Fan in Chicago Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 I'd put it third out of the four movies. I'll see it again, but not going to rush out to the theater, I'll wait for it either on DVD or cable. Based on what other people said, I don't think I need to say which I consider 4th. 1st would be Crusades, mostly because of the interaction with Sean Connery. SPOILERS LIKELY BELOW I agree with you and yall. It is a close third with ToD still being the fourth. The key point that yall made is what stayed with me. I have no problem with supernatural or extraterrestrial storylines. But when the action goes way over the top, ridiculous and unbelievable (within the realm of the suspension of disbelief) I stop enjoying what I am watching. The story had no heart, Indy and friends are indestructible and Shia is just not suited for the tough/punk role. I feel cheated and has hurt the fondness in my heart built by the Last Crusade and Raiders. I disagree this time with both the professional critics and fans who have made this now the second highest grossing Memorial day movie. BTW, I hated the movie thats the highest grossing also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 I remember someone did, I think it was Marion when she first saw Indy. Mac used the nickname all throughout the movie. He was the one character I really didn't like. He didn't seem like the kind of guy that Indy would ever have as a friend. Too much of a money grubber. I really missed Marcus Brody in this one, but there's not much they could do about that since the actor is dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MavBavButav Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 this movie was much worse than Temple of Doom. Temple of Doom was enjoyable. This movie was not. End of story. Anyone who claims Temple of Doom is a bad movie needs go to watch it again. I watched it again last night and enjoyed it. I watched Indy4 in the theater opening night and couldn't have enjoyed it less. It was pitiful. Sorry for being real, but someone has to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 I saw it today and was pretty disappointed by it. Actually, it was really annoying. Ruskies catch them, they escape, then run away. Ruskies catch them, they escape, then run away. Ruskies almost catch them, they escape, then run away. Ruskies catch them again, they escape, then run away. The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 They've already found 42 mistakes in the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 Wow, and here I thought Temple of Doom was the best of the series... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Toboggan M.D Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 Temple of Doom was a great movie. Not the best of the three, but it was very enjoyable, even the corny parts were enjoyable and made you laugh. The corny parts in Crystal Skull made me shake my head in disappointment. One of the best lines from Indiana Jones comes from temple of Doom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 I feel cheated and has hurt the fondness in my heart built by the Last Crusade and Raiders. This is the logic that just makes me shake my head and laugh. How can one movie hurt the "fondness in your heart" for ANOTHER movie? That's like saying, "The 2005 Bills team was so awful that it hurt the fondness in my heart for the 1993 team." Does this mean now when you put in Raiders you can't enjoy it simply because you didn't enjoy a movie that was made 27 years later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fewell733 Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 Temple of Doom was a great movie. Not the best of the three, but it was very enjoyable, even the corny parts were enjoyable and made you laugh. The corny parts in Crystal Skull made me shake my head in disappointment. One of the best lines from Indiana Jones comes from temple of Doom. there are a lot of great moments in Temple of Doom. Better moments than Indy 4 has to offer. But Kate Capshaw is so irritating for the first hour that it's basically unwatchable whenever she's on screen and talking. Also Short Run, who I thought was awesome when I was a kid, now seems incredibly annoying. The story is way better though than Indy 4. Interestingly though both suffer from multiple over the top stunts involving cliffs, which border on ridiculous. they're both seriously flawed movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 This is the logic that just makes me shake my head and laugh. How can one movie hurt the "fondness in your heart" for ANOTHER movie? That's like saying, "The 2005 Bills team was so awful that it hurt the fondness in my heart for the 1993 team." Does this mean now when you put in Raiders you can't enjoy it simply because you didn't enjoy a movie that was made 27 years later? Have you ever seen the second and third Matrix films? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewin Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 Saw it with the family yesterday - it was entertaining - but I do have to say I was a bit disappointed - especially w/ the ending/main plotline. Sure you have to suspend belief for all of them - but something about that particular subject matter had a big groan/eye-roll factor for me - it also just seemed ill-fitted to the context of the series for me. Also - unlike some, I didn't feel the 'comfortableness' of HF this time around - in fact at times I think it was kind of awkward going the line from 'old man' to 'superhuman stuntman'. Would have loved to have seen more of Karen Allen - seemed they introduced her too late and just rushed through her involvement. BTW - at one point towards the end of the movie there were a couple scenes and I was thinking something and my son said exactly what I was thinking "This is just like National Treasure!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Have you ever seen the second and third Matrix films? lol Yeah, they suck. But the first one is still cool and works as a stand alone film. I feel like if they knew they were going to do a trilogy originally, they would never have had him be able to fly at the end. The problem they ran into in the next two (besides just being dull) was Neo was too powerful to really do much with. There was no threat. Still ... the logic of "the sequel killed my love of the original" never vibes with me. Raiders is one of the best movies ever made. It was lightning in a bottle. Temple of Doom and Crusade were admirable follow ups (I would argue Crusade was brilliant in its own way), but neither captured the same magic as the first. Does that mean they were a waste of time and effort? Making movies is hard. Making good movies is even more difficult. I assure you, no one sets out to make a sh------- movie. But with such a collaborative medium, the odds are you're going to fail more often than you succeed. This is not an excuse for Indy 4 (or other sequels which have failed to live up to the hype). Just saying that blaming them for "killing your childhood" or "raping your memories" (two common things I've heard from the blog-o-sphere) is just silly. They exist independently of one another. Sorry for the rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Saw it with the family yesterday - it was entertaining - but I do have to say I was a bit disappointed - especially w/ the ending/main plotline. Sure you have to suspend belief for all of them - but something about that particular subject matter had a big groan/eye-roll factor for me - it also just seemed ill-fitted to the context of the series for me. Also - unlike some, I didn't feel the 'comfortableness' of HF this time around - in fact at times I think it was kind of awkward going the line from 'old man' to 'superhuman stuntman'. Would have loved to have seen more of Karen Allen - seemed they introduced her too late and just rushed through her involvement. BTW - at one point towards the end of the movie there were a couple scenes and I was thinking something and my son said exactly what I was thinking "This is just like National Treasure!" As for the plot line ... You have to remember the original conceit of the films. They were always designed to be really good B movies like the serials Lucas and Spielberg grew up watching. Hence the time period, the Nazis and the religious artifacts. The move to the 1950s reflected the common serials and themes of those movies -- namely evil Commies and Science Fiction tales. While it's certainly a jarring switch in tone from the previous three, it was an attempt to stay true to their original conceit of the franchise. It bumped me too though, especially the fact that they chickened out at the end ... but it's not ... um ... alien ... to the heart of the franchise. Though now I sound like an Indy apologist ... which I am proud to say that I am. Though I realize this film is in no way shape or form perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 BTW - at one point towards the end of the movie there were a couple scenes and I was thinking something and my son said exactly what I was thinking "This is just like National Treasure!" Same here. I was like, "please don't go there" when the movie was about one step away from the Nat Treasure "reveal" scene when they find the treasure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Same here. I was like, "please don't go there" when the movie was about one step away from the Nat Treasure "reveal" scene when they find the treasure. But ... but ... National Treasure ripped off Indy. How can Indy be accused of ripping off a copy-cat when he is the original? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Yeah, they suck. But the first one is still cool and works as a stand alone film. I feel like if they knew they were going to do a trilogy originally, they would never have had him be able to fly at the end. The problem they ran into in the next two (besides just being dull) was Neo was too powerful to really do much with. There was no threat. Still ... the logic of "the sequel killed my love of the original" never vibes with me. Raiders is one of the best movies ever made. It was lightning in a bottle. Temple of Doom and Crusade were admirable follow ups (I would argue Crusade was brilliant in its own way), but neither captured the same magic as the first. Does that mean they were a waste of time and effort? Making movies is hard. Making good movies is even more difficult. I assure you, no one sets out to make a sh------- movie. But with such a collaborative medium, the odds are you're going to fail more often than you succeed. This is not an excuse for Indy 4 (or other sequels which have failed to live up to the hype). Just saying that blaming them for "killing your childhood" or "raping your memories" (two common things I've heard from the blog-o-sphere) is just silly. They exist independently of one another. Sorry for the rant. Rant away, my friend....I always enjoy your takes on the entertainment industry. I totally agree about the original Matrix film. I have pretty much convinced myself that it was the only one made anyway, cause it was THAT good. I remember watching it in the theater for the first time, feeling a bit uncertain as to what was going on in the first twenty mins, and having that give way to wanting to give this movie major props once I figured it out. It's one of my favorite films of all time, and it's a shame that the second and third films were nothing more than a money grab designed solely to capitalize on the success of the original. The idea of turning Neo into a superhero was asinine. If they would have allowed that concept to remain within the confines of the Matrix, then maybe the sequels could have had something. But they dropped the ball big time, IMO. The first time I heard someone use the expression, "George Lucas raped my childhood", I damn near sharted myself. I was (and am) among the biggest Star Wars marks that existed...but those people who actually state this with a straight face are ridiculous. I love movies as much as anyone, but sometimes people need to remember that when all is said and done, they're meant for entertainment above all else....those who take it too seriously need to heed the words of the great William Shatner and "get a life". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Same here. I was like, "please don't go there" when the movie was about one step away from the Nat Treasure "reveal" scene when they find the treasure. I just saw National Treasure 2 the other day. I had to check the DVD sleeve to make sure I wasn't mistakenly sent National Treasure 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 I've been thinking more and more about this movie since I saw it on Saturday. I will have to say that it wasn't terrible, but I'd see it again and enjoy seeing it along with the "all day Indy" marathons on TCM. When it comes down to it, I'd rather have this movie than none at all, and I agree that it's ridiculous to say that this movie ruins all the other three for you. While I do wish that the story plot device had not been what it was, it was still good seeing Indy again. Although, unlike the other movies, there were a few parts where I groaned out loud at the idiocy of the CGI crap that Lucas INSISTS on putting in every movie he has involvement in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 I've been thinking more and more about this movie since I saw it on Saturday. I will have to say that it wasn't terrible, but I'd see it again and enjoy seeing it along with the "all day Indy" marathons on TCM. When it comes down to it, I'd rather have this movie than none at all, and I agree that it's ridiculous to say that this movie ruins all the other three for you. While I do wish that the story plot device had not been what it was, it was still good seeing Indy again. Although, unlike the other movies, there were a few parts where I groaned out loud at the idiocy of the CGI crap that Lucas INSISTS on putting in every movie he has involvement in... At least the waterfall scenes were realistic, though. I was happy about that, cause at first I thought they were going to be ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 This is the logic that just makes me shake my head and laugh. How can one movie hurt the "fondness in your heart" for ANOTHER movie? That's like saying, "The 2005 Bills team was so awful that it hurt the fondness in my heart for the 1993 team." Does this mean now when you put in Raiders you can't enjoy it simply because you didn't enjoy a movie that was made 27 years later? I think I did not state my point clearly. I meant the fondness is for the Indy franchise as a provider of movies with adventure and fantasy blended together entertainingly. This movie did not hurt how I feel about those two movies - but it did dent the feelings I had about the Indy character and the campy, entertaining movies he appeared in. ToD I forgave especially after Last Crusade. But I felt cheated by this movie and in general go the feeling that Spielberg & co. went the Gore Verbinski way (Pirates of the Caribbean) by passing off idiocy under the guise of entertainment. This movie did not entertain and definitely did not provide a payoff for the Suspension of Disbelief concept. If you want to use a possible analogy about the Bills, I will feel this way if overnight Ralph were to move the franchise to some other town ala Browns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts