Saw it last night, loved it. I think I'm on the same page as Ebert.

There were some goofy parts, but even with those, I saw it as a really pulpy, fun adventure movie. While the series has some basis with reality, come on — don't all four films go into wacky areas?

One thing I was unsure on: I'm not really sure what caused Mac do do what Mac did at the end.

Absolutely, although I think Raiders does a far superior job of cultivating our "suspension of disbelief" and drawing us in so persuasively that we really care about what's going on in a way that the others fail to achieve. Raiders takes itself somewhat seriously, and I think it's better for that. It's the difference between Casino Royale and Tomorrow Never Dies.

But sure, Raiders asks us to believe a guy can jump onto a submarine and cross the sea and survive. Raiders asks us to believe the bad guys trust a monkey. Raiders asks us to believe that Indy can just turn and outrun an army of spear-throwing, blow-gun shooting natives. Etc, etc.

Cool. Thanks.

That seems to be what Spielberg was getting at with the opening "mountain out a molehill" shot. (Yes Peter, I know it was actually a prairie dog or whatever.) He seems to be saying "Look. Just sit back and enjoy the ride on this one. Don't take it too seriously. I know it's not the holy grail or anything.".

Well, the film is certainly relevant and timely in view of this breaking news....

I just got an IM from a friend who watched the whole film on his laptop, via this site.

That blows my mind. And makes me angry, actually. I mean, I know movies hit the DVD black market as soon as they open. But still, finding out this is so accessible, it bothers me.

He did it so that he could see it before it was spoiled for him, and because he doesn't have any money for movies. But heck, I would have paid for his ticket if I'd known. Half of the reason to see an Indiana Jones film is to see it with a crowd on a big big screen with surround sound....

I thought it was a fun popcorn movie. It's no Raiders, but I wasn't expecting it to be. It was like catching up with some old friends again. I'll take an old fart Indy over Nicholas Cage mumbling his way through National Treasure any day.

The sci-fi stuff didn't bother me, as I saw the crystal skulls as more of a nod to the '50s and the Ed Wood-style of sci-fi films from the period, rather than some kind of follow up to THX-1138 or Close Encounters.

I thought Irina made a pretty good villian, for the most part. I was a little let down by her at the ending when all she wanted was "knowledge". Come on, I thought an evil commie would have wanted to say something about taking over the world. And instead of vaporizing her, I think the aliens should have turned her into a Donna Reed clone and sent her to vacuum the carpet in a generic 1950's house wearing a dress and pearls.

This summarizes the current phase of Lucas' career in my mind. He did the same thing in The Phantom Menace and its sequel. The "force", rather than being some strange, transcendant, metaphysical thing, became a mere biological function thanks to the revelation about "midichlorians" [sp?]. (Of course, he still failed to explain "the will of the force", but give him time--he'll spoil that, too.)

Mystery, properly done, is at the very heart of good storytelling. It is also hard to define--it's not just spoilers and facts, but a greater sense of how all the parts fit together. It's an oblique why and an obtuse how and never a direct what. The settings and themes of a story should be much greater than the story itself. You can watch a movie many times, and a good movie (like a good friend) will still contain an element of mystery.

I wonder what the replay value of this film will be, beyond a cool stunt here and there.

Has anyone else here seen it twice? For me, "the replay factor" is promising. As I said earlier, I enjoyed it more the second time around, and now I really want to see it again. I can't say the same thing about any of the Star Wars prequels.

Just saw it today, 11am screening (practically empty, first work-day from a three-day weekend), and I liked it better than the Mrs. To me, the biggest joy was seeing Yale Campus as the center of a very good action sequence, where it appears that every action shot was non-CGI'd, non-SPFX'd, and that people actually did stunts (whether it was Ford or a double, I didn't mind).

And yes, I saw it in New Haven, down the street from Yale. We walked past all of the major location shots for that sequence from getting from the parking lot to the theater.

This, to me, is better than seeing "The Ice Storm" in New Canaan, or "Die Hard With A Vengeance", knowing Tompkins Sq Park quite well...

Backrow Baptist wrote:
: Well ... if you want to get technical. Ok, so "statutory rape" may be overstating it a bit.

It might be technical, but "rape" is such a loaded term, even if it's only statutory.

: Saying that he "seduced her" or "took advantage of her" is probably more accurate . . .

