June 2, 2002, 8:04 a.m. CST
Good to hear somebody else not think that Last Crusade was all that hot. And as for Indy 4 - after all the "no more Indys" they were saying back in '89, it stinks to me of Luca$ and $pielberg...
June 2, 2002, 8:06 a.m. CST
In my opinion, Temple of Doom was the stinker of this series. I've seen it maybe twice. The others, I could watch over and over again. I don't know why everyone is so down on Last Crusade?
June 2, 2002, 8:10 a.m. CST
I share Moriarty's relative lack of enthusiasm. Looking forward to Minority Report though, if only because I want to see if I'm write about Steven Speilberg being totally wrong for a Phillip K. Dick adaptation. I'm also first, but I'm far too big a man to make something of it.
June 2, 2002, 8:11 a.m. CST
Why the atraction? Why?
June 2, 2002, 8:12 a.m. CST
Sorry, I've been on the sauce again.
June 2, 2002, 8:16 a.m. CST
Not as good as Raiders, but damn close. It has a relentless adolescent energy that makes it all work somehow. And I actually liked Short Round. He had a lot of spunk and character, much more likable than tht other lucas kid (Jake LLoyd). He made up for the shrill annoyance of the future Mrs. Spielberg. I agree on Last Crusade, though. I always found that one flat, Spielberg playing it safe after the roasting he took over the violence in Temple of Doom. The action set pieces are all very redundant chases...first it's a train...then a boat...then a plane...then a motorcycle...then a tank. Boring.
June 2, 2002, 8:23 a.m. CST
by Crazy Fresh DJ
So I can replace it with a dollar sign every time I want the world to know I think those two are greedy.
June 2, 2002, 8:29 a.m. CST
Nice article, Moriarty. Whilst I love Harry's rampant zest in his reports, I must confess that I prefer your measured opinion sometimes. Your Clones review was spot on. Now, as for Indy 4, well...it only seems to be this film that gets me motivated enough to talk back. As I've said many, many times before, the whole point about Indy to me is that being an adventurer is his gift and his truly powerful curse. Even when he sits on his deathbed sucking soup through a straw there will still be aging Nazis trying to steal his false teeth. His age makes little difference to me. It's all about Indy's attitude. What I disliked about the Young Indy stuff was the lack of a sense of humour. I couldn't believe Indy was ever that bland. Having said that,I think Frank is a quality choice for this -- some of the action setpieces on Young Indy were extremely good, as was the pacing. Whilst I agree about Temple Of Doom, I have to disagree about Last Crusade. It had the same kind of religious zeal and energy to me as the first one, but with the gift of Connery, and some interesting character development. (Sallah (sp?) was burnt out...I thought that was great, and I loved Elliot getting lost just as the V.O. tells you he's fluent in sixteen languages or something and would effortlessly blend in.) And the action, with Connery and the umbrella and the wto of them strapped to a chair talking about how the blonde talks in her sleep...fantastic. They got it just right. I was dubious when Crusade came out; I left the cinema elated. That's why I want another one. I'm skeptical about a son, I'm skeptical about more Kate Capshaw, but give me humour and action and an aging, even-more trigger-happy and cynical Indy. Give me a grown-up Short-round, a beautiful quest, love life blues, and bickering between Connery and Ford. Most of all, though -- give me a film that isn't scared of the fanboys who are already cursing this one. Give me a film that isn't scared of Indy's age. Give me a hat that looks even more battered, but still has charm. Give us Indy!
June 2, 2002, 8:40 a.m. CST
Indiana Jones is the greatest adventure film series of all time. It has Action, Romance, Humor, and an actual storyline. The movies are pure fun. There is no other explanation. Pure Fun. And Speilberg and Lucas, the reason they want to keep making movies like Indiana Jones and Star Wars is because they're not only fun to watch, but they're fun to make. The two of them easily have enough money to never need to work again, but they keep working because they enjoy it.
June 2, 2002, 8:44 a.m. CST
I wasn't crazy about it either when it came out but repeated viewings over time have done it for me. Actually one reason I find it so charming now is that it stands as one of the last "blockbuster" films made before the advent of CGI. The Abyss came out that same summer of '89 (unless my memory's off) and to watch The Last Crusade now with its rampant blue screen work, physical effects and even animatronic puppets (the disintegration of the villian at the finale) really is to look at one of the last major films of a certain era. I'm dubious about a fourth Jones film but I'll give everyone involved the benefit of the doubt.
June 2, 2002, 8:49 a.m. CST
I agree, it isn't as good as RAIDERS. Very very few movies are. It's the perfect adventure film. TEMPLE OF DOOM is just an assault on the senses. I saw it when I was 14 and I was worn out at the end of it. At the time, I loved it, but with some age and one hopes some wisdom it is now just a trifle film to me, with the exception of the opening action sequence, which is perfect Indy. As for LAST CRUSADE, I flat out don't remember the Sallah you described. I remember Marcus Brody though, ugh, and I agree with you there, but I don't remember the scene where Sallah asks for money. However, what I do remember is the camaraderie between Indy and Jones Sr. You really could believe that they were father and son. And Ford and Connery really had a spark going between them, at once talking as equals and later on Indy being chastened by his father when it seems that Indy forgets what it's all about. And the last half-hour of the film, when Indy goes after the Grail, was aces. I loved the traps and they way you passed them. I do agree with Mori that there's no decent villain in CRUSADE. I mean, Toht in RAIDERS is a throwaway villain, but you still remember him. And there's nothing like Belloq in CRUSADE. Still, I thought LAST CRUSADE is a fine addition to the Indy canon. But again, it's no RAIDERS. Now, the idea of a 4th film coming...well, I feel much the way Mori does. Unless it's going to rock on all cylinders, I just don't see the need. I'm frankly not interested in watching Indiana get old, and train some replacement or his son or something. The last thing I want to hear is Indy complaining about his bones as he's trying to escape some trap or something or get some treasure. The ONLY thing Indy would complain about is snakes. It's not in his nature to bitch about things like that holding him up. So Frank, I wouldn't dwell too much on the age thing. Trust me, the audience will fill that in for themselves, the idea that maybe Indy doesn't move as well as he used to, and maybe (like the real Ford does a little bit) just denies it's even there. Besides, the one thing I love about the Indiana films is that luck always plays a part in Indiana getting through. It's not all him; sometimes he gets out simply through the grace of God. He's not suave or sophisticated when it comes to trying to get the Ark or whatever. He's not above throwing sand in the face of a Nazi and letting some plane propeller grind him up. Or shooting a swordsman, for that matter. For Indy it's not about the adventure (although for the audience it is), it's all about getting that artifact, and how he'll do anything to get it. I don't know. I think the script is in the best hands it could possibly be in, and I'll hope that it will be good. If Spielberg, Lucas, and company leave him alone to write it, I bet it will be as fun as anything. I love Frank Darabont's films, including THE MAJESTIC which I'm confident will be rediscovered once it's relelased on DVD. So I have high hopes. I'm just not going to go out of my way to look for stuff on this. Frank, I just want to say, good luck, we're all counting on you.
June 2, 2002, 9:32 a.m. CST
I agree that INDY is best left alone unless #4 hits it out of the park. It has to have a REALLY good script and the holy trinity (Lucas, Speilberg, Ford) must want to put 100% into this film or it'll feel flat at best. Don't bother if it's just an excuse to make money and/or spin off another franchise (Teen Indy). ------------------------------------------------------------------- RAIDERS ranks as the best adventure film ever. TEMPLE was darker, but was still fun, Kate Capshaw's character notwithstanding. I enjoyed CRUSADE when I first saw it at the tender age of 13, but as I've grown older my appreciation for it has waned much like Moriarty's. I don't dislike the film, but it does stand apart from the other films in the trilogy. On many levels it is simply a retread of themes and set pieces from RAIDERS. Pretty much the only things that didn't make it a waste of time was the opening sequence with River Phoenix (classic) and Ford and Connery's scenes together. They had a nice rapport. CRUSADE didn't have the edge of RAIDERS or TEMPLE. It was soft. If an INDY 4 is going to be made, please bring back the EDGE! L8r
June 2, 2002, 10:16 a.m. CST
by Jan Tha Devil
I was just wondering.... Since they are going to make a 4th movie...well what kind of SFX thing can we espect? Since Lucas turned his old SW-trilogy into an digital-overkill...well....I wouldn do't be surprised if he's going to a greet amount of sfx in Indy 4 (and problably making the same digital-overkill to the old Indy-movies). Don't get me wrong, I love sfx, but the story and characters matter also.... Just a thought... Greetingz, Jan Tha Devil.
June 2, 2002, 10:18 a.m. CST
by Kabuki Man
The Indy Triligoy kicks ass and is far superior than the latest Star Wars flicks. Yes, Raiders was best, but come on, Last Crusade deserves some credit. It is far from the piece of shit that you guys are making it out to be. The opening young Indy, the boat sequence, the tank sequence, the plane sequence, the motorcyle sequence, the traps, all rocked. The villains were basically retreads of the first, but the movie still kicked ass. I would also much rather watch Temple of Doom than the Phantom Menace or Attack of The Clones any day of the week.
June 2, 2002, 10:52 a.m. CST
by Mr. Impossible
I agree about Brody in IJ and the LC. They really turned him into a buffoon. I noticed a similar change to Sallah's character. Obviously a lack of interest in character continuity is a cornerstone of Lucas' career. Ultimately what will Lucas and Spielberg be remembered for? Using A movie technology to tell B movie stories. That's really the secret to their success. Raiders was essentially a homage to classic movies and the Hollwood serial(as Star Wars was). To me the story isnt as much about Indiana Jones as it is about the Ark. The characters are just window dressing. As Belloq says: "we are simply passing through history. But this," pointing to the ark, "this is history." It is not a character-dense story, and I would argue that Marion and Belloq are presented as far more complex characters than Indiana Jones is in the film(and played by better actors too). The dialogue is only there to move the plot forward..and that's all. As for the themes... Dont look for any subtext you havent seen before, and you better keep your eyes fixed when you are looking. Corrupt governments. The vanity of ambition. Sacrificing life for career, etc. I loved the irony of the last act. The mechanistic viciousness of the Ark's spirit guardians and the ultimate fate of the Ark being relegated to another Well of Souls. Of course, in real life the government would be sending it off to a lab for analyses. No chance that the US government wouldnt try to exploit it for use as a weapon, just as they wouldnt hesitate to aim guns at their own citizens if an alien life form was stolen from their custody. Lucas and to a lesser extent(but not by much) Spielberg approach life from a childlish pov. In that sense their films dont age as well as I would have expected them to.
