Indiana Jones and the Something of Something

[The Doctor]

So Indy fever is upon us, and I find myself being caught up with the hype. I love 'Raiders' and 'Temple of Doom', though 'Last Crusade' hasn't aged as well though the bit with the tank is tops. I just hope the new one is better than the fucking awful Young Indy series. Part of me is also thinking it's a bad idea to revive the series: look what happened when Star Wars came back.

-Ralph

[Deleted]

Recently I brought a book containing the novelisations of all three original Indy films which were written back in the day to cash in on the movies being in the cinema at the time.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

SOME MILD SPOILERS HERE

As I'd accomplished my main tasks at work for the week I took today off to mow the lawns and see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (£4 at Cineworld before midday).

It was good for the most part. I had high hopes since I heard that Spielberg was keeping CG effects to a bare minimum, and for the first hour and a bit I was really thinking its makers knew something that the makers of the Mummy series failed to grasp, namely that over-the-top CGI kind of kills 'retro'.

However, what could have been a great film was spoilt by Spielberg throwing out the religious themes of previous Indy films and making it science-fiction instead. NO! Even Indiana Jones has been secularised! He's gone and turned something that could have been about spooky and mystical Mayan gods into more like Close Encounters of the Third Kind / E.T.

Really ruined the feel of the film for me.

Oh, and for information there's nothing at the end of the end credits, though at least unlike the last time I stayed to find this out (Transformers) the music was enjoyable to listen to.

Having seen all four now, I would rate them in the following order:

Best - The Last Crusade - saw it the other day, and disagree with Ralph saying that it hasn't aged well. It's top stuff all the way through, just as good as ever. Even the young Indy at the start is well done and very witty. And the cast is far and away the best. The foursome riding into the sunset at the end (Indy, Dad, Marcus and Sallah) are head and shoulders above the foursome left at the end of Crystal Skull.

Second best - Raiders of the Lost Ark - everyone knows why this film is great. Only Sean Connery makes me put Last Crusade ahead of it.

Third best - Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - first three quarters are solid Indiana Jones entertainment. Sci-fi stuff spoils it.

Least favourite - Temple of Doom - never liked it. Bored to tears by the tacky musical opening, and irritated throughout by the female sidekick. Thank God they didn't bring her back for the new film. I find the Indy-gets-hypnotised sequence rather a drag too. And eyeball soup - no thanks.

Martin

[The Doctor]

*skips over Martin's review as not seeing the new film until next week*

About to start a marathon of the original three!

-Ralph

[Deleted]

Temple of Doom is rightfully the worst of the lot. The opening scene where Indy is poisoned and people keep kicking the actidote across the floor made it look like a Charlie Chaplin film. The banquet scene with the Monkeybrains and Eyeball soup was just pushing it a bit too far and I believe it was only put in to curry favour with the fans who were coming out in their droves at the time to watch stuff like A Nightmare on Elm Street.

[Mark_Stevenson]

I really rather enjoyed KotKS. The pacing and dialogue were a bit off, and the CG goes overboard in places. But when it's good, it's a hell of a lot of fun. I'm not surprised by the 'Chariots of the Gods' storyline, I think that's been crying out to be used in this kind of film for years. The best parts of it are the 'family' scenes, and the (for my money, well-executed) maturing of a much-loved character. I think it'll be better the second time around, without the weight of expectaion.




*SPOILER*



Nice to see E.T. get a cameo at the end too. It's good that Spielberg likes to keep his old friends in work.

Mx

[Hero]

Same here. Although it did'nt have the same ooomph factor that Raiders of the Lost Ark did.

===HERO

[Shockprowl]

Looking forward to seeing this. Hope it's religiousy. Raiders and Crusade always seemed to have more gravity because they dealt with religious artifacts.

I love Young Indian Jones! Think it's Brilliant!!!

[Stomski]

The start to Temple of Doom is fecking awesome, "Anything Goes" Woooo... Love that shit.

Now on to KotKS...

Despite introducing some interesting concepts early on (Indy's suspected involvement with XXXX), about half way through the film deteriorates into set peice into set peice bullshit without any story at all (and to reference again another film mentioned here, is one of the things that made Mummy Returns so dire).

Things would have remained a lot more interesting if we were left with some doubt as to the origin of the artifact in question... Sure the series has left no questions before (meaning the Ark and the Holy Grail), but in those cases you could somehow suspend your disbelief and accept it for the story leading to the finds was at least interesting.

