OMG... that is why they should never bring out another Back to the Future

Agree with all of these points. But would like to add:

- All good performances from the cast, but ultimately it is an awfully thought out piece of money-making nostalgia (The Ark of the Covenant in the warehouse, bringing Marion back).

- Not once did I even half-believe that Indy or any of his party were in any kind of danger.

- I don't believe that anyone who watches this film wont know what is going to happen before it does. Predictable is an understatement

I never expected much, but man; what a let down :(

Why mess with perfection???:confused:
 
That was the point Temple of Doom went to hell in a hand cart figuratively.

Although Kudos to Spielberg he also managed that feat literally later on.;)
 
Absolutely not, it is actually one of my favourite parts of the film. I was at the premiere & the gasps & cheers from the audience during that sequence was terrific!
 
It is much, much more stupid than the others by a long, long stretch. Yes the others had their moments but thankfully they were few and far between compared to this. This just had one after another all the way through!

Thanks for taking the time to provide counter examples and yes the others were stupid but this is a difference of degree. You just cannot possibly defend the fridge scene. You would instantly die, if not from the G forces of the explosion (even being kind and granting the fridge wasn't instantly vaporised), then from being cooked by intense heat (being even kinder and granting any fridge on earth that close to a nuclear blast would shield you from the massive dose of gamma rays as it explodes), then if not from those things then from the quite literally 1000 mile an hour hurricane winRAB as the displaced air rushes back into where the explosion occurred. And if not from that then from the intense firestorm as everything ignites and burns. I have never seen ANYTHING that stupid in ANY FILM EVER!

EVER! The guy is literraly a couple of hundred metres at most from ground zero.

Yes that's right, a nuclear explosion, he survives a nuclear explosion! How can this be equivalent to anything else like beating up a few too many people?

However the gag in the graveyard (similar to the shoot the sword wielding maniac moment in RotLA) did crack me up :) And a couple of bit made me laugh and Harrison Ford's okay in it. So it wasn't a total loss just a near total one. I've seen worse.
 
I hear what you are saying, but I found it hard to dislike because of its blatant outrageousness, it doesn't try to offer any 'explanation' just a pulp comic book style escape...

Like you said, a quick trip from ground zero in the SMEG and a quick scrub down in the de-contam unit, and Indy is good to go, but hey...

I think that the prologue may well have been deliberate, to soften the blow of the overall sci-fi theme and ending

A sort of

"Well, if they are with us after this, they'll be with us all the way" type approach

It sets out the stall early on as to what you will be getting...
 
I did.

The only thing that let it down for me was the music, which I thought was 'adequate' but not the full blooded thematic score of the old films. Then again, John Williams is about to retire, so I'm letting him off.
 
I think quite a few people here haven't seen the first three films for a while, and have got some selective amnesia.

I watched all three in the week before I watched the fourth, and in fact I found the new film very much in keeping with the first three.

I'm not going to dissect every scene in detail, but to me they didn't try to make an Indy film for the 21st century, which I was very relieved about. The action scenes were very much like in the first three, and choreographed very well. There was, of course, the occurrence of Indy's snake phobia (which I actually thought was a very funny scene), the spooky and booby-trapped locations, the tribal elements ... all the things that make up a good old-fashioned Indy adventure.

There were some nice noRAB to the previous films, and it was good to see that Indy had, in some ways, become his dad. There was a great moment when Shia LaBeouf's character did something outrageous, laughed and looked at a distinctly unimpressed Indy; it perfectly reflected a scene in Last Crusade when Indy did a similarly outrageous stunt and looked at a thoroughly unimpressed Sean Connery.

I confess that I didn't dislike the fridge scene, though it was patently ludicrous, on a scale not seen in any of the previous films. Perhaps it was a mistake to have it in there, but it was fun nonetheless.

For me, the only gripe was the ending (which I won't give away here). The Indy films have always had something mystical about them, and that's absolutely fine, but for me, it didn't quite gel with the overall Indy mythology.

Plenty of people here have commented about realism, and the fact that Indy would have been dead several times over during the course of the film. Well, I don't actually take that as valid criticism of the fourth film specifically, since it's very much in keeping with the first three. Ifyou want to criticise unrealistic action sequences, then make your comments about the series as a whole. But if you're a fan of the first three, you shouldn't really be going to see an Indiana Jones film and expecting gritty realism. It's an old-fashioned, escapist action-adventure film - since when were they realistic?

Personally, I found it a worthwhile addition to the series and I kind of hope they'll make another, though it seems unlikely.
 
Thanks for giving away some part of the plot of IJ4 in a thread about back to the future where you wouldn't expect to find such information. That's great, Thanks. Just great.
 
Forget about the unrealistic stuff the problem with this film is

1) The Script
2) The Script
3) The Script

We watch Transformers as an action movie and ignore the poor dialog and characters but expect a bit more from an Indiana Jones movie.

I could of forgiven the stupid cgi if we got a good story.
 
Back
Top