June 2, 2002, 11:05 a.m. CST
by TS Thomas
While it's not often I get to say something like this, but re-watching the first Indiana Jones was pretty hard to do, more so because it's dated so badly I think. Just the effects in it look pretty appaling now & really kill the film for me. Hopefully they'll redo effects ala like ET (Albeit WITHOUT cutting or re-editing stuff, e.g. indy still shoots the sword guy) & releases it again, straight to DVD even.
June 2, 2002, 11:24 a.m. CST
Hmmmm...good script review; however, the guy is a little confused as far as the nature of logarithms are concerned.
June 2, 2002, 11:34 a.m. CST
by Karl Hungus
In the opening sequence, Indy finds an important golden artifact but has a run-in with a well-dressed mercenary...a competitor he will cross paths with again later. After narrowly escaping from this villain's clutches, Indy returns to the university, where he teaches a class filled with awestruck male students and lovestruck female students. Marcus ambles down the hall and enters Indy's classroom, for some post-lecture chat about Indy's latest adventure. Indy is then summoned by Americans for a confidential meeting involving the search for a legendary Biblical artifact that will give its owner amazing powers. Indy doesn't really believe the supernatural mumbo-jumbo surrounding this artifact, but it would be quite a prize nonetheless, so he agrees to locate the artifact in question -- but first, he must locate a secondary artifact which will give him an important clue about the Biblical artifact's secret location. Indy hops on a plane and (via a travelogue map montage) flies to a far-off land where he hooks up with a female companion (who also carries some romantic baggage complicating things for Indy). Working together and barely evading mysterious enemies with a secret agenda, Indy and his gal secure the first artifact, and thus, the location of the Biblical artifact is revealed. But formiddable villains stand in their way: The Nazis. Working with a non-German archaeolgy expert, the Nazis have been ordered by Hitler to capture the Biblical artifact so that he can take over the world. Indy recruits his old pal Sallah to assist in the race to find the Biblical artifact before the Nazis do. Indy's girlfriend ends up with the Nazis for a while, and then Indy engages the Nazis in a thrilling, knock-down, drag-out chase with trucks and military vehicles across a Middle-Eastern desert. Bloodied and bruised, but definitely still kicking, Indy the Nazis' evil archaeology expert meet for a final showdown where the true power of the Biblical artifact is revealed. The villain's face melts away, the Nazis are defeated, and Indy manages to escape -- but ultimately, the Biblical artifact is not to be his. Now, what does all of this mean? RAIDERS is a breathtakingly entertaining thrill ride. LAST CRUSADE is a tired, dumbed-down rehash. For all its flaws, at least TEMPLE OF DOOM covered different territory as far as Indy is concerned. It's a lean, mean, soulless, relentless action machine -- and it works. And as much as I don't care for LAST CRUSADE, I too would like to remember the Indy films ending with that glorious sunset image -- before the entire INDIANA JONES series has the same stink of creative neglect the STAR WARS prequels have. I'm sure Frank Darabont will do a great job, but frankly, it's not him I'm worried about.
June 2, 2002, 11:45 a.m. CST
That not a compliment. Raiders is perfect, the sequels are crap. If I had to pick I prefer Temple of Doom over Crusade, just because it was more respectful of the characters. (Though I don't really like it). I am mixed on another sequel, it could be good if it found the right tone. I was watching Eastwood's Unforgiven last night, and if the next Indy movie was played in that key (melancholy and introspective with a kick ass finale) it could really work. But they won't do that, it will be more like Crusade. Lucas doesn't have a good sense of humor, his jokes in AOTC don't work. What was the point of C3PO's head rolling around during the battle? It wasn't funny and wasn't necessary. That was as annoying as Jar Jar. I don't have high hopes for another Indy. Let it be.
June 2, 2002, 11:47 a.m. CST
What the hell are you talking about? I can't wait for Indy 4; Darabont is the perfect person for the job. Harrison won't let us down, nor will Lucas, nor Spielberg. Their movies put asses in seats, and that's pretty much what matters.
June 2, 2002, 11:48 a.m. CST
a fourth INDY-flick with the new lucas-style digital effects, that may work on a certain level in his latest 2 star wars installments would attribute to the complete loss of atmosphere. i always loved the typical INDY adventure-flair wich was in my opinion mostly created by these moody environments that had this certain touch of plasticity to them. i would just not like this polished cgi-look cause it probably works in a sci-fi movie but certainly not in an INDY franchise. the movie should keep the "hand-made" look of the first three installments. nevertheless i am definately looking forward to this one !
June 2, 2002, 11:51 a.m. CST
I love every Indy film, and I can't wait for the forth one. And all you guys know you agree, so why can't you just admit it?
June 2, 2002, 11:52 a.m. CST
Of course, who knows. If any of the above have a good idea, that will make it more than just another entry in a franchise, that's cool, but...there must be some reason why the "Trilogy" is such a popular form.
June 2, 2002, 11:57 a.m. CST
After the last one wrapping up in 1938, it would be a real travesty to skip forward to the post-war period. Please tell me Indy didn't spend WWII lecturing sophomores. Give me ACTION!
June 2, 2002, 12:10 p.m. CST
im sick of CGI, its replacing real storytelling with eyecandy, give me a old fashion ROAD WARRIOR movie with real atmosphere and drama, plus some real wild characters.
June 2, 2002, 12:13 p.m. CST
And I really don't think much of the sequels. They're above average in the action/adventure category, but they just don't reach "classic" level as Raiders of the Lost Ark does (which is my Top Ten, just a few spaces down from Seven Samurai). I'm not too sure about Indy IV, I'm sure it will be fun (I thought Epiosde II was fun) but nowhere near the classic/awe-inspiring level of the original. I think Peter Jackson with LOTR is the only one making awe-inspiring grand adventures these days... call me a fanboy, if you will.
June 2, 2002, 12:38 p.m. CST
by Randall Flagg
"We've seen what can happen when one man stretches himself too thin (Return of the Jedi and Crusade)" - Clutch, above ROTJ came out in 1983.... IJ&TLC came out in 1989.. I don't quite see that as Lucas stretching himself too thin.
June 2, 2002, 12:52 p.m. CST
I think a great way to get some depth out of the elder Indiana Jones is start the movie by having him deal with the death of his father. This could be a good way of having cameo's by Marion and Willie Scott, and if Indy does have a child in this film then this could be the way to introduce them into the story. I know that killing Henry Sr. is downbeat but I think that it is necessary for this story, necessary to move forward with the character. My biggest fear is having Indy get married. I feel that this would be a HUGE mistake. They keep talking about cameo's and I just can't picture a cameo by Indy's past love interests other than a funeral or wedding. OR, perhaps a retirement party or birthday party or something like that. Just please not a wedding. And please acknowledge the passing of Denholm Elliot. Please.
June 2, 2002, 12:52 p.m. CST
That's why I don't like TOD....
June 2, 2002, 1:01 p.m. CST
According to an interview between Spielberg and Cinescape. Spielberg is quoted as saying that Frank Darabont did have a hand in rewriting Minority Report but it is uncredited. So who should we believe ? Spielberg or Moriarity ? So Moriarity and Darabont are friends. What a joke. Ya think Moriarity would have faith in him if they were. By the way, Sallah never asked for money in Last Crusade. His brother in-laws car was blown up and he stole some camels to compensate him. Why don't you try actually watching the movie.
June 2, 2002, 1:10 p.m. CST
sometimes a writer is a genius, sometimes he's not. take mark millar, for example. ultimate x-men issues 6 and 11 were great, but everything before, between and after seems like "x-men for dummies". perhaps frank darabont will pull it off majestically this time, perhaps he won't. only seeing the finished product in theaters will tell.
June 2, 2002, 1:12 p.m. CST
It sucked ass! I loathed it. And you're wrong about the River Pheonix intro; that was Uber lame! I waited 5 years for Indy 3 and I have to endure 15 minutes of "Tiger beat" bullshit? That movie sucked King Kong's____! You nailed the character assinations of Brody and Salla! Brody was supposed to be a cultured and elegant man and they made him into a bubble headed tourist. Now Indy 2, That movie was bold. It was like The Empire strikes back-a total deviation from the the original and I loved it. Marion was a trooper. Willie scott was supposed to be the anti-Marion; a complainer-gold digger who could provide some irony and humor and it worked for me. Anyway, I love Raiders and I do not want to see Indy 4! Pointless! HE'S TOO FRIGGIN OLD! I don't care how they "deal with the age issue". I don't care if they hire Chris Rock to write old age jokes about back problems and iregularity...etc It's just a lame fucking idea. Let Indiana Jones, the icon, retire in all his glory as a man in his prime. Fuck!
June 2, 2002, 1:26 p.m. CST
I'm trading in Episode II's bad acting and weak story for Darabont's craftmanship. This is the movie we've really been waiting for.
June 2, 2002, 1:30 p.m. CST
I'm all for Indy 4! Quit yer bellyaching!
June 2, 2002, 1:39 p.m. CST
I'm all for Indy 4! Quit yer bellyaching!
June 2, 2002, 1:42 p.m. CST
by Cap'n Chaos!
Personally, I think Darabont is about the only person that could capture the old-Hollywood dialouge right now and I'm glad he's on the project. Especially if they have others helping him to work out action sequences. I'm looking forward to a sequel, especially if Connery's in it. As for my feelings on the originals, Raiders is a materpiece, pure and simple. Temple of Doom is a more manufactured film to be sure, but it was my favorite as a kid. My appreciation waned for it deeply in the passing years, but it picked up again after I saw it broadcast in widescreen and saw how beautiful it was when you see the whole picture. So it's grown on me again. Short Round still rocks, I still hate Willie Scott (of all the characters to bring back, that's the worst. Thanks for the nepotism, Stevie...) Last Crusade holds a place in my heart for possibley having the best dialouge of any Indy film. The set pieces were exciting as usual, I didn't like the dumbing down of Brodie... but the Connery/Ford relationship alone was worthy of multiple viewings. Not to mention it's got Nazis in it, and I hates them Nazis! :D It's allready been revealed that Indy's son will be in it. *sigh* But does anyone know what the plot will be? Personally, I was hoping for the Atlantis plotline. I loved the game as a kid and think the story was as good as any of the movies. (German army trying to get to an Atlanean "God machine" to harness it's power for an extremely devestating atom bomb that would make the H-bomb look wimpy.) Finally, in the name of God, don't make it CG! The old school feel is half the reason the first three are fun and it would be awesome to see how far non-computer effects tech has come in the past dozen years.
