FWIW, the new Raiders disc includes a bonus feature that interviews the cast of Crystal Skull, and it appears to give away the identity of John Hurt's character.

Also FWIW, the BC Film Classification website lists the film's running time as 123 minutes -- which makes it slightly longer than Raiders and Temple, but slightly shorter than Crusade.

And finally, Blogger actually deleted a post of mine from a couple weeks back, presumably (though they never specified WHY, which means I cannot file a "counter notification" claim as per official Google policy) because it used to have an embedded video of a leaked version of one of the Crystal Skull trailers. Never mind that I had actually deleted the content of that post (but not the post itself; I wanted to keep the comments) well, well within the deadline that they gave me. And never mind that the site providing the embedded video had already taken it down themselves almost a WEEK before I got the complaint from Blogger (which means that, at the time I got the complaint, there was virtually nothing in my blog post except for an empty box with the words "Video Removed"). And never mind that the trailer itself had gone public -- in hi-def, on the movie's official website, and everything -- a few days before I got the complaint. As "alleged copyright infringement" warnings go, this one was pretty darn useless -- and even after I complied and removed ALL the original content from that blog post, just to be safe, Blogger went ahead and deleted the post anyway. (Incidentally, it occurs to me just now as I finish this paragraph that you can actually still see the original blog post in question -- "Video Removed" and all -- right here at A&F.)

Regarding Marion being "softer" in the new movie, if the rumors are true and Shia Lebouf's character is Indy and Marion's son, perhaps Spielberg and Lucas are trying to convince us that motherhood has softened Marion's harder edges. I don't like that change in the character at all, but it might be an explanation.

And so it begins... Lucas is talking about ideas for Indy 5.

Good thing he's working hard on those "films for adults" that the Star Wars films forced him to postpone.

Seven and a half hours until the screening ... five and a half hours until I have to go catch my bus ... wait a minute, why am I still up?

Overstreet wrote:
: Good thing he's working hard on those "films for adults" that the Star Wars films forced him to postpone.

The bigger shock to me was that, according to Lucas, 20th Century Fox apparently turned down the distribution of Clone Wars, which is why, for the first time ever, a Star Wars spin-off is going to be distributed by someone OTHER than Fox (in this case, Warner). Did Lucas ask for too big a cut of the profits? Or is Fox just that jaded about the whole Star Wars prequel thing?

Carrie Rickey: "Indiana Jones Paved the Way for Dumb Box-Office Thrill Rides" I don't totally agree with her, but she makes some good points.

And The Beatles paved the way for a lot of really crappy pop music. That doesn't lessen the greatness of what the Beatles did.

John Harlow reviews the film-- very positively!-- and makes one observation that will be very interesting to anyone who's been following all the speculation over the crystal skull itself. (Beware-- his comment is vague, but spoiler-ish nonetheless!)

The crystal skull itself was formerly the subject of obscure disagreement between Spielberg and Ford, but it’s now hard to see what the fuss was about. It might as well have been a brussels sprout for all the difference it makes to the plot.

On the other end of spectrum, James Rocchi is pretty down on the film:



And FWIW, the film currently has a ranking of 70% over at Rotten Tomatoes.

It is so, so, so annoying that the local publicist tells me I am not allowed to post any opinions of this film until opening day, when I know that all the goons at Cannes (and elsewhere?) have already started going public with their own reviews. But those are the terms under which I was allowed into the local screening, so...

I think I can say this much, though, since it doesn't involve an opinion of any sort: This film makes a quick reference to an episode of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles -- Indy tells Mutt about something that happened to him when he was about Mutt's age -- which makes me wonder just how much of that series should be considered "canon" now. (Like, what about the bookends that take place in the 1990s, when Indy is living with his daughter and her family? Lucas has reportedly excised those bookends from the DVD versions of the TV show, but does that make them non-canonical? What about the one episode which featured Harrison Ford himself playing a bearded Indiana Jones in a bookend segment set in 1950 -- seven years before Crystal Skull takes place?)

I say all this, BTW, as one who has never, ever seen an episode of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. But that doesn't mean I can't do a lot of fannish nit-picking, does it?

