Boffo box office aside, not everyone is loving the new Indiana Jones movie. A number of folks have quibbles about the movie’s accuracy. (Let’s not even get started on these guys’ complaint.) Over at Asylum.com, they’ve prevailed upon archaeologist Kristin Romey (who’s explored some of the Latin American turf covered in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) to see which parts of the movie plausibly portray archaeologists and their work and which do not. The implausible stuff (besides Harrison Ford, pictured, still being able to kick ass at 65) is pretty evident, but the elements that are realistic may surprise you. It turns out that archaeologists often really are spies who pack heat and behave like horndogs. Who knew? Can’t wait ’til the Asylum folks apply similar investigative zeal to this season’s other fantasy films, including Iron Man, Prince Caspian, and Sex and the City.
Fact-checking Indiana Jones
Blog Roll
- Best Week Ever
- BuzzSugar
- Coolfer
- Dark Horizons
- Deadline Hollywood Daily
- Digital Music News
- Gold Derby
- Hits Daily Double
- Hollywood Elsewhere
- Hollywood Wiretap
- Huffington Post
- Hypebot
- Idolator
- jaded insider
- Lost Remote
- Movie City News
- Movie List
- MTV News
- Pop Candy
- PopBytes
- Popeater
- reality blurred
- Salon: Arts & Entertainment
- Stereogum
- The Beat
- The Programming Insider
- Thompson on Hollywood
- Tuned In
- TV Barn
- TV Tattle
- TVFanatic.com
- TVNewser
- Velvet Rope
Featured Video
Realite: Reality TV sexes it up!
Unsubtle sexuality on ''SYTYCD'' and ''Top Model,'' sickening turns on ''DWTS,'' ''Top Chef,'' ''Runway''
More 
Today's Most Popular
-
-
Music Review Music Review: For Your Entertainment -
News Briefs 'Cougar Town' production temporarily halted -
PopWatch 'New Moon': A Hater's Guide
-
Photo Gallery 'SNL': 10 ways to fix it!
Special Coverage
'Twilight' Saga: 'New Moon'
It's almost here! Get all the latest news, photos, video, and fan commentary leading up to the big premiere
More
Comments (1-30) of 66 Add your comment
I was so disappointed in this movie. The action and humor were great, but the actual premise of the movie really tanked, especially at the end. I won’t be a spoiler, but if you’ve seen it or at least read the Asylum.com arcticle, you know what I’m talking about. Ugh. Just stupid.
You know, when a newspaper ad declares “No. 1 movie in America!”, it ought to be based on whether or not it’s been received as a good film or not, and NOT merely its box office receipts. All that really means is that people paid their money for a ticket and then had to decide if it was worth it. Just because some bullsh*t movie like “Saw IV” makes a ton of movie on its opening weeking should not make it the “No. 1 movie in America”!
I haven’t seen INDIANA JONES yet, but I have this bad feeling that I’m not going to like it. I’m compelled to see it, regardless, because I generally love Spielberg and gladly give him the benefit of the doubt. I couldn’t really give a rat’s ass if it’s archeologically-inaccurate. In the end, it’s going to come down to whether it’s a good story or not.
I totally echo the comments made by the Coach’s Mistress but will take it one step further. **SEMI SPOILER*** Why is it that its NEVER addressed who smuggled the skull out in the first place or how?? Cause it plays a pretty key role in how the movie pans out, right?? And secondly I wanted to take ym 7 yr. old god son to see this, cause he’s seen commercials, but out of everyone else who’s seen it, I think everyone will agree there is NO WAY a kid that age will be able to follow the plot of this movie! Hell I had to keep going “REALLY!?”
Fact: You do not have to fly to Cuzco, Peru, to get to the Nazca Lines. Cuzco is in the southeast. The lines are on the coast, south of Lima. I thought it was rather egregious to imply otherwise.
http://moviemartin.blogspot.com
I’m confused by the disappointment people are expressing in the MacGuffin/premise…someone in my office was railing about it, and I was like, well, it’s not that different from using the Ark or those stones or the Holy Grail. It’s all sci-fi unless you happen to be a believer. I thought the movie was right in line with the other 3. I think the first and third were better, but this one was better than the second one. I think it will hold up just fine with the original 3.