June 2, 2002, 1:48 p.m. CST
by Cap'n Chaos!
The only thing I can think of is maybe your player isn't set right for anamorphic video. I know I don't have the same problem so it's hard for me to tell. Maybe you should try taking your discs to a friends player and check it with their TV. Maybe you're suffering from psychological strain. ;)
June 2, 2002, 1:48 p.m. CST
ok...i liked the cgi in aotc(except that riding scene of ani and a few other things) but in general it was ok!! but concerning indy4 i think it shouldn`t be used that much...please! minority report not such a action flick...ahaaaa...interesting...
June 2, 2002, 1:51 p.m. CST
by jackie delrio
"It will probably be the biggest film ever made, I think it would even topple Star Wars and Titanic at this point." Enough said..
June 2, 2002, 1:55 p.m. CST
it's just a credit to Spielberg that he managed to keep the movie great despite her performance (but that credit gets immediately taken away, of course, considering she's his wife so it's his fault in the first place). and i don't care what Moriarty says: Short Round is the absolute best "let's add a kid into the sequel" character, possibly the only good one. and let the record show: RAIDERS is the coolest movie ever. LAST CRUSADE was just fine, better than TEMPLE OF DOOM in my opinion. i hope they don't fuck this new one up. hopefully Darabont can keep the whole mercilessly-tugging-at-heartstrings-whether-he's-earned-it-or-not tendency to a minimum.
June 2, 2002, 2:07 p.m. CST
...the first shot would reveal Indy brooding over a telegram from Henry Sr. informing him of Marcus'heart attack.One of his pals/lackeys would appear out of a crowded African street to tell Indy that it's time.Time to meet their contact.Of course,this "meeting" goes bad and adventure ensues.Jump to Brody's funeral. Everyone who knew Marcus Brody is there.Henry Sr.,Sallah,Marion... and so on.With Marion is a twenty year old boy(or girl). You get the idea.IF Indy is to have a child,this would be a fine way to introduce it.The funeral would also bring EVERYONE together.From there you can go anywhere.But this is just the ramblings of an armchair screenwriter.Lucas already has HIS STORY.All the writer needs to do is Indy it up-make it cool.Make it funny. I really hope they don't piss all over the Jones legecy.I don't think they will.If Lucas and his crew were not sure of this,I doubt that they would bother.
June 2, 2002, 2:25 p.m. CST
Reading the above article, I couldn't help but have a pseudo-epiphany. Lucas likes his trilogies to end the same way they began. I personally like "Last Crusade" better than "Temple of Doom", mainly because of Willie Binks. I'm sorry, I understand that it makes Marion Ravenwood appear that much more a worthy female partner (in multiple meanings of the term) for Indy, but it was just disruptive. "Temple" is different from the other two, but it doesn't have the same spirit that makes "Raiders" my favorite film of all time. But nevertheless, "Crusade" IS a rehash of "Raiders", with a father and son defining moment (even Indy looking down at Henry is reminiscent of Luke looking down at a weezing, dying Vader)and the father saving the son from certain doom at the last moment. Does anyone else see the similarities in the two Lucas trilogies? However, Indy IV will be a true sequel, so is this merely a coda or is it the beginning of a series of movies that slowly moves his son into the spotlight? I shudder to think of what semi-fey boy band look-a-like they'll have for this role. And if there is no son in the films, then what is the point of it? Besides the "Last Box Office Crusade", of course. It would be nice to see the film be at least as good as either of the sequels, so as to maybe help reign in the notion that all action films need to have balletic bullet time martial arts and swordfights cranked up to "Chipmunk Speed". There's a place for that shit, just not in an Indiana Jones film. Oh, and since Ke Huy Quan [sic] is too old, GET BEETLEJUICE FROM STERN AS THE SIDEKICK!! Having him running around punching Nazis or Commies in the nuts while screaming "You say some'in' 'bout my mother?!" and "I'm the king an' the hustla!!" and "I killed Hitler, muthafucka!!" will (using AICN spelling here) DEFINATELY , make people forget "Wow! Crahsh Lahnding!" or "I sah yoo, Doctah Jones! Yoo cheet Doctah Jones!" Whatever you guys do, don't go all Thuggee on me and rip my heart out with this, 'kay?
June 2, 2002, 2:49 p.m. CST
by Fatal Discharge
Harry's right...Raiders - classic, Temple Of Doom - fun over-the-top cartoon action, Last Crusade - pretty dull rehash (can't even remember the action scenes on this one...saw it once in theater and once on paytv). Darabont's ever-increasing sappy sentimentality don't bode well for a story about an aging hero either.
June 2, 2002, 3:11 p.m. CST
Well, I'm not going to predict the storyline or the quality. What I am going to say is that I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S COMING OUT IN SUMMER '05. No way. See, to say that the films scheduled for a May '06 release doesn't generate the same fervor that a release more or less concurrent with Episode III does. I can't see Lucas pitting his franchises against one another, especially if Episode III is going to need as little resistance as possible, what with his own pre-"Menace" prediction that it would make the least money and the fact that Ep. I AND II have turned Star Wars into pop culture stand-up fodder (I don't care what WE think about the films, the Pavlovian Public has been trained to hate all things Skywalker). So I foresee a May '06 postponement announcement sometime in late '03 or early '04 ("I just realized that I'd be compromising the quality of both films", Lucas will say). The EARLIEST probable would be Christmas '05, but that's not likely. Hell, it could come out in '07, for all I know and have come to expect. It's just that summer '05 doesn't seem right, for so many different (and wrong) reasons. P.S. Weren't the prequels supposed to come out every two years, originally? Wasn't Lucas only going to direct Episode I originally? This guy will be a blue apparition tinkering with his shit someday.
June 2, 2002, 3:28 p.m. CST
by Mark Twain
What was missing in the sequels, er sequel and prequel, was the presence of Karen Allen. Karen Allen was a lot of what made Raiders work for me. hen someone decided to James Bond the series and have a different love interest in each story. It's no coincidence Sean Connery became Indy's father. What would make Indy IV appealing is the return of Karen Allen. I'm sure this isn't even being concidered, but it should be. She was the only leading lady of the series that was credible as a genuine love interest and not window dressing. Bring back Miriam and IV has a level of interest in the storyline immediately built in.
June 2, 2002, 3:33 p.m. CST
Raiders is the greatest adventure film of all time. That's it that's all. BUT I was around 9 years old when Temple of Doom came out and I enjoyed the shit out of that too. To me it's the second greatest adventure film of all time. I was 14 by the time Last Crusade hit screens. And I dug that one too...I agree it is the flattest of the 3...but the third greatest adventure film of all time. I love Indy...I wouldn't care if there wasn't a fourth film, but I'll go see one if there is. As for Minority Report, Mori said the words I was waiting to hear. That MR is a challenging and adult SCI-FI film a la BLADE RUNNER. This may not help 'ol Spielbergo at the box office, but he doesn't seem to care anymore, and that is the Spielberg I've been waiting for.
June 2, 2002, 3:53 p.m. CST
Karl Hungus, that analogy of how The Last Crusade as a rehash of Raiders is brilliant! I had never thought it out that detailed, but have always felt it was just a pale imitation of Raiders. With absolutely no edge, and ridiculous slapstick. TS Thomas, the only FX in Raiders are the Nazi Jeep going over the cliff(yes, it could be better) and the opening of the Ark at the end. Most everything else is a physical effect. What do you think should be changed? I can't think of anything really. Mr. Impossible, Indiana Jones has a GREAT character arc! But no one ever picks it up. But you feel it on a visceral level, and that is what makes it such a brilliant job by Lawrence Kasdan. Abner Ravenwood is Indy's mentor. Ravenwood also drags Marion around the world looking for "his bits of junk". She hates him for that. Indiana and Marion have an affair when Marion is in her late teens, and she thinks that Indy will take her away from the life she despises. He doesn't. He leaves. He leaves to dedicate his life to finding artifacts (bits of junk), just like her Father. It devestates her. There are parts left out of Raiders of Marion and Indy's first conversation where she makes it clear that she had to prostitute herself out to make ends meet. Hopefully we see the full conversation on DVD extras. When he comes back into her life it is not to see her, but to obtain an artifact (the head piece of the Staff of Ra). When she gets the opportunity to make him take her with him she takes it, "I'm your Goddamn partner!" They have a nice moment together at Sallah's, and we have a breather in the adventure as they get to know each other again. My own assesment is that he never stopped loving Marion, but he loved archeology more. When she is killed we see a marked difference in Indy. He isn't quite as obsessed with the Ark, and gets drunk. When he meets with Belloq, he doesn't even care if he gets killed, because his guilt over Marion is substantial. Indy tells Belloq "You want to talk to God? Lets go see him together, I've got nothing better to do". Of course, the allure of obtaining the Ark is too great, and he pulls himself together. When he finds Marion in the tent, instead of cutting her loose, he keeps her there. A very important scene. He started out obsessed with finding the Ark and not having Marion in his life, and now he is right in between. He leaves Marion there with the full intention of coming back for her, but he really does know where the Ark is hidden and wants it badly. At this point he thinks he can have both Marion AND the Ark. Then we are treated to the best action/adventure set pieces ever. Oh I love Raiders! When Indy and Marion are on the Bantu Wind with Captain Katanga, Indy has both Marion and the Ark. When the Nazi sub comes and takes them BOTH away, Indiana Jones does something that is totally insane and gets on the sub to pursue. What is he pursuing? Marion or the Ark? Indiana Jones character arc then comes full circle when he is standing on the cliff with the bazooka pointed right at the Ark. He doesn't ask for the Ark of the Covenant. He asks for Marion. The look on Karen Allen's face is perfect when she realizes that he is there for HER and not the Ark. BUT. He doesn't blow up the Ark. On his own personal level he has chosen Marion, but he can't will himself to actually destroy the Ark. Only Belloq would know this. Which brings us to the interesting dynamic between our antagonist and protagonist. But I have already written a novel. Sorry guys! I just love Raiders of the Lost Ark, and I think it is brilliantly written. It is working on so many levels, and it has lots of subtext and characterization. Something the sequels don't.
