Shia LeBeouf Feels Bad About Indy 4

Well the refridgerator that survived a nuclear explosion and the ancient aliens didn't help...

May 17 - 04:09 AM

The most recent Indy film was an absolute pile of garbage. I'm glad he is honest about it, that actually makes me respect him a little.

May 17 - 04:35 AM

Daniel Klooster

I didn't mind aliens being a part of an Indy movie, but yeah, most of the action sequences and the absurdness wasn't selling like it did in the first three. I still blame bad writing and screenplay. I'm glad Shia recognizes the shortcomings. I'd like to hear this level of honesty from Ford, Speilberg, and Lucas also.

May 17 - 05:44 AM

Chad W

Well, for one, while Shia is 'refreshingly' honest about his last couple movies, he should really stop biting the hand that's feeding him, otherwise he'll be out of a job. On that note though, considering that he's probably one of the major flaws with both films that he's apologizing for, maybe he should take the hint and stop acting.

May 17 - 05:58 AM

Ryan Rutherford

How dare you insult Louis from Even Stevens?!?!?!?!

May 17 - 09:42 AM

Matthew Bertram

In his youth Ford was never shy about his issues with the movies he did (Blade Runner was great, I think, in part because Ford kicked up such a fuss about some of the things he felt were just dumb). Probably as an aging actor, trying to secure a legacy, he may be a bit more reserved in how honest he is about those opinions.

Of course, now he just needs to apologize for Eagle Eye and all will be forgiven.

May 17 - 05:59 AM

Pat Marion

lol. Totally agree.

I like Shia a lot. It was indeed the writers fault for Indy 4 but honestly, could you pass up a role in a Steven Spielberg film ? I don't blame him for taking it and I respect that he feels bad about it.

I also thought it was honest about TF2, that series is still going and he already apologized for it haha.

The kid has a bright future and he'll be around for some time.

May 17 - 06:13 AM

Chad W

dude, blade runner was really, really slow... good story, but it needed some panache!

May 18 - 09:59 AM

Chad W

Let's be honest here, his acting isn't top notch. His quirky, ADHD acting is okay for a few scenes, but he can't carry a movie on his own. He's okay for a few minutes, but after that he just gets annoying.

May 17 - 06:33 AM

Don't Tase Me Bro

Hear, hear! Can you imagine being a script writer for a studio and being told, "Alright, the next film is going to star Shia, so...get to work on it."

Writing dialogue for that dude must be impossible...

May 17 - 07:13 AM

peter liu

I think indie 4 was bad because it was a sticken sequel. the major problem with a sequel is that everyone in the sticken audience knows the main character is going to survive, thus making the whole adventure seem like a freaking road runner cartoon. another major problem is probably harrison ford because the man just looks like he may have an infarction after every punch he throws.

May 17 - 06:40 AM

Josh Quarles

What does sticken mean?

May 17 - 07:52 AM

Agustin Macias

Really? Why are you apologizing for past summer movies that didn't deliver to fans? Are you trying to get respect from those fans? Are you trying to get more serious roles over popcorn flick roles? But you're not complaining about getting a lot of money from those movies, right?

May 17 - 06:55 AM

Matthew Bertram

Uh, I'm not really quite sure where you're going with the bitterness. He's an actor. An A-list actor. He gets a lot of money for what he does. He also seems to care about what he's presenting to us. I imagine it's a tough place being an actor. You are exactly what audiences are associating with on-screen. But what you say, do, and present on screen are mostly at the discretion of the director/producers/writers. What little wiggle room you have is in how you act through those scenes (which he admitted was on him, and he failed on).

He just acts on sets, he wouldn't know what the final product looked like until he sees it just like the rest of us. So of course he has to apologize for past movies. Besides, it's not like he's going to say something to the press during the filming or marketing of the movie. He's genuine, but not stupid.

Maybe his roles have left too bitter a taste in your mouth, but I respect that he's not like some other A-list actors who cling to interviews about how groundbreaking and amazing their new movies are when we all know they're crap.

As for getting out of popcorn flicks, I think he has a pretty ranged set of films already. Bobby; The Greatest Game Ever Played; New York, I Love You (altough not a great movie); he even played a young Robert Downey Jr. in a little-known drama. Not to mention working with Oliver Stone in the Wall Street sequel. Of course he's best known for popcorn flicks, that's why they're popcorn flicks. Docu-dramas about golf don't make a billion dollars at the box office, robots fighting do.

May 17 - 07:26 AM

Vinnie Oliveri

i think it's reasonable to be suspicious of any actor who spends their press tour apologizing for the big movies they've been in. the headlines have all been referring to what he's apologizing for rather than the movie he's going to be in. could be the editors putting a slant on an interview, but it doesn't strike me as sincere. it strikes me as calculated.

May 17 - 07:40 AM

Jason Wilkerson

The impression I got from the interview was that it was just at Cannes that he was apologizing for his role in Indy, and it was more in response to the fact that the last time he was at Cannes the new Indy film was premiering there. Also, it had partially to do with the fact that he was involved in resurrecting another classic old film. It's not like he's going on every stop for Wall Street and complaining about Indy, it really just seems like they asked about it.

May 17 - 02:27 PM

Mathias N/A

Can he just apologize for his whole career and be done with it already?

May 17 - 07:24 AM

Agustin Macias

Yeah, looks like he's going on that route.

May 17 - 07:48 AM

Jared Richardson

I will never understand the hate for Indy 4 and I think Shia is being way too hard on himself. Indy 4 was the natural progression of the series. It was EXACTLY the same as the other movies, yet everyone treats it like the outcast. "Aliens? Surviving a nuke in a fridge? This isn't Indiana Jones! This movie sucks!" Have you WATCHED the other Indy movies? They are just as ridiculous.

I've yet to hear anyone come up with an explanation for why aliens (excuse me, dimensional travelers) is so much more implausible than magic rocks, a cup that grants immortality, and God in a box. Plus, it holds just as much historical relevance as the others since the idea of martian invaders was so prevalent in 50s pop culture.

As far as the fridge thing goes, did you all miss the part where Indy survived a plane crash by getting in a raft and sailing down the Himalayas in Temple of Doom? Nothing new to see here, people.

I think everyone just could not get past the idea that Indy was older and that his world/adventures had changed with him, a fact which Spielberg and Lucas seemed to understand very well. They went to great lengths to make it clear that they understood that Indy was old, yet he's still the one and only Indiana Jones that we've come to know and love (see Shia trying to take Indy's hat at the end). It's everyone else who was too close-minded to be pleased with anything that wasn't Raiders pt. 2.

May 17 - 08:18 AM

Agustin Macias

I'm with you. Why so much hate for Indy 4? If God and magic exists, it's more likely aliens would exist too. I mean, we have a higher chance of meeting an alien than a spiritual being. And I don't mean of the illegal kind.

May 17 - 08:25 AM

Chad W

I personally enjoyed Indy 4. It felt much more like Temple of Doom than the others, and a bit thrown together. But it's Indy. Ford has a charisma with that character, and damned if I don't thoroughly enjoy seeing him in that role, even in the weaker films of the series. I say bring on Indy 5, kill Shia (while he's unearthing something) at the beginning giving Indy motivation to take revenge and to go back to his cold, calculated, sly, humorous 'Indy' that we grew up with. And then actually have him die at the end too, just so we can finally have closure on the character.

May 17 - 08:37 AM

Brian Lorenzen

Fair enough. I felt pretty good about it until Shia began vine swinging with monkeys. I woke up from the honeymoon right there and couldn't get back into it.

May 17 - 02:20 PM

Agustin Macias

Yeah, the monkey swinging scene was stupid, but brief. I actually thought it was going to reveal that Mutt's fear was monkeys, but no.

May 17 - 05:51 PM

JIM GRONEFELD

Here, here Jared. I thought it was a worthy entry. The 1950s were very, very different from the 1930s. The movies were also different. Indy 4 recognized those differences and the fact that people age. The plot and the sometimes cheesy special effects were an intentional homage to the sci-fi films of the fifties. A lot of that went right over the heads of many people who frankly just didn't get it.

