I somehow got myself into an advance screening of Indy 4 tonight...

Won't spoil ANYTHING... but know this... this movie is PERFECT, as far as what I wanted to get from it. PERFECT.

AMAZING. Go see it this weekend. Then we can talk, lol.

Fair enough.

Ok, this doesn't spoil anything...

But I just wanted to say that the BEST thing about Indy 4, is that is CAPTURES a style or type of filmmaking that just isn't around anymore... even though it's "updated" and all, it still FEELS like the originals.... it feels like what (when I was a kid) I remember a "Movie" felt like. Action, comedy, adventure, intrigue, memorable characters, lines, locations.... everything was just perfectly inserted like a meticulously constructed pyramid of golden chocolate.

I was worried that Shia Lebouf might annoy me (is it just me, or are they putting him in EVERYTHING?!?), but he was great.... everything was great! YES!!!!!!! Feels good.

Thats cool you liked it Spatula. I'm sure I'll see it in the next week or two, but I won't get my hopes up. Not that the others weren't, but the previews and reviews I've heard for this one lead me to believe they made it too commercial and dropped all the pretenses of it not being that kind of film. Hey, I like pretenses if they are needed, but that's just me.

Hopefully its good though. "He chose, POORLY." Still one of my favorite movie lines.

I will see it on Friday. Already planned to take half the day off for it. I was one of those sad saps who stood in line for Temple of Doom when it was first released way back when. We stood in line all night and half the next day, playing Trivial Pursuit. I still have the Newspaper article stashed from the opening day announcement. Oh, yes, if I wasn't old and feeble and working for a living, I'd be in the theater at 12:01 AM tomorrow (tonight).

I went to a midnight showing last night.. I concur. Classic Indy. Very enjoyable. :)

Classic Indy, yes. Very enjoyable. I had a pretty good idea where it was headed from the number on the hanger door. Anyone else catch that subtle reference?

I have to admit, though, I was somewhat disappointed with Karen Allen's performance.

Yeah, I noticed the number, though I had my suspicions that was the location even before we got to see the hangar.. ;)

I dunno.. Karen Allen's performance seemed about spot on to me.. she was still very much Marion, but a bit older, a little more even keel -- which makes sense, given the new developments in her life since we last saw her. :)

Yeah, I noticed the number, though I had my suspicions that was the location even before we got to see the hangar.. ;)

I dunno.. Karen Allen's performance seemed about spot on to me.. she was still very much Marion, but a bit older, a little more even keel -- which makes sense, given the new developments in her life since we last saw her. :)

I was thinking more in terms of the delivery of her lines. She just seemed a little "off" at times. But, then, at 40 (July 3rd), I grew up watching her in her younger years, most notably, of course, Raiders, Starman, Scrooged, and that's the preconceived mental picture I had when going into this film. Maybe my expectations were too high. That, and I'm 20 years older, too, so my personal experiences have changed how I view things. I'm sure a much deeper understanding of the filmmaking process and storytelling techniques also hurts my ability to shut off my left brain and just enjoy the ride. I am much more analytical these days than I was as a teenager when I first fell in love with the Indy franchise.

But this is the same feeling I had when I first walked out of Transformers. It wasn't until subsequent viewings that I grew to appreciate it for what it was. No movie is perfect just because of the nature of the beast (target demographics, and all - I'm no longer in the 25 and under category), but when your brain is trained to see them, the flaws tend to stick out more.

The last movie I recall where I walked out floored and went to see it over and over again (11 times within its first two weeks of opening) just to pick it apart (even though it, too, had a few gags that fell flat for me) was Jurassic Park. But, then, with this movie, Spielberg hit a fundamental desire in me to "walk with dinosaurs", a dream I had from a very young age. That scene where the jeep pulls up and the Brachiosaur is revealed still gives me goose bumps. It was Laura Dern's facial expression that truly sold it. And when Allen says of the Triceratops that it was his favorite as a kid, well, it was mine, too. I could identify.

