) youngster will work well.


I give it a 5/5.
 
It's a step behind Last Crusade and Raiders, but a good five or six steps ahead of Temple of Doom.

I basically agree with everything Lynx said. I liked it, but it was nowhere near as good as it could have been, and there was something off about it.

Shia was pretty great, I am more okay with a Shia-centric spin-off than I am of more Indy-centric films... Although they are going to have to figure out what they're going to call those movies, because Mutt just doesn't lend itself to a great title.

The most unnecessary moment, though, was Shia going all Tarzan with the monkeys. What the ****?
 
I gave it a 1/5. Harrison Ford's acting, Karen Allen's acting, Coneheads, ****tily-made CGI ants, UFOs, CGI animals, out-of-place John Hurt, ****ty chase scenes, ****ty dialogue, and a ****ty plot are what ultimately made my decision.

Seriously, can Spielberg not make an alien movie without a disappointing ending? War of the Worlds had an unresolved ending, and the aliens in this movie just....disappeared into thin air.

And no way in hell was this better than Temple of Doom. Sure, it has a much different tone than Raiders and Crusade, but it's still a great film about morals and whatnot, albeit from Short Round's point of view. I think one of the most important scenes is when Indy is in a trance and slaps Short Round, and Shortie burns him with the torch to break him from his trance.
 
Dr.Strangefate said:
It's a step behind Last Crusade and Raiders, but a good five or six steps ahead of Temple of Doom.

I basically agree with everything Lynx said. I liked it, but it was nowhere near as good as it could have been, and there was something off about it.

Shia was pretty great, I am more okay with a Shia-centric spin-off than I am of more Indy-centric films... Although they are going to have to figure out what they're going to call those movies, because Mutt just doesn't lend itself to a great title.

The most unnecessary moment, though, was Shia going all Tarzan with the monkeys. What the ****?
Click to expand...


Mutt is just his nickname. His real name is Henry Jones III so they can call Indiana Jones too.
 
i think i would have enjoyed the climax more if it wasn't so clearly and so dominantly CGI (re: Spalko's fate). For instance, if they had gone the way of the previous films and used physical special effects. That, and as I said before, the booby traps and the serialized nature of the previous films (resolutions of smaller conflicts), would have given the movie a greater deal of the charm that made the original movies so lovable for me.
 
Langsta said:
Seriously, can Spielberg not make an alien movie without a disappointing ending? War of the Worlds had an unresolved ending, and the aliens in this movie just....disappeared into thin air.
Click to expand...

Just a nitpick, everyone always uses this as a point to attack War of the Worlds, even though that's how the aliens were defeated in the book as well.

I got my Indy boxset back today so I'm going to try rewatch the rest of the movies and see how they compare.
 
I'm going to watch it a couple more times to see if it grows on me.

Anyways, I'm definitely up for an Indy 5 regardless, as I think they'll learn from their mistakes from this one. They should leave it to Indy and Mutt, maybe get a female lead for Mutt (Since you can't get one for Indy now), and have the antagonist be a younger, far more ruthless archaeologist either working for a sinister corporation or for the Chinese (We don't need to see the Russians again). And make the artifact a little closer to home. Atlantis has always been the popular choice and would probably be well received.

Actually, if you really want to pursue the Chinese route and have the movie be more connected. . .you could always have Short Round be the antagonist. Could be interesting. . .
 
I enjoyed it.

Besides the obvious complaints - a little too over-the-top, a little too much CGI, the part with the ****ing monkeys - I thought it was pretty good.
 
moonmaster said:
I enjoyed it.

Besides the obvious complaints - a little too over-the-top, a little too much CGI, the part with the ****ing monkeys - I thought it was pretty good.
Click to expand...

If there's one thing everyone has in common to say about this movie, it seems to be a general hatred of the monkey scene. It's really cringe worthy.
 
The worst part is just how quickly Shia becomes The Amazing Swinging Jungle Boy. At first I thought they'd attack him for a little comic relief. Then I thought maybe he'd swing very awkwardly back into the chase, but all of the sudden he's bouncing though the trees.
 
moonmaster said:
The worst part is just how quickly Shia becomes The Amazing Swinging Jungle Boy. At first I thought they'd attack him for a little comic relief. Then I thought maybe he'd swing very awkwardly back into the chase, but all of the sudden he's bouncing though the trees.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the monkeys somehow KNOW to JUST attack the Soviets, because of course they're the bad guys.

No Short Round, they missed the opportunity in this movie to reintroduce him, and I don't really want to see him out of nowhere now, especially not as a bad guy (in the original script for Indy IV, Short Round appears in a cameo role at Indy's wedding, along with Sallah and Willie).
 
Last edited:
Everyone knows that monkeys hate Communists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top