ROTTEN TOMATOES: Indiana Jonesin': How Does the Latest Chapter Measure Up? Comments

Indiana Jonesin': How Does the Latest Chapter Measure Up?

by Jen Yamato | May 21, 2008

Summary

Everyone has their favorite Indiana Jones movie -- and their own thoughts on if Raiders of the Ark is better than Last Crusade. (Sorry, Temple of Doom -- there's no contest). So how does this week's long-awaited third sequel, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, measure up to its predecessors? Back to Article

(101-120 of 144 posts) | Reply

Arnie Tracey writes:
on May 23 2008 09:54 AM

In reply to this comment (#1746428)
Matty Boy,

I'm afraid that No Insults have I detected. So no offense taken.

As for my character, who anointed you the new Sigmund Freud.

I'd like to say, "You don't know me." But that's too easy.

I'll write you off as a random fan-boy with moxie. Keep it up. But try and make sense next time.

Just because something happened does not make it right. Aushwitz, Poland happened. How right was that? NanKing, China happend. How right was that?

Despite your straight As, your original thinking is very poor, even for random fan-boy.

How can Selleck ever happen. Stating the obvious proves that your As are based on regurgitating what you have read, not on original thought.

So you are irrelevant for thinking that Steven Spielberg's original choice is not as good as your, Matty-boy's choice.

Nothing to get over: Fate intervened. Selleck lost. Harrison won.

And fan-boy extrodinaire, one Matanuki is as pliant in the theatre as he is in class.

Just keep regurgitating anything you see or read, Mat-Mat, you'll lead a dull, pedestrian, but well-off life with a seriously bored life and cookie cutter kids who love Harrison also.

Only immature fan-boy adoration of their father-figure: Harrison Ford.

(Reply to this)

TrippSmyth writes:
on May 23 2008 10:05 AM

In reply to this comment (#1746688)
Mr. & Mrs. B
I have to agree with this. Roger Ebert's review on Crystal Skull is on the money. In fact to take it a step further no critic seems to get what the Indiana Jones series is more than Roger Ebert, I suggest reading his reviews on all the films.

(Reply to this)

Arnie Tracey writes:
on May 23 2008 10:07 AM

In reply to this comment (#1748282)
To: Fan-Boy #1 Matanuki:

Correction: "... seriously bored Wife ..."

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on May 23 2008 10:35 AM

In reply to this comment (#1748300)
Your posts are hilarious, Arnie. And the riffs on my screenname, classic. Now mind you, I'm not even being sarcastic here. I really do enjoy your posts. Adds levity to a dry hour.

Not sure however where you get the part about my choice being better than Spielberg's. Beg pardon, but I don't remember choosing anything. Rather, like most others here, I just watched a few movies and liked em.

I'm well aware of the backstory on how Harrison Ford wound up getting the part for Indiana Jones. And if I or anyone else didn't before, we all certainly do now. Thanks, Arnie. But still, and maybe this will cost me a letter grade, I fail to see how any of it matters now. Details, Arnie. Old news. Irrelevent. A big "so what?!".

Mind you, I've nothing against Tom Selleck. He was and is a great Magnum P.I. :-)

Now, as for my comment about character. It's true, I don't know you. No more of course than you know me. All we have are these boards and the way we choose to carry ourselves on them. Going out of one's way to make snide, foundationless, and unprovoked remarks about someone else's life, intelligence level, etc, simply because they disagree with you on a handful of random movie facts? I'll let you be the judge of that, chief.

(Reply to this)

haynese writes:
on May 23 2008 10:50 AM

Wow, there's a lot of debate here about which Indiana Jones movie was the best. I wonder, has this debate been going on for the last 20 years or only now since KOTCS is out? Okay, I don't want to be left out so here's my take on the first three.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) - Very, very good movie...which happened to be released during a very tough time for the movie industry. True, Movie going business was way down in 1981 and Indy was just about the only bona fide hit that year. I remember Siskel and Ebert and other media types talking about how to save the movie industry LOL! Anyway, back to the movie. It was excellent, I really enjoyed it, especially the beginning where Indy barely escaped the Giant Rolling ball. There were a few boring scenes like Indy teaching at the University but obviously Spielberg had to set up the plot. Karen Allen was good but she wasn't as appealing to me as most everyone else and she's a weakness in the movie imo. I know I'm PO'ing a lot of folks but I'm trying to be fair here. A lot more action and chase scenes with the finale of the NAZI's getting melted at the end. I really enjoyed the movie, Harrison Ford was PERFECT as Indiana Jones but it just misses being one of the GREAT movies I rank as a 9 or 10 out of 10. I give it a very respectable 8.

