Is Indy 4 that bad?

Never got the complaints about the aliens, at all.

It's set in the 50s. Commies and aliens in the 50s were the Nazis of the 40s & 50s, it's as Indiana Jones as it gets.

 

That's why Doom is best, no Nazi or commie propaganda, just simple pure adventure, without the political ballast to slow it down. It's the purest of adventure movies, without an ideological agenda. Doom is as close to pure simple enjoyable adventure as Indy ever gets, no politics involved, just straight action.... that's why it's my absolute favorite. If I want political intrigue I'll watch the SW prequels (which I really LIKE). But in Indy I prefer NO politics, just the adventure. So Doom is #1!!!!!

 

Agreed, but tied with Raiders.

 

Not sure I'd call any of the Indy movies "political". Not in any serious sense.

 

Honestly, for the first two-thirds, Indy 4 isn't that bad. Has some silly moments, but so do the originals when you take a good look at them. It's at the last part, in the jungle, where it starts to go annoying. Still take it over Doom, which starts annoying me in the first thirty seconds.

Doom deals with the British Raj, by that rather thin metric we could call it political too.

 

Pretty sure half of the outrage over ToD was "political" anyway regarding the portrayal of the local dynamics, not so sure what he's talking about here.

In any case, they're pulp adventure stories, politics isn't the point. Given they're set in the 20s-through-50s and featuring people of that era, there are going to be things that wouldn't fly now, it is what it is. And people are always going to be upset over something or another, especially now.

 

Doom, while silly and over the top, is one of the most entertaining films of the 80's. KOTCS, seems a bit dull in comparison imo.

 

I feel the opposite. I think it has similar strengths to Temple of Doom in that--unlike Last Crusade--it doesn't try too hard to conform to Raiders. I love Last Crusade, but it doesn't feel like it explores a whole lot of new territory in terms of villains, environments, or overall subject matter. Crystal Skull feels more fresh to me because of that. That doesn't necessarily mean I like it better. I'm just saying it has that going for it. I certainly wouldn't call it dull.

 

KOTCS is anything but dull. It perhaps suffers from being too busy with the five strong group of protagonists at the end and the CGI environments hurt the aesthetic. It feels less authentic.

I also didn’t like how Indy became more of a “bumbling fool” in this one, constantly falling over stuff etc. That sort of slapstick was used a bit more sparingly in the three previous films (such as tumbling down the secret staircase in The Last Crusade)

 

@Sith Lord 2015 I don't think including Nazis is propaganda. They're pretty universally seen as villains, and I don't see why we can't enjoy them as such on screen. Nothing political about good guys versus bad guys, not in the 80s and not today.
That's just me of course

That said, The Last Crusade is still my favorite.

 

It does get a little bit busy with the protagonists at the end (arguably Last Crusade has a similar issue), but the place where I think Crystal Skull's overabundance of sidekicks really pays off is the jungle chase. I like the way everyone is constantly jumping around and switching cars and grouping themselves together in different combinations, all while stealing and tossing the skull back and forth. I find it to be a delightfully convoluted jumble, and I think the effect is only enhanced by all the main characters we have to deal with. It's especially funny because Mac switches sides (for the second time) right in the middle of the action, adding to the confusion. It's a testament to Spielberg's skill as an action director that he manages to keep everything just comprehensible enough that the confusion comes across as entertaining rather than frustrating. I find it to be one of his more underrated action sequences.

 

^ Agreed, it is fun. Especially the bit with Mutt getting whacked in the knackers ha ha

The other thing that I quite like is Indy's "deliberate" mistakes. He says things like "nucular" and incorrectly says that scorpions "bite" (A small one bites you, don't keep it to yourself)

 

Of course I meant ANTI-Nazi or Commie propaganda. It's not that they weren't likely villains in that time. The only word that comes to mind right now is "over-used". Weren't practically all 40s and 50s movies full of evil Nazis, weren't 60s, 70s and 80s movies full of commies as villains? Unless they were Westerns of course, where the villains were the Indians. Sure, Raiders was trying to follow some kind of "tradition". But wasn't ONE movie enough? That's why I liked Doom, not another of thousands of movies where the evil guys are always Nazis, either speaking in a horrible fake German accent or speaking horrible "German" by an American actor (both in Raiders and Last Crusade). Here we actually have a fresh villain, not the political "wants-to-rule-the-world" Nazi or Commie but something completely different, a fictional underground religious cult leader. I found it very refreshing. I can think of at least one movie that tried to copy Doom, Young Sherlock Holmes, which is set in London and is in no way criticizing a specific ethnic group. I don't care if some Indians were offended. The movie never makes fun of Indian culture, just shows what is going on in ONE, again fictional, palace. It could have been anywhere. In no way are we made to believe that Indian culture in general is like that.

 

The one criticism I'll make of Crystal Skull is that the father/son relationship isn't as well-integrated with the artifact quest as it was in Last Crusade. In Last Crusade, the quest for the Grail serves as a metaphor for Indy and his father's quest to heal their wounded relationship. In Crystal Skull, however, the quest for Akator ends up being a quest for knowledge, whereas Indy and Mutt's relationship serves as a refutation of Stanforth's earlier musing that he and Indy "seem to be at the age where life stops giving us things and starts taking them away." You can argue (and I have) that there's a little bit of a link there in that it's Indy's knowledge of Mutt's existence which ends up reinvigorating his life, but I'm not sure how strong that is.

