36 replies to this topic

[Leon]

BATMAN hardly had a soul, it had a messy story and no character development. THE DARK KNIGHT was far better written and directed. THE LAST CRUSADE wasn't that good either by making the side characters all comic foils and even Indy himself came off as too comical. CRYSTAL SKULL is better but not by much, only Harrison Ford's preformance is the only thing that really improved over his predessecor.

*Vomits everywhere*

[byline]

Interesting likenesses.

The old Batman and Indy were way better though. Back when they had the magic ingredient lacking in nearly all Hollywood blockbusters these days. Soul.

I highly diasgree. BATMAN hardly had a soul, it had a messy story and no character development. THE DARK KNIGHT was far better written and directed. THE LAST CRUSADE wasn't that good either by making the side characters all comic foils and even Indy himself came off as too comical. CRYSTAL SKULL is better but not by much, only Harrison Ford's preformance is the only thing that really improved over his predessecor.

Ewww . . . can't agree with you there. I thought "The Last Crusade" was vastly superior to "Temple of Doom" because it had the one thing "Temple of Doom" and "Crystal Skull" didn't have (but which "Raiders" had in spades): heart. You have to care what happens to the characters to sit through an entire movie wanting to find out what happens to them. Sadly, by the end of "Crystal Skull," I couldn't have cared less. I was pulling for the aliens.

[Bondian]

Interesting likenesses.

The old Batman and Indy were way better though. Back when they had the magic ingredient lacking in nearly all Hollywood blockbusters these days. Soul.

I highly diasgree. BATMAN hardly had a soul, it had a messy story and no character development. THE DARK KNIGHT was far better written and directed. THE LAST CRUSADE wasn't that good either by making the side characters all comic foils and even Indy himself came off as too comical. CRYSTAL SKULL is better but not by much, only Harrison Ford's preformance is the only thing that really improved over his predessecor.

Ewww . . . can't agree with you there. I thought "The Last Crusade" was vastly superior to "Temple of Doom" because it had the one thing "Temple of Doom" and "Crystal Skull" didn't have (but which "Raiders" had in spades): heart. You have to care what happens to the characters to sit through an entire movie wanting to find out what happens to them. Sadly, by the end of "Crystal Skull," I couldn't have cared less. I was pulling for the aliens.

I agree. The father and son sparring was very natural and heart warming. Connery and Ford were a perfect team. The latter scene when Indy was forced to find the cup, he not only saved his father but outsmarted (is that a word?) the baddies.

As for 'Crystal Skull'. It was great to see Indy back, and Maestro Johnny Williams extending the series, but it was like a resurrection of someone you love. It was all there, but that person you once loved was not the same person.

[Mister E]

Interesting likenesses.

The old Batman and Indy were way better though. Back when they had the magic ingredient lacking in nearly all Hollywood blockbusters these days. Soul.

I highly diasgree. BATMAN hardly had a soul, it had a messy story and no character development. THE DARK KNIGHT was far better written and directed. THE LAST CRUSADE wasn't that good either by making the side characters all comic foils and even Indy himself came off as too comical. CRYSTAL SKULL is better but not by much, only Harrison Ford's preformance is the only thing that really improved over his predessecor.

Ewww . . . can't agree with you there. I thought "The Last Crusade" was vastly superior to "Temple of Doom" because it had the one thing "Temple of Doom" and "Crystal Skull" didn't have (but which "Raiders" had in spades): heart. You have to care what happens to the characters to sit through an entire movie wanting to find out what happens to them. Sadly, by the end of "Crystal Skull," I couldn't have cared less. I was pulling for the aliens.

I much rather have a compitent Indy and side characters that have no credibilty to begin with then another film ruining great characters. Henry Sr. could have been a great character but they had to make him a dottering old fuddy duddy. The action is miles better but the rest just feels like a far too family friendly, watered down RAIDERS. I don't care if anyone dosen't agree with me but I liked the plot of CRYSTAL SKULL despite far too much baggage of lame side characters, that puts it over LAST CRUSADE in my book. Why can't aliens be in INDIANA JONES ? Archaeological history has suggested aliens could have visited earth several of thousands of years ago. Anyway, I am not ashamed to like CS but I am not putting it next to the first two Indy films in this life time.

[byline]

The action is miles better but the rest just feels like a far too family friendly, watered down RAIDERS.

Strange, that's exactly how I felt about "Crystal Skull." *shrug*

[The*SPY*]

Interesting comparisons on the similarities. I have a personal similarity between the two: I've only seen two Bond movies at Midnight the day of opening. Saw Licence to Kill in Singapore at a midnight showing and the highlight was that it was an uncensored cut. Saw it the following evening and immediately noticed how the whipping scene and Darios death seemed different. Singpaore is notorious for censoring films, but I swear I saw the original version that firts showed in England.

On a related note, after watching QoS, I'm convinced more than ever that Dalton was ahead of his time. OF course he followed Roger. If people think QoS is so "un-Bond-like" I can only imagine what the reviews were in 1989.

[VOODOO007]

OP:

I would hardly say that Indiana Jones is not a force at the box office. It has made close to $800,000,000 around the world and is likely to come close to doubling "Quantum of Solace" in the United States.