Indiana Jones IV

I thought I wouldn't bother to post a new thread, but I thought you guys might be interested in some great news, Frank Darabonts rejected script for Indy 4 has been leaked on to the Internet today.

download it from here: http://pdfscreenplays.net/

I must say even if most of all the stupid and unbelivable moments from Indy 4 are in the script, the dialogue seems a lot less corny and better, and the story seems better. I am a massive darabont fan and I wish that his script had been made, because I was dissapointed with Indy 4. It did get better on the second viewing at the cinema but I thought it was too much of a love fest to the other movies.
 
Well...

- The box contained a corpse of one of the aliens. They were looking at it later on in the tent after they captured Indy. CB's character was basically saying that they took it to study and were excited because they found that it had a crystal skeleton, supporting the theories about the skull.

- The CIA stuff was basically a nod to the paranoia of the era, not a major plot point.

- Mutt mentioned the motorbike when at the camp. He was very annoyed because they'd just abandoned it at the ruins, therefore we assume they used it to ride up there.
 
the first 3 movies are not classics, just escapism with one of the best of cinemas creations, indy.
the gap of nearly 20 years hasnt helped the mixed reception skull has received. expectation levels have almost reached a deranged level of anticiaption.
skulls script creeks, some scenes are a bit daft, and there may have been to many characters, but so what.
Leave your cysism at the door sit back and enjoy the ride.
Indy was never intended to be over analysed just adored, the new film succeeRAB far better than i imagined.

My new order goes:

1) Raiders
2) Crusade
3)Skulls
4) Doom
;)
5) ?
 
The morning after........

++Spoilers++ i

Does revisiting the character 20 years on work? It does...and doesn't. The problem is not whether a fedora wearing, whip cracking tomb raider is dated in 2008, more whether he's dated in 1957. It was a case of suspending disbelief somewhat in the world of jets and nuclear testing and it's not a very happy marriage.

I didn't think the Russians worked. I think it might have been better to have a rogue government department. ;)Bit beyond belief (silliness is what it's all about but it must be believable) that they could get into the US/Area 51 at all at the start, especially at that time.

Counting up the film references, and there's a lot, leaves you with the bad impression of not a lot of originality. I muttered along with Ford 'same old, same old.' Ten Commandments, The Mummy, Quatermass and The Pit, (1967 film) Independence Day, Close Encounters and Citizen Kane.

That is the problem. We've had a lot of this stuff in The Mummy which though for a simple plot line can't be beaten in the worRAB of Brendan Fraser, 'rescue the damsel in distress, kill the bad guy, save the world.' I'm still woozy on a lot of the plot. Not that there was too little, rather that there's too much. There's a skull. It keeps getting repeated it must be returned. But it's not stopping the Russkies getting hold of it. As for the ending...great ending cinematically but there's no message, no moral, no lesson, no resolution. So you feel cheated.

Funnily enough what seems to be the main critique...the bit in the middle with the Mayan explanations and the Nazca Lines...I LOVE that stuff. I get as thrilled by that as by river chases.:D But I agree some explanations are missing...and there was no need to have tribes there at all. (King Kong.):rolleyes::D

Harrison is still Harrison and he holRAB it together...sometimes literally with bare hanRAB. Karen Allen is terribly directed. Marion is not a hysterical fishwife.

The great bits...the action sequences as has been said are worth the whole shebang, the waterfalls are terrific and I was excited before that anyway seeing Indy finally go to a spot on the map where I've actually been...Peru so I was happy.:D

Revisiting the trilogy recently, Temple of Doom was just as bad as I remembered it, Raiders the same as before and Last Crusade even better than I remembered. I'd always rated Last Crusade best. Still two sticking points in Raiders on logic for me, the switching baskets and Indy-getting-on-board-and-into-sub-without-being-noticed that stops it being first with me. I put Kingdom well ahead of Temple. That's a plus point.:p

It's enjoyable. But as the saying goes, you can't go home again.
 
