INDIANA JONES IV Official Thread

[AndyDursin]

Yeah I linked to that review on the last page.

Roger Ebert liked it though, FWIW.

[Edmund Kattak]

Andy,

Just got back from a midnight showing. All I can say is, you biggest fears seem to be a detriment to this movie.

1. David Koepp
2. Janusz Kaminski

There were moments that I liked. I'll have to see it again with a less distractive audience, but let me know your overall thoughts.

[AndyDursin]

Just got back from a midnight showing. All I can say is, you biggest fears seem to be a detriment to this movie.

1. David Koepp
2. Janusz Kaminski

I'm going Friday night, hopefully. Thanks for the report Ed.

[Edmund Kattak]

Just got back from a midnight showing. All I can say is, you biggest fears seem to be a detriment to this movie.

1. David Koepp
2. Janusz Kaminski

I'm going Friday night, hopefully. Thanks for the report Ed.

I'm sorry, I wish it could have been a better report, but I don't want to add any spoilers and too many details at this point.

All I can say is:
1. I wish the characters were better developed in this film - especially the relationships between Indy-Marion-Mutt.
2. I wish Jim Broadbent had more to do in this other than the short time he was on screen.
3. I wished for the same better development for Cate Blanchett's character.
4. I did appreciate that we were immediately immersed into this 1957 world of Indiana Jones, learning a few things about him as we progressed. The first 45 minutes or so revealed how he has changed a bit, post World War II, along with how he remained the same. It's not perfect, but at least you get a sense of change in that respect. Also, unlike James Bond, who in the 1990's Brosnan era seemed to have struggled with relevance in a post Cold War world, Indy still seems relevant in the 1950's. If this were set in the 1960's, I don't think this would have worked.
5. Some of the nostalgic elements were ok, but I wish we got a better degree of verbal introspection from Jones (you'll know which scene I'm talking about) as he is reminded of those who made a difference in his life. Jim Broadbent is in the scene as well, and I think Koepp could have taken advantage of fleshing him out a bit and providing that degree of interplay between Ford and Broadbent to illicit the introspection. This is why I like the reflective scenes in LAST CRUSADE (Ford and Elliot in Connery's house early on, Connery and Ford on the zeppelin).

[mkaroly]

I just came back from seeing it- it was good but not great. It was just sort of "there"- entertaining but unnecessary. I thought the character interactions were fine but there was no "spark" between them. All everyone did was rehash old moments from the previous three films and mix them into a new storyline (which wasn't great) addressing a fourth religion. It had too much of a fantasy/sci-fi flavor to it that reminded me too much of Laura Croft and Nationa Treasure stuff...the last 30 minutes of the film is typical Spielberg and hopefully the Indiana Jones chronicles end here. Ford did fine as did Cate and Shia...Karen Allen looked like she was having a blast. I just found myself walking out of the theater wondering why this film was even made. Anyway, I think it's worth a viewing and the typical Spielbergian themes are in it, but I don't think it will go down in history as one of his best films. It's good but not great.

Williams' music was pretty good, mixing in brief statements of themes from the first and third films well.

[Edmund Kattak]

Okay. I saw it again this morning at a 10am $6 matinee with a much better (and older) audience this time around. With that said, I think I was able to enjoy it more this time around, but still yearned for that spark, as mkaroly just mentioned.

I think Spielberg did what he could with the story and script. We probably were expecting some great thing out of this one, but I believe the previous sentiments might have been partially correct - almost everything really was said in the last film. I say almost, because we know that Jones survives later decades (at least the 1990's) and there is this sense of a lack of resolution in his life. At least for this fan (who didn't watch any of the YOUNG INDY stuff), I could not help but think that there was something more here that needed to be resolved.

However, while CRYSTAL SKULL might have attempted to provide some resolution, I think it failed on some level because it did not give these characters some more time to "breathe" in the systematic series of set pieces. Knowing that the film makers are not stupid in the least, I wonder if the stories about this film approaching the run times that people squawked about originally were true. I wonder if there was more character exposition than we know, but was cut to tighten the action up? Who knows. What we're left with is a film that seems to be missing it's heart and soul, even though this is supposed to be a Saturday afternoon popcorn muncher. I kept smiling and frowning because just when I was expecting a little heart, I got a little comedy (Swinging LeBeoufs or quick-sand snake removals). It's a mixed bag for me. I wanted more out of it - and it's not like I hated the film. I just felt somewaht unsatisfied from a character perspective.

As far as the score, I'd have to see it again to really recall how dialed-down the music was. There's only one distinct scene I can recall (Indy crashinginto the truck windshield in the warehouse)where the music is dialed down abruptly during the quote of the RAIDERS MARCH.

[AndyDursin]

I just got back from a 4:40 screening with a (fairly small) crowd that was not into it. To be fair I don't think the movie gave them much to be enthusiastic about.

