Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the
Crystal Skull (2008) ***
Commies…I hate these guys
The paradox of sequels is that, by definition, they only exist because of the movie they’re spun off from, yet all too often they’re unable to hold up to the inevitable comparisons. Can a movie be judged on its own when its reasons for being are inextricably linked to something else? Should it be? If so, do you then also discount the inevitable nostalgia value that probably adds to the entertainment in the first place?
Such is the problem in thinking about Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Even people who enjoy the movie will admit that it’s a shadow of Raiders of the Lost Ark. The first line of defense to the film’s inevitable detractors will be that it’s unfair to compare the new film to a beloved classic. This is true perhaps, but how much less enjoyable would the fourth film be if not for the goodwill earned by the original?
With Crystal Skull, I’m trying to find a middle way. On its own, it is a flawed but entertaining film. In the context of the franchise, it neatly ties up a few loose ends and at least manages not to embarrass its forbears even if it only adds a few new (and modest) wrinkles of its own. On balance, the pleasure of spending time in the company of old friends overshadows the movie’s numerous shortcomings and, most importantly, it was fun.
In case you’ve been living under a rock for the last 25 years and that rock is at the bottom of a well on the outskirts of an abandoned village in a war-torn, third world country whose citizens are unable to generate electricity, here’s a quick primer on Indiana Jones: He’s an adventurer and professor of archeology who becomes a somewhat reluctant action hero when really bad people seize control of archeological objects imbued with great supernatural powers and the fates of civilizations hang in the balance. Essentially, the plots are loose frameworks that support all manner of stunts and chases pulled off in the spirit of old movie serials.
In the first film, the bad guys were Nazis and the object was the Ark of the Covenant, the container alleged to have held the Ten Commandments and to possess godly face melting and army destroying capabilities. This time, World War Two is more than a decade past, the Atomic Age is well underway, the Russians are the new bad guy of choice and the desired object is a mysterious Mayan crystal skull, the significance of which is only revealed as the movie progresses.
Harrison Ford returns as Indiana Jones and he’s joined by Shia LaBeouf as his sidekick, Cate Blanchett as the head Russian baddie, Ray Winstone as an old partner in adventure and John Hurt as their mutual friend (and LaBeouf’s step-father) who conveniently goes missing so Jones can tramp off to the jungles of South America to look for him. I suppose it’s no longer really a spoiler to also add that Karen Allen returns as Marion Ravenwood.
The film takes 20 or 30 minutes to introduce these people and to set up the basic plot and for a while it seems like it’s never going to get off the ground. The action felt tired, the humor seemed flat and even the John Williams score was missing that old magic. However, just as I was ready to pronounced the film D.O.A., the motorcycle escape from the diner kicked in and I found myself smiling and pretty much enjoyed myself the rest of the way. The action set pieces, if not revolutionary, were all inventive and entertaining. Say whatever else you want about Spielberg, the guy still has a knack for putting together an amusing action sequence (for an example of a man who does not, see: Bay, Michael). It’s true that much of the action is ridiculous and over-the-top, but I have a newsflash for the complainers: people can’t survive clinging to the tops of submarines or jumping out of planes and sliding down mountains on rubber rafts either.
The supernatural twist in the new film is likely to draw its share of eye-rolling as well. Though there was grumbling about it even before the movie came out, I’m still waiting for the explanation of why the crystal skull (and the mystery behind it) is any sillier than a magic, face melting container made of gold or an old cup that grants the drinker eternal life. Besides, silly or not, it works. Instead of the ancient stories with which the pre-War Indiana Jones films concerned themselves, this is a modern myth somewhat rooted in science and it ties nicely into the film’s themes about the dangers of the quest for knowledge; dangers symbolized by the atomic blast which opens the film. It was a perfect way to update the series while still providing an excuse for the serial fun.
That’s not to say the movie isn’t without some significant flaws. Besides the slow opening, a lot of the CGI seemed pretty shoddy for such a high budget film. It will probably look better on DVD, but that’s no excuse. The same goes for many of scenes so obviously filmed on a soundstage. I expect more from Spielberg and Lucas and you should too.
Another problem, and one that won’t be any better on DVD, is that Cate Blanchett fell short as Indy’s nemesis. There isn’t a nicer way to say it. She looked great with her Louise Brooks haircut, but the character wasn’t very menacing and casting a heavyweight actress in the part only served to highlight how underwritten it was. I was excited to learn of her casting and I was expecting more fireworks.
