I guess he is aware of it and he says Harrison Ford was also.
Oddly enough, I saw Indy 4 and while there was a fair amount of dreck, there were some good spots. It really could have been done better.
I feel that one of the problems is the almost fanwanky long drawn out chase/fight scenes. The one that went from the diner to the library was pretty decent, it was not that long, but the one in the damned jungle that ends up down in the water ran twice as long as it should have gone. I know they were trying to keep up the same sense as the original fight scene in the tank in Crusade, and the drop out of the airplane in Temple, and the run through the jungle to the airplane in the beginning of the first one, but give me a break!
Imho, the biggest problem was Shia himself. It was obvious that they were trying to shoehorn him into the series so they could start a new series with a younger Indy. The problem is that Shia is in no way, shape, or form a possible replacement for Indy. I don’t know what Spielburg was possibly thinking. The only actor who could be Indy was Han Solo. The main parts of the movie that really sucked was when he was on the screen.
The other big problem I had was that it seems like the main story was the epilogue to Indy 1. If you changed “Communists” to “Nazi’s”, there was really no difference in the plot. The chases were the same, the characters were the same, etc. Every action scene seemed like the pathetic echo of one done earlier, and better.
Well, I guess that answers any question about an Indy5.
I just read somewhere else, that he was trashing Transformers 2. Now, I’m all for admitting your mistakes, but if keeps trashing his own movies nobody will hire him.
I was wondering about that. In less than a week, he’s trashed two big movie sequels in which he starred. This can’t possibly be good for his career.
Sorry, but I just can’t take a guy with a name like that seriously in the first place.
I thought River Phoenix was very credible as a young Indy, but then the idiot had to go kill himself with drugs.
“I know, let’s pick the guy whose career is really hot right now and put him in this movie TOO!” - is NOT the answer to extending the life of a tired franchise.
Even Stevens was a great show.
Hell yah! Forget Indy, make a movie all about
And keep Ray Winstone in there somewhere.
Yeah, by the way, I actually was talking about this with my wife later and we both agreed that we rather liked Indy 4.
It’s the weakest, in my opinion, but is just barely a step below Temple, which was a disappointment as well.
I haven’t even thought of seeing Transformers 2, though I have heard it is far worse than Indy 4.
Common give the guy a break, no one looks cool swinging from jungle vines, not even Tarzan. The A Bomb test scene was god awful and Shia was no where near that one. The historical artifact was from aliens? I’m not a huge fan of the man but Ford couldn’t polish this turd what’s Shia supposed to do?
I could think of so many other examples but I’ve repressed any other memories of that movie.
It really didn’t matter whether Shia The Beef was in the movie or not; it sucked because it sucked. The story simply did not make any sense at all, for one thing, and it’s hard to engage the audience in a story that isn’t even internally logical. It was badly paced, badly planned out, badly written, and the CGI was cartoonish and silly and made the movie look childish in apposition to the original films, which shined when they did genuine stunt work.
If you take Mr. The Beef out of the film, it sucks just as bad.
This.
It’s the single worst movie I’ve sat through in the last ten years, and that includes all of the (godawful in their own right) Star Wars prequels; at least they were watchable. This piece o’ shit? Not even close to being watchable.
One good thing is because of Indy4 now I know gunpowder is magnetic. You never know when a fact like that may save your life.
C’mon guys. How can a movie be considered bad when it includes this classic scene? (Enjoy it in the original Russian.)
Yeah, it’s not great, but…
Wow. Dude, you need to see more movies. I mean, Battlefield Earth came out in the last 10 years and so did Attack of the Clones, both of which were way worse than Indy 4.
The prequels were watchable? How were they more watchable than this one?
Did you even see Twilight or New Moon or Transformers 2? Did you see Catwoman or the Hottie and the Nottie?
A lot of the complaints about Indy 4 seemed to be in the line of ‘OMG, aliens? Those don’t exist!’
I know it’s thirty years old and so you’re all used to them by now, but I assure you, the other three Indy movies were just as ridiculously implausible.
The aliens aren’t the reason that Indy 4 failed. (All of the movies involved supernatural phenomena, so that wasn’t a problem.) It just wasn’t any fun.
What I want to know is why they felt the need to make the movie. Who was going through a divorce or made a bad investment and needed the paycheck?