Indy 4 Lovers Thread

IndyBuff

Well-known member
Forbidden Eye said:
Anyone watching this film today for its 10th Anniversary?

Time flies. I?m more sad that a decade has passed and Indy 5 still isn?t a reality.

Man, I feel old. Hard to believe it's been a decade already!

I loved the film back then and I still love it now, flaws and all.:hat:
 
Sea Monarch said:
I remember the summer that brought me Crystal Skull, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Incredible Hulk and Viva La Vida, new friendships and new memories like it was 2 or three years ago.

It was also the first time since 1989 that there was an Indiana Jones, Batman and James Bond film all in the same year. Those are my favorite franchises so it was a great year for me.
 

Sea Monarch

New member
hismasterplan said:
It was also the first time since 1989 that there was an Indiana Jones, Batman and James Bond film all in the same year. Those are my favorite franchises so it was a great year for me.

Hahaha, those are my favorites too (not to mention Star Wars). Consequently, I also couldn't help, but notice this uncanny parallel, even at the time. Still, it's a great observation, you make! You have good taste. So, they were both great yrs, wouldn't you agree?

I think I commented on the similar releases between those two years before (I'm sure I'm not the only), but as if that wasn't ironic enough, another parallel between '08, and '89, is that with both of these summers a U2 movie had been released theatrically, within less than a year, prior to all of them! U2: Rattle And Hum towards end of 1988, and U2-3D in early 2008!

Amazing coincidence, huh? What are the odds? Add to that, the coincidence that, before I stopped to read this post now, I had put 007: License To Kill, on earlier today, and have had it on repeat for much of the day, :D
 
Last edited:

IndyBuff

Well-known member
Sea Monarch said:
Hahaha, those are my favorites too (not to mention Star Wars). Consequently, I also couldn't help, but notice this uncanny parallel, even at the time. Still, it's a great observation, you make! You have good taste. So, they were both great yrs, wouldn't you agree?

I think I commented on the similar releases between those two years before (I'm sure I'm not the only), but as if that wasn't ironic enough, another parallel between '08, and '89, is that with both of these summers a U2 movie had been released theatrically, within less than a year, prior to all of them! U2: Rattle And Hum towards end of 1988, and U2-3D in early 2008!

Amazing coincidence, huh? What are the odds? Add to that, the coincidence that, before I stopped to read this post now, I had put 007: License To Kill, on earlier today, and have had it on repeat for much of the day, :D

Nice catch! As a big U2 fan I should have caught that. Well done.:hat:
 
Sea Monarch said:
Hahaha, those are my favorites too (not to mention Star Wars). Consequently, I also couldn't help, but notice this uncanny parallel, even at the time. Still, it's a great observation, you make! You have good taste. So, they were both great yrs, wouldn't you agree?

Thank ya, sir. It really was a good year. I saw Indy at a theater off Times Square, then was the only kid walking around there at 2 am. Then believe it or not, my first kiss happened the next night! I remember seeing Indiana Jones another three times and then after it was over, walking over to see The Dark Knight. Then another time I'd pay for The Dark Knight when I would see an unrelated movie because I wanted more of those kind of films. Just wish Bond was out already then I'd be there all day.

You know, there is a chance 2020 may see the same trend, at least almost. If James Bond 25 is delayed until 2020, we will have also have The Batman (Ben Affleck's) and Indy 5 the same year.

My Facebook memory popped up with a status from May 22, 2008 saying "Enjoyed Indy 4 - ready for more!" Didn't think I'd have to wait 11 years though. Still excited.
 

avidfilmbuff

New member
It?s been 10 years, and I still think this movie is underrated as hell. I had hoped that as the years passed its reputation would have improved just a tiny bit. And I must say that after seeing Disney?s treatment of Star Wars, I?m not looking forward to Indy 5 at all.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
avidfilmbuff said:
It?s been 10 years, and I still think this movie is underrated as hell. I had hoped that as the years passed its reputation would have improved just a tiny bit. And I must say that after seeing Disney?s treatment of Star Wars, I?m not looking forward to Indy 5 at all.

I think general public opinion has softened on it a bit.
 

British Raider

Well-known member
I kind of share Matt Zoller Seitz’s opinion that hating on KOTC feels hypocritical.

It’s a film that suffered because it was a long belated sequel that should have come out in the 90s.

So inevitably fans got caught up in tangible details, things that stuck out to them as not “right”. Years of digesting the OT meant everyone was a expert on exactly how a Indy film should look and feel. And really technology had come so far since 1989 it couldn’t possibly replicate them. So as soon as that CGI gopher showed up in the first minute and didn’t fit with the OT it was downhill from there really.

But I’m actually here to say, I think KOTC works just fine except for two scenes - Mutt doing Tarzan and the three waterfalls. The three waterfalls scene is particularly egregious because it’s shot by Spielberg, a master storyteller who is a genius at telling us his intention for any given scene. And yet the three waterfalls scene is neither thrilling, comedic, nor anything really. It just is. What was he trying to achieve with it? It does nothing to move us.

