(As a side note, that Knight Templar seemed to have aged quite a bit in 800 years, despite constant Grail access.)

Indiana drank from the Holy Grail in the last movie — that should extend his youth quite a bit. Ford’s not so lucky, of course, so I say replace him with Hughe Jackman and keep the francise going.

Don’t get me wrong, I really liked the film over all. I thought the ending was a bit heavy-handed, but in had a good mix of actoin and original concepts.

Mutt’s footwork in that fencing scene was all wrong.

(But I’m glad you like it, christian. )

In an interview with U.S.A. Today, George Lucas said this: “We came back to do (Indy) because we wanted to have fun,” he says. “It’s not going to make much money for us in the end. We all have some money. … It would make a lot of money if you weren’t rich. But we’re not doing it for the money.”

Anyone else think that Shia’s character was awful close to a Marlon Brando one? Or the the movie’s ending was a mirror image of the X-Files movie ending?

The movie felt like a great 70’s rock band getting together for one last hurrah. Most of the original members are there – still rocking, but noticeably older. Some new faces are there too (due to overdoses they had to fill spots).

The concert would be great and several would reminisce of younger times. BUT, the concert wouldn’t match the concerts played when they were the newest hip band.

Good article, very good points. As a matter of fact, I have placed a link to this article as a recommendation for further reading under my own review of The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (well, I’m about to anyway)

It’s still my opinion that, examined side-by-side on their own merits, Crusade holds up better than Raiders. It’ll never get the same degree of respect, though – simply because it was nowhere near as innovative. It simply rehashed the original formula and refined it (in other words, it was a better movie because they were able to build on their past accomplishments). I can’t help but wonder, though, whether the franchise would have been different had Temple been a better film. It wasn’t a bad premise, necessarily; it was just clumsy in exectuion (pretty much everyone involved phoned it in – particularly John Williams, who tends to make or break every Spielberg and Lucas picture).

Rick, I actually agree with most of what you say here…although you seem to have missed a shade or two of the irony I intended with the phrase “pretentious art-minded auteur directors” (not that anyone’s blaming you – like most of my generation, even I rarely know when I’m being sarcastic). Truth be told, you’ve mentioned several of my favorite directors here; I was really referring to a more specific swath of filmmakers: the “young blood” that appeared in Hollywood around the time of the end of studio system: Scorsese, Kubrick, Cimino, etc. – who, collectively, were resposible for a number of artistic triumphs and a number of debacles. Every artistic moevement has its advantages and its drawbacks (and, of course, the Spielberg/Lucas school is no exception to this).

I think my biggest beef was that it seemed like it all flowed into one without a lot of scenery changes (I admit, Crusade is my favorite, followed by Raiders). The aliens didn’t quite float my boat, but what I think miffed me the most about the aliens was that Lucas had said that there was only one more MacGuffin that he could have imagined for the Indy series.

Oh well, I still smiled when the theme played, when the silhouette of the hat showed, when he got his fedora back, and most other hallmark moment of the series (and the split second broken crate reveal toward the beginning had me clapping when I was slightly expecting it ever since they went in the hangar).

Good review.

I find it interesting how many complaints there are on this one. I was thinking how Indiana Jones, by it’s very nature, discourages innovation. The first one set up all of the things we’ve come to expect, which is why everyone thinks it is the best. Whenever they deviate from that formula, people get pissed (Temple of Doom). Whenever they adhere to it too closely, people get bored (Last Crusade). So really, its an uphill battle, anyway you cut it, since no new Indiana film can ever be the original one, which is what everyone seems to want.

I thought this one was a great blend of the things we’ve come to expect as well as new introductions to the Jones canon. You’re right, a lot of people will be turned off by the aliens, but it felt like a natural extension of the series. The film didn’t blow me away, but I enjoyed it, and honestly, I think that is as much as I could expect.

I think Slocombe is still alive. He’d probably have a few choice words for Kaminski after seeing this one.

Kaminski’s lighting really hurt the film for me. Watch what Slocombe doees with that light and there’s no comparison. Of course, they filmed most of the movie in Los Angeles, killing off any sense of place.

Again, I liked it; something just seemed amiss in the execution.

Oh yes … as much as I like the three original “Star Wars” (the last three, not so much) and the original “Indy” films (this one, not so much), I still lament their part in killing off of what you call “pretentious art-minded auteur directors of the 60s and 70s.” By this I presume you mean Truffaut and Fellini and Kurosawa and Godard and Ozu and Mizoguchi and Renoir and Altman and … who were pretentious only in their refusal to pander, which Lucas (always) and Spielberg (at times) seem eager to do.

I thought the latest Indy was so-so at best, with one too many chase scenes — oh, wait: ALL the action scenes were chase scenes, except that idiotic one with the snake — that rehashed what had gone before. I didn’t have a beef with the aliens, because I have no more problem believing in them than I do thugee Gods or melting Nazi faces.

Good review, as usual, though we seem to disagree, at least in degree.