INDIANA JONES IV - Mike’s Review!

Got a scoop? Something to say? E-mail Matt or Pete

Posted by Michael Edwards. Last modified on May 20th, 2008 at 11:49pm

INDIANA JONES IV - Mike’s Review!

Written by: David Koepp (screenplay), George Lucas (story)

Staring: Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, Shia LaBeouf, Karen Allen, Ray Winstone, John Hurt, Jim Broadbent, Igor Jijikine, Alan Dale, Andrew Divoff

Distributed by Paramount Pictures

Film is released worldwide on May 22nd 2008

Review by Michael Edwards

Are we all ready? Harrison Ford’s been wheeled out, Cate Blanchett has spent 3 days in Kiev practising her accent, Shia LaBeouf has finished grooming himself and George Lucas is ready with the cash register: it’s Indy time!

The plot is predictably stupid for an Indiana Jones movie, it’s 1957 and the aged archeologist has been kidnapped by commies and taken to a secret US military installation to identify an artefact he excavated years ago in a triple top-secret mission. Once the artefact (a really really old transparent, psychic and weirdly shaped skull that is sometimes magnetic, and sometimes attracts gold) is found we begin an all-important tug-of-war over this astounding object to decide the fate of the world!

Indiana Jones and the Selectively Magnetic Head… no… wait… Indiana Jones and the Shit-Looking Plastic Alien Brain… hang on, nearly there… Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a fucking waste of time, a pointless throw back to a time when action movies just had to have ridiculous stunts, loud THWACK noises whenever someone’s fist hits a face and a whole bunch of crazy traps and gateways for the heroes to traverse. The trouble is that this genre is (or should be) dead. This has been proven by the numerous imitators who have tried and failed to produce anything as fun as the originals; THE MUMMY, TOMB RAIDER and NATIONAL TREASURE are all perfect examples of attempts to revive a format that, like the hero of this movie, should have been left behind in the dust of new and exciting action movies years ago. Testament to this is the fact that all of the stuff that has gotten positive press about this movie is regurgitated tripe designed to have the nostalgia monkeys raving.

But will these retro culture soaked simians even like the movie? It was pretty true to the original franchise and all of the classic hallmarks remain. The running joke that Indy is a hero AND a boring archeologist, his old romance is revived, the crazy gateway puzzles in ancient temples still look the same as they did in original movies and the film leads to a completely over-the-top mystical conclusion (I won’t spoil it but some fans might say it’s gone a bit too far). What’s more there are some great one-liners, some cool action scenes involving the usual cliff-top chases and local wildlife, to mention just a couple of things. And for those of you who just can’t let go of the past, there is a very very strong hint that young Mr LaBeouf is waiting in the wings to take on the franchise for himself. But for the record, my reaction to that can only be expressed by bashing the keyboard in frustration thusly: jkdekjeiouceimceeiuodeci.

As if reviving Indy from his restful slumber wasn’t enough, replacing him with this two-dimensional action-film whore really is disrespectful. (To those of you who would defend him I have one word: TRANSFORMERS.)

So, in conclusion, go and watch this film: it’s funny, stupid and has lots and lots of inexplicable and completely unfeasible action which mostly seems to be done by a 66 year-old-man. It’s all good fun, and I did laugh, but it’s like sitting in a replica World War II tank: it’s just not the same as the real thing. All that remains is for me to say “LEAVE OUR MEMORIES FROM THE 80’s ALONE AND MAKE SOMETHING ORIGINAL YOU DAMN HOLLYWOOD EXECS!!!”

Categories: Cate-Blanchett, Harrison-Ford, Indiana-Jones-IV, Jim-Broadbent, John-Hurt, Karen-Allen, Ray-Winstone, Reviews, Shia-LaBeouf, Steven-Spielberg

38 Comments »

Ouch!

Comment by Matt Holmes | May 20, 2008

Ouch!, indeed.

Comment by Lencho | May 21, 2008

If this site were an Indy film, the publication would’ve been greeted with an unnecessarily loud THWACK! and then the site would have inexplicably exploded.

Comment by Michael Edwards | May 21, 2008

Agree with everything but the “archaeology-oriented genre is dead” part. I happen to like Mummy, National Treasure etc. And I LOVE the genre, as do moviegoers given the box-office returns.

But I agree that Indiana Jones in particular should have been left in whatever convalescent home they wheeled him out of. This movie should have been made fifteen years ago. And if he was supposed to have a son She-Male LeBoof was THE worst choice imainginable.