All I'm going to say is this: If you thought Indy survived some dangerous challenges before, well... call the worst of them about a "5" on the scale of 1-10. In this movie, he survives something I would rate about an "11" on the scale. And that's in the first act. With some 8s and 9s still to come later in the film. I'm not saying that's good or bad, or what those are. But, well... wow.

Jeffrey Wells:

[ snip ]

I'm hedging because Indy 4 doesn't have the stuffings of a great adventure film. It's fine and appropriate that it stays in the good groove of an old-time action serial, but (and I'm really trying to stay clear of snooty, high-horse attitudes because they really don't fit the occasion) I only wish that Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, David Koepp and Jeff Nathanson had attempted at least a superficial injection of a little heart and soul. Just a stab, I mean.

What they've done is certainly okay or good enough. I didn't go into this thing expecting something by Euripides. Plus I had such a good time with Spielberg's immaculate architecture, choreography and editing that I was just charmed and off-the-ground during much of it. The "old-school" character of it is pretty damn sublime. It felt wonderful to watch an adventure flick untouched or uninfluenced by time or post-Matrix or Tarantino-ish attitudes.

But it would have been that much better if they'd faked just a little personal or thematic weight -- the old traditional "who I am and what I really need" stuff -- and thrown it in for good measure.

The weak link is Karen Allen's performance as Marion Ravenwood. She's never been a great actress, and her energy here feels a little forced and lacking a center -- she's too energetically "up." Plus she looks like she's had some work done, and that in itself throws you out of the movie's 1957 setting. I've never hankered over the last 27 years for a reunion between Indy and Marion, largely because I've always felt hugely irritated by her "Indieeeeee!" scream. They made a pretty good team in '81 but let's not get all sentimental about this.

I'm not going to reveal the ending, but it ties in with Allen's character and it just doesn't work. It's delivers a very odd vibe, the finale does. There's a little hint that LeBouf will take over the series down the road, but everyone had this half-guessed...right?

It's a superficial thrill ride, this movie -- more of an out-and-out comedy with thrills than a solid adventure thriller with sly, wink-wink humor, which is how I always regarded Raiders of the Lost Ark.

[ snip ]

LIBERTAS has already posted a review. What happened to the embargo on non-Cannes critics' reviews?

Glenn Kenny:

Best appreciated as a pulp prequel to Close Encounters of the Third Kind...no, I can't. I mean the thing kind of is that, but the fourth Indy installment isn't really an attempt to retroactively create a Spielberg omniverse. But David Koepp's script, from a story by George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson and Herge and Edgar Rice Burroughs and Erik von Daniken and Carl Stephenson and...well, you get the idea...does tie together a good number of Spielbergian themes into an eventually pretty nifty package. Yeah—this is, by my sights, the most fun and least irritating installment of the series since the first one.

Although it starts out pretty unpromisingly.

The opening third, set in 1957 United States, does for 1957 what 1941 did for, you know, 1941. The waves of references and cultural signifiers come at you in strengths from coy to borderline repulsive, as Indy is kidnapped by post-Stalinists, caught in the middle of a nuclear test sight, falls victim to a HUAC-esque blacklist, and is waylaid by Shia La Beouf dressed up to look like Brando in The Wild One. Ugh.

[ snip ]

Once Harrison Ford's Jones and LaBeouf's "Mutt" (who introduces himself as the son of some of Jones' confreres, who seem to have been kidnapped) team up to go to South America in search of the titular crystal skull, the movie shakes off its particular case of the cutes and turns into a far more creditable, enjoyable saga.

[ snip ]

I gave up on even trying to resist the movie when its centerpiece, a furious chase through the Amazon jungle punctuated with fistfights, gunshots, and swordplay, climaxed with an over-the-top homage to The Naked Jungle. When X: The Man With X-Ray Eyes was referenced later on, I lost whatever critical balance I might have been able to immediately bring to bear. So sue me.

I haven't a clue what those latter two references are all about. But it's striking that Kenny would diss the film's opening scenes, whereas critics like, e.g., Todd McCarthy have said the film begins with a "dynamite opening action sequence" and "then gradually slides toward a ho-hum midsection before literally taking off for an uplifting finish." McCarthy makes the point again a few paragraphs later: "Like the bravura opening sequence of 'Saving Private Ryan,' this smashing launch sets a standard the rest of the film has some trouble living up to."