Perhaps, but like I said, we don't know who was throwing themself at whom, here. That Indy should have KNOWN better, due to the age gap and his relationship with Marion's father, I do not dispute. But to say "he seduced her" is to assume that the man is at fault, here. And everything we see in Raiders -- the girl who makes Indy stammer in the classroom, Indy's declaration that Marion "knew what she was doing" -- inclines us to believe that, if anything, the woman was at least as active an agent as the man here, and possibly moreso. There is, at any rate, nothing in the film that positively indicates that the man is the guiltier party.

: What bothers me (besides getting older and having a daughter now) is that it is dealt with so flippantly in Raiders.

Raiders has never struck me as "flippant" in this regard, except perhaps for the fact that Indy and Marion get it on again ten years later. Indy's falling-out with Abner over his affair with Marion is something he feels awkward about even ten years later, and the statement of Marion's that sticks with me the most is not "I was a child!" etc. but "Do you know what you did to me? To my life?" Whether or not Indy really "did it to her" -- whether or not Marion is justified in pinning all the blame on him -- the plain fact is that Marion is in pain, and we experience this pain through Karen Allen's performance. Nothing flippant about that.

FWIW, an earlier draft of the script apparently revealed that Marion had survived during that ten-year gap (and possibly supported her father?) partly by prostituting herself. Since discovering this, I have become more attuned to certain other bits in the film, like the Marion-Belloq relationship ("Ha! I bet you would!", "I'll waste no more time with her", the way Belloq and Marion glare at each other near the very end when it is clear that Marion didn't give Belloq what he wanted, etc.), that really underscore how much abuse Marion has taken in her life. (Just look at the futile way she tells the Nazi soldier on the ship, "Don't! you! touch! me!" There's more going on there behind Karen Allen's eyes than a simple resistance to being captured, I think.)

The fact that Belloq and Indiana are both involved with Marion, on some level or other, also accentuates the way that Belloq is, as he put it, "a shadowy reflection" of Indy. The Ark of the Covenant isn't the only thing that these two men have "raided". (Yikes, I can feel I'm about to go on some Da Vinci Code-esque Holy-Grail-means-Sacred-Feminine tangent here, so I'll stop.)

Overstreet wrote:
: Unless, of course, you consider that Henry Jones Jr. gave himself a dog-related nickname (taking Indiana, the name of his family dog). Then, the fact that this kid's name is "Mutt" is likely to inspire this response: "So, that's his DOG name, but what's his REAL name?"

Jeff, I thought of you and your blog post on this subject the moment Mutt said that "Mutt" was the name he had chosen for himself. (And since he says this in pretty much his very first scene, I don't think I need to spoiler-tag that.)

: I was able to relax and enjoy Kaminski's amazing, resourceful camerawork.

I love the story about how Spielberg sat Kaminski down with the original trilogy to make sure that Kaminski dropped his usual tricks in favour of emulating the style that the earlier cinematographer had used. Despite all that, we STILL got a shot of blood-on-the-lens (when someone squishes an ant), as well as a more conventional shot of water-on-the-lens (during the waterfall sequence).

: And yes, the first half of the film, right up through the moment when that big freaking blade-wheel comes flying off of the forest-eating machine and smashes into Marion's jeep, is for me really quite enjoyable.

Really? I found the whole second act rather boring. I wonder if I will again, on second viewing. Very little seemed to be happening, as I recall, and it was only when the chase began that things got a little more interesting again. (I think I was thankful for ANYTHING active by that point, even if it flew off the rails.)

: But sure, Raiders asks us to believe a guy can jump onto a submarine and cross the sea and survive. Raiders asks us to believe the bad guys trust a monkey. Raiders asks us to believe that Indy can just turn and outrun an army of spear-throwing, blow-gun shooting natives. Etc, etc.

I still want to know what sort of photosensitive technology those ancient South Americans had. (Oh, wait, maybe they got it from the aliens!) And I LOVE the shot where Indy not only pushes a giant block of stone out of its place in the wall -- I bet THAT didn't take any muscles! -- but we then see it bounce on the ground (or maybe we only see the shadow of it bouncing).

: Half of the reason to see an Indiana Jones film is to see it with a crowd on a big big screen with surround sound....

Big screen, yes. But the crowds these days can be such jerks, they aren't really much of a selling point.

Crow wrote:
: I'll take an old fart Indy over Nicholas Cage mumbling his way through National Treasure any day.

