OK, as a testament to how bad this movie was, in a completely banal way, not “so bad it’s good,” until I read the thread title, I had completely forgotten it existed. I also don’t remember the plot, and had no recollection of aliens being involved.
Now, as for Shia LeBeouf - you know how some actors just have charisma and sexual magnetism? He is pretty much the opposite for me. Not just bland, but actively off-putting. But I think the problems with this film went waaaay beyond that factor.
(Wait! Was there a scene with killer red ants or something? I swear, I watched the whole thing.)
Completely obvious. Even I instantly realized what was going on, and I’m about the dimmest bulb imaginable when I’m watching a movie.
…and for that matter, why does he have to be Indy’s son? That was pretty contrived, I thought; way too pat.
Although it was nice to see Karen Allen grin again.
While it is quite easy to believe this is true, as Lucas has shown himself to be a hack and to have shot the last of his load back in 1977, is there any confirmation that this is true? I’m talking about a real source - someone connected with the film (and not the monkey trainer of 5th Assistant Key Grip). If so, I’d like to read that; if not, I’m going to assume that this was made up by the Lucas-haters.
Nah. I have no stake in that. I wanted the Star Wars prequels to be good, and they weren’t. I agree with Shia that the second Transformers movie went sour. But I genuinely enjoyed Indy 4. Enough so that I saw it twice in the theater. I think it was probably even marginally better than #2.
The best reason I can think of to trash the movie is to let people know that you can make good movies, you just didn’t happen to in this case. It’s like a, “Don’t worry, I’ll choose well on my next movie. Don’t be avoiding me in the theater!” But really…what evidence do we have that he can choose to be in a good movie?
The Hollywood Reporter and Variety are both bullish on Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps, although they split on the Beef.
As to why he’s trashing a previous movie, the answer is right there in the OP: “I think if you don’t acknowledge it, then why do they trust you the next time you’re promoting a movie.”
Yes, but he’d have more credibility if he acknowledged that a movie sucked before it came out, rather than a year or more later (as in Indy 4 and Transformers 2).
He’d have more credibility with Dewey Finn, perhaps, but he’d’ve blown his entire future’s worth of credibility with Hollywood. I’ma go out on a limb here and guess which one is more important to him.
I’m sure I remember reading once about lead actors having clauses in their contracts obliging them to promote the film for a certain amount of time. Presumably this would include not trashing the film too.
FWIW, I enjoyed Indy 4 - not as much as the others, but it was fun. Perhaps it helped that I saw it with a kid who was around the same age that I was when I watched the originals.
I agree that the problem with the fourth Indiana Jones movie wasn’t Mr. la Beef. I’m not sure exactly what it was, because if I go through the elements they’re there – escapes from ancienbt traps, Archaeological background 9with enough reality mixed in to make it interesting), outrageous escapes and stunts. But it just didn’t Gel. It wasn’t the lack of a Religious Angle – the UFO Alien stuff made up for that. But there’s nothing there that makes me want to re-watch the film. Maybe it’s the lack of scenes inspired by Uncle Scrooge’s The Prize of Pizarro.