I look forward to seeing which A&Fers line up on which side, here.

Overstreet wrote:
: LIBERTAS has already posted a review. What happened to the embargo on non-Cannes critics' reviews?

Steve Mason and Jim Hill have posted their own comments, too. I'm sure many others have, as well.

I can help with the first one: The Naked Jungle is about South American army ants. Haven't seen X: The Man with X-Ray Eyes, but I think Jimmy has (it's supposed to be Ed Wood bad; not sure but they may have MySTed it); I'll ask him about it.

I saw this one a few years ago. Very foggy on the details, but the title sums up the premise which reminded me in tone of the original "The Fly". I don't recall it being that bad, but I believe it was labeled a "cult classic."

Not sure how it relates to Indy IV, having not yet scene [Ha! "seen"-ed.] it.

My review.

And my review.

Nobody here went out and saw it on opening day?

I love this series, but I'm not sure I'll get to the new film, which has never interested me a great deal. I recently saw part of Raiders again on cable and think I'd rather sit down with that film again than rush out to see Indy 4.

I saw it last night with my brother and wife. As much as I could nit-pick the film - particularly the first act, nuclear near miss, and Shia's Tarzan impression...and might as well throw in Marion's driving skills too - I just can't get a goofy grin off my face when I think about it. I'm itching to go see it again, since a few critics have commented that it plays even better on a repeat viewing. Harrison is back. Probably the best thing he's done since The Fugitive. I think Shia's "Mutt" is great, and I have no complaints about this film "other-worldly" mysteries.

In fact, I think the film, with its aliens/extra-dimensional beings ("ED's" anyone?), nicely fits into Spielbergean territory. I can appreciate that won't jive with some (JO, I'm thinking this doesn't fit into your Indy as "Christian hero" thing, though someone somewhere speculated as to the final scene in the city of the gods as a kind of Jesus and his disciples thing, which I don't buy, but still, it's there), but to me it felt just fine. Plus, Lucas even gets to put in his pet-interests, with that American Graffiti opening. It really felt at one with the tone that I would expect from these two guys. All-in-all, I loved the film, even if it falls short of the glory that is Raiders. I got more than I was expecting.

No; I probably won't get to it in the cinema. (I did see Iron Man on opening day, though!)

Of course. I was choked that there was no midnight screening in Saskatoon.

Going on opening day just isn't what it used to be. Megaplexes and Fandango have killed that. I used to love going way ahead of time, hoping for a ticket, waiting in line with lots of other enthusiastic fans, etc. It's not much of any option, at least around here. The last time I did that was for The Phantom Menace, and, with that film turning out to be SUCH a lemon, it kind of ruined the experience. I remember having a really good time years ago with the huge crowd/line waiting to see Independence Day, and I still remember waiting in line to see Star Wars so many years ago.

Absolutely. But I guess it didn't really make enough of an impression - good or bad - to make me want to really dig into it or post about it. I appreciated that it kept the tone and old-school flavor of the originals (unlike the SW prequels), and while there were LOTS of details that kind of bugged me in the overly shorthand approach to the storytelling (now they're going down three waterfalls, now the baddies magically appear dry at the bottom of the waterfalls; oh look, the indians just jumped out of the walls in that cave - I bet their knees got sore from the thousands of years of crouching...), they didn't generally bug me enough to turn me off from the film. Unfortunately, for all the fun and giggles, the story was just not very strong. It was absurd past the point of silly, and just didn't feel like it fit the rest of the canon. I can watch the originals over and over. I enjoyed this one, but can't imagine every wanting to see it again bad enough that there won't be something else that I want to see more.

Anders wrote:
: . . . (JO, I'm thinking this doesn't fit into your Indy as "Christian hero" thing, though someone somewhere speculated as to the final scene in the city of the gods as a kind of Jesus and his disciples thing, which I don't buy, but still, it's there) . . .

Um, can you flesh this out some more? I see the numerical element, but beyond that...?

