Only a 2-point difference between LAST CRUSADE and CRYSTAL SKULL? I definitely disagree with you there!

It's always fun to go back and watch the Indy films...except for the last one. It's like SUPERMAN RETURNS for me, gets worse every time I try and watch it. I'm also a big fan of LAST CRUSADE, and for me, it's a superior film to the rollercoaster-ride/empty cinematic calories of TEMPLE OF DOOM. I still love the latter, but there's no dramatic element to it at all really, and Kate Capshaw's whiny Willie Shaw grates on the nerves. The Ford-Connery chemistry gives a human dimension to LAST CRUSADE that the second film completely lacks, and the whole River Phoenix opening is brilliant as well.

Either way, they're like apples and oranges. No comparison between either of them and the KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. Between Janusz, Shia, lazy CGI action scenes, Karen Allen's admittedly cringe-worthy performance, John Hurt's "I'm not Connery" performance, and the snooze-inducing villainy of Blanchett, it's an insult to the rest of the series. And Ray Winstone's character -- exactly, what is he doing there? My wife fell asleep during the scenes when Indy is captured by Blanchett and she talks about the skull for what seemed like an eternity. BLAH!

RAIDERS 10
TEMPLE OF DOOM 8.5
LAST CRUSADE 9.5
KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL 5

I wish they would have never made CRYSTAL SKULL...lol...I would grade them as such:

Raiders: 10/10
Temple of Doom: 6/10
Last Crusade: 9.5/10
Crystal Skull: 2/10

I absolutely love Last Crusade - musically I think it's Williams' strongest score. Raiders is slightly better but only slightly. TOD has some great comedic moments in it but overall I don't think it holds up as well. It is a shame CS turned out the way it did...too bad they went out with that film. They would have been better off leaving it as a trilogy with the gang riding off into the sunset.

Alexandra Dupont's review of the Indy DVD boxed set from a decade ago accurately sums up why Temple Of Doom is awesome and underrated and Last Crusade is soft and overrated:

http://www.dvdjournal.com/reviews/a/adv ... ones.shtml

Doom may be little more than a high tech roller coaster ride, but...isn't that the point of this type of film? And I don't even mind Kate Capshaw's one-note performance, because her incessant shrieking is exactly what you'd be exposed to on any decent amusement park ride. The last 40 minutes of Doom represent the most relentlessly thrilling action filmmaking of Steven Spielberg's career, and, on every conceivable technical level (art direction, cinematography, editing, music, visual effects), it's the high water mark of the series. Last Crusade suffers from a lot of the problems that Return Of The Jedi does...it's too much of a "crowd-pleaser", offering an inferior, slightly goofy remake of the first film in the series to "apologize" for the relentless darkness of the second film. I truly despise the character assassinations of Marcus Brody and Sallah in Last Crusade, the former turned into a doddering, mugging fool, and the latter more concerned with stealing camels than assisting Indy in saving his father during the climactic tank sequence. And, as amusing as River Phoenix's dead-on Harrison Ford imitation was, the "Young Indy" opener looks forward to the Star Wars prequels in stitching together a backstory for an iconic character with Lego-brick obviousness. As a kid, I always used to fantasize about how Indy acquired all of his trademarks (hat, jacket, whip, chin scar, fear of snakes, ect.), probably over the course of decades' worth of adventures, but no, he apparently got all of these over the course of running from one end of a circus train to the other. Last Crusade has the blandest collection of villains in the series, a lack of memorable thrills, and some shockingly poor use of blue-screen projection during the zeppelin/biplane sequence. Yes, it's fun to seeFord and Sean Connery interact with each other, but it's equally maddening to see one's greatest childhood hero constantly being berated and one-upped by his elderly father. I just find it funny that Andy is one of the few people who agrees with me that the second Die Hard -- often pilloried as "the bad one" of the series -- is the best sequel and that the frequently-praised third one in actuality sucks with a vengeance, and yet he perpetuates the falsity that Doom is weak and Crusade is somehow on a par with Raiders.

I wouldn't call anyone's opinion a "falsity." Clearly you have a really strong disdain for LAST CRUSADE. I get that. On the other hand, I don't pretend to tell someone they're wrong because of what they like. There is no right and wrong when it comes to personal taste.

I never said TEMPLE OF DOOM is a "weak" movie -- I do think its inferior to the first and third films, but still I'd give it an 8.5 out of 10...but I don't see many people, then or now, saying the film is a classic. Most critics were disappointed when the movie opened and I think a lot of the complaints people had about the picture back then (and there were a lot of them -- if Rotten Tomatoes was around to survey ALL critical reactions in 1984, the film would have definitely been in the "rotten" category) do hold true today. It's still far more entertaining than most any summer film of the 21st century, sure, but if you're comparing it to Spielberg's other films in his career up until that point, I find it to be a weak sister so to speak.