May 17 - 09:02 AM

Agustin Macias

No one could have said it better, well done.

May 17 - 05:53 PM

Mark Marquis

Thank you Jared for saying what many of us feel about Indy 4. It really isn't that much of a departure from the other Indy films. I didn't care for some of it and the FX work was inconsistent (the entire Jungle chase DID look like a Roadrunner cartoon), but the movie had respectable critical approval and massive box office appeal. You can't even point to Indy fanboys as the ones complaining about it since you'll find plenty here (myself included) who felt satisfied with it as an entry in the series. I understand why some were let down. I just don't share their view.

May 17 - 09:09 AM

Tall Cool One !

Well said. And ditto.

May 17 - 01:19 PM

Harold Lawrence

I completely agree with Jared, Indy 4 was no more unrealistic as the other movies and it was just as fun. Why do people take these films so seriously, they're just movies and nothing more. I, for one, thought the movie was great and I saw it twice on opening day. Better than Temple of Doom but not as good as Raiders or Last Crusade. But you know the old saying, opinions are like ******* - everyone's got one (including Shia).

May 17 - 01:21 PM

May 17 - 01:23 PM

May 17 - 01:27 PM

May 17 - 01:31 PM

sorry about that.

May 17 - 01:33 PM

Don't Tase Me Bro

Don't apologise; your quote was just 4x more agreeable with Jared than the others.

May 18 - 01:32 AM

Greg Thomas

It's not the aliens or the fridge- its the bad dialogue and poor CGI that ruin it. If think the jokes and moments of wit aren't so forced and sterile in that movie, well then you probably like Transformers as well.

May 17 - 02:39 PM

Greg Thomas

"If you* think...". Some of my good friends aren't bothering my ham handed dialogue like that... but I believe that would be the main general concern with the film.

May 17 - 02:41 PM

David Finnila

I will also jump on the Jared bandwagon. Indy 4 was entertaining and really was no better or worse than any of the previous entries. I have seen and heard a lot of hate for it, but I re-watched the 1st 3 before seeing the 4th and it was exactly what I expected from the series.

As for Shia, I respect that he is being honest, but at the same time I do not agree that Indy 4 dropped the ball or that he was any worse than his other films. He "can" act but most of the films I have seen him in he has been about the same. Though so is most of Hollywood.

May 17 - 05:45 PM

Alexandra Borrero

I couldn't get through this whole movie after seeing the refrigerator scene. Totally lame.

May 17 - 08:54 AM

Gimy Moo

the reason indy 4 sucked wasn't the aliens, or the fridge scene...which was retarded, it was how it was executed. it just seemed forced and rushed just to make a quick buck.

the scene where the whole family argued was brutal. it was Uwe Boll-esque. actually, it was worse...it was George Lucas-esque. and some of the action just seemed stupid as well. if you're going for campy, go for it. they didn't know what they were going for it seemed. serious? comedy? drama? it was just a mess. for me it was just a bad movie.

and there were other movies that have done a similar "fall from up high and land on snow and ride" type of scene. but only one where you sit in a fridge and survive a nuke. what next? a walmart grocery bag to survive a chemical weapon attack? to me, it was a george lucas movie and thats not a compliment. it was on par with the menace/clones/sith. poorly executed, laughable dialogue, and cgi action that just seems shoddy.

i know you die hard fans swear Lucas wasn't that involved but the same "wtf?" moments i saw in the star wars prequels are the same "wtf?" moments i saw in Indy 4. i can't imagine how bad the next sequel will be...

May 17 - 09:45 AM

Not Likely

So closing your eyes will protect you from the boogie men in the lost ark?

Some dude a few posts up posted an excellent argument against these constant 'problems' everyone has with Indy 4.. yet they ignore the crazy stuff that happened in previous movies?

Hey, I can rip your heart of your chest with my bare hand!

May 17 - 01:39 PM

A B

Just put "I believe" in front of all of his assertions. I would think that was almost boilerplate for all internet posts. Maybe that would smooth things out.