However, I think both themes are worthy ones (I don't mind Indy's corny "Knowledge was their treasure" line), and it's perhaps too much to expect that things will always line up as perfectly as they do in Last Crusade. After all, it's not as if Indy's quest for the Ark of the Covenant has all that much to do, thematically, with his rekindling of his relationship with Marion--at least not in an obvious way. I mean, these are Indiana Jones movies. They don't have to be that deep all the time.

 

I guess the portrayal of (actual) Indians is no more offensive than the evil Russians and Germans.

I like Temple of Doom as well, don’t get me wrong.

 

One thing I don't like about the movie is the character of Mac. When the film starts, we're told that he's Indy's "old friend" from the war, but then immediately shown that he's willing to betray that alleged friendship. As the movie continues, his sole notable character trait is the frequency with which he switches sides. Never once are we shown any sort of heroism or redeeming character trait that might explain his being friends with Indy (rather than simply fellow secret agents in wartime).

What we're shown about Mac and what we're told are in direct conflict, in a way that detracts from the narrative instead of building tension. It's a classic sign of poor script-writing.

 

One problem with Temple of Doom in that regard is that they didn't leave in the line (which was in the script) explaining that all the weird food was atypical for Indian cuisine and indicative of something strange going on at Pankot. They probably still would have gotten complaints, but at least they would have had something to point to.

It also doesn't help that the white British officer, leading a detachment of subordinate Indians, is the one to save the day at the end, while the native Indian man who criticizes British imperialism turns out to be yet another evil cultist. I believe the filmmakers' sincere intention with Chattar Lal's comments about the British Empire was to sympathetically acknowledge the point of view of the colonized, but I also don't believe they gave too much thought about how later plot developments might undermine that point.

The film also fails to explain that Kali is not an inherently evil deity and that the Thuggee are simply perverting her worship, which would have gone some ways to remedying what many felt to be a misleading portrayal of the Hindu religion.

All that being said, Temple of Doom is still my favorite Indy film. It's a product both of its time and of the time it's drawing cinematic inspiration from. I think it's possible for something be problematic while still being worthwhile.

 

You make a good point, and I’d argue the same about Oxley.

Perhaps this was inevitable when there was a time jump of 20 years both on screen and in real life from the third to fourth movie.

To be fair, the three 1980s Indy films are really just snapshots of the character’s life, not necessarily representative of everyone he knows and everything he’s experienced.

Based on what backstory we did hear in Crystal Skull, some World War II-era adventure film in the 1990s would have been pretty cool, but I’m sure it was for the best that Indy wasn’t overplayed.

There’ll still be time if there is indeed a recast after Indy 5.

 

I'd argue that Oxley is handled well in the limited screen time he has where he's compos mentis. Somebody who can talk about "interdimensional beings" intelligently after just coming out of a prolonged fugue state is probably somebody Indy would be friends with.

 

I think the easy banter they engage in prior to entering the warehouse is more than sufficient to establish their friendship and make it surprising when he turns on Indy. And then there's stuff like when Indy is being forced to gaze into the skull ,and after it gets to be too much Mac angrily demands that they stop, out of what appears to be genuine concern for his friend. Part of the humor is the fact that Mac himself doesn't seem to know what side he's really on.

I think Mac's just a fun, if shallow, character. It's not as if Indy's friendships with most of his other sidekicks are all that deep. I mean, what do we really know about Sallah in Raiders other than that he's jolly and loyal (yet still willing to let Indy go first into a chamber full of asps)?

 

Mac just uses the double-agent ruse to stop Indy from throttling him in the vehicle, and because they have the Skull, he is able to drop those beacons. His simple motivation, that of acquiring material riches because he has gambling debts, is at least also an understandable one.

 

I think a character like Indiana(from the previous 3 films) would just shot Mac early on instead of the antics from the Indiana we got in this film.

 

I disagree. I recall years ago when I watched the behind-the-scenes featurettes on my Indy DVDs, Ray Winstone explained that Mac's whole deal is that he genuinely thinks he's on the Russians' side when he's with Indy, and he genuinely thinks he's on Indy's side when he's with the Russians. Like I said, his concern for Indy when he's staring into the skull seems sincere. He also willingly lets go of the whip when he's being sucked into the saucer so that Indy and the others can escape.

I think Mac is just really confused because he's super greedy and obsessed with money, but he also truly considers Indy to be his buddy. I don't think Mac is introspective enough to reconcile these conflicting motivations, so he just deludes himself into thinking he's a double agent, then he deludes himself into thinking he was just lying. But the truth is, he wants the gold and he wants Indy to like him.

Now that I think about it, maybe Mac isn't that shallow of a character.

Really? This is the same Indy who tries to save the big Thuggee guard from the rock crusher in Temple of Doom even though the man was trying to kill him seconds before. Indy's a pretty merciful guy, all things considered.

 

I haven’t seen that featurette, I’ll have to watch it. He just came across as something of a simple, 2 dimensional antagonist to me. In it for the money. Perhaps there is some depth to him .

 

I have to be honest. "Indy 3" is my least favorite movie in the trilogy. I just think that it's a bit unoriginal in compare to the other three films.