Indiana Jones and the Broken Condom

In case there was any doubt, let me assure you that the new Indy movie is made of FAIL. Not the kind of "takes a runny shit on your hopes and dreams" fail of which Temple of Doom was made, but some pretty heroic FAIL nonetheless.

This movie felt like Indiana Jones / Stargate SG-1 fanfic, except that every episode of SG-1 ever made was better. And didn't include the walking dishrag of a sidekick they apparently intend to hang the franchise on now.


42 Responses:

  1. ultranurd says:

    Unless they turn the sidekick into the new Indy in the next sequel.

  2. thirdwired says:

    ...Better, even, than the dimly-structured S1 eps before the training wheels came off?

    Better, even, than the episodes in which Vala's smartassery becomes a parody of itself?

    Damn, that is heroic.

  3. marcus132 says:

    My favorite part was when they held up the elongated alien skull so that it cast its shadow over the elongated alien head in the cave painting. You know, to really drive it home: "THIS came from inside of THAT!"

    I couldn't stop myself from actually shouting, "Ohhh, NOW I get it!"

  4. evan says:

    Work paid for this one as well as Spiderman 3. Both of those, in retrospect, weren't even worth seeing for free.

    Throughout I imagined Brad Neely (of "Wizard People" fame) narrating the movie, which made it much better.

  5. foaf says:

    When the news of the new Indy film came out, I found out that most people don't really rate Temple of Doom, but nobody seemed to explain why. I think Temple of Doom is pretty good so I'm interested in finding out what makes the movie a runny shit on all my hopes and dreams.

  6. benediktus says:

    please take another moment of despair at the origin of the indiana-jones-goes-new-age-plot:äniken

    and again, thank you switzerland!

  7. perligata says:

    Temple of Doom had Short Round! Keep your eye on the Short Round!

  8. lirion says:

    I'd go for Starwars fanfic myself; there was definitely a moment in the movie where I was muttering about lightsaber fights...

    So many of the people I saw it with seemed to love it.
    The best things I can say are that I didn't pay to see it and the cinema I saw it in was damn comfy.

    It just... didn't grab me. And it's not terribly memorable either.

  9. mc_kingfish says:

    You saw my review. I'm just astounded that they could have let that flabby piece of crap out the door. Jeff made the comment that there are waaaaay too many people between Lucas and Spielberg and those who would tell them how badly they're f*cking up, but I just can't believe that's the root problem. This was just such lazy, terrible writing and such undisciplined, lame... _everything_... No matter how insulated you are from criticism, could you actually make that movie, sit down in front of it and say, "Yay, it's good"? I won't even go into the issue of how anyone could greenlight that totally worthless script (except to reiterate: _20_years_... It took _20_years_ to pick *that* script... )

    A colossal disappointment, even knowing of the travesty of the neo-Star Wars movies. There were _ideas_ that could have been done well, but they were so crushed under the weight of the scattershot, flaying, wallowing, and above all _lazy_ writing, they never had a chance.

    And again, it was no favor bringing Karen Allen out again. She looked great, but seriously, Wow. Spaced-out, crazy old hippy lady who owns a yarn-store that smells like cat-pee. I'm not even postive she knew where she was.

    And why create a character designed to look like Brando in "The Wild One," and then abandon every aspect of that character 2 seconds after introducing him (oh, well, except that he combs his hair a lot... You know, cuz that's what kids did in the 50's... ) It was like the whole character was the intro shot, and after that they had nothing. And why couldn't they just _let_him_ be that guy? Franchise plans notwithstanding, having him be a vine-swinging, swordfighting, genius everything just made the character even more boring. He was nothing because they tried to make him everything.

    Um, and doesn't Lucas, the former Modesto hot-rodder and creator of "American Graffiti" have a little more insight into mid-century tough kids?


    And people wonder why there are so many comic-book movies --BECAUSE THE SCRIPT IS ALREADY WRITTEN!! Nobody in Hollywood can write for crap anymore, even the ones who used to excell at it.

    And get off my dang lawn!

    • cattycritic says:

      This really sums up my reaction: "_20_years_... It took _20_years_ to pick *that* script... "

      I understand what they were doing - this was pure 1950's cheesy comic book adventure story.

      Problem is, audiences going to see it are not pre-space-age, wide-eyed, model-rocket-playing, "I Like Ike," just after V-J-Day 13 year old boys.

      We're quite a bit more sophisticated, and none of us who was a child for Raiders is a Baby Boomer. So the nostalgia was lost on most of us, and it just seemed silly. Shia's greaser persona was pure 2-D stereotype, and there was no buildup of anything anywhere - physical skill, mystery, difficulty, plot...

      I don't agree that Raiders was "just as cheesy." I have the box set at home and I've watched Raiders and Last Crusade several times (I won't watch Temple of Doom). Raiders stands the test of time for me but Crusade barely holds up.

  10. sclatter says:

    Raiders of the Lost Ark was a genuinely great movie. But Temple of Doom and Last Crusade were both right in the same class as Crystal Skull. Did you really expect some miraculous return to Lost Ark greatness? Really?

    I went to see it in a big group, and when we came out everyone but my husband and I were griping about it. I didn't get it. You go to a super-blockbuster mass-marketed movie and expect it NOT to cater to the lowest common denominator? What?