: Plus, Lucas even gets to put in his pet-interests, with that American Graffiti opening. It really felt at one with the tone that I would expect from these two guys.

From these two guys, perhaps, but from this franchise? I keep thinking of Glenn Kenny's comparison between this film's opening scenes and Spielberg's last pre-Indy film 1941 -- there's an emphasis on pop-culture nostalgia here that I don't think the first three films had. Okay, in GENERAL, the original trilogy was inspired by 1930s movie serials (but also by 1950s films like The Secret of the Incas, starring Charlton Heston), and okay, Temple of Doom had that opening Cole Porter / Busby Berkeley bit -- but apart from that, there's probably a heck of a lot more 1950s nostalgia in the first half-hour of Crystal Skull than there ever was 1930s nostalgia in the entire original trilogy. (And it's interesting that Temple of Doom would be the film with the clearest expression of pop-culture nostalgia, since a guy who did a month-long blog series on Spielberg films last year noted that a lot of people who like 1941 tend to like Temple of Doom.)

Well, I just got home from watching Arthur C. Clarke and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Maybe I take things too serious, but this film reminds me of an historical equivalent of docetism. It takes the humanity out of antiquity, and seems to say that the pyramids, Stonehenge, etc. only seem like humans constructed them.

I liked the action but was very disappointed with the science fiction. I could not help but think of Dawkin's statement in EXPELLED that it wasn't Divine Intelligence but extra-terrestrial. Now we know from Spielberg and Lucas that it was actually interdimensional beings that did all the great things in antiquity!

Denny

I was not familiar with the man before the film, but apparently, there really is a man named Mitchell-Hedges, and he found a crystal skull, and though I did not know it at the time of my posting, Arthur C. Clarke was very interested in both Mitchell-Hedges and the crystal skull.

There was also a conquistador part of Pizarro's company named Francisco de Orellana.

I guess, there is this part of me, that likes The 13th Warrior, which puts plausibility on the incredible. Though, I am conscious of The 13th Warrior's anachronisms.

Has anyone ever seen a Japanese cartoon that used to appear on Nickelodeon in the 1980s called The Mysterious Cities of Gold? As the wikipedia article tells, the show was a mixture of "ancient South American history, archeology, and science fiction."

Indy and his women, foreshadowings and pay-offs, etc.:

-- Raiders of the Lost Ark: After the prologue, a student with "love you" written on her eyelids blinks at Indy and disrupts his train of thought as he is trying to give a lecture. This may prefigure the later revelation that Indy had an affair with Marion ten years earlier, when she was a child, and she was in love, and it was wrong and Indy knew it. Indy's response to Marion is that she knew what she was doing -- and the film gives us every reason to believe that Indy may be correct, i.e. that he is, if anything, less eager sexually than the women who throw themselves at him. (When Marion rekindles their affair on the boat -- we have no direct indication that they have done this before that point -- he falls asleep.) Interestingly, however, an early draft of the script apparently had Indy entertaining a lady in his home when Marcus Brody comes to meet him -- though it is not clear whether, in that draft, Indy and Marion had had a past relationship.

-- Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: At the end of the prologue, Indy is running around a bogus suburbia, looking decidedly out of place in his heroic adventure garb and surrounded by plastic replicas of a nuclear (ha, ha) family. But by the end of the film, Indy has discovered and reclaimed a sort of nuclear family of his own, and he has even found a way to be the stereotypical good husband AND keep "the hat".

Not sure where the other two films fit into this pattern, or even if they do.

-- Temple of Doom is unique among the films in that it introduces the girlfriend BEFORE it introduces Indiana Jones, even before it introduces his name in the TITLE. Willie Scott is the only girlfriend who is there for the prologue AND the main action -- and there are no other girls in the film. So there's not much of an opportunity to make any comparisons or contrasts, there. (Unless we want to compare and contrast Indy's relationship with Willie with his relationship with Short Round -- who does, after all, get to say "Indy, I love you!") Interestingly, in THIS film, Indy claims to have done "years of fieldwork" in studying "primitive sexual practices" -- and the first time he meets Willie, he threatens to stick a fork in her side, as a way of blackmailing someone else into giving him something. (Isn't that the sort of thing that bad guys, rather than good guys, normally do?) So he is much more of an aggressor in this film than he is in any of the others.