June 2, 2002, 4:05 p.m. CST
I don't understand the need for a fourth movie when the whole arc of Indy's life has already been told. It begins with the Temple of Doom, in which Indy is pursuing religious artifacts for "fortune and glory". He's after them for purely selfish reasons. He changes, though, over the course of the trilogy. By the second chapter, Raiders, he's developed something of a conscience, and pursues these artifacts because they "should be in a museum." That would keep them from the misuse of evil influences in the world, but Indy still has no personal relationship to them. In the third, and final, installment Indy learns to protect such artifacts even from the prying objective curiosity of the scientific temperament. He begins to see these artifacts as holy and he begins to believe. He drinks from the Holy Grail and actively participates in religious things, thereby finding the secret to eternal life. Where can he go from there? What quest could be more important than that one? A fourth installment can only be a letdown.
June 2, 2002, 4:38 p.m. CST
You talkbackers are a amazing, you really are. Amazingly infuriating, that is. First you crushed the sacred cow that Star Wars was, now you have to bash the crap out of the Indiana Jones franchise, too? Unbelieveable. You film snobs need to get a life. Just because you like the art films of Goddard and such does not mean you cannot appreciate domestic speculative fiction fare. Get a life!
June 2, 2002, 4:49 p.m. CST
Moriarty, I don't recall in a single frame of film where Sallah becomes more greedy in terms of money needed to help Indy. In fact, I find him being more concerned about Indy and his father, that he often forgets about money. In fact, I don't think there's any part of Last Crusade that shows Sallah even mentioning money.
one9deuce when I say redo effects I should have clarified a bit. Much of the scenes look, well like they were done on a set pretty much, take the "rock" rolling down in the opening scene, it looks rather crap now. Or how about the glass in the snake pit, or the end ghosts. The movies great & all but it just all looks so poor now it takes away from the film. They need to just take a nice CGIing over it to make it look more realistic & less like it was done in some closed set.
June 2, 2002, 5:18 p.m. CST
My numero uno, my top of the list, the one that every other film I've seen can't add up to as a whole. Mind you, there are better *films*, but none hold sway in my heart like Raiders. As for the rest of the series, I like them a lot. Even with their warts. I too hated what they did to Marcus Brody, making him a bumbling idiot instead of the wonderful intellectual companion of Indy on the homefront. But, as they say in every Star Wars movie... I've got a bad feeling about this. Crusade did end the way any proper trilogy should. Perfectly. With the feeling that all is well. Kind of like Yub-Nub in Jedi. Revisiting it could be a not-so-good thing. Speilberg and Lucas are not the same men they were 10 or 20 years ago. They're not the guys who would permit Indy to shoot a guy with a sword who was 20 feet away. They're the guys that would digitally re-make that scene by putting a CG whip in Indy's hands and then have him whip the dude at some special pressure-point that would make him "faint". Part of my worry is this lack of spine from both filmmakers, and I understand. They've grown older, they have kids, they worry about influencing people to shoot up a high school and everything. But c'mon. The new SW trilogy is nothing like the Original (Non-Special-Edition) Trilogy. They came close with the last one, but not enough. (And no, this is not the "oh, well, you grew up with the original trilogy and that's why they seem better than the new ones" opinion. I only saw Star Wars and Jedi as a child. I never saw Empire fully until a few years back. And I can tell you, it's far superior to the new ones.) However, I digress. The thing that always attracted me to the Indy trilogy was the fact that you could believe that this guy was real, and that these adventures were possible. You could feel the mists of the jungle as Belloq faced Indy and demanded the idol. You could believe that there were these massive catacombs under the desert wherein lie the greatest tresures to ever see the light of day. The things that legends are made of. And now... well... there is no set-building in Lucasfilm any more. Maybe one or two. But CG backdrops have such a surreal quality to them. Your eye tells your subconcious that something is *just* off there, though you can never pinpoint it. When I learned that the temple at the end of Crusade was a REAL place called Petra... oh my god, I went insane. I have planned to visit there ever since, and one day shall, and not just because of the movie. Since that pointed me in that direction, I've delved into the history of the mysterious lost City of Petra, from the many hypothosies that have sprung up on who built it and lived there, to its uses by caravan tribes who would kill anyone coming in there that wasn't part of their groups. I am also a certified Egyptoholic, and probably will never be cured of that obsession, all spawned from the mix of Raiders with a few good social studies teachers in elementary school. The magic for me was that almost every Indy film had a real place that I got more and more interested in due to the fact that I could feasably go there in real life, and that they all had thier own culturally unique histories. With the new one, they won't bother with that. They'll digially create any place they need and no stunts will be done with real men... they'll be CG as well. Okay, maybe not that bad. It is Spielberg directing, not Lucas, who has permanently grafted his dick to his computers. Real places are the best for Indy films. They don't age, they don't seem fake, and they don't use technology that dates in half a decade. I saw hints of the budding CG bug in Crusade, and it's those things that seem the most ridiculous nowadays. Even then. That German that fell off the cliff in the tank? Remember that? I certainly do, because something was off in that mesh of bluescreen and foreground character. So much so that one of me and my best friend's favorite things to do once we got it on tape was to watch the end of that scene, pause it, roll on the ground laughing at it for about 5 minutes, and then rewind and repeat. Mind you, we were 9 year old little girls at the time, and 9 year old girls are certafiably insane. Anyway, I'm rambling again. Sorry for the random directions this talkback keeps going and the things I keep repeating. What worries haven't I mentioned? Oh yeah, the female lead. Marion was the shit. She ruled, she was one of my childhood role-models (save for the drunkard part), along with Princess Leia, Wonder Woman and She-Ra. Then, there was the forgettable Austrian traitor in Crusade. Ho-hum. Have no feelings on her either way. But Wille...ugh. I HATED Willie. I still think she's the weakest, most spineless and Most ANNOYING female counterpart Indy's EVER had. I can stand her now, though. I just grin and bear it and hate her ever more. But I hear she's COMING BACK??? AHHHH!!! NO!!! Chreeist. If she comes back, but Marion is a no-show, I will kill someone. I will. Spineless spoiled whore-bitch is no woman for anyone to look up to. I'd accept the reanimated corpse of the Austrian chick before Willie as she was in Temple. The thought of her screaming her lungs out over a fucking owl still gives me shivers to this day. My overall point (I suppose I have one) is that I'm not so sure if this is a good idea. Some of my worries may be unfounded and one-sided, but they are my worries none the less. If they do pull it off, it'l have to be *just* right. And if they accomplish that, trust me, no one will be happier than myself. Thankyouverymuch.
June 2, 2002, 5:22 p.m. CST
It's funny. The things I remember digging the most as a fucking 5 year old girl were the heart being torn out and the dude getting eaten by the crocs. I suppose I'm odd. Call me morbid, but hey, it was cool to me then, and still is to this day.
June 2, 2002, 5:30 p.m. CST
Screw people who diss Last Crusade. even though my buddes say Crusade is better (BLASHEMPHEY! I agree with Mori on every point about Radiers) Crusade is still an awesome movie. And Temple Doom is better than I remember it. But, INDY 4 --- arggghhhhhhhhh... so cool posiblities yet so frustrating. Ford is OLD and not very cool anymore. the final shot of CRUSADE sealed the film series. sigh. BUT, I'm still there opening day. colour me cautously optimistic with getting crazier optimistic as it goes on...
June 2, 2002, 5:40 p.m. CST
by Cap'n Chaos!
can call the trilogy's effects "crap." I think they still look great. But then what do I know? I still love to watch Harryhausen movies and marvel at King Kong. I'm still trying to figure out how CGI is exactly better than the old stuff (Or vice versa). People, it ALL looks fake. The only sci-fi/fantasy film that has had completely realistic computer effects is, in my opinion, Jurassic Park and that's in large part because they were matched to the animatronic effects. But you know what? I love the pygmy mummies in Mummy Returns BECAUSE they're goofy and unrealistic and completely alive in a way they could never be if they were real. It's the same with the dinosaurs in One Million B.C. And the saucers in Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (and their parody in Mars Attacks). And the critters in Tremors, Gremlins, THEM... hell, Godzilla, King of the Monsters! The way a film employs it's FX is absolutely critical to the mood it creates. Army of Darkness would lose a lot of it's charm had it employed CGI instead of stop-motion, practical and blue-screen. Raiders' effects are perfect. Let Lucas tamper with Howard the Duck. Leave these films alone.
June 2, 2002, 5:56 p.m. CST
How Indy just dropped out of the sky into India and landed right into another adventure. At least with Raiders and Crusade there was a real story:a buildup to why Indy was on the adventure. It's like they had no idea how to get Indy on another adventure, so they just had him magically drop into the right place at the right time. And BTW, I loved Crusade!!!! It was great. Doom is the stinker of the series untill part 4.
June 2, 2002, 6:07 p.m. CST
when the hell are the dvds coming out!?!?
June 2, 2002, 6:12 p.m. CST
I didn't mean to say the violence was funny. My situation was what seems funny to me, digging it as much as I did at such a tender age. Okay, I should be done now. ;)
June 2, 2002, 6:15 p.m. CST
.....there must be an original idea out there somewhere. I loved the Indiana Jones Trilogy. One of the greatest series of movies ever. I gotta tell ya I'm just not in the mood to see Harrison ford running around crackin a whip in between him popping geritol. This idea of a son to add some sorta young' cool , hip factor is just not gonna do it. You can never replicate the pure enjoyment of the original series. It's gonna seem contrived, and I'll feel sad. Create a new hero with a new setting, new villians. Give us movie goers something fresh. Learn anything from the "matrix"? Guess not.
June 2, 2002, 6:52 p.m. CST
by Chilli Kramer
I think there's an audience for a fourth who have grown up with Indy films on TV or video. I think Ford ain't necessarily too old, because an Indy film doesn't necessarily imply him risking his neck, just that the film will be about the Indiana Jones character. I think FD is a decent choice for writer. Importantly, I think that the film should open at Marcus's (well attended - he was a well respected academic after all) funeral, with Indy delivering a eulogy about why Marcus was a great archaeologist/explorer (even if he was a little scatterbrained in the end), a eulogy which tells us a lot about why Indy himself is so great, and how he followed in Marcus's footsteps. But I did NOT like Young Indiana Jones. Historical research is all well and good, but though the situations in it were - just about - possible, they weren't exactly plausible. Example: Indy is deserted outside a pyramid by his guide, 'Oh, what will I do?' Then, a man in white robes appears from a cloud of sand. Indy: 'Ah, Mr Lawrence!' That's about when I switched off.