Admittedly, I was fairly entertained, and it's not awful, but it's still pointless -- and worst of all it's completely disposable, every second of it. 5 minutes after it was over I had a hard time remembering what I just watched.

A few comments (I have to get the review up tonight):

-The best word I think to describe this movie is "functional." It's not inspired. It's just kind of "there" as Michael said. There's nothing driving the story forward, there's no hook to the concept that's really interesting. We get a few throwaway references to the original movies but perhaps it's telling the most emotional the film even becomes is when it references Sean Connery -- twice, in fact. (The movie misses him a huge amount, more than I even thought it would going in. Perhaps the character was a more vital part of the script originally than folks let on).

-Talk about thankless performances. Cate Blanchett, Ray Winstone, John Hurt, Karen Allen, Jim Broadbent -- the movie does nothing for them at all. And I mean literally NOTHING. Memorable scenes? Well defined characterizations? Not here. Allen's screen time amounts to maybe 5 minutes of scenes in which she actually speaks.

-The midsection of the film is crushingly dull. My wife fell asleep during the endless exposition about the skull and what it does. Actually, I'm still not even sure WHAT it does, or the point of it -- nor did I ever care.

-The dialogue is thoroughly unmemorable. Witty lines? Amusing banter? Nothing to be found on that score here. A friend of mine didn't like some of the sillier lines in LAST CRUSADE -- well guess what, at least you could remember them! David Koepp strikes again!

-I'd like to see the people who hate THE MUMMY movies attempt to explain why this film is any better. In fact, many of the set-pieces in this film directly recall the first MUMMY, from the "giant ants" to the fate of the Ray Winstone character to "outlandish" scenes of Ford and the gang going over the falls. In fact I'd say the original MUMMY is -- gulp -- a much better movie than this one.

-The ending reminded me of DREAMCATCHER (in some ways I'd rather not get into without giving away spoilers). Except I had a better time watching the latter.

-The jungle sequence was the only time I felt the film came to life -- but it was only for a short duration. Fairly well edited and choreographed, if absurd, with LOADS of CGI. Whoever thought this film was going to be playing it "old school" was, shall we say, misinformed. But at least that sequence was kind of fun.

-Shia LaBeouf didn't irritate me so much. He and Ford could've made for a decent team -- had the script been better.

-Janusz Kaminski's cinematography does continue to irritate me. I felt the movie was ugly to look at and very CLAUSTROPHOBIC with too many scenes appearing as if they were shot on soundstages...because they were.

-John Williams' score is, like the performances, thankless. The film basically gave him nothing to work with and his score...out of, what, 6 Star Wars movies and 4 Indiana Jones films, is pretty much the weakest of the 10.

Overall, 2.5 stars from me...and I may be being generous. I didn't hate it, but I think it says something that even with lowered expectations the movie still managed to disappoint.

What's more, if this wasn't Spielberg and INDIANA JONES and was just another summer movie, I don't even think it'd be getting the positive reviews that it has. Honestly I think it's getting a free pass from people who hoped it would be great (3.5 stars from Roger Ebert??!!), but as time goes on it is not going to hold up well in Spielberg's canon...at all.

[AndyDursin]

For those who have seen the movie, this review over at the CHUD site is sadly dead-on-accurate...

http://chud.com/articles/articles/14782 ... Page1.html

[mkaroly]

As an addendum to my original thoughts, for the review I wrote for my movie group I gave the movie a C+ (a little more than 3 out of 5 stars)- it will be interesting to see what younger audiences think of it (those who didn't grow up watching the first three films). My friend's son Calvin (eight year old) is really looking forward to it- he saw the first three films, so I'll report back once I get his take on the movie.

[AndyDursin]

Apparently part of the movie's problem box-office wise is that it's NOT appealing to young audiences. Kids today didn't grow up on these movies -- it's been almost 20 years since Last Crusade -- so they're finding the tracking on the audience demographics is skewing older, which for the money people, isn't good.

[AndyDursin]

My review is up on the front page.

http://www.andyfilm.com/5-27-08.html

[AndyDursin]

One other thing that struck me about the movie -- how it had no subtext, or meaning, of any kind.

You look at STAR TREK II: WRATH OF KHAN and sure, it's a great sci-fi action picture, but under the surface it's a film about aging...about Kirk coming to grips with death...and finding renewed meaning in life.

This Indiana Jones movie could have been along those lines -- but there's nothing to it, sadly. The few times I felt any kind of emotion was when Sean Connery's character was referenced, especially at the end -- with Williams' score quoting his theme -- and I felt there was a great missed opportunity there to develop something, like making an arc with Indy's character, having lamented his father and Marcus' death at the beginning...but finding Marion and "Mutt" at the end.

