At first I despised this movie.  It just wasn't Indiana Jones the way it should've been.  I was really upset.  Then I went and saw it again, and I was still mad about certain things.  I didn't mind the fact that there was a supposed crystal skull from aliens, but it was when the aliens actually appeared, then took off in a freaking spaceship that really got me.  Plus there was the 100+ other completely unrealistic and unplausible things that happened in this movie that made it so much worse than the originals (swinging through the trees, surviving a nuclear blast by hiding in a fridge, driving off a cliff into a tree that bends allllll the way down and perfectly lets you off, etc, etc). Apart from that is the plot.  Who cares if Indy rescues this professor.  We've never heard of him and we know nothing about him, making the audience have no emotional stock in the story.  Now, as many other people have said, if Sallah had been kidnapped, we all would've been glued to the screen.  Then there's the fact that Indy has a kid and gets married that throws his old character out the window.  The whole movie was just not an Indiana Jones film.

Despite allllll these things I found super flawed about the movie, I now realize that the movie did its job.  I think back about this movie and every time grow more appreciation for it.  I was really entertained by it, and it was adventurous.  Still, the movie just didn't seem like Indiana Jones.

m@tt wrote: Chris Gould wrote: m@tt wrote: Thats right theres no accounting for taste, some people want an intelligent script while others (you) would like aliens and flying saucers LOL.
Yawn. So all films with aliens and flying saucers lack intelligent scriptwriting? What a load of cobblers. Ever seen Close Encounters? Using The Da Vinci Code as an example of an intelligent film is laughable. It was universally panned for many reasons (bloated, badly acted, poor dialogue). There are things wrong with Crystal Skull, but at least it isn't a massive f**king bore-fest.

Try reading the book or do you have to wait for everything to be adapted (badly most of the time) for the big screen?

Yes i've seen Close Encounters.

Way to move the goalposts. 'Oh look, I can't come up with a coherent argument to back up my last statement, so I'll move the topic of conversation from film to literature. That'll learn 'im!' Genius, Matt. Are you on a debating team? Actually, I've encountered those unorthodox tactics before. Are you really a woman?

Chris Gould wrote: m@tt wrote: Thats right theres no accounting for taste, some people want an intelligent script while others (you) would like aliens and flying saucers LOL.
Yawn. So all films with aliens and flying saucers lack intelligent scriptwriting? What a load of cobblers. Ever seen Close Encounters? Using The Da Vinci Code as an example of an intelligent film is laughable. It was universally panned for many reasons (bloated, badly acted, poor dialogue). There are things wrong with Crystal Skull, but at least it isn't a massive f**king bore-fest.

Try reading the book or do you have to wait for everything to be adapted (badly most of the time) for the big screen?

Yes i've seen Close Encounters.

This thread needs to be retired. Move on, folks...

Both Indy and Batman are flawed movies, but Indy is a better made movie. Most of you dislike Indy because this time around, there is no religious theme for you to root for. I mean, come on, give the guy a change for once.

Again, as for TDK, I agree with Lionel. Again, why didn't Nolan do a standalone crime film, why did he have to use Batman for his 'new look'...ugh...

Quote: There are things wrong with Crystal Skull, but at least it isn't a massive f**king bore-fest.

Actually, it's EXACTLY that.

lionel wrote: highdough wrote: lionel wrote: what is with this dark knight bulls**t....
look at the movie and ask yourself, would it have been half as good without the joker?

the movie is no better than batman begins, but add joker too the mix and he takes the movie to a whole new level. any and every scene without him is just fodder and uninteresting things we have seen done in the previous film.

so thats why the dark knight deserves a nice OVERRATED slap to the proverbial face .
wake up people.

So you take out a main character, and the movie would suffer.  Not sure how that means the movie is overrated.  If you take out Han's character in the first three Star Wars movies, then the movie isn't as good.  Take out Hannibal from Silence of the Lambs and the movie suffers.  Take out Cuba Gooding Jr from Jerry Maguire and the movie is lacking.  What exactly is your point?  That removing an important main character can hurt a movie?  


in this movies case it can severely, because i found nothing at all interesting other than heaths portrayal of the joker, take him away and i see a movie that is lacking in every other department. i have seen action done better and a much more engaging plot elsewhere. i just don't find the movie should be in as high regards as it is. maybe it was just the expectations, but idk.

Well, I saw the movie for the first time only a week or so ago, so had already heard all the hype and how much money it had made, but I still loved it.  I think that says a lot.  You didn't think anything without the Joker was entertaining.  I did.  I thought several scenes without the Joker were quite memorable.

highdough wrote: lionel wrote: what is with this dark knight bulls**t....
look at the movie and ask yourself, would it have been half as good without the joker?

the movie is no better than batman begins, but add joker too the mix and he takes the movie to a whole new level. any and every scene without him is just fodder and uninteresting things we have seen done in the previous film.

so thats why the dark knight deserves a nice OVERRATED slap to the proverbial face .
wake up people.

So you take out a main character, and the movie would suffer.  Not sure how that means the movie is overrated.  If you take out Han's character in the first three Star Wars movies, then the movie isn't as good.  Take out Hannibal from Silence of the Lambs and the movie suffers.  Take out Cuba Gooding Jr from Jerry Maguire and the movie is lacking.  What exactly is your point?  That removing an important main character can hurt a movie?  


in this movies case it can severely, because i found nothing at all interesting other than heaths portrayal of the joker, take him away and i see a movie that is lacking in every other department. i have seen action done better and a much more engaging plot elsewhere. i just don't find the movie should be in as high regards as it is. maybe it was just the expectations, but idk.

Chris Gould wrote: This proves that there's no accounting for taste. I thought The Da Vinci Code was s**t. 'Quick, we must get to a library!' That would have made a thrilling Indy adventure.