I’ll bet Spielberg and Lucas did it as a way to mock their “fans.” I imagine they have a running bet gong to see how many of the drooling idiots (whom their recents efforts have reduced to brain-dead morons) will not at all mind that Alpha-male, uber-masculine Ford will be replaced by a half-tranvestite who is the exact opposite of him. I can’t convince myself that She-Male could be Marion Ravenwood’s son, much less Indy’s.

Comment by JaySmack | May 21, 2008

I don’t think archaeology-related movies are dead, incorporating ancient history (the actual stuff, not movies that are past their sell by date) is cool: I just meant making archaeology and ancient history into cheesy action films overloaded with lame CGI and corny dialogue. Especially when the films don’t even bother trying to add an original slant.

CONTENTIOUS STATEMENT ALERT: The most advanced evolutionary spawn of Indy, via a series of hybrid breeding programmes, is Apocalypto. THAT was an innovative action movie making using of ancient civilisations.

Comment by Michael Edwards | May 21, 2008

That’s what I’m talking about … Finally I can waste my time and my money … yeah … give me more if I deserve more … not, really, what did you expect? That happens when people expect a classic in every movie they’ll gonna watch. I’ll watch the movie … if it’s good, fine … if it’s not, then I’ll put my atention in more important things … like watching the Benicio Del Toro movie about Che Guevara. That’s the good thing of not being part of the groups called “film snubs” or “film nerds”.

Comment by JAM | May 21, 2008

I am sharpening my keyboard for this one. I will be seeing it within the next 24 hours. If my intuition on this movie is correct - and, according to Michael’s review, it is - I will never watch another film that has the words “Lucas” or “Lucasfilm” in the title.

No, not even THE CLONE WARS.

No, not even STAR WARS EPISODE SEVEN: BETRAYAL OF THE SEPTUGINARIANS.

No, not even AMERICAN GRAFFITTI SPECIAL EDITION featuring a farting Ron Howard.

No, not even HOWARD THE DUCK 2: ALL QUACKED UP.

No, not even WILLOW 2: PUSSY.

No, not even YOUNG INDIANA JONES, JR. AND THE QUEST FOR THE MACGUFFIN OF GOLD IN THE SACRED, OH FUCK, JUST GIVE ME ALL YOUR FUCKING MONEY AND THEN BORROW SOMEONE ELSE’S MONEY AND GIVE THAT TO ME TOO.

I wish George Lucas was dead. He was my hero, and now I wish he was fucking dead.

Comment by Ray | May 21, 2008

I’m going see the movie. I remember when Transformers came out and how this site said, the movie wasn’t good but everyone that I talked to said Transformers was a good movie. So I’ll make up my on mind on Indiana Jones!

Comment by Kelvin | May 21, 2008

Whose Mike again and why should I care what he thinks? Given that the nasty audience at Cannes generally liked this movie, even gave applause, I’m going to assume this is not a 1 star movie.

I mean 1 star? 1 Star reviews should be reserved for the worse movies in history, Uwe Boll movies. I find it hard to believe this flick is that bad. I think it would be easier to buy Mike’s opinion if he at least acknowledged what works in this film. Instead, you’d think his house just burnt down before going to see the movie.

Comment by Despacio | May 21, 2008

Riiiiiiight.

One star?

Does somebody need a hug?

Seriously folks - if you liked at least 2 of the 3 previous IJ films then you’ll like this one. It’s that simple. It’s not like Star Wars where they tried to update/change/’improve’ certain areas. It’s just a nice, straight-forward IJ movie. And as far as the CGI goes - IT LOOKS BETTER THAN 1980’s REAR-PROJECTION/MATTES. Really, it does.

Comment by Smart Aleck | May 21, 2008

One star? Someone needs attention.

Comment by Jeff | May 21, 2008

You know what - I don’t care about any review… I still can’t wait till tomorrow night.

Comment by Peter Willis | May 21, 2008

Lol! People should pay less attention to the stars on my review and read the text. If you like the Indiana Jones movies you will probably enjoy this: it follows the exact same formula but with a frail and incontinent hero and shitty Shia LeBeouf thrown in. I’m just pissed off that they revived a concept that’s had its time to make some extra cash when time and money should be spent on creating something NEW. Stop living in the past fools.

And for those of you who are saying ‘who is Mike’? It’s short for Michael Edwards and I’m the Chief Film Critic here. Scan some of the older reviews to refresh your memories.