TEMPLE OF DOOM is just empty calories. It's fun, I like it a lot, but it has no dramatic engagement on a story or character level. A lot of that is due to Willard Huyuck and Gloria Katz having written the script, which bears their distinctive mark of sophomoric humor ("monkey brains!") and thin characterizations. I find Short Round annoying, I find Kate Capshaw annoying...like a lot of people thought at the time, the opening Anything Goes set piece is probably the single best scene in the entire movie. Spielberg also did take the film too far. Its needlessly violent for really no good reason whatsoever, and rebounds with a fun last third...but getting there is a bit of a slog. I love the gorgeous Slocombe cinematography and Williams' score is spectacular, but on balance, I don't think it's a great movie, even if I watched it about a dozen times when it first came out and hit video. And I still love watching it...but it's missing the heart and soul of its bookending counterparts.

As far as LAST CRUSADE goes, is it a classic like the original? Technically no, but I do have a strong affection for the movie, and the warmth and humanity of the story far outweighs anything in Temple of Doom. It extends beyond Connery and Ford just having "fun" together -- there's a strong dramatic component, a richness to their sequences, that is totally absent from Temple of Doom, which has precious little character drama of any kind. If you just think it's all "Indiana being one-upped by his dad," I think you are missing the wider point of the story. And besides, that's absolutely part of the humor, seeing Ford's indestructible hero taught lessons that he didn't think he needed to learn by his resourceful elderly dad ...it plays to Ford's strengths as an actor, it gives him something more to do than just the standard-issue "Saturday matinee" heroics the role mostly called for, and it enables Connery the opportunity to craft what was easily one of his most engaging non-Bond performances. That type of dramatic element -- where is that in Temple of Doom? And really, it gives Ford, as an actor, more meat, something more to work with. It plays with Raiders' plot and directly references it, yes, but it also remixes, reworks it -- and adds a real, hugely satisfying "ending" to all three films on top of it. Thematically and otherwise, this IS the end of the series, and it should've stayed that way.

As far as the "bland villains" go, somehow the Temple of Doom bad guys are more developed or interesting? I don't get that. Frankly I don't find any of the villains in the Indy movies all that interesting...the focus is always on Indy and his point of view, and the bad guys are always nefarious, down-the-middle comic book types...which is the whole point of these films, isn't it?

While I've seen people say they don't like Last Crusade, I'm kind of scratching my head when you say the film insulted Indiana Jones -- I guess I just didn't take any of those films as seriously as you do (or at least did). It's not a series based on great literature or great drama. They're 1930s Saturday Matinee fantasies in the tradition of cliffhangers and comic books. Spielberg and Ford wanted to have some fun in the third movie. For me they succeeded admirably, and there's not much to say about the opening with River Phoenix that you didn't care for. I think it is a spectacular set-piece, in every way -- from the scoring, to the energy of Spielberg's direction, the cutting...all of it. Brilliant. I love watching the film just for the first 10 minutes.

And to argue with that review you cited, here's one for me that nails why I also feel the way I do...I'm just not telling you your opinion is a falsity...just rather, it's how I feel.

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/08/why-in ... indy-films

What I liked most about CRUSADE was the father-son relationship (a Spielbergian filmic idiom) and how it played out through the course of the film. In the previous films Indy was a pretty driven, selfish person, autonomous, somewhat of a scoundrel (if I can borrow a line from EMPIRE). People might disagree with me on this, but I feel like CRUSADE explained why...it had to do with a broken or dysfunctional relationship with his father (I think Spielberg's father left the family when he was young...not sure on that though). It makes sense that Indy can be the alpha male in any situation he's in (ARK and DOOM, which is technically a prequel) except when he's in the presence of his father. I think underneath it all CRUSADE was about healing in the relationship between father and son - understanding, acceptance, sharing in each other's space. And for me at least, CRUSADE was extremely effective in telling that story and making its emotional point, much like RAIDERS was in setting up the character.

Where TEMPLE failed for me was in its focus on Indy "growing up" and maturing by realizing the importance of family (a wife) and children (another typical Spielbergian filmic idiom for his protagonists). I don't think Spielberg is nearly as strong of a filmmaker with this theme than he is with father-son relationships or stories of abandonment and reuniting with parents. By the end of the film I feel unfulfilled in a way, as I can’t believe Indy would end up with someone like Capshaw’s character (whose name I am forgetting right now). Capshaw was cool but nowhere near as interesting of a character as Marion, who was at least an "equal" to Indy - she was tough, autonomous, and her father was just as obsessed as Indy’s father with his work.

