Indiana Jonesin': How Does the Latest Chapter Measure Up?
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
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
(1-145 of 145 posts) | Reply
on May 21 2008 05:10 PM hm. here's my take on it. i think it depends on the order in which you first saw them in. i saw "TOD" first, when i was about eleven years old, and it was scary, funny and action packed, it had a kid in it, and i watched it over and over again. then i saw "ROTLA" when i was about fourteen, and it didn't have any of these gory things (monkey brains, ripping a heart out, etc. ...), that to me where 'indiana jones'. plus, it had the nazis in it. i'm german, and we just had that chapter in our history class back then, so i couldn't really accept, the nazis, as just being cartoonic (cartoonish?) movie villains. that part of our history was just way too bad, i thought/i think, to just use it as a gimmick in a movie. so i didn't care too much for the first part. "TLC" then was a real dissapointment for me. there were the nazis again :-), no gore and way too much comedy-parts. plus i always thought, that the 700 year old knight was a really stupid idea. so, i think i'm one of the few, who still like the "temple of doom" most, and i'm sure there will be kids, liking the latest installment better than the older movies. (PS: is there anybody but me, who thinks, that the scene, most people think is funny, when he just shoots the karate-guy in the first part, is pretty ... harsh? i mean, he kills him without a fair fight! :-) i never really thought it was funny.) (Reply to this) |
on May 21 2008 05:27 PM Last Crusade is my favorite because of the comedy, the emotional depth, and better developed characters. The tank chase is also my favorite action scene in the whole series. Crystal Skull may be 4th on the Tomatometer, but the reviews for Temple of Doom and Last Crusade at their times supposedly were not as great as the Tomatometer shows now (as is the case with many, especially older movies). Almost any movie pre-1990 by default seems to get at least 20% on the meter. It's like people are retrospectively afraid to badly review older popular movies. So I will guess that Crystal Skull is getting almost on par reviews with Last Crusade back in 1989. Yes, I have put too much thought into this; but, I'm going at midnight tonight, so still am having anxiety. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 05:36 PM In reply to this comment (#1743997) Well said! (Reply to this) |
on May 21 2008 05:46 PM Temple of Doom is an awesome film. (Reply to this) |
on May 21 2008 05:47 PM I think The Last Crusade is my favorite out of the three followed closely by Raiders of the Lost Ark. I loved the chemistry that Ford and Connery had on screen. (Reply to this) |
on May 21 2008 05:50 PM Temple Of Doom may be the worst, but man does it have the best poster. (Reply to this) |
on May 21 2008 06:09 PM In reply to this comment (#1743990) Ok, you probably haven't heard the story yet. This is true. Speilberg had this great fight scene choriographed and ready to go. Harrison Ford had a stomach problem and had to go to the bathroom RIGHT NOW. So he pulled out his gun, shot him and ran off to the bathroom. Speilberg liked it and kept it in the film. The fight sequence got used in TOD with two swordsman. Nothing malicious about it. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 06:13 PM wow, I'm almost shocked to see that nobody has stood up yet to validate Rt's (and most people's) judgement...Raiders is easily the greatest. I have just finished watching the first three (and eagerly anticipate yet am somehow anxious about 'Kingdom'), and I have to agree with the order RT has them pegged. I must say it is a testament to the pure fun of these films that the previous posters all have their own special places in their hearts for these adventures. I definately saw Raiders first as a kid, then temple, but LC was the only one I have seen in theatres. Going back to them as an adult is especially gratifying as I notice all the little comedic moments that i probably missed as a kid (Indy's stumbling his way into the dance number at Club Obi Wan in temple...its genius). Likewise for some of the more artistic touches (such as the great use of shadows and silhouette, especially in Raiders). As I write I realize my love for these movies is even greater than I thought. Have always thought of Star Wars as THE trilogy (damn you george for trying to ruin that), but I now feel there is a new king town (y'know nostalgia town). (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 06:15 PM by the way...i heard it wasn't that he had to go poo right away, but he wasn't feeling well and didn't feel like dancing around doing swordplay in the heat (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 06:55 PM In reply to this comment (#1743997) You guys are close on the story about the swordfighter. They had a giant fight scene planned out that would take a few days of shooting. Ford had dysentery so he asked Spielberg, "Why don't I just shoot the sucker?" Spielberg liked the idea and it stuck. He didn't just shoot the guy ad lib. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 07:00 PM Something else to put "Skull's" rating into perspective. The first three films had 41, 47, and 44 positive reviews respectively (out of 43, 54, and 49 reviews). As of this post, "Skull" has 91 positive reviews out of 118 total. Not only has a lot changed in 19 years regarding filmmaking and special effects, but the critiquing process as a whole has dramatically changed as well. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 07:07 PM I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm excited to. However, after reading a few spoilers and several comments from critics that have seen the movie already - I *can* say I'm already disappointed with the story line and creativity department. Crystal Skulls, Aliens, and Atlantis? Sounds like someone (or maybe two people to be exact) have been watching Stargate SG-1 a little bit. If you're a SG-1 (ran strong for 10 years straight) fan then you'll totally know what I'm talking about! Especially if you've seen the episode, "Crystal Skull" and enjoy watching the SG teams battle it out with aliens and discovering the lost city of Atlantis. I would be a little upset if I was a SG-1 writer/producer, but that's just me. Anyways, I'm still looking forward to giving my $10 to Ford's paycheck since I'm fan. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 07:32 PM In reply to this comment (#1743990) I liked them all, but Raiders more than the others. When I first saw TOD in the theaters, it was quite enjoyable and left me dizzy and exhausted in the end. It was as much a roller coaster ride as any of those at your local theme park. I was a little disappointed with Last Crusade, as the action took a back seat to the emotional elements between father and son. As for the Raiders scene in which the swordsman gets shot, I have to disagree...it was completely funny. What made it so great in the theaters was the collective tension of the audience as they anticipated a fight. That sudden release of energy became riotous laughter, making it one of the most memorable scenes. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 07:35 PM In reply to this comment (#1744048) Let's hope George Lucas doesn't have a change of heart about that fight scene and superimpose Greedo over the swordsman so he'll shoot first. :P (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 09:08 PM In reply to this comment (#1744034) screw you (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 09:24 PM In reply to this comment (#1743990) I agree that TOD is underrated. Yeah, some of the gore and darker elements are off-putting, but it has a lot of brilliant moments. I love the "He'll be back in 5 minutes!" scene, and how the Thugee seems to emerge from the mural in the wall. I don't mind the implausibility of it, because at the very beginning, the future Mrs. Spielberg sings "Anything Goes," and you're either able to roll with that or not. I think enough time had to pass since WWII before Nazis could be used as action-movie villians. I can understand it might seem inappropriate to you. I got a laugh at the scimitar-wielding foe being dispatched quickly, but that's an interesting reaction on your part. That same thing appears in an older movie by a director that Spielberg and Lucas worship. That is: "Seven Samurai" by Akira Kurosawa. In it, seasoned, noble Samurai (note my nick) are felled by superior weaponry, and the feeling is poignant and tragic, for the very reason you mentioned - that it's not a fair fight. Since you had that reaction, I thought I'd recommend the film if you haven't seen it already. But I can enjoy the scene in "Raiders" on the comic-book level on which it's intended. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 09:49 PM Raiders is brilliant, Temple of Doom is a little too dramatic for its own good, and Last Crusade lives off Indy's popularity but does it well. I think Crystal Skull will most resemble Last Crusade, and that's good enough for me. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 09:59 PM In reply to this comment (#1744131) SG-1 is crap, so I guess I have to worry about already having heard the plot, but thank you for bringing it all up here, jerk. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 10:49 PM Raiders is undesputibly the best (although i've always found the last 20 minutes a bit of a drag). Last Crusade is a very loyal sequel. The tank fight is probably the second best action sequence in the trilogy. Temple of Doom is definately a far third. I don't normally have a problem with a darkening tone and gore; but the movie just feels downright mean-spirited for this series. Plus i've always found the kid and whiny chick annoying. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 21 2008 11:40 PM See Roger Ebert's sausage theroy in his movie review of KOTCS. Makes perfect sense. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 12:29 AM Do not see this movie. I am 32 years old, and I grew up wanting to be Indiana Jones. I signed up on this site tonight after seeing KOTCS at the midnight showing only to warn other people to stay away. I will probably post another more insightful comment as soon as I get up tomorrow...you should wait for this movie on cable...I won't even buy it on DVD when it hits the cheap racks...I plan to never watch this again and stick to the original. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 01:17 AM The rank of an Indy movie directly correlates to the importance of its artifact. Thus: 1. Holy Grail 2. Ark of the Covenant 3. Crystal Skull 4. Stupid Glowy Rocks nobody's ever heard about (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 01:24 AM Why Spielberg? Why? Well, I knew the movie wouldn't be great, but I would have never expected the two hour abomination I just witnessed on the screen tonight. I have never found myself more at odds with the critical concensus, than I have for this film. There's no real plot or character development. Marion exists in this movie merely to exploit our nostalgia for Raiders of the Lost Ark, she adds absolutely zero to the movie. Kate Blanchett is a fantastic actress, but she wasn't given anything to work with and the Russians just don't work as well, if at all. The crystal skull is more of a "McGuffin" in this film, it exists only to get Indiana Jones back on the screen. (Spoilers) Indiana Jones has also been Disneyfied, he never shoots his pistol in this movie, not once. He doesn't use profanity either. Not that I thought Indiana Jones had a filthy mouth, but his few "damns" in the previous films led credibility to the character. When Spielberg decided to make an addition to this fantastic trilogy, then than the film should of at least been able to stand on its own merits, which all of the other films do. It instead relies wholly on our nostalgia to sell itself. We all know that if this movie was released without the three preceding it, the critics would have panned it. So lets not lie and tell ourselves this is a good movie. In fact, I'm going to forget it ever existed. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 02:47 AM In reply to this comment (#1744048) (going off topic again) @blattman: yes, i know how that scene got into the movie, but i think, it doesn't really change the way it comes across. i do understand why people think it's funny though. maybe i was just too much of a p*ssy back then ;-) (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 03:04 AM just got back from midnight SKULL showing.... the first fifteen minutes are REALLY FUN.... then the plot comes in and the whole theater started falling asleep (i know it's late... but still) and the climax felt very George Lucas (in a bad way.....) but hey... it's miles above the ridiculously crappy TEMPLE which i think is on my "WORST FILMS EVER MADE" list (mostly just cause Raiders was so AWESOME!). Skull has it's great moments....... and it also has it's missteps.... but hey... it was entertaining... and that's all i went for. it was worth my seven dollars. i wouldn't go again tomorrow... but still. SHia got annoying real fast and it wasn't his fault........... it was the Lucas-Lines he had to say..... (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 04:14 AM You guys are ragging on Temple of Doom a lot on here. I haven't seen it in a while, but I remember loving it. The dramatic elements didn't bother me much. In fact, it made for a great pay off in the end when he survives it all and they start playing the song. And then all those freed children go running past him to their families. Classic scene. And I loved that whole "Kaliii Maaaa, Kalimmaaaa shuc theee theeeeyyyy" scene. lol. It's dark, sure, but that scene is very funny link to my childhood. Incidentally, I happened to be at an old friend's house a few weekends ago watching Raiders with his kids. My friend and I, both lifelong fans of the series, found ourselves laughing all the way through it at its many 'oops' moments. If you haven't seen it in a while, you should go back and watch it again just for kicks. You'll be surprised. ;-) (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 04:38 AM In reply to this comment (#1743997) I take that grain of salt every time I pull up a review older than 10 years on RT. Critics may be cynics by definition (they're not called "praisers"), but they tend to be more fond of films from days of old. RT seems aware of this though because they "weight" movies in their superlative lists. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 04:49 AM Raiders of The Lost Ark was the best of the best of all of Indy movies. And I have to agree with the certified Fresh. I remember reading that Lucas didn't want Ford because he didn't want him to be pigeon holed with his films (star wars, american graffitti, etc). So they tried to get Tom Selleck but he was committed with Magnum PI. So Lucas finally agreed. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 05:04 AM Well...sitting here as a 34 year old man, with VERY fond memories of Memorial Day weekends spent in the company of Indiana Jones, and now having finally ended a 19-year wait for another adventure, I can only say this..."Welcome home, old boy...welcome home." So far, the critical response to this movie is exactly what I knew it would be...some find it to be garbage, but I agree with the majority here: it's an "Indiana Jones" movie, no more, no less. To expect anything more would be to place unfair pressure on the film-makers...they aren't going to re-invent the wheel here, and there's no need to try...this new film is just as much fun as the last three, complete with over-the-top stunts, grand set pieces, and a plot that pushes the limits of reality. And Spielberg pushes those limits with a HUGE grin on his face. I mean c'mon, let's be truly honest with ourselves here...were the first three films even close to being based in reality? Nope. Not one. And in my opinion, that's exactly what made them so great...it's that perfect style of "escapist entertainment" that keeps these films in a class by themselves, often imitated, never duplicated, and "Crystal Skull" stands comfortably in that company. Anyone expecting the Second Coming WILL be disappointed...there is no miracle here, just another fun adventure with Dr. Jones. And that's exactly all there should be. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 06:08 AM They are all good, and as long as the 4th one doesn't dissapoint then they will still be the best series I have ever seen. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 06:27 AM Crystal Skull is better than Temple of Doom. Hand down. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 06:45 AM Also, if you think about it, this is a great play on 50s adventure movies (with all their crazy elements) as the first and 3rd were a play on 30s adventure movies. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 07:10 AM In reply to this comment (#1744560) I agree with you on most of your comments. I've seen all the Indy films in theaters and all KOTCS does is elevate my opinion of Temple of Doom. Temple of Doom is a great Indy film compared to this WAY over the top exercise. Raiders is by far the best, then Last Crusade, Temple of Doom and regretably this muck Crystal Skull. People want so much to like this movie...I know I did...but, it just doesn't work. This is a one and done movie...no need for repeat viewings and I predict that this will not be the biggest movie this summer. I was disappointed... (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 07:11 AM In reply to this comment (#1743990) Shooting the sword guy in "Raiders" is one of the funniest improv moments ever in my opinion. The story was Indiana was supposed to fight the sword guy fairly, but Harrison had gotten some kind of food poisoning, as had most of the crew, from the food where they filmed. So the very sick Harrison, not in the mood to go through with the all the fighting, just pulled out his gun and shot the guy. Apparently the sword guy was pissed because of how much he trained for that shot. That was hilarious and classic Ford. The look on his face makes that scene one of the funniest of the series. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 07:34 AM I was reasonable when going in to see this movie: I knew how old the actors were and Lucas's track record for ruining movies, but the one thing I did not expect was for one of the worst ideas for a "treasure" they could think of. Aliens? Now, I do not expect Indiana Jones movies to be the least bit realistic, but a plot involving aliens from outer space and a Russian villain whose face looks like Johnny Depp in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory are over the edge. I could have dealt with Harrison Ford's old man running and terrible dialog, as well as the fact that Marion added absolutely nothing to the film, if there was a more interesting and formulated plot. I can't, however, deal with aliens. Towards the end of the movie (not a spoiler) I was just staring at the screen in disbelief that this happened, it is not in the same spirit of the other films and there%u2019s too much wrong to even express. I know some people are going to like it either because they are not a true Indiana Jones fan and have no idea what these movies are about, or they are kidding themselves because they don%u2019t want to admit that this movie was a failure. (To say something good: the action scenes are pretty amazing, some of the graphics look cool, but the aliens thing ruins it all). I am going to forget that this movie exists, and continue to enjoy the trilogy. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 08:05 AM Raiders of the Lost Ark is easily the best. I get sick of people saying The Last Crusade is the best. The Last Crusade is silly, sillier than the previous two, doesn't have quite the same feel or look other than that amazing tank scene and the last 15 minutes don't live up to the conclusions of the previous two films. I've also never understood why people don't give Temple of Doom more credit, to me it's almost Raider's equal only in a different way. Temple of Doom is darker and if you're a kid, as I was when I first saw the movie, it's pretty scary. Not to mention it has that amazing chase scene on the two cart tracks and the bridge falling to close the movie. Crusade doesn't have anything to equal the action in the previous two movie, even though that tank scene is pretty cool. Anyhow, that's my take for what it's worth. I saw Crystal Skull last night and it has an ending I could do without but other than that it's a lot of fun and if you like the others, as I do, this will be a welcomed, fun and comforting time at the movies. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 08:23 AM Another thing; how is this one not in the "spirit" of the other films. Okay, they are some sort of aliens yes but in the tradition of the other films they are presented as figures of worship. Like the ark, those rocks and the cup of christ. While I agree the last few minutes rival The Last Crusade as being the worst finish of the 4 film. I don't see anyone complaining about the end of that film, though. Crystal Skull as what you want it has action; the scene in the warehouse, the chase scene with the motor cycle and two cars (which had a huge laugh for me), the chase in the jungle, running down the retracting steps, monkey's, ants, waterfalls and trust me I could go on. I don't think anyone was expecting it to surpase Raiders, or whichever Indy film happens to be your favorite, and doesn't do that. But, it is fun...I having feeling people just look for reason's not to enjoy movies like this rather than just sitting back and smiling, which is all this kind of movie wants you to do anyway. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 08:32 AM I never understood why they stopped making Indiana Jones movies in the first place. It's not like the series was slowing down any as I feel Last Crusade was just as good if not better than the other two. Harrison Ford is what it's all about. No doubt at all, he played Indiana Jones perfectly in the first three movies. I never, ever saw or heard anyone say anything negative about his performance. I'll say this, probably the only way I won't like KOTCS is if Harrison Ford's performance is anything other than as flawless as the other Raider movies. So, it's almost a certainty I'll love it. I'll drop by and post after I see it, Thanks! (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 08:34 AM I never understood why they stopped making Indiana Jones movies in the first place. It's not like the series was slowing down any as I feel Last Crusade was just as good if not better than the other two. Harrison Ford is what it's all about. No doubt at all, he played Indiana Jones perfectly in the first three movies. I never, ever saw or heard anyone say anything negative about his performance. I'll say this, probably the only way I won't like KOTCS is if Harrison Ford's performance is anything other than as flawless as the other Raider movies. So, it's almost a certainty I'll love it. I'll drop by and post after I see it, Thanks! (Reply to this) |
on May 22 2008 08:37 AM My favorite is The Last Crusade because it had Brody, Sallah and Henry Jones. sure i disliked the girl in this one but the rest was very good. very funny and just good all around. and who could forget indy! My second favorite is Temple of Doom because Willie is my favorite girl in the movies. she is so funny and plays her part well. i also love short round. i dont like the eating the bugs scene but its still a very good movie. My third favorite is Raiders. i love this one but not as much as the last two in the trilogy. sure it was a really good set up and a really good plot but i just couldnt get attached to it as the other ones. but it is still really good of course. Now i havent seen Crystal Skull but i will and it will be awesome. i wish Sallah and Henry Jones were coming back. Sallah is one of my favorite minor characters. i am so glad to see Shia in the new movie because it will give it some younger audience. people say to me "your just going to see shia" and im like no way i wanna see INDY!!! so yes i am Indy obsessed and proud of it. since i've been waiting for the 4th film for my whole life. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 08:47 AM I have to make another comment, this time about Temple of Doom. Remember the first scene? Where Indy almost dies from poison, flees out a ten story window landing in Short Rounds taxi then to the airport into the air then has to jump out via an inflatable raft which lands on a mountain then slides down into a river in India? Okay, add that to the last chase scene where In the fight to escape the palace, the three jump into a mine car and are closely pursued by two Thuggee-filled cars. Indy knocks the first car off the tracks with a board, but the second catches up to them. In the struggle, Short Round nearly falls into lava and a Thuggee jumps onto the back of their car. Willie delivers an unexpected punch that knocks the Thuggee back onto the track, whereupon the other car crashes into his body and derails. Okay, if those two scenes aren't enough to make it one of the best action movies of all time then I don't what is. It certainly compares to any of the other Indy Movies. Also, wasn't this the movie where the idea came up for having a PG-14 rating? (Reply to this) |
on May 22 2008 09:06 AM I saw this movie last night. I can honestly say this is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I will never watch it again. Lucas continues to destroy his own franchises. As far as I'm concerned this movie never happened. (Reply to this) |
on May 22 2008 09:29 AM I have to agree with the first poster in that, the order you first saw these movies seems to have a major impact. I saw TOD in theaters as a very young kid. I loved it. It had scary bugs, monkey brains, action, and Short Round. It was my favorite as a kid, so it still kinda sits that way with me now. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 09:46 AM I have yet to see the newest installment, but it easy to say Raiders holds up on it's own and is truly remarkable that it was released in 81'!! TOD was a good change and is still very entertaining. Still, It's hard to beat the son/father relationship Ford & Connery sold and sold well. Their acting was stellar! C'mon, who doesn't still laugh at every scene they are in together. The unlimited expressions they flash at one another!?? Every awkward situation a reunited son and father could be in(especially about sleeping with the same woman). Connery shrugs and quotes the metaphor,"Two ships passing in the night." I think many Indy fans will miss that most about the new film..I know it will still be a timeless film that can be watched again and again just like the previous three.. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 09:46 AM I have yet to see the newest installment, but it easy to say Raiders holds up on its own and is truly remarkable that it was released in 81'!! TOD was a good change and is still very entertaining. Still, It's hard to beat the son/father relationship Ford & Connery sold and sold well. Their acting was stellar! C'mon, who doesn't still laugh at every scene they are in together. The unlimited expressions they flash at one another!?? Every awkward situation a reunited son and father could be in(especially about sleeping with the same woman). Connery shrugs and quotes the metaphor,"Two ships passing in the night." I think many Indy fans will miss that most about the new film..I know it will still be a timeless film that can be watched again and again just like the previous three.. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 10:03 AM i have to say crusade is my favorite then raiders and then temple but i do like all the movies (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 10:08 AM In reply to this comment (#1744915) I agree. All of the Indy films have there fair share of great action. TOD some of the best. Though I think that the issue was there wasn't any real depth in the acting department. Sure Ford is as good as ever, but the other Indy films have endless likable fiends of Indy's, as well as enemies you love to hate! Nazis... need I say more.. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 10:12 AM In reply to this comment (#1744413) (picks up your pacifier) - Mightyfooda, stop dropping this and farting all over the blogs. Regards, -Impressed by how much I don't care... (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 10:46 AM I'm shocked that anyone could think that Last Crusade is better than Raiders. Raiders is one of the great movies of all time. Last Crusade is a fun but cartoony sequel that feels like rehash of the first two. I actually like the second better than the third although neither comes anywhere close to the original. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 11:18 AM I'm not at all surprised for the tomatometer scores. Older films tend to always skew higher as nostalgia kicks in and films evolve from good entertainment to esteemed classics beyond criticism. "It's a masterpiece!" I haven't seen the new one yet, but I have no doubt we've got the same thing going on here. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 11:22 AM In reply to this comment (#1744962) I have a hard time believing the highly hyperbolic statement that KOCS is the worst movie you've ever seen. (By the way, I really despise it when people post "This is the worst movie I've ever seen" when it comes to these highly anticipated sequels and adaptations and things.) Maybe it was the biggest disappointment you've ever seen, but it couldn't have been the worst movie you've ever seen or else all you've ever seen were good movies in your life, because KOCS rocked. It deserves to sit in the comfortable company of the other Indy flicks. Welcome back, Dr. Jones. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 11:29 AM 1. Raiders 2. Last Crusade 3. Temple of Doom 4. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull To say that I was sorely disappointed would be an understatement. I felt the same way coming out of this as i did coming out of The Phantom Menace. I was bummed out. I had many questions running through my mind. I was upset. First off, Harrison Ford was great and Shai Labouf was suprisingly good. Labouf was my biggest fear going into the movie and he turned out to be the least of my worries. Over all (with the exception of Karen Allen and her Hillary pantsuit) the acting was top-notch. No problems there. ***SPOILERS*** The plot was flimsy and the action was unbelievable and over the top. Indy gets tossed like two miles by a nuclear blast inside a 1950's lead-lined refrigerator and casually walks out? How many times could Indy and his friends get shot at point-blank by elite Russian soldiers and not even get scratched? Everything about the entire waterfall scene made me look away from the screen because it was sooo unbelievable, not to mention that they were all bone-dry and full of vitality the very next scene. The vine-swinging George of the Jungle scene? Give me a break. I was led to believe that this film was going to have very minimal CGI in it. That was a load of crap. As far as the plot goes, lame. I didn't mind the presence of aliens at all but the plot itself was flimsy at best. It had no flow to it and it seemed very forced. The ending was the epitomy of anti-climatic and a bit of a cop out too. This movie could have been great. It certainly had the potential. It was kind of like listening to a great album that was just turned up way too loud. I also think that being 32 years old and growing up on the original trilogy has a major influence on my opinion. If I saw Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as a ten year old apart from the original trilogy, I'm sure that I would enjoy it more and be less critical. Last but not least, George Lucas has lost it. I'm starting to doubt if he even made the A New Hope or Raiders of the Lost Ark. Everything he has done since then has gotten progressively worse. Is he the most overrated filmmaker of all time? (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 11:51 AM The Last Crusade holds a special place in my heart because it was the last movie my dad and I saw together, but artistically speaking, Raiders of the Lost Ark is by far the best movie of the series and one of the 50 best all time. (Reply to this) |