Thats right theres no accounting for taste, some people want an intelligent script while others (you) would like aliens and flying saucers LOL.

Chris Gould wrote: Da B-Meister wrote: Right back at you, skippy. Getting some sort of happy tingly feeling in being that way?
Matt's right, you're just looking for an argument and it's getting old. We get it, you don't like this film and you regularly knock one out to Batman. Let it lie.

m@tt wrote: i suppose what i'm saying is the religious themes added some weight to the original films.
Only if you're religious. If not, they're no more fanciful than Crystal Skull. If you believe in science and aliens this is like hitting the jackpot


I thought The Da Vinci Code read more like a fourth Indiana Jones film than the screenplay that we got, change the setting to the 1950s and there you have it a clever story, a good villain, lots of puzzles, mystery a twist at the end and no E.T.s
Indiana Jones And The Secrets Of The Da Vinci Code.

highdough wrote: In fact Indiana looks kind of dumb for not figuring that out.  Not exactly what you want from your hero.  To look dumb.
It's not really that he didn't figure it out or was made to look dumb, Indy just didn't buy into it being aliens until the evidence became increasingly irrefutable. There are several times throughout the film when he scoffs at such ideas as extra-terrestrials and E.S.P., which is the reaction that most educated, rational minded people would have. This falls in line with the doubts he initially has about the relics from the first three films, only to a man with the background of this character the phenomena presented in this movie seems a little more oulandish even with all he has seen before in his travels.
Quote: And while I understand that Lucas wanted to inject some 50's sci-fi in the movie, I really don't think it worked.
I don't think it worked 100% either, and in a previous post I stated I thought they should have done more with it. It's still a fun popcorn movie though and I'm looking forward to picking up the BD when it's released.

Wasn't bashing the film just that theres a religous theme that runs throughout the other films but not here, that makes for a very different film and the alien connection doesn't quite gel for me. There are many artifacts pertaining to religion that are unearthed but not alien teehee, i suppose what i'm saying is the religious themes added some weight to the original films.

Matt wrote: Da B-Meister wrote: Matt wrote: m@tt wrote: I kept wondering watching the film since Indy is an archaeologist what do aliens have to do with archaeology anyway? Ark of the Covenant and the Grail i can understand but aliens?

Like Chris said, he didn't know he was looking for aliens and the Crystal Skull was just Lucas' MacGuffin. The fact that aliens are involved in the plot comes from the theory of ancient astronauts in archaeology, which Lucas thought would fit nicely into the screenplay he was writing with the idea of meshing Indiana Jones together with sci-fi films of the '50s.

I'm surprised that so many people fail to see the connection between Indiana Jones and aliens--maybe I just read too many books on Bigfoot, The Bermuda Triangle, and other ancient mysteries growing up.


There still really isn't a connection there.
Only because you're obtuse, or you're just being blatantly difficult any which way you possibly can regarding this film as if the act of bashing it is some sort of fetish for you.

Right back at you, skippy. Getting some sort of happy tingly feeling in being that way?

lionel wrote: what is with this dark knight bulls**t....
look at the movie and ask yourself, would it have been half as good without the joker?

the movie is no better than batman begins, but add joker too the mix and he takes the movie to a whole new level. any and every scene without him is just fodder and uninteresting things we have seen done in the previous film.

so thats why the dark knight deserves a nice OVERRATED slap to the proverbial face .
wake up people.

So you take out a main character, and the movie would suffer.  Not sure how that means the movie is overrated.  If you take out Han's character in the first three Star Wars movies, then the movie isn't as good.  Take out Hannibal from Silence of the Lambs and the movie suffers.  Take out Cuba Gooding Jr from Jerry Maguire and the movie is lacking.  What exactly is your point?  That removing an important main character can hurt a movie?  

m@tt wrote: I kept wondering watching the film since Indy is an archaeologist what do aliens have to do with archaeology anyway? Ark of the Covenant and the Grail i can understand but aliens?

Like Chris said, he didn't know he was looking for aliens and the Crystal Skull was just Lucas' MacGuffin. The fact that aliens are involved in the plot comes from the theory of ancient astronauts in archaeology, which Lucas thought would fit nicely into the screenplay he was writing with the idea of meshing Indiana Jones together with sci-fi films of the '50s.

I'm surprised that so many people fail to see the connection between Indiana Jones and aliens--maybe I just read too many books on Bigfoot, The Bermuda Triangle, and other ancient mysteries growing up.

I kept wondering watching the film since Indy is an archaeologist what do aliens have to do with archaeology anyway? Ark of the Covenant and the Grail i can understand but aliens?

Ltd Ed Gift Set - DVD Best Buy Exclusive Bouncy X wrote: Nic Mall wrote: Loved it.
Got this on order until an English version is available..



oooooo, that's perty..but i'll try not to stare to long because i dont wanna....................  

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8...

Ltd Ed Gift Set Best Buy Exclusive DVD only. Guess I'll have to sell the DVD and wait for the eventual Blu-ray four movie set.

matt helm wrote: "True but todays cinema is lead by CGI rather than used just as an effect if you know what i mean."

I understand, but I think people are still over-exaggerating the cgi use in Indy 4.  The vast majority of it was used to augment existing sets and real life locations- as opposed to creating them outright ala the Star Wars prequels.  The problem is that audiences have simply become used to assuming EVERYTHING is cgi.

But they were actually in a real jungle, and Harrison Ford was swinging in a real warehouse.  They also built working giant sets for nearly every sequence in the film.  This is why the production employed nearly every major soundstage in Hollywood.  The 'obelisk' was really a working model.  The alien door (w/all the moving parts) was a real creation that worked exactly as it does in the film.

Now obviously, certain elements had to be cgi- such as the A bomb blast or ufo.  But these are f/x that would've been done in post-production 20 years ago as well.

