For me, I'll be more than happy if it matches The Last Crusade. Yes, Crusade is easily the weakest of the three movies so far but its still miles ahead of most stuff produced today. Its probably too much to hope for the mindblowing perfection of Raiders or the offbeat genius of Temple of Doom. Even if it does fall a tad short of Crusade, I'll probably be satisfied. How about you guys?

I do not think that special effects are what make the Indy movies so special. They always had a rough somewhat lo-fi look. Music wise, JW is in no way the same composer as he was in the 80s (though I won't say necessarily for worse or better). Judging frm the Amazon samples, he does revisit some of his 80s action sounds (the woodwinds are back for one) while also having a lot of his frenzied modern atonal stuff. Whether he'll produce big melodic throughlines based action sequences instead of post Lost World motivic fragments is something that remains to be seen. No..Raiders is 99% unassailable, ToD is a bizzare quirk which KOTCS is obviously not. LC remains the target for me.

Raiders is perfct. ToD was awesome in its own offbeat and mean way. LC is very very likable, but in the end (especially if you've watched the movies a gazillion times) is just too dependent on cute humor, which makes Indy feel less hard boiled. Ironically, LC feels like Roger Moore to the Connery of Raiders (pun intended). ToD is amazing in the way they took this massive pop cultural phenomenon and did something way out of this world with it, akin to giving the middle finger to mainstreamness. Brilliant in its own way.

National Treasure is nothing but a revolting Indy knockoff with an eye on milking the Da Vinci Code hype. The only Indy knockoff worth its salt insofar is the The Mummy.

This post has been edited by BurgaFlippinMan: May 10 2008, 11:40 AM

Ford and Connery have great chemistry, but the humor is a double edged sword. Its definitely funny, hilarious at times but it oh so nearly turns one of the greatest heroes of cinema into a parody of himself, hence the Roger Moore comparison. The tone was swung too far into the opposite direction to atone for Temple of Doom's perceived 'sins'. Temple of Doom doesnt try to be dark. It IS dark. Its pure anti mainstream Lucas.

That was a terrible movie too.

This post has been edited by BurgaFlippinMan: May 10 2008, 07:55 PM

Isnt the minimal use of CG one of the main draws about Indy IV?

I am the ORIGINAL!!!! Plus I have a verb in front of the chow! And my avatar has a machete which will smite down his 5 kadam long stick!!!

There was about two for some of the cast and crew, Cannes.....thats it.

I'm merely stating a well known fact constantly mentioned by the filmmakers. If its excessive CG he's looking for, he probably won't find it in Indy.

This post has been edited by BurgaFlippinMan: May 14 2008, 10:52 AM

live free or die hard wasnt.....hard enough...

He did in the unrated DVD I think...

My problem is that Last Crusade is first and foremost, a comedy. Its very lovable, but you can't take it seriously as an Indy film. An Indy film should be an action adventure, not a comedy action adventure (note I'm not even calling it action adventure comedy). Even Spielberg himself has confessed that LC was to 'atone' for ToD's perceived wrongs. Sadly that time they went too far in the opposite direction and ended up with a rehash of Raiders unlike ToD, which was its own individual. Yes, the other two had hilarious moments too, but the funny bits do not drive the film like it does in LC. In LC, you get the feeling that there is a gag or joke coming every 30 seconds or so. I think that LC is somewhat analogous to Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, very likable but nowhere near the greatness of their respective series.

This post has been edited by BurgaFlippinMan: May 18 2008, 02:25 PM