You can practice with my statements and see both how well it works and how it softens their tone:

The movie was a letdown. The opening scene with nuke and fridge was far worse than hands snatching hearts. The grave defenders should not have been scared away by a single gunshot. It would be a crappy existence to be forever hiding inside false statues ready to break out and attack some explorers. This is far different than an active albeit strange mine with roller coasters and vodoo foreman. The killer ants scene was completely random and silly. Mr. Ford spent half the movie mugging for the camera. The triple or perhaps quadruple-cross by Ray Winstone grew tiresome. The aquatic car waterfall scene had a tone reminiscent of lightsaber folk falling hundreds of feet in a city scape or small tripod robots sprouting jetpacks.

See how putting "I believe" in front of each of those statments makes it more palatable?

May 18 - 12:07 PM

King Crunk

Well if he thought it was idiotic, why not speak up about it?

May 17 - 10:07 AM

jeremy burnside

well there was alot of things wrong with indy 4, but he was the worst part about it.

May 17 - 10:09 AM

Kirk McCarty

You've gotta be ****ing joking.

May 17 - 10:14 AM

Alex Lynch

So you are saying the aliens, a monkey chase scene through the trees, indestructible nuclear resistant fridge, giant man-eating ants, the cumbersome ensemble cast romp through the jungle, the 2 dimensional rehashed villains and the lack of any charm present in the original movies, were not the biggest negatives of the movie?

May 17 - 02:04 PM

Agustin Macias

The ants were bigger than usual but not giants.

May 17 - 05:56 PM

A B

maybe that's the scientific term for the insects we saw devouring extras "giant man-eating ants" I mean, giant anteaters are big, but not necessarily giant. All I know is ants really do not like alien biology--it's really the only thing they won't try and eat.

May 18 - 12:11 PM

Daniel Klein

Re: Leboeuf-

I respect the honesty involved in lambasting one of his own movies, but if he keeps a) making movies that need to be apologized for and b) apologizing for them after they've been released and made him money, I'm going to a) assume whatever he's going to be in is going to suck and b) stop believing he's sorry.

..sorry about the bulleting. Not really, but a little.

May 17 - 10:09 AM

anonymous anonymous

Nice to see him saying these things, but I really blame the writing much more than him. And while the direction isn't bad, Spielberg should have made a stink and insisted on a better script.

Now if only The Beef would do the same with both transformers movies and admit how bad they were...but he's working on the sequel right now...

May 17 - 10:18 AM

Martin Tam

I'm a little tired of him apologizing for movies that are bad (Transformers 2, Indy 4). I just wish he'll take better roles in films instead of that geeky teenage boy salivating over every girl.

May 17 - 10:32 AM

James C.

Indy 4 was an okay, fun blockbuster, yet it did not live up to the great legacy. Some of this was the writing, but none of it was the acting! The original trilogy had an classic craftmanship to it right down to the scale models and the matte paintings. Spielberg abandoned that for slick modern technology that audiences have become used to, but no matter how well those are used - - it just isn't Indy. I blame Spielberg 100% for the movie's being more of a C+ rather than the A it could have been. Maybe the next one.

I like LeBeouf alright. He does speak his mind a great deal, but he holds himself to the same standards. He's not my favorite actor, but he's grown on me over the years. We'll see what happens to his career now that he's critiqued two of his blockbuster movies!

May 17 - 10:33 AM

Dave J

I agree with "Jared R." 100% except that I got a little more than what he was saying!! I thought that it was a great idea to bring Karen Allen back to the series because I felt Kate Capshaw and Alison Doody are a little one- note and I liked the whole notion of what we could've recovered, had it not been covered up by the sea!

May 17 - 10:58 AM

joe schmoe

Indy 4 was unforgivable, even by escapist entertainment standards. It had none of the charm of the original films. Making excuses for it by saying it was meant to emulate the time period of the 50s is just wrong.

May 17 - 11:01 AM

Dave J

Jay Sherman
And how would you know that, were you even there during the 50's!! And I suppose "Men in Black" is the better entertaining film by comparison!!

May 17 - 11:17 AM