Indy 4 simply faced a no win scenario from the beginning.  Spielberg knew he had to try and appease fans of the original films, and utilize an old-school approach.  But today's audiences expect to see special f/x extravaganzas on par with the Pirates of the Caribbean or Star Wars prequels.  

Those films represent the cutting edge of f/x, and utilized roughly 2,000-2,500 digital shots each.  By comparison, Indy 4 employed roughly 1/4 of that- or around 450 shots.  This was basically what was considered "cutting edge" around ten years ago.  So ironically, Indy 4 is the only entry in the series that wasn't able to go all out in its f/x department (relative to where f/x tech was at the time).

"Augmenting" is a light word.  Not picking on you, don't get me wrong - but during a few making-of's that I've seen on this movie, it seems that even the jungles had vines and trees added.  It was in the augmenting that it went too far, in my estimation.  The swordfight between Shia and Cate just looks TOO artificial, like something straight out of the SW prequels you mention.

I think a lot of people were expecting the rough-hewn practicals, myself included.  But Shia swinging from vines like he was Tarzan or something?  It just didn't look good.  There's a certain way that a body moves that CGI makes look too fake.  And in that, we were constantly being taken out of the movie - by the ever-increasing amount of "the wow factor" that Lucas feels that he needs to bring to the table.

Say what you will, but I find the CGI of "Jurassic Park" to be much more effective and good - and that movie's 15 years old.  It's kind of like the "Matrix" sequels - in an effort to top what's come before, filmmakers feel the need to foist this constant stream of eye-candy in order to keep the audience, while sometimes forgetting that a good story and good characters DO make the difference.

And yes, the CGI in "Pirates" sequels and the SW Prequels completely kinda turned me off.  The first "Pirates" movie used the CGI to a great effect, not making that the focal point of the movie.  That movie really appealed to me in a way that its sequels could not.  And the story did have something to do with it - I guess not everything can be like the Indiana Jones series, with each movie being a self-contained story.  Each film in the "Pirates", "Matrix" and "Star Wars" collectives had to draw upon the previous films and try to improve on the formulas.

The thing about having aliens be in the mix in "Crystal Skull" didn't bother me, being a pretty huge "X-Files" fan.  I happen to like it when films make mention to the Mayans and the ancient civilizations.  However, doing it Lucas' way is just not happening for me, where it seems like he puts more thought into the CGI rather than the performances and the script.

And for the record, I really liked Darabont's unused "Indiana Jones and the City of Gods" screenplay...

the ONLY reason for the Dark Knight hype, bar NONE, is the fact that Heath died.

Sure The Dark Knight has beat Star Wars now for the number 2 grossing film of ALL TIME, and it prob will top Titanic's 600million, HOWEVER the hype, is only because Heath is dead.

"True but todays cinema is lead by CGI rather than used just as an effect if you know what i mean."

I understand, but I think people are still over-exaggerating the cgi use in Indy 4.  The vast majority of it was used to augment existing sets and real life locations- as opposed to creating them outright ala the Star Wars prequels.  The problem is that audiences have simply become used to assuming EVERYTHING is cgi.

But they were actually in a real jungle, and Harrison Ford was swinging in a real warehouse.  They also built working giant sets for nearly every sequence in the film.  This is why the production employed nearly every major soundstage in Hollywood.  The 'obelisk' was really a working model.  The alien door (w/all the moving parts) was a real creation that worked exactly as it does in the film.

Now obviously, certain elements had to be cgi- such as the A bomb blast or ufo.  But these are f/x that would've been done in post-production 20 years ago as well.

Indy 4 simply faced a no win scenario from the beginning.  Spielberg knew he had to try and appease fans of the original films, and utilize an old-school approach.  But today's audiences expect to see special f/x extravaganzas on par with the Pirates of the Caribbean or Star Wars prequels.  

Those films represent the cutting edge of f/x, and utilized roughly 2,000-2,500 digital shots each.  By comparison, Indy 4 employed roughly 1/4 of that- or around 450 shots.  This was basically what was considered "cutting edge" around ten years ago.  So ironically, Indy 4 is the only entry in the series that wasn't able to go all out in its f/x department (relative to where f/x tech was at the time).

Yeah Hook, I kinda agree.

That was the first Spielberg film that whilst I was watching it in the cinema, I was thinking, "this sucks".

It was quite a disappointment.

I thought he came back strong with Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan and even Minority Report, but has waned ever since.

Blue-Kal-El wrote: For once, I'll agree with you Da B-Meister...and how can somebody say it was excellent when you have the Matrix thing, the choppy editing, the loose subplots, the lack of character development, the horrendously annoying Batman-voice, the incredible (as in NOT believable) Gotham...and you want for Spielberg to bow down to Nolan??

Nolan should've left Batman alone and done a stand alone crime/thriller movie, instead of his "new" Batman experiment...I had been waiting for this movie long before Ledger was announced as the Joker, and when I saw it, I left the theatre disappointed...and the IMDB rating is useless once you have stupid fanboys rating The Godfather a low score to get TDK higher in rank...LAME...
However, D, KOTCS is better than TOD...

It's certainly a good thing that TDK had no such "Matrix thing", loose subplots, choppy editing, or lack of character development......that's part of what makes TDK the single best film of the year thus far.

Next time I suggest you watch TDK with your eyes open and without overindulgence in alcohol or mind-altering drugs before-hand. "Not believable" Gotham? What kind of blatantly stupid comment is that to make? It was a city. It wasn't done in cartoon or, like KOTCS, poorly done CGI that was overused, it was a live-action viewing of a real city. What was so "not believable" about that? LOL.....that'll be a good one to hear explained. You're nothing more than one of those who gives a "disappointed" review to an excellent movie just so you can stand apart and draw attention to yourself. You have no legitimate complaint against it. Spielberg is getting sloppy and truly losing his touch as he reaches his twilight years. That can be the only real explanation for the steaming pile of horse c**p he gave us with KOTCS.....where there was NO trace of any of the fun or excitement of the 3 previous films that preceded it. Ol' Steven now has a lot to learn from Nolan on writing and directing a film for this century.