One final note: it can be argued that Janusz Kaminski did a poor job of reproducing the look of the earlier films. This is true, but on the other hand I’m convinced that if Spielberg had wanted the look reproduced, it would have been. Meticulously. It’s important to remember this movie takes place nearly 20 years after the events of the last film. A whole world war happened in between and the world has changed. You can like the look or not, but you can’t really mark it down for not being more like the other movies. Nevertheless, those hoping for a return of the Indiana Jones they remember from their childhoods are better off renting Raiders of the Lost Ark on DVD.
For the rest of us, the above shortcomings aren’t enough to sink what is an otherwise enjoyable couple of hours at the movies. Though flawed, the simple pleasure of having another adventure with Indiana Jones is more than enough to make up for it. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is not a movie that needed to happen, but it’s here so you might as well make the most of it.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. USA 2008. Directed by Steven Spielberg. Screenplay by David Koepp from a story by George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson. Cinematography by Janusz Kaminski. Original Music by John Williams. Starring Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen, Shia LaBeouf, Ray Winstone, John Hurt and Jim Broadbent. 1 hour 22 minutes. Rated PG-13 for adventure violence and scary images. 3 stars (out of 5).
Filed under: Reviews
Related Posts: - Indy Apparently Not Coming Soon Enough
- Muriel, Meet Indy
- ‘Last Crusade’ Really the Last for Connery
- Front Page News
- In iana J nes and t e K ngdom of the Crys al Sk ll
About time Mr. ;)
Jokes, fantastic review man, and kind of makes my head hurt, but that is because of your awesomeness.
Like I have said before, and if I didn’t I am saying it now, give me “Raiders” and you can burn the rest….or not, I am happy either way.
I enjoyed this film, I really did, but it has not stuck with me at all really, and I don’t mind. Not one little bit.
Nice review, Craig.
Seeing it yesterday–with a much, much better crowd–was a significantly superior experience than the opening-day one. The whole audience was really with it yesterday afternoon, with everybody laughing at all the corny humor and one-liners, and just having a lot of fun.
Blanchett’s Spalko is still my second favorite Indy baddie behind the Belloq-Toht tandem from Raiders. I think she’s actually the most developed since Raiders and I find her to be the most interesting. Unlike Mola Ram whose beef with the British in India motivated him to try to rule the world with his fellow Thuggees in Doom and that untrustworthy guy who approaches Indy in Last Crusade, she seems more like an equal of Indy’s, a little like Belloq, in that she wants greater knowledge. I agree that casting such a heavyweight actress heightens the sense of a potential thinness to her character, but for my money she’s more fully realized than the other sequel villains, though I know many will disagree.
My biggest complaints are still Ray Winstone as Mac (he should’ve been killed off in the jungle chase, now that I’ve seen it again… he’s a useless appendage from then on) and Shia as Tarzan with his army of anti-communist monkeys (which, I have to say, the audience seemed to love this time, go figure).
Nicely done, I really have nothing to add except that, say what you will about Spielberg’s abilities to deal with his characters and his scripts, he remains an amazing image-creator. The barren test-site town, the blast that follows, the ant attack, the cataclysm at the finale - all spectacular.
Well balanced, well done.
Did nobody else find pleasure in the first action sequence - Indy running through the warehouse rafters and firing off on the nuke train?
And for me, it wasn’t that Blanchett wasn’t menacing enough, it was that she wasn’t goofy enough. I guess those could be the same, but come on, have some fun with the role - you’re a villain in an Indy movie!
This is probably the most pointless review ever, but I wanted to go on the record.
I see what everyone is saying about Cate…in retrospect, I think all of the Indy villains are paper thin and in this case it’s the casting that begs for more. Even if the character is fleshier…it wasn’t quite enough for me.
Goofier or more menacing….either way, as long as it’s stronger.
The warehouse action scene might have played better for me if I hadn’t seen the damn trailer.
As for Spielberg, Christian recently posted Amblin from YouTube. I’d never seen it before, but it’s worth watching. I’m too lazy to include the link but a simple search for Amblin will bring it up or you can check it out at Christian’s.
The Tarzan thing didn’t bother me…at least there was no Tarzan yell like there was in one of the Moore James Bond movies…was it Octopussy?
The Shia moment that did bug me was his Wild One introduction.
