She wasn't in the Third one either and that took place three years after the first movie

I enjoyed it.
It was an Indiana Jones movie.
Karen Allen was really great.

I liked it as well.

Most of it was humbug though.

There was no real tension in the movie (like on the front of a car/spike room/tank scene), or a climax from what I saw. The antagonist wasn't very intimidating either. I expected more from her, she was very good in The Aviator and a couple others. But she just looked like a woman in costume on the set, not a character. A few stupid scenes. But it was better than Temple of Doom.

In order:
Last Crusade
Raiders
Kingdom
Temple

I admit to having the desire to go back to the theater to see the flick again... while still on the big screen.

Have not felt that in recent years about a movie.

I saw the movie yesterday. Although I loved the earlier installments, I'm afraid that this one was too over the top for me. It crossed the line from "suspension of disbelief" into "incredulity" in too many instances and on too many levels. While there were moments that I liked, on the whole I was disappointed.

No disrespect to my friends who liked it but I have to quote Comicbook Man from the Simpsons and say.. " Worst episode ever!"

Best,

Tim

Nothing like a lead lined fridge to survive a nuclear explosion

It was not only a letdown based on the story or other Indiana Jones stories, but it was just a terrible movie on its own.

The movie was full of nothing but cliche phrases that they knew would get a decent audience response and actions scenes that lacked any depth, believability or danger.

Not to mention so many plot holes that you just wanted to choke whoever wrote the plot.


I really wanted my money back after this, it was so obvious that the writers weren't even trying but instead just wanted to cash in on the Indiana Jones name, because they didn't even try.

I won't go into a lot of detail, but this was very disappointing and hardly entertaining. If this were the first Indy movie I'd ever seen, I certainly wouldn't be rushing to see the others.

This one is right down there in the pit along with Temple of Doom, and I have to say that which Temple of Doom ain't no spring chicken, it's more entertaining than Crystal Skull.

I place all the blame for this one being bad on Lucas's shoulders. I have no doubt if that he had released his iron grip of control (everything from not insisting that the Crystal Skull be the key element of the movie, to just letting someone run wild and come up with a storyline other than his own) then a fourth Indy installment could've been great.

I see that the National Tresure sequel was released on DVD a few days before Indy. I'd say that most would be better off using their money to rent/buy that DVD than to sit through Indy 4.

Time to watch Raiders and Last Crusade to get this bad taste out of my mouth.

The first thing to remember about any Indiana Jones movies is this.

Rule #1 - It's an adventure movie. It's just an adventure movie. It is just for entertainment. It isn't even real. It is supposed to be far-fetched. It's Indiana Jones, man.

With that said...(spoilers follow)

I thought they were after the Ark of the Covenant in the first scenes. I'm glad they weren't. I thought it was pretty cool that we got to see it again, even if the image lasted only a few seconds.

As soon as I saw the dummies sitting on sofas in the desert town, I almost crapped my pants. I knew right away what was about to happen. I lived in Vegas for 26 years. Hiding in the refrigerator was pretty cool, even if he got blasted a couple of country miles in that thing. Every time I wonder how he could have survived that, I refer myself to Rule #1.

The bad guys were cool, especially because they were Commies. Any Communists that may have been, have been, will be offended by this, I suggest a speedy and thorough attempt on behalf of the offended Communists do something about getting a real life, and to refer to Rule #1.

The sword fight between the kid and the bad chick was cool, although it was met with derisive remarks on behalf of the movie's audience. I felt like advising the audience of Rule #1, but doing so right in the middle of the movie would have been inappropriate and would have probably embarrassed my family. Besides, I was outnumbered 200-1.

I loved the fact they were dealing with space aliens. Years ago, I figured... Ark of the Covenant..., then Mystical and Powerful Eastern Indian Powers..., then the Holy Grail..., how the heck do you follow up the Holy Grail? Space Aliens fit that bill nicely. It did the trick. My only question now is how one would follow up Space Aliens. If anybody can figure that out, it would have to be Indiana Jones! See Rule #1.