Point of fact: KOTCS is the WORST (by a large margin) of all the Indy films. It can't even touch ToD.

The cover for the 1 disc edition is much better than 2 disc edition and BR editions.

Plus I was quite disappointed after almost 20 years of wait.

"No....it only FAR exceeded the hype."

In some ways it was more mature, dark and intense for it's genre than I could ever expected. I was incredibly impressed.

I do feel it an amazing movie.

But a 9.2 and 3rd best EVER rating on IMDB?

It aint THAT good.

Wasn't that when Batman put on those silly looking blue fluorescent goggles and (aided by that crazy GPS super-dooper thingy) could see through the entire building?

At which point, we were bombarded with over the top "swishy" animation of his point of view through different sections of the building showing where all the people were inside.

This was so out of place and it was the only part of the movie that kept it from being near perfect for me.

Plus, the action scenes were lame. I can't stand that up close, choppy editing style, where you have virtually NO idea of the geography of a fight scene and have to guess what's really going on.

Don't get me wrong, The Dark Knight was excellent, but it wasn't as good as the hype.

"I'm glad there was no CGI in Raiders just good old fashion stunts"

CGI was still in its infancy back then, but it didn't stop them from using it to kill off Walter Donovan (Last Crusade).  The Indiana Jones films always employed state of the art f/x.  It's not like they were limited to techniques from the 1960s.

Blue-Kal-El wrote: Da B, really, once the nuked fridge thing is over, everything kicks into full gear...just don't start with saying about TDK, which was a disappointment for me, specially for Batman's little (well, huge) Matrix moment, THAT my friend, was disappointing...

No, it doesn't kick into full gear, it kicks into "stupid, boring, uninteresting c**p mode with bad CGI and acting". There was nothing remotely disappointing about TDK. If anything, Spielberg and Lucas now need to bow down to Chris Nolan and be taught how to make an exciting, action-packed movie.

Blue-Kal-El wrote: After the first ten-fifteen minutes are done, you are treated with a great kind of popcorn eye candy entertainment, better than Temple...

Not by a long shot is any of that true. For a movie that Spielberg himself said was "for the fans", basically the fans got force-fed a bowl of steaming elephant dung. This movie was insultingly bad and as far from entertaining as a movie can be.

Well, I'm just gonna go for the 1 disc. I like the cover art alot better and, they acually aren't greedy with it. I mean, the 1 disc sounds like it has two decent special featurettes, and, that's good enough for me.

The artwork for the collection is great...

Why didn't you like the ending? I mean, UFOs exist, the Ark of Covenant had its power and so did the glowing rocks in Temple...and real is the Holy Grail...the thing is that you who didn't like the ending, didn't want Indy to grow, you didn't want times to change...

After the first ten-fifteen minutes are done, you are treated with a great kind of popcorn eye candy entertainment, better than Temple...

The only reason I didn't pick up the box set is because I knew they would just bring out a new one anyway.

Def. dig the boxset artwork.
Been holding off on getting any of them, so i will get the set for sure.

Matt wrote: highdough wrote: One thing I didn't like about the alien stuff is it's simply not archaeology.
"Chariots of the Gods, man. They practically own South America. I mean, they taught the Incas everything they know."

The movie is about the theory of ancient astronauts, and that is the tie back to archaeology. Erich von Daniken's [i]Chariots of the Gods[/] is an interesting read.

Oh, I know about von Daniken.  The guy is a kook.  I;m all for alternative theories but I put von Daniken in the same category as literal creationists.  Both will ignore all evidence to the contrary in order to believe their loopy theories.  An alternative theorist who I do find interesting is Graham Hancock who doesn't make the massive leaps that people like von Daniken do.  

Jurgie1979 wrote: I still love it, though; far more than Last Crusade, which has always been my least favorite, if for nothing else than it has a terribly lame villain (get back in your AT-AT, General Veers!), and the whole Knight sequence. I mean, you honestly hate the fridge and the tarzan scenes more than a 1000 year old Knight who speaks PERFECT modern English? And who apparently wears his chain mail ALL DAY LONG, just waiting for someone to come and take his place?
Good god I hate that whole sequence.

I'll take an entire movie of Shia swinging from vines rather than one "He choose poorly."

Ya, that ending nearly ruined the film for me.  I liked the rest of it enough that I can overlook the dumb ending, to a degree.  Still, I've never understood how people can love it so much.  I thought it was good, but definitely not great.  With the latest one, there were so many problems throughout, that the ending simply put it over the top (or down the drain).  Again, I didn't hate it, but I wouldn't watch it again.

Pixarfan517 wrote: Chaopolis wrote: This is how I think this DVD should have looked...



Being bored + Photoshop = FUN!!!!

That would look boring. Besides, the 2003 DVDs are done.


I actually love this version better than the real artwork.  Also, they should re-release the 2003 box set with this edition.

"One thing I didn't like about the alien stuff is it's simply not archaeology.  Raiders and Last Crusade had to do with archaeology, and since Indy is an archaeologist, it made obvious sense."

I think this is probably the biggest misconception about the series.  People don't seem to realize that the films also gave a very pulpy spin to the religious/historical aspects as well.  For example, the depiction of the Grail in Last Crusade has very little basis in historical or religious fact.  They just kind've mixed in some bits from the Arthur legend and made up their own set of rules for how the Grail should work.  The entire depiction of the Grail is pretty silly once you actually stop to examine it, but most people just take it at face value.  The same could be said of the Sankara stones or Ark of the Covenant.