I agree that TEMPLE was a fun, roller-coaster ride of a film (which was what it was supposed to be), but sandwiched in between RAIDERS and CRUSADE, it isn’t as impactful as it perhaps could have been to me. RAIDERS set up the character of Indiana Jones; it had a great story, ominous villains, and delivered in every way. CRUSADE brought the cycle to an end with a great central focus on the father-son relationship that was moving in a sincere way to me; it was the point of the story. The villains were not so ominous, but then they were kind of secondary to Indy’s and Henry’s journey. What did TEMPLE deliver? Nothing really that had any impact on anything…so we find out that Indy had a fling with a floozy and nearly had a family, but he must have ditched them (wisely) before going after the ark and re-introducing himself to Marion. It added nothing to the mythology of the character for me. My point is that RAIDERS and CRUSADE gave me something that helped flesh out Indy’s character more, and for those reasons I liked those two films better than TEMPLE.

The very criminal thing about CRSYTAL SKULL to me is that, based on my presentation here, with Indy finding reconciliation with his father, one imagines he would be ready for marriage and family. Unfortunately, Marion’s character is an old weirdo who fawns all over him; it was like her character was completely written from scratch and undermined from the first film. And “Mutt” is an absolute failure. Indy deserved better for maturing over a three film arc – it’s too bad that Spielberg and Lucas didn’t give him a final moment that was as moving as the best moments of CRUSADE. Anyway, just some thoughts for what they’re worth.

Where TEMPLE failed for me was in its focus on Indy "growing up" and maturing by realizing the importance of family (a wife) and children (another typical Spielbergian filmic idiom for his protagonists). I don't think Spielberg is nearly as strong of a filmmaker with this theme than he is with father-son relationships or stories of abandonment and reuniting with parents. By the end of the film I feel unfulfilled in a way, as I can’t believe Indy would end up with someone like Capshaw’s character (whose name I am forgetting right now). Capshaw was cool but nowhere near as interesting of a character as Marion, who was at least an "equal" to Indy - she was tough, autonomous, and her father was just as obsessed as Indy’s father with his work.

And of course, he doesn't end up with Capshaw and we never hear of Short Round again -- so much for realizing that importance by the end of the film!

I totally agree Michael, and what's interesting to remember is that, at that point in time, Spielberg didn't have kids yet or had been married. It's something that shows in something like TEMPLE OF DOOM and especially CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. While one of my all-time favorite movies, Spielberg says he'd never end that movie today (with Neary abandoning his wife and kids) the same way, and I think it ties in with the life experience he had up until that point. That's why, as you said Michael, the father-son relationship feels very genuine in LAST CRUSADE by comparison. Beneath the good-natured comedy is a real dramatic component and texture that was missing from Temple of Doom and, really, gives you even more insight into Indy's character than we even were given in the first film. I think it's a reflection of who Spielberg is, and especially was, at that point in his career, and why LAST CRUSADE has more of a dramatic element than the other pictures.

Indy deserved better for maturing over a three film arc – it’s too bad that Spielberg and Lucas didn’t give him a final moment that was as moving as the best moments of CRUSADE

And that's the whole problem -- there was no reason why KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL had to exist. It is a pointless exercise in revisiting the past, to something that was completed, satisfactorily, in the 1989 film. I respect Connery for not just cashing a check like everyone else did and ignoring it...its how most fans ought to look at it (and do) as well.

WORLD WAR Z
8/10

Mediocre trailers aside, this much-discussed, turbulent production from star-producer Brad Pitt and director Marc Forster results in a big-time surprise -- a smart, exciting popcorn muncher driven by a central star performance that's both confident and relaxed.

More of a globe-trotting pandemic thriller than a gore-soaked genre exercise (horror fans will be disappointed for that reason; on the other hand, I found the approach refreshing), “World War Z” looks at the outbreak of a zombie apocalypse through the prism of UN worker Pitt. After barely escaping his now-ravaged hometown of Philadelphia with his wife and daughters, Pitt is called into action by his boss in order to find the source of the outbreak that’s turning humans into crazed killers of the undead. Hoping that uncovering “Patient Zero” will enable a cure to be found, Pitt’s adventures take him to South Korea, Israel and eventually Wales, through hordes of zombies and civilizations both modern and ancient all succumbing to the deadly virus.

“World War Z” made headlines last year when the studio and Pitt decided the movie’s third act wasn’t working. The film was recut (“Lost”‘s Matthew Fox, no longer billed in the front credits, has maybe two lines of dialogue in a part obviously left on the editing room floor), the final third (originally set in Russia) was entirely jettisoned and a new finish constructed. While it’s clear the film is cut tight and there’s an underlying sense that certain story elements were abbreviated (such as Pitt’s wife and daughters being left on a naval ship), this is one of those rare instances where ample post-production and test sceenings actually helped the picture. The film’s new climax, written by Drew Goddard and Damon Lindelof, enables the star to go one-on-one with the zombies in a more claustrophobic setting as opposed to the larger-scale sequences of undead hordes witnessed in the film’s early stages — making for an interesting contrast that’s dramatically effective — while also providing the story with a clear, surprising resolution seldom seen in these types of films.