In this case it isn't. There's no imagination to the quest, with the answers being revealed too soon.

And I fail to see why Marion Ravenwood was included in the film. Her character serves no purpose other than to link in Shia LeBoef's character in. Something that could have been achieved through well written dialog between other existing characters. Not to mention the fact that she's lost all the strength she had previously turning into some school girl swooning over her lost love.

Lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame lame.

That is all.

[The Doctor]

I thought it was highly enjoyable tosh, with not too much horrid CGI. Ford did a good job as always. I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the film. Good to see Karen Allen again. The quicksand scene was my favourite bit of the film, came the closest to recapturing that sense of zany fun Raiders had. I can see myself going to watch this again and picking up the DVD.

The best thing the film achieved was to finally obliterate all memory of the last Indy revival, the fucking awful Young Indy TV series. I wouldn't say no to a 5th big screen Indy adventure now whereas previously I feared it was something best left in the past.

Monkeys make everything good.

Oh, and I've just re-watched Last Crusade and enjoyed it. I must have been in a funny mood when I last saw it and thought it poo.

[kayevcee]

That's exactly what we thought at the time, Ralph.

-Nick

[Cullen]

Well it was enjoyable for the most part but seeing the alien spaceship at the end really soured the whole thing for me. Plus there's was quite a few bits where I found it hard to suspend my disbelief even for an Indy film, like when he survived a nuclear explosion by hiding in a lead-lined fridge. And the tarzan bit which was awful.

[The Doctor]

I wasn't bothered by the alien spaceship, myself. It seemed no more daft to me than a magic box that made peoples faces slide off, magic glowing rocks that left a village in a bad when when they were taken away or a magic cup that made evil folk grow old very quickly and turn into skeletons. By keeping true to Indy's pulpy roots, moving it into the 50's meant it really had to have a flying saucer in it, like many of the 'B-Movies' of the era.

Going by reviews I've read, it seems to be a love it or hate it thing.

As for the 'Tarzan' bit, that too is probably a 'love it or hate it' moment. I loved it myself.

-Ralph

[Grand Moff Muffin]

It's not a question of the spaceship being daft, so much as its being daft in the wrong way.

Indiana Jones is supposed to be about archaeology, ancient artefacts, gods and traditional beliefs, be they Israelite (Lost Ark), Indian (Temple of Doom), Medieval Christian (Grail) or Mayan (what the Crystal Skull should have been about).

Instead, he unearthed a flying saucer, which is a belief dreamt up the 20th Century, described in terms of 20th Century physics (multiple dimensions, etc.).

Just took away for me the mood of ancient mysticism that the other three had, even the crappy second one.

Martin

[Deleted]

I haven't seen the film yet but it sounds like there's a bit of bandwagon-jumping here. Alien spaceships have been linked with ancient civilisations for many years now in the media whether it be comic books, TV series or films. The Tintin comic book Flight 714 had a ludicrious alien story at the end just as it seemed that it was turning into a good story. Alien spaceships in stories set in or about ancient times is nothing new.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

The only time I've liked it was the original Stargate film - not the series but the film that inspired it. I liked it because it kept the ancient feel to it - they spoke Ancient Egyptian (rather than English), and everything felt old and steeped in tradition - the staff weapons, the pyramid ship, the healing sarcophagus, the guards with detailed Anubis, Horus and Ra helmets. Very good.



Never seen sci-fi linked with archaeology convincingly since then though.

Martin

[Deleted]

The original Stargate film is one of the best films I've seen in the past few years that deals with both Archeology and Sci-Fi. Its much better than the TV series James Spader played a better role in the film than any other film I've ever seen him in.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

May 31, 2008 18:55:56 GMT @zudobug said:

The original Stargate film is one of the best films I've seen in the past few years that deals with both Archeology and Sci-Fi. Its much better than the TV series James Spader played a better role in the film than any other film I've ever seen him in.

A man of taste.

(Martin pauses mid-post to put on Stargate movie soundtrack.)

I was quite annoyed by the SG-1 series (which I dropped after a year or two), because it didn't realise the cool premise of the film. All the humans on alien worlds spoke English, and they threw in more gods and stuff at random so that the enemies became less and less scary, and none as scary as Ra's forces in the movie.

They also explained the plot too much with words. The Stargate movie had an absolutely stonking last 15 minutes with a complex plotline and resolution that the viewer had to follow with their eyes, and it felt beautifully choreographed as a result. The way they say "I've got an idea" and then implement it without patronising the viewer was something sadly lacking from most visual story-telling.