Who cares how accurate it is? I’m an archaeologist myself and I loved the movie. It was fun and entertaining…can’t wait to go see it again. I got into archaeology because of the original movies…not because of the adventure, but because they got me reading about the different cultures and artifacts. I spend most of my time in the library to be honest. It’s not like they’re trying to bill the movie as an accurate account of a day in the life of an archaeologist. On the other hand, if a movie or show makes an attempt at being “accurate” and fails miserably, then I’ll take issue.
My problem is it turned into Mummy Returns halfway thru. Honestly, as soon as they start the jungle race, it’s like Steven Sommers took over. 1. Crazy race through the jungle trying to recapture to a treasure (the amulet). 2. Evil people led by angry foreign brunette. 3. Same hokey humor and non-sensical action sequences. 4. Same attack by the natives. 5. Same race to temple. 6. The treasure room and greedy guys deaf is straight from the Mummy. 7. Whirling jungle around destruction of temple is from the Mummy Returns. 8. Sappy ending on the wreckage. Conversely, Mummy 3 actually looks more original!
The more negative criticism I read on INDY, the more I’m glad that I won’t be paying to see it. I have these Clearview Cinemas gift passes, but I have to wait 10 days after a new film opens before I can use them. So I’m waiting…
Screw the Mummy 3, I wasn’t going to say this in my earlier post, but the jungle chase is VERY influenced by the original speedbike scene from RETURN OF THE JEDI with Luke & Leia, and then when they enter the old kingdom its all NATIONAL TREASURE BOOK OF SECERETS-esque. I felt like there were so many movies mashed into one really confusing one.
Anyone who goes to an Indiana Jones movie expecting realism and archeological accuracy deserves to lose their money and have a bad time.
That being said, I loved the film. Yes, there are moments when you need to suspend your disbelief, but I do not recall hearing such vehement complaining when Indy discovered proof of the existence of God. (Not once, but twice, by the way).
Is it just me or do people have overly delicate sensabilities these days? Like they can’t wait to be offended by something so they can play the “victim” card. Cripes.
Anyway’s anyone who goes to see a Lucas/Speilberg popcorn flick and then bemoans the lack of accuracy clearly has too much time on their hands. It’s over the top silly fun and it’s supposed to be. These are probably the same folks who obsess over the film while it’s in production – to the point that by the time it’s released, there’s no way it’s going to be able to meet their preconcieved expectations.
Seriously, anyone has time to wonder how realistic a movie called “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is going to be seriously needs to examine their priorities in life…. unless they’re getting paid for examining it, in which case they need to be fired. Promptly.
There are also the people in Russia who are upset with the movie because they think it’s stirring up bad feelings and paranoia, etc from the Cold War. I don’t think Cate Blanchett is really turning that many people off of Russia, in much the same way that no one thinks it’s a realistic depiction of what archaeologists do (which, from the archaeologists I know, doesn’t include looking for evidence of paranormal or extraterrestrial activity). But people exploding in a burst of light (or Nazis’ faces melting off) is totally the way archaeology happens, and no “expert” is going to convince me otherwise.
I thought the movie was a great homage to the movies of the era it was projecting. I mean, seriously, how did people miss that essential aspect of it? It had a TARZAN reference, for God’s sake. The 1950s were the atomic age, with sci-fi movies and evil Soviets and malt shop battles and everything in between. The movie was fun and silly and full of fantasy perfectly in keeping with the other three movies, and in keeping with the movies of 1957. I had a blast because I went to see the man in the brown hat dropping one liners and having fun. He did, and I ate it up. Lighten up, folks!