Temple of Doom - GREAT MOVIE! I'll start it this way. The action packed beginning of this movie is UNMATCHED in cinematic history. From Indy almost getting poisoned to jumping out a ten story window into Short Rounds taxi to the Airport and off to the Himalayas where they all jump out via an inflatable raft onto a mountain where they slide down into an Indian river. This scene alone practically assured it of a Great Movie for me. Now, I know people like to whine about how grusome or dark it is but it really wasn't all that bad. What happened in this case is something called "Group Think". Group Think is where everyone goes along with a consensus and they allow other people (the GROUP) to think for them. Think Charles Manson or the Nazi's or girls fainting when they saw a Beetle concert. come on, think for yourself, don't let anybody do it for you. Anyway, TOD is not really all that dark, but it was a time where they didn't have a rating between PG and R so it really got a lot of attention. Add the first chase scene to the last where they're chasing in mine cars and with all the great Indy acting in the middle to include where he's about to get broiled PLUS the great final final scene on the rope bridge and you get a FANTASTIC MOVIE! I give it a 9 out of 10. VERY RARE!

Last Crusade - Great Movie! Once again, the beginning chase scene is fantastic, River Phoenix was great as a young Indy and it was very funny and exciting. Indy's chase scene in the boat, Indy's chase scene under the Library, Indy's tank chase scene. All these are INCREDIBLE! Add in a superb performance by Sean Connery as Indy's father and a spooky encounter with the Knight of the first crusade over the magical Grail cup, remember it turned out to be a plain cup with a gold interior, worthy of a humble carpenter! ANyway, all this adds up to be an EXCELLENT MOVIE. A 9 out of 10!

Okay, there you have it, my ratings for the first three movies. I'll see the fourth one tonight and I'd love to see a 9 but I have a feeling I'm going to see a 7 or 8. Regardless, I can't wait to see Indy one more time!

(Reply to this)

claykeough writes:
on May 23 2008 11:21 AM

Was it just me, Or did Indy just play as a historical tour guide in what felt like a Disney ride ?? I'm so confused I don't know what to think..Did I dream that I saw KOTCS? Sure did feel like a weird dream..Sombody please agree with me!!!???

(Reply to this)

JKreut writes:
on May 23 2008 11:39 AM

I have to agree with the order Raiders, Crusade, Temple. I tend to think the original of any installment is usually the best. One exception to that rule is LOTR Return of the King. And I'll repeat what my mom used to say about Harrison Ford - "Now that's a man!" Yeslm6ft7: I have to tell you I was watching the history channel the other day and they had a piece on the legend of the crystal skulls. Apparently the man (I forget his name, the skull is named after him) who found the first skull was an archeologist and was looking for the lost city of Atlantis when he and his daughter discovered the skull. As for the alien theory, it is considered to be impossible that the skulls were created by any tool man possesses. Anywho, just thought I'd mention it.

(Reply to this)

Arnie Tracey writes:
on May 23 2008 03:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#1748361)
Your posts are hilarious,
-Coming from you that's a real eye opener.

Arnie. And the riffs on my screenname,
-Ah yes: Anonymity: Last refuge of the secure.

classic.
-Agreed.

Now mind you, I'm not even being sarcastic here.
-Hard to believe. [Me neither.]

I really do enjoy your posts.
-As well you should.

Adds levity to a dry hour.
-Bars opening soon?

Not sure however where you get the part about my choice being better than Spielberg's.
-You're 4square for Ford. Ford was plan B. You challenged [unsuccessfully] my thesis that Spielberg's 1st choice -- Selleck -- was best. Hence, you think you know more than Steven. Which is why you remain anonymous.

Beg pardon, but I don't remember choosing anything.
-Read your own posts. Selective amnesia or what?!

Rather, like most others here, I just watched a few movies and liked em.
-You watch a lot of movies. And you love them all. Because they allow you to identify with a hero, a man you'll never be. No harm in that.

I'm well aware of the backstory on how Harrison Ford wound up getting the part for Indiana Jones.
-I doubt it. If you were you would not be so eager to diss Speilbergs choice of Selleck. You think you're better than Steven don't you?

And if I or anyone else didn't before, we all certainly do now.
-Yeah. We do. Great.

Thanks, Arnie.
-Most welcome Matty-san.

But still, and maybe this will cost me a letter grade, I fail to see how any of it matters now.
-It matters b/c everyone has an opinion: You disagree with Steven. And I happen to agree w/ him. Character assassination notwithstanding!

