[horatio]

Originally Posted by jla1987

Well, Shia Lebouf automatically increases the stupid quotient with his presence. I think it's more of a thing with Lucas and his constant going back to screw stuff up. A lot of people hated the prequels (I didn't) and that hate carried over into Indy once they realized that it was filled with computer generated s***.

I just thought that per captia, there was too much stupid crap in the movie (even more than the despised Temple of Doom). Plus, it frankly shouldn't have been made since Last Crusade was the perfect end of the saga. It was the second most disappointing movie I had ever seen after Ang Lee's Hulk.

Good points. I think that the other characters besides Indy's son didn't work too well either. Ravenwood, the fourth guy among them whose name I have forgot as well as Cate Blanchett's character are not as memorable as a Marcus Brody, Sallah, the French archaeologist or the guy who collaborates with the nazis in Last Crusade.

So once you also include Star Wars there might be a pattern and perhaps Lucas just had a better hand with characters in the past?

I consider the last Indy movie the weakest among the four but I don't think that it is a bad movie, just not an Indy movie which has become or ever will become a classic.

[jla1987]

Originally Posted by horatio

Good points. I think that the other characters besides Indy's son didn't work too well either. Ravenwood, the fourth guy among them whose name I have forgot as well as Cate Blanchett's character are not as memorable as a Marcus Brody, Sallah, the French archaeologist or the guy who collaborates with the nazis in Last Crusade.

Quite true. That guy who's name I cannot remember as well...what a waste of screentime he was! Blanchett's villain was poorly acted (sorry, fans of her). I enjoyed seeing Karen Allen again, but her being there lead to more hokey stuff in that horrid chase through the jungle.

Originally Posted by horatio

So once you also include Star Wars there might be a pattern and perhaps Lucas just had a better hand with characters in the past?

Definitely!

Originally Posted by horatio

I consider the last Indy movie the weakest among the four but I don't think that it is a bad movie, just not an Indy movie which has become or ever will become a classic.

It's a toss-up between Temple of Doom and Crystal Skull. They both come off WAY more hokey than the other two. Just my taste I suppose.

[starwarsrcks]

Temple of Doom is great

[kevin]

Lucas has always been iffy with characters (especially those in support of the main characters - Shortround anyone?) from time to time. I think people just have more affection for his older films because of the time that's elapsed between them first coming out and the present and as he (admittedly) has never much altered his style over the years what worked then for a lot doesn't work now.

[starwarsrcks]

Belloq is the name of the french archelogist Paul Freeman was great in Raiders playing opposite Ford what did you think of him

[Cabo 5150]

Originally Posted by starwarsrcks

Temple of Doom is great

Yep; the best of the four. Woefully underrated and misunderstood.

[martok2112]

I too thoroughly enjoyed Temple of Doom. I think it had some of Ford's best acting out of the four films.

I loved the mine cart chase on the big screen.....in spite of myself, I found myself ducking and dodging as the tunnel seemed to whisk by....and amazingly enough, I didn't need 3D glasses. I was just caught up in the film.

[jla1987]

Originally Posted by martok2112

I too thoroughly enjoyed Temple of Doom. I think it had some of Ford's best acting out of the four films.

I loved the mine cart chase on the big screen.....in spite of myself, I found myself ducking and dodging as the tunnel seemed to whisk by....and amazingly enough, I didn't need 3D glasses. I was just caught up in the film.

If I were alive at the time, I might have had a different opinion of Temple of Doom. I mean, I think I first saw it in it's entirety in 1999...so out of all of them, it's aged the poorest IMO. Crystal Skull took Indy right back to that over the top formula and the minute I walked out of theater I knew it was the third best of the bunch.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

I also enjoyed Temple of Doom. I don't get why people don't.

[kevin]

I tend to feel that ToD is - for some reason - more a collection of set pieces that don't really have a very strong story holding them together. I like the set pieces (the Shanghai opening, the plane escape, the mine car etc) but overall the film just lacks focus.

Crystal Skull is a little similar, whereas Ark and Crusade seem to have a clearer story - find the Ark, find the Holy Grail - and work better as films.

I still prefer Skull to Doom however for some reason. Maybe it's because I like the 1950s 'B' movie nods it's filled with a little better.