June 2, 2002, 7:30 p.m. CST
by Son Of Batboy
Oh, did you hear the Spice Girls broke up? Interesting, this site didn't hesitate one bit to report that rumor about some prop guy calling about a whip, yet Darabont and the release date they sit on? Sucks not to be first eh?
June 2, 2002, 7:36 p.m. CST
Minority Report will hopefully be good, but, is it just me or does Spielberg not know how to have color in his movie anymore? Maybe it's just the trailer, but A.I. and this both have very gray overtones with barely any color. Golly, that's depressing! Anyhow, Last Crusade is a fun romp and, IMHO, way better than Temple of Doom. Last Crusade would be a farce if it weren't for the actors involved. Raiders is an all time classic. I wish these damned things would come out on DVD already!
June 2, 2002, 7:39 p.m. CST
An Indy 4 could be good...but Kate Capshaw is going to return?! NO!!!! Karen Allen's character was supposedly Indy's true love...bring her back!
June 2, 2002, 8:15 p.m. CST
by James Bookman
So why won't AICN credit the correct site for this story? And, by the way, there's no "truth" here about INDY 4. Just Moriarty's opinion. Furthermore, the fact that only Scott Frank and Jon Cohen wrote Minority Report has been widely reported elsewhere. AICN ain't the only game in town anymore!
June 2, 2002, 8:17 p.m. CST
Isn't the real question that should be asked is if Harrison Ford can even do an "action" film anymore? He is getting pretty old you know.
June 2, 2002, 8:44 p.m. CST
Raiders of the Lost Ark is not only the best adventure movie ever..but in my mind..the BEST movie ever!! It was perfect! From start to finish!! Temple of Doom was fun..but not as good as Raiders..then The Last Crusade came anlong and brought Indy back to the archeological mind-set..I loved that and "Last Crusade". Indy 4 has scary written all over it!! It'll be released 16 years after the last Indy Film...i.e. Episode I!!! And lots of people are old!!! Plus...John Williams is old and will have to write Ep. III and Indy 4!! Two of the most beloved themes in film!! But as Mort said....AOTC got me too and I can't wait for Ep.III...but after it...Indy 4 will be the kicker!! 2005 may be my favorite year ever. ....Behind this one!!
June 2, 2002, 9:13 p.m. CST
My thoughts exactly on an Indy IV (read my talkback, I mentioned Unforgiven as well). True Grit is cut from the same cloth. Thats how they should do Indy IV (IMHO).
June 2, 2002, 9:16 p.m. CST
Frank Darabont? Oh no. The Shawshank Redemption was good, but that was about it. Green Mile? Get out. Same with "The Majestic." GET LOST. And now... this is horrible. So, George Lucas goes and ruins Star Wars with Phantom Menace and Clones, and now he's set out to trash the other truly brilliant trilogy, to soil it's memory. I'd hoped maybe Spielberg could help out and not shit the place up, but now...
June 2, 2002, 9:17 p.m. CST
...what is that, French? Belgian? English? What an odd name...
June 2, 2002, 9:41 p.m. CST
I suspect a viewing of RAIDERS today would show it has dated somewhat. This doesn't change the fact I loved it when it was new and watched it 30 or 40 times over the years -- but not in the last few years. But time does have a way of marching on. The two sequels were not worth the film stock they were recorded on. Maybe Jar-Jar Binks can show up in INDY 4 and help save the day. I assume Indy Jr. will be played by that skinny white boy from ROAD TRIP. Who else could possibly play the role?
June 2, 2002, 9:45 p.m. CST
I think Indy 4 would be great. There really is not reason not to do it. Also, I totally agree that The Temple of Doom was the Empire of the Indy series. I thought that TOD was great. Better than Raiders? Probably not, but I think it is close.
June 2, 2002, 9:57 p.m. CST
We can piss and moan about what we want and what we don't want... we're not gonna stop these guys from making another film guranteed to make $300 million +. However, wouldn't it be great if Indy IV was made in a traditional way, as in absolutely no CGI!? I'm getting really sick of CGI, and I fear ILM will get their grubby, fat little fingers all over this and turn it into a video game.
June 2, 2002, 10:02 p.m. CST
by half vader
That head disintegration at the end of Crusade WAS CGI. You're thinking of the wax Toht at the end of Raiders. What I love is that most of the fools who whinge about CG are 20 or under and were brought up IN the digital age. Idiots who don't realise that many of those 'fake' looking vistas use more miniatures than ever before and can't tell colour grading from their own asses. These are the sort of people who 'marvel' at the old Kong's 'windswept fur' romanticising a stupid old artifact of stop-motion. Go and get an effects/film education or put your money where your mouth is. Bah humbug.
June 2, 2002, 10:17 p.m. CST
CGI works in its place. That place however is not being the monster or the superhero. Too fake looking. SPIDERMAN for one. Kids falling off broomsticks in HARRY POTTER for another. The non-animatronic version of the monster in THE RELIC for yet a third example. Where CGI works is in creating vistas and environments. Animatronics and even people wearing giant monster arms are better than most CGI. The best blending of CGI and animatronics remains STARSHIP TROOPERS. It is one of a kind. But it was made by a genius who has no equal in today's film industry. Not even David Lynch and David cronenberg are that good. But they also don't make big-budget sci-fi movies either. Imagine if they did!
June 2, 2002, 10:37 p.m. CST
To you naysayers: this is getting so old. Blah blah blah. You complain and you complain about the stupidest shit. Where has it gotten you? Where? Did it get you a new girlfriend to screw? Did it get you a nice new shiny car? OR, did it get you the movie that you wanted: A perfect Indiana Jones or Star Wars or Lord of the Rings? HELL NO! You fucks whine and whine about stupid shit all the time. You make me sick. It's too bad that you don't realize that you're making yourselves sound sick by talking so retarded. ---To those who enjoy a film for what it's worth: Z0D salutes you. I enjoy reading your posts because they are the most intelligent I see. ---------->I am looking forward to INDY IV and SW EP III. KICK ASS! ____---KNEEL---___
June 2, 2002, 10:38 p.m. CST
I just finished reading "the minority report" by Philip K Dick. There are 3 precogs who predict the murders. When 1 disagrees with the other 2, it is called the minority report, whle the 2 similar predictions are called the majority report. So, that's the reference, for whoever asked.
June 2, 2002, 10:40 p.m. CST
by a goonie
Shawshank is one of my favourite motion pictures of all time. the script is one of the best pieces of screenwriting to escape the 1990s. for that, I love Frank. but i hate The Green Mile. i hate it so much. it's such a piece of melodramatic trash. that also has a lot to do with Frank's direction, the photography, the score, Hank's accent, Duncan's performance and all that, but the script is also a big part of that film's shittiness. and as for The Magestic, well, Frank didn't write that one. but i still love it. i love it because it loves movies soooooo much. it's quite wonderful that way. but i like to say that Frank made his five-star movie, his one-star movie, and then The Magestic was his three-star movie. right in the middle. so as for Frank writing Indy 4... i think this is cool. this excites me merely because i know his work as a writer. and i can't wait to see what he does with this.
June 2, 2002, 11:17 p.m. CST
This whole 'Indy dealing with aging business'... ain't he supposed to live forever, cos he drank from the holy grail at the end of crusade? ... or at least for a good 100 yrs extra cos he didn't drink all of it... does this mean the next one'll be set in the future?!!
June 2, 2002, 11:30 p.m. CST
I had to read this one twice.
June 2, 2002, 11:57 p.m. CST
come on moriarty, if a P.O.S film like temple of doom can grow on you why is Crusade any different? Better plot, Nazis rather than creepy voodoo bad guys, and lest we forget, Sean Connery, so i fail to see why you prefer temple of doom to last crusade. I am not thrilled about indy 4 either, because if it isn't another Raiders then it's not worth being made. Its one of those, "better leave well enough alone " situations, because if it's a bomb it'd ruin a perfectly good trilogy (with the exception, perhaps, of the previously mentioned Temple of Doom) one last thought: the scene with the Grail at the end of Last crusade is waaaaaay better than anything in doom, not to mention the nauseating scene where "snake surprise" and chilled monkey brains are served.... Good call on Star Wars II though, but learn to love Crusade.
June 3, 2002, 12:15 a.m. CST
by ryan mecum
i feel that raiders is so much better because indy is portrayed as such a cool person in the film. by the last crusade, he was saving things accidentily, needing to be saved my his father, and saying bad puns. he went from cool superdude, to bumbling comic. if a part 4 does get made, i hope they try really hard to make indy as cool as he origianlly was. for example, mad max kept his cool attitude, even if part 3 was not that great. indy 4 should not be playing for laughs, make him the indy we saw in the first film again. thats the key to making this film wonderful. it would also help out fords career.
June 3, 2002, 12:39 a.m. CST
First, we are the same age. In that sense, we can understand exactly how we felt the first time seeing Raiders and how we felt about Temple of Doom and Last Crusade in our later teens. The only quibble is that I liked Temple of Doom from the start and it has gotten better with age. I wish I could say the same for Last Crusade. Yes, I DO like the movie, but c'mon, it is at best a nice little family movie, which is NOT what Raiders was. It figures there are rumors about having Indy's son in the next movie. That is just the typical route I would expect them to take. Indy 4 will be even more family friendly than Last Crusade with Daddy, Sonny boy, and whoever else they can squeeze in a-la a crappy Batman film (oops, I just mean a Batman film, they were all crappy, except for anything animated.) Now, I don't hate family movies, I think they can be fantastic. However, LOOK AT RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. It is not a family movie. It is an intelligent and edgy action movie. It is pure, it is uncompromising, and it is my favorite movie of all time. If they aren't even going to try to make a legitimate sequel to Raiders, I don't want any more Indy movies at all.
