Jesus. I've never seen such a lazy, half-hearted trailer. It looks unfinished - edited by people who had better things to do, and who in the end couldn't be bothered. Does ANYONE at Lucasfilm actually care about this franchise?

Jesus, they keep using that shot of some kid in an Indy costume swinging off the top of a crate. I thought this movie was about the old Indiana Jones - not Young Indiana Jones. The whole thing's a joke.

Two say the movie is awful.

One says it's not awful, just mediocre. Great.

Now this review apologises for the movie and asks us to give it a chance??

Doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Added to that is another of these strangely boring trailers. What are Lucasfilm playing at? Usually, the best scenes are in the trailer (then you go to the movie and discover that it doesn't live up to the promise of the trailer). That's the point of trailers: to hype the movie up and get you excited.

But the Indy 4 trailers are different. Are Lucasfilm DELIBERATELY making dull trailers to lower public expectations? wouldn't be surprised - especially after the Phantom Menace disaster.

SO STOP HATING AND THINK, HAVE A DISCUSSION.

Does this film's choice of plot points work with in the pre-established framework?

Do those plot point represent the good taste of the original?

LET DISCUSS SOMETHING WORTH WHILE

Anyway, the point I wanted to make is during the shooting of the 'Cairo' scenes, Spielberg is given the option of shooting in a larger area of Marrakesh (I think that's where it was actually shot), but he opts for 'geography' explaining to either Robert Watts or Norman Reynolds... one of those guys, anyway, that he thinks it's better for the audience to have an idea where they're at within the proscenium of the action scene both story-wise and geographically.

Whether he was just tired and hot (I'm pretty sure that was at least 50% of it) or that was the real explanation, he's absolutely right. Movies now do not have ANY kind of cutting rhythm imposed on them, either before or after, and so John Williams in his heyday could not write music that fits so perfectly as it does with Spielberg's work. His actions scenes, even without music, are cut and shot in a way that you always are able to follow the story, yet the tension still rises, and the editing itself has a musical quality to it, as though when you're watching a scene like the truck chase or the bicycle chase in E.T., you're not only listening to a great piece of music you're watching one as well. Metaphorically, of course.

Today, action scenes are cut in such a way that you barely know where you're at, what the stakes are, who is where, and they have no lyrical quality whatsoever. Occasionally you'll see it on non-action oriented movies, like the opening of the train robbery in the assassination of jesse james, or the well explosion in There will be blood, but hardly ever do we see that kind of artistry applied to something that's just supposed to be a fun, adventurous jaunty scene. Part of Spielberg's genius is that he takes his enormous artistic power as a filmmaker and applies it to stuff that's fun or escapist in nature.

I guess there can really only be one of him...

Review no.3 says it's better than the mediocre Last Crusade - but NOT AS GOOD as the equally-mediocre Temple Of Doom. That's not a recommendation to a lot of fans who - like me - think the sequels were very inferior to the original Raiders. I remember that even Spielberg officially apologised for Temple Of Doom in the years following its release.

This reviewer compares KOTCS to Wrath of Kahn (a pretty good movie) only in terms of some plot similarities. He does NOT compare it in terms of quality. His overall tone is more one of apology - not of recommendation. And frankly, if I were to question the authenticity of any of these reviews, it would be this one: it's very, very light on specific details.

cameron seems to have that one down, and sometimes de palma. I feel like Ridley had it, then lost it, but now kinda regained that control a little...Your thoughts on these guys....

Romanocc is right - IT'S THE CHARACTER. The ONLY thing I was worried about with the trailers was whether I'd feel like Ford hadn't found the character again and wouldn't be able to act or sound like him. Well, from everything I've seen, he absolutely has and as long as it's Indy up there, I'll enjoy watching this. The action is obviously there and it's Indiana Jones. I don't need a complex fucking plot or some pseudo-cynical, introspective bullshit that all the other TBer's seem to expect from this movie, even though none of the other films really had this, you just imagine they did, and when they really did (last crusade) you hate them for it.

I'm not against criticism when it's valid, but lately, all of the hatred of movies seems to be getting more and more to the point of people's own insecurities and jealousies and disappointments in life being projected onto that silver screen. I'm honestly beginning to feel that many of you have no idea how to enjoy a movie anymore.

Beyond that, there is something I like to call the paradox of the grown-up film geek. The paradox is this - you expect movies like Batman, Iron Man, Indiana Jones, etc. to satisfy you in the same way they did when you were a kid, but that is impossible. The reason for this is that, hopefully, you are now a FUCKING GROWN-UP, and deep in your soul, in order to be truly satisfied, you need your art to have a little more depth to it. The perceived depth of the original films, such as Raiders, isn't really there, you only imagine that it is because it awakens something in you that remembers a better self or a better time. It's nostalgia. Not to say it isn't a great film, but part of what makes it great to you is that it hit you when you were young. So when they go back and make a new one and it doesn't have that same feeling that you expect, you become disappointed, rather than trying to see the film for what it is - the same thing you were given when you were younger, only now you're searching for a feeling it couldn't possibly give you because you're seeing it as an adult. If you want real depth, watch The Godfather again, watch Cuckoo's Nest, hell, watch Zodiac if you need something more recent. If you saw those films when you were younger, chances are, they will become better and more meaningful to you as you age. The real paradox is that many film geeks expect from their super-hero and genre fare the same as one receives as an adult from more traditionally hearty, tragic/dramatic fare, but I'm sorry, it's literally fucking impossible to make a movie about a guy who walks around in a bat costume and make it seem like Raging Bull. There's a fine line where the movie can be great, but once you step over it, it becomes ridiculously self-serious, and I'm afraid many film geeks are not happy on either side of that line.

...and everyone of you nay-saying, "PLANT!"-shouting, failure-cheering, parent's basement-dwelling, overweight, cheetos-scarfing, self-abusing, bearded, goateed...........um, where was I?

Oh yeah.

FUCK YOU!

cunts.

With all my venom.

MT

Seriously.

Sorry about that.

No excuses. Just apologies but the sentiment remains the same.

MT

jarjarsjockstrap; you sir, are a gentleman.

If Indy IV is even close to Last Crusade or Temple of Doom, it will be worth it.