Hollywood’s obsession with re-treading old ground has become so warped and widespread, that it’s almost inevitable that one day our favourite films from childhood will be forever tarnished. My generation was the first to watch the Star Wars Special Editions, and we sat through the prequels in cinemas the first time round, before all this old-fangled 3D malarkey came along. We’ve gotten used to being betrayed by George Lucas, so when the fourth Indiana Jones film came along, we got the same sick feeling in the pit of our stomachs – the feeling of “this is going to be terrible, but I’m not a proper fan unless I see it.”
So we did. And you know what? It wasn’t that bad. I know that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has become as fashionable to hate as The Phantom Menace or Highlander 2: The Quickening. But while both of those are genuinely terrible, and a genuine betrayal of the originals, Crystal Skull is… okay. Not great, not even all that good, but okay.
Before you all start going nuts, I’m a huge fan of the original trilogy. I consider Last Crusade to be one of the greatest action films of all time, and Sean Connery’s finest hour since he left the Bond series. The point I’m trying to make is that, as much as it’s understandable to hate Lucas for his crimes against cinema, in the grand scheme of things there are films and people far more deserving of our wrath. At least Crystal Skull has a story. At least it has some characters we care about. At least it has good acting in places. In a marketplace increasingly dominated by Michael Bay and his derivatives, these things that we take for granted are increasingly in short supply.
So without any further ado and to celebrate the release of Indiana Jones franchise on Blu-ray, here are the top 10 reasons why it’s time to stop getting mad about Indy 4 and start getting even over the films that really deserve our ire. Remember to keep your bullwhip handy and watch out for snakes.
We are currently seeking Films contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Films contributor, click here.
36 Comments
As soon as you defended the fridge crap, i lost interest.
You sir, are simply wrong.
To each his own Rodion. Compared to midichlorians it’s nothing.
The fridge scene was one of my favorites and has been unfairly criticized. It is all about context. The Indiana Jones films attempt to be “true” to their period and influences. If this film had been made in the 50s, the fridge scene would have been spectacular … it is certainly a better choice than tucking your body under your desk which was the prevailing wisdom at the time. If you are going to do a 50s action/adventure/pulp movie, you really can’t make it with 20/20 hindsight, you need to work with the “science” that is available.
Very nicely argued :)
Ok for the most part I agree with your 10 points but there is one glaring thing I disagree with. The plots of some of the original movies. I and III, their plots were not that ridiculous. Especially when you are talking about the first one, the plot from it is heavily based off what the bible says about the ark. You were not too open it otherwise….. who knows. All this to say that at least I and III aren’t ridiculous.
Well, the Holy Grail to all intents and purposes didn’t exist, but I’ll take part of your Ark argument on board. I guess what I meant is that there’s a literal approach to all the details about the mythology: they act as if everything that happens to/ about these artifacts was really, when of course not all of it is. But point taken.
Fair points and a good read. But in no way, shape or form is War of the Worlds a better film than Munich !
War of the Worlds works dramatically and does what it sets out to do. Munich is incredibly well-meaning but is so obsessed with being even-handed that it struggles to engage dramatically. But like I said, to each his own.
agreed! you make totally legit points! I love this movie, even if it’s not as great as Raiders, Temple, or Crusade.
Cheers Gavin :)
I think the real problems of the film are
1. Indy isn’t the archealogical engine of the film. Every piece of the puzzle has been solved by Oxley, and Indy merely follow a trail of breadcrumbs rather than using his intellect and knowledge to solve things. And the adjunct to that point is that any hurdle not worked out by Oxley is overcome by the skeleton key of holding the crystal skull up to it (the ants, the natives, the final chamber door) rather than some exhibition of Indy’s cunning.
2. The result from the first problem is a far too linear story. Indy follows Ox’s trail once called to action by Mutt’s arrival, and from that point on all interested parties are essentially in a footrace to the end. They never truly “escape” the Russians or outwit them. They’re either captured and working directly together toward finding (though not “finding” so much as retracing Ox’s steps to) the mythical city, or they’re just a few paces ahead in a single file line toward the same goal.