June 3, 2002, 1:10 a.m. CST
Crusade was a great film, an exploration of Indys past - his younger life, his passion for adventure, action, and archaeology. Also i loved the origin of explaining certain characteristics of Indy - the scar on his chin, his dislike for snakes, the use of a bull whip, and gaining the fedora hat which he has never lost. Also importantly we saw Indy's family life, his relationship towards his father. Sallah demanding money - i dont remember that at all, all i remember is him wanting camels. I dont know where you got the fat greedy arab idea. Sallah is a beloved character and Crusade didnt portray him worse off in any way. As for Marcus Brodie, we didnt see him in Temple but i thought he was great in Crusade - a bumbling englishman, but only because we saw him in action scenes. Brodie never was into action, he stayed at the college and the museum and his bumbling nature only tells us why he's better off at the college scene than the adventure scene. Marcus was still able to be serious when it came down to non-action stuff. Crusade isnt as good as Raiders, but it is still a damn good film. It extends the character of Indiana Jones, explains his past and its a great movie in itself. Temple of Doom always felt kinda off for me, because Indy was seeking his Fortune and Glory, which didnt stay true to the character we saw in Raiders who loved archaeology and the adventure, and was never in it for fame and glory - but maybe he changes in the time he goes to Raiders(afterall Temple was a prequel). And yes i also feel that Short Round and Willie Scott kinda sucked. But i enjoyed the movie anyways. Indy 4 will rule!
June 3, 2002, 2:14 a.m. CST
Imagine if they get sean connery, harrison ford and ben affleck as they generations of jones's. That'd be so cool. count me in.
June 3, 2002, 2:14 a.m. CST
Imagine if they get sean connery, harrison ford and ben affleck as three generations of jones's. That'd be so cool. count me in.
June 3, 2002, 3 a.m. CST
That's all I have to say about that...
June 3, 2002, 3 a.m. CST
that's some mighy fine shootin' son.
June 3, 2002, 3:05 a.m. CST
No NAZIS! They're overdone! Let's move on to the Red Menace! How FUN would that be...?
June 3, 2002, 7:16 a.m. CST
dark, fast and really funny
June 3, 2002, 8:27 a.m. CST
I totally agree on Brody and how he became a whimp in Last Crusade. Like Indy was on a school trip with his father and Brody. Urgh! But for the rest The Last Crusade was the only right sequel to Raiders. Temple of Doom is good, but not great. It doesn't have the cool adventure atmosphere Raiders and Crusade have. Now, on Indy 4. Indiana is getting older. I accept that. But please kick out the Indy-has-a-kid-storyline! It could become the same trash as the Ian-Malcolm-has-an-annoying-kid-horror we saw in The Lost World. Ditch the kids. Wanna bet Spielberg wants Haley Joel Osment for the part? Or if Lucas gets his way, it always could be Jake Lloyd. Scary, isn't it? "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Clone Wars" in which Indiana and Kenobi fight Anakin (who happens to be Indy's son). Will Indy be able to kill his son for the sake of the galaxy (far, far away)? See it in 2005!!!
June 3, 2002, 9:32 a.m. CST
I liked all the Indy films and the TV series. So there, sue me. I'm also looking forwards to seeing this 4th movie. I also liked Episode 1, 2, oh hell All the star wars movies. (except Empire just isn't as cool ). Guess I'm some sort of mutant freak. I don't care for both Star Wars and Indy coming out so close together but I'm not going to freak out or anything.
June 3, 2002, 10:03 a.m. CST
If he was, he'd put the original versions of Episodes4-6 out all fu@*ing ready! Excuse me now, while I go back to holding my breath.
Moriarty, your first instinct on Doom was correct. Short Willie & Round Kate take the film completely out of the spirit of the series for me. If I never see Capshaw on screen again or hear "okey-dokey-Dr.Jones", that will be fine with me. You did hit the nail on the head with Crusade. The character betrayals were a shocker and seem like an easy way out for the writers. If they wanted a bumbling boob, they should have created a new one.
June 3, 2002, 10:27 a.m. CST
I can tell you, Mori, that Short Round in Temple of Doom DID insert me into the movie, but then I was closer to Short Round's age at seven than you were at 14. Something about teenagers and young adults, they hate kids in their movies. It's like the kids in Jurassic Park, those teens and twentysomethings just hated them(well, I was a teen then too, so this isn't universal). I don't know, maybe people in that age group feel like they're being talked down to by the filmmakers(and here's YOUR character at the kiddie's table). I don't know, I don't care. I do agree about Kate Capshaw's screaming silliness, and the nuttiness of that film. And I agree that much of Last Crusade was disappointing, but I do not share your dislike of the film. It bothered me that Indiana never even mentioned his finding the Ark to his father--which I'd think would have given them SOMETHING to talk about since they were trying to outrace the Nazis to yet another religious relic of iconic import. Annoying glitch. As for a new film, the only way I can understand your attitude is as a means of motivating Durabont and the rest to really deliver. My fear is that this will be a pale shadow of Raiders, a desperate gasp like the later Leathal Weapon movies. Speilberg, Ford, and Lucas have all sort of settled into their cumfy success, which is their right but it makes me question their ability to return to what made Indiana Jones so great in the first place. There was an obstinance to Raiders, an energy that I think they've all lost. The suggestion that Cate Capshaw will be back and not the unbeatable Karen Allen makes me sick. Connery showing up(probably for a deathbed scene) sounds predictable and unwanted. The thought of Indy with a son? Not awful, but it could be such a gimmick. I'm awaiting the stunt casting of, gulp, Josh Hartnett or worse Affleck himself. In the end, this thing could be very dispiriting, so I hope your ho-hum attitude will yield some energy and desire to prove you wrong on the part of the filmmakers. But if Lucas could ignore the critics of TPM, I don't see how you can make a dent. Maybe Durabont will be inspired by your lack of faith. I can only hope.
June 3, 2002, 10:38 a.m. CST
'nuff said. sk
June 3, 2002, 10:38 a.m. CST
Both Temple of Doom and Return of the Jedi are excellent films that take a lot of criticism for no good reason.....it amazes me that people rate Clones above Jedi....and it amazes me that people rate Last Crusade above Temple. Oh and please dont make another Indy film....George, you already made minor cuts to the first 3 Indy films for the video release (STUPID! STUPID!) and now you are going to stain the series with unworthy sequels.
June 3, 2002, 11 a.m. CST
Moriarty! He was just like the Brody from Raiders until he got hit on the head in the library. One of the great unsung tragic moments of the Indiana Jones movies is the onset of Brody's apparent mental disability due to being smacked in the head while Indy was dealing with rats in the catacombs! So don't dis Brody's change... he was dealing with some heavy issues, man!
June 3, 2002, 11:23 a.m. CST
I'm 33 now, so I guess I look back on Temple of Doom and RoTJ with fondness, sure, but I watch them again every few years (okay, months sometimes) and they still both blow away current blockbusters crap like Armageddon, both Mummy movies, and gasp, even Spider-Man. I don't understand those who dismiss Jedi just because of the Ewoks. Even if they are too cutsie, the rest of that movie is incredible. I like the new SW movies, but neither is better than Jedi. As for Indy, I stick to my guns, if they continue on the family friendly trend they went on with Crusade, they shouldn't bother making another one. They should go back to the serious and edgy Indy of Raiders.
June 3, 2002, 12:02 p.m. CST
by yeah i'm a jerk!
of the shitty little asian kid sidekick. at least willie scott had a nice ass, but i hated her too. temple of doom was the biggest disappointment for me. i remember coming out of the theatre and thinking, "what the hell was that?" there weren't any scenes that held up to the nazi head melting scenes in raiders. the sheer surprise of a supernatural element when the rest of the film played like a straight action film, blew me away. the villains in temple of doom didn't interest me either. i'll never forget standing at the urinal taking a leak and having the guy next to me going,"it was better than the first one, wasn't it!" and i'm thinking, "damn dude give me some privacy." but instead i said "no it was not better than raiders, it was kinda lame". as for last crusade, i liked it okay but it was weak compared to raiders. it did have some cool moments, although i have to say i would have preferred to see sean connery not be such a bumbling bookworm. sean is better when he is a badass. anyway i really don't have too much hope for indy 4. harrison ford is too old, and if the film is set in the '50's, then we know that it won't have nazis for the villians. that leaves communists and mcarthyists. "yawn."
June 3, 2002, 12:04 p.m. CST
Geez, Steve & George, you have a classic adventure trilogy that's become an icon in modern American pop culture. Is this trip REALLY necessary? After the derivative, bad-joke-filled Last Crusade, I really wonder if Darabont's script would not be tinkered with by the twin filmgods who created Indiana Jones and ultimately ruined. Last Crusade just had to have more escapes and chases in it than Raiders. ****** And the humor! WARNING TO ALL FANS: when a movie series suddenly has an noticeable increase in jokes, quips, silly stunts, or all-around bad humor, e.g. James Bond, Star Trek, that series is faltering, and in desperate need of real meat for its stories. Not that those still involved will be able to come up with any after straying into ha-ha-land. ****** And now we have rumors of Indy's son and a bunch of women from his past in this new one. My God, I pray they don't do something as cheap as that. I have a bad feeling about this.
June 3, 2002, 12:08 p.m. CST
better in Goonies
June 3, 2002, 12:23 p.m. CST
In addition to the dumning down of Marcus and Sallah (both a terrible misstep), if you watch both films again you'll realize the drastic difference in TONE. Raiders takes itself very seriously throughout, only inserting comkic relief here and there to give the audience a chance to breathe. Crusade plays every scene for a laugh. There is virtually no event in the movie that that doesn't lead you to a punchline. It's as if they were afraid we could no longer take the franchise seriously, so we constanly have to wink to the audience. The same reason why the jedi mind trick is now used for comic relief in the prequels. Comedy is the Devil!!! Same thing with Star Trek. After the went to earth to save some whales and crack jokes, there will never be another serious star Trek film. Once the filmmakers start down that path, forever will it dominate their destiny. When I hear about Lucas's idea for Indy 4, with all of Indy's old girlfriends showing up at the same time!? All I can think is that this will be the funniest Indy of them all.
June 3, 2002, 12:42 p.m. CST
Temple of Doom is by far the best written and directed of the three movies. The story is amazingly fresh, and much less dated now than Raiders or Crusade. Temple is dark, scary, and more adult. (Ironic since it's the only one feature a kid.) Rather than the bad guys being the same Nazis we've seen in countless war movies, the antagonist is the embodiment of evil itself. It's Indy vs. Satan, and that's cool. It's otherworldly evil, not just human evil. The set pieces are markedly more thrilling and faster paced in Temple than in the others. It starts out with a little song and dance number that devolves into a 45 minute non-stop thrill ride and doesn't slow down until the monkey brain dinner where a little expostion has to be added before jumping onto another 45 minutes not stop ride... and then a few minutes to reflect on "fortune and glory" , and why Indy is Indy. Many people didn't like it at the time, for the same reasons many didn't care for Empire at the time. Therefore, in both cases the third movies turned into barely veiled remakes of the originals, simply because most people are stupid and demanded more of the same. Temple and Empire are examples of how good Speilberg and Lucas can be when they're given free reign to make the movies they want... Jedi and Crusade are examples of what happens when they listen to fans and critics. What chance do filmakers have when half the fans say "It's just a retread!" and the other half say "It's nothing like the original! My childhood is destroyed!" Personally, I wouldn't want to make films for the likes of us.
