Geraldine
The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.
teodorodontosaurus
So, why is this movie a failure?
Is it because of the unrealistic scenes or over the top acting? No, those aspects are present in the original trilogy too (although some scenes here make the other movies look like documentaries).
Is it because of the sci-fi theme? Are aliens a problem? I don't actually think this is the problem either, although this idea feels forced and uninspired; remember that the other Indiana Jones movies have a fantasy vibe.
So what's the real problem?
Simple. It's just extremely poorly written and directed; it's lazy and uninspired. Ironically, the use of CGI also ruins this movie. The action scenes are not very intense and thrilling, even with all that CGI business.
This was indeed a failure but it's not the worst thing ever; a promising start, but everything after that is disappointing...
Tweekums
It is 1957 and as this film opens Indiana Jones and his friend George "Mac" McHale have been captured by a Soviet officer, Colonel Dr Irina Spalko, who wants help stealing an artefact from a warehouse in Area 51. The item appears to be the remains of the 'Roswell Alien'. Indy manages to escape, but not before learning that his 'friend' is actually in the pay of the Soviets. He heads to a nearby village and finds it populated by dummies… it is about to be destroyed in a nuclear test! He survives but is suspected of being a Soviet agent by the FBI. After being given a leave of absence from his job he is approached by a young man, known as 'Mutt', with an interesting story; archaeologist Harold Oxley found a crystal skull in Peru before going insane; it is believed that he must have found it in the legendary city of Akator… also who make as known as El Dorado. Indy and Mutt head to Peru to search for the skull and the city… here they meet some old friends as well as the Soviets who are also after the skull for their own nefarious ends.I'd heard that this film was rather disappointing so put off watching it for some time… actually it was quite enjoyable. There is plenty of action from start to finish and even though our protagonists are often in danger it isn't too scary most of the time as there is degree of humour most of the time. There are a handful of 'unpleasant' scenes; the worst being when a couple of villains are killed by giant ants! The action is nicely varied with car chases through the jungle, going over waterfalls in an amphibious car and less than friendly locals. The main characters are pretty good; Harrison Ford shows that he still had what it took to play the adventurous Indiana Jones and Shia LaBeouf was solid as Mutt. There are also fine performances from Cate Blanchett as the villainous Spalko; John Hurt as Oxley; Ray Winstone as Mac and Karen Allen who makes a welcome return to the series as Marion Ravenwood, the romantic interest in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'. Overall I'd say this is a decent enough adventure with plenty of action and a fun story; I'd certainly recommend it to fans of the original films even if it isn't quite as good.
jackdennos
The frustrating part about Indiana Jones 4 is that it feels like it was written by someone who created a genius trifecta of revolutionary action classics that changed the course of film history, and then completely forgot what made people like them when it came time to do the next film. Was this written by George Lucas? Oh, it was (real surprise). He is credited as coming up with the story, and, yeah, the basic framework of the script really is the worst part. The original film was inspired by 30's adventure serials, and although it doesn't parody or satire them, it creates a world in which the events of the story can be taken with a grain of salt, so to speak. This world was successfully recreated in two masterful sequels, but the fourth movie had no idea how to do so. It results in an overly emotional and sentimental movie that occasionally devolves into self deprecation, making jokes about Harrison Ford's age. And the idea to base it off of 50's sci-fis while still retaining the 1930's action edge makes no sense. I mean, what? However, Spielberg, the other half of the duo of series creators, absolutely knows what he is doing. I imagine Lucas as Spielberg's drunk friend who makes dumb choices, and then Spielberg half-reluctantly supports him. If George is going to come up with a stupid story line, Steven is going to direct the sh*t out of it. He creates a visually appealing, tonally satisfying (even though the script tries not to be) experience, filled with fun performances, great dialogue and spectacular action. Janusz Kaminski is the perfect cinematographer for an action movie like this, because he is great at pulling off one of Spielberg's signatures: really long takes that seamlessly move from focal point to focal point without the use of cuts. The camera kind of floats around and is almost always moving, reminiscent of many Robert Zemeckis movies. The action is always striking, even the oft-panned fencing duel between Shia LaBoeuf and Cate Blanchett. I actually like that scene, and I think it would have totally fit in one of the originals. Another thing that I like about Kingdom that most don't is Shia himself. He gives a very natural and funny performance. I don't even have an "except" or "but" to counter that statement with. I just think he is great, and probably gives the best performance in the movie. I like his character a lot, actually, and his interactions with Indy, who is once again pure gold. The characters are all well developed, but the only one I can't stand is Mac. He is the most utterly confusing character I have ever bared witness to. He is revealed to be working for the Russians, and is a secondary villain for well over half the movie. Suddenly, after a short encounter with Jones, where he pathetically begs him for sympathy, he is allowed into their vehicle and completes the journey back on their side. What the heck? There is pretty much no reason for this to happen, and then he turns evil again at the end! He is then sucked into a vortex and Indy tries to save him (I don't know why), to which he says "I'm gonna be alright." What? No you're f*cking not! He then flies into the vortex, screaming, and dies. This is one of the most baffling characters in film history. He doesn't have an arc, he has more of a loop-de-loop. While on the topic of baffling, awful things in Kingdom, I should touch on the monkey sequence and the nuketown sequence. They are both completely pointless to the story, they both defy all logic, and one of them (the monkey one) is absolutely awful looking. I'm really ragging on this movie, but I don't hate it, not at all. I would actually recommend it, at least for Spielberg. There's a couple bad scenes, as well as a somewhat confusing story line. They don't ruin this extremely well directed, acted and put-together movie, although they certainly don't help.