Ironically, there's probably more legends and history in "Kingdom" than in either of the previous sequels.  You've got Francisco de Orellana, the El Dorado myth, Area 51/Roswell, the Nazca Lines, etc.  They simply mixed in a bit more modern day myths, which seems to have caused a problem for some.

I always considered Indy to be closer to something like Doc Savage than anything else.  He's clearly intended as a pulp hero, yet many still assume he's supposed to be grounded in our everyday reality.  But I think that idea was refuted as soon as the Ark was opened.

highdough wrote: One thing I didn't like about the alien stuff is it's simply not archaeology.
"Chariots of the Gods, man. They practically own South America. I mean, they taught the Incas everything they know."

The movie is about the theory of ancient astronauts, and that is the tie back to archaeology. Erich von Daniken's [i]Chariots of the Gods[/] is an interesting read.

MovieMan3 wrote: Man I Hope To Have A Blu-Ray Player By The Time This Comes Out, Because This Is A Good Blu-Ray Buy.

I am with you MovieMan3, I am thinking that 80gb PS3 they are releasing in Sept is looking pretty good to watch Indy 4 on.

> Each of the movies is a bit ridiculous in its own way.  

There's ridiculous, and then there's uninvolving, poorly-realised dreck:

http://noisetosignal.org/film/2008/06/indiana-j...

Chaopolis wrote: This is how I think this DVD should have looked...



Being bored + Photoshop = FUN!!!!

That would look boring. Besides, the 2003 DVDs are done.

disneyfreak* wrote: wolfarcher wrote: Nic Mall wrote: Loved it.
Got this on order until an English version is available..



Where's that from? It looks awesome!

this looks like the exclusive set that best buy is selling for 49.99

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8...

Yup, that'd be it (though the site doesn't show if it has that different coverart). Don't think I'm gonna dish out the extra $25 for the skull, though. Sorry, BestBuy.

And I just wanna say, since I didn't yet, I think that this movie is great; its a fun adventure film, like the other three, and I agree with those who have said that aliens are no more or less ridiculous than the Grail, Ark or still-beating hearts being ripped out and set on fire. There were a few things that I didn't care for too much (namely the Superfridge and "It told me to", but overall I love this movie as much as the first three.

Though I don't really want there to be another one. Sorry, George.

Emil Ryderup wrote: The problems isnt the aliens, it's the weak last act and bad cgi.
What are you referring to when you say bad CGI? I'm actually interested. Most people cite the forest scene, but little do they know...

This was a lot of fun.  Can't wait to pick it up.

mc_serenity wrote: Thank you, that was the point I was trying to get across. Some people just wanted a rehash of "Raiders" and "Last Crusade" (Nazis and all)... what's wrong with something else for a change?


Exactly.  Each movie not only feels like a pulp novel, but goes off in its own direction as well.  I really like that about the series.

Chris Gould wrote:
I don't really get all the animosity towards this film. It's nowhere near as bad as some people are suggesting with the usual hyperbole of 'worst film ever' etc. It's like people were expecting the second coming of Christ or something. It's perfectly in keeping with the tone of the older films. Aliens are no more out there than any of the religious stuff in the first three films.

Thank you, that was the point I was trying to get across. Some people just wanted a rehash of "Raiders" and "Last Crusade" (Nazis and all)... what's wrong with something else for a change?

that1guy wrote: Wonder if it will have DTS sound on the Blu-Ray (Spielberg is a huge fan!) However, none of the Indy DVD's have DTS, so maybe it's a Lucas decision.
DTS is largely irrelevant in BD. As long as it has a lossless/uncompressed soundtrack of some kind, it's fine.

I don't really get all the animosity towards this film. It's nowhere near as bad as some people are suggesting with the usual hyperbole of 'worst film ever' etc. It's like people were expecting the second coming of Christ or something. It's perfectly in keeping with the tone of the older films. Aliens are no more out there than any of the religious stuff in the first three films. The only person who seems to have got the point is Matt.

Nic Mall wrote: Loved it.
Got this on order until an English version is available..



Where's that from? It looks awesome!

Nic Mall wrote: Loved it.
Got this on order until an English version is available..



oooooo, that's perty..but i'll try not to stare to long because i dont wanna....................  

Maybe Delta_FX meant the complete collection on blu-ray...

I will take the Blu-ray Disc, but the cover of the BD and the 2 Disc special edition DVD isn't that good, I like the cover art of the single disc DVD

not totally sold on the cover art for the Blu Ray, but still totally buying it!

If both the 2-disc SD DVD and blu-ray are the same price, the blu-ray is a no brainer...

Buying Blu for this, and yep hopefuly we can get all of the Indy films on Blu ASAP!

hmm...great artwork, though I like the art for the single-disc better.

Looking at the covers, I would rather have the 1-disc house as art for the 2-disc. I think studios do this to balance it out:
1-disc: the downside is it's only one disc, but you get better art of the two.
2-discs: you may get two discs, but the art isn't superior of the other.

Gonna skip this. Not because the most was bad(it's really just the ending that ruined it for me) but because I'm gonna wait for a box set with all 4 movies.

RavingRabbid wrote:


...and wait for the Blu-Ray Boxset(whenever that happens)

which by the looks of it, its either by the end of this year or in the beginning of 09.

Don't remember Dom Deluise being in this, but he sure looks dapper in that big floppy hat.  Also, Lucas' insistence that EVERY film have a jar-jar (in this case, 'Mutt' really dumbs down the movie.

Chaopolis wrote: This is how I think this DVD should have looked...

nice job and it matches up with the origanal Indy DVD set.

Being bored + Photoshop = FUN!!!!

I'm going to pretend that this whole disaster of a movie never happened.

Never got to see this in the theater.  Disappointing or not, it's still a must-have, so Blu-ray all the way for me.....

I will get the two-disc.   The film was disappointing.   LC was way-better than KOTCS.  Even Young Indy was better than KOTCS (Young Indy was fun and full of history).  

