First sorry I couldn't resist. I like the movie but it's not as good as the originals and I pretty much agree with the assessment.

it always bothered me how people hated this movie for the silliest of reasons.
yeah its not the best, but its not a bad film, its pretty good compared to most shlock that comes out today.

I like it more then the second one personally

I think James Rolfe summed up the alien thing nicely: "It depends on who your god is." The aliens were considered gods, so the skulls are technically religious artifacts.
Personally, I really really loved this movie.

Sounds like a pathetic cop-out to me in one stupid line. I know it's impossible to believe, but even the AVGN isn't perfect.

Mage, I would like to introduce you to a friend I like to call : Going drinking with the SpoonyOne.

I liked the movie too

I actually like the aliens. I never really got the alien hate. You mean to tell me you're willing to believe in mind controlling Hindu cults, boxes containing the power of God and the Holy Grail, but aliens with psychic powers is too farfetched? Also, I liked that Indy got married. I always liked Marion and given Indy is now "66", it's nice to see him getting a happy ending. And for everyone who says that Indy should always be the ladies man and never tied down, I want you to picture Harrison Ford twenty years from now chasing after women in their twenties and thirties. PRETTY FRELLING CREEPY, ain't it!

It's the bit that The Ark, the Grail, and the Stones are all heavily surrounded by a thick layer of myth and lore.

Sure the Mayans did have crystal skulls, and images of people with elongated skulls, but the jump from that to Aliens is leagues worse than even "Super Mayans with deformed heads that can carve perfect crystal skulls."

The Ark, Grail, and Stones were all SUPPOSED to have mythic and magical powers, as dictated by the lore.
The skull being connected to Aliens? That's a B level conspiracy theory at best.

What "lore", pray?

But even that is questionable as it mixes two mythologies. The Ark and the Grail are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and thus the mystical qualities of both indicate that the God of the First and Second testaments is the true God of the Indy universe. However, the cult in Doom are based on certain Hindu beliefs, so the stones and their power must come from those Gods. Hence, both Yahweh and the Gods of Hinduism must coexist despite the two doctrines contradicting each other at several points.

I will grant you, this is a bit of a genre leap, going from Fantasy to Sci-Fi. However, can we not also agree that the Fantasy elements of the original films were not the core (or even near the core) of those movies. Mostly they seemed to just add some backstory to the film's MacGuffin and play a Deus Ex Machina at the end. Hence, I personally do not think the aliens deserve the trouncing they get, nor should this film.

I got all excited!.....then I saw the very brief run time :(

Haven't seen this movie yet, but god I'm tired of hearing people bitch about it. Also, I'd like to point out that aliens do tie in to the mythology of Indiana Jones to some degree. Basically all the so called miracles presented in every major religion has been the work of aliens, for example the arch of the covenant causes peoples faces to melt because it contains radiation. I apologize if it makes no sense, just watch Ancient Aliens on the History channel to see what I mean and judge for yourself. Great video.

Except both of the original sequels made references to the ark as well. It's more a running gag at this point.

References is not the same as actually showing the artifact in some cheesy attempt to evoke a feeling of nostalgia.

I've never seen any of the movies but on the subject of aliens in the movie. People say they don't belong in there because it's always about reglious articafts. Well I have one thing to say. It depends on who your god is.

Given that both aliens and god(s) are all fictional, where's the frelling difference?

Angels, once upon a time, were despicted as people without wings, but bathed in the glow of heaven. Then came the Middle Ages, and as the Church became a huge business and killed off all rival Christian splinter sects and swallowed up a lot of pagan myth and incorporated it into their growing canon of lore, a whole plethora of different types of "angels" was invented, worthy of a Hindu pantheon or a D&D Monster Manual, with up to a dozen wings (not just on their shoulders but also on their feet and other places). Sometimes those wings were covered in eyes too. Angels were only the lowest order, followed by archangels, powers and other tiers of the Heavenly bureaucracy.

What bothers me is that the line "Depends on who your God is," is just one line, plus it reminds me of in Star Trek V the Final Frontier where an alien PRETENDING to be a God says "I have many faces". See my point now? It might seem silly but in fact it's anything but. See for me that's precedent that Aliens pretend to be Gods when they in fact are not. What does God need with a Starship? Dammit, now I'm guilty of using lines from that shitty movie to back up my argument.

I didn't think the movie was as bad as everyone says, but it's still not all that good. Biggest problem I had was the fakey CGI effects and the alien twist at the end. I can take ghosts melting peoples faces and hearts getting ripped out of people still breathing but aliens? Oh George Lucus how you have fallen...