3. Swinging on vines with monkeys and catching a moving caravan SUCKS. That’s the groaner cartoonish moment in the movie. The fridge thing is fine.
All valid points.
This is the worst article I’ve ever read. All you managed to do was remind me why I was so let down by this movie, I’m surprised you never liked the CG monkeys! Also, it’s easy for an atheist to look at ancient aliens in the same category with religion, but fact is, some people take that stuff more serious than you. After seeing raiders in IMAX the other night, the contrast between these two films are like night and day.
Of course Raiders is better, especially in IMAX. And I can’t help it if the film annoyed you, I’m just expressing my opinion. But for the record, I’m a Christian, not an atheist. I made no attempt to compare ancient aliens to religion, nor would I dream of doing such a thing: I just don’t think Indiana Jones’ views on religion should be taken to heart that much, since they’re based on the myths surrounding artifacts rather than the ‘evidence’ of the Bible etc. And no, I didn’t like the CG monkeys.
I recommend you watching Red Letter Media’s review of Indiana Jones 4. Both hilarious, and very insightful.
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull/
Will check it out :)
You, sir, have given words to my thoughts as to how I always felt about this film. Never thought it was great but enjoy it simply because of the characters and tone. I will continue defending this (and the SW prequels, what can I say? I’m a sucker) forever. Glad to see an article put it to words! Thanks!
Cheers MikeHalc. Will struggle to agree with you on the prequels, but glad to be of service as far as Indy is concerned :)
I thought Indy 4 was the best since Raiders – at least until the utterly un-involving jungle chase. It redeemed itself with the UFO sequence – not great but still the strongest payoff since Raiders. The Temple of Doom and Last Crusade both had anti climactic payoffs (burning stones and a rapidly aging Nazi…. meh). Overall the films suffered from a trend away from the James Bond solitary hero style of the first movie towards a more Disney-esque ‘bring the family along for the ride’ type of entertainment, a temptation that was successfully resisted in Indy 4 – at least for the first hour or so.
A few other points (while I’m ranting):
I find it odd that a bunch of adults who saw Raiders as children expect to experience the new movie in the same way they did as children. Puerilism is a mental disease – George Lucus did not ruin your childhood memories – you grew up ffs!
How is surviving a nuclear bomb blast in a fridge any more unbelievable than surviving in open water tied to a U Boat for more than a few hours or jumping out of a speeding plane in a life raft?
By the way…. loathed as I am to defend midichlorians(!), the idea isnt as dumb as it first seems: check out mtDNA, human gut bacteria and the Hoyle and Wickeramasinge’s updated theory of Panspermia (diseases from space). George Lucas did his homework, apparently.
I wouldn’t go as far as you, but you do make an interesting point about expectations. As I think I mentioned in my written review (and if not I should have done), Indy 4 turned out better than any of us could have expected, especially with regard to the prequels. And as for midichlorians, my problem was not just the spiritual vs. biological stuff, but the fact that it made the ability to use the force something more elitist, i.e. instead of something anyone can use with training, only a predestined few will ever be good enough. Thanks for commenting :)
I agree wholeheartedly with what you’re saying and while I love Star Wars the older I get the more it worries me that its a movie about the 1% made for consumption by the 99% (to put it in a modern context). Its kind of depressing – I think I want my childhood back…!
By the way, love the article, agree wholeheardedly. But…just did a digital double take…
Are you saying you thought the Force was something anyone could learn? Even before midichlorians were introduced, I thought just about every piece of Star Wars media made it pretty clear it was something you were born with.
I am thrilled to read that there are others out there who appreciate Indy 4. I’ve been defending this film ever since it came out. It seems that those who dislike it the most have only seen it once, and were blinded by expectations. While it does have its flaws, such as those damn cg monkeys, the movie did reunite Indy with Marion, and didn’t allow Mutt to wear the fedora at the end.