I just wonder what Lucasfilm would get if they got a really great DVD producer to produce feature for this film.   The extras on some Lucasfilm discs aren't bad, but I see other films on DVDs blow them away in the extras dept due to greater DVD producers).

This is how I think this DVD should have looked...



Being bored + Photoshop = FUN!!!!

I like the 1-disk artwork better then the 2-disk (because that teaser poster was apeing the "Temple of Doom" poster).

Am I the only one who thought they didn't go far enough with the whole '50s sci-fi/atomic age angle?

I totally got what Lucas was trying to do in playing up the fact that this Indiana Jones lives in the 1950s and so the movie contained some of the things that make the sci-fi and atomic age movies of that era such an indelible part of the Saturday matinees of the '50s, while still holding on to the roots of what influenced the orginal Indy movies as well. I just think that if they were going to do it, go all out--instead of the ants we got in the film, how about giant ants reminiscent of THEM!? How about a potential saucer invasion ala Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers by returning ancient astronauts that Indy has to save the world from?

Judging by the reactions here I guess I am. Fun movie...I wasn't expecting The Second Coming and I was thoroughly entertained for two-hours.

Here's something to chew on:

How about instead of a refridgerator saving Indy's skin, it's the Ark of the Covenant that saves him by some divine intervention?

Russians see it in the warehouse, think it's interesting and load it on to a truck...same truck is searching for Indy in the test village...Russians speed off after hearing sirens leaving Indy behind (as in the movie), only the Ark falls off the back of the truck...Indy, seeing no other alternative gives a smirk and a cock of the head and figures why the hell not, climbing in to the Ark. Bomb goes boom, Ark sails miles away, and Indy climbs out, saved by the grace of God.

It would have been genius if I do say so myself...and I did.

What I'm sick of is excusing bad filmmaking because it's simply entertainment as if they are somehow mutually exclusive.  Raiders was a good film and entertaining as hell.  Now I didn't think this last one was horrible, but there were far too many "well, that's just stupid" moments that by the end, the movie had lost me (as a viewer).

The biggest problems were with the script, which I think is ridiculous since they had so long to get it writer.  I don't fully blame David Koepp, as he was simply following orders and did the best with what he had.  The main problem is the story is not very compelling.  Everyone knows about the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail, but few had heard of the crystal skulls, and as far as I know, none have been dated beyond the 19th century and all are in the shape of a human skull.  They're just not that much of a mystery and certainly not an archaeological one.  

There were lots of other script problems, too, that ruined the film for me.  I didn't love Last Crusade (the final act was stupid, I thought- so Lancelot, or whoever, was waiting there for over a thousand years???), but I thought it was much better than this one.  The less said about the second the better.

As I said I don't expect a masterpiece and saying it's not Gandhi is obvious.  No one expects Gandhi, but is it too much to expect a good film?  Don't excuse bad filmmaking because it's not supposed to be an Academy Award winner

I really enjoyed this movie but unlike the other Indy movies I have a hard time deciding which ones are better. For me Indy is all around great and scenes stand out more than the movies as a whole.

I'm much more of a fan of the one disc non-special edition art.  Oh well maybe Futureshop will have a steelbook case with completely different art for the two discer.

Why is the single disc artwork better than the 2 disc?

this is just like Iron Man where the single disc artwork is better than the 2 disc special edition.

mc_serenity wrote: Da B-Meister wrote:

If anything, we now need a major apology from Spielberg/Lucas for this unentertaining dreck of a movie they gave us in KOTCS.

Whatever.

Regardless whether people liked IJ4 or not (a lot side with the latter), disappointment was inevitable in some degree with all the years between sequels building up impossible-to-meet expectations. Anyone who went to see IJ4 in theaters expecting an instant classic like "Raiders" deserved to be disappointed.

It's the rule of thumb of movie-making: the vast majority of sequels are almost never as good (let alone better) than the originals. There are exceptions, of course, but the vast majority disappoint.

I won't argue that, but do feel this film would be slightly better had Darabont's script been used instead of thrown away like it did (note: Spielberg/Ford loved his script, Lucas, the screenwriter for Attack of the Clones!, did not!).  If you read his script, while it isn't perfect by any means (and with a little fine tuning, could have been even better), it did felt more to the tone of the previous three films, and it would have been more well liked than the final product we have here.  

Sure, you would be right - it would still be divided, since people will hold this film up against the unbeatable Raiders (or trilogy, for that matter), but once again - it would have been a better film, overall.

And for whoever aruged the debate about use of CGI then-versus-now, I disagree with that, simply because they did use CGI back then (wasn't perfect by any means, but computer effects were used back then, and as a matter of fact - they used effects as a tool, rather than a plot device).  

The resentment now is, and why many film buffs debate it - is when you use the quantities of CGI nowadays, you take away a natural feel of the film.   A good example is the Star Wars original trilogy has a natural, lived-in feel.  The prequels, however, doesn't.  The scenery looks just too perfect, and the actors in front of it looks like cutaways.  And some scenes felt like that in Indy IV.

Now, take somebody like Spielberg.  He isn't all innocent on poor use of CGI (ET 20th, for example).  But here is a guy that still films with the good old 35mm, and is reluctant to film anything in digital (and word is, he was reluctant on this film being presented in digital protectors).  

Here is also a guy that cherishes film flaws, and creates many stories where effects blend in the real world.  That's why many people hold him very highly.  He is still one of the rare ones that makes entertaining (and thought provoking) films, blending many styles - but keeping his own in tact.  

Why many people are disappointed with this film, is it rarely feels like a Spielberg film.   And someone already pointed out very boldly, and clearly, regarding who truly was in charge of this film - just by the first second this film starts...

I'm not a huge fan of the 2-disc DVD and BluRay artwork.