-- I haven't seen Last Crusade in a while -- will do soon -- but I can't recall the girl in that film being reflected or contrasted by any other characters in the film, either. (Unless we want to compare and contrast Indy's relationship with Elsa with his relationship with his father.) At any rate, this film is unique in the series in making the girlfriend the VILLAIN. And once again, she's at least as much of a sexual aggressor as Indy is, if not more so.

Nice analysis, Peter.


Although Indy does make the first pass ("The rest of me is yours"), and follows up with the flower ("If you'll permit me?" "I don't usually." "I don't usually either." "In that case I permit you.").

FWIW, on At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper, Roeper and Phillips split on the film. They both agreed it was an awful film, but Roeper found it entertaining, comparing it to the reunion concert o some has-been rock band that you used to enjoy. Enjoyable because of what it represented ad occasionally for a set here and there. Roeper said it was the "best worst film" he'd seen in a long time. Phillips felt it just couldn't overcome its dreck of a script.

Phillips review for the Chicago Tribute is on line here.

I'll definitely be waiting fo this to come out on cable. There are other things more worthing of my cinema $$ and time.

FWIW, Roger Ebert loved it, giving it 3.5 stars (out of 4).

Let's not forget that Henry Sr. and Elsa also had a relationship. Makes you wonder if Indy had not only been troubled throughout his life with his father's attentiveness more devoted to Grail lore than Indy, but if there was more competition between the two in other arenas besides archaeology.



Hmmmm.... I love the series, but Ebert is simply gaga over it, nothing below 3.5 stars. Looking back over his reviews of the series, I think he may be one of the only critics to rate Temple of Doom equal with Raiders (4 stars for both).



I actually found this review kind of amazing, as Roger usually derides a film that involves children being abused as an all too obvious crutch upon which to play on an audiences sympathy.

I personally enjoyed it a lot. I have been an Indy fan since I was a child and I even have some love for the much-maligned Temple of Doom, which most everyone I know hates. I went to see it with many of my friends and the reaction was split, some loved it some hated it. Unfortunately most of the criticisms that I have heard, both from my friends and on the internet, are extremely lazy things like, "George Lucas sucks" or "Aliens can't be in Indiana Jones". I thought it had some script problems, mainly the plot being a bit muddled and some characters (notably Mac) not getting enough development, but my enjoyment of the action scenes and the thrill of seeing this great character back in action far-outweighed the negatives. I will definitely go and see it again with my Dad who has been with the series since the beginning. It will be very interesting to hear his reaction, because he hated all the Star Wars prequels (except for Episode 3).

SDG wrote:
: Nice analysis, Peter.

Thanks!

: : And once again, she's at least as much of a sexual aggressor as Indy is, if not more so.
:
: Although Indy does make the first pass ("The rest of me is yours"), and follows up with the flower ("If you'll permit me?" "I don't usually." "I don't usually either." "In that case I permit you.").

Told you I hadn't re-watched it yet! I was thinking primarily of "How dare you kiss me!" and then her reciprocal SMOOCH. Then again, I guess the fact that she's saying "How dare you..." implies that he has already done something. But then again again, I was also thinking bigger-picture, of how the Elsa character sleeps with BOTH of the Joneses in an effort to win their trust and get information from them, which is a sexual aggression of a kind (even if she lets at least one of them make "the first pass").

Baal_T'shuvah wrote:
: Let's not forget that Henry Sr. and Elsa also had a relationship. Makes you wonder if Indy had not only been troubled throughout his life with his father's attentiveness more devoted to Grail lore than Indy, but if there was more competition between the two in other arenas besides archaeology.

Interesting question. It IS implied that Mrs. Jones died some time earlier, isn't it? (Does anyone know what the TV series might have revealed about this? E.g., how young Indy was when she passed away, etc.?)

Doesn't seeing Indy age as much as he does between this film and the previous films kind of cast a whole new light on that line of Belloq's about how "We are only passing through history"?