on May 22 2008 12:33 PM In reply to this comment (#1743990) Siebener, like you I was the same age when TOD came out, 13 or so, and I absolutely loved it. It was thrilling, scary, and just awesome to me at the time. The third one was too slapstick for my taste, I wanted more of what I loved about Temple of Doom. Still my favorite, don't care what the critics and offended mom's say (ooh, it was gross for my little kid to see!), it still kicks butt. It was violent, dark and exotic. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 12:33 PM I think that the reason people look at Raiders and say it is more of a revelation than Crusade is because it was the original and it sparked a whole new idea that changed adventures forever. Crusade didn't so anything new, bu at the same time, the characters fit into their parts so perfectly because they've played them before and we've seen them before, specifically Harrison Ford and Denholm Elliot. The script was more witty and while it had the least amount of action, it had the most interesting story and the best on-liners (Ahh...Venice...haha). Overall, Crusade is the best and will stay the best because even though I have no doubt that Crystal Skull will be good, it's just going to feel slightly different in this day and age. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 12:42 PM I'm so fatigued of people making Temple of Doom to seem second rate or the bastard step-child. It was what REALLY established Indy as everything people came to associate with him. Raiders was a novel idea and fantastic film and Indy was so palpable a character...but Doom made him iconic in all the ways eveyone thinks of. As I watch it now in widescreen Hi-Def...it's gorgeously shot, it really ups the 30's serials pulp that is the basis for Indy, and the dynamics and relationships between Indy and the other chracters (Willie and Short Round) that didn't have as much a "history" with Indy as Marion, Sallah, and the others. Much less its, humor, action, and break neck speed still cannot be matched by almost any "action/adventure" film the past few decades. And Willie proves one of the best supporting characters in the Indy films, b/c of all the characters in the film her perspective is most truly relatable to the audience. We all LOVE watching Indy's adventures...but if we were as suddenly dropped into his day-to-day adventures...it would prove as traumatic and humorous. Much less INDY goes BAD!!! It's so unnerving even to see it now as an adult...ho many other franchises took their main iconic hero and genuinely, frighteningly...made him BAD before brining him back...maybe Picard Borgified and...Superman 3...being drunk and promiscuous (okay I apologize referencing the latter)....Seeing KOTCS last night...and its uneveness reaffirmed how great TOD is... (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 12:51 PM I'm so fatigued of people making Temple of Doom to seem second rate or the bastard step-child. It was what REALLY established Indy as everything people came to associate with him. Raiders was a novel idea and fantastic film and Indy was so palpable a character...but Doom made him iconic in all the ways eveyone thinks of. As I watch it now in widescreen Hi-Def...it's gorgeously shot, it really ups the 30's serials pulp that is the basis for Indy, and the dynamics and relationships between Indy and the other chracters (Willie and Short Round) that didn't have as much a "history" with Indy as Marion, Sallah, and the others. Much less its, humor, action, and break neck speed still cannot be matched by almost any "action/adventure" film the past few decades. And Willie proves one of the best supporting characters in the Indy films, b/c of all the characters in the film her perspective is most truly relatable to the audience. We all LOVE watching Indy's adventures...but if we were as suddenly dropped into his day-to-day adventures...it would prove as traumatic and humorous. Much less INDY goes BAD!!! It's so unnerving even to see it now as an adult...ho many other franchises took their main iconic hero and genuinely, frighteningly...made him BAD before brining him back...maybe Picard Borgified and...Superman 3...being drunk and promiscuous (okay I apologize referencing the latter)....Seeing KOTCS last night...and its uneveness reaffirmed how great TOD is... (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 01:02 PM I think that the reason people look at Raiders and say it is more of a revelation than Crusade is because it was the original and it sparked a whole new idea that changed adventures forever. Crusade didn't so anything new, but at the same time, the characters fit into their parts so perfectly because they've played them before and we've seen them before, specifically Harrison Ford and Denholm Elliot. The script was more witty and while it had the least amount of action, it had the most interesting story and the best on-liners (Ahh...Venice...haha). Overall, Crusade is the best and will stay the best because even though I have no doubt that Crystal Skull will be good, it's just going to feel slightly different in this day and age. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 01:21 PM I have never commented on anything like this. However, since I am 35 years-old and have taken the day off to recuperate from last nights midnight viewing- I thought- what the hell... This wasn%u2019t a good movie. The story was thin, we%u2019ve seen aliens and spaceships before (doing the same things) and the scene%u2019s felt contrived. I never cared (was felt lead to care) about skulls or the characters. We%u2019ve waited 19 years%u2026 for this? The first 20 minutes felt like an Indiana Jones move. It was awesome. However, once Ford starts talking about lost skulls it losses its footing; no imagination and awe. It wasn%u2019t interesting. I tried to get into it. This was the mood in the theatre as well. We just didn%u2019t get how to be excited about it. Ford continually helps the Russians- which makes some backwards since because you never really worried about them. They were just misunderstood Russians. You never feel Jones is really in trouble- neither does he. In addition, to bad they didn%u2019t make Marion or anybody else very interesting. Even John Williams score was a disappointment. He rehashed the Raiders of the Lost Ark soundtrack and mixed it to fit this movie. Nothing new. Over-all: a very watered down version of Raiders of the Lost Ark I guess you have to be around my age to appreciate how amazing Temple of Doom is. Somebody mentioned how it really defined the characteristics of who Indiana Jones is. A really good point. It%u2019s really Harrison Ford doing his best Indiana Jones. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 02:03 PM Well, the first Indy movie I saw was Last Crusade. I loved it because Sean Connery was in it, and because I was addicted to James Bond films like babies with breast milk. After a couple of years I saw Raiders. I basically ejaculated in my pants by the end of this, and had thrown James Bond out the window. Indy was my hero! Then i saw TOD. It made me love Indy that much more, seeing him kicking *** and taking names, but it wasn't my favorite... It was still good, but I didn't like it as much as the other two. I'm basically trying not to go insane, waiting for 9 tonight when me and my other nerdy/girlfriendless pals will go and drool over this movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 02:34 PM i never understood why temple of doom gets so much flack. I love that movie, and part of it is the insignificance of it. In raiders and crusade, jones is basically a superhero saving the world. In temple, he just drops into a village and solves a local problem. Its more in tune with the whole "world traveler" indiana jones motif. It's more random, its much darker, and the mine cart scene is amazing. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 02:59 PM Crystal Skull is the worst movie you've ever seen? What a stupid thing to say, apprently you haven't seen recent sci-fi/action films like; The Chronicles of Riddick or Battlefield Earth, both of which infinitely worse than this latest Indiania Jones movie. Which, for the record, isn't bad. Or just to run off a few more action-type movies that are also worse; Pinata: Survival Island, 13 Ghosts, The Adventures of Ford Fairlane, Deep Rising, Cobra, Elektra, Godzilla, Lost in Space and not to mention an obvious Indiana Jones knock off called Alan Quatermaine and the Lost City of Gold. Believe me I could go on and on with *just* action movies that are worse, not to mention every other genre. My friend, you need to help in redefining "worst movie ever." Take a look at those then tell me Crystal Skull is the worst movie ever. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 03:00 PM I saw Crystal Skull at 1:15 today on opening day and i was disappointed with the ending. everything else was great about it but then it got crazy with the aliens and didn't fit the indiana jones series. up until then it was another indiana jones movie but then it turned into too much space sci-fi. i rank the movies as follows: Raiders, Last Crusade, Crystal Skull, Temple of Doom. The first one is always the best because it is the reason that you make the sequels in the first place. Temple of Doom didn't match as well to the others and the less important characters got annoying. It was good to see Indiana Jones back on the screen when I'm actually alive at age 18. This new movie was important to me. Hopefully the ending won't ruin it for people. I'm so-so on it. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 03:09 PM In reply to this comment (#1745273) No, really. It IS the worst movie i have ever seen on top of being a huge disappointment. It's complete garbage and if you enjoyed it then 1. you have no idea what an Indiana Jones movie is and 2. if this movie was good then what do you consider a bad movie? Darthwonka, I grew up with these movies. If you knew anything about them you would know that KOTCS is not a real Indy movie. Go back and watch the other 3 then go watch this latest one. They don't fit, they aren't even on the same level. I would've been happy if it was just mediocre, but that wasn't the case. It was bad, just plain bad. Bad script on top of bad acting on top of bad CGI on top of unbelievable stunts and lame jokes. Pardon me for calling a spade a spade. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 03:15 PM In reply to this comment (#1745924) Tripp, don't start with this crap. I don't watch crap like Battlefield earth and Ford Fairlane.....This is Indiana Jones, movies I have loved my whole life and they just took a big piss all over it. When I say it's he worst I have ever seen It's because it is truly awful and combine that with the huge disappointment. If it was anything other than Indy I would have walked out of the theater. I'm sure all you teens and tweens will love it....But I don't appreciate them castrating my favorite character the way they did. This is Indy not Looney Tunes. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 03:28 PM On temple of Doom: Yes TOD gets some hate and some scorn but I think it fits in pretty well as a prequel. The biggest problem with the film and with fitting it into the series is that the globetrotting element is largely gone. Sure Indy starts in China and ends up in India, but that's pretty much it. Both Raiders and LC (and I'm led to beleive Kingdom) are almost scavenger hunts, making Indy visit various locales and add to the adventurous feel of the film. In temple he just goes to , well, a temple. Somewhat less exciting, even with a mine cart rail scene. (Reply to this) |
on May 22 2008 03:33 PM The main thing I didn't like about Temple of Doom was that annoying kid. I think the CGI for this installment was very well done. The Ants. . . the big boom. . . There was less CGI for an action movie at this day and age then you might expect. This film must have been very difficult to make, with all those great tracking shots, etc. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 04:13 PM This is fascinating to me. Indy 4 has been getting pretty harsh reviews from everywhere I have seen. But I look at the tomatometer and its 81%???? Then I come in here and see Temple of Doom at 87%? Say what you will about it, but it is generally considered the worst of the trilogy. From all the reviews i've seen over the years it seems to go like this Raiders - 95-100% Doom - 60-70% Crusade - 80-90% Skull - 60-70% (Reply to this) |
on May 22 2008 04:28 PM That's right there is no contest on Temple of Doom. It's the best movie in the series. No contest. (Reply to this) |
on May 22 2008 04:31 PM In reply to this comment (#1745980) Jeremy- I hate to rain on your flame parade, but your making an awful case on your understanding of Indiana Jones. Now, I'm not going to stand here and say that KOTCS is as good as Raiders, but it is in no way shape or form the worst movie ever (and no surprise, I had a damn good time watching it). Indiana Jones has always been a pulp serial novel-turned-movie based on the politics and the moods of the era it takes place in. Those moods were exhibited in the pulp literature and cinema of those times. Both Raiders and Crusade were 30's (WWII/Nazi's), and they both played up on the Third Reich's obsession with the occult (specifically new and old testament). TOD used the occult fascinations with southeast Asia and India that were rampant in the 30s as well. Now KOTCS takes place in the 50s, and thus its going to exhibit the moods and occult associations of the time. Red Russia, Aliens, and Flying Saucers were HUGE in 50s pulp literature/cinema, and were justifiably represented. If you need proof, go to the discount dvd bin at Costco and look at all the campy 50s sci-fi movies. THERE ARE TONS OF THEM. I can understand your disappointment with the film, (the era makes it quite different than the first 3) but if you look at the franchise history/mythology, its pretty obvious that this movie fits in with the standards of an Indy movie. - SPOILERS: anyways, my take is that people went in expecting a rerun of Last Crusade and were sorely disappointed that it wasn't. Get over it guys, you can't make the same damn movie over and over again. Last Crusade is a silly version of Raiders that was cooked up to smooth over the older viewers who were pissed about TOD. I personally thought it was just great escapist fun at the movies. I have been a huge Indy fan since I was a kid, and I enjoyed ever damn minute of KOTCS. Personally, the scene when Indy gets out of the fridge and sees the mushroom cloud encompasses the theme of this movie. It's a new time, with new themes and new ideas. sorry for the long post (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 04:33 PM In reply to this comment (#1745980) sorry, fix TODs years to late 20s early 30s, thx (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 04:48 PM In reply to this comment (#1745955) So now you assume that if someone likes it they must be a teenager? Or if you like it you don't "know what Indiana Jones is." Nobody is claiming this movie is w/o flaws, it certainly has them, namely the last 10-15 minutes or so. Also, what "crap" am I starting with? Naming multiple movies that are historically bad, not to mention many times worse than this latest Indiana Jones movie, is just pointing out how rediculous your statement. In the end, of course, it's all a matter of opinion. In my mind The Last Crusade is too silly, and yes I know they are all silly to an extent, to stand up as a *real* Indiana Jones movie. It works better as a buddy film and had it not had Indiana Jones in it, other than the tank scene, it would be unrecognizable as an Indiana Jones movie. With that said, it's still a lot of fun much like this most recent installment. Now, I've said what I wanted to say and you can continue name calling those who point out disagreements they have with what you've sad. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 04:52 PM In reply to this comment (#1746084) Keisen Glad to see at least someone is on the same page as me about this movie. Keep it up! (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 05:34 PM Can we cut out the " it's rated below the previous 3 on our tomatometer" crap? First off the other 3 don't even have half the reviews KOTCS has and secondly most of them we're written AFTER the other 3 were given classic status. I'm sure if a Temple of Doom or Last Crusade came out today they would be sitting in the low 80 mark. So I think KOTCS sits nicely somewhere in between them. Bit unfair, no? (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 05:52 PM Is far as "ranking" them goes...well I never got that. It really depends on a few things...mainly what order you watched them in and at what age. Personally Temple is my favorite. I saw that one first as a kid and fell in love with it. From there it's Crusade than Raiders. I love all 3 though. But, if I had to rank them from best film to worst I would go Raiders,Crusade,Temple. Hopefully that make sense to some people. Temple is definitely my favorite but if I had to look at from a critical standpoint it's the most over the top/cheesiest one of the 3. I'm sure if I saw it in a different order/age I would see it differently. I think that's how it works for all of us. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 05:58 PM SLIGHT SPOILERS!!!! I saw KOTCS at midnight, and I've gotta say, I enjoyed it more than either TOD or Last Crusade, certainly far more than I thought I would. I thought it would wind up being atrocious. I don't think the 'Interdimensional Beings' angle (read: not aliens) fit an Indy film any less than the various religious themes in the earlier films, and had no problems with the film whatsoever up until Mutt started swinging through the vines with hundreds of monkeys following suit (I had no idea monkeys hated the russians so much). The monkeys, fire ants, & subsequent waterfall drops did more damage to my suspension of disbelief than any of the extraterrestrial stuff. The tone of it overall felt fresher than Last Crusade, mainly because of the 50's b-movie feel. It left me wanting another, as long as Mutt doesn't take the lead. I just hope we can get a Short Round cameo next time. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 06:03 PM Still apprehensive about seeing this one. You guys aren't helping. On the one hand Indiana Jones is still pretty much my hero, even in my mid 20's. On the other hand, "The Phantom Menace". I remember people telling me that was good too. I would hate for what I would view as my favorite movie trilogy to be tainted. As it stands, I get the feeling I'm going to generally agree with those who didn't like the movie, even if some of their arguments are a little extreme. Can someone convince me otherwise? Preferably someone who thought that Pirates 2 and 3 and Spiderman 3 sucked. Then I'll know were on the same page. Also, for me: Raiders, Crusade, Temple. Initially Crusade was my favorite and Raiders my least favorite, but as I've gotten older I liked Raiders more and more, and Temple a bit less. Temple is not a bad movie by any means though, and it definitely has it's charm. I would have to agree with the earlier post that it was Harrison Fords best portrayal of Indy. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 06:14 PM In reply to this comment (#1745980) -Tripp right there with you buddy! -Bribios Let me say I hated pirates 2,pirates 3,Spidey 3, and I liked this movie. Seriously, go see the movie and make your mind up for yourself. Whatever you do, do not go into this film expecting Last Crusade or anything like it. Read my post above, this is a film about a different time and is designed to be a good 50's B-Movie. Just go in with an open mind and close your eyes when Shia goes for the now infamous rope w/monkey scene. What do you have to lose? 9 dollars and 2 hours? I can see far worse wastes of both resources. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 06:16 PM In reply to this comment (#1745980) wow, that reply tag got misplaced :) (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 06:16 PM In reply to this comment (#1746287) wow, that reply tag got misplaced :) (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 06:38 PM Okay Indy fan-boys and fan-girls: Here's the juice! Far and away the best is the first: "Raiders". A Period. End of story. Only weakness was the "switched baskets" explanation for why his girl didn't get blown up in the kidnappers' truck. This story was outta sight! Everything else, production values, was solid as a rock. Just one thing. I would have preferred Tom Selleck in the role, if they could have dubbed out that squeaky voice of his. Tom's predicament reminds me of Lina Lamont in "Singin' in the Rain". A not so close 2nd is "Crusade". B Sean saved it. BTW the old knight was fine. And the dance number was very well done, nice touch, put me in mind of Busby. And the requisite "death of the hero" over the cliff was dandy, if a tad predictable. The story was a silly simp of a story -- simply okay. "Doom" was a not so close 3rd. B- The only weaknesses: How'd the dame get so close to lava and not roast like a marshmallow in a campfire. And the F/X of the final cliff scene were beyond cheesy. The green-screening looked like something from a Tarzan movie from the 1930s. As for "Skull"? Nostalgia's all it is. I look forward to it though. But Harrison is 7 years older than Denholm Elliot was when he said that if he was 5 years younger he'd tag along, in the first "Raiders". I just hope the Danny Glover in "Lethal Weapon" routine does not get worn out, i.e. "I'm gettin' to old for this ..." (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 07:29 PM In reply to this comment (#1746354) You lost me, and everyone else I'm sure, at "preferred Tom Selleck." It is what it is. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 07:50 PM Temple of Doom is my favorite. I don't care what anybody says. :P (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 08:15 PM In reply to this comment (#1746287) Bribios I didn't hate Pirates 2, didn't love it either. Actually I only really enjoyed the action scene on the island with the big wheel. That was fun. Like you, I also disliked both Pirates 3 and Spider-man 3. With all of that out of the way I am one of the people that did in fact enjoy the new Indiana Jones movie. It is exactly what it intends to be and if you like the others and know what you're going to see then you'll have a good time. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 08:24 PM I think Roger Ebert pegged it best in terms of which film is best. Which ever one you see first. The films are all great, but the one that you see first is often the one that sticks out in your mind as the other three, all still great, are often just the same thing over again. Read his review of Crystal Skull and he explains it best. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 08:57 PM OK...just got back from the theater and I'd have to say that I HAD A FREAKIN' BLAST! The plot was a tad slow here and there, but the movie was action packed and full of Indy-humor. Lots of nostalgia and they hit it on the head again with the father-son relationship. I think people need to put aside the pre-judgements and give Indy 4 another watch, not critically, but from an experential perspective. The ONE thing I think that had tons of room for improvement was the ever so important score. Raiders, Doom and Crusade had great scores with memorable melodies for the key parts. I didn't notice anything too memorable from John Williams this time around, which definitely can impact the movie experience. People forget that the score/sound is 50% of the movie. Definitely go so SKULL. People who hate it or say its "the worst film ever" probably shouldn't be posting here and should go back to playing their video games. Looking forward to Indy 5 with Shia in the lead role - the torch has been past...well, almost. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 09:07 PM In reply to this comment (#1746428) Yo! Matty-boy! Selleck was originally cast as Indy, but had to miss it due to Magnum P.I.'s season starting contemporaneously with the filming of "Raiders". Unfortunately there was a strike of some union, and the guy [Tommy S.] twiddled his thumbs while Harrison stole his part. Selleck would've been way better. Way way better. (Reply to this) |
on May 22 2008 09:50 PM The last 20 minutes of Crystal Skull is a cinematic disaster. Still better then Doom. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 22 2008 10:53 PM In reply to this comment (#1747060) Pretty funny...I like Tom Selleck, but don't fool yourself. If he had played Indiana, the franchise never would've happened. Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones and the idea that the character would have suceeded without him is laughable. The movie might have been good, but there's no way it would've been INDY! and Crystal Skull is great. I simply can't pick a favorite order to these movies...I rewatched the trilogy recently (who didn't?) and despite thinking I knew my favorite...it turned out whichever one I was watching really was the best...they're all too dang good to pick one over the others... (Reply to this) |
|
on May 23 2008 12:00 AM First off I love Raiders! Not only my fav in the series, but favorite Spielberg movie as well. The "shoot the Swordsman" scene is one of the all time classic moments in film. Temple of Doom. Awesome! how can it be so dissed? The mine shaft roller coster scene says everything about that movie. It symbolizes the movie. and if you don't like roller coasters then why are you watching the movie. To me TLC is where the movie jumps the shark. The Sean Connery as Indys dad; never bought it. Love the opening scene, but after that... I stop watching. right now I could watch either of the first two , but TLC not so much. I am very excited about Crystal Skull. Went to see it tonight at The Archlight in Hollywood. All the LA Industry jerks that didn't go to Cannes were there. I could not handle the scene and left. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 23 2008 12:19 AM i have a "tom selleck"-question: if he had been in the movies, would indiana jones then have a mustache? i think that could have actually spoiled 'TOD' for me. ;-) (Reply to this) |
|
on May 23 2008 03:13 AM In reply to this comment (#1747060) I'm afraid I just don't give a fu ck about the speculation and the shoulda-coulda-wouldas and the what might have been. It's like gm1200 said, Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones. Trying to imagine Selleck in the part is just as silly as trying to imagine Brad Pitt as Morpheus, which also was the initial idea. I shudder every time I think of it. As I said before, it is what it is. Tom Selleck a better Indiana Jones.... lol. You're a comedian, Arnie. ;-) (Reply to this) |
|
on May 23 2008 04:16 AM Siebener,Blattman, It makes me think of the old "can your {insert martial art) stop a bullet? Now, it reminds me of a Robot Chicken episode. The one with the Sci Fi convention. Darth Maul character with double lightsaber going up against Nimoy. Nimoy pulls out his revolver and shoots him. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 23 2008 06:31 AM Honestly, the first Raiders was the best. Fresh, new, bite-your-nails, fall-off-your-seat action that had never been see in theaters before. Temple was a rush job, I think because of audience demand. The storyline could have been better if they had spent more time thinking it through. Crusade was as close to a perfect ending/closing of the trilogy as you're gonna get. That should have been the end. But they had to go and make another. To be fair, it still has the action, Ford and company still deliver with the dry wit, peppered with a bit of jaded-old-grumpy guy. Indy is slowly turning into his dad, which is a good thing for all fans to see. However, the storyline is bordering on ridiculous, especially with the ending. I guess ET is finally going home.... As competent an actor as Ford is, how long can he keep on doing the rough stuff? And by the way, you KNOW there were many stuntmen involved in this one, you can actually recognize it's not Ford doing all the stuff. Personally I'd like to see more comedy from Ford. He has a good sense of comedic timing and can be very funny. All in all Skull is much better than Temple of Doom, but nowhere near Raiders or Crusade. Still if you're an Indy fan, you just can't miss it. Enjoy. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 23 2008 06:32 AM In reply to this comment (#1745430) You hit it on the head, Luminari. Everybody dissing Temple of Doom? The gods must be crazy. ;-) (Reply to this) |
|
on May 23 2008 07:54 AM In reply to this comment (#1746428) Think all of you Selleck-Haters ... THINK! Selleck Looks the part -- meaning for a 1930s matinee idol. Think Erroll Flynn, Raft, Grant etc. Harrison is a very, Very, VERY poor substitute facially. The guy looks the same as, maybe less than, Richard Nixon for cryin' out loud. Facially Ford Never would have been a star in the 1930s. He is not a pretty boy. Selleck is. Very much so. Speilberg's instincts were on the money. Youse guys problem is: You cannot visualize what has not taken place. You cannot think out of the box of kitty litter you call an imagination. Fact: Selleck has aged better also. He would still be visually better. Use your imagination. Oops. Can't use what you don't have. Sorry about that chiefs. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 23 2008 09:00 AM In reply to this comment (#1748113) Arnie, you might benefit from nixing the attempts at insults. It's a waste of space, and doesn't say much for your character. Fact is, Selleck as Indiana Jones never happened and never will. Whatever point you hope to make on the topic is moot. The speculation, irrelevent. Surely you've enough imagination to concede that much. Ford is Indiana Jones. And it's been 27 years, man. Get over it. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 23 2008 09:10 AM In reply to this comment (#1744048) Yeah, and he improved the "I know" line from Empire, too. The man's a genius. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 23 2008 09:18 AM In reply to this comment (#1744726) Like Hell it is. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 23 2008 09:19 AM Indy 4 is a disappointment. Saw it yesterday - nowhere near the standard of the others, Temple of Doom or not. (Reply to this) |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