I like the movie too. I never thought there are people out there that are hating this movie because "aliens don't belong in a Indiana Jones 4" (Yeah, I'm talking directly to you Mr. Distressed Watcher), "CGI can do justice in a Indy film (they're laugable, believe it or not), "Refrigerator are now a Nuclear Proof! - You can't survive through a nuclear bomb by hiding in a refrigerator". ........... Do I need to list on? Of course, because people are never going to let go and they can, quote/unquote, bitch about Indy 4 all they want.

Any "true" Indy fan knows what these films are and are not needed to be taken serious. .... Screw those people AND screw The Distressed Watcher (To be specific, I like TJ. He's a good reviewer, but not with Indy 4 film. Really? Does he need to convince peoople like me to hate the movie because the things I listed that's bothering him and others so much? Give me a break. At least, so far, James Rolfe (AVGN) made his point about Indy 4 clearly. Good for him.

You haters out there want proof? You want to hear James' opinion about the Indy films? Here it is:

http://www.spike.com/ video-clips/ecdank/ cinemassacre- cinemassacre-top-10- dumbest-indiana-jones- moments

http://www.spike.com/ video-clips/pv4gzz/ cinemassacre- cinemassacre-top-10- sequels-that-arent-as- bad-as-everyone-says

Enjoy yourselves douchebags.
"Trust me." - Indiana Jones

But as Mike addressed, it's set in the fifties, therefore it's supposed to be a fifties B-movie--something aliens fit in with very well.

The Indy movies are based on different genres from their eras--Raiders is a '30s adventure serial, Last Crusade is a '30s road comedy, etc. I think if they had been more gradual with the transition and done some more varied '30s and '40s B-movies on the way, the shift to aliens wouldn't have thrown everyone off quite as much.

doggans wrote:
"But as Mike addressed, it's set in the fifties, therefore it's supposed to be a fifties B-movie--something aliens fit in with very well."

Precisely. Aliens and Ancient Astronauts are part of modern lore ever since the late 19th century, i.e. Steiner's and Mdm. Blavatsky's occult scifi Anthroposophism nonsense, occultist Aleister Crowley claiming he had psychic contact with an alien called Lam (in 1918), and novels such as H.G. Well's "War of the Worlds" (1897), Kurd Lasswitz's "Auf Zwei Planeten" (Two Planets, 1897), H.G. Well's "The first Men in the Moon" (1901), which gave us the first conception of moon-dwelling Selenites as pale naked aliens with huge bulbous heads and shriveled bodies, stretching all the way to Hugo Gernsback's ideas of Martians (1937).

It's the 50s, the time of the Atomic Monster scare B-movies, and also of movies about aliens coming either as invaders or as saviour warning mankind against atomic war (the original "The Day The Earth Stood Still").

Also, for all the "aliens don't belong in Indy movies" naysayers out there: Have you actually read any of the Indiana Jones novels or played any of the Indiana Jones computer games, back in the 1980s and early 1990s? One of the most famous computer games was basically a Scifi movie plot: Indiana Jones discovers the ancient city of Atlantis, under a dome far below the waves of the Atlantic ocean, and discovers the Ancient Atlanteans had a machine for creating the fabled mystical metal orichalcum, which if it fell into the hands of the Nazis could spell doom for the world, since it might be used to basically create a huge atom bomb. Or something. I don't remember every plot point.

Of the novels I read, one had Indy discover the mythical ship Naglfar, the ship of the dead that sails from Hel during Ragnarök (from the Norse Edda sagas), frozen in a drifting iceberg. Another novel featured an alien spaceship that had crashed in the Mojave desert centuries ago, the leaking radiation giving people not only radiation poisoning but also turning all organic matter into stone, fueling Indio legends about a Cursed Place of Death. Another was about some (alien) artifact that turned things and people into gold, the basis of the Midas legend.

In short, no, the aliens and crystal skulls in Indiana Jones 4 did not bother me.

My problem with the movie is that it was dreadfully BORING, and I felt Shia LaBeouf was miscast as Indiana's son and the character of the Russian KGB woman was stupid and clichéd. And I'm not talking about American clichés about Russians, I'm talking about the stereotypical "evil, dark-haired, pseudo-lesbian seductress with a whip who kills and tortures people to show how Evil she is" kind. Could that character have been more boring? *snore*

The scriptwriters and director tried ramming this "passing of the torch from father to son" crap down out throats, but it didn't work either.

I mean, usually I like long movies, but in this case I kept wondering when it would end. Too many pointless chase scenes, too many failed attempts at humour.

The Aliens are part of an ancient religion, it was all over the History Channel here in the USA back When that movie just came out but apparently I must have been one of the three individually who saw it. Just because its not Christian doesn't mean it shouldn't be eligible. As for just seeing aliens & Indiana Jones on screen at the same time, that's all a matter of preference.

The History Channel is as much about history as MTV is about music these days. They've become more The End of the Word Conspiracy Channel these days.