Loved the ant attack and the finale.
Now I can go back and read what ya’ll were saying about it….
I agree, Jeff, and not just the big set-pieces or iconic imagery. The compositional work Spielberg does in Crystal Skull is just about unrivaled, especially for a summertime blockbuster. You certainly won’t see it in the merely competent Iron Man, for all of its qualities. He still conveys more information in a single shot than most directors do in five minutes’ worth of footage.
Nice job writing a fair, even-handed review, and you’re a lot more forgiving of the movie than a lot of folks, myself included. You make a lot of fine points - that much of the movie is simply meant to be taken as fun and not more - but I think my frustration with it was just an overall sense of laziness on the part of the filmmakers. You mention some of this yourself - from the lackluster score to the over-reliance on set work and CGI - this film is barely a shadow of what’s come before.
I never expected it to be as great as RAIDERS or the other sequels; I just thought that the people making it would try a little harder.
Glad you finally got around to it Craig. We seem to be pretty much on the same page, except I kinda loved the opening, especially how Spielberg kind of turns to the audience and says “yeah. I know you know that Indy can’t be killed. So let me just go all out and make him survive…”.
I don’t know. I wouldn’t call Crystal Skull a good film, but I had a lot of fun with it, twice. And that’s more than what can be said for a lot of other summer blockbusters (see also: Bay, Michael, indeed).
Hedwig, how can a film you had fun with, twice, _not_ be a good film? That’s one of my primary criteria.
I don’t know, for me “enjoyability” and “quality” are related but not at all synonymous, especially since the former relies very much on my own state of mind and the latter barely does. Indy falls somewhere around the middle on the strict quality scale (skillful filmmaking, some awesome shots, ok though not great performances, rather weak story), but it put a big grin on my face and sometimes that’s all that counts.
Craig, I’m with you and Hedwig on this one.
You gave Indy three stars. I gave it two. But we’ve been here lots of times before. I take no prisoners. (As you well know.) You say potato and I say potatoe - and that’s how it all shakes out…
“On balance, the pleasure of spending time in the company of old friends oveshadows the movie’s numerous shortcomings, and most importantly, it was fun.”
PRECISELY, honey bear. Not particularly GOOD but still a GOOD time. Get it? Yeah…
Entirely on its own, this picture would have so many knives stuck in it it would never have seen the light of day. But it’s the connection between the other films - particularly RAIDERS - that keeps it afloat.
You can enjoy it for what it is with the full knowledge of the fact that some of it is creaky and rather lame. But the parts that DO work function exceedingly well and all of us that have followed this particular franchise - even those of us who didn’t see the first movie in 1981 - have an enormous affection for these characters.
Like our beloved Hedwig, I left the theatre with a smile on my face. That’s something that happens rarely for me at the cinema. These days, anyway.
Oh…if anyone wants to check out the Spielberg thing at christian’s site, I’ll include the link.
Just go here
Burbanked, good to see you again. I wonder if my impression of it benefited from seeing it 2 weeks after it opened, long after lowly expectations had set in?
I would agree that some of it was sloppy (mostly the script), but I didn’t get a lazy feeling from either Spielberg or Ford. It might have suffered from Spielberg’s insistance on shooting the whole thing in the US though. I don’t know.
Is it fair to say Hedwig, sometimes you throw technical measures of quality out the window when you’re enjoying yourself for whatever reason? This is the kind of thing you can’t really write about in books or reviews and it’s something that can’t really be debated.
Miranda. I’m slowly making my way around and reading other people’s reviews. I hadn’t gotten to yours yet because from comments you’d made, I was under the impression you kind of hated it. As for me, after I saw the movie and enjoyed it, I went and read a few of the negative comments and almost everything people pointed out as a negative was true and technically it’s all evidence of bad filmmaking if you want to go that way…but damnit I had fun.
I’ve heard comparisons to the Mummy movies and I can’t speak to those since I’ve never seen one. I seriously doubt however that they were pulled off half as well as Indy 4 and if they were, well then they were probably fun.
In the end, it’s not a film I’m passionate about and won’t argue its merits for too long (unlike Speed which I’m still stinging over :), I’ll probably never own the DVD, but it was what it was.
No, Craig. If I had REALLY hated it I would have given it one 1 star. Or zero.
Just to clarify, in my review I stated that KOTCS was about on par with TLC but FAR superior to TOD. (But then…ANYTHING would be.)