June 3, 2002, 1:23 p.m. CST
people, especially people who visit this site, are going to see it expecting the Dark Furture version of Mission Impossible. they will be confused and frightened by having to >gasp< think. these will be the same people who saw the A.I. trailers and though, "oh goody gumdrops! E.T. as a robot with that lovable Haley Joel Osment!" and were confused and frightened by the fact that instead of being a fairy tale for retards, was a deconstruction of the fairy tale strcutre, their bizarre and frightening oedipal leanings. not only that, but a long mediation on the selfishness and cruelty of humanity, child abuse/abandonment, the emptiness of human emotion/interaction, the holowness of family life, the constructs we all use to fill the holes in our souls, and so on and so forth. now, a film about a workable fascist future gone wrong which calls into question identity, morality and the self-fulfilling prophecy is going to have people totally confused. good. i'm glad that Spielberg is using his position to make challenging films. like them or hate them, at least he's trying something different. trying to push his abilities in new directions. if only Lucas were so bold.
June 3, 2002, 1:27 p.m. CST
Conan O'Brien did this joke when Ford was on his show where they talked about the next Indy movie. Indy would be sitting in his comfortable bed and other people bring him antiques and treasures. All Indy would do is hit the little button to raise the bed because he's so damn old. Ford's got Turkey neck bigtime. It could work with an older Indy but I don't think it will be so action oriented. People will be disappointed.
June 3, 2002, 1:27 p.m. CST
I agree Brody's buffoonery was unfortunate, although that talkbacker makes a good point about the hit on the head. And he wasn't DRUNK, although I guess you were just being colorful. As for Sallah, watch the flick again. He doesn't make money a condition of helping Indy. He only shows distress at the destruction of his brother's car, which leads him to steal camels to help pay him back for it. A little comedy relief, not a bastardization of the character.
June 3, 2002, 1:33 p.m. CST
by Charles Grady
Can someone PLEASE reintroduce Spielberg to the forgotten joys of PANAVISION 2.35:1 before he embarks on Indy 4, so there can be at least SOME visual continuity with its predecessors? And though Kaminski is excellent, his desaturated, gauzy murk is all wrong for Indiana Jones.
June 3, 2002, 1:45 p.m. CST
I perfectly understand liking Raiders of the Lost Ark better than The Last Crusade. Raiders is classic. The Last Crusade is a re-iteration of Raiders, and it isn't as well-scripted. However, I cannot comprehend liking Temple of Doom better than either of the other Indiana Jones flicks. Temple of Doom had a sad script, forgettable action...and by everything that is good and pure, people, you can't tell me you were okay with Kate Capshaw in this flick. As annoying as Jar-Jar can sometimes be, he cannot hold a candle to the cinematic agony of Kate Capshaw in The Temple of Doom. She makes the flick nearly unwatchable with her PMS hysterics and her pure, pure...ugliness as a human being. Every passing moment of The Temple of Doom I keep hoping that the wovie will defy my memory and that she will be killed somehow. But she stays, and as long as she's on the screen, that's a wasted, foul moment for film history.
June 3, 2002, 1:57 p.m. CST
Apart from the silliness of the neon bikers and Robin Williams' cartoon incarnation, I was feeling rather pleased by A.I. for the majority of its running time. I like intelligent science fiction...artistic work along the lines of Blade Runner: Director's Cut and 2001: A Space Odyssey. But A.I. failed because it didn't know where to end or how to end or when to end. It kept going and going with false ending after false ending, each one sappier and more panderingly sentimental than the one before. By the time David's talking to the CGI Blue Fairy, you just want the bloody thing to stop as soon as possible. There is simply too much ham-handed exposition in the last thirty minutes of the movie. If Spielberg had simply tried to tell the conclusion with minimalist visuals in Kubrickesque fashion, it would have been a vast improvement. But no, he had to hammer us with a load of sap in order to make sure that we'd all "get it."
June 3, 2002, 1:59 p.m. CST
Capshaw was annoying in TOD UNTIL they actually get to the temple. I thought she was fine after that because all she was doing was reacting. And I must say, she was pretty cool in the big fight setpiece around the conveyor belt. And as annoying as she is in Temple of Doom, she doesn't hold a candle to cold fish Doody from Last Crusade. Last Crusade is a great movie, by the way... to make fun of! Man I remember watching this movie with my friends and continually adding to the list of continuity errors, bungled stunts and haphazard characterizations. But I still love it and movies like the Mummy can't even hold a candle to it. My favorite part of Last Crusade: Indy races from their demolished car, turns to grab his dad's hand while his dad is still stunned they survived the crash. And Indy gets this exasperated look on his face like, "DAA-aaad?!? Usually my sidekicks don't this much problem keeping up!" That subtle little moment ROCKS!
June 3, 2002, 2:19 p.m. CST
I very good write-up, but I disagree on several things. First, no one's denying the IJ, Raiders of the Lost Arc, is the best by far of the IJ series. It is, simply put, a cinematic classic. The other two in the series pale in comparison. But, if you need to compare and rank... The Last Crusade is much better than Temple of Doom. From what I can tell, it seems you've chosen to like one while you've chosen to dislike the other. You make excuses for one, while you pick apart the other. Sure the things you said about some of the characters being off the mark in Crusade hit their mark and then some. But, you see, most of those same characters did not even make screentime in Doom. I'd much rather see them in a slightly different light then not see them at all. So you see, Doom had just as many, really more so, things wrong with it than Crusade did. Every negative comment you said about Crusade could be said about Doom. You can't really say that the other way around. Crusade was much more encompassing than Doom. It also had spirit. A spirit more comparible to the first movie than Doom. Come on, the whole Quest for the Holy Grail thing sent shivers down my spine. Same as did the histories and stories of the Arc. Can you even remember what they were after in Doom? And if you can, do you really care. Jones is an Anthropologist, an Archaeologist. Crusade had him ground back into these same roots, racing against the Nazis. Doing the things that made it exciting in the first film. Doom had Long Duck Dong and a second-hand scream queen trying to solve what seemed like a scooby doo mystery. I really don't think there's much of a comparison. And I'm not saying I dislike Temple of Doom. I like 'em all. But if I had to choose... The third seems much more faithful to the first than the second one did.
June 3, 2002, 2:22 p.m. CST
You all know it will at least be good enough to see in a theater. Doubt it will be as good as Raiders, but what is? All I have to complain about is the COMPLETE ABSENCE OF INDY DVD'S!!! WTF is up with that shit? And Cate Kapshaw wasn't THAT bad. She was supposed to be a whiny spoiled girl. Watch Black Rain to see the grown up version of the same character, complete with sequins.
June 3, 2002, 2:24 p.m. CST
Okay, i've given this some considerable thought and i've realised that AOTC has a number of freakish similarities with the third Indy movie that may not be a coincidence. Observe....... BOTH Last Crusade and AOTC are generally judged by audiences to be an improvement over disappointing previous episodes (TPM and Temple of Doom), while still not being on a par with the originals (Raiders, SW and ESB). I'm generalising here, but i think the comparison is apt. BOTH movies contain a prickly, bantering relationship between the two lead male characters (Indy and Henry, Anakin and Obi-Wan. Interestingly, at several points in AOTC Anakin refers to Obi-Wan as 'like my father'). BOTH movies contain a perilous trip to rescue a parent from captivity (Anakin journeying to the Tusken camp, Indy to Castle Brunwald). BOTH movies contain a former ally turned traitor working for the real villains (Donovan working for the Nazis, Dooku working for Sidious). Anakin's comment 'i will learn to stop people from dying' is especially interesting in this context, because then he is, essentially, searching for the elixir of life (ie. the Grail). Of course, Indy's mission in the last act of Crusade is to find a way to stop Henry from dying. Similarities in art direction and design - the canyons and rock formations of Geonosis seem to echo the Canyon of the Crescent Moon sequences in Last Crusade visually. And above all, BOTH Last Crusade and AOTC ended up fighting a comic-book adaptation (Batman, Spiderman) for the box-office crown! What do you think........ mere coincidences, or is Lucas essentially making both the Star Wars and Indy trilogies from the same template?
June 3, 2002, 2:57 p.m. CST
by Pizza The Hut
Hey, I don't care if the movie is a hit or if it sucks, IMHO. It will still be cool to see Indy doing his thing one last time, regardless. Yeah, Temple of Doom & Last Crusade were not nearly anywhere as good as Raiders, and yeah, Temple of Doom really turned me off from the Indy movies in general, but at this late date, I don't give a crap anymore... Let Indy have his 4th movie, good or bad, and entertain us (more or less) one last time, for old time's sake.
June 3, 2002, 3:23 p.m. CST
in Indy 4, Dr. Jones goes on the quest of his life: from the recliner to the medicine cabinet... on the way he forgets who or where he is. his son comes over and Indy believes it is an intruder. he tries to call the police with a banana and then enters some hallucinegenic fantasy world made of cabbages. suddenly his pants disapear and he walks into a western saloon. he spits to get the boogie man out of his tonsils and laughs as it dances the Chaleston. then things get scary as he poops and pees himself. crying for mommy. then the nazis show up (the orderlies at the home) and he finds what he thinks to be a new judeo-christian artifact to battle the nazis: his remote control. it closes with him being wheeled into the psych ward for some much needed sedation and game show reruns.
June 3, 2002, 3:32 p.m. CST
And why, for the love of anything resembling a god, is this site called Ain't It Cool News? Wouldn't it be far more appropriate to call it "Ain't It Cool News, Reviews, And Other Assorted Opinions No One Asked For"?