I'll be seeing Crystal Skull tomorrow, and in preparation I decided to watch Raiders tonight. After seeing Last Crusade, it seems as though mom is out of the picture, just not sure whether or not she's dead. Because Indy does refer to his mom in Raiders, in a way that I took to mean that she is still alive. He says to Marcus Brody at one point, "Are you trying to scare me, you sound like my mother." Perhaps it's just me, but I always figured from the way the line is delivered that Indy's mom is alive and well. Maybe she didn't want to play second fiddle to Henry Sr.'s passion for the grail, and left him. I don't know how she was dealt with in the series, as I only watched 2 or 3 episodes, but there is a character named Anna Jones that appeared in 8 episodes.

Baal_T'shuvah wrote:
: After seeing Last Crusade, it seems as though mom is out of the picture, just not sure whether or not she's dead. Because Indy does refer to his mom in Raiders, in a way that I took to mean that she is still alive. He says to Marcus Brody at one point, "Are you trying to scare me, you sound like my mother." Perhaps it's just me, but I always figured from the way the line is delivered that Indy's mom is alive and well. Maybe she didn't want to play second fiddle to Henry Sr.'s passion for the grail, and left him.

I think Indy's line reading is open to either interpretation, but yeah, this always struck me as one of those details that got ignored in the later films -- kind of like how the original Star Wars presents Obi-Wan Kenobi delivering at least two lines of dialogue about Owen Lars objected to Anakin Skywalker's involvement with the Jedi Knights ("He didn't hold with your father's ideals, thought he should have stayed home and not gotten involved"; "Your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough, but your uncle wouldn't allow it; didn't want you going on some damnfool idealistic crusade like your father did"), and then the prequels show Owen and Anakin as almost complete strangers who meet only once, years AFTER Anakin has begun to follow Obi-Wan and years BEFORE Anakin finds out his wife is pregnant.

But I can excuse continuity errors in Indiana Jones much more easily than I can excuse them in Star Wars, because the Indiana Jones films never claimed to have any pre-set continuity, the way that the Star Wars films claimed to have ("Episode V" and all that); the Indiana Jones films, I always figured, were pretty much doing what the man himself did: making it up as they went along.

So, anyway, Indy's mother is mentioned once in Raiders, in a way that doesn't necessarily hinge on her being alive, and then she is mentioned again in Last Crusade, in a way that I always took to mean that she had died some time ago. And then ...

: I don't know how she was dealt with in the series, as I only watched 2 or 3 episodes, but there is a character named Anna Jones that appeared in 8 episodes.

... yeah, that's her -- and it seems that, according to the TV series, she died in 1912, when Indy was only 12 or 13.

Certainly, in Crystal Skull, there is the sense that Indy lost his mother at a young age, when he tells Mutt to cherish his mother (or whatever exact word he uses) because he never knows, he might not have her for long. I think this MIGHT be in the same scene where Indy tells Mutt about being kidnapped by Pancho Villa when he was Mutt's age, which also took place in an episode of the TV series.

Woah, I shouldn't have this much to say about a popcorn movie, but here goes:

Doesn't Henry Sr. have a line in Last Crusade about how Indy's mother kept her own illness a secret from her family until it was too late? But I never would have connected Indiana's comments to Mutt with his own loss of a mother; it reminded me more of Indiana's relationship with his father--single parent raising a child and all that.

I saw this yesterday and have to keep reminding myself that I tend to like movies more on the first go than on the second; however, I did like it a lot--in some ways (subject to a second look) it seemed to hold together better than either of the other sequels. Both Temple of Doom and Last Crusade--which I re-watched prior to seeing this one--feel somehow "off" in the pacing or what-have-you, while this one moves pretty smoothly, I think. Perhaps it's my predisposition to root for Indy and Marion, and this weird fascination I have with older action heroes (why else would I even remotely enjoy stuff like Octopussy?) but this movie felt "right." It's not Raiders by a long shot, but it's a decent entertainment. Spalko is easily the best Indy villain since Belloc. Mutt fits into the film quite well, and his interactions with Indy serve as a humorous counterpoint to the previous movie.

