*SPOILER* Indiana Jones......

[cleverlymadeup]

The problem, for me, was that the alien plot is, *ahem* well, alien, in an indy film.

The first 3 were based on the notion that religions mythology was true. The arc (jewish), the stones (i have no idea, but i guess some sort of indian tribe), and the grail (christian).
They were, in a sense, all "magical" plots.

ok the NAZI's were into the occult (religious items) and the russians were into ... ALIENS and pyschic stuff

so why would a movie with russians in the 1950s deal with strictly religious things when they were more into the paranormal?

simple answer it wouldn't, anyone saying it's a cop out really isn't grasping the history part of the movie and how it's actually holding true to some aspects of the history of the time

 

[BuckminsterF]

Fantastic movie, although the aliens were a bit much (stunning though) and Shia LaBouf is a horrible human being and should be exiled for what he has done. Much better than the third, not as good as the first, and about on par with the second (maybe a bit better).

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Shia LaBouf is a horrible human being and should be exiled for what he has done.

agreed i don't like him as an actor but he's the "it boy" at the moment for acting

i think it was probly stephen that cast him, he did the same thing with short round in temple of doom, tho short round was way cooler

 

[sf2k]

yes it does meet the times and how the soviets of that era were into aliens. fine. it's just that such a plot hasn't been new or useful even since Total Recall or The Abyss, and therefore it was the wrong plot to choose.

Also it detracts from history, human history, as something that is cool and various and undiscovered. Many a kid became a real archeologist because of Raiders. Crusade makes a nice Father's Day movie as well. I don't see anything inspirational in Crystal Skull other than CGI meetups.

 

[sf2k]

--deleting post--

 

[moon_knight]

I had no problems with the aliens, but there was no real resolution. Now, I'm not saying there has to be resolution in a movie, but in it's place there needs to be some compelling reason to continue things on. Instead, not at all - skull put in place, aliens vanish. Beats me, I haven't thought it through, but anyone coming to this conclusion is already ahead of the Spielberg/Lucas creative team.

 

[DGKT93]

are the aliens a big part of the film? i havent seen it yet.......and dont really plan too.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

are the aliens a big part of the film? i havent seen it yet.......and dont really plan too.

about in so much as the magical spirits are a part of raiders of the lost ark

 

[DGKT93]

i need to watch the origanals. lol

 

[monkey tassels]

I thought the movie was terrible. It was well made and all but Indiana Jones is about desecrating ancient temples and races for treasure and fighting Nazis. He was made an all American hero, but I think the alien was just too far. I know that crystal skulls are a real mystery, but I just thought that a giant space ship just wasn't Indiana Jones. That and the occasional completely ridiculous stunt. Tearing people's hearts out is cool but jumping in a fridge saving yourself from a nuke detonating less than a mile away is just pushing it.

 

[miraclefilms]

The problem, for me, was that the alien plot is, *ahem* well, alien, in an indy film.

The first 3 were based on the notion that religions mythology was true. The arc (jewish), the stones (i have no idea, but i guess some sort of indian tribe), and the grail (christian).
They were, in a sense, all "magical" plots.

ok the NAZI's were into the occult (religious items) and the russians were into ... ALIENS and pyschic stuff

so why would a movie with russians in the 1950s deal with strictly religious things when they were more into the paranormal?

simple answer it wouldn't, anyone saying it's a cop out really isn't grasping the history part of the movie and how it's actually holding true to some aspects of the history of the time

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your reasoning. While it is an interesting point that Nazis were into paranormal and Russians were into aliens, story wise, it's not a proper conclusion.

I mean, it's an Indiana Jones film. Not a "Soviets into aliens" movie. Since it's an Indiana Jones Film, the selection of the antagonist should be based on what works for the story, instead of having the story morphed into something that would fit the needs of a pre-selected antagonist.

Were this the "Russians into aliens" film, by all means, put all the aliens you want and dispense with the religious artifacts at will. Then this story would be in need of proper protagonist. Not a fancy pants archeologist, but maybe Fox Mulder's granddaddy.

While the history aspect of the Indy films is, indeed, a significant asset to the experience, and Harrison's Ford age is undoubtedly a determining factor, the "star" of the story is Indiana Jones. This is his universe. Everything in it should revolve around him. What doesn't work for Indy, should be discarded.