When I first walked out of Indy 4, I failed to initially see the "myth" involved that is so ingrained in practically everything Spielberg and Lucas create, and then it hit me. I know what he was going for based on the underlying premise, but because I grew up with other franchises based on similar notions, I did not have a eureka moment. That, and some of the new character relationships seemed a bit too convenient. I can't go into details yet without spoiling things, but once everyone has seen it, we can go more in depth of my thoughts and analysis.

Jurassic Park was a great movie -- of course the book was much better, but that's typical.

I think other than Pulp Fiction (which my group of friends around that time insisted on dragging me and everyone else to at least once a week, especially when it hit the cheap theater) the only movie I have view multiple times in the theater is American Psycho. I actually went to two successive showings when I was out in CA for infantry school. Of course, I was pretty fresh out of boot camp, and my appreciation of the dark humor was extra high.


On a different note..

I just read on another forum that the refrigerator segment was a bit of a throwback to an early version of the Back to the Future script -- this was the link they provided to illustrate the point: http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/back_to_the_future_original_draft.html -- The short version is, in the original screenplay, rather than a DeLorean, the time machine was a refrigerator,
and the 1.21gigawatts was generated by dropping it in a nuclear test city for his return to the "present"

Im glad you guys enjoyed it. In my opinion I thought it was just average. I wouldn't classify it as an indy classic. The action scenes were great, thats about it. There is only so much you can do with Russians and Guns. I felt the scenes to be cliched... Indy runs, Russians chase, shoot, catches him, rince and repeat all the way thru the journey. The old films had such majestic settings, and epic presence; huge cities, 1000s of extras. This film is riddled with CGI, takes place in only 2 settings, and a few hundred people. Overall, I just felt like it was a blockbuster family movie to make money... I was pretty disappointed :(

Indy runs, Russians chase, shoot, catches him, rince and repeat all the way thru the journey.

Replace "Russians" with "Nazis" and explain to me how that is not classic Indy? :)

As for the "blockbuster family movie to make money" .. well, it IS a studio flick, so that's expected. And really, the originals were made with the same goal.

I freaking loved it.

Everything except the Tarzan scene, which was kind of stupid.

I dunno. It was just like catching up with an old friend. It's a cliche to say that movie took you back to a more simple time. But to be honesty, that's really the best way I can describe it. The nostalgia kicked in early, but it was the movie having that same spirit of just throwing everything up in the air and having a really good time not taking itself seriously that quickly allowd me to overcome the nostaliga.

And what I was left with was a feeling that I had a seen a movie that was just really fun to get lost in.

It's as simple as that, to me.

Replace "Russians" with "Nazis" and explain to me how that is not classic Indy? :)

As for the "blockbuster family movie to make money" .. well, it IS a studio flick, so that's expected. And really, the originals were made with the same goal.

lol, just look at the settings. The russians chased indy thru the jungle the entire time. The nazi chases were everywhere.... towns... deserts... base.... This film will be forgotten, mark my words. The old ones will always be remembered. :)

lol, just look at the settings. The russians chased indy thru the jungle the entire time. The nazi chases were everywhere.... towns... deserts... base.... This film will be forgotten, mark my words. The old ones will always be remembered. :)

So obviously Area 51 & Indy's town, the interrogation/steam-shower, the south american town, the jungle, and the lost city were just string beans then? You got something against the jungle, boy?

And this film won't be forgotten, when in 2012 the aliens come back on the interstellar planet Niburu to teach us even NEWER forms of agriculture!!! Now we'll be able to grow ROCKS! And on those rocks, CHIA! (If that spoiled anything for anybody, too bad- should'a seen it on the weekened... and erm... avoided forum topics about the movie)...

But honestly, I can totally see how people won't "get" this movie.... but it was like an orgasm in my brain the entire time.

I loved it.

I see that it isn't perfect, but after watching all three of the originals multiple (as in over fifty) times, I know that none of them are perfect. They all have silly scenes like the "Tarzan" and "Nuclear" scenes (rafting down the Himalayas). They all have one dimensional bad guys who are cartoonish more than menacing.