Pffft, Indiana Jones 4 is The Fate of Atlantis.

There was actually a story written about Indie finding the crash site of the Millennium Falcon. It's basically Harrison Ford and Harrison Ford in two different roles. Wrap your head around that one!

I read a review of that particular "Star Wars Stories" comic, not the comic itself, and I found out that Indy finds the Falcon with skeletons inside.

Also that is no different than the crossover episodes of "Ace Ventura" and "The Mask."

Hardcore Star Wars fans have actually used this story to try and work out a correlation between the Star Wars timeline and our own. I think they placed Episode IV occurring sometime in the late 18th century or something like that (so "A long time ago..." wasn't all THAT long ago.)

This of course is contradicted by Soul Calibur IV's timeline, however, where... Ow! Who threw that? Okay, Okay I'll shut up...

Unless the Falcon entered some sort of space-time rift that launched them into the far future. Which is conceivable, since intergalactic travel really wasn't possible, or more precisely, took excessively long times to complete in the SW universe.

Of course, they've also tried to connect THX-1138 and (get this) Willow with the Star Wars time line.

Ummmm the travel time in the Star Wars universe is actually STAGGERINGLY fast. According to the maps for the novels and RPG rules you can travel from one side of the galaxy to the other in about a week depending on your hyper drive and hyper lanes your using.

Compare that to the Star Trek universe where it takes Voyager 60 years at top speed to make the same trip. Yes I know they short cut that before the end of the series but when they first get to the Delta quadrant they state it would take 60 years without any assistance.

O wait you were talking about intergalactic travel. Never mind then lol.

Aliens are bad, but ghosts, an immortal knight and guys taking hearts out of people with chanting? Totally fine.

I think what he was trying to say is that aliens don't really fit into the Indy mythology all that well.

Let me express my thoughts with these lines from Firefly, "Objects in Space":

Wash: "Psychic though? That sounds like something out of science fiction."

Zoe: "We live in a spaceship, dear."

I enjoyed this movie. I also seem to be the only one in this entire world that can tolerate Shia La Bitch. If I'm alone in this don't hate.

I can tolerate him, to a degree at least.

I don't dislike him as much as others, I guess. Not sure if I actually like him, either, though.

Mike J... Good

Hey, Aliens have as much place alongside Gods anyway. They are both myths that humans have created. While it's logical to assume there are galaxies with a few stars with a few planets in the right kind of orbit and distance to support the development of automated matter (life) - but the distances of space are so exceedingly vast, that no physical object that we can create could ever make it to even the nearest neighboring star. So the chances of another organism developing the technology to do that are also slim, no matter how much earlier their life cycle may have began.

So, gods are myth, and aliens are myth. Aliens have always made "realism" sense in fiction as portraying gods. Do you seriously think an ark with magic death powers, a set of stones that can burn through a bag and dry up crops, or a grail that heals bullets, is any more convincing than an alien device being the main reason behind a lot of the god stuff?

Although i still wonder ... how was that one alien's head able to be stolen - if, when they are all attached, they return to flesh form, and take off into outer-dimensions, why didn't they just take off into their own dimension instead of just sitting around and waiting until they died and became skeletons so someone can steel their skull, so that it has to be returned so that they can become flesh again and .... what?

I don't see why people hate this movie--I guess it's because nerds are too jaded these days. Now, Indy 4 wasn't as good as Raiders or Crusade (but who was expecting it to be?) but it's still better than Temple, and I thought it was entertaining. The fridge bit? Silly, but what about all those equally silly moments in the other films, like Indy somehow clinging to the side of a submarine for hours or surviving a fall from an aeroplane in a friggin' rubber boat?

As for aliens, as you noted, it was set in the fifties, so what do you expect? It's something different at least.

Overall, decent film, could've been better, but it still retained that good ol' Indy feel and spirit IMO.

Uhhh... the crystal skull basically was a religious artifact to the Ugha warriors and their people.
Oh, wait. I guess it can't be a religious artifact because it's not a Jewish/Christian artifact, right? That's so stupid, and I never got why people felt it needed to be only that kind of artifact. Actually, it annoys me that people say that Indy should ONLY look for religious artifacts.

Quoted from the movie:
"Nazca Indians used to bind their infants' head with rope to elongate the skull like that."
"Why?"
"Honor the gods."
"No, no. God's head is not like that, man."
"Depends on who your god is."

Moreno X did you watch the distressed watchers video about Indy 4 not being that bad. He clearly states that the indy movies aren't about god but something of a higher power and aliens certainly count as that.

anyway i'd say this movie is still good. Not as good as the first 3 but still a good movie.