Yeah, I went today since it was pouring rain, on my day off. There is absolutely nothing new or exciting about it although it was good to see Indy again. But with that said, I will stick to the original “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. A million times better than this one. Save your money…George and Steven have enough now.
Yes, Indy IV is a dud. But not because of its factual or non-factual nature. It’s a dud because it’s totally short on plot, overly heavy on ridiculous action, and, well, Harrison Ford is old. On the plus side, Karen Allen is great. I didn’t realize how happy I’d be to see her character return. People in the audience clapped at the end. Not because it was great, but because, like me, they were just happy to see Indiana Jones again. He’s an icon.
The TARZAN homage reminded me again of the RETURN OF THE JEDI battle with Lucas’ Ewoks.
I did like it. And Harrison looked good – not hard to believe he can still kick @ss.
Hey, archeologists should be psyched that there are even movies about them, wildly implausible or not. I’d go see a movie about other strategic analysts, even if (maybe especially if) they were packing heat or secret crime fighters or something. And let’s face it – while Cate Blanchett is reportedly the best thing about this movie (according to The Economist, anyway) I doubt she’s good enough to cause an international incident.
I hated the movie becuase I thought the story was way too out there. However, after, I saw a show on the History Channel that went through all the Indy movies and had other real life archeologists saying how realistic they are. Turned out, they said they are very realistic and the plot of the Crystal Skull is true also. Well, it’s a theory of the skulls. But there really are 13 Crystal Skulls…. So that made me like the movie better in retrospect.
the crystal skulls are an hoax. They were made by a german archeologist/nutjob who had them carved out of brazlian quartz to try and use them as evidence for atlantis. They have been debunked for decades (they have drill bit and sander marks all over them), so please don’t call this nonsense a “theory”. it’s a HOAX.
I never thought about whether or not anything was “real” or not – just like the other Indy movies, but I did keep saying “oh, that’s from (insert movie title here)” throughout the movie. And I LOVE Harrison Ford, but man, most of the time, he just seemed to phoning it in – I know he’s in his 60’s, but still, how about a little “acting” while you deliver your lines!!
http://view-digg.blogspot.com/
This film felt more like a walking expedition than an adventure movie. Harrison Ford is still alluringly sexy, but he’s got Shia LeBoeuf being his annoying self and Karen Allen’s Marion Ravenwood, a pale shadow of the heroic adventuress. Except for Cate Blanchett’s fabulous turn, there’s nothing to enjoy about this film.
I didn’t look for any degree of accuracy or deep meanings or anything like that. After all, it is FICTION. I just thought it was great entertainment. I really enjoyed this movie. Way to go Indie. Do it again.
I thoroughly LOVED this movie. I was not disappointed with any aspect. I guess I drank the cool-aid. Not only was I able to suspend my disbelief; I was able to suspend my critic! Loads of fun! I, too, saw the History Channel special on IJ and real Archaeologists; but, having seen it first, I was already prep-ed to enjoy the movie.
HELLO…the first three movies also drew criticism for portraying archaeology inaccurately. Apparently some people don’t know the difference between a clearly fictional, stylized action-adventure-fantasy film and a report on the 6 o’clock news. What’s most irritating is they assure you that THEY know Indiana Jones isn’t exactly your typical archaeologists, but they’re worried that the rest of us morons won’t know the difference. It’s all about protecting us from our own stupidity. Ay caramba.
This wasn’t a movie. It was just a series of special effects without any plot line, character development or tension. And the characters that were in it (exception Cate Blanchett) might as well have been Disney animatrons from Orlando. Total waste of 2 hours time and a dis-serive to the series. Will be remembered as the Godfather III of Indy films.
Personally, I’m waiting for Lucas and Spielberg to team up for a series of films about the whiz-bang, golly-gee adventures of a rogue accountant. “Harold Applebaum and his Journey to the Crystal Caverns of the Forevertime. In 3-D.” Now THAT I’d go see!
It’s a cheeseball action film, only done really, really well. It’s not supposed to be realistic.
Compared to the others it holds up nicely.