I liked Sabbad comment: "It's like a sequel to Saving Private Ryan in which the Americans fight against a wizard".

Saying that wizards HAVE to fight using magic, and concluding that it's perfectly reasonable for the bad guy to shoot lightning from his eye sockets, is not a proper argument. While it's true that if wizards use magic, they can excrete lightning bolts from whichever orifice they see fit, the premise is ignoring the big picture. In other words, "WTF is a wizard doing in the Saving Private Ryan sequel?!"

So, in an effort to conclude without the use of sarcasm, my opinion is that while the "history part of the movie and how it's actually holding true to some aspects of the history of the time" is a valid appreciation of the good points the movie is trying to make, my general perception is that they don't shine as they could, because Indy 4 failed at bigger things.

If you build a house, and it crumbles, it makes no difference how pretty the rooms were. Nor having the prettiest rooms excuses the failure in the integrity of the building.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your reasoning. While it is an interesting point that Nazis were into paranormal and Russians were into aliens, story wise, it's not a proper conclusion.

I mean, it's an Indiana Jones film. Not a "Soviets into aliens" movie. Since it's an Indiana Jones Film, the selection of the antagonist should be based on what works for the story, instead of having the story morphed into something that would fit the needs of a pre-selected antagonist.

Were this the "Russians into aliens" film, by all means, put all the aliens you want and dispense with the religious artifacts at will. Then this story would be in need of proper protagonist. Not a fancy pants archeologist, but maybe Fox Mulder's granddaddy.

ok so the fact that all three of the original films had things to do with their respective social groups is ok but when the fourth one follows that same pattern it's a horrible tragedy of writing and film making

so really wake up smell the coffee and realize your argument is full of holes big enough to have a large spherical boulder roll thru it. the fourth movie followed the exact same pattern as the first three, the russians were very anti-religion, even tho they were saying how the ancient ppl worshiped the skull and the aliens and such

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

Is it just me, or did seeing Shiola flick that knife around like that just seem wrong to anyone?

It just didn't look natural...

 

[TheKnifeJuggler]

The problem, for me, was that the alien plot is, *ahem* well, alien, in an indy film.

The first 3 were based on the notion that religions mythology was true. The arc (jewish), the stones (i have no idea, but i guess some sort of indian tribe), and the grail (christian).
They were, in a sense, all "magical" plots.

Although the crystal skulls are painted as being deities, of some sort of Mayan civilization, the fact that they are explained as alien, crosses the line from (religious) fantasy, to sci-fi.

And I'm not saying that fantasy is better than sci-fi. It's just that this particular franchise is a fantasy one. Imagine that in "Lord of the Rings 4", Frodo boards a spaceship.

I guess had the movie not been an Indiana Jones film, but a stand alone summer adventure, I would've enjoyed it more. I wouldn't have had any problems with the aliens (although I would still be bitching about the refrigerator and the Tarzan scenes).

What's so fantasy about ancient civilizations being founded by aliens?

We all know that's how it really happened...

 

[miraclefilms]

What's so fantasy about ancient civilizations being founded by aliens?

We all know that's how it really happened...

That's the problem, it's not fantasy. It's sci-fi.

...the fourth movie followed the exact same pattern as the first three

No it didn't. The fourth switched genre.

so really wake up smell the coffee and realize your argument is full of holes big enough to have a large spherical boulder roll thru it.

Man, saying an argument is full of holes "just because", does not disprove it.

You are free to disagree. Evidently, you enjoyed the movie immensely. Simply, I, along with a lot of other people, found it disappointing. My view is that aliens are not fantasy. This creates a phenomenon known as "double mumbo jumbo". It's a screenwriting term to describe a common problem in movies with "magical" elements.

The double mumbo jumbo basically states, that, on average, a movie goer will suspend disbelief for a plot about vampires. He/she will suspend disbelief for a plot about martians. But he/she will not suspend disbelief for a plot about martian vampires.

So, the series carry the baggage of the "vampires", since this kind of supernatural element was the norm in the first 3. And in the 4th, the martians come in.

Although, for some people, aliens are as fantastic and fictitious as elves and dragons. I imagine this viewers had no problem suspending disbelief when the movie series changed religious mythology for inter dimensional travelers. In their eyes, they are all part of the same kind of magic.