But more importantly, they all have Indiana Jones.

I'm in the minority here, but what the hell.

IMHO, Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the greatest movies of all time. Spielberg was in his prime -- Jaws, Close Encounters, 1941 (yes, I love that one too), and Raiders (some would add ET, which was a great movie as well but not as much to my taste). He's done fantastic work since then, but never matched that run.

I believe Raiders was terrific thanks to a brilliant screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan. He knew just how far he could go without losing the audience. The movie itself had some pretty silly stuff, but never went completely over the top.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the 3 sequels. They start out over-the-top and seldom return to earth. I frankly don't care if I ever see any of them again. I had high hopes for Crystal Skull, but in many ways it's the worst of the bunch.

Raiders had class. It had style. It had adult themes and real wit. It had characters like Sallah and Belloq, people with real dimension and depth. And don't even get me started on the difference in treatment of Marion. Yes, it also had a few (like the Nazi sadist) that were more archetypal, but they were minor characters.

The action scenes in Raiders were clever in their simplicity, particularly the basket chase in the marketplace. For whatever reason, the filmmakers chose to jettison most of what made that first movie so great, and substitute BIGGER action, MORE special effects, COMPLETE absurdity.

I think the ideas and historical references in Crystal Skull were interesting, but went nowhere. There was great potential in the Area 51 stuff, the nuclear age, the cold war, the Maya -- love that kind of material. But the movie had nothing to say about any of it. Just an excuse for one more interminable chase/fight/shootout scene. I was bored to tears throughout most of it. If I wanted to see a cartoon I'd wake up earlier Saturday morning.

Okay, said my piece. I'll shut the hell up now.

Man... I must be one of a handful of people that didn't like this movie. It was terrible. Utterly terrible. In the first twenty minutes it seemed like everyone was struggling to get a rhythm. It was obvious that virtually everything was shot on sound stages in front of green screens. Karen Allen's character was pointless. The CGI effects were obviously CGI. (Prairie dogs? Giant ants?) There was no real motivation for Indy to take this trip expect some strange kid on a bike finds him. And why does the government drop all charges and not only give Indy his job back but promotes him as well? This thing is full of plot holes.

And then don't get me started on the entire Tarzan swinging through the trees crap. Ugh. Everyone on this project should be ashamed of themselves. And someone seriously needs to stop Lucas from ever making another movie.

I will agree that this film isn't quite the caliber of the previous film in the franchise, but a bad film that does not make...

I think it's important to keep in mind too that people are generally much less intelligent today than they were when the original films were released. This is thanks to a universal dumbing down of our society through slipping expectations in the public school system, mind numbing television programming, diet, etc.. It's sad, it's unfortunate, but it's true.. and while this film was a business venture, unfortunately it has to be directed at the largest audience, which sadly is an audience with much lower expectations than those who very much disliked the film.

Also, we need to face the fact that Harrison is no spring chicken these days, and the role of Indy is a hell of a stretch for him now. That wouldn't be an issue if the franchise were approached like the Bond films, which would mean that we'd have been on our third or fourth "Indy" by now.. hehe

Had this film been named The Mummy and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull I would have been much more forgiving. The Mummy was obviously an attempt to update Indiana Jones for the new "dumbed down" generation. While the original Indy trilogy isn't without faults there was a line it didn't cross, that of stupid gags. The prairie dogs, the refrigerator, Tarzan and the chase sequence where Mutt gets hit in the crotch half a dozen times are just a few examples where Indy 4 went wrong.

I think it's important to keep in mind too that people are generally much less intelligent today than they were when the original films were released.

OMG, what a cynical thing to say! And I absolutely agree.

As a filmmaker, it makes me want to slit my wrists -- no lie.