June 3, 2002, 3:36 p.m. CST
by EL Duderino
First off, has anybody in this talkback ever read that bogus fan-written Indy screenplay "Indiana Jones and the Sons...." (forget the rest of the title at the moment)? I have a feeling that the inclusion of a kid in this next one will be too much like that. Plus its almost unanimous that people would rather just see Indy going solo rather than having to drag around a kid all the time. And I definately second your declaration Moriarty that Last Crusade had a superb opening 10 minutes. I almost forgot about that until you reminded me. Hell I was probably 5 when I saw Last Crusade and that is probably the most vivid memory I have of being in a theater. Maybe you can pass it on to Frank that the script he is writing now should most certainly be written as Mr. Jones' last.
June 3, 2002, 4:37 p.m. CST
...give us Soviet bad guys damn you! The story of how Indy came to be is very much a part of why I want memorable Soviet bad guys. When Steven Spielberg and George Lucas were on vaccation once, Lucas mused aloud he'd always wanted to take on something like a Bond franchise, to which Spielberg proposed Indy as something akin to what Lucas wanted. Indy has always been a thinking man's daredevil, with a strong supporting cast. We can do him and his friends a favor by bringing him into the 50's, bringing back Karen Allen and giving him one last adventure facing down a Cold War threat. It'd be worth it. Whereas I can understand Moriarty's lack of enthusiasm, given the last two Indy flicks, I'd see a forth Indy as an opportunity to put things right.
June 3, 2002, 5:02 p.m. CST
i like LAST CRUSADE the best. followed closely by RAIDERS and DOOM a distant third. as much as i love indiana...this is a franchise that unlike STAR WARS where i wanted to see anakin's past...should really be left alone. the big m is right in my opinion. the last scene in CRUSADE is a great way to end. i don't want to see a 62 year old dr. jones. i mean...i don't care what kinda shape he's in...you can only go so far. i have no desire to see episode 7 or JURASSIC PARK 4 or TITANIC 2 so why don't we just let indy rest. of course that will never happen so i hope the movie rocks. i guess as long as spielberg, lucas, ford and williams are on board...so am i.
June 3, 2002, 5:42 p.m. CST
Pre-bitching about a movie before it's even made is so counterproductive and pointless. Sure, some movies are bad from the initial concept, but Indy? Why you gotta be so judgemental?
June 3, 2002, 6:15 p.m. CST
What cuts to the Indiana Jones films are you refering to? I have never heard that. Oh, and adding a son to Indiana Jones IV is just a way to continue the franchise without Harrison Ford. They could never recast him, but they can succeed him with a son. Please Mr. Lucas and Mr. Spielberg, find that magic that you had in the late 70's and (very) early 80's for this new film. Please.
June 3, 2002, 6:51 p.m. CST
by ol' painless
Thank you, Mo, for sharing with me your opinion about the Movie Magic of Indiana Jones' first entrance in RAIDERS. The music, the way he emerges from the shadows . . . pure unaudalterated movie coolness. Gives me goosebumps just thinking about it. RAIDERS is one of the very few movies that I could sit down and watch right now. This second. And there honestly aren't that many movies I can say that about. RAIDERS is also one of my clearest early movie memories. Most of STAR WARS in '77 for me is a blur - but RAIDERS in '81 sure carries a lot of memories for this grumpy old movie fan!
June 3, 2002, 6:53 p.m. CST
We have only seen her in bit parts recently but she was one of the best things that Raiders had going for it and they threw the character away for Willy Scott. The only person that came out of this with a positive thing was Spielberg who married Capshaw but they should bring Marion back. I want to see what happens to Indy and Marion!
June 3, 2002, 8:47 p.m. CST
by Sith Witch
June 3, 2002, 8:56 p.m. CST
I thought I was a movie nerd, but no! You guys are these little ingrown pests, all powermad from the illusion of power that the internet gives you. You think that if you write "FUCK" in big letters, George Lucas is gonna see it and feel sad and turn you back into a twelve year old so that you can like his movies again without all the cynicism. I just don't understand your logic: You are worried that "Indy 4" might not be good... so you're begging Lucas not to make it? What, is he using your milk money to fund it or something? Who gives a crap? If it's good (which it will probably be, considering the major film talent involved, and the fact that the first three were all exemplary action-comedies) then you'll all be happy in 2005, if it's bad... well, that would be a sad day. Why hope for it? (One more thing about this picture: It's being directed by Steven Spielberg. Whether you realize it or not, that generally means that it will be good. That's what a "good director" does. He takes scripts and makes good movies out of them.)
June 3, 2002, 10:48 p.m. CST
by Mr Pumblechook
The Indiana Jones films are probably my favourite franchise of movies. The Last Crusade was the perfect conclusion to Indy's adventures. It is for this reason that I do not think they should make any more! Of the 3 films I like The Temple of Doom least. Its dark to the point of morose when the Indy world (as set up in Raiders) is not like that. But Lucas perhaps felt it would have been silly to simply remake Raiders so he took Indy on a rather different journey. Thankfully, all the elements that made Raiders so great where used to make The Last Crusade. And the viewer can tell from the story elements within (as opposed to the self referential title) that the film was written to be the final chapter. THE DEEPER HEART We go into the film 'knowing' Indy. But the film has a reflective tone to it. We see Indy as a young teen. His passion for archealogy, his brave character. We witness the birth of his phobia of snakes. And we witness an insight into his upbringing. Disciplined, strict and distant. We do not see the face of Dr Jones Sr, echoing Indy's relationship with his father- where he doesnt truly know the man that has raised him. His widowed father is possesed in a search for proof of Christ's existence. The reasons for this are not clear. The Christian religion being based on faith negates the possibility that it is as a demonstration of his love in God. Rather the implied meaning being that the loss of his wife was so unbelievable in the sadness it caused him, so unfair- that Dr Jones Sr needed a means to make sense of it all. Thus was born his search for the Grail. The tone of the film, whilst as action packed as Raiders, and less gloomy then Temple, has in fact got a far more serious tone. In a time where we literally get to see Hitler and the celebration of his wicked Nazi beliefs, we see the contrast with Indy (a flawed but good man) set of on a journey to find God! The maturity of the story is indicated by the fact that indy doesnt really 'get' the girl. A man who is no stranger to women is simply used by ms X (i forget her name!) who has also used his father! This woman is sly and deceitful. Although he sleeps with this woman doesnt really care for him. When Indy finds out we see how naieve he really is. And from here he learns a lesson that acts as a catalyst for his maturity in the film. For years he has not spoken to his father but when it matters he will do what he can to save his father's life - the only blood family he has. It is with this background that we see 'movement' in Indy's personal life. Indy feels he was emotionally neglected as a child, Dr Jones Sr feels he provided for his son the best upbringing he could. This final journey takes an extraordinary turn for the father and son relation ship. Dr Jones Sr's quest for the grail was a search for proof of God. But when he is shot we see his agnostic son, a man who does not believe in 'mumbo-jumbo' take a life or death test, A TEST OF FAITH, to save the life of his father. From this we must presume that Indy gains a little in spirituallity, and Dr Jones learns a lesson from his son about faith and God that we can be sure will keep him in good sted for his twilight years. The Last Crusade is the perfect last chapter as we get to reflect on Indy's upbringing. We learn how he became the man he is. & we see the growth in maturity of Indy. In the darker, almost blasphemous, subject matter we see Indy learn both of faith and of God, and ultimately learn to find a resolution to the demons of his consciousness. It is for this reason that a sequel would be wrong. Even if it had better action sequences then the previous 3. What would be the point of just dishing out another 'ordinary' Indy adventure. An Indy sequel could work. But only if we see more in the Growth of Indy and family. A hidden turmoil. A lost brother? And the adventure part has a significance that matches Raiders and Crusade. Mystical alone wont cut it. Atlantis will not do. It has to be related to the Judeo/ Christian theme of Raiders and the last Crusade. I do like the Crucifix idea... It musnt just be a good film. Lucas' men shouldnt even begin to write it unless they think it will be the best Indiana Jones film ever. If this happens i know i will be fighting hundreds of others at my local multiplex to be the first to see Indiana Jones and the Final Crusade... or whatever! If the s
June 3, 2002, 11:20 p.m. CST
by TheGinger Twit
What's wrong with you guys. the indianna jones films are awesome. every single one. And I can tell you now that Indy 4 will be more like Temple of doom. Raiders and Crusade were the odd ones out in this case. Don't bitch about anything other than the prospect that these films will be shot in digital with 90% animation backing it. Now that'd suck!!
June 4, 2002, 2:34 a.m. CST
If you don't like hearing fanboys bitch and disect and obsess about their favourite (or not) movies, my advice would be to just fuck off, cause you're in the wrong place.
June 4, 2002, 8:30 a.m. CST
by Triumph the Dog
I thought I was the only one who couldn't stand the way that Han became a total buffoon, whining "Its not my fault" during that film. That ruined the movie for me even more than the Ewoks in some ways.
June 4, 2002, 8:34 a.m. CST
by Triumph the Dog
That sort of character (the intentionally written as a Pain in the ass sort) only works in a movie like Indy if either: the character is being set up for a fall (ie, Indy punches her in the mouth and leaves her in the Jungle to "hitchhike" home), or the character grows and becomes likable. Neither of which happened to Capshaw's character. Instead we had Indy falling for this annoying bitch with no rationale whatsoever.
June 4, 2002, 9:46 a.m. CST
Saw it on the news and in the paper this morning. Something that the paper mentioned was that BOTH Karen Allen AND Kate Capshaw would be reprising their roles. You want to imagine what that's going to be like? Considering who is writing this, my fears about this being a farce are minimal. Also, if they treat the aging thing with sensitiviy and light humor (like Star Trek II did) then this'll be just fine. Only thing: Summer of 2005?!?! Criminy, Harrison looks awesome for his age, but he'll be 63!! He can pass for a guy in his mid 40's but that's pushing it.
June 5, 2002, 10:24 p.m. CST
For the guy with DVD problem, I have been writing about DVD since the earliest days of Philips experimenting with it and literally bit-by-bit creating the very first DVD, which was FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL. I was also around for all those pre-DVD, video-CD formats and enhanced-CDs (and yes, even Philips' ill-fated CD-i). Your problem sounds like a problem with the DVD machine itself, because frankly the watery images you speak of should be the incidental items, not the main title. It is not likely to be your TV. For sake of argument, try another TV, even if you have to borrow someone's. If that fails, try a different DVD machine. They are as low as $60 at these days, and a $60 machine is every bit as good for the main imagery as a $200 or $300 machine. You can also return the $60 machine right after this experiment and say it didn't work, but just make sure you do this within a day or two. And hold onto your receipt!