Indy 4 ending...spoilers...

OK, so spoilers below for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ...

Indy 4 was a very entertaining/popcorn movie, just like the three movies that preceded it. However, I think the most debated thing (besides nukin' the fridge, and Tarzan's boy), is the ending.

For those of you who didn't like the ending, what's the difference between the flying saucer and the shooting ray Ark of Covenant? I mean, in the end, they are both two things that were thought to be kind of a legend, of a folk tale, something that is usually thought of being false...and they (at least in the movies, no more controversies here) ended up being true, and discovered by Indy...again, why such disliking for the saucer ending? Is it you don't want Indy to grow up, or time to pass by?

I honestly didn't think the ending was that bad. How is it any worse then the ghosts of a biblical artifact melting some Nazi's or a guy aging his entire life in 30 seconds because he drank from a fake grail? It's not really anymore far fetched. Remember the Indy movies are homages to B-Grade movies those movies always had ridiculous plots.

I basically brought something similar up the other Indy thread, and I feel the same that each Indy film has its "Over the Top" moments. Did I think the saucer ending was OTT? Yep. Did I think the ending of Indy Raiders was OTT? A big yes on that one, too. Here's the thing, Indy films are supposed to be OTT movies. They are carved from old school, action adventure films of the old Saturday matinee days. If I were asked what I thought was the biggest, Over The Top moment of any Indy film, and I mean OTT moment that completely annoyed me, I say the jumping out of the crashing plane in Indy 3! I mean, come on folks, they would have been dead just from the impact, let alone they manage to survive an 800ft drop off of a cliff. It was definitely an eye rolling moment for me.

Therefore, I felt the ending of Indy Crystal Skull was certainly Over the Top. However, it didn't bother me as I went into the movie with the expectations of an OTT film. I would disagree with others that feel the ending of Indy 4 was one of the films weaknesses. (Indy 4 suffers from other angles, such as Ford looking too tired at times for the part.) Nevertheless, I wouldn't say the ending was one of the films strengths, either -- it was exactly what I expected to see happen in a popular franchise we have not seen in over a decade and a half. Plus, it wasn't like I couldn't accept or believe the ending, as the UFO phenomenon was huge in that time period. I mean, you also have to look at our Director and Producer of the film. It isn't as if either of those two have never done OTT before.

Nevertheless, Indy 4 was a fun summer treat. It may not have been the best of them but it was an enjoyable film any way you cut it. I still say it's about a 7/10 for me.

Agreed Tim, is not like Spielberg or Lucas have ever done a film with flying spaceships...

I felt Indy 4 was just tired with a less compelling villain and action sequences. It's the nail in the coffin of this franchise.

---

[Post edited by JSWELL on Aug 16, 2008 - CDT 7:20 PM]

There's a major difference between science-fiction and supernatural. So setting up a series as having supernatural plot points, and then doing an almost complete 180 and adding in science-fiction elements as well felt oddly out of place in an Indiana Jones movie. Maybe that just comes from my dislike of cross-pollination in movie-genres or whatever the hell it is, but I just don't feel science-fiction meshes that well with supernatural, so for me the whole premise of the movie was just too jarring for me to get into. Besides which, the film almost seemed like it was embarrassed by the fact that the plot revolved around aliens. In fact, I don't recall the word "alien" even being mentioned once. Not that that upset me or anything, but at least have the balls to commit to an idea. If you've chosen an alien skull as your item, don't beat around the bush and make vague inclinations as to its origins. Besides which, the thing just looks ridiculous. As well, I've stared deep into the eyes of two separate crystal skulls (in the British National Museum in London and the Musée Branly in Paris) for many minutes each, and I never had any sort of psychic connection with either. Or maybe the skulls told me to write that. At least with the Ark or the Grail we don't have the actual item so I could more easily suspend disbelief as to what that item may actually be capable of doing (I have no trouble accepting the power of God, power of aliens however...). The less said about the Shankara stones the better though (seeing as how I actually know so little about them). It's almost as if they wanted you to second guess whether or not Indy 4 was actually about aliens or not (of course I'm not a complete idiot and knew that it was going to have aliens in it), they way that kept only hinting at it until when finally they do the big reveal at the end and oh, ya, guess what, it's War of the Worlds all over again. Great. Thanks Stevie. For me, a Martian invasion would have been an easier pill to swallow. Probably would have been far more entertaining too.

Personally, I have no problem with cross pollinating sci-fi and fantasy, since that's what most so-called sci-fi films do, anyway. They're mostly fantasy. There have only been a handful of true science-fiction films in the history of cinema, things like "The Day the Earth Stood Still," "Forbidden Planet," "2001," "Star Trek," and "Contact." Mainly, we get fantasy masquerading as sci-fi, things like "Star Wars" and "ID4," which I dearly love but which have little basis in science fact or fiction.

Anyway, I wasn't overly impressed with the new "Indy" film, although I liked it probably as well as "Temple of Doom." I just thought the new one seemed tired. Not just that Harrison Ford looked older and more tired, but the whole movie just seemed tired, like everybody--actors, director, producer--was simply going through the motions and making an imitation "Indiana Jones" flick. A good imitation but not quite the real thing. I'm thinking maybe a 6 or 7/10 at best. I'd have to watch it again and see what its repeat value is for me.

John

That's what I'm waiting for, to see what its repeat value will be.

My biggest gripe was the amount of green screen that was used.

Yeah, the previous installments had their fair share of scenes that looked like a set, but I'll take an actual physical set over CGI backgrounds.

Numerous times throughout the movie I was thinking to myself how it didn't even look like certain scenes required CGI, but was simply done out of laziness.

Another troll bump...

There have been many movies where I can actually recall scenes that were funny, or entertaining, or just good to look at, and Indy 4 was such the case, unlike many others this year so far (I forgot almost everything except for Stark's cameo in Hulk)...it doesn't have the energy Riders had, that feeling of actually chasing something 'alive', that's why I think John called it tired.

Indy is old, and this movie shows it (heresy, I know ), and the movie shows it. Once again, once you get past the first 15 minutes non sense, the movie kicks into full gear (past the Ark, past the 'nuke the fridge' (which is unforgettable), and past the 'Indy is a commie non sense (which actually is never mentioned back, horrendous plot hole))...I just can't wait for me to see it again on the dollar theatre and to buy the (hopefully) blu-ray...