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) |
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) |
|
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) |
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) |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
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 (Reply to this) |
|
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) |
|
on May 24 2008 12:06 PM Raiders. (Reply to this) |
|
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) |
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) |
on May 24 2008 05:03 PM In reply to this comment (#1748878) D#mn, Mat' ...did you piss in this guy's porridge or what? I haven't seen that much malicious pyscho-babble trotted out for its own sake since the debates on Spider-Man 3, last summer! I figure a) you really got to him and that was some bizarro flame b) he's got some serious man-crush issues and expresses them in new-age verse c) he's another one of these meglomaniacs who takes any difference of opinion as a judgement of his Kudo's on taking the high road, brother! (Reply to this) |
|
on May 24 2008 05:31 PM The organization of these comments is harder to follow than KOTCS plot. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 24 2008 05:56 PM As far as the movie: I agree with those who say the first 20 minutes was vintage 'Indy.' It was almost as if the twenty years didn't matter. I didn't even mind the dialogue. Some of it bordered on 'witty.' And then it got WEAK. The kid had no personality and f#cking SWUNG on f#cking VINES!?!. The traitor was equally non-descript and served no purpose, for good or evil. but I never got any sense of reality or menace from Cate Blanchett and can't forgive how lazy she was with the accent. And the ending? Indy-sized spectacle but I just *couldn't* *care*. As much as I revile most organized religions (and give lip-service alone to my own Judaism), it kind of grounded 'Raiders' and 'Last Crusade' to have well-known mythology. This just seemed silly. Kung Fugue: Any particular reason why you're wasting your time (and, more importantly, mine and everyone else') posting on this conversation if you hate the whole thing? On behalf of everyone here who is bothering to engage in this discussion out of love of the subject, I offer you a hearty 'NO ONE F#CKING CARES' (Reply to this) |
|
on May 24 2008 07:03 PM In reply to this comment (#1751026) LOL. I don't know, Tombstone. I don't know. It's anyone's guess. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 25 2008 02:10 AM In reply to this comment (#1750799) Yes, Indiana Jones is an homage to those serial movies, but it's an homage to a certain type of those movies i.e. the action adventurer ones like the African Queen. The War of the Worlds aspects they tried to incorporate into this one just seemed silly (Not in a good Short Round way) and out of place. The Crystal Skulls themselves looked like they'd pulled a paperweight off Liberace's desk. He's an archeologist for God's sake not a conspiracy theorist. At least they could have made the crystal skulls look like Yoda or Chewbacca for humor value. I was actually hoping when the aliens showed up they'd come armed and Indy would have to shoot one, then when Marion asks him why he did that he could have deadpanned "Because he fired first." That would have been Indiana Jones "Obi Wan Cafe" worthy. (Reply to this) |
on May 25 2008 09:01 AM (Sorry, Temple of Doom -- there's no contest)... Well, looks like Jen want to follow what critic score and Speilberg/Lucas think of the movie. But if you see it in the way Indiana Jones movies was made for, this is by far the closest one to adventure comic book, 30-40's serials. I consider Temple of Doom as the best sequel (prequel, in fact) of Raiders, because this film could be the Xth of a serie. True epic heroe, that forgot the lesson from other adventure, reset to a mid-30 years old adventurer playboy in every story debut. (Reply to this) |
on May 25 2008 10:39 AM I happen to agree with the order of all four movies as deemed by the Tomatometer. KotCS is BY FAR the weakest of the whole series - perhaps closer to the '30s serials that partially inspired the character, but also too close for comfort to something like The Librarian, starring Noah Wylie. Too safe, too generic. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 25 2008 11:54 AM Saw Crystal Skull last night. How can Spielberg, who's made 3 of these, veto material that's overall quite substandard? All the talk abot Ox and the history of conquistadors in Mexico. Who cares? The skull is the McGuffin,the excuse for Indy to clash with the Ruskies. Get on with it! And how lame was it when they found the skull? I was anticipating an elaborate booby trap. Very poor. I always believed that in terms of action scenes that Lucas and Spielberg were spent after the previous 3 movies. After a promising but slightly clunky first half, my fears came true. The jungle chase scene wasn't bad but it's not tied to any real dramtic moment. It's almost disposable and they didn't use any bluescreen? Yeah righ Steve! Throw in a weak, pointless fight scene and I started to give up. With no more gas in the tank you kinda know what's going to happen and they struggle to come up with real peril and just opt for jokes. I did think the interplay between the characters was good especially Marion & Indy but they didn't mine it enough. Harrison was great though and it was a nice ending, pity it wasn't preceded by a more adventurous film. And it took them 19 years to come up with this?! Give me Temple of Doom any day. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 25 2008 06:47 PM I loved Crystal Skulls. My one soul complaint is that it is obvioulsy filmed in digital with "digital effects enhancements" instead of just using good old film and lighting as the first three did. Some of the landscapes seemed unatural and the desert scene at the beginning didn't look like the real Nevada desert, but something altogether foreign. Plus our theater didn't have a very sharp picture, not the movie's fault. But the story the action, the characters, everything else agreed with me and I want to see more Indiana Jones movies! (Reply to this) |
|
on May 25 2008 10:16 PM How many of you rank Temple of Doom first because it was the first one you saw? I liked it--no, loved it when I first saw it, but I watched it again recently and it sucked hard. Terrible. Raiders holds up just fine, Last Crusade has its moments amid the cheese. Just saw Crystal Skull and I thought it was fun. A nostalgia trip, which I think is fine. Nothing offended me. There were some good moments, and some cheese. A great piece of cinema? Of course not. But it went down just fine with my popcorn. But it, TOD and TLC do not hold a candle to Raiders. It's not even close. And I can't take seriously anyone who says they do. (Reply to this) |
on May 25 2008 10:28 PM Oh get off you're high-untalented-horses about "Temple of Doom". It never tried to be "Raiders"...c'mon, when you have an action picture open with a Busby Berkley like opening and the song is "Anything Goes"....uh, anything goes! It's still fun, and as much as I like "Crusade" at least all of the action set pieces worked, as opposed to "Crusade's" boat sequence in Venice:zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! It was like sitting through "Always" again. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 26 2008 03:02 AM In reply to this comment (#1753254) I actually think most of the movie was made on film. Lucas was actually whining to Spielberg about lack of digital calling him "old fashioned". Spielberg is the foremost proponent of film being better than digital. He still uses Moviola's. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 26 2008 03:04 AM In reply to this comment (#1753254) For all the TOD haters out there I used to be one of you until someone pointed out just how many scene's in that movie are what I think of as being intrinsically Indiana Jones. Raiders is still my favorite, but I also have a sound respect for Temple and absolutely adore Short Round. "Dokta Jones, no time for love!!!!" (Reply to this) |
|
on May 26 2008 06:20 AM In reply to this comment (#1754053) "You cheat, doctor Jones!" (Reply to this) |
|
on May 26 2008 10:40 AM Just saw Kingdom...mixed feelings. I have have to say Raiders, TOD, Crusade, Kingdom in order of greatness. Aliens and Soviets just don't seem to be a good fit for the Indy mythology. There were some reference to Indy's actions during WWII - that seems like some of the real interesting stuff ;) (Reply to this) |
|
on May 26 2008 11:47 AM In reply to this comment (#1754706) That's probably the only way they could squeeze another quality sequal out of this, slap some age reducing tech on Ford and do a WWII adventure prequal. Ditch Shia, bring back Connery (at gunpoint if necessary) and maybe base it in the Pacific theater for the much demanded Short Round cameo :). (Reply to this) |
|
on May 27 2008 06:53 AM In reply to this comment (#1754905) While we're at it, bring back Allison Doody (the nazi spy in 'Crusade'), complete with computer-restored hotness. F#ck it, let's do another flash-back to young Indy, using *entirely* computer-generated footage of River Phoenix. As long as we're introducing Aliens, give Lucas some more free reign and let's film a scene on Coruscant! ..okay, now back to work... (Reply to this) |
|
