INDIANA JONES IV Official Thread

[AndyDursin]

You know, it's kind of sad that people now automatically assume secrecy = suckitude. Personally, I LOVE that Spielberg has managed to keep the film almost completely under wraps until now. Remember how awesome it was to see Jurassic Park "fresh" 15 years ago, and seeing those trend-setting CGI dinos for the first time on the big screen without getting spoiled for all the "good bits" in countless trailers, TV spots, and general internet chatter? I actually kind of miss the "good old days" when the ONLY way to get pre-release information about a genre film was to buy one of those glossy tie-in magazines or read articles in Starlog or simply hope to catch a lone trailer or TV spot (back in the days when there weren't 7 trailers and 50 different TV spots starting a good eight months before a movie's release). What plot surprises are left for The Dark Knight at this point? I'm sure I'll like the film (caveats about the running time aside), but how cool would it have been to have NO idea what Heath Ledger's Joker makeup looked like until opening day? Instead, we got the "Full Monty" back in December, when the trailer was released with I Am Legend. Same thing with Peter Jackson's King Kong. Pretty much every action sequence was heavilly plundered for the advertising campaign. I'm more than willing to give Spielberg/Ford/Lucas the benefit of the doubt on this. If we'd gotten trailers for the film beginning late last year, people would be complaining that they've already seen the movie!

You're kind of arguing two different things though.

I agree with you about the "secrecy" in terms of plot and I agree how awesome it was when JURASSIC PARK came out and we all sat, stunned and spellbound, by seeing those dinosaurs for the first time. In general, I think we find out too much about ALL of these movies ahead of time now -- there are so many media outlets and such that, you're right, the cat is out of the bag to the degree where nobody is surprised anymore by anything.

That being said, in the "good o'l days" JURASSIC PARK was still reviewed for the press well in advance. No, we didn't know how amazing the dinosaurs looked because the advertising was smart and elusive, but we DID know that critics were blown away by them because the movie was screened in advance of its release date and had a hugely positive vibe the day it came out.

Same on every STAR WARS movie from Parts 1 through 6, and all the prior INDIANA JONES films too. So the question is why is this different -- and why, unlike every other film Lucas/Spielberg have cranked out, were they deliberately trying to downplay expectations here? You can't blame people for asking the question though, because it is valid.

I'm sure the movie ISN'T going to be awful. I bet especially with lowered expectations it'll be pretty entertaining. But this is a classic film series and really anything that's not spectacular is going to be something of a disappointment for a lot of people...just the nature of the beast.

As far as the Tomato meter goes, I'm more interested in seeing some of my respected peers' reaction to it than the "number" it gets from the entire mass of online critics (and sure I'm one of them, but I don't think of Joblow.com the same way I do the Wall Street Journal!) -- but at the end of the day I'm still going in with an open mind. All the lowered expectations among the fans may actually help.

[Eric W.]

Speaking of that, I still can't believe we haven't seen any major reviews for it by this point. All the prior STAR WARS and INDY films were screened for critics WELL in advance -- I recall Siskel & Ebert reviewing them a week ahead of time -- but that definitely does not seem to be the case here.

That tells me all I need to know.

You know, it's kind of sad that people now automatically assume secrecy = suckitude.

Because these days, more often than not, it is. It's as simple as that.

You're kind of arguing two different things though.

I agree with you about the "secrecy" in terms of plot and I agree how awesome it was when JURASSIC PARK came out and we all sat, stunned and spellbound, by seeing those dinosaurs for the first time. In general, I think we find out too much about ALL of these movies ahead of time now -- there are so many media outlets and such that, you're right, the cat is out of the bag to the degree where nobody is surprised anymore by anything.

That being said, in the "good o'l days" JURASSIC PARK was still reviewed for the press well in advance. No, we didn't know how amazing the dinosaurs looked because the advertising was smart and elusive, but we DID know that critics were blown away by them because the movie was screened in advance of its release date and had a hugely positive vibe the day it came out.

Same on every STAR WARS movie from Parts 1 through 6, and all the prior INDIANA JONES films too. So the question is why is this different -- and why, unlike every other film Lucas/Spielberg have cranked out, were they deliberately trying to downplay expectations here? You can't blame people for asking the question though, because it is valid.

Again, I think it speaks for itself quite plainly. A great post that just saved me a bunch of typing myself.

[AndyDursin]

Indy survived Cannes -- but the reaction certainly wasn't too positive, it sounds like.

As we've already heard I'm expecting to see mixed reviews and probably a lot of bad vibes from hard-core fans. But it's no turkey...just not a classic, apparently.

'Indiana Jones' debut survives Cannes critics

By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer Sun May 18, 2:08 PM ET

CANNES, France (AP) — Indiana Jones received louder applause going in than he did coming out.

His latest adventure, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," earned a respectful — though far from glowing — reception Sunday at the Cannes Film Festival, avoiding the sort of thrashing the event's harsh critics gave to "The Da Vinci Code" two years ago.

Yet Indy's fourth big-screen romp is not likely to go down as one of the most memorable. Some viewers at its first press screening loved it, some called it slick and enjoyable though formulaic, some said it was not worth the 19-year wait since Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Harrison Ford made the last film.

"They should have left well enough alone," said J. Sperling Reich, who writes for FilmStew.com. "It really looked like they were going through the motions. It really looked like no one had their heart in it."

Alain Spira of French magazine Paris Match found "Crystal Skull" a perfectly acceptable "Indiana Jones" tale, a sentiment echoed by the solid applause the movie received as the final credits rolled.

"It's good. It's a product that is polished, industrial, we're not getting ripped off in terms of quality," Spira said. "You know what you're going to see, you see what you get, and when you leave you're happy."

The applause was louder at the outset, though. Fans at the early afternoon showing, which preceded the film's glitzy formal premiere with cast and crew Sunday night, cheered and clapped wildly at an announcement that the screening was about to start. Some even hummed the Indiana Jones fanfare as the lights went down.

The applause at the end was more subdued.

Cast and crew were unconcerned about how critics might dissect the film.

"I'm not afraid at all. I expect to have the whip turned on me," Ford told reporters after the screening. "It's not unusual for something that is popular to be disdained by some people, and I fully expect it.

But, he said: "I work for the people who pay to get in. They are my customers, and my focus is on providing the best experience I can for those people."

The filmmakers kept the movie shrouded in secrecy, skipping the rounds of press screenings often held for big studio movies and going for a big blowout at Cannes.

Spielberg said he and his collaborators decided "that the fair thing to do and the fun thing to do would be to view it where the entire world is come together every year at this wonderful festival, and we thought that was the best place to introduce Indiana Jones to you again after 19 years."

The film received none of the derisive laughter or catcalls that mounted near the end of the first press screening for "Da Vinci Code."

There were a few titters from the "Crystal Skull" crowd early on over co-star Cate Blanchett's thick, Boris-and-Natasha accent as a Soviet operative racing against Indy to find an artifact of immeasurable power. The rather corny romantic ending also drew a chuckle or two.

In between, the film packed a fair amount of action, though some viewers found the middle portion dull. Conchita Casanovas, of Spain's RNE radio, said she was "bored to death."

The new movie hurls archaeologist Jones into the Cold War in 1957. He survives a nuclear blast in the desert in typically creative fashion and is reunited with "Raiders" flame Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen).

As speculated, the film has an alien connection, though far more subdued than the "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men From Mars" story Lucas once envisioned.

There are melancholy nods to Sean Connery, who played Indy's dad in 1989's "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" but declined to return for the new movie, and the late Denholm Elliott, Indy's college dean in two of the previous movies.

And the film reveals the relationship between Indy and his new sidekick, an angry young motorcycle rebel played by Shia LaBeouf.

As with "Da Vinci Code," which went on to gross $758 million worldwide, "Crystal Skull" is so hotly anticipated that it will be virtually immune from critics' opinions. The film is expected to put up blockbuster box-office numbers when it opens globally Thursday.

"The movie was absolutely effective enough to score with audiences everywhere," said Anne Thompson, deputy editor of Hollywood trade paper Variety. "This played way better than 'Da Vinci Code.' No one was gunning for it. They were excited going in, hooting for it in a positive way."

Dozens of fans prowled outside the Palais, the Cannes headquarters, holding signs saying they needed tickets for "Crystal Skull."

Amelia Sims, a 19-year-old University of Georgia student studying abroad, held a sign reading "I (heart) Indy." She managed to get a pass to the press screening and loved the movie.

"I guess I've been waiting 19 years for this," Sims said. "You could say I've been waiting my whole life."

But Christian Monggaard, who is reviewing "Crystal Skull" for Danish newspaper Information, said he grew up with the "Indiana Jones" films and came away from this one disappointed, finding the climax an "overblown special-effects extravaganza."

"Talk about a woman scorned," Monggaard said. "A fan scorned is even worse."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cannes_indiana_jones

[Eric W.]

Indy survived Cannes -- but the reaction certainly wasn't too positive, it sounds like.

As we've already heard I'm expecting to see mixed reviews and probably a lot of bad vibes from hard-core fans. But it's no turkey...just not a

^^ That's all I'm expecting. I'm not expecting classic but I'm not expecting "suckdom" either.

I most certainly expect it to be better than DaVinci Code!

[AndyDursin]

Yeah but that doesn't say very much at all

We'll be seeing major reviews trickling out now. The Telegraph (UK) basically gave it a thumbs-down:

Sample quotes:

"Director Steven Spielberg is usually a dab hand at maintaining pace and momentum, but the Crystal Skull contains dull passages...

The bad guys are no longer Nazis but Soviets — led by Cate Blanchett, with a Ukrainian accent and a Louise Brooks bob, camping it up like an early-vintage Bond villainess....

But oh dear, whose idea was it to bring long-forgotten Karen Allen back to the series? She enters the film late, and mostly stands around with nothing to do....

With a cast clearly pre-fabricated to appeal to all ages, an overstuffed plot and an ageing action hero, it feels born of commercial calculation rather than a story that needed to be told..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... miere.html

[Monterey Jack]

As far as the Tomato meter goes, I'm more interested in seeing some of my respected peers' reaction to it than the "number" it gets from the entire mass of online critics (and sure I'm one of them, but I don't think of Joblow.com the same way I do the Wall Street Journal!) -- but at the end of the day I'm still going in with an open mind. All the lowered expectations among the fans may actually help.

I understand that. Remember the ludicrously impatient and downright mean reviews that The Legend Of Zorro received a few years back? I went in expecting a far worse, borderline incompetent film, and ended up very pleasantly surprised. Yeah, it wasn't the classic that The Mask Of Zorro was, but it was still pretty damn entertaining, and gave me exactly what I wanted out of a Zorro sequel (snappy swashbuckling, pithy humor, Catherine Zeta Jones' cleavage). If Crystal Skull can match up to Legend, I'd be perfectly happy. Just having Spielberg doing a lighthearted "popcorn" adventure film again following a decade's worth of uber-depressing "serious" work is reason enough to celebrate the return on Indy.

[AndyDursin]

The Hollywood Reporter isn't known for trashing movies but looks like they hated it -- calling it "charmless" and filled with effects instead of character development or interaction.

"...swamped in a sea of stunts and special effects that are relentless as the scenes and character relationships are charmless...This film feels like work, whether it's poor Harrison Ford straining to keep pace with his younger self or Spielberg and writer David Koepp piling on the thrill-ride acrobatics that have only scant connection to the plot....The film never pauses to let these characters enjoy a drink or take each other's measure....At no time does any of Indy's gang seem in real jeopardy. Bullets splash all around but not even the brim of his fedora gets nicked. Waterfalls are mere dips in the water, collapsing ruins an excuse for free-exercise tumbles and the villains mere annoyances.

The actors are asked to do little more than look reasonably alert. This proves to be Indiana Jones' greatest challenge."

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertai ... 22&sp=true

Yikes!

[scorehead]

All I can say is that I was part of the first test audience to see a working print of this film, sans finished CGI and SFX/music, and it was a stinker. Always good to see Ford put on the hat, but his age really isn't issue as to why this film bogs down. The story is all over the place, so much so, that it only seems to be moreof a testament to how films are more geared towards those who have attention deficit disorder. Somehow (again, as with the new STAR WARS trilogy) Lucas and Spielberg have forgotten what made these films so watchable and fun in the first place and that was that they had originally had wanted to make an old fashioned cliffhanger type serial picture that had an engaging story, lots of white knuckle action pieces, all the while keep it it intelligible. That last part is almost completely gone from this new film. I wont even go into Williams score as used in the film, as it was incomplete when I saw it. But having heard the score outside of the picture, and only in comparison to the previous Indy scores, I must admit that it's the weakest of the bunch. Still fun, but it seems to be missing the meaty ingredients that made Williams past efforts so memorable, adventurous and undeniably fun and engaging.

That's about it, but do go and see for your self. Again, one can't complain about Harrison Ford returning as Indy. He looks good, if not appropriate, as an aging relic. As well as this film could be better, it could have been a lot worse. I'm at least thankful for that.

- SH

[Eric W.]

All I can say is that I was part of the first test audience to see a working print of this film, sans finished CGI and SFX/music, and it was a stinker. Always good to see Ford put on the hat, but his age really isn't issue as to why this film bogs down. The story is all over the place, so much so, that it only seems to be moreof a testament to how films are more geared towards those who have attention deficit disorder.

Ouch!

Somehow (again, as with the new STAR WARS trilogy) Lucas and Spielberg have forgotten what made these films so watchable and fun in the first place...

This has been my gripe for years. I honestly believe these two have forgotten how to make fun films at all, period.

I just don't have much confidence in either one of them at this point.

For me, they lost their touch on at least these kinds of films a long time ago.

...and that was that they had originally had wanted to make an old fashioned cliffhanger type serial picture that had an engaging story, lots of white knuckle action pieces, all the while keep it it intelligible. That last part is almost completely gone from this new film. I wont even go into Williams score as used in the film, as it was incomplete when I saw it. But having heard the score outside of the picture, and only in comparison to the previous Indy scores, I must admit that it's the weakest of the bunch.

As expected. Williams doesn't compose music like he did back in the 80's anymore. He just doesn't.

Still fun, but it seems to be missing the meaty ingredients that made Williams past efforts so memorable, adventurous and undeniably fun and engaging.

Like a lot of other things.

When I keep saying "This film is about 15 years too late" I mean that on many different levels.

That's about it, but do go and see for your self. Again, one can't complain about Harrison Ford returning as Indy. He looks good, if not appropriate, as an aging relic. As well as this film could be better, it could have been a lot worse. I'm at least thankful for that.

- SH

Thanks for your impressions.

[AndyDursin]

Scorehead,
Thanks for the impressions as well. Certainly appreciate them. When I read stuff like "it could have been worse," that doesn't inspire me with confidence that they all opted and go and make this movie so long after fact. The worst part I just can't shake is -- after all this time it STILL doesn't seem like there was any reason to make this movie but to cash Harrison a big fat check and make some money.

But we'll obviously find out Thursday for ourselves...

[Monterey Jack]

Most of the reviews I've skimmed in the papers today were very complimentary. Yeah, they noted the film's flaws, but also said it was good, summer fun. That's really all I can ask for.

[AndyDursin]

Good summer fun is all I'm looking for also. Looks like a lot of mostly mixed reviews, but even the good ones give off the impression the film has got problems (Karen Allen apparently does nothing in the movie, which I've read repeatedly). At the same time there haven't been any full-out raves, which is disappointing.

We will find out in, what, just a couple of days? Are there showings Wednesday night?

The score, after repeated listening, sadly doesn't do much for me on its own. Still better than 99% of what I hear at the movies, but not Grade-A John by any stretch, with no memorable new material.

One thing on THE LAST CRUSADE, which I watched again over the weekend -- MJ you seem to harp on that movie's more "lighthearted" tone, which I find curious because the film has a very strong, human element at its core which was completely absent from TEMPLE OF DOOM and does recall the original RAIDERS. The Connery-Ford interplay is poignant and even moving at times, it's not all ridiculous and gives the film a good amount of dramatic weight that the rollercoaster, shrill writing of TEMPLE OF DOOM completely lacks. I think the people who dislike LAST CRUSADE because it's funny in places seem to totally neglect that other aspect of the picture, which is the main reason I prefer it -- heavily -- to TEMPLE OF DOOM myself.

Doesn't sound like this new movie is more like the original RAIDERS in any real regard -- more like a better-budgeted and classier KING SOLOMON'S MINES, if the talk about loads of effects (and yes, more CGI than they claimed would be in it), lack of characterizations and bad writing turn out to be true.

[Eric W.]

http://online.wsj.com/article/film_review.html

Indy's Back, But the Thrills, Sadly, Aren't
May 21, 2008


Near the very end of the very nearly interminable "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," an old colleague of Indy's who has been half-mad and speaking gibberish suddenly turns lucid and philosophical. "How much of human life," he muses, "is waiting." How true, how true. Sitting through Steven Spielberg's slog down memory lane means waiting for surprise, waiting for delight, waiting for daylight after turgid trudges through Peruvian caves, and waiting for an abstract story to coalesce. Most of all it means waiting, in vain, for the sort of dazzle, dash and clarity that made us love the series in the first place.


It's been 27 years since the first installment and 19 years since the last one: Harrison Ford, still snapping Indy's whip at the age of 65, is no longer a whippersnapper. He's not the problem, though. Both the actor and the character draw on deep reservoirs of goodwill. You want them to be wonderful from the moment Indy makes his entrance -- actually he's preceded by a witty shot of his fedora -- and it's great to see him looking like a grizzled desert rat with a glowering smirk, or, moments later, a smirky glower. (The film, set in the 1950s, is distinguished by witty entrances, if little else: Cate Blanchett's villainous Soviet agent, Irina, looking like Garbo in "Ninotchka," Shia LaBoeuf's pompadoured biker, Mutt, looking like Brando in "The Wild One.") It's also touching to see Indy coping as well as he does -- very well indeed -- with the knock-down, drag-out challenges of being an action hero at an advanced age.

No, the problem is all around him, and it's movie fatigue, which can be just as damaging as metal fatigue. A couple of early set pieces dispense spasms of excitement at the expense of plausibility -- an atom-bomb test that trivializes the force of nuclear weapons for the sake of lame comedy, a chase that skids to an awkward finish in a university library. But then the movie, seemingly weary of itself, settles into a soporific succession of episodes having to do with a search for the skull of the title, plus extrasensory perception, extraterrestrials and, ever so fleetingly, flying saucers. All of it amounts to a been-there-done-that-better recapitulation of Mr. Spielberg's career.


One unwelcome surprise is the level of craftsmanship -- widely variable cinematography, continuity glitches, characterizations ranging from perfunctory to nil. (The script was written by David Koepp, while the story is credited to George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson.)

Another is the level of performances. Ms. Blanchett, a movie star of rare intelligence and grace, gets to carry a sword, read minds, fight fights and strike one sultry pose after another, but she's only a decorative presence, and a charm-free one (though her character's mind eventually catches fire). It's good to see Karen Allen back as Marion Ravenwood, the love of Indy's earlier life; it would have been better if she'd had something livelier to do than drive an amphibious truck on a chase through trackless jungles. Mr. LaBoeuf, a manifestly talented young actor, isn't funny, and there's no sign of him having been helped by his director. Nor is there much excitement between him and Harrison Ford as they play out a relationship that's the movie's worst-kept secret.

The least surprising aspect of the lumbering production is its abuse of computer-generated images -- what were generally called special effects until they stopped being special. Even in that department, though, the banality is striking -- all those clattering digital ants and groaning stones. I was equally struck by the movie's disrespect for the physical world. Sure, computers can do anything these days, but do we want them to? There's no logic, and therefore less drama, in Indy's escape from a mock town that's about to be atom-bombed, or in that amphibious truck finally going over a series of stupendous waterfalls.