Details, Arnie.
-Opinions. People got them. Speilberg opined that Selleck was the man. You opine that he [Speilberg] was dead wrong and that Ford was always the better choice. I think Speilberg should consult you from now on.

Old news.
-History has ended for you. If it was not released this week, you don't want to see it. I can hear you now, "Bogart?!! Who dat?!!"

Irrelevent.
-No. I said it before and I'll say it again: You're irrelevant, Mattress.

A big "so what?!".
-What are you, in kindergarten?

Mind you, I've nothing against Tom Selleck. He was and is a great Magnum P.I. :-)
-On behalf of all Magnum fans -- Gee, mister, you're swell!

Now, as for my comment about character.
-Yeah. What's that about?

It's true, I don't know you.
-True.

No more of course than you know me.
-I know that you have a terminal case of "Last-Word-itis"

All we have are these boards and the way we choose to carry ourselves on them.
-And I must say, that you comport yourself as if you own all thought on this board. A god-complex, if you will.

Going out of one's way to make snide, foundationless, and unprovoked remarks about someone else's life,
-Or character, as you did.

intelligence level,
-Hey! "A"s are good marks.

etc,
-It's your etc that needs work. Nothing a complete psych. workup could not cure. Hey! I'm starting to sound like you.

simply because they disagree with you on a handful of random movie facts?
-All in fun, Mattress, all in fun. We all love the franchise, and we are all killing a bit of time.

-Nothing serious or personal happens here. Just a yuck or a yikes on occasion.

I'll let you be the judge of that, chief.
I've got your chief, chief!

(Reply to this)

tabascoman77 writes:
on May 23 2008 03:22 PM

I loved every minute of the new Indy. Not the best by any means...some parts were just downright silly and cheesy...but so were many moments in the last three.

I loved it.

I also have to agree with Roger Ebert's "sausage" theory in his review. If you ate four pounds of sausage and then was asked which pound was the best, you'd obviously say the first one was the best because the interest in eating the rest slowly diminishes. Now if you ate the other sausage first, you probably would have thought THAT was the best.

Interesting way to put it and I have to say that it's the best I would no how to describe it. :)

(Reply to this)

R-viewer writes:
on May 23 2008 05:27 PM

In reply to this comment (#1748113)
Sorry but have to disagree. The fact that Ford isn't a "pretty boy with era good looks" is EXACTLY what makes him the Only Indy there will ever be. He's not perfect. He's flawed both physically (crooked nose and smile, scar, cute butt tough..Anyway, I digress...) and somewhat emotionally. This makes him the Ultimate reluctant, anti-hero. That quality endears him to the audience. The everyman, who all guys can see in themselves, and all women wish to take care of. I think Sellec is a great looking guy, and would probably have done a wonderful job, but somehow I don't see him using the self-depricating humor and sarcasm in the same way Ford does. He is just dripping with the stuff and plays it to the hilt, much to the delight of all the fans.
Depth comes out of the soul, not just with a pretty face.

(Reply to this)

Mr. RePlay writes:
on May 23 2008 09:54 PM

In reply to this comment (#1743990)
I enjoyed the Temple of Doom just as much as the rest of the Indiana Jones films and I like the darkness and violent nature of the movie. I believe you are referring to the scene in Raiders in which Indy shoots the sword-welding guy in the marketplace, right? Why would that be harsh, seeing that you enjoyed the heart-ripping scene in TOD?

(Reply to this)

dreadful writes:
on May 23 2008 11:45 PM

I agree with what somebody on here said earlier: a lot of the reviews for the first three films were written long after the films achieved classic status: in other words, long after everybody had already agreed that they were great and which ones were the greatest.

RotLA is still my favorite, but I watched it recently and it has problems: most noticeable the music. They played that theme song over and over and over all through the movie. It got really tiresome. It seemed like any little excuse and 'here comes the Indy theme again'. Still, it had greatness: the spiders, the giant ball, Indy reaching for his hat, the airplane fight, the map room and so much more, AND it had a super ending.

ToD is, in my opinion, the weaker film, in large part because there was an awful lot of 'hokey' going on, especially with Bad Indy. However, the dinner table negotiation over ashes and antidotes was genius. The rail-cars at the end was brilliant, and it has one of my favorite Indy scenes: the rope-bridge. 'Hang on, Lady. We're goin' for a ride.'

LC is a much softer film, and is beset with a lot of problems. I love Connery, but his character was hopelessly corny. The part about the knight was likewise over the top. Still, it had a lot of heart, and an interesting storyline.