Perhaps ... but I hate to admit it, but I actually thought National Treasure 2 was better than Crystal Skull in some regards, given that they were both dealing with similar material (lost cities of gold, balancing slabs of rock, etc.). I believe at least one other A&Fer agrees with me on this ...

: I thought Irina made a pretty good villian, for the most part. I was a little let down by her at the ending when all she wanted was "knowledge". Come on, I thought an evil commie would have wanted to say something about taking over the world.

Yeah, after playing Dietrich or Toht for most of the film, she suddenly turns into Belloq. It's a shame they didn't develop her character more, to explain that bit. It just feels totally tacked on.

: And instead of vaporizing her . . .

And now the conversation turns theological. These aliens may be gods, but are they good gods or bad gods? Did y'all get the impression that they relished doing what they did in the end, or was it just the natural (and perhaps unintended consequence) of letting people pursue their own selfish desires?

Of course, we could always ask why the ghosts serving the Hebrew God in Raiders went from being beautiful teases to horrific monsters -- and whether they, too, seemed to be relishing it.

A further thought on the question of Marion and Indy and who took the sexual initiative, etc.:

Not only does the film show at least one other girl throwing herself at Indy, and not only does the film depict Indy telling Marion "You knew what you were doing", and not only does the film show Marion kissing Indy in the captain's quarters just before Indy falls asleep... the film ALSO ends with Marion offering to buy Indy a drink and following him eagerly up and down the stairs outside the government building, while Indy's mind is somewhere else. This seems, to me, like a rekindling of their earlier relationship, with her as the giddy school-age girl who is smitten with the archaeologist serious-about-his-work. She knows what she is doing, indeed... AND she is in love, though of course she is not exactly a child, any more.

This, in turn, gets me wondering something. Did Indy fall out with Abner BECAUSE he wooed and ditched Abner's daughter... OR, did Indy break up with Marion BECAUSE he fell out with Abner, perhaps after Abner discovered the relationship and objected to it?

Given the events of Crystal Skull, I am inclined to go with the latter option. And why did Indy break up with Marion the second time, after the events of Raiders? I would suggest it has something to do with the "years of fieldwork" in studying "primitive sexual practices" that Indy had done since breaking up with Marion -- the rampant promiscuity that he flaunted in Temple of Doom, and continued to engage in, in Last Crusade. Bad habits like that will take their toll on a person, when he tries to ditch them. It's kind of sad that Indy doesn't finally ditch them until he is so old that it almost doesn't matter -- Harrison Ford's ongoing attractiveness to the likes of Calista Flockhart aside -- or that he didn't ditch them when he was younger and could have had a truly fulfilling LIFE with Marion, but, well, better late than never, as they say.

I'm not faulting Karen Allen's performance. She's great. But she was given lines to say and direction. I'm talking about the film as a whole. It took you reading an earlier draft of the screenplay and reading between the lines as a mature adult to be attuned to the other bits. I was 9 years old when I first saw Raiders and it took years of rewatching the film for me to catch on to the inappropriateness of the Indy seducing Marion backstory. The filmmakers could have made it obvious and more importantly, realistic but it is only dealt with by a brief dialog exchange in Marion's bar right before a big shootout. Yes, Marion decks Indy and says "I've learned to hate you.", but it's played for laughs. It's about a tough character (Indy) being knocked down a peg. Ford's head whips around towards the camera so he gets a comedic closeup. (By the way, did anyone else expect her to hit him again when they meet up in Crystal Skull?)

To me, Marion decking Indy, telling the Nazi's not to touch her, etc. is just showing us that her character is feisty. The Beloq-Marion relationship is there because the film makers wanted to have the "damsel in distress", even if she's a more modern feisty, self sufficient damsel. What we are given in the film is not a complete, realistic portrayal of a woman who has suffered years of abuse.

Obviously if Raiders had a scene where we actually see Marion sleeping around, sobbing uncontrollably, or cutting herself that would have been a completely different (and less entertaining) film. My guess is that Lucas, et all. wanted to include the prior relationship as part of Indy's backstory because they thought it would make him seem cool, not unlike their original inspiration, James Bond. Thankfully though, the rest of what we actually see of Indy is not like Bond's character. Except for Temple of Doom, I can't think of any examples of Indy using women the way Bond does. Like I said, the Indy seducing Marion backstory is a sleazy aspect of what I think is an otherwise honorable hero.