Dundore77, I did watch The Distressed Watcher's video about Indy 4, and yes I can remember him saying it's not "all" bad (If that's the case, why didn't he changed the title of his video from "Top 11 Worst Moments in Indiana Jones 4" to "Top 10 Nitpicks in Indiana Jones 4" - that would be a proper title if you know what I'm coming from), but his rage is a simple sign that he still don't get it and, like all the rest, he is hung up with "aliens don't belong in a Indiana Jones movie" BS, and please, please, don't get me started of him saying about "dragons and unicorns".

Is that the only defense these people got to throw at me, at the Indy fans (the real fans), at James Rolfe? Like I said, TJ (Distressed Watcher) is a good reviewer, but when he is doing it all wrong like Indy 4 film and doesn't understand why and what the aliens are in that movie without, and I quote James Rolfe's words, "Did anybody do their homework? Did anybody not get the "Crystal Skull" is about aliens?" Like I said dude, they need to grow up or get lost. It's up to them to decide.

@cubs2084

Agree, I thought this was Shameful Sequels when I saw my feed with update, but alas 'at was HOAS... Oh well moar MikeJ is always a plus.

FYI: rocket-sled scene, good. IMO

Now, it'd be one thing if people were giving legitimate reasons why they didn't like KotCS, y'know like weak script, bad acting, bad directing, etc., and while I HAVE heard these complaints a few times, they are nowhere near as prominent as these common complaints:

1) Shia Labouef - To be honest, I thought this was one of his best performances, and I'm fairly lukewarm about his talent. He's nowhere near TERRIBLE (certainly not the worst young actor out there), but he's not like other young actors like James Franco, Elijah Wood, the late Heath Ledger, and even Jesse Eisenberg who all are immensely talented (Shia isn't likely to receive an Oscar nom anytime soon). But he certainly wasn't enough to kill the whole movie for me.

2) The "nuke the fridge" scene - My reaction when I first saw this scene was "Holy crap that was freakin amazing!"; I'd even go as far as to call it one of my favorite scenes in the movie. Peopel complain that it's too stupid because "no one would ever survive that!"...you people do know he jumped out of an airplane in a RUBBER RAFT, slammed into a freakin mountain, and kept sliding like it was NO BIG DEAL, right?

3) The aliens - This pisses me off more than any other element, because everyone claims that Indy was all about finding religious artifacts, but no one ever seemed to notice until AFTER this movie came out. First of all, Indy said it best when he said "Depends on who your God is"; second, there is more evidence of these skulls than the Ark, Grail, and stones COMBINED; third, I actually find aliens more realistic than religious artifacts; and finally, WHY? Why don't aliens belong in an Indy movie? Other than this BS "it's not religious" crap, how come aliens don't work? Everyone always says "it just doesn't fit" but give no reasons why (other than all of the "not religious" garbage).

[/rant]

I personally think people prejudged KOTCS because Shia Labouef was in it. For some reason he gets all the hate left over from people desirvedly hating Michal Bay and the Transformer movies.

Actors can't magically tell if a movie is gonna be the one that gets them an Oscar or something that ruins their career. I don't think Shia is a great actor but he doesn't deserve all the flak he gets.

"gopher, BAD"
well, that pretty much says everything, doesn't it

"2. Shia Le Bitch. "

DERP DERP

In my world, this movie just not exist. Still a trilogy.

Thanks Mike. :)

I dont understand what everyone's problems with aliens in an Indy movie is. Sure it hasn't been there before, but I remember a time when innovation and not just doing the same old stuff a fourth time was considered a good thing.

That would be true if they made this movie just after Last Crusade. This movie was made over 10 years after the last one, and all anyone wanted was just a continuation of the theme. They wanted a new Indiana Jones movie, something that captured the spirit of the originals even if it didn't manage to be as good.

Which it wasn't. But that doesn't mean it was a bad movie. As action thrillers go, it's quite good compared to most of what we see today. But the combination of the fridge, Shia LaBeouf's implied taking up of Indie's legacy, the unnecessary CGI and finally the aliens just left a bad taste in everyone's mouth when considering that it was a dip in quality compared to the original trilogy.

Though, on a personal level, the nuke didn't bother me as much as it seemed to bother everyone else. Keep in mind, Indiana Jones was heavily inspired by the serials that used to come before movies, and the heroes in those would constantly be put in situations they'd have no reasonable means of escaping from, in order to leave a cliffhanger for the following episode of the serial to get people to come back and watch it and see how they get out of it. I still went "Oh bullshit" when I saw the fridge, but it wasn't a deal breaker for me.

The aliens and CGI did feel intrusive to me, though.

I like Karen Allen. That is all.

I don't care what anyone says. I love this movie.

1. There not aliens. They are interdimetional travelers.

2. The crystal skulls are religious artifacts. They were worshiped by people. That makes them religious artifacts.

3. Indy getting married is kinda like him passing the torch on to his son. Indy is old. It's time for him to retire.