All that and the lovely Mili Avital.

Oh, and the extended Director's Cut on DVD is much better than the theatrical release that they keep showing on TV. Much more background and characterisation.

Martin

[The Doctor]

Can't stand the Stargate movie. Took itself so fecking seriously it vanished up its own bum, and directed by one of the most mediocre directors in Hollywood. I enjoyed the series, after a ropey first season because it at least knew it was daft and just went for 'fun'.

-Ralph

[legios]

May 31, 2008 17:26:07 GMT Grand Moff Muffin said:

It's not a question of the spaceship being daft, so much as its being daft in the wrong way.

Indiana Jones is supposed to be about archaeology, ancient artefacts, gods and traditional beliefs, be they Israelite (Lost Ark), Indian (Temple of Doom), Medieval Christian (Grail) or Mayan (what the Crystal Skull should have been about).

Martin

I'm not sure I agree with you there. From my point of view I would say that Indiana Jones is supposed to be about two-fisted pulp adventuring. The archaeology and stuff is just the trappings put onto it to explain why our hero initially gets into the scrapes that he does. (Seeing as he isn't a "hero for hire" like the "Continental Op" or a government agent or a random do-gooder like "Doc Savage").

I'd say that flying saucers and Men from Mars fit with the pulp traditions, and indeed represent one of the pulp schticks that they hadn't done yet - and setting it in the fifties, when the "Saucer Craze" was just taking off made it feel like there was a certain sense of logic to there presence in the story. After all, in the early 30's Dr Jones went to India and fought an assassin cult (like the Shadow, except not waiting for the assassins to come to him), in the later 30's he took on Nazi's, and in the fifties who could it be but Communists.

I've always felt that the specific artefacts that he was pursuing were more McGuffin's than actually of real relevance. They exist to drive the story and to set up the fist-fights and daring escapes. The Shankara stones could be the Maltese Falcon for practical purposes. What is important is the Dr Jones needs to reach the "whateveritis" ahead of the evildoers.

For the record I rather enjoyed "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". It felt like a logical extrapolation of the character and the style to the period, had a good villian and lots of good solid set-pieces. Liked the supporting cast as well - the main villian was good, very much in the tradition of Beloqq from "Raiders" I thought, it was nice to see Karen Allen back again (and I have to say I thought she did a decent job with the part, and had a definite on-screen rapport with Ford), and Ray Winstone did a nice job as "Mac" I thought.

The action sequences where suitably bonkers - a rapier duel between two folk standing on DUKW's plunging through the jungle, how much more pulp-bonkers can you get?

I thought the music sounded pretty good too.

The only place I really felt it fell down was with the ending - it wasn't sure really when it should have stopped, so it meandered on a bit after the point at which the film should have ended

All in all I would have to say I think it is my second favourite of the films. It isn't as good as "Raiders" - but then it would have had a tough time managing that as "Raiders" was pretty near pitch-perfect - but I thought it was still a good fun adventure romp.

(For the record I think that the "Stargate" feature is fairly mediocre. I didn't like the direction at all (and haven't liked much else from that directors hand either) and thought that in general it was sabotaged by never admitting to itself that at heart it had a B-Movie premise. Kurt Russell was quite good in it I thought though).

Karl

[Mark_Stevenson]

I'd like to say that I agree with pretty much everything Karl just said.

Mx

[Grand Moff Muffin]

May 31, 2008 21:48:40 GMT legios said:

May 31, 2008 17:26:07 GMT Grand Moff Muffin said:

Indiana Jones is supposed to be about archaeology, ancient artefacts, gods and traditional beliefs, be they Hebrew (Lost Ark), Indian (Temple of Doom), Medieval Christian (Grail) or Mayan (what the Crystal Skull should have been about).

I'm not sure I agree with you there. From my point of view I would say that Indiana Jones is supposed to be about two-fisted pulp adventuring. The archaeology and stuff is just the trappings put onto it to explain why our hero initially gets into the scrapes that he does.

Looking back on this thread I regret using the choice of words "supposed to be about". The fact is that the first three films were about both (a) archaeology, ancient artefacts, gods and traditional beliefs and (b) two-fisted pulp adventuring.

According to one person's tastes, (a) may be more essential than (b), to another person (a) may be incidental and (b) the only essential element. Perhaps people with more secular tendencies may incline more to the latter view, though that's a bit heavy for this thread.