Cheers Will :)
Good article and I agree with a little bit of it. I’m still a bit blah about it (same way I feel about Last Crusade) I think you need to take this into account. I’m not the biggest defender of the movie itself but I stumbled upon this stuff a few weeks ago on IMDb.
You’re defending a movie like this by saying it’s not all that bad. Well you’re kinda insinuating that the movie did poorly or something. I have to say that while I won’t defend the movie on grounds on whether it was good or not or take the time for find what I liked, I don’t think the film did bad at all. It did very great with critics and audiences. I’ll be the first to admit that it’s a vocal minority of naysayers when it comes to this film even though i don’t like it much.
Examples–
-RottenTomatoes Score; 77%/User Score of 3.5
-Cannes Film Festival = Standing Ovation
-MovieWeb Fan/Critic Accumulated score; 82% and a 3.8 “Great” score.
-CinemaScore= B+ average
-MetaCritic Score – 65 (4 Pts less than acclaimed Avengers)
-Yahoo! Movies User Score – 4/5 Stars
-CriticsChoice; 76/100
-BoxOfficeMojo Surveys; 41% gave it an A, 37%; B. Compared to Temple of Doom’s 37% A ratings, with each film; having the same number of votes, relatively.
-Fandango Critic/Fan Accumulated Scores of Hundreds of Votes/Reviews = Go!
-Empire Magazine’s Top 500 Films of All Time VOTED IN
-AintItCoolNews.com bloggers gave it glowing reviews.
-Best Action Movie at the 2009 Critics’ Choice Awards Nominee
-Visual Effects Society nominated it for Best Single Visual Effect of the Year. Best Outstanding Matte Paintings, Best Models and Miniatures, and Best Created Environment in a Feature Motion Picture.
-Saturn Award Nominee for Best Science Fiction Film, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Costumes and Best Special Effects.
-Fandango Users/Critics Rated it ‘Go Now!
-Entertainment Weekly Review A-
-NY Times Review- A
-ComingSoon.net reviews = 8/10 and 7/10
-IMDB Voters – Voted 7 or above majority
-Billboard Review- B
-Saturday; Evening Post; – A
-Roger Ebert – 3/4 Stars
-Most Watched Film on TV – 2009/2010
-Top 3 DVD sales – 2008/09
-ComCast Cable Score – 3 out of 4 Stars
-SlashFilmSurvey; 254,356 polled, 83% voted ‘loved it’.
-Every poll on the largest Indy-Forum gave the film high marks in a huge majority.
-IndyPodCast – Reviews – 86.5% Positive from Listeners
-78% Voted Good to Excellent/Perfect at TheRaven.net forums. The largest Indy forum on the internet.
-Stephen Jared and Michael French of the largest Indy Fansite TheRaider.Net gave the film high marks.
-’Kingdom’ got high marks on the ClubObiWan.com forums; the second most active Indiana Jones Forum.
This stuff is not the hallmark of a hated movie or one that did badly with people. Bottom line, Indy 4 did great with general audiences and critics. Just because it pissed off some people doesn’t make it a hated or disliked movie.
Again I didn’t care for the movie but it is what it is. Most people liked it though. It’s a shame I’m not one of them.
I didn’t at any point say that the film didn’t do well commercially. As for its reputation, I was attempting to tie my personal experience (i.e. hating the prequels and then not being so disappointed with this) to overall trends – guess I didn’t do that well enough. Thanks for commenting, and thanks for the overwhelming amount of evidence :)
No biggie man I understand the personal experience thing. Cool article though. I think there was also one on this site defending Temple of Doom which gets too much flack too. I’ll give Crystal Skull and Last Crusade a watch today maybe I’ll warm up to them someday. I really think this movies bad reputation is only in some sects of the internet fandom. Most people just see it as another Indy film. Take care!