I'm worried about the new film. I've read the spoilers, but somebody made a good point. They said the new film is as much an homage to 1950s films as the first three Indy movies were homages to 1930s cliffhangers. That's a good comment to consider. This movie isn't just another Indy movie. There will be a LOT of differences over the other films in the franchise. However, I think I'll enjoy the movie more if I try to keep in mind that will have a different focus and tone than the previous films. However, that said: Mutt? Mutt? Are you kidding? That's the best, most interesting name you could give us? Mutt? Dear God, help us all.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on May 24 2008 02:39 AM

As most people who've been on this site know I was one of Lucas', Ford's and the series most vocal supporters. Sadly after seeing the movie I have to admit my culpability at least about Lucas and the 4th movie. Ford is still every inch Indiana Jones as much as this stunted plot and mish mash script allow him to be anyway. He, Spielbergs direction and John Williams' score are the only thing that keep this movie from being a poor man's National Treasure. The plot wasn't engaging, the dialog was terrible and uncomfortable notably when Ford was forced to interact with Shia, who although I've liked him in other things was whoafully out of place here (Did I just have a nightmare or did he actually just use the term "Daddy-o"?). I SO wanted this movie to be great, but after reading the Lucas-Spielberg interview in EW my hopes were slightly blunted going in. In the interview Lucas pretty much says fans aren't going to enjoy the movie and that he doesn't make movies to make money or please the fans anymore. WELL YOU NEED TO START DOING THAT AGAIN GEORGE, because this crap that you're producing lately isn't good enough!!!! He's seriously losing his edge. Also in the interview he fairly immaturely IMO makes fun of Spielberg for using film instead of digital to make his movies...Doesn't he get that that old time feel is one of the great aspects of an Indiana Jones movie? I don't care how good CGI gets it's never going to replace a 20 ft tall styrofoam boulder in my heart and the CGI ending to Crystal Skull might have been good if we hadn't already seen it done better in The Mummy 2. I apologise to all the people who I haranged for haranging this movie before it came out. You were right and I was wrong. Spielberg and Ford really need to ditch Lucas if they plan on making any more of these nostalgia flicks. He's definately become the week link in that triumvirate.

(Reply to this)

haynese writes:
on May 24 2008 08:46 AM

Okay, I just Indy 4 and here's my review WITHOUT SPOILERS!

Okay, I'm in Korea and going to a Korean movie theater is quite an experience. In almost every way, Korean movie theaters are better than US theaters. Very clean, nice people, no cursing, organized parking (they have an adorable lady at the parking lot who lifts her hands in the air and does a cute gesture and bow when you take the ticket, almost worth the price of admission alone!). Plus the kids in the theater make it fun too. The movie is in English with Korean Subtitles.

Okay, to the movie. I won't get much into the plot as I don't want to spoil it for others. Right away, it was obvious to me that the vets involved (Spielberg, Lucas, Ford) were pretty rusty. In all fairness, Harrison Ford does a great job with what he can, but he's not given much to work with. Shia LaBeauf, Ray Winstone, Clare Dames, and especially Karen Allen aren't cast very well imo so FORD has to carry the movie on his aging, creaking back. The worst of all was Shia LaBeauf, I probably could've handled the other cast but NOT him. He looked ridiculous as a James Dean type in that leather jacket. I could almost hear FORD groan when Shia spoke his lines.

Let me just stop right here and state the obvious. 19 YEARS? It's WAY too long to make this sequel, Spielberg and the gang probably could've gone 5,7, even 10 years and succeeded with a great Indy movie but 19 years? I was just asking for the impossible. No matter how much Lucas says how he couldn't come up with a MacGuffin or some odd it's way obvious to me he threw his artistic back out long, long ago. Those Star Wars prequels were a joke. The MacGuffin isn't important, it's the plot, the acting, the action, the characters, and the ability to make the movie in a timely manner. My thing is this, if you say you can't come up with a MacGuffin for a movie you're just full of bull. You're a billionaire, just get a few creative Hollywood writers together and sit in a quiet room for 2 or 3 days! And the thing about having someone turn out to be related as a significant plot insertion isn't new and doesn't make the movie any better. George Lucas, are you listening????

Okay, we've got bad characters, bad acting, bad lines, and I'll be honest they didn't do a great job with the plot either. It wasn't really that hard to follow but I tired of it and almost didn't want to even pay attention until the next action scene. On the good side, I liked a couple of the action scenes, especially toward the end as it actually seemed like Ford was really working the rust off but hey, this is Harrison Ford, he's a great actor! The chase scene through the jungle was definitely a crowd pleaser, the Korean kids went wild and I admit I was very excited as well. The Finale was good but I already saw it in the Mummy 2 so it was nothing new. Once again, I'll say that Shia LaBeauf was the one consistent flaw throughout the whole movie. Man, he didn't need to be in this movie!