I haven't yet seen this film and don't know what Keith is getting at here, but the photo essay is cool. I hope those of you who have seen the film get some benefit from the link.

Just an observation, but my kids did not follow the whole thing with fake nuclear city complete with mannequins and houses and such. Having not seen those old B&W gov't films on nuclear bombs, that was completely lost on them, and I had to explain it afterwards. Perhaps Lucas' and Spielberg's tendency toward nostalgia hurt this movie with the younger crowd? Or maybe I should expose my kids to more old stuff.

Backrow Baptist wrote:
: It took you reading an earlier draft of the screenplay and reading between the lines as a mature adult to be attuned to the other bits.

Perhaps. One shot that comes to mind is the shot of Marion standing on the deck of Katanga's ship in that thin white dress, the wind whipping it around the contours of her body. As an 11-year-old kid (and beyond, as I re-watched the film in subsequent years), I felt there was almost something "naughty" about the way the dress "revealed" her so much, and a part of me kind of enjoyed it, that taste of sexuality. But it was only as an adult that I really zeroed in on the way Marion is really and truly "exposed" there, the way we are supposed to share her shame at being treated like something that people can use. Katanga pretends that he is going to put Marion on the slave market, as part of his lie to the Nazis -- but the Nazis, who scorn Katanga as a "savage" in reply, then hand Marion to Belloq as though she WERE a sex slave, as though she somehow BELONGED to him! Anyway, I see that scene in a new light, now that I know how Karen Allen was playing the role, etc.

: I was 9 years old when I first saw Raiders and it took years of rewatching the film for me to catch on to the inappropriateness of the Indy seducing Marion backstory.

Well, like I say, we don't know that Indy "seduced" Marion. It is possible that she "seduced" him, too, or at least came on to him strong, made the first move, etc. I wouldn't accuse him of "seducing" her until we know more about the relationship.

: (By the way, did anyone else expect her to hit him again when they meet up in Crystal Skull?)

Yeah, I was kind of disappointed when she didn't.

: What we are given in the film is not a complete, realistic portrayal of a woman who has suffered years of abuse.

Well, no one was asking for "complete" here!

: My guess is that Lucas, et all. wanted to include the prior relationship as part of Indy's backstory because they thought it would make him seem cool, not unlike their original inspiration, James Bond.

Did Bond ever go for underaged girls? Ironically, the very same weekend that my father took me to see Raiders of the Lost Ark way back in 1981, he ALSO took me to see For Your Eyes Only ... in which Bond REFUSES to have sex with a young woman because her "uncle", a colleague of Bond's, would not approve. (That's the reason Bond gives, at any rate; it is also hinted that Bond isn't interested in smitten young girls who throw themselves at him like this.) That's an interesting contrast with Indy and the affair he had with Abner's daughter.

Thoreau wrote:
: Perhaps Lucas' and Spielberg's tendency toward nostalgia hurt this movie with the younger crowd?

I've been hearing that young audiences dislike this movie from other sources, too.

David Edelstein:

But those things were at least somewhat plausible. (and Raiders didn't actually show us the submarine sea crossing.) I saw a Mythbusters episode that did a special on whether Indy could have fallen out of a building through 3 awnings (Temple of Doom) and survived. They confirmed it was plausible...although they busted the escape slide parachute. But the fact that they even tested those on Mythbusters means they were on the fringes of believablity. But this movie just goes too far.

I think the 4th departs from the series by requiring us to suspend belief too much in a way the others didn't. This sequel lessens the original 3 because it changes the adventures from being "mythical" in character to simply being fantastically silly. And that is insulting to those of us who believed in the myths.

Well... there *was* the whole bit with the fiery airplane being stripped of its wings and sliding past the Jones's automobile in the tunnel...

... and there was the umbrella/seagull/propeller-disaster...

...not to mention Indy choosing to carry a big sparking torch around in a cavern knee-deep in flammable sludge...

I guess I gave up on any suspension of disbelief during Last Crusade. But you're right, Crystal Skull *does* raise (or lower) the bar even more.

OK...maybe we can agree that the unbelievability has become progressively worse (or better I suppose) with each film. Although perhaps some would say it was me who had changed, grown up and lost faith in Indy, but I don't think so.