But in addition to the two-fisted pulp adventuring, and despite the slapstick, camp villains and ludicrous escapes, in the first three films both the hero and the writers were straight-faced and respectful in their regard of the ancient myth elements. While Indy treated the people he dealt with in a reckless, cavalier manner, he never treated the historical/cultural aspects that way. I personally got a tingle down my spine when he and Marcus described the Ark of the Covenant to the Government agents, when the old wise man deciphered the head-piece of the staff of Ra, when Indy blew centuries of dust off the lettering on the floor of the map room, when he translated the tablet describing the location of the Grail, and so on - a tingle I don't get when watching a film that's just about an adventurer or secret agent going up against Nazis or rogue Communists.

That side of Indiana Jones gave the series a quality for me that James Bond lacks. And I was therefore disappointed that the new film basically dismissed/debunked the Mayan traditions, in contrast to the way the first three films left their myths respectfully intact.

Stargate (the movie), like the Lord of the Rings films and Babylon 5, I rate highly partly for the fact that they do treat their respective mythologies with utmost seriousness. In all three cases I can see very easily how this could alienate any viewer not inclined to also view those mythologies with a sense of awe. In most science-fiction and modern adventures, I myself demand a tongue-in-cheek approach because I do not see enough merit in the background plot to warrant awe and respect - it's usually too shallow.

But in the three works I just named, I rate the background mythology as sufficiently deep and majestic to warrant a serious attitude. In the case of Stargate (unlike LOTR and B5), it's not so much the creators who deserve the credit for this, but rather my wish not to belittle or treat lightly the wonderful mythology of one of the greatest civilisations in the history of the world. The SG-1 series went on to treat mythologies in a much more casual and throwaway manner, which is what turned me off it - and why I have no time for camp portrayals of ancient gods as they appear in Marvel Comics or TV shows like 'Hercules - The Legendary Journeys'. The originals deserve better than that in my view.

Karl describes Stargate as having a B-movie premise. If they'd approached it with that attitude I'd have had very little time for it. I don't think the first three Indy films took that attitude either, despite all the superb fun and hijinks on the action side. But the fourth one did, because it showed very little if any interest in exploring the complex and shocking Mayan traditions and beliefs. It just used their architecture as expendable set pieces.

But it's all down to personal taste, and attitudes to the world's mythological heritage. Maybe in this post I too have, as Ralph puts it, vanished up my own bum.

Martin

[Deleted]

The reason why I didn't like the Stargate TV series was because it took the original movie idea and duplicated it many times. In the film there was only one Stargate (or two if you count both gates on either side of the portal) but in the TV series they claimed that there were dozens of other Stargates which just ruined it for me. One portal to another world is okay but a stack of them?

[The Doctor]

I am filled with an almost overwhelming desire to own an Indiana Jones style hat. I had best not get drunk in the near future.

-Ralph

[kayevcee]

I'm saddened to see that so many people in this thread don't experience the same level of joy that I do while watching Stargate SG1.

-Nick

[Fortmax2020]

I share your joy Nick! And I enjoyed the film as well. Gosh.

Saw IJ last night. Enjoyable enough and I might pick it up on DVD along with the others but something felt lacking in it. Can't put my finger on what though. Ford did very well I thought.

[The Doctor]

I took my dad to see it last night. He really enjoyed it, just as much as the previous films, with a few marks off for the lack of snappy one liners and he thought Shia LeBeouf was shite. Burns Senior wants 2 more films with older Indy.

-Ralph

[jameso]

This isn't really a criticism of the movie, more a criticism of there _being_ a new Indiana Jones movie, but for me what was lacking was I had a big sense of 'so?' the whole time. By which I mean, why is this story the story that necessitates a new 150 million dollar budget (or whatever) movie and not a 300 page pulp novel, or a comicbook mini-series, or new videogame etc etc...? Probably the significance of Shia La Beouf's character, but surely that's not enough to base a whole movie on.
With that factor, and all the things I found annoying about the other films - Indiana Jones being continuously captured by the bad guys, the bad guys being the ones who drive the plot, long, long, pointless, long chase scenes (will the lead character be pushed off the cliff and die halfway through the movie! Er, no, probably not) - I just found it entertaining enough whilst on, but ultimately very underwhelming.

[Fortmax2020]

I've been trying to figure this one out, but in the cemetery why did the bloke with the blow pipe attack them? And again in the final bit why did the blokes who came out of the walls attack them??