Okay, 19 years of waiting and now it's over. Indy 4 is a good movie, definitely not great. Frankly, after the Star Wars debacle I'm not really too happy that this movie will gross hundreds and hundreds of million dollars but that's exactly what's going to happen. I agree with bigbrother's comment that Ford and Spielberg should ditch Lucas if they ever make another Indy (very doubtful Ford will do it unless he want's to make amends even though I state again, this movie ain't Ford's fault, he did great under the circumstances) as this this movie has Lucas flaws written all over it. I give it a 7.

(Reply to this)

Kung_fugue writes:
on May 24 2008 10:17 AM

Indiana Jones has always been the most self-indulgent, obnoxious and egotistical pap I've ever seen, being a mish-mosh of film noir, ostentatious sensationalism, and Spielberg's typical kicking of the Germans after they're defeated because he's grinding his Jewish axe, just like in Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List. It's like any cartoon made during the war, except that it's live-action and the war's been over for 60 years. Stupid, whacky and Buggs Bunny-like entertainment for the whole family-- family of apes that share the same chromosomal deficiency, that is.

(Reply to this)

Kung_fugue writes:
on May 24 2008 10:24 AM

Oh yeah: that John Williams "Indiana Jones" theme remindes me of the gay version of the "Colonel Bogey" march (listen to it here and note the difference http://www.midistudio.com/midi/Mel_Webb/Colbogey.mid )

(Reply to this)

JohnnyBeGood writes:
on May 24 2008 10:47 AM

In reply to this comment (#1743990)
Are you talking about the scene in ROTLA when Indy just shoots the guy with the sword? Apparently Harrison Ford had a stomache flu that day so they just had him shoot the guy instead of fighting him, lol. I guess they could have waited to film that scene, haha.

(Reply to this)

dystopian future today writes:
on May 24 2008 12:06 PM

Raiders.

(Reply to this)

jerseycajun writes:
on May 24 2008 02:13 PM

In reply to this comment (#1744821)
People who like this aren't "True" Indiana Jones fans? Who made you the arbiter of such a title, huh? And what these movies are 'about' is nothing more than updated and steroid injected versions of old B movies, and aliens often played into those as well.

I haven't seen it yet, but as long as it qualifies under the above "B" movie description, I'll have no criticisms for that reason whatsoever.

(Reply to this)

MaxRobert writes:
on May 24 2008 03:12 PM

I love Indiana Jones, Raiders and Crusade that is. When I was a kid I even loved Temple, (but not as much as the other two even then, now I only like 1 and 3). Yesterday I saw Crystal Skulls and I was sorely disappointed... This has got to be one of the most overrated movies here on rotten tomatoes, but I'm starting to ignore that once trusty tomato meter. The masses don't always speak the truth, maybe they could just be a bunch of idiots, combined to present a stupid verdict. Think about that ; - )

Spoiler Alert here...
I enjoyed parts of the beginning in this movie, Elvis music, atomic town(NOT THE FRIDGE!), the campus chase sequence...
Alright, I wish the movie makers(Steven George Koepp etc.) could have sticked to that old school film making of the previous movies. This latest movie is just too much CGI(the waterfall sequence UGH!),too little live stunts (except for the chase sequence on the school campus),and props that felt real etc.

The CGI prairie dogs, gophers wat eva, for comic relief, CGI monkeys(with built in villain sense) Shia Tarzan act, felt very late George Lucas. GRRRR... I am starting to absolutely despise CGI. This movie is an example of CGI abuse. Effects yes, but nothing special here only hubris.

Washed out colors(Kaminskys fault i guess), boring silly story(exposition talk talk talk bla bla bla) that made little sense to me. This Alien sucked in Indiana Jones, and I don't care what you people who defend this movie say that it is in the 50's, I didn't like it and the whole finale just felt rushed, a lot in this movie felt rushed. Mac decides to die? That felt sloppy and out of character to me, although his whole nature was sketchy at best. Wedding? Argh. Indiana Jones and Marrion kiss in a most forced manner...

Sorry if you don't agree with me, I just wanted to express my frustration with this movie that ain't Indiana Jones to me... an abomination. Maybe if I was 7 years old I could have liked it, but that is speculation...
Cheers ! : )

(Reply to this)