Comment by Michael Edwards | May 21, 2008

And yes I’d like a hug please, Lucas and his Hollywood cronies have just destroyed another childhood memory…

Comment by Michael Edwards | May 21, 2008

Lucas can STICK his boring CGI into his fat neck!!!

Yes, I said it!

CRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP CGI’ed hollywooden movie!!!

Nostalgia, my ass!!!!!

The richer get richer (Lucas and Spielberg) and the poor public get fooled again ala the Star Wars prequels….

Comment by Bill Gibron movie critic | May 21, 2008

So basically Mike, as the Cheif Film Critic here (and good for you!) it’s your job to sound just like the raving fanboys who basically hate everything all the time? Everything you descibed as a negative in this film (aside from this film) right down to the sound effects perfectly describes the first three films. Sounds like they didn’t totally screw it up, just made another addition to the film series that fits right in with the others. How does that in any way destroy your childhood memories. You make it sound like Lucas raped your mom or something. Give me a break.

Comment by Jeff | May 21, 2008

Wishing Lucas was dead is a bit harsh isn’t it? maybe a bit of good old fashioned toture would be sufice…it would have to be done with CGI of course!he’d love that! More!More! More! he’d shout.

Comment by The Glove | May 21, 2008

I have not seen the movie yet, but I’m pretty sure I will like it. The real critics write possitive reviews, so I can’t see a reason why should I believe what some blogger says…
No offence.

Comment by rhxphn | May 21, 2008

The “real critics” are the movie fans… not some guy getting paid to write a review.

Comment by Peter Willis | May 21, 2008

Critics are movie fans too! And what about people like me who are in between: published critics but not paid. @Jeff, fair point with the raving fanboy thing - maybe I went a bit over the top. But I’m sick of revived franchises. I don’t care how ‘true to the original’ it is (and it isn’t that close: interdimensional beings?? Come on!) I just want Hollywood to make something original in the actions stakes. I’m not generally a raving fanboy (check my other reviews) but this one money-grabbing revamp was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Comment by Michael Edwards | May 21, 2008

@ Michael - To follow up, though … are you saying that you don’t like any of the previous Indy films? You sound like you’re saying that in this review, which I sincerely hope is not the case. RAIDERS is a terrific film, and the two sequels both have their merits.

Comment by Ray | May 21, 2008

Oh, and @rhxphn “I have not seen it but I’m pretty sure I’ll like it”, you;re the kind of retarded n00b that helps crap like this make money. Comment on a film when you’ve seen it. And if you look down on bloggers so much stop contributing to the blog! Plus, it’ only 79% fresh at RT so I’m not alone…

Comment by Michael Edwards | May 21, 2008

For the record: I LOVE the original Indy films, but just don’t think they need to be followed up so long after they were done. It doesn’t look or feel right.

Comment by Michael Edwards | May 21, 2008

Enough … Guys, just relax … Take the day and watch some classic films like Casablanca, The Decalogue, Gone With The Wind and The Phantom Menace (I’m kidding with the last one). Is always instructive to read both positive and negative reviews … at the end of the day everybody can use that thing called “free will”. I understand the disappointment with Hollywood … it’s true what some of the guys say about lack of originality in recent years. I just say that I prefer kill brain cells watching bad sequels than smoking marihuana, drinking alcohol or watching any MTV reality show… So, take the day and watch some Cecile B. DeMille masterpiece, recharge your batteries and give me reviews, comments, updates or whatever about the movies “The Argentine” and “Guerrilla” that will be presented in Cannes today.

Comment by JAM | May 21, 2008

Not hating on you Mike, it’s just that two of your major complaints (i.e. Shia and Last Crusade was the LAST) were voiced a long time ago and could have been read on any internet message board months ago at the very least. But I haven’t read your other reviews, so I’ll give you a fair chance, and it is your place to post your opinion, and you’re entitled to it. I actually felt that way when I first heard about it (that is should be over) but the idea of another film has grown on me.

Comment by Jeff | May 21, 2008

maybe someone who would want to use the sentence ‘predictably stupid for an Indiana Jones movie’ is not the right person to be reviewing an indiana jones movie…

Comment by fanboy d | May 21, 2008

Oh jeezzz! Get over it! We all wanted it to be great, some people think it is, some people think it isn’t. Aiming a rifle at the reviewer doesn’t change that.

Comment by ordinarygal | May 21, 2008

@ mike(comment 22): if RT agreed wit you, they would have said its 20% rating. compared to your scale, they gave it a 3.95 stars out of five. bad math, dude. bad math.