Some problems: At times, it felt a bit rushed. The beginning, up to the actual action, felt labored, as if the filmmakers were struggling to get everything in place before the ride could begin. Or maybe it was just me trying to get used to seeing Indiana on the big screen and looking so much older. I did think the maguffin was uninspiring--though one doesn't go to an Indiana Jones movie for the maguffin (again, Raiders being the exception,) and the ending suffered from--not an overabundance, but from not being abundant enough. I remember when I was a kid, I was fascinated by the deaths--faces melting, men turning old, and all that. I don't think Spalko's death from knowing too much is in that league at all. Visually, it's pretty bland, actually, and it lacks the visceral feel of, say, Belloc's head exploding.

Incidentally, one of the things that felt "right" was when the dean of the school walks into the class, and Indiana stutters, tries to continue, and then turns and barks "What?" It seemed a good way to high-light Indiana's transition from the nervous younger professor of the previous films (who tries to finish his lecture) to the more settled-in-his-ways professor of this film.

Now that I've read through all 5 pages of comments on this ...

First, I should have known Peter would beat me to using the "nuclear family" line. If there's a theme running through all the films, I have to go with family/ responsibility. Going in chronological order, Temple of Doom has Indy has an adopted son in Short Round and a glamorous but shrill woman he can't stand. He's playing at being a family man but his heart just isn't in it.

In Raiders he's moved on and has young girls throwing themselves at him. But his adventures force him to go crawling back to Marion, one of his former conquests. I was 9 when I first saw Raiders so it took me years to catch on to the statutory rape in the back story. Marion tells him "I was a child. I was in love. It was wrong and you knew it." and Indy's response is dismissive and typical, "You knew what you were doing." (also known as "She was asking for it.".) Raiders is still one of my favorite films but I have to say now that I'm older but that aspect of the story bothers me more and more. As for children, they rescue Indy from his stand off with Beloq in the restaurant ("Better than United States Marines!" says Sala.) but he and Marion settle for a homicidal Nazi monkey to complete their family.

In Last Crusade Indy is swarmed by students and staff at the college and what does he do? He hides in his office and then crawls out the window to escape his responsibilities. There's still too much adventure left to be had out there. He's got to follow in the footsteps of his father (James Bond). Connery sleeping with Elsa and then slapping Indy for blasphemy seems a little contradictory.

In Crystal Skull there is the aforementioned suburban "nuclear family" at the test site and Indy's reunion with Marion and the son he didn't know he had. He finally does the honorable thing by getting married and telling the kid he's got to finish school.

Or maybe I'm just projecting and making a "mountain out of a molehill" like Speilberg.

Backrow Baptist wrote:
: I was 9 when I first saw Raiders so it took me years to catch on to the statutory rape in the back story.

I had a reply to this all written out, and then something crashed. Arrrrgh.

Anyway, I highly doubt that Indy committed any "statutory rape" here.

For one thing, the films give us no indication of this. Based on the chronology provided by The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, it would seem Indy was about the same age as Harrison Ford in the first movie -- Ford turned 38 during filming -- and if Marion is the same age as Karen Allen, then there is only a 9-year gap between them. And since the affair between them took place 10 years before Raiders, Indy would have been about 28 and Marion about 19, give or take. Marion's remark that she was "a child" might mean no more than that she was young, inexperienced, not ready for a serious relationship, and easily swept off her feet by a man a decade or two her senior -- kind of like that student who makes eyes at Indy in the classroom.

And for what it's worth, apparently it was revealed only recently, in DK's Indiana Jones: The Ultimate Guide, that Marion was born on March 23, 1909, making her 17 when she and Indy last saw each other in 1926. (So says Wikipedia, at any rate.)

This then leads to the fact that it isn't "statutory rape" unless there is, in fact, a statute that calls it such. But the age of consent has been lower than 17 in many territories over the years. In Canada, it was 14 from the 19th century until a few weeks ago (it is now 16). In Hawaii in the 1960s, when Barack Obama was conceived, it was 14 (his father was 24 and his mother was 17), and I have heard that the government there tried to raise it to 16 a few years ago, but I don't know whether they were successful in the long term. In Mississippi right now, it is apparently 16 (or so say the various news stories about 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears's pregnancy; apparently her boyfriend hails from there). On the other hand, apparently Charlie Chaplin had to marry his first two wives when they told him they were pregnant because they were 16 years old and he needed to avoid being charged under California's statutory-rape laws (Chaplin married the first wife in 1918 at the age of 30, and the second wife in 1924 at the age of 36).

