183 replies to this topic

[Gabe Vieira]

I hated Indy 3 and I enjoyed the hell outa "Temple" but it really falls apart over time(that stupid kid, paternal Indy crap, Willie Scott). Raiders was a masterpiece. They should have just left it alone...and now Indy 4 after all these years? Groan.

Harrison can still do one more and then i'd be fine with replacing him after. Tarl--Indy 3 was excellent. Temple was the one that sucked.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that Temple sucked, but it is obviously the worst of the three. Raiders: A Temple: B- Crusade: A-. But then again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[Seannery]

I hated Indy 3 and I enjoyed the hell outa "Temple" but it really falls apart over time(that stupid kid, paternal Indy crap, Willie Scott). Raiders was a masterpiece. They should have just left it alone...and now Indy 4 after all these years? Groan.

Harrison can still do one more and then i'd be fine with replacing him after. Tarl--Indy 3 was excellent. Temple was the one that sucked.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that Temple sucked, but it is obviously the worst of the three. Raiders: A Temple: B- Crusade: A-. But then again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I agree--bad word. Raiders A+, Crusade A, Temple C.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Raiders A+ Temple B+ Crusade D+

[Harmsway]

Raiders A+, Temple B+, Crusade B-

[Gabe Vieira]

My bud sitting right next to me and told me to post his Indy ratings. He's a huge Indy fan.

Raiders: A Temple: B- Crudade: A+

Edit: Not that he's gone, I can't see how Crusade is the best. Good yes, best no.

[Harmsway]

Well it looks like INDIANA JONES IV is actually moving ahead.

http://www.spielberg...news022006.html

[quote]February 20, 2006
-Spielberg confirms

[Scottlee]

I actually think Temple of Doom is the best of the first three films. I would put Raiders second and Crusade third. However, there isn't much between them at all in terms of quality. It's a very consistantly good trilogy.

[Loomis]

I agree with Scottlee that TEMPLE OF DOOM is the best; however, I find the Indiana Joneses extremely overrated and am not enormously fond of any of them (funnily enough, I feel the same way about the STAR WARS films, so perhaps I have some sort of George Lucas allergy). Give me Bond or Bourne any day.

Still....

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK - its flaws are few, but nonetheless one of the most overpraised films in history. B+

INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM - dark, daring, imaginative followup (as is often the case with Spielberg, the first half hour or so is just brilliant). A quaint reminder of those distant days when a "prequel" was something strange and new, and not every other film on release. A-

INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE - some great ideas (notably the opening with River Phoenix), but utterly lifeless execution. A dull retread of RAIDERS, and Connery is both wasted and made to look ridiculous. C+

[Seannery]

I agree with Scottlee that TEMPLE OF DOOM is the best; however, I find the Indiana Joneses extremely overrated and am not enormously fond of any of them (funnily enough, I feel the same way about the STAR WARS films, so perhaps I have some sort of George Lucas allergy). Give me Bond or Bourne any day.

Still....

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK - its flaws are few, but nonetheless one of the most overpraised films in history. B+

INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM - dark, daring, imaginative followup (as is often the case with Spielberg, the first half hour or so is just brilliant). A quaint reminder of those distant days when a "prequel" was something strange and new, and not every other film on release. A-

INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE - some great ideas (notably the opening with River Phoenix), but utterly lifeless execution. A dull retread of RAIDERS, and Connery is both wasted and made to look ridiculous. C+

I don't mind different but Doom had an uneven tone with jarring graphic moments that were wrong for this series. I hope this kind of inappropriate(IMO) change isn't what you expect for CR, Loomis. Actually it reminds me on how LTK went wrong.

By the way, I thought Connery was great in Crusade with a wonderful comic touch--not at all ridiculous.

[ReddZ]

"jarring graphic moments"? Like the melting, exploding heads in Raiders?

[hrabb04]

All 3 are A+. I cannot wait for Indy 4

[Loomis]

I agree with Scottlee that TEMPLE OF DOOM is the best; however, I find the Indiana Joneses extremely overrated and am not enormously fond of any of them (funnily enough, I feel the same way about the STAR WARS films, so perhaps I have some sort of George Lucas allergy). Give me Bond or Bourne any day.

Still....

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK - its flaws are few, but nonetheless one of the most overpraised films in history. B+

INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM - dark, daring, imaginative followup (as is often the case with Spielberg, the first half hour or so is just brilliant). A quaint reminder of those distant days when a "prequel" was something strange and new, and not every other film on release. A-

INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE - some great ideas (notably the opening with River Phoenix), but utterly lifeless execution. A dull retread of RAIDERS, and Connery is both wasted and made to look ridiculous. C+

I don't mind different but Doom had an uneven tone with jarring graphic moments that were wrong for this series. I hope this kind of inappropriate(IMO) change isn't what you expect for CR, Loomis. Actually it reminds me on how LTK went wrong.