I'm not trying to convince you to start disliking the movie. I'm just telling you why I didn't.

 

[Girlysprite]

I didn't like the monkey scene either, also because it look too much CG.

Although aliens are a pretty standard route in many movies, it didn't have this big 'it's out there' feeling for me that so many alien movies have. It still felt like Indiana Jones for me, and it happened to have some aliens in it. I also liked how they were worked out.

Also, the nuke scene was a bit too much and 3 gunners with automatics on 5 meter distance missing a group of people kinda dispels suspension of disbelief.

 

[talon92]

does it really matter how shitty the plot was? everyone here saw the movies and so did millions of other people. lucas and spielberg achieved exactly what they achieved with the other films: blockbuster hits.

The movie is great because of how it makes people feel (safe, happy, reassured), because people have a good time and because this causes everyone to see it. They could have gone any route they wanted with the plot and we'd all have seen it. And we'd all be debating it here.

It did what indy films do, and thats what really matters.

 

[FavouredEnemy]

The original three movies (from what I recall) were subtle. Supernatural stuff happened, but it wasn't explained. The mystery kept it... mysterious. The ark opened, Nazis died. The grail was drunk from, Sean Connery didn't die. Even when it happened, it was small scale.

An entire city disappearing and being replaced with a gigantic lake filled with freshly torn up boulders after the spaceship disappeared? Not subtle, not mysterious, not 'things man should not toy with'.

I'm also not sure why the aliens killed Cate Blanchett. Pretty lame gift.

 

[tiredinnuendo]

I'm torn on this movie.

On one hand, I loved Indy growing up, and as a teenager I was far more forgiving of some plot points that I might pick at today. It was far easier for me to sit back and just enjoy the pulp action of it all. That's what Indy is for, after all.

I feared that this movie might not resonate with my nostalgia, so as a preventative measure, I watched the original trilogy again, just to make sure that I remembered the movies for what they really were. They were flimsier than I recalled, I'll grant you, but they were still awesome.

Then I saw this movie. I'll start off by saying that on the whole, they did a bunch of stuff very right. I'm not going to pick on details like the highways in the jungle, because this is a Jones flick and we overlook that stuff. Here are my problems with the movie:

1) Aliens. Others have said it, and they're right. I was terrified that they'd go the Cold war sci-fi route with this movie instead of sticking to their roots, and they did, and it was terrible.

The "artifact" had too much power, and it was stupid, never explained power. Looking into the eye sockets of a skull stimulates dormant areas of your brain, causing you to relate better with crazy people? The body in the box is so "highly magnetized" that it can attract gunpowder (a substance containing no metal) from 100 yards away, yet it doesn't pull the lights down from the ceiling? Oh yeah, and it repels ants. Right. The original artifacts in Indy films usually had one purpose right at the end of the movie (if they did anything at all), and otherwise you just had Indy skeptically moving forward.

"You're a hard man to read, Dr. Jones." Yeah, well, you just made yourself look retarded to everyone in this theater.

2) The reignited romance. I get why they did it, but really, those characters are old enough that we don't really need a budding 65-year old love affair as a central theme. It also seemed really forced. We'll have two fights, and then we're in love again. Lucas never could write good love stories, but usually there was some improv on set that saved the scenes and made them awesome. ("I love you." "I know.")

No one saved these scenes.

3) I wasn't really buying the whole Jones Jr thing. Maybe it was that he said, "Do you have a problem with it," like six times. Maybe it was the Tarzan scenes. I'm not sure. What Lucas and Speilberg need to realize though, is that threatening to do something that the fans will hate (Having the kid put on the hat at the end) and then pulling back from it (Having Indy snatch it away) is not the same thing as fan service.

It doesn't make the character better. It doesn't hang a lantern on how lacking he was as a continuation of the Jones saga. It's just you, the writer, making a terrible threat and then saying, "Gotcha! Don't you love me for not meaning it?"

Anyway, this is long enough, but in brief, the movie wasn't bad, and it did feel *like* a Jones film, but note the like. I wouldn't call this an Indy film, just like I don't consider episodes one and two to be valid Star Wars movies. This was like Indiana Jones. Similar to how National Treasure or Tomb Raider was like Indiana Jones. My final advice to anyone who hasn't seen it would be to either wait for rental or maybe do a matinee. This isn't worth full price.

- J