The Indiana Jones 4 Movie APPRECITION Thread

I thought it was great, and I am the biggest Indiana Jones fan, and was prepared to be a bit disappointed.

I thought it was a great theme, and perfect for the Indiana Jones franchise.

I loved the idea that the Indiana Jones character had aged in line with Ford's age, and how that worked seamlessly into the 50's theme

I loved how he wasn't actually referred to very much as 'Indy' in keeping with the fact that this was an older man, and probably not as befitting his maturity as a character.

I loved how Indy was much more analytical, and learned, and curmudgeonly, obviously becoming just like his father (the scene where Mutt laughs at the statue head rolling off, and Indy glowers at him disapprovingly, like his father did in Last Crusade was fab)

I thought the prologue at Area 51 was great, and the nuclear blast was so outrageous, that it seemed somehow very fitting. The actual 'test town', all pastels, picket fences and howdy doody time was very eerie, and a reminder of just how paranoid and chilling the cold war era must have been...

I think this will be more fondly remembered in years to come, as part of the Indy canon on DVD.

I also think that the biggest thing that fans of the previous films are finding hard ot chow down is the theme, but as before, I think it was handled pretty well, and even Indy shows disbelief and scepticism...

The last thing I liked about this film was Harrison Ford, who seemed to effortlessly roll through the part. Some of his laughs of disbelief when in dialogue with Irina were very natural, and weren't forced, suggesting he was really enjoying himself...

I am not sure what the critics of this film expected or wanted, because it is all there...
 
Yes that bit was great! :)

I think the main reason some people have a problem with it is actually because of the hype and expectation that has been placed on the film. At the end of the day the Indiana Jones films have always been escapist fun, and somewhat implausiablely plotted, so I don't understand why people keep trying to pick holes in the plot....:confused:
 
I loved it

I actually think this film fits in very well with the series. I think people were expecting too much from this film, more than they ever got in the original trilogy. The film for me did exactly what I wanted it to. I switched off my sense of reality as I had to with every other Indy film (I still don't get how the Nazi guys got accross the 'word of god' test in Last Crusade, indy didn't leave a path and they didn't know the solution).

Anyway, suspend your disbelief and you'll love it - after all there's nothing in there more bizarre than finding the cup that jesus used at the last supper being protected by a 500 year old knight, rocks that control the fertility of a village or the actual ark of the covenant which melts people when it is opened.
 
It was a great film. I went and saw it with some frienRAB the day it came out, and we all agreed that it was a good film.
Though we did also agree the plot was a bit of a sidestep from what we may have expected it to be about...
 
(The post below might have a few bits that are irrelevant to this thread, as I've copied it from a post I made on a thread criticising the film. It does give my general thoughts, though.)

----------

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.
 
In this case, there are two threaRAB with more than enough criticism in them. If someone wants a thread where they can froth about how much they loved it without someone pissing on their parade, what's the harm?
 
No the point of a forum is to follow the thread and not go off-topic. So, consequently, if the thread is about positive reactions to a film, then posting negative reactions in that thread is taking it off-topic and dead against what makes a good forum run smoothly.

The great "free-speech," aspect of the forum is that you are free to start a topic of your own which is intended for debating the merits/failures of the film. But, please, don't do so, as there are already such threaRAB in existence and creating duplicate threaRAB is generally as frowned upon as dragging an existing thread off-topic.
 
Indy fights big man - check!
Indy encounters snakes and insects - check!

Etc etc...
Not classic Spielberg but this pretty much ticked all the boxes for an Indy flick and was actually better than Crusade for me which just reheated elements of Raiders swapping the Ark for the Grail and throwing in Connery as a diverting distraction.
Can't belive all the realistic nit picking going on. This is a B-movie. 'I was annoyed by the suggestion that interdimensional beings existed as there's no evidence for this...' Yawn!
I wish they'd made this 10 years ago but hey ho, it's an entertaining, light hearted two hours and that's all we anyone can hope for from a blockbuster.
 
It's not that people are expecting it to be realistic but there are limits to how far you can go and not turn the stunts and effects into a debacle. Those limits were snapped broken and thrown into the nearest available pit of oblivion.

Compare it to Iron Man, that's a blockbuster too - it's not realistic - but it's much better.
 
Saw it tonight and found it positively entertaining! :D

The H bomb blast was a bit unnerving, however..

Was good spotting the Ark at the beginning! I think that is what it was..?

The ending was great to watch and in true Indiana style :)
 
Back
Top