CS is sloppy, lazy filmmaking in a lot of respects. I know Steven could have made a much better film if he’d wanted to. I didn’t walk in expecting RAIDERS. That would have been a suicide mission.
I ONLY went because KAREN ALLEN was back (and, to a lesser degree, I wanted to see JOHN HURT). So it was great to see Mr. Ford and Ms. Allen together again. That is what prevented me from getting truly medieval in that capacity.
CS is fun. But deeply flawed fun…
That’s right, I remember the start of your review now which I peeked at before I wrote my own. We disagree heartily on TOD, though I have to admit other respected sources have had the same response to it so I think I need to revisit it again.
You must’ve been bummed though that Hurt was so expendable in this movie. One of the movie’s big flaws.
Karen Allen was great and one of my favorite scenes is where they’re arguing about other men and women they’ve had since the day and about the women Indy says “They all had one thing in common. They weren’t you.’ Totally corny and I could see it coming, but damnit it worked. It’s exactly the simple kind of classic writing that old Hollywood was so good at and which the original Star Wars movies (and Indy too) made a lot of hay out of.
But I ramble.
Also, Hedwig, never underestimate the power of an accent, Dutch or whatever.
Me like Hungarian accent.
Craig, I really liked Indy’s line to her that won her over and brought out the smiles as well, and it also served as solid justification for the wedding at the end.
I’ve heard almost all of the dialogue between Indy and Marion was written by the ghost Lawrence Kasdan. Interesting…
A Kasdan was sorely missing.
Craig, I thought the JOHN HURT thing was exceedingly odd.
I don’t know if I was told this erroneously by someone or if I just naturally assumed it. But I thought he was gonna portray Abner Ravenwood, Marion’s dad. No slight to Mr. Hurt as I have no idea offhand how old he really is - and people that have only a few years separating them in reality play each others’ parents all the time. I did think he was perfect casting, though.
To my great surprise, he played Professor “Ox” Oxley, Marion Ravenwood’s ROMANTIC PARTNER and supposed stepdad to another *ahem* prominent personality in the Crystal Skull mix. I don’t think Mr. Hurt fit the bill nearly as well in that scenario. I don’t mean that in an insulting way AT ALL. I just thought he was particularly suited to being Marion’s father.
Yeah, I really did think he was wasted insufferably. He plays a raving lunatic until very close to the end. But RAY WINSTONE and JIM BROADBENT don’t fare any better with their characters or what they’re given to do.
Actually, when you analyze it - the way the screenplay is set up - the only characters that get to have any real fun or are constructed in an interesting way are Marion, Indy and Mutt.
Also, you’re quite right about the line that Indy says to Marion. You can see that she’s adding up all the scenarios and positions and boudoirs and babes while she’s giving him the gears and he’s thinking about all the guys that made her scream too. They’re both being realistic but they’re also jealous as hell - and it makes them sad for the time that they’ve lost.
But when he said, “They weren’t you,” (AND I KNEW THAT WAS COMING), her face lit up like the sky at dawn.
It’s just like when you’re with an old flame that you haven’t seen in a while and suddenly he says SOMETHING (and it could literally be anything).The years just fall away automatically - and things are identical to that lovely forgotten past.
But mostly that screenplay is severely lacking. That dude Mr. Divine hits the nail on the head.
Once again…
Still haven’t been able to bring myself to see this thing, even though it’s playing at the majestic Castro Theater.
The last Indiana Jones movie that I saw at an old-style, single-screen movie house was the first one. Believe it or not, the little town I was stuck in still had two of ‘em when Raiders was released. By the time Temple rolled around, both had gone under, replaced by shopping mall shoeboxes.
I saw Last Crusade in a seedy semi-grindhouse, having by then escaped to the nearest “big” city. The place was perfect for the disreputable likes of Terminator and Nightmare on Elm Street, not so great for Dr. Jones. At a full-house screening, the wino in the seat in front of me kept nodding off and snoring — and in doing so, waking himself up — before repeating the entire process in a loop. Kinda ruined my first viewing.
Please excuse the trip through my own private Indiana, but you can see why I might be tempted to try to recapture a little of the old magic. Unfortunately, magic has a sell-by date, especially when a certain Mr. Lucas is involved. Meesa nosa needsa THAT kind of pain.
