Fact-checking Indiana Jones

Ize Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 04:34 AM EST

The film very good!

http://www.ize-stuff.com

Kris in Montgomery, AL Fri, May 30, 2008 at 08:57 PM EST

I'm still finding it interesting critics and other media-folk are bashing this movie when it's blowing away all box office expectations. People are seeing it and going back to see it second and third times.

Sure, it wasn't supposed to be Last Crusade, but it was a darn good movie. It's easier for me to accept the plot in Crystal Skull than it is ripping out a man's still-beating heart and he live.

James Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:47 PM EST

Harrison Ford and Indy are both older. But so am I. I don't feel that had any relevance to my liking or dislinking this film.

Clever Tarzan reference, but just how fast is he on that vine he actually beats Indy and co. to the cliff?

Once the skull is found, it becomes a skeleton key, a way of moving the plot along when nothing else would do.

Where was the wonder? This relic was something important and something to be protected; instead and for all the power this thing was supposed to have, no one seemed to care. From the shards of pottery at the warehouse, to the handling of the Ark, archaeology seemed to be treated like junk. In contrast, think back to the pieces Indy gives Marcus at the beginning of Raiders and Last Crusade.

Mac may as well have been Evie's brother from the Mummy Returns. John Hurt may as well been Lassie as he was the only one who could understand and follow his lead. But I guess that's another nod to the 50s. Well done!

MCW Thu, May 29, 2008 at 09:32 PM EST

www.dearmrspielberg.com

MCW Thu, May 29, 2008 at 09:32 PM EST

www.dearmrspielberg.com

MCW Thu, May 29, 2008 at 09:31 PM EST

www.dearmrspielberg.com

MCW Thu, May 29, 2008 at 09:30 PM EST

www.dearmrspielberg.com

MCW Thu, May 29, 2008 at 09:30 PM EST

www.dearmrspielberg.com

DEE RIVELLINO Thu, May 29, 2008 at 03:18 PM EST

I planned to take Indiana Joens latest adventure as pure entertainment but I wasn't entertained..
The story is vague,its confusing, however kids will love it because its all special effects to the point of au nausium.......Spielberg and Lucas should be ashamed of themselves. They are so creative and if they couldn't come up with something better than this, they shouldn't have done it..
The kid that plays Marian's son lacked chrisma.. no chemistry whatsoever....between he and Indy or he and even Marian....she was great as usual.. Cate Blanchett is such a marvelous actress but her role was lost in this one. I'm sure she probably did it for her kids to see in the future..why else??????
I'm an Indy fan but this left me wanting so much more.

alvan St Jacques Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:00 PM EST

Why don't we just accept " Indiana Jones " as a pure entertainment, the movies are based on bits and pieces of established facts to give the movie flavor, there was a shot of the large water falls in Brazil, much to my regret i could not afford the side trip when in SA but recognized it from our travel brochures, I think his movies may influences others to pursue archaeology. I recall Shakespeare, to Horatio," There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy."

Disappointed like always Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:57 PM EST

Was I the only person who saw the whole thing coming - right from "ten years ago" when we knew it was 1957 in the context of "present time" straight through the name "Mutt" and where THAT was going?

God I hate movies that give everything away in the first fifteen minutes. Forget archaeological accuracy quibbling. It was after all just a movie. For me it tanked on bad storytelling alone.

Mexica Grad Student Wed, May 28, 2008 at 05:45 PM EST

True or not, I think the ideas presented in the film are interesting to think about and FUN! Just think what will be left of our civilization thousands of years after we're gone... what will potential discoverers make of the objects (skulls or otherwise) that we leave behind? Will they have the technology to understand all the facets of our modern society? Is there evidence of the internet or how it is being used today? So who's to say what the crystal skulls are, how they came to be, or what they were used for? On the flip side, it's a little insulting to suggest that indigenous people didn't have the technology to create beautiful works of art (like the crystal skulls) simply because that technology is no longer available today.

Vale Wed, May 28, 2008 at 04:13 PM EST

To the 'Genius'

If you want reality, look in a mirror. However, I imagine you'd be disappointed there as well.

No one forces you to go to these shows. Do us all a favor, please... go back to your apartment in your mom's basement.

philby baumstein Wed, May 28, 2008 at 02:04 PM EST

i have a crystal skull that my grampa, reginald baumstein, gave me. he was an archaeologist at harvard from 1951--1985 and he brought it back from one of his digs in south america, so i know that part is true. it's unbreakable and has a really oblong head. he made me promise never to sell it at a garage sale or on ebay. the rest in the movie i can't vouch for.