But the movie, regrettably, never came close to making that connection. There's just no heart or soul in it.

[mkaroly]

One other thing that struck me about the movie -- how it had no subtext, or meaning, of any kind.

You look at STAR TREK II: WRATH OF KHAN and sure, it's a great sci-fi action picture, but under the surface it's a film about aging...about Kirk coming to grips with death...and finding renewed meaning in life.

This Indiana Jones movie could have been along those lines -- but there's nothing to it, sadly. The few times I felt any kind of emotion was when Sean Connery's character was referenced, especially at the end -- with Williams' score quoting his theme -- and I felt there was a great missed opportunity there to develop something, like making an arc with Indy's character, having lamented his father and Marcus' death at the beginning...but finding Marion and "Mutt" at the end.

But the movie, regrettably, never came close to making that connection. There's just no heart or soul in it.

SPOILER AHEAD!!!!!!!

I would "argue" (though lightly) that there is a bit of subtext in there- how Spielberg's arguably greatest icon finaly settles down into the Spielbergian "heaven"- marriage and family. Halfway through the movie Indy is reminiscing about Marcus and his father, and the disjointed and hurting family is joined together in the end to make Indy's life complete. Indy comments about how all the other women "weren't Marion" and how Marion gives a huge smile. In a sense, all three films have been about Indiana searching for the treasure of life fulfillment that, in Spielberg's world, comes only from marriage and family. He just didn't know it- now in this film he gets to have a complete family (husband, wife, child....a chip off the old block). Henry Jones lost his wife and died alone (I guess)- the implication is that Indiana Jones' life is complete and he finds family fulfillment at the end, not the beginning (as Henry Jones had).

Anyway, that's full of holes but one of the "subtexts" I took out of INDY 4.

[Eric W.]

SPOILER AHEAD!!!!!!!

I would "argue" (though lightly) that there is a bit of subtext in there- how Spielberg's arguably greatest icon finaly settles down into the Spielbergian "heaven"- marriage and family. Halfway through the movie Indy is reminiscing about Marcus and his father, and the disjointed and hurting family is joined together in the end to make Indy's life complete. Indy comments about how all the other women "weren't Marion" and how Marion gives a huge smile. In a sense, all three films have been about Indiana searching for the treasure of life fulfillment that, in Spielberg's world, comes only from marriage and family. He just didn't know it- now in this film he gets to have a complete family (husband, wife, child....a chip off the old block). Henry Jones lost his wife and died alone (I guess)- the implication is that Indiana Jones' life is complete and he finds family fulfillment at the end, not the beginning (as Henry Jones had).

Anyway, that's full of holes but one of the "subtexts" I took out of INDY 4.

Speaking just for myself: I had to do a lot of work on my end with my own thoughts and imagination to even come up with any of that myself because it really isn't actually there in the film itself.

You're really reaching and straining valiantly to come out of that movie with even this. I know I had to.

Mkaroly, that post signifies more what I suspect you WISH had been in the film. It certainly is that way. Everything you just described is what I wanted to SEE in the film and it just wasn't there. I had to "do it myself" so to speak.

Tons of imaginary gymnastics involved.

Again, I come back to this: The fact that they couldn't get Sir Sean to come out of retirement for even five minutes to be involved spoke volumes to me months ago.

I felt cheated when he's alluded to in quick dialogue and the music theme hits. I wanted more and it should have been there. That goes for a whole lot of other things.

If I'm Spielberg or Lucas a year or two ago, I'm saying to Sir Sean: "What do we have to do to get you in this picture?"

It's that simple.

Indy fans have to do a LOT of fill in the blanks and connect the dots to try and come out with anything meaningful from this film.

Andy more than stole my thunder on my thoughts of this film. It's basically what I expected it to be as is the score.

The whole thing is 10-15 years too late. It's flat. It's obligatory. It's way after the fact. At best, it's a glorified epilogue. It's not "full suckdom" but, it's just there.

I find myself saying this far too often, going back to the Star Wars prequels that don't exist to me: I really wish they hadn't bothered and just left well enough alone.

[AndyDursin]

Anyway, that's full of holes but one of the "subtexts" I took out of INDY 4.

That's exactly what they were trying to do, but it wasn't nearly enough. A couple of lines is about all it amounted to...there were never any scenes of introspection, not nearly enough scenes of character interaction, to make it effective. If you watch STAR TREK II there are pauses in the plot for those kinds of scenes -- even the scene at the end where Kirk's son comes to see him -- the kind that really sold that emotion and feeling.

This movie never had those scenes. It needed sequences of Indy and Mutt bonding -- and it needed far more sequences of Indy and Marion. It was all plot, plot, plot and none of the "meat" in terms of character development that we came to expect from the series, especially RAIDERS and LAST CRUSADE.

But the script simply didn't provide for them, or else they were cut out...