on May 27 2008 08:01 AM Alright, when I was a kid I always found Temple of Doom to be the best. As I got older I really began to enjoy The Last Crusade. I found Raiders to be boring. At 19, watching them now, I can really see how sub par and really quite rediculous Temple of Doom is. Raiders clout has gone up considerably, but I still find Last Crusade to be the most enjoyable. Its got the best wit of all the movies. It also has the most charm and most sentiment, which I think is a good thing. These family sentiments dont get in the way of the action scenes. My personal favorite action scene in the movie is the motorcycle chase. I found Last Crusade to be the most complete movie. Raiders had a drab ending. Temple of Doom is too over-the-top, but Crusade runs smoothly from start to finish. (Reply to this) |
|
on May 27 2008 08:02 AM Alright, when I was a kid I always found Temple of Doom to be the best. As I got older I really began to enjoy The Last Crusade. I found Raiders to be boring. At 19, watching them now, I can really see how sub par and really quite rediculous Temple of Doom is. Raiders clout has gone up considerably, but I still find Last Crusade to be the most enjoyable. Its got the best wit of all the movies. It also has the most charm and most sentiment, which I think is a good thing. These family sentiments dont get in the way of the action scenes. My personal favorite action scene in the movie is the motorcycle chase. I found Last Crusade to be the most complete movie. Raiders had a drab ending. Temple of Doom is too over-the-top, but Crusade runs smoothly from start to finish. (Reply to this) |
on May 27 2008 10:07 AM In reply to this comment (#1744131) You have to also remember LucasArts released Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, the adventure game all the way back in 1992, 5 years before SG-1 even existed! And #2, Atlantis NEVER comes into play in this movie. #3 Even Indy will tell you there are all kinds of crystal skulls around the world, but not all of them have mystical qualities, the skull in question in this movie is actually taken from true events, and mayan/aztec folklore. (Reply to this) |
on May 28 2008 08:11 PM for me, it goes in this order: 1. Raiders of the Lost Ark ( the perfect action-adventure movie ) 2. The Last Crusade (focuses on being more fun and less dark, but still has all the action and adventure of the first two which i loved) 3. Temple of Doom ( very fun movie, even though it was very corny in parts, and the gore was over the top and a little bit fake, it's still awesome stuff) 4. Kingdom of the crystal skull ( Harrison Ford is way too old for the role, they could have made it WAY sooner, but whatever, i still enjoyed watching it, the ending was so bull-**** though. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2008 11:53 PM In reply to this comment (#1743990) I am always amazed that some people think TOD was "mean-spiirted." There's more campy humor in this film than all of the other ones combined. Short Round is delightful, and Kate Capshaw is quite funny as a thorn in Indy's side. The opening number of "Anything Goes" (including the action and the music) is exceptionally well done. However,the film is also scary because the cultists are extremely evil and are practicing black magic (including ritual sacrifices) as if the medieval age had never ended. The cultists and their surrounding environment (including the masses of insects) are meant to reek of evil. TOD is underrated amd more memorable than the Last Crusade, which at times was too corny and obvious. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2008 11:55 PM In reply to this comment (#1743990) I am always amazed that some people think TOD was "mean-spiirted." There's more campy humor in this film than all of the other ones combined. Short Round is delightful, and Kate Capshaw is quite funny as a thorn in Indy's side. The opening number of "Anything Goes" (including the action and the music) is exceptionally well done. However,the film is also scary because the cultists are extremely evil and are practicing black magic (including ritual sacrifices) as if the medieval age had never ended. The cultists and their surrounding environment (including the masses of insects) are meant to reek of evil. TOD is underrated amd more memorable than the Last Crusade, which at times was too corny and obvious. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 03 2008 04:48 AM For me, it's right after Raiders of The Lost Ark. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 23 2008 05:52 PM NOTE: This is my very personal opinion, which is not ment to insult the taste of anyone else in here!! Me & my Indiana Jones Obsession: So for me, the best Jones easily always was Temple of Doom...it was more thrilling, more exciting and more "Indiana Jones" than the other twos (Crystal Skull fails in being an Indiana Jones film for me, so it doesn't count; = 4th place). Tough, I really love Raiders and Crusade aswell, Raiders would be my number two, very close to Temple and Crusade number three with a longer distance to Indy 1 and 2. So why's that? I used to watch the Indiana Jones films for the very first time as a young boy when I was around 8-9 years old. One evening (my mother and sister used to be away), my father dug out his TV-Recorded Raiders VHS and we started watching Indy 1. My very first imprssion of the movie's first moment was not a good one (imagine you being a little boy watching those dirty man walking thru this shadowed jungle). But I was immediatly blown away by the following Temple action and Indy's entire trip till to the Nazis deserved death thru the hands of a "good" god. (I was young, but I got this metaphor in the Raiders climax). After that I begged my father to watch the other two movies with me, because verything was so fresh, so real to me. And I really, really adored those dark moments in Raiders (Marion & the skeletons / the ark's theme / the gory climax...). But we couldn't watch Temple that early because my mother didn't want me to watch this movie...and that made me feel about it like something even more special... One night I had a horrible nightmare, it's center picture was some kind of statue (or so) with much blood running down on it...this was few days before watching Temple for the very first time. And then, it happened INDIANA JONES & THE TEMPLE OF DOOM: It got me from the first second on - Indy and Will jumping out the clubs window - landing in Shorty's car - Shorty bumping up the riksha (how I laughed my young *** off) - the plane flight - the boat action - the river - the slightly scary eldest of the village - Indy willing to help the poor one's - the trek thru the jungle - AND: the picture off my nightmare (you know, this statue in the jungle which made Indy say: "Don't come up to me!")...now the movie got me 101% and it was an unique pleassure to watch rest of it...Every single scene was stunning and exotic to me...I loved the insects and the darkness inside the temple...all the corpses...the ritual the priest and even Indy himself being obsessed by evil for one moment (and that easily is my favorite scene in all Indy movies: Indy, scared to death, waking up in this narrow kind of cave full of candles). Then the minecart chase...the bridge action and finally the freed children it was unbelievable to me. While all the other boys talked about Star Wars and were dreaming to defeat Darth Vader, I dreamed about going on a trip thru the darkness with Indiana Jones and bringing the light to those who almost lost it. And now today, of course, my religious worshiping for this film has not gone, but turned into remembring (and still watching) it as an unique thrillride, entertaining as a movie can be entertaining. There simply is no better adventure! (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |
Related Links
Related Articles
- RT Review Revue: Indiana Jones, a Message from Uwe, and More Viewer Mail (46)
- Total Recall: 20 Sequels We're Still Waiting For... (154)
- Indiana Jonesin': How Does the Latest Chapter Measure Up? (145)
- Travel the World With Indiana Jones! (16)
- Tomatometer Watch: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Looking Good! (20)
- Steven Spielberg's Ten Best-Directed Films (232)
- George Lucas - A Super-Producer's History (48)
- Indiana Jonesin': The Best of Harrison Ford (44)
Most Discussed
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (99)
- Friday Harvest: The Road, Avatar, and more! (96)
- 5 Facts About The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (91)
- Total Recall: Natalie Portman's Best Movies (45)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Vampires and Football Break Thanksgiving Records (38)
- Five Favorite Films with Jesse Ventura (32)
- Weekly Ketchup: Zombieland 2 in 3D? (28)
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: Terminator Salvation and a Smithsonian Battle (20)
- Duncan Jones Reteams With Kevin Spacey (5)
- Awards Tour: Annie Nominations, Up and Coraline lead (4)
Latest News
- 2010 Sundance Film Festival Lineup Announced (2)
- Five Favorite Films with Jesse Ventura (32)
- Awards Tour: Annie Nominations, Up and Coraline lead (4)
- Total Recall: Natalie Portman's Best Movies (46)
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: Terminator Salvation and a Smithsonian Battle (20)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Vampires and Football Break Thanksgiving Records (38)
- Weekly Ketchup: Zombieland 2 in 3D? (28)
- Duncan Jones Reteams With Kevin Spacey (5)
- Friday Harvest: The Road, Avatar, and more! (96)
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (100)
Latest Interviews
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (17)
- Eric Bana talks Love the Beast - RT Interview (11)
- Fight Club Sound Designer Reflects on Film's 10th Anniversary (21)
- James Schamus talks Taking Woodstock - RT Interview (8)
- John Hurt Talks Harry Potter, Quentin Crisp and Alien - The RT Interview (15)
- Terry Gilliam Talks Doctor Parnassus (22)
- Wes Anderson Talks Fantastic Mr. Fox - RT Interview (9)
- Wolverine Creator Len Wein Talks About the Film (28)
- Gavin Hood Talks Wolverine; Possible Sequel (28)
- Duncan Jones talks Moon, Sam Rockwell, and Mute (14)
Latest Features
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (100)
- 5 Facts About The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (91)
- Five Favorite Films With Zombieland Director Ruben Fleischer (24)
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (17)
- Fight Club Sound Designer Reflects on Film's 10th Anniversary (21)
- Five Favourite Films with Ang Lee (35)
- 10 Movies That Changed The (End Of The) World (36)
- Ho-ho-horror! 10 Scary Christmas Movies (39)
- 12 Facts About 2012 (135)
- RT's Movie Location Guide - London as Elsewhere (0)
IGN RSS Feeds