    Indiana Jones is what it is. With proper expectations, it's entirely possible to enjoy it for the good points.

    • unwoman says:

      Yeah, I pretty much agree with this comment. This movie was a lot better than Temple of Doom, but worse than Arc or Crusade, I think. Sequels are tricky, but making a sequel 20-something years after the fact, I lower my expectations a lot based on that. It's just a fun time. The mystical stuff and physics don't make sense. The actress playing Marian looks like a mom and forgot how to act. All of these things I found forgivable.

    • jwz says:

      I liked Last Crusade. It wasn't as good as Raiders, but it had some fine moments, and Connery was perfect.

  11. rcr203 says:

    Well, at first I was like "Aliens? Oh, geeze."

    But then, looking back on the series, each one had a level of mysticism in them, and they were all based on some sort of unresolved legend (the Ark, the stones, the Cup).

    If anything, this kept more with the Ark story. They didn't just make up the whole aliens-influenced-the-early-Indian pyramids-and-ways-of-life thing.

    Here it was aliens, the Ark was ghosts flying around melting faces. While there was probably a bit too much CGI, and the monkey-like humanoid crypt defenders were sort of thrown in there, I'd have to say the script stayed truer to the original than Doom or Final.

    • jwz says:

      I have no problem with aliens, or even with (what I imagine was) the eight sentence treatment of the script. Shame they made such a shit movie out of it, though.

  12. fantasygoat says:

    The quest just seemed too easy. There was none of the awesome mis-direction or map room greatness. Basically they just followed him around, and every clue was just spelled out for him.

    Also, Commies just aren't scary like Nazis.

    • elusis says:

      I loved the bit where he was despairing about reading the note his colleague sent... "maybe I could read some of it if I run it through Mayan first...." then he looks away for a moment and starts spouting the text of the note! It was almost as good as the bit in the asylum where he mysteriously determined that the random scratches on the floor were a drawing of the graveyard where the skull was buried.

      And by "loved" I mean "barely held myself back from shouting things at the screen during."

  13. loosechanj says:

    I'm feeling really smug in my didn't even bother jeans right now.

  14. revglenn says:

    Shortly before going to see the movie I re-watched all the other movies to remind myself that, despite all my childhood memories, ALL Indiana Jones movies are cheesy, over the top, and flawed in the ways of continuity and logic. It should also be noted that although Sallah was not quite a "side-kick", he was close enough and he was quite a doofus. I don't even need to mention Short Round in this area. This means that the only movie where the side-kick was actually cool was Last Crusade, but then the return of Sallah with the added element of Marcus Brody almost made up for it.
    So, in going to the movie I was expecting an over-the-top cheese fest with an obligatory douche of a side-kick. I was not disappointed in the least and found the movie to be a lot of fun. I thought Ford did a great job playing the older Indy, I thought the idea of using Aliens instead of Christianity was cool, and I loved Cate Blanchett as the main villain. In fact, I think she is my favorite of all the Indiana Jones villains. I definitely felt it was a worthy addition to the Indiana Jones franchise.
    That being said, I would not be going to a theater to see a Mutt Williams movie.

  15. niban says:

    I was secretly hoping this flick would not fucking blow. I mean I love Indy!

    Alas, it was not to be. The magical team of Lucas/Spielberg didn't rape my childhood memories, but they sure came on hard, tongue kissed me with too much saliva, and grabbed my ass too soon and too hard.

    I mean I get the Aliens. To me thats no more unbelievable than the Ark's mystical power, or the zombie guard of the cup of that guy Christ.

    But seriously; everything was bullocks!

    after the flick i heard a guy "i am jew and this is tough to say, but I miss the Nazis"

    He survives a nuclear blast?! Who thought that was a good fucking idea? He might as well have fought a Predator.

    Hang on, I think I am on to something. Indy v. Predator v. Rambo!
    Those tickets will sell billions!!!

  16. pawliger says:

    You, sir, insult all walking dishrags with that remark. What pisses me off is seeing the initial box-office for this P.O.S. is Spielberg and Lucas both phoned it in - apparently collect.

  17. gwynjudd says:

    You guys are crazy. First off, Temple of Doom totally kicked ass. And secondly, the ending of Raiders was kind of lame.

  18. wikkit42 says:

    I've been comparing it to the crystal skull plot of SG-1 crossed with the first X-Files movie, just because the ending couldn't be much more similar.

    Now I wonder if the new X Files movie is going to be Stargate fanfic as well.

  19. schoschie says:

    The first 30 minutes were excellent fun. After that, it was alright.

    I think you cannot enjoy that kind of movie if you think too much about the story, logic, continuity, etc. I used to do that and it ruined many movies for me. So nowadays I just turn my brain off and wait to be entertained. And very entertaining it was.

    There were at least two Russians sitting right behind me (at least they were speaking a slavic language that sounded a lot like Russian). I couldn't stop wondering about what they were thinking.

  20. neko_special says:

    Did Harrison Ford really wield a whip made out of CGI?

  21. Temple of Doom was second only to the original, and severely underrated. It's sad to see some people feeling that there really is "No time for love, Dr. Jones."