Man... I must be one of a handful of people that didn't like this movie. It was terrible. Utterly terrible. In the first twenty minutes it seemed like everyone was struggling to get a rhythm. It was obvious that virtually everything was shot on sound stages in front of green screens. Karen Allen's character was pointless. The CGI effects were obviously CGI. (Prairie dogs? Giant ants?) There was no real motivation for Indy to take this trip expect some strange kid on a bike finds him. And why does the government drop all charges and not only give Indy his job back but promotes him as well? This thing is full of plot holes.

And then don't get me started on the entire Tarzan swinging through the trees crap. Ugh. Everyone on this project should be ashamed of themselves. And someone seriously needs to stop Lucas from ever making another movie.

I agree. It pains me to say but my pop and I don't get to go to many movies at the cinemas anymore on account of the hundreds of indies that we screen each year, but we were really looking forward to it. There were glaring directing omissions (No POV of a car going over a cliff in a CGI movie? Um...., the treatment of Marion like shes some extra), plot holes and story gaps (NICE leader for the Russians, neither a sexual interest nor really scary... the plain jane no personality Russian whom you can neither love nor hate. She's not even greedy like Ilsa. Terrible.) And worst yet, we're supposed to buy the kid is going to be the next Indy? Why not try actually making the audience like the character? Don't we learn that in Screenplay 100?

In the previous movies, Indy had to learn something to protect him or deliver him to success, and it would ruin his enemies. The kooky old doc and the kid solved the problems for Indy this time, and the Russian "wanted to know" and that was her ruin? Please.

What a disaster. I feel like a tool for dissing this franchise and Spielberg whom I repect a TON, but when you compare ANY of the previous movies to this one, there is more heart, better story, a more likeable Indy, and a better sidekick and love interest, you can take your fake CGI and shove it. Give me practicals and opticals and stunts and most importantly, personality and charm, any day of the week.

Had this film been named The Mummy and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull I would have been much more forgiving. The Mummy was obviously an attempt to update Indiana Jones for the new "dumbed down" generation. While the original Indy trilogy isn't without faults there was a line it didn't cross, that of stupid gags. The prairie dogs, the refrigerator, Tarzan and the chase sequence where Mutt gets hit in the crotch half a dozen times are just a few examples where Indy 4 went wrong.

When I was younger, I would've thought all of this was funny as hell. And I'll bet those in the age range for which these gags were targeted thought they were, too.

I still believe Temple of Doom is the worst in the franchise. And Indy 4 could've been much better, on that we can certainly agree. But, it is what it is, and it's going to make a hell of a lot of money between box office and merchandising. That's what Lucas does best.

I picked a book off my shelf the other day that I bought back in 1997 and started reading it again for the first time in 10 years. It's called "Writing Great Characters" by Michael Halperin. This is on the heels of reading "Save the Cat!" by Blake Snyder. The first author clearly had influence on the second. Anyway, some of the basic fundamentals talked about in both of these books are sadly missing from the big summer blockbusters of late. Raiders had many of these elements because Lawrence Kasdan has a solid understanding of good storytelling and multidimensional characters. And this holds up with Empire Strikes Back because it is still my favorite among that franchise for the depth of the characters and how they became vulnerable and, thus, more human. Halperin frequently references Grand Canyon in his book, also written by Kasdan. This "vulnerability" was missing from Indy 4 and Koepp practically elevated him to Superhero, IMO. Look how popular Superhero movies are, and look at Koepp's history with writing them. (I do wish he would take back Zathura). Is it any wonder Indy 4 is what it is?

I see Kasdan's doing a remake of Clash of the Titans. That could be interesting.

Lawrence Kasdan has a solid understanding of good storytelling and multidimensional characters. And this holds up with Empire Strikes Back because it is still my favorite among that franchise for the depth of the characters and how they became vulnerable and, thus, more human.

I'm with you 100% -- Empire was the only "serious" film in that series, thanks both to Lawrence Kasdan and Irvin Kershner. Of course, Lucas felt it was the weakest, presumably because it wasn't mind-numbing pablum. Whatever happened to the man behind THX-1138 and American Graffiti? I miss him.