Will this madness never end? It’s an Indiana Jones movie, guys. Come on! It’s better than nothing. And of all the opening gambits, the fourth was by far the best.
Its kind of hard to top the third movie. He knew that. Nonetheless, Lucas touched every movie based on a different religion.
The first of course on Judaism. The second on the Hindu religion based on Kali. The third was naturally based on Christianity and easily one of the bigger religious cultures in the world. The fourth of course was based on the ancient Paganism belief which i found interesting to the point that not many movies have taken this route before.
With every aspect explored in religion, macguffins are easy to source, hence every religious belief has some form of earthly artifact reminiscent to its cultural & religious backdrop.
Perhaps a Buddhist direction is what they need for the next one, if it ever gets made.
But to undermine the efforts that were clearly represented in the last movie are unfair to the moviemakers responsible. Contrary to anyone’s opinion, George Lucas’ movies have outsold, and outlasted most movies that have ever been made. Whether you like it or not, the man clearly knows what he’s doing.
Good point, well made. I’m still not sold on Lucas’ legacy, or that he knows what he’s doing, but as far as Indy goes we’re in agreement.
Great article Daniel. Since this movie came out, all I’ve heard was people talking about how it “doesn’t exist” . I’ve always tried to defend it saying there are some classic Indy moments in it (the motorcycle chase scene is right in line with the other 3 movies). It’s definitely the worst of the 4 movies, but throwing it out completely always seemed a bit harsh to me. I’ve always thought it was insane to accept all the things that Indy and co. go through in the first 3 movies, but cry foul at things like the fridge scene. You’ve pinpointed all the things that always stuck with me in defending this movie. But sadly, there’s probably a longer list of what stinks in this film. But that’s another article for another day. Excellent job!
Thanks Michael :)
Hey Daniel, cool article man.
I really didn’t know some people hated this movie until I came across a few forums on the internet. Even YouTube videos/trailers have people saying that it was great fun or defending it. I mean my friends and I, co workers all saw this movie when it came out and everyone I know at least liked it alot or enjoyed it. It’s my personal second favorite actually. I kinda think it’s just a vocal minority who likes to complain endlessly and I agree with the other poster that most people who saw it did like the movie and enjoy it. Indy fans included. Like I said I had no idea until I came across some forums here on the internet. It’s just a very vocal minority.
Now the prequels on the other hand…I won’t go there!! You know what people think of those… =P
Pretty cool of you to respond to as many comments as you can too.
Thanks Paul, I do my best :)
Daniel,
First of all kudos on an entertaining and well written, well thought out article.
Second I too am impressed that you have found time to respond to these reader comments.
As to the article I have to say I count myself among those that enjoyed Indy 4 when I saw it the first time. Though I don’t rate it higher than its predecessors I believe it does not lag far behind the third film on my list and it is every bit an Indiana Jones film.
I tend to agree with every point you made in your article, I seem to view the film from a similar perspective so I have little comment on the content.
The only marginally disappointing thing I found with Indy 4 (aside from the aforementioned issues with bad CGI Monkeys etc) is something no one could have helped or altered. Harrison Ford’s Indy appeared remarkably older in the fourth film and although the change in appearance is explained due to the intervening years touched on in the story, one cannot help but wish that Indy 4 had been filmed in say 1992 and had perhaps a story date of 1945 centering around the Third Reich’s desperate search for a war winning super weapon of some kind, perhaps still involving the Crystal Skulls.
Truth be told it actually didn’t take me long to get accustomed to an aged Indiana and feel grateful that I was watching a film from a series I thought I’d never see again.
In any case, generally speaking, Indy 4 is as good as it probably could hope to be given the circumstances and that’s not half bad.
Tom
Thanks Tom, have to say your idea sounds pretty awesome. Since Temple of Doom was a prequel, you might want to write to Spielberg and offer him your services…
Kudos to you, sir. As a long time Indy fan, I enjoyed this film for what it is, and I actually sort of favor it over “Temple of Doom”.