Make no mistake, either: this film is Pitt’s show, and the star — who’s been looking to break into a big “franchise” for a while — carries the film effortlessly as few actors today can. Likeable, resourceful and yet anything but a one-man wrecking crew, Pitt’s character is believably rendered in a film that’s more focused on momentum and excitement as opposed to gore and the sorts of slow-paced, dreary horror confrontations typically seen in zombie films. The different locations and set-pieces give the film a global scale that keeps the material fresh and compelling — and also old-fashioned too, in a Saturday matinee type of way. “World War Z” looked for a while like it was going to be the one summer movie to avoid; instead, who knew that Brad Pitt saving the world from zombies would provide escapist fun and a bit of intelligence missing from the likes of Star Trek and Superman.

I wonder, with all this "zombiemania" these days if we'll see a remake of Lifeforce!

WWZ - 8/10. I liked this movie way more than I thought I would as I'm not a big zombie movie fan. It was very entertaining, Pitt was very charismatic (and he is a much better actor than people tend to give him credit for), and the film kept me engaged throughout. I agree with Andy's observation that Pitt's performance was confident and relaxed, something that really made the last 30 minutes or so of the film work. I also liked the "solution" to the problem - I'm sure if I thought about it I would question it more, but it's at least no worse than any other "solutions" that have come before in zombie horde movies. If I had one complaint it would be that the shaky cam got very irritating - it was hard to see what was going on at times. Interestingly, I heard two people comment on how much they liked Beltrami's score! Didn't see that coming!!

Overall, it's well worth seeing - good escapist fare that one can enjoy even if they aren't into zombie movies.

mkaroly wrote:WWZ - 8/10. I liked this movie way more than I thought I would as I'm not a big zombie movie fan. It was very entertaining, Pitt was very charismatic (and he is a much better actor than people tend to give him credit for), and the film kept me engaged throughout. I agree with Andy's observation that Pitt's performance was confident and relaxed, something that really made the last 30 minutes or so of the film work. I also liked the "solution" to the problem - I'm sure if I thought about it I would question it more, but it's at least no worse than any other "solutions" that have come before in zombie horde movies. If I had one complaint it would be that the shaky cam got very irritating - it was hard to see what was going on at times. Interestingly, I heard two people comment on how much they liked Beltrami's score! Didn't see that coming!!

Overall, it's well worth seeing - good escapist fare that one can enjoy even if they aren't into zombie movies.

My wife liked it -- and she was fighting me to see it for months. After I showed her some of the reviews, she agreed...but trust me, she hates zombie movies, gore, etc.

I totally agree on the resolution. I liked it a lot -- smart, different. And I also, Michael, agree on the shaky cam. That's Forster. Shades of the worst parts in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Thankfully the film isn't ruined by it.

Birthday weekend viewings...

-Monsters University: 8/10

Surprisingly enjoyable prequel to Monsters Inc. isn't nearly as emotionally resonant as the earlier (er, later) film, but as far as G-rated throwbacks to 80's campus comedies go, it's bright, funny and energetic, a big step up in quality from the lousy, toy-mongering Cars 2. As disturbing as Pixar's recent slew of sequels has been, this one turned out far better than I anticipated.

-This Is The End: 9/10

Uproarious comedy is one of the funniest films in recent memory...I was virtually choking on my laughter at several different points. Not for all tastes, but for those who actually like Seth Rogen's particular brand of stoner comedy (the guy makes me laugh, what can I say), it's a gas. Edgar Wright's forthcoming apocalypse comedy At World's End will have a lot to live up to later this summer.

Uproarious comedy

My god, I can't believe you actually just wrote that

Happy Birthday!

AndyDursin wrote:

Uproarious comedy

My god, I can't believe you actually just wrote that

I have a bad case of Leonard Maltin-ism at times.

Happy Birthday!

Thanks. Nice to have two good movies to enjoy this weekend.

I have a bad case of Leonard Maltin-ism at times.

Oh, so do I -- I wasn't referring to that, more that you thought it was funny. Finally a comedy we can agree on!

AndyDursin wrote:Oh, so do I -- I wasn't referring to that, more that you thought it was funny. Finally a comedy we can agree on!

As long as Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell stay far away, there are plenty of comedies I like. We're probably the only two people on the planet that think Top Secret! and Mars Attacks! are funny.