That still above is enough to worry me. Looks like bad Fifties rear-screen projection. I smell green-screenitis and you-know-who — or could it be intentional homage to the era? After all, those films were full of glaring process shots.
In other words, could the movie be a sort of big-budget Lost Skeleton of Cadavra? Maybe everyone is missing the point.
Should I stay or should I go, dammit?
Craig, you said:
“…I wonder if my impression of it benefited from seeing it 2 weeks after it opened, long after lowly expectations had set in?
I would agree that some of it was sloppy (mostly the script), but I didn’t get a lazy feeling from either Spielberg or Ford. It might have suffered from Spielberg’s insistance on shooting the whole thing in the US though. I don’t know.
…I’ve heard comparisons to the Mummy movies and I can’t speak to those since I’ve never seen one. I seriously doubt however that they were pulled off half as well as Indy 4 and if they were, well then they were probably fun.
…I’ll probably never own the DVD, but it was what it was.”
I think you’re right that expectations were unreasonably high on opening weekend, which is when I saw it. But I think if I had waited, and read so many negative reviews, I might have decided never to have seen it in the theater, or I would have gone in just feeling grumpy and surly. But again: I wasn’t expecting the world in a sundae cup; I just wanted to feel as though the filmmakers cared half as deeply as I did.
You’re right that Ford wasn’t lazy. He showed up, looked great, and DID WHAT WAS ON THE PAGE. That the page stunk up the place isn’t his fault or his responsibility. Still, you hear all of these stories about “George, Steven and I waited until everything was right and we were all happy with the story,” and really that’s not true at all. The truth is more along the lines of “we argued with George about the stupid story for so long that we had too much time and money invested to pull out, so we gave in” - and for THAT, I DO blame Spielberg for laziness. Yes, he shoots the movie terrifically and brings a lot of visual excitement to scenes that simply make no sense whatsoever. It’s just unfortunate that - for whatever reason - he didn’t feel compelled to defend the story and script very strongly, when certainly he could’ve.
You don’t really have to have seen the MUMMY movies. They’re low-rent ripoffs of RAIDERS. Fun in their own way, but not at all original and packed with CGI. That critics and bloggers are suggesting that CRYSTAL SKULL is derivative of MUMMY at all points up just how ass-backwards the discussion has become.
Three out of five stars and you’ll never own the DVD? To me that’s the most damning praise there could be. I’m incapable of NOT owning the other Indiana Jones movies - yes, even the much-maligned-for-no-reason TOD - but I don’t think I’ll own this, either.
But then I would have given it only one star out of five.
“It’s just unfortunate that - for whatever reason - he didn’t feel compelled to defend the story and script very strongly, when certainly he could’ve.” Yeah, in retrospect, Steveo should’ve held his ground.
I still don’t think Indy 4 does damage to the originals the way the prequels to Star Wars do, though I’ll admit to being OK with the first of those. It was only by the end when it was absolutely clear there was never going to be any payoff that I was finally pissed. Sometimes I’m slow.
As for the DVD, my instinct for collecting movies has been going downhill since LaserDisc died. If I can’t rent it, I’ll buy it, otherwise I’m happy to Netflix in most cases. Also, 3 out of 5 stars is as low as I can go and still be favorable, so it’s not like this review was a rave.
Frank, I don’t know what to tell you. It seems like you have a lot at stake with this thing, which is just begging for disappointment. On the other hand, I liked the movie and you might too.
If you can overlook some serious weaknesses in the script (I did while I was watching it), some half-hearted CGI and some signs of the old Lucasian idea of humor, I think there’s a lot to like here.
I’m gonna say you should see it. If you hate it, I don’t think the experience will be so traumatic that it sours you on the original. If anything it will simply be quickly forgotten.
Felt the same way about the campus chase scene. “Finally! Firing on all cylinders.”
But then it sputtered out of gas, just as soon as they… what was it? oh, yeah, start reciting lines from that script again.
Ripping through the library, Indy says, “You’re going too fast!” Mutt shoots back with characteristic wit, “That’s a matter of opinion.” Because, yeah, that would be my concern too. When destroying a library, it’s always important to obey the speed limit.
Those useless bits of dialogue ruined the sharp action again and again for me. Just shut the fuck up and run your ass off. That’s all we want, just jump and run and fall down and stuff. Don’t try to speak those lines.