I'm in the small minority (along with Edelstein and Roger Ebert, apparently) who believes that Temple of Doom was a fantastic movie and that it's better than Last Crusade.

I'm still waiting for a second viewing of Crystal Skull to determine where it fits in the heirarchy. It's a race for third place between Crystal Skull and Last Crusade.

morgan1098 wrote:
: I'm in the small minority (along with Edelstein and Roger Ebert, apparently) who believes that Temple of Doom was a fantastic movie and that it's better than Last Crusade.

A friend with whom I saw Crystal Skull said he used to rank the films 1, 3, 2, but recently Temple of Doom moved up in his estimation, and now, based on his first viewing of Crystal Skull he figured each film was better than the one that came after it.

I have to say, given how shamelessly both Last Crusade and Crystal Skull try to make nods to Raiders, I am more and more appreciative of Temple of Doom's willingness to be its own thing. It's the only sequel that doesn't pander to the fans, in that sense, or that doesn't feel like it's trying to recapture old glory.

In my review I note that the film is both a nostalgic journey as well as a major divergence.



Denny

Spoiler question...

Anybody here disappointed with Cate Blanchett's demise in the film? I mean, she just fluttered into pixils. There's simply no drama there, not anything that we haven't seen before...

Personally, I think it would have been far better, dramatically, if her skull was elongated, or her brains bust out of her skull, growing backwards. Yeah, it's gory, but it may have had the same visceral impact of the melting faces in the first film...

...not to mention it being something we've never seen before...

Oooooh... I like that.

All through the movie, I kept waiting for some twist where we would discover that *she* was an alien. She looked so otherworldly throughout the film...

That would have been fantastic. I agree that the scene as filmed was underwhelming and anticlimactic. This movie was sorely lacking in the traditional Indy blood and guts. The only point where it had that same feel was when Indy blew the poison dart back into the native's mouth. That was too cool.

I would like to think that somewhere, someday, someone will pass along Nick's suggestion to Lucas and Spielberg, and they will think, "Damn. Why didn't WE think of that?"

Awww, thanks, man. Made my day.

Searching the recesses of my memory bank, there is one movie, perhaps, they would have had to borrow from in order to make that shot... and that would have been _The Howling_ (1981), starring E.T.'s Dee Wallace (Stone). IIRC, the special effects in a werewolf-changing scene incorporated hydraulics all over this one guy's head. A TON of back-breaking work, to be sure, but how cool it would have been to use some old-school fx shots?

I agree with you completely Nick. I thought that at the time. However, they would have had to come up with some irreverance as when the Ark was opened. As it was I took the final event as an attempt to give her the power she wanted but she could not handle it.

Denny

I'd like to think that my feeble suggestion would have been a stronger visualization of that very point.

BTW...thanks!

If I sent Lucas and Spielberg a note saying they should've stopped with Last Crusade, do you think they'd have the same reaction?

(I don't know why I'm piling on. I'll probably enjoy this movie when I get around to seeing it.)

SPIELBERG:Did you hear something, George?
LUCAS: What?
SPIELBERG: I asked, did you HEAR something?
LUCAS: How can I hear anything at all? The three-hundred-and-eleven-million single dollars that are being thrust upon us in this warehouse, just crowds out any dissenting noise!

You probably will... just follow the advice of the first movie--and close your eyes when the climactic sequence occurs.

Was anyone else surprised by the fact that the crystal skulls actually ARE the alien skulls, and are not merely MODELS of alien skulls (the way that real-life crystal skulls are merely models of human skulls)?

And no, I don't consider that a spoiler, considering it is revealed in the film's first 15 minutes or so. (Unless I'm confusing one scene with another.)

Presumably the real-life crystal skulls are supposed to be merely artifacts created by the aliens. (Though now that I think of it, I'm not sure the film ever really did make a connection between the alien skulls and the human skulls, the latter of which are referred to but never shown that I can recall.)

So what are the alien skulls? Are they supposed to be organic, a form of biology? Are they supposed to be mechanical, a form of technology? Are the aliens living creatures through-and-through? Are they the interdimensional equivalent of cyborgs, partly grown and partly built?

And I STILL want to know how that one crystal skull was stolen in the first place.

(But maybe I shouldn't ask such questions. Remember how I used to wonder how the original hero escaped from the Matrix, i.e. the hero of whom Neo was supposed to be a reincarnation? And then The Matrix Revisited came out and actually ANSWERED my question -- and, hmmm, I didn't like the answer.)