All in all, I enjoyed the heck out of the movie, and my family did too. We laughed, we sat on the edges of our seats, we cheered the good guys and booed the bad guys. It was exactly what I wanted it to be and I feel I got exactly what I paid for. If anyone feels that it was far-fetched... Rule #1.

As I recall Indy once survived a submerged submarine ride with no explanation.

I think our own suspension of disbelief maybe has changed rather than Indiana's escapes.

Patrick,

Which rule is that that calls for the most number of bad movie cliches in one film?

The commie thing hasn't been done since " Red Dawn" and it was old then. LOL

I'm all for some "edge of your seat" action and can even laugh at some impossible unbelievable scenes but in this film I wouldn't have been surprised to see Indy take flight and turn back time by circling the earth really fast.

When the hat blew over to the kids feet I moaned out loud. 50% of that moan was for the terrible predictable cliche and the other 50% was in fear they were hinting yet another sequel. UGH!

Harrison Ford should be more proud of his performance in the Star Wars Holiday Special Fiasco. LOL

I'm shutting up now because just having to relive it as I type this is too much to bear. Did I aready say UGH.... no matter... its worth one more. UGH!

Best,

Tim

Eddie,

I always thought he held the periscope. That was a stretch but a fun stretch.

BTW... another sign of a bad film is when the main character has to verbally spell out the story to his co-characters (so we can understand it as well) as the film goes along. LOL

One more... (last one I promise) ..UGH!

Best,

Tim

I admit it was all a bit clunky....but come on Tim...you HAD to enjoy Mac being finally punched in the nose?
Did your heart not skip a beat seeing Marion again?

This is a very silly movie. Nothing wrong with silly...but the lable should be appended to a sub title. Escape and Capture Escape again Capture again etc etc all under the most silly of circumstances. I liked it in a silly sort of way...I did have to suspend ANY belief over that cartoon cliff they were traversing. I missed Brendan Frasure as George and his Elephant prancing along for the ride or looking up as Indy flew over head in his magic Fridgedare...at least George sent his funny jungle monkeys. Aside from some not silly and atrocious CGI it seemed like the silly version of the National Treasure series, ofcourse itself a lightweight version of the original Indiana Jones series.

I also noticed a bit of computer tinkering with Han Solos mug in a couple of scenes...now that's silly in itself.

But after all, it helped sell some 3 No Evil tricks for me...and I take that rather seriously.

This was far more Lucas than Spielberg I'm afraid and very near to the infamous Star Wars Christmas Specials we all love to...uh...look back on.

I'm afraid if Mr. leBouf would have taken the hat, the next intallment, it would have been a beany with a propeller on it. (CGI spinning and all.)

I will sit on a feather and watch it again. You should too. They need the money.

The one saving grace as a comedy...It had neither Ben Stiller or George Cloony. They could have raised the box office prices on that alone.

I'll read everybody elses reviews now and see if we mesh...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=r-sK9qmQVdw

It seemed more like a blend of The Mummy/Returns and Indy to me.

Ok, I think I'm ready to ask the question I hinted at earlier.

There have been enough spoilers on this thread, that I don't feel like I'm committing a crime.

(Small spoiler ahead.)

In the Last Crusade, when Indy and Dad drank from the Holy Grail, wasn't it supposed to make them immortal? Or just heal them? And does that mean heal them on a long-term basis, or a short-term basis?

I haven't seen The Last Crusade a lot of times, so my memory is sketchy. But I thought that drinking made them (both) immortal.

If they were both supposed to be immortal, then how they dealt with Connery's character didn't make sense at all.

Can someone clarify? Any theories (other than bad script writing)?

Thanks, Donald.

P.S. I don't expect total logic. I'm more along the lines of what Patrick said in his post.

The power of the grail was limited to only in that cavern. "That is the price for immortality"