Well, I want CR to be considerably darker, grittier and more graphic than DIE ANOTHER DAY. I'd like it to be closer to, say, THE BOURNE SUPREMACY (sorry! ) than to, say, OCTOPUSSY or STEALTH. But why would that be inappropriate for the material or wrong for the series? You've read "Casino Royale", I take it, and know what kind of roles Craig is suited to (I mean, he's not a Roger Moore-style "entertainer"). You know how silly DAD was. LTK's problem was not that it went too far with "grittiness", but that it didn't go far enough (and kept things like the pantomime Q scenes.... which were jarring).

I'm not calling for extreme, explicit violence in CR, or a total lack of humour and "Bondian elements", or a slavish imitation of Bourne, BTW. And, obviously, I'm not calling for "an uneven tone", either (which was the biggest problem with THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH). But, yes, I'd certainly like a bit of change and freshness, and a film that makes a clean break with the Brosnan era in the same way as THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS contrasted quite sharply with A VIEW TO A KILL.

[Seannery]

I agree with Scottlee that TEMPLE OF DOOM is the best; however, I find the Indiana Joneses extremely overrated and am not enormously fond of any of them (funnily enough, I feel the same way about the STAR WARS films, so perhaps I have some sort of George Lucas allergy). Give me Bond or Bourne any day.

Still....

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK - its flaws are few, but nonetheless one of the most overpraised films in history. B+

INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM - dark, daring, imaginative followup (as is often the case with Spielberg, the first half hour or so is just brilliant). A quaint reminder of those distant days when a "prequel" was something strange and new, and not every other film on release. A-

INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE - some great ideas (notably the opening with River Phoenix), but utterly lifeless execution. A dull retread of RAIDERS, and Connery is both wasted and made to look ridiculous. C+

I don't mind different but Doom had an uneven tone with jarring graphic moments that were wrong for this series. I hope this kind of inappropriate(IMO) change isn't what you expect for CR, Loomis. Actually it reminds me on how LTK went wrong.

Well, I want CR to be considerably darker, grittier and more graphic than DIE ANOTHER DAY. I'd like it to be closer to, say, THE BOURNE SUPREMACY (sorry! ) than to, say, OCTOPUSSY or STEALTH. But why would that be inappropriate for the material or wrong for the series? You've read "Casino Royale", I take it, and know what kind of roles Craig is suited to (I mean, he's not a Roger Moore-style "entertainer"). You know how silly DAD was. LTK's problem was not that it went too far with "grittiness", but that it didn't go far enough (and kept things like the pantomime Q scenes.... which were jarring).

I'm not calling for extreme, explicit violence in CR, or a total lack of humour and "Bondian elements", or a slavish imitation of Bourne, BTW. And, obviously, I'm not calling for "an uneven tone", either (which was the biggest problem with THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH). But, yes, I'd certainly like a bit of change and freshness, and a film that makes a clean break with the Brosnan era in the same way as THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS contrasted quite sharply with A VIEW TO A KILL.

Well I see your point--firstly though i'm not one for following the tone and plot of the novels too closely. Use them as a touchstone only like they have always been since Connery. But otherwise i'm fine with a more serious Bond from time to time. And i'm all for freshness and new energy but without upsetting the magic of a Bond.

I'll tell you where I think LTK fell short(mind you, I don't hate the movie at all--just think it below average for a Bond)--Felix and the shark was jarring and too graphic for cinematic Bond IMO. And the bigger problem was the lack of buoyancy to the film with it's often sour, sullen tone. In fact I think Q gave the film some needed buoyancy. I agree it could have done without Q if LTK kept the subtle buoyancy and cheek of FRWL instead of the sometimes charmless heaviness that it had. Again LTK was decent but unfortunately weighted down.

Now if CR goes even more glum and gritty without the balance of the cheek and charm of Bond then IMO we are in trouble. If it doesn't get that subtle FRWL vibe but instead just simply pushes the LTK angle with even less charm then we may only have Bond in name only. Hopefully they pull off this tricky task.

And to bring it back to the Temple of Doom--it's graphic violence was too heavy and dark IMO to keep the adventure and charm flowing. It's hard to meld all that and I hope CR can pull this trick off. If they pull off a new generation change ala Living Daylights then i'm fine with that. But not a gritty radical reboot that throws out the bath with the bath water. I see it as no sure thing they pull off this difficult feat--though it is possible. Will the public buy it in the long run? Will it have legs? I don't want Eon to outsmart themselves.