For me it was not a suprise they were actual skulls but rather that they were a unity. I thought that perhaps they were "sleeping" when one of the skulls was stolen. That they were "dead" apart is kind of like having a part of a computer missing and can't work until the missing part is returned. I would have liked a lot more explanation of what "inter-dimensional" beings are like. Obvious not biological but how are they "alive?" That is what I meant in an earlier post that I found the science fiction lacking. I liked the vintage Indy action.

Denny

Denny Wayman wrote:
: I thought that perhaps they were "sleeping" when one of the skulls was stolen. That they were "dead" apart is kind of like having a part of a computer missing and can't work until the missing part is returned.

So did the one unified alien split up into 13 separate skeletons, just for the heck of it, at which point some thief who somehow got past all of the temple's defenses just reached out and stole one of their heads? Or did the thief find some way to separate them himself? It's questions like this that prevent me from taking the film even REMOTELY seriously. Somebody stealing a Sankara stone? No big deal. Somebody taking the Ark of the Covenant out of Jerusalem? That's actually a plausible hypothesis with some biblical evidence to back it up (even if it runs counter to, say, Ethiopian Orthodox tradition). The Holy Grail in the company of a Knight Templar? That's actually part of the tradition itself, if I'm not mistaken. So there is no big stretch there, in any of those films, with regard to the CENTRAL premise, even if some of the details AROUND that premise are a little loopy (for example, I would argue, the Brotherhood of the Cruciform Sword). But THIS movie? It takes the real-world concept of "crystal skulls" and then COMPLETELY divorces the concept from anything resembling anything in the real world, piling on one bit of arbitrary b.s. after another without a thought for how ANY of it might make any sense. And that's just the CENTRAL premise. THEN it piles on even MORE b.s. in the details that SURROUND the premise. Arrrgh.

: I would have liked a lot more explanation of what "inter-dimensional" beings are like. Obvious not biological but how are they "alive?"

Yeah, it's an intriguing question, possibly more intriguing than the filmmakers knew or cared to know.

Peter,

I couldn't agree with you more. That is why in our review I said this is a very different film from the others. I have the same concern about Mutt becoming the next Indy - he does not have the commitment to academics as his father and grandfather did. It is part of the mystique of the films. I did, however, like the action and the references to the other films.

Denny

Aren't angels inter-dimensional?

Right. I just got back from my second viewing, and if anything lessened my appreciation this go-round, it was the fact that, for all that the skulls (I mean the real ones) carry, at least in some minds, the kinds of associations this movie makes, the movie itself seems utterly uninterested in exploiting these connections, so it severs them and makes up some new ones that--because they aren't "real-world" therefore don't feel real-world.

Everything else held up really well for me, especially the Indy-Marion-Mutt triumvirate (I'm speaking of the way the characters interact, not plotwise), but the climax was even more of a letdown after reading Nick's alternate scenario. Now that would have been brilliance.

(Incidentally, I guess I'm in the minority when I say I wouldn't actually mind another film with Mutt in the lead. This is a fine end to the series, but Mutt's engaging enough to hold his own if they could find another maguffin. Then again, where does one go from here?)

Interesting question - especially since some connect the skulls/eyes of extraterrestrials with depictions of demon/angels of the middle ages.

But I would answer no. Angels are spiritual - which puts them beyond physical creation. Whereas, I think, though the film doesn't even posit who they are and where they come from, but I think they imply that these are creatures living between the various dimensions of creation itself. So they may be different from creatures who live within a dimension but they are still caught in creation in some way. Or they could be creatures who can move in and out of dimensions living in any they choose.


What do you thinK?

Denny

I would expect (but my expectations are unlikely to be taken into consideration!) that given Indy's sudden about-face in advising Mutt, from "follow your bliss" (or WTTE) to "Why didn't you ... finish school!" and the "moral" of the story that "their treasure wasn't gold, it was knowledge. Knowledge was their treasure.", it's a good bet that Mutt could change his views on academics.

Or not. Which would be a whole different movie. Probably not one I would care about seeing.

