Analysis of the Most recent "Indiana Jones" Movie

OK, I saw it on an airplane, so I can’t comment about the visual effects. But it seems that IJ and the Temple of Doom is now self-parody! That Russian chick was like Natasha from “Rocky and Bullwinkle” (“squirrel have secret documents”).
The Russian soldiers were hilarious-dancing that Cossak kick-dance around the fire. and of course, IJ’s bastard son (“Mutt”) is a parody of a parody.
Do man eating ants REALLY exist? How come they only eat evil commies? And how come roads mysteriously appear in the Amazon jungle?
My only question: is this the last of this garbage to be produced? or woill we see “Mutt” (and his old man) finding yet another alien/crystal skull/embalmed conquistadoe in South america?
How about “Indiana Jones and The Horrible Nursing Home”?:smiley:

Here’s my analysis: it was jaw-droppingly bad and one of the worst movies I’ve seen in 15 years. Nothing in the movie worked, absolutely nothing. From Karen Allen’s silly I-can’t-believe-I’m-in-a-big-movie-again smile to Harrison Ford’s sleeptalk line readings, the movie was a disaster on all fronts. The idiotic plot started out bad (“it really nuked the fridge”) and grew steadily worse until a stunningly stupid and drawn-out climax which even the producers of the latest Mummy movie would’ve hesitated to include.

I can’t wait for it to come out on DVD so I can not watch it some more! :stuck_out_tongue:

Steven Spielberg said he’d been wanting to make this for over ten years before it was greenlit. What supposedly held it up for so long was that no one could agree upon a screenplay! And yet, the script they all got on board behind seemed hastily slapped together.

Cate Blanchett is an actress who I have liked in other films, but here she is chewing so hard, I imagine she was the inspiration for the man-eating ants.

Shia LeBeuf (or however you spell it) is handsome, but has zero charisma. The film seemed to be setting up a possible ‘Son of Indiana Jones’ franchise for him. I pray that it doesn’t happen.

Harrison Ford showed no enthusiasm. He couldn’t even be bothered to phone his lines in, he emailed them.

This film is an example of going back to the well too many times. The first Indiana Jones film was so fresh and lively because it took all the time-worn, familliar tropes of derring-do action/adventure films and turned them on their heads, subverting it, so that every time you thought you knew what was going to happen, something utterly different happened. This time however was the exact opposite - it followed a formula, and simply added one “Indiana Jones” type thing after another.

I’m in favor of anything that takes Spielberg and/or Lucas down a few pegs. I’m sorry it had to take Harrison Ford down with them, but collateral damage is often unavoidable.

Too bad people will still pay to see movies made by these two, no matter how bad this turkey was.

Also, there was a real sense of danger in the first movie; and Indiana wasn’t really that much of a “hero,” he was just a little bit less bad than the other “raiders” of the ark. Indy was really scared at times and in real danger of getting seriously hurt or even killed every 10 minutes or so.

In the new one, everyone is just grinning through the whole thing, even while standing on top of speeding motorcycles and sword-fighting with Communist killers. Not once did I get the feeling that anyone was in any real danger. If the characters aren’t taking the action seriously, why should the audience?

I haven’t seen the flick yet so I don’t know if I’m qualified to comment but I will anyway.
I have a gut feeling that the person to blame for it being crap is none other than George Lucas. I heard the hold up all these years wasn’t a decent script, but a script that Lucas and Spieberg both approved of. I believe decent ones came and went that Spielberg liked but Lucas put the veto on each one.
Then Lucas came up with the lame alien plotline that everyone hated but Lucas being Lucas dug in his stubborn heels proclaiming it’s either aliens or nothing.
Thus we were given another George Lucas piece-o-crap.

I’d rather see Indy in a park, picking scraps out of bins, than in another piece of shit movie like this.

Actually, I’d rather see some kind of re-imagining of the francshie, ala Batman and James Bond. A new actor and younger filmmakers could easily breathe some new life into the series. But I’m sure Lucas would never let it happen. :frowning:

Actually, it seemed as if they’d shuffled together half a dozen screenplays and randomly pulled out pages. Literally.

The Indy of Raiders was an example of the Bumbling Hero; he took himself seriously, but his plans were so improvised and spontaneous that it was remarkable when they panned out. He also had a real level of pathos that was mirrored by the tempo of the movie; when Marion is killed, he doesn’t make a flip comment and move on, but is sincerely distraught. Subsequent movies didn’t maintain the same pacing and characterization; by Last Crusade Indy seemed to know that he would survive anything (and after the events of the first two movies who could blame him for feeling a little indestructible?)

The Indy of Crystal Skull took the increasing levels of self-parody at his invulnerability to absurd heights; it was basically a combination of the direction of John Woo and Michael Bay, making it impossible to actually be concerned, and therefore interested, in any of the characters. The visible lack of acting effort did nothing to improve that situation. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a veritable classic popcorn movie (that works despite the fact that the plot makes no sense); Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a disposable would-be summer blockbuster.


Eh, it wasn’t great, but was kinda fun in places. Not an intellectual feast, but not a screaming horror, either.

Did adolescent rebels in the early 1950’s really use the name “Mutt”?

Ah, it was ok. I enjoyed it, it was a pleasant diversion.
But dammit, he only used the whip once!!

This is basically what I thought when seeing the most recent movie. In Raiders of the Lost Ark Indy was clearly a tough guy, but he wasn’t invulnerable or any kind of superhero. He hadn’t previously been portrayed as the sort of character who’d be able to survive a direct nuclear strike!

I’d have been fine with him escaping from the test site in a fairly implausible manner, like by jumping onto the back of the car in which the baddies were speeding away or finding an underground maintenance tunnel, or pretty much anything other than what actually happened.

Also, aliens do not belong in an Indiana Jones film. They just don’t.

Lucas is talking about doing another one. From the descriptions I’ve read, it sounds like it’ll have Indy and Mutt being “equals” and then the film after that, Mutt’ll basically go solo. :rolleyes:

I didn’t realize until this thread that his name was “Mutt”. I spent the whole moving thinking his nickname was “Mud”! As in “His name is Mud.” :smack:

Army ants exist but are very exaggerated for this film. They only eat the commies because Jones has the magical crystal skull that deflect the ants. The roads appear because the nazis had that saw wielding tree chopping truck.

I liked it well enough on its own merits and as a bookend to the series. Parts of it were over the top, but that was fun.

Beyond all the obvious reasons to think this is stupid, I can’t really see myself as engrossed in an archaeology adventure taking place in 1965 as one happening in 1936. Seems to lose a little something.