[DLibrasnow]

The things that bug me about TEMPLE OF DOOM are Short Round is just obnoxious and Willie Scott is such an annoying airhead that she makes Christmas Jones look like a nuclear scientist.
It's also lacking the travelogue element that helped elevate the other two movies with the majority of the action taking place in India.

[doublenoughtspy]

I agree with Darren - Short Round is the Jar Jar of the Indy series, and how they went from Marion Ravenwood to Willard Scott (misspelled on purpose) it makes one question the filmakers' sanity.

So - incredibly dark tone with uneeded gore, incredibly annoying sidekick, incredibly annoying female lead = lamest film of the series.

[Seannery]

The things that bug me about TEMPLE OF DOOM are Short Round is just obnoxious and Willie Scott is such an annoying airhead that she makes Christmas Jones look like a nuclear scientist.
It's also lacking the travelogue element that helped elevate the other two movies with the majority of the action taking place in India.

I agree with those critiques--definitely the weakest set of supporting characters by far. And again, yes--less scope and travel.

[Qwerty]

Willie Scott is such an annoying airhead

Call me crazy, but I think she actually works to an extent in the film. The character is definitely brainless, but I've never found watching Temple Of Doom to be unenjoyable.

[ReddZ]

No Indy start date in 2006?

http://www.chud.com/...pe=news&id=6089

[OVERLORD]

Temple Of Doom was the best film for me when it first came out, I was only a young lad and for me then it was far more enjoyable. As I got older however, it became very clear that Raiders was by far the superior film, Temple Of Doom is really the weakest of the three

like Empire Strikes Back, Raiders has alot more going for it, such as character development and a deeper darker storyline

Its funny how after Lucas had kids his films got weaker and more fuzzier (ewoks in ROTJ) I think the same thing happened to Spielberg

[ReddZ]

Strongly disagree about Spielberg - Schnindlers List, Saving Private Ryan, Munich.

[OVERLORD]

fair enough but those films where based on bestselling books about very serious subjects.
look at war of the worlds, nice happy family moment at the end when they reunite, come on no way that kid survived all that fire and explosions

I'm sorry apart from 1 or 2 films that he just couldnt get wrong, I think he's a bit of a cheesy hack
good at light entertainment for the kids

[zencat]

No Indy start date in 2006?

http://www.chud.com/...pe=news&id=6089

I've given up hope of ever seeing this movie made. Another writer? This is ridiculous.

[Qwerty]

David Koepp is a very, very good writer, but it's just one delay after another now...

[Harmsway]

No Indy start date in 2006?

http://www.chud.com/...pe=news&id=6089

I've given up hope of ever seeing this movie made. Another writer? This is ridiculous.

I wonder if all the paralysis is because Spielberg and Lucas don't see eye-to-eye on where INDY IV should go. I think it's the most reasonable solution.

[Seannery]

No Indy start date in 2006?

http://www.chud.com/...pe=news&id=6089

I've given up hope of ever seeing this movie made. Another writer? This is ridiculous.

Damn, this is bad news--to be optimistic maybe his "closer" won't need a long time to finish it up.

[Agent 76]

No Indy start date in 2006?

http://www.chud.com/...pe=news&id=6089

Another writer? This is ridiculous.

very...

[ReddZ]

At this rate, the movie will take place around Indy's deathbed while he recounts his adventures to his grandchildren.

[OVERLORD]

Saw this on an Indy website

Indiana Jones 4

Scripting is done. Speilberg has not taken time off, as per CCN and E!
claims. IJ4 is underway big time with everyone now departing from SF and
heading back to their respective places while production gets underway big
time. Dates I gave you on the time for everyone being in one place still
holds.

Connery and Ford are ramped and excited to go for throttle up and the
beginning of shipping logistics is going to be underway for location
shooting within the next two weeks. One of the delays suspected was with
Connery and the problem he had 2 months ago with his kidneys, but he is
okay now and ready.

Steve N said that they are alreay building some sets both portable and
fixed with ground and support crews being put together.

Too, Ford is in Spain on some personal stuff and won't be back till June 1.
He has the script and is okay with everything, even the revisions. He was
at the meeting for one day in SF and then had to leave off shore. Since
Steve Nesbit is at the top of the food chain for production and logistics
he spoke with HF and ask him his schedule and told him to submit a
timeline for being back in country and he did, so Steve N's got that in
hand which will help with this stunt muchly.


Connery not retiring after all???

[Qwerty]

Be nice if they gave us something official on this all.

[Genrewriter]

I think the pyramids were built in less time than this film.