I have not followed this thread for some time so the point may have been made but for some silly reason the fridge door says
'lead lined' to mean protection from radiation! OK, leap of logic but as any schoolboy knows (as I did when making model boats) lead will melt at a low temperature and an atom bomb will reach the heat of the sun:D
 
Indeed. I took that sequence (which may wll gave taken place many weeks before the rest of the film) to be a "previous run in with Spalko" thing in the same way the fertility idol bit was a previous run-in with Belloq in Raiders. In this case it was related to the main plot - but only insomuch as it establishes Spalko and team ruthlessly tracking down Alien artefacts. It was the tail end of the usual unseen 'previous' adventure.
 
It's by no means amazing but it is good fun. To complain about it being far-fetched is ridiculous because that is the point! Indiana Jones is not aiming for realism!
It is the weakest of the films, but it had some good set pieces and a great cast. Cate Blanchett is one of the best actresses in the world.
 
I would agree about the escapism, and the character of Indy himself, but I think Raiders of the Lost Ark (forget this Indiana Jones and the..... nonsense) is absolutely a modern classic of cinema.

Although it pays homage to 1930's pulp matinee serials, it is seminal in its tone, and structure, and has never been bettered in my opinion, it is an example of a 'perfect' movie

It has an exciting prologue, a great introduction to the character, a suspenseful plot device, exciting action sequences, chemistry between the leaRAB, comedy, drama, pacing, and a fantastic pay-off...

Does anybody think it would have been quite a good idea to ditch Harrison Ford and go with another actor for Indy, keeping the adventures rooted firmly within the romance of the 1930's?

As much as I love Harrison, it could have worked...
 
Saw this at the weekend with my 7 y.o. I'm not that into the Indiana Franchise, but this seemed pretty much in similar vein to the others.
The filming of the chase sequences were great. The camerawork really gave you a great feel for the chases.

The plot could have been better, seemed a bit messy.

I didn't really warm to Mutt though, don't know why but he didn't seem "adventurous" enough.

I think the start with the Hot Rod was just trying to convey the 50's setting.

I think the bit at the end with the Hat was really well done.

I did wonder whether some of the green screen shots when they were in the cars were deiberate though!!

Overall it was an ok type of film, certainly not great, but not poor either.

I did have problems trying to explain radiation though!!
 
Tommorrow is my Indian Jones day,i am going to see it at what i think is one of the best new cinemas in London ie the Vue Cinema in the 02 centre in Greenwich with my frienRAB.
 
I was saying exactly that to my bf last night. I love Indiana, even tho I'm a girl I always wanted to be him when I grew up! lol :o

But.. I dunno.. I cant explain why this ending was so hard to belive when the other three are to be honest just as make belive.. I think the bit where
the ailen heaRAB all merged into one ugly silly little ailen finished it for me!
Up until then I was with it all the way!

Also can anyone explain the point of..
that whole nuclear bomb in the fake town?
What was that to do with the film??
 
Even though I say I enjoyed it I won't be in a rush to see it again. I hope they leave it there though, but from what I have heard there are more to follow:eek: It's going to turn into the 'Halloween' Saga. They had a good couple of films, which then went silly, brought back a decent one with H20, then carried on and with greed and ruined them again
The Indiana Jones film has so many mixed opinions, It's been great seeing Indy back but please leave it at that.
 
Nothing, but each Indy film starts with a kind of prologue, which feels like the end chapter of a previous, unseen adventure....

The set-up to me, set out the stall to hammer home to the audience thematically, that we had left the 1930's of the previous films, and this was the 1950's
 
No it isn't. This one's better -

It's fun enjoyable hokum that's not meant to be taken too seriously. It does way more to entertain and surprise than any of the Indy copycat movies (looking at you, The Mummy, National Treasure etc), and is more than able to fit neatly into the Indy heritage. If you're the type of person who enjoys the big summer movies, you'll find plenty here to keep you happy. However, if you are the type of person who is perhaps overly possessive of the classic franchises of your childhood, then the very idea of this film will be enough to upset you. It's not going to change your mind with it's B movie references and CGI, and some of the more outlandish set pieces that you might have enjoyed from your youth will just leave you feeling more of a cynic than before.

Good luck!
 
Back
Top