I would've loved the 2-disc artwork to be in the similar vein to the original release of the Indy DVDs... with the Leather-ish border surrounding the poster artwork.

I also think the GOLD border rings a vibe of cheesy.  I don't know.  Just my thought.  Nice set of features though.

Da B-Meister wrote:

If anything, we now need a major apology from Spielberg/Lucas for this unentertaining dreck of a movie they gave us in KOTCS.

Whatever.

Regardless whether people liked IJ4 or not (a lot side with the latter), disappointment was inevitable in some degree with all the years between sequels building up impossible-to-meet expectations. Anyone who went to see IJ4 in theaters expecting an instant classic like "Raiders" deserved to be disappointed.

It's the rule of thumb of movie-making: the vast majority of sequels are almost never as good (let alone better) than the originals. There are exceptions, of course, but the vast majority disappoint.

did i just read someone say they didnt need CGI for the first 3 movies? implying they had the choice? because trust me, had CGI existed back then in the state it is now, they WOULD have used it.

it gets old seeing people cry over CGI when the technology has been a mainstream use for almost 20yrs now, get over it...its part of the "FX arsenal". i wonder if people in the 80s complained over all the blue screen and stop motion use because "movies in the 60s didnt need that"  lol

For those of you who found Shia as Tarzan and Jones surviving with a fridge, but did find Batman having his little Matrix moment, and his Air Force rescue moment, you are such hypocrites.

Anyways, nice 2-disc artwork, it really shines having Indy by himself...the single disc artwork is very busy...

Great popcorn movie, after the first 10-15 minutes (whatever happened to Indy being chased for being a so called communist? Another subplot gone like in DK), it's more enjoyable than most of the summer blockbusters...

I'm in the minority on this one - but this was my favorite sequel to "Raiders" yet.

Great fun.

The standard DVD 1-disc artwork looks tremendously better. I think it encapsulates the spirit of the Indy films way more, from the classic "storybook" poster art to the "serial adventure" vibe of the spine. I agree with whoever said it would be perfect as a slip cover over the BD art shown - the best of both worlds, so to speak...

Matt Thompson wrote: The CGI ants were actually pretty wonderful.  They looked as real as they possibly could have.  Same with the finale -- just because you don't like what's happening doesn't mean the effect itself was pretty incredible, with the valley and such.

The jungle chase bothered me more than anything FX-wise.

I honestly don't get how anyone can like this film more than Last Crusade.  It's essentially Last Crusade with a bigger cast of characters and less focus on Indy (and I say that as someone who liked KOTCS).

Quote: - Asinine idea of adding a sci-fi mix to the series when it felt completely out of place and touch with Indy and the other films.

Yeah, 'cause a murderous Ark of the Covenant, dueling Hindu Gods, and a thousand year old knight were totally believable.  But throw in aliens and it's too far.

I saw this movie twice in theaters within 13 hours - once at the opening night midnight show, and once an 11:20 showing hours later; what I found kind of annoying about this whole thing was all the CGI.  The action in the previous movies didn't have to be CGI-enhanced - therefore, making it tons more believable.  At least most of the action in the previous films was rooted in some kind of reality.  Granted, the bluescreen fall from the cliff in "Temple of Doom" was slightly sucky, but still.  I could believe it.

Another thing that annoys me is that the model that Lucas and Spielberg were chasing were the older Saturday afternoon serials.  The other movies had the distinct feel of those serials - there was no such feel here.  It was just too much action, not enough suspense or build.

And I kind of found Shia to be endearing - the motorcycle chase was pretty good, mostly unaided by CGI.  That was pretty much the only action piece I liked in the whole thing.

But here's the problem:  Lucas wanted to take it in one direction, Spielberg wanted to stay true to the character.  And if you really wanted to know who won that fight, it was really easy to tell, at least for the US viewers.
Usually, when the previous Indiana Jones movies started, we got the Paramount Pictures logo first, which fades into a mountain of some type, followed by "Paramount Pictures Presents" and THEN "A Lucasfilm Ltd. Production".
In this film, the first thing you saw was the huge, green LUCASFILM logo, THEN followed by the Paramount/anthill thing.

However, I still enjoyed the little bits and pieces of this movie, and I will definitely be completing my collection with the 2-disc version of this.  Don't own a BR-DVD yet, but will soon enough.  And I love the cover art - the posters were fine enough.

JackJackMN wrote: disneyfreak* wrote: wow.. all of the box art are the same as the movie posters... how ridiculous that is.  you would expect a mmovie that made over $700 million worldwide would get a different box art than the posters.. although deeply disappointed with the cover art an awesome movie. but come on change the cover art for christ sake..

What is wrong with people, they ALWAYS b***h they don;t use the original poster art, then what happens, they USE the original poster art and people b***h.

I am glad that they are  using it, Drew Struzan is the best movie poster artist to ever live. HE has made some of the most iconic posters ever.

I agree.  I was like "Huh?" after reading that first post.  For years people moan about the DVD art not matching the poster art, and then here we have one that does, someone finds fault in it.  

I swear, just goes to show you that no matter what you do, you'll never make everyone happy....unless of course you're a Democratic politician, in then which case, you'll bend over backwards to be everything to everyone.

I was really enjoying this film until the last third became very predictable and not very inline with the overall Indiana Jones series, even if this is a 50s Jones.  But I'd say I enjoyed it about the same as Temple of Doom although I even prefer that one to this new one.  The problem was the script and the way it would wink to the audience way too much and not take itself seriosuly.  I will definitely be getting the packed 2-Disc edition and I think the coverart for both editions are very very good.      

disappointed by the film overall... but im a sucker for indiana jones and will still pick it up.

will wait for a box set.

mc_serenity wrote: I really don't get the hate for this flick. Shia was grossly miscast, but otherwise the film was a huge improvement after the uninspired "Last Crusade." (What is with Spielberg's obsession with Shia LaBoeuf anyway? He's not that great of an actor.)