None of the complex CGI sequences in "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" can hold a candle, in fact, to the moment when a conspicuously youthful Indy, confronted by a black-robed warrior chuckling ominously, watched and waited while the guy twirled his scimitar, then pulled out his revolver and simply popped him with no further ado. But that was a long time ago, in a film that feels far, far away.

^^ A reoccuring theme for this film and sadly, too many others.

[AndyDursin]

Morganstern is always one of my favorite reads, even when I disagree with him (which isn't that often) I always respect his analysis.

It's like I figured -- some positive reviews, some negative ones. The Tomato Meter is positive but it's not getting anywhere near the positive vibes IRON MAN did, and among the kinds of critics I respect particularly (like the WSJ), there are some bad reviews here and there.

I'm probably going Friday night, too busy tomorrow...but I will weigh in once I've seen it, as I anticipate everyone else doing

[John Johnson]

Here's a review I saw on uk.news.yahoo.com.

By Kirk Honeycutt Reuters - Sunday, May 18 10:04 pmCANNES (Hollywood Reporter) - "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" seems to be more of a sequel to "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" than to the last film in the adventure series 19 years ago.


Extraterrestrials and a space ship mix it up with well-lit caves, tumbles over waterfalls and Tarzan-style swings through the jungle. Director Steven Spielberg seems intent on celebrating his entire early movie career here. Whatever story there is, a murky journey to return a spectacular archaeological find to its rightful home -- an unusual goal of the old grave-robber -- gets swamped in a sea of stunts and special effects that are relentless as the scenes and character relationships are charmless.

"Crystal Skull" will have its huge audience when it opens worldwide May 22 via Paramount Pictures. Indeed it had that audience the day the project was announced. What is disappointing to those who fondly remember the first film in the series, 1981's "Raiders of the Lost Ark," is the loss of wit and romance. This film feels like work, whether it's poor Harrison Ford straining to keep pace with his younger self or Spielberg and writer David Koepp piling on the thrill-ride acrobatics that have only scant connection to the plot.

In the first 22 minutes, old Indy survives a kidnapping, shoot-outs, auto crashes inside a mysterious warehouse, a ride in a desert rocket and an A-bomb detonation. Spielberg is only getting warmed up.

The film never pauses to let these characters enjoy a drink or take each other's measure. Indy's original flame, Karen Allen's Marion Ravenwood, also makes a welcome return -- she even has a surprise for Indiana -- yet this moment is lost in the forward momentum.

Losing his job during the Red Scare of the '50s, Indy is persuaded by a young Mutt (Shia LaBeouf) -- who to keep those iconic '50s images flowing arrives on a motorbike like Brando in "The Wild One" -- to take off on a vague adventure in South America to save his mother and retrieve the Crystal Skull of Akator.

This trip hooks the duo up with a spy played by Ray Winstone, who changes sides every half hour; a Soviet villain played by Cate Blanchett with close-cropped hair, black skin-tight fencing garb and absolutely no point in her villainy; and a crazy loon played by John Hurt, who like Kurtz in "Heart of Darkness" has been in the jungle too long.

Once the group possesses the Crystal Skull -- it does keep changing hands between Indy and the Soviet army -- no one seems to know quite what to do with it. But it has its uses: At different times, it opens doors, triggers cave machinery, wards off giant red ants and scares hostile natives. For all anyone knows, it may pay the bill at a fancy restaurant.

After about an hour, the film abandons any pretence of story for a rush through fights, chases, machine gun fire, scorpions, quick sand, monkeys, huge snakes and finally a secret city, part Mayan part Aztec, certain to become both a video game and amusement park attraction.

At no time does any of Indy's gang seem in real jeopardy. Bullets splash all around but not even the brim of his fedora gets nicked. Waterfalls are mere dips in the water, collapsing ruins an excuse for free-exercise tumbles and the villains mere annoyances.

The actors are asked to do little more than look reasonably alert. This proves to be Indiana Jones' greatest challenge.

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080518/ ... f61ed.html