My biggest fear going in to this movie was that Indy was going to discover that the aliens, and alien technology in particular, were responsible for the power behind every other "supernatural" artifact he had found throughout his career. In other words, he would discover that the Ark of the Covenant, the sankara stones, and the Holy Grail were really just alien artifacts that drew their power from the same source that the crystal skulls drew their power. Prior to the movie release there was actually speculation on a few blogs that this might be the case, especially with the rumors that the Ark would be making a repeat appearance. I'm thrilled beyond words that they didn't go down that road.

That said, the explanation of the aliens/interdimensional beings at the end of the movie was wholly unsatisfying and confusing.

Maybe we should all be a little more careful of what we say about George Lucas. I wouldn't want to get on this girl's bad side.

Yes, Beth, that's my hope. If they don't go down that road then I share your lack of enthusiasm. The "You're a teacher?" kind of comment is part of this genre.

Denny

Cinematical may have found the legendary Frank Darabont script for Indy IV.

Whatever it is, it's available as a PDF download, for what will probably be a very short time.

Got it.

Here's a review of the script.

Notable point:

I haven't had a chance to read the Darabont script myself yet, but that's an interesting quote. Darabont -- whose anti-Christian, or at least anti-religious, sensibility comes through quite loudly and clearly in some of his OTHER films -- claims that Spielberg called this the best Indy script since Raiders, or something like that, right? I wonder how much truth there is to that, and what window, if any, it might open into Spielberg's current theological state of mind.

I am also vaguely reminded of how Lucas claimed, a year or two ago, that Spielberg and/or Ford initially resisted his idea for this film because it was too "connected", and how Lucas assured them they could take out the "offending" parts of the concept. Did he mean the parts that offended THEM, or the parts that would offend the AUDIENCE, or...?

Okay, I still haven't read the script yet, but I couldn't resist searching for a few keywords in the PDF file. And there is a scene there in which the aliens declare:

We are the ones who fell from the heavens. We are the Nephalim. We are the Rubezahl. We are the lights in the sky. Your kind has give us many names. You may worship us.

I have never heard of the Rubezahl before, but Wikipedia indicates they are "a capricious giant, gnome or mountain spirit". The Nephelim, of course, are the purportedly gigantic antediluvian heroes described in the early verses of Genesis 6 -- the offspring of angels/gods and their human wives. (And the root Hebrew word behind "nephelim" essentially means "to fall", so the word "nephelim" essentially means "fallen ones" -- though whether they are called that because they "fell from the heavens" or because they went extinct, etc., is a matter of some debate.) Anyhoo.

I just checked Cinematical, and the link to the script is now broken. Dang! BUT check out my earlier post on the rumors that the Ark, Holy Grail, etc. were really just alien artifacts. This Darabont script seems to be the source of those rumors.

Some thoughts that I've had:



I keep wondering if Indy was lying when he translated the message near the end. "They thank us and want to gives us a gift," or something close to that. Was he truthfully translating, or changing it a bit to take care of his Russian comrades. Notice that he immedatly starts backing away. Maybe the actual message was more wrathful, or a warning of some kind. I thought that for a "gift," the aliens were kind of jerks, unless it's considered polite on their world to give your friends the "gift" of overwhelming knowledge and the "gift" of an exploding pyramid.



I was dissapointed that Indy never mentioned the fact that the "actual" Crystal skulls are 19th century creations, far from real artiffacts at all, although I'm not sure of the 1957-era scientific opinion on the crystal skulls. I think it would have been an interesting concept, especially if he had been more skeptical, or if there was some kind of idea that the "real" skulls were sub-consciously compelling people to create their own copies.









In regards to this idea that the film lessens the pseduo-Christian(or explicitly Christian, depending on what you believe) messages of Raiders and Last Crusade, I felt that the message of the film was summed up perfectly by Thoreau when he said "that is insulting to those of us who believe in the myths." But I think that it is much more than just the silly stunts and unbelievable scenes. The entire concept of KOTCS is something out of 50s pulp sci-fi magazines. The callbacks to Raiders at the beginning connect it with the earlier films in the series, and the message that I took away from it was this; to believe in such things as the Ark of the Covenant, the Sankara stones and the Holy Grail is the same as believing in flying saucers and little green men. To me, it is the one of the most subtly anti-religious films of all time, implying that such things may exist, but only in a world where equally implausible things like spacemen in pyramids also exist. Imagine if the National Treasure films had wrapped up something Biblical(piece of the true cross perhaps?) with all the insanity of Masonic labyrinths and secret books of the President.