The stingers were so blunt-edged and contradictory. “If you want to be a good archeologist…” wait for it… wait for it… man, this is gonna be good… “you gotta get out of the library.”
yeah, and get out in the field, traipsing through ancient ruins, and fucking them up beyond all recognition. If you want to be a good archeologist, that is.
No wonder The University of Chicago fired Dr. Jones and the only job he could find was in New Haven. Yale’ll take anybody.
CUT TO: IN THE FIELD
Indy: “Don’t touch anything!”
Moments later, they’re grabbing big rocks and busting the shit out of ancient monuments, like a gang of drunken vandals. “Get your own rock!” yells Dr. Jones. Ever the meticulous scientist, respectful of painstaking excavation. Or heck, even personal safety.
So nope, I don’t have a problem with the alien artifact premise at all. I just wish somebody in the movie who was supposed to care about the artifacts so much would make some attempt not to destroy them. Delicate alien carcass, hermetically sealed for years? Great! Where’s my pocket knife? rrrrrrrip!
I did think it was sweet that everybody discretely pretended to overlook Indy’s encroaching senility.
Mac: I’m your friend!
a few scenes later..
Mac: I’m a double-agent!
a few scenes later…
Mac: ha, just kidding, I’m really your friend.
a few scenes later…
Mac: remember that thing about double-agent? True.
later…
Mac: No, actually I am your friend.
And each time here’s Indy’s intuitive skills at sizing up the situation.
Indy: Oh, ok, whatever you say, Mac.
So yeah, it was touching that nobody raised an eyebrow at all to the fact that Jones has clearly lost any sense he once had.
Finally (I mean I could go on, but maybe best not), finally there’s one thing I thought was kinda cruel. It was a really dirty practical joke to pull on Shia LeBoeuf.
Nobody told Shia that he didn’t have to take it seriously? Nobody told him that he needn’t bother to try to “act” or anything? That’s just mean.
I liked the campus chase scene. I liked the ants. I liked the cinematography. I liked… um… nope, that’s about it.
“Just shut the fuck up and run your ass off. That’s all we want, just jump and run and fall down and stuff. Don’t try to speak those lines.”
hahhahah. I can see how if the movie isn’t working for you, this kind of thing could rub you the wrong way. I was blissfully unbothered.
Positives: I had no expectations and the movie kept me entertained for the last 45 minutes or so. The first two thirds felt like someone trying desperately to ape Speilberg and coming up just short of the bullseye. The last 45 minutes felt like Speilberg. Thank god he showed up at all. I also thought Ford was pretty good. Everyone else had weakly written roles but they were all working hard and I respect that. Well, Karen Allen felt like a bit of a dud to me. Marion from KOTC is a pale imitation of the fire and spunk that made sparks fly in ROTLA. That was a bit of a disappointment.
Didn’t mind the aliens really. I would have preferred something more paranormal. Aliens seem like a narrative cop-out, but all the archaeological mumbo jumbo leading up to the aliens was pretty cool.
I was disappointed by the look of the film. Not sure if Kaminski was encouraged to blow out all the highlights to hide the weaknesses of ILM’s imperfect CGI sets or if that was his weird spin on the series, but I thought it sucked. Sorry, I found it distracting and bizarrely at odds with the time period, the previous films, and…well, everything in the movie. And I’m normally a defender of Kaminski’s cinematography so…(shrugs).
Otherwise, it was better than Iron Man or Hulk and a decent Indiana Jones movie, but it’s clear that all involved need to put this entire franchise to bed and move on. This well done run dry.
I agree with just about every one of your points, Joel (though I think your measurement of 45 minutes of pure Spielberg at the end might be a little generous.) ;-)
But I’ve mellowed about this movie since I wrote my rant two weeks ago. It wasn’t the total disaster and waste of time I first felt it was.
It’s still a pitiful end result for 20 years of pre-production.
I do enjoy how Craig’s flexible commenting access allows us to dig up Indy 4 and kick it around a little more from time to time before tossing it back in the tomb. Dr. Jones would appreciate the way we express our respect for sacred relics.
Yeah, the flexibility to beat the horse is mighty nice, ain’t it? It ended up being a “I come here to neither to bury Indy nor to praise him” thing, but it’s been interesting. I got in my two cents.
ha! joel, “neither to bury Indy nor to praise him”
Do you know I said roughly the same thing about Lucas in the third paragraph of this comment several days ago?