Comment by r0x | May 21, 2008

dont flatter yourself. lmao

Comment by r0x | May 21, 2008

r0x you pee-nars! Mike said that he was not alone, not that the many contributors to RT all agreed with him.

Personally, I’m letting this one go until the 4-disc box set (+ 4 disc’s of bonus crap and official replica 3/4 size weird skull-shaped piece of plastic RRP £500) hits the stores for Christmas.

Comment by Stretch | May 21, 2008

Point blank, it was a terrible review closer to a fanboy rant than a well thought film critic analysis. I guess it’s a rude thing to say, but this review was just angry from the get go.

And as much as you’d like the star ranking to be ignored, it’s hard to ignore that you gave it 1, just 1 star out of 5. That’s a 20% on a test, F- quality, downright certifiably dumb. If this is just like the other Indy movies, than you’re really crapping on the whole series.

Comment by Despacio | May 21, 2008

it seems like the recipe of a good Indiana Jones film would be 1 part Nazis and 1 part Biblical artifact… the Soviet army does a pretty good job of replacing the Nazis, but the other ingredient…

Comment by patrick | May 21, 2008

MY LAST WORDS ON THE MATTER:

Thanks to those of you who have defended my right to an opinion. I really appreciate it.

To those of you who disagree, I respect your opinions too and in no way attempted to take that away from you.

I wrote this review as a polemic in response to what I perceive to be the barren imagination of Hollywood. The 1 star rating did not reflect my opinion on the Indiana Jones franchise, or even the enjoyability factor. It was a rating of the sheer laziness and uninspired money-grabbing spirit that this film represents. Many people may have an enjoyable evening watching this, but there are so many better, more innovative, more exciting films out there that these revived franchises deserve to be slammed at every opportunity. That’s where I’m coming from.

I apologise to those of you who feel I disrespected the original movies, or who feel my review was too polemical: but at the end of the day a polemic only works if it is extreme. I hope you all understand and will continue to give my reviews a chance.

Thanks.

Comment by Michael Edwards | May 21, 2008

Well, that was a classy move. It’s certainly appreciated. I think Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford were hardly aiming for originality and really made this flick as a lover letter to Indy fans everywhere. I mean why else bring back the Marion character?

I agree Hollywood lacks originality, you certainly have a point Michael, but in my opinion this is not the flick to by driving that point home with.

Nonetheless it was certainly an interesting read, and now I know who Mike is, so I’ll definitely keep my eye out for your future reviews.

(And for the record the idea of Shia LeBeouff taking over for Indy sickens the hell out of me.)

Comment by Despacio | May 22, 2008

“80’s”?!

With this misplaced apostrophe you have lost any and all respect that I may have once had for you. Use of “gotten” (quite clearly not a word) is also a strike against you.

Good day to you, sir.

P.S. Transformers was awesome!

Comment by Mace | May 22, 2008

Mike, I tend to agree with the one-star review (OK, two stars - the opening scenes were very exciting). The plot in the Crystal Skull was so cliched (and ripped off the Tintin book Flight 714?), the action relentless, and the CGI graphics naff, as usual. Perhaps they couldn’t afford good writers because the cost of computer-generating the squirrels was getting out of hand?

But I think that the polemic against movie franchises is off the point: don’t the first three Indy films prove that a franchise can result in work of great entertainment and sound artistic value? Spielberg and Lucas are culpable for going ahead with a script that’s far below the quality of the earlier films. Casino Royale showed that a franchise can be rejuvenated by paying more attention to the basics than the gadgets. Unfortunately the Crystal Skull was a remake of the Indiana Jones themepark ride, not the earlier movies.

Comment by Gareth D | May 24, 2008

This review completely misses the point. The whole premise of each of the films is preposterous, they’re just a fun couple of hours. Why pick on the selectively magnetic skull? How about surviving a nuclear bomb? or the Ark of the Covenant? or ripping a man’s heart out through his chest? ‘A fucking waste of time’? You admitted you were entertained, what else are these kind of films for? The text gives a much more balanced review than the 1 star suggests. I would personally give it 4. Films don’t have to be innovative or cutting edge to be good.

Comment by chris | May 24, 2008

[...] the film and wouldn’t back down that the movie wasn’t as bad as myself, Ray, Oliver or Mike Edwards thought of [...]

Pingback by INDIANA JONES IV on DVD & Blu-Ray from October 14th | Obsessed With Film | August 14, 2008