I think a lot of the other criticisms are merely tangible details, or a refusal to accept something different.

This is by far the more interesting film thematically, and where it takes the character of Indiana Jones. It’s the one where his dual personas Henry/Indiana bleed into each other, and the two worlds they inhabit. Like when his adventure impacts Marshall college for example, a first. And how Indy shows more of Henry in his personality. I don’t know how conscious that was on Ford’s part but it might also be why, aside from how different KOTCS looks shot in the modern era compared to the 80s, people might not have found the character or the film as “cool.” It’s kind of why the marriage at the end is so fitting for where that character is by the end. It’s actually those parts of the film that work best. But we’re definitely not seeing the Indy even of the Last Crusade, by far his softest up to that point.

On the subject of the Last Crusade, it seems to be the one most quoted, and most liked by people I know, and yet I think it works best when Ford and Connery share the screen in the last hour. I think the villain is rather bland, and Elsa is a rewrite or two away from actually making sense as a character. Something Mac in KOTCS also gets criticised for. It’s just not a great film like I think Raiders and Temple are (racism aside). The two which I feel Spielberg is at his magical peak, and feels most invested. Last Crusade feels a little perfunctory in comparison.

I like all 4 films, don’t get me wrong. But there just isn’t this great decline in quality, particularly between KOTCS and Last Crusade.
 

timmymetca96

New member
Seeing the film in theaters at 11 years old was such a wonderful experience. I have loved it ever since. It is not my favorite film of the four, but it is the one I watch more often than the rest. It was the only one I got to experience the hype and release of, because I was born long after the release of the original trilogy. I can't wait to experience the fifth film as an adult.
 

IllinoisJack

Well-known member
Seeing the film in theaters at 11 years old was such a wonderful experience. I have loved it ever since. It is not my favorite film of the four, but it is the one I watch more often than the rest. It was the only one I got to experience the hype and release of, because I was born long after the release of the original trilogy. I can't wait to experience the fifth film as an adult.
Same! Yeah was 12 & got to skip school that day. Such a cool time to follow the promo photoshoots, rumors, & trailers.
 

emtiem

Well-known member
I just remember all of the merch being everywhere: hoping for that to happen again next year!
 

Jarvio

Member
I love KOTCS, it may be 4th on my list but it is still great fun. I really love the lost city locations in it, the temple looks stunning to me.

The alien stuff is a bit weird, but really I don't see the issue tbh, there are plenty of fantasy elements in the other 3 Indy films.

Like I said, I rank it 4th, but I don't see it as my "least favourite", but rather "4th best". Flaws aside it's just great fun.
 

emtiem

Well-known member
I gave Captain America: The First Avenger another watch tonight because I was in a bit of an Indy mood and it's a period adventure movie... and you know what? Despite all the good reviews for Cap Am, I genuinely think Indy 4 is a much better movie. Chris Evans is a top lead and all, but it just all feels so bland and starts to wash over me; it just has no impact at all. And when KOTCS gets stick for having some CGI in the jungle chase but then I'm watching terrible stuff like that 100% bluescreen runway sequence in CA... nah.
It's even directed by Joe Johnston, and I gave Rocketeer a go this last week and that still holds up as having a bit of heart and spirit to it. But Captain America just feels an empty experience. Give me KOTCS any day.
 

Grizzlor

Well-known member
I kind of share Matt Zoller Seitz’s opinion that hating on KOTC feels hypocritical.

It’s a film that suffered because it was a long belated sequel that should have come out in the 90s.

So inevitably fans got caught up in tangible details, things that stuck out to them as not “right”. Years of digesting the OT meant everyone was a expert on exactly how a Indy film should look and feel. And really technology had come so far since 1989 it couldn’t possibly replicate them. So as soon as that CGI gopher showed up in the first minute and didn’t fit with the OT it was downhill from there really.

But I’m actually here to say, I think KOTC works just fine except for two scenes - Mutt doing Tarzan and the three waterfalls. The three waterfalls scene is particularly egregious because it’s shot by Spielberg, a master storyteller who is a genius at telling us his intention for any given scene. And yet the three waterfalls scene is neither thrilling, comedic, nor anything really. It just is. What was he trying to achieve with it? It does nothing to move us.

I think a lot of the other criticisms are merely tangible details, or a refusal to accept something different.
EXCELLENT observations! Look we're conversing on an IJ fan forum, so our biases cannot be overlooked. That said, I agree totally. Yesterday Showtime 2 (in USA) aired the 4 Indy films in succession. I was channel flipping against the Mets/Yankees game and wound up watching most of KOTCS again. There's no question, that most of the criticism for the script, the alien macguffin, etc, is from adults. The refusal to suspend disbelief is really where that comes from. This was a point I used to make all the time about this film, and shamefully one that it seems Mr. Ford and Spielberg also were complicit in. The franchise is based on a man who has deal with various supernatural forces, for which the audience suspended disbelief three times prior. Yet extra-terrestrials are a bridge too far? Come on, seriously? The History Channel's mock-u-mentary series Ancient Aliens has run for years and had good ratings for exactly that. People find the stories compelling, and many center on mesoamerican archaeological history. When I hear someone rag on this film due to "aliens" it just annoys me to no end.