Old Hippie Wed, May 28, 2008 at 01:45 PM EST

Complaining about realism in an Indiana Jones movies is like complaining about the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. Sour grapes.

Coach's Mistress Wed, May 28, 2008 at 01:23 PM EST

Oh, and to all the posters who haven't even seen the movie but feel like they can chime in on this topic, I suggest seeing the movie first so you can at least get a perspective of from where some of us are coming. I was highly entertained by this movie (as unrealistic as it was) until the ending, and that spoiled the whole thing for me. See the movie...then you can cast your opinion.

Coach's Mistress Wed, May 28, 2008 at 01:20 PM EST

aliens in an Indy movie just don't work. I had no problem with the skulls or anything else about the movie (I don't expect any sort of accuracy in these types of films). My dislike stems purely from the ending. I kept thinking that the other movies had relics of religious significance, but this one went the whole Scientology route. Hmmm...

Cecil Wed, May 28, 2008 at 01:19 PM EST

What does the Berlin wall have to do with Leipzig?

peabody3000 Wed, May 28, 2008 at 01:13 PM EST

its just a movie.... yes, a FREAKING STUPID movie. if anyone cares to disagree, then try explaining how shia lebouef can fall off a speeding car, catch up to it by swinging on jungle vines, joined by a dozen monkeys who all decide to grab their own vines and then jump on the bad guys because...what, monkeys can sense evil? .......freaking STUPID

To the NOT so "The Genius" Wed, May 28, 2008 at 12:27 PM EST

Listen so-called "The Genius," if you're going to make arguments such as, "This movie was totally unrealistic," then offer some evidence for your accusations. Don't just say, "Especially the scene where lots of things happen unrealistically." I've read some pretty stupid comments in my time but yours tops them all. Never use the word "things" to describe anything. Be specific, if your mind is capable of such intelligence.
Also, I don't know where you've gotten your minutia of knowledge on archaeologists from but many archaeologists who are also professors actually DO have some of their students accompany them on their "adventures" to help many times on excavation sites and such.

And lastly, IT'S A FREAKIN MOVIE. Lord of the Rings, another movie, is considered science fiction/fantasy, as in, it can't actually happen in this world.

no-self-promoted Wed, May 28, 2008 at 12:10 PM EST

TO BOBBY JOHNSON:

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY INTELLIGENCE TOBE INSULTED. IN A MOVIE, FACTS AND FICTIONS ARE PUTTING TOGETHER;THAT WHAT WAS MAKE A GOOD MOVIE. A DUMMY LIKE ME CAN STILL TELL WHICH ARE FACTS AND WHICH ARE FICTIONS; AND PEOPLE HAVE MONKEY BRAINS FOR DINER IS A FACT IN OTHER CULTURES.

WELL, PEOPLE TEND TO SEE THEMSELVES AS INTELLIGENCE AND EXPECT OTHER TO SEE THE SAME VIEW; IF THEY SEE IT DIFFERENTLY THEN THEY BE CALLED DUMB.

Addy Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:52 AM EST

Here's a wrong fact for you- Indy could never have gone and taught in Leipzig in 1957... it was behind the Wall.
And the fact that Mac had an aussie accent, not british.

The Genius Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:20 AM EST

Look mom! Mouth breathers!

Emoney Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:18 AM EST

I haven't seen Indy IV yet, but I do have a friend who's an archaeologist, and he does sleep with a lot of ladies worldwide, and does have sort of exciting stories about evading Romanian police and escaping by the skin of his teeth. Anyway, remember in Temple of Doom when the evil priest guy pulls a still-beating heart out of another guy? Totally realistic.

iroutdoors Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:56 AM EST

its not a documentory about real life things its a flippin movie.

Bobby Johnson Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:53 AM EST

IT'S A MOVIE PEOPLE!

Some people don't know that and don't even REALIZE THIS. (not me or you, friend).

Unfortunately, inaccuracies permeate throughout society and people actually believe the dumb lies perpetuated in these culturally offensive and inaccurate movies.

I'm sorry, but as an American, I'm not dumb enough to believe that people actually eat monkey brains and eyeball soup in India.

Please, Spielberg, et al, don't insult my intelligence.

Josh Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:51 AM EST

The difference betweet Lord of the Rings and Indiana Jones is huge. LOTR is a fantasy world from the get-go. Indiana Jones is supposed to be based on a normal version of what we call 'reality'. Which means, no elves or magic or stuff. Which is why I didn't like Indiana Jones - it's too far out there if it's based loosly on our world. LOTR is totally not based on our real world, so...