As for people complaining about the sci-fi aspects of it, well since they placed the storyline in the 1950s, isn't that inevitable? The alien aspects is just as "plausible" as the Ark of the Covenant that make Nazis explode or a Thuggee cult that uses human hearts to worship the god Kali.

Indy 4 was fun, and while it won't win any awards it was a lot better than I anticipated. And they did do something right by bringing Karen Allen back from "Raiders" and resolving that plot point at the end.

And I'm glad to see Paramount is also offering up their third 2008 hit in widescreen only, with the GOOD cover art. The only thing that would've sealed a purchase would've been an isolated score option since there was some GREAT music that wasn't included on the soundtrack album.

Let's see.....how and where do we begin to count the myriads of ways in which this movie COMPLETELY SUCKED?

- Absolutely no sense of fun.
- Absolutely no sense of our characters being in any real danger.
- Shia's "tarzan" scene.
- Karen Allen's idiotic "I'm just glad to have a job" smile plastered on her face the whole time.
- Asinine idea of adding a sci-fi mix to the series when it felt completely out of place and touch with Indy and the other films.
- Some truly terrible CGI - prairie dogs, monkeys, ants, entire finale.

.......and the list could go on and on and on.

2-disc all the way.  I really had a good time watching this in the theatre.  I thought it was a fun despite some of it's flaws.  I'm so sick of reading all the bashing.  It's Popcorn summer entertainment....This wasn't Gandhi or Amadeus, Jesus, some of you need to lighten up when watching summer movies.

I really don't get the hate for this flick. Shia was grossly miscast, but otherwise the film was a huge improvement after the uninspired "Last Crusade." (What is with Spielberg's obsession with Shia LaBoeuf anyway? He's not that great of an actor.)

As for people complaining about the sci-fi aspects of it, well since they placed the storyline in the 1950s, isn't that inevitable? The alien aspects is just as "plausible" as the Ark of the Covenant that make Nazis explode or a Thuggee cult that uses human hearts to worship the god Kali.

Indy 4 was fun, and while it won't win any awards it was a lot better than I anticipated. And they did do something right by bringing Karen Allen back from "Raiders" and resolving that plot point at the end.

And I'm glad to see Paramount is also offering up their third 2008 hit in widescreen only, with the GOOD cover art. The only thing that would've sealed a purchase would've been an isolated score option since there was some GREAT music that wasn't included on the soundtrack album.

Da B-Meister wrote: Truly a LOUSY, STUPID, INSULTINGLY BAD movie.

Agreed!

Great Blu cover, but Spielberg's worst tragedy since The Lost World. I despised this film as much as the above users.

Screw this Paramount! Bring us the Trilogy in all glorified 1080p

Awful.

Didn't completely suck.The scenes that were horrible were George Lucas idea.The Blue Ray has the best artwork. We certainly do not need another....God I hate George Lucas.

Wonder if it will have DTS sound on the Blu-Ray (Spielberg is a huge fan!) However, none of the Indy DVD's have DTS, so maybe it's a Lucas decision.

MrSmearkase wrote: Depending on the special features, I may trade in my old box set of the original three, as I can't in good conscience sit this alone next to the neatly kept box set.

well if you have that original collection that had the 4th bonus disc, you could always remove that and place part 4 in there.  

oh and i know its just the SRP so it'll likely be much less in stores but 29.99$ for a 1 disc movie with barely any extras? and 39.99 for the 2 disc dvd edition? they really wanna overprice because of the name huh.  lol

I will opt for the 2 Disc Dvd. It will slot in nicely to my original Indy Collection. The special features on the old trilogy set are very good so I won't be upgrading them.

Might look at getting an Uncut version of Temple though.

I enjoyed Kingdom, there were some great Indy moments in it. A decent sequel but not a classic like the previous three IMO.

nefilim wrote: disneyfreak* wrote: wow.. all of the box art are the same as the movie posters... how ridiculous that is.  you would expect a mmovie that made over $700 million worldwide would get a different box art than the posters.. although deeply disappointed with the cover art an awesome movie. but come on change the cover art for christ sake..

why is that ridiculous ? anyway, box art does not matter to me - only the film. havent seen this so ... gonna be blind buy, I quess...

update : found this on usa today :

A DVD boxed set with all four movies also will be available.

Paramount and Lucasfilm have not yet announced when the first three movies will be released on Blu-ray.

Depending on the special features, I may trade in my old box set of the original three, as I can't in good conscience sit this alone next to the neatly kept box set.

I would have loves the 1 disc art as a slipcase on the BR edition and then the cover of the 2 disc underneath. Nice artwork tough for a dissapointing movie.

Tom wrote: disneyfreak* wrote: F.Y.I.  there is going to be a boxed set with all four movies on dvd and blu-ray

There's no mention in the press release of a Blu-ray boxed set

well according to what i read this morning on optonline.net  they did mention a release of all in dvd and blu-ray unless i read it wrong or they wrote it wrong

disneyfreak* wrote: F.Y.I.  there is going to be a boxed set with all four movies on dvd and blu-ray

There's no mention in the press release of a Blu-ray boxed set

I'll wait for inevitable box set with all 4 movies.


This movie was a distant 4th behind the original 3. The whole movie had that filmed on a soundstage look to it. The originals always seemed to be filmed on location. They had wide shots showing the landscapes and had a gritty quality to them. This movie didnt look that way at all and had some poorly done cgi.

Give it a rest Lucas, PLEASE! No more Indy! and no more Star Wars!

I'm assuming the 2-disc art for Blu-Ray is the same as for the 2-disc DVD, so YAY because that is NICE! Can't wait for that!

After a 20 year wait, this was VERY disappointing. Pass!