The CGI and requisite stunts looked absurd, as did the visual look of the film. I put some of that on the production department, but Spielberg/Kaminski get most of my blame for that. All we ever heard about was "nuking the fridge" but this was one of my favorite parts! It was slap stick, so what? IMO, the film worked fine right up until Indy/Mutt are captured and brought to the Amazon base camp, to be reunited with Oxley and Marion. From there the film goes off the rails. The quicksand scene is funny but looked like it was shot on an SNL stage. The Oxley character's headspace plus the power of the skull itself was never properly "sold" to the audience. That plus why was Indy so "helpful" to the Ruskies? Again, too "Disney" if you ask me, and they hadn't even bought it up yet. The final reveal at the end was dumb as well, although the temple and the ancient booby traps were cool. I think Spielberg made an error in judgement by allowing the film to be way too "light."
 

British Raider

Well-known member
EXCELLENT observations! Look we're conversing on an IJ fan forum, so our biases cannot be overlooked. That said, I agree totally. Yesterday Showtime 2 (in USA) aired the 4 Indy films in succession. I was channel flipping against the Mets/Yankees game and wound up watching most of KOTCS again. There's no question, that most of the criticism for the script, the alien macguffin, etc, is from adults. The refusal to suspend disbelief is really where that comes from. This was a point I used to make all the time about this film, and shamefully one that it seems Mr. Ford and Spielberg also were complicit in. The franchise is based on a man who has deal with various supernatural forces, for which the audience suspended disbelief three times prior. Yet extra-terrestrials are a bridge too far? Come on, seriously? The History Channel's mock-u-mentary series Ancient Aliens has run for years and had good ratings for exactly that. People find the stories compelling, and many center on mesoamerican archaeological history. When I hear someone rag on this film due to "aliens" it just annoys me to no end.

The CGI and requisite stunts looked absurd, as did the visual look of the film. I put some of that on the production department, but Spielberg/Kaminski get most of my blame for that. All we ever heard about was "nuking the fridge" but this was one of my favorite parts! It was slap stick, so what? IMO, the film worked fine right up until Indy/Mutt are captured and brought to the Amazon base camp, to be reunited with Oxley and Marion. From there the film goes off the rails. The quicksand scene is funny but looked like it was shot on an SNL stage. The Oxley character's headspace plus the power of the skull itself was never properly "sold" to the audience. That plus why was Indy so "helpful" to the Ruskies? Again, too "Disney" if you ask me, and they hadn't even bought it up yet. The final reveal at the end was dumb as well, although the temple and the ancient booby traps were cool. I think Spielberg made an error in judgement by allowing the film to be way too "light."
They did shoot a scene where Mac’s head is put under a truck tire and Indy agrees to help them in order to save his life, but I guess for economy they cut it.
Aside from a few grisly moments, it does feel like they were aiming for something closer to a romp.
 

British Raider

Well-known member
The thing is when he helps the Russians at Area 51, what they are looking for doesn’t seem that life and death, what possibly could they be doing with alien remains that poses such a threat? But Indy has them unload their gun powder to find the magnetic box (a great Spielbergian moment) which goes some way to disarming them. They do still shoot at him later but it feels like an attempt was made.
 

emtiem

Well-known member
The franchise is based on a man who has deal with various supernatural forces, for which the audience suspended disbelief three times prior. Yet extra-terrestrials are a bridge too far? Come on, seriously? The History Channel's mock-u-mentary series Ancient Aliens has run for years and had good ratings for exactly that. People find the stories compelling, and many center on mesoamerican archaeological history. When I hear someone rag on this film due to "aliens" it just annoys me to no end.

Massively agree: it seems so incredibly logical for a series about an archeologist who unearths supernatural treasures to run into the old 'ancient aliens built the pyramids' story to me... you just would do that story. Especially if you're setting it in the UFO-crazy 50s.

The CGI and requisite stunts looked absurd, as did the visual look of the film. I put some of that on the production department, but Spielberg/Kaminski get most of my blame for that.

I would really love to see the new, de-goldened version of the film which is on the 4K set- it looks so much better. I may have to upgrade my equipment!

All we ever heard about was "nuking the fridge" but this was one of my favorite parts! It was slap stick, so what?

It's great movie logic: again, it works.

IMO, the film worked fine right up until Indy/Mutt are captured and brought to the Amazon base camp, to be reunited with Oxley and Marion. From there the film goes off the rails.

For me it's immediately after the cafe scene. That's a good scene, but the motorcycle chase feels bereft of ideas and tension, and from there the film slips away. Sequences like the graveyard bit just don't have any concept behind them: they just go into a hole and find the skull. And that keeps happening: the ideas aren't there.

I think Spielberg made an error in judgement by allowing the film to be way too "light."
Yes, it's just a lack of tension and drama which an Indy films needs as well as the fun bits. Imagine if the ending had a bit of that Close Encounters spookiness when we met the aliens. Maybe we shouldn't have even seen them clearly.
 
Top