I just got back from seeing Indy 4.  I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed the film.  For me, it was exactly what and Indiana Jones movie should be.  I am curious as to what other people thought of the movie.

Note: I created a 'spoiler' thread so that we could give more details without causing any issues.

I enjoyed it also but I thought there were a few too many goofy moments -- i.e. things that were just too hard to believe. The earlier films had some of those moments too, as any good action adventure movie invariably does, there were just a few too many in this one. However the movie was redeemed by some good performances - Ford as Indy was back in fine form in my view.

However I agree with Vido that it was probably the weakest of the 4 movies -- hard to beat those first 3 though.

I saw it last friday and I was a bit disappointed. The reason why I was only a bit disappointed was, that I was warned by a friend, it wasn't all that good.

The movie did have it's moments (like the painting of Marcus Brody on the wall of the University), but in my opinion, after a wait of 19 years, they could have come up with a better story. The whole Roswell thing wasn't something that seemed appropriate for an Indy story.

Cate Blanchett seemed to have lost her Russian accent after 3 lines of dialogue ??

Jim Broadbent was used as a substitute for the Marcus Brody character, but there was absolutely no chemistry.

The Marion Ravenwood character was nice, but it missed the intensity of the original.

Maybe I'm too critical, but for a movie of this magnitude and this long in the making I believe I should be. On the other hand, I will definitely give the movie a second viewing.

Quoting cvermeylen:

Quote:
The whole Roswell thing wasn't something that seemed appropriate for an Indy story.

My son said the same thing.  I thought it was a perfect fit as it dealt with the mythology for the area.

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
I liked it, but the Tarzan moment kinda felt really pushed.

That scene gave me pause as well.  I mean, even if you could accept that he was able to swing through the jungle, why would the monkeys follow and attack the Russians?

Quoting ritchf:

Quote:
and the ending wasn't that borrowed from National Treasure?.

I reminded me of 'The Mummy Returns'.

Very nice, now I can post the PM ya_shin asked me for in the other Indy thread:

What threw me off first of all was Lucas' renunciation from the "classic" story build up of the franchise, namely the lack of an merely introductory action / adventure sequence that not only serves to entertain but also provides the viewer with certain aspects important for the storyline. In the first movie that sequence set the pace for the rest of the movie (and it was actually held throughout), in the second the creative team behind the franchise (literally) set the screen ablaze and the third installment introduced the young Indiana Jones and portrayed his early development of determination that was key to his successes in the previous and the third movie.

Part IV has nothing like it, instead we're presented with a typical 21st century Hollywood movie start sequence, that throws the viewer right in the middle and doesn't explain anything regarding story or characters, not even by use of dialogue.

Further points of criticism for me are the weak and flat characters, that were cast with equally uninspiring actors (save the main character of course).

Starting off with the CIA / KGB / CIA / whatever agent, whose name I couldn't even recall at the end of the movie. That guy left a memorable mark just as well as the third freight crate from the left when the troupe entered the storage area in the first couple of minutes. No comparison whatsoever to the witty and charming character of Marcus Brody, none.

The russian counterpart was equally flat (pun intended...) and Cate Blanchett's acting was about as pale as the complexion of her character as well. Apart from the sudden change in articulation (don't remember if the German dubbed version had this as well) it was already hard enough to watch. This character is supposed to be on the same level as René Belloq, Mola Ram and Walter Donovan (who already was but a shadow compared to Indy's former adversaries) and is in fact nothing more than any of the thugs Indy did away with in the first movies with a wink and a smirk.

The soundtrack is boring, uninspired and has too little dramatic dynamics, which is most obvious during the campus chase. The music does not support the pace but rather slows it down.

The jungle chase is but a bad copy of "Pirates of the Carribean II", with the Tarzan sequence being the moment of originality (although I waited for that guy to slam straight into a tree....)

The story is flat out bad, and the reference to Roswell and X-Files kind of subjects is inappropriate IMO. Indy never was a science fiction franchise, but an action / adventure kind of guy. There's enough SciFi stuff out there and enough A/A topics to cover so this mix was unnecessary. Keeping in mind that this was the fourth or fifth script I don't even want to know what shiitake mushroomty stories the others proposed....

Shea Le Boef (or whatever his name is spelled) is terrible (as usual), and the attempt to set up his character as being "cool" fails miserably at the first second of screen time as this kid rapes Marlon Brando's legacy without even a whiff of the air of a cool rebellious type of guy but merely a cute kid on a nice bike... and it doesn't get better throughout the movie (hence my desire to see him do a "George of the Jungle" moment later on...).

To top is off, Indy actually DOES run into the sand pit, rendering my statement in the other Indy thread moot. Good thing about this though: here we actually have a couple of entertaining one liners, reminding the viewer of things past...

The female lead is no match for Kate Capshaw, and even in the first Indy movie the character revived for the fourth was far more interesting, although with less screen time. The humbug regarding Indy's son (Luke, I am your father, anyone.... c'mon George, that's soooo lame) and the corny wedding scene aren't even woth commenting.

And, regrettably, the movie shows that Harrision Ford has aged a bit too much for this role. Still delivering a decent job, the pace of the movie, especially in Indy's action sequences, is toned down considerably compared to the other three. More important (and disappointing): the smug coolness of Indiana Jones got lost somewhere during the past 19 years.

I admit that I had high expectations, especially since German TV showed the first three in the weeks before the opening, but in my book the new Indy ranks behind "National Treasure", because that one was actually coherent.

I watched the first three back-to-back on Saturday and then went to a Saturday evening showing with the rest of the series fresh in my head, and... I sadly have to agree with many of the criticism leveled against the new one.

I didn't flat out hate it, but I far from loved it. A tie for third in the series with Temple of Doom. Well, maybe not a tie. Doom was pretty damn bad. So I guess Raiders -> Crusade -> Crystal Skull -> Doom.

I didn't have a problem with the overall arc of the story, but the ending was just garbage. I was also not a fan of the Mac character. And then there's the over use of CGI. A lot of the charm of the old Indy movies come from the use of real locations and real stunts, and with so much animation going on in this one I felt it lost a lot of the Indy feel.

Oh, I thought it was kinda cute how Mutt's nickname is Mutt. You know, Indiana the dog...

KM