Ryan Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:46 AM EST

The Genius...come on... have a sense of imagination... you can't expect every movie to be realistic. That would get pretty boring.

The Genius Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:37 AM EST

This movie was totally unrealistic. Even from the most basic laws of physics, there were things that clearly could not have occurred in the real world. Especially the scene where lots of things happen unrealistically.

Furthermore, most archaeologists / teachers would not allow their students to travel with them on "adventures" -- it's an obvious liability.

I'm tired of seeing movies that are so patently absurd, like Lord of the Rings... Dwarves? Magic? Rings of Invisibility? Come on.

arvind Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:36 AM EST

good looking

Michael Bolyard Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:33 AM EST

I haven't even seen this movie yet, but I am quite sure that the people picking it apart wouldn't know how to enjoy winning the lottery or a great ice cream sundae. GROW UP! Not everyone wants to feel like crap and argue just because ya'll do. This is a product of society's loss of imagination. People (in general) just don't know how to have FUN anymore without questioning the motives or comparing it to their idea of utopia. I'm going, and like the movie or not, it will be worth the 2 hours of not dealing with a failing society

Heather Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:30 AM EST

IT IS A FREAKIN MOVIE FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY!!!!!!

RaferJanders Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:26 AM EST

It is a MOVIE!, a very entertainning movie, If you could do better, than by all means, Hollywood has gotten lazy in making movie's, They just make crappy remakes," Who remakes the Omen?", You guys need to find new writers, not these cheap hacks

John Walker Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:24 AM EST

What a great documentary on the life of a person living the past. Oh wait, it was fiction wasn't it. I saw the movie at Midnight on Thursay and thought it was great. Typical Indy. I enjoyed how they kept an old-timer is great shape (bieng just a little younger than Mr. Ford) it was great. How people can confuse entertainment with reality is mind boggling. Just go and enjoy the film. The reference to Tarzan - Edgar Rice Borroughs would have loved it probably. But why not a reference to John Carter as well?

troy Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:08 AM EST

yeah Eric! We really need you to fix things up!

Eric Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:06 AM EST

What is wrong with you people? This movie was all fun! You notice that the movie industry is going downhill due to so many movies that just suck. I wish I could get some of my ideas made into movies because I would make the industry back into a money making venture.

shorty Wed, May 28, 2008 at 07:57 AM EST

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.

Wed, May 28, 2008 at 07:53 AM EST

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!

Rubicon Wed, May 28, 2008 at 07:50 AM EST

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.

Wed, May 28, 2008 at 07:48 AM EST

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.

Steve_in_Texas Wed, May 28, 2008 at 07:43 AM EST

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.

bill Wed, May 28, 2008 at 07:38 AM EST

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.

Veronica Trash Wed, May 28, 2008 at 07:28 AM EST

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.

mieroc Wed, May 28, 2008 at 06:16 AM EST

http://view-digg.blogspot.com/

kim in kentucky Tue, May 27, 2008 at 08:10 PM EST

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!!

Pete Tue, May 27, 2008 at 06:58 PM EST

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.

diggity Tue, May 27, 2008 at 06:25 PM EST

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.

Martha Tue, May 27, 2008 at 06:21 PM EST

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.

Silv Tue, May 27, 2008 at 06:01 PM EST

I did like it. And Harrison looked good - not hard to believe he can still kick @ss.

Phil Tue, May 27, 2008 at 05:21 PM EST

The TARZAN homage reminded me again of the RETURN OF THE JEDI battle with Lucas' Ewoks.

J Tue, May 27, 2008 at 04:34 PM EST

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.

KLF Tue, May 27, 2008 at 04:25 PM EST

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.

Tipper Tue, May 27, 2008 at 04:18 PM EST

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!

Ann Tue, May 27, 2008 at 03:56 PM EST

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.

dan jones Tue, May 27, 2008 at 03:39 PM EST

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.

Snarf Tue, May 27, 2008 at 03:34 PM EST

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.

Antoinette Tue, May 27, 2008 at 03:21 PM EST

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).

Phil Tue, May 27, 2008 at 03:14 PM EST

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.

Eric Friedmann Tue, May 27, 2008 at 03:11 PM EST

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...

JMC Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:48 PM EST

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!

Auriana Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:47 PM EST

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.

BrandonK Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:46 PM EST

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.

Martin Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:37 PM EST

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

Phil Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:29 PM EST

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!?"

Eric Friedmann Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:22 PM EST

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.

Coach's Mistress Tue, May 27, 2008 at 01:45 PM EST

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.