So unless we know precisely where the affair took place, and what the law was in that place at that time, I think it is unlikely that Indy committed "statutory rape". It's not impossible, but in the absence of further information, I'd consider it implausible.

(FWIW, Abner Ravenwood supposedly taught at the University of Chicago when Indy knew him, and according to this site, the current age of consent in Illinois is 17. I don't know what it was in 1926.)

Ok, I'm pretty much right up there with Roger. I love this series (even Temple of Doom). And I had a silly grin on my face through the entire film and afterwards.

Speaking to the questions about Indy's mother, there is also a line in Last Crusade where Indy says something to the effect that he's "never understood [the whole Grail stuff], and neither did mom!" So it seems that there may have been friction between them as well as her probably dying (of cancer?) sometime before the events of Last Crusade's prologue.

I enjoyed it, I guess. My friends who are much bigger fans of the series than myself all were very disappointed.... mostly with the Sci-Fi parts.

I wish they'd kept it grounded. Both of the two most ridiculous moments in the film (Indy surviving a nuclear blast at ground zero and Mutt-tarzan) were completely unnecessary and stupid. I know it's easy to say this (because I've had it said about my work), but I really wonder how a few hundred people work on something and not one of them raises the issue that those two particular ideas might suck.

I thought Shia LaWhoever was fine in this movie, though a lot of my friends hate him after Transformers. I guess I'd be hesitant to see any future movies in the series with him headlining, but I wasn't really planning to see this one and I ended up doing it.

Ebert's review snippet is pretty ridiculous. No way is this a Raiders or a Last Crusade. I do mostly agree with Roeper, though... the primary reason this movie was enjoyable is because of nostalgia.

Lucas and Spielberg won't read this, but on the off chance they do: Aliens were a dumb idea.

Oh... one thing I thought was brilliant. IMDB affects the way we watch movies these days and filmmakers need to take creative steps to counteract that. By giving Shia La... 's character a name completely out of the blue, they very effectively hid his true identity from the casual IMDB credits browser. That right there, intentional or not, was great. (Though to be honest... the "big reveal" there was a pretty obvious possibility from about 2 minutes into LaBeouf's screen time...)

Well ... if you want to get technical. Ok, so "statutory rape" may be overstating it a bit. I know what happens may not fit the legal definition. Saying that he "seduced her" or "took advantage of her" is probably more accurate but it seems like most people use those expressions with a wink and a nudge. My point is that this was a sleazy aspect of what I believe to be an otherwise admirable hero's story. What bothers me (besides getting older and having a daughter now) is that it is dealt with so flippantly in Raiders.

Anyway, I forgot to add that I did actually enjoy Crystal Skull. I got to see it twice this weekend. It's no Raiders or even Last Crusade but it's Indy back on screen and that's all I wanted. As others have pointed out the skull just doesn't carry the same weight as the ark or the grail. I cringed when Mutt picked up the fedora and almost put it on . Hopefully this will be the final film in the series.

Awesome! Someone used the HIDE tag!

I have to admit I was trying to black out the text because of spoilers. How do I do that?

That would be the SPOILER tag. spoiler



If you're using the WYSIWYG/rich text editor (rather than typing in bracketed tags), both the SPOILER and HIDE tags are only available in the "insert special item" drop-down menu, rather than by typing.

I saw the midnight premiere of this film and I guess I haven't posted until now because I've been recovering from staying up so late!

I liked the movie but I want to see it again to figure out just how much or how little. It had some definite pacing and script issues to contend with. There was too much plot and too many characters. And I did not like the ending. Not because of the aliens, but because of the way it was all filmed and edited together and because of the way the aliens themselves were portrayed. Did we really have to see Cate Blanchett standing face-to-face with a fully reconsitututed CGI alien being? That zapped any remaining mystery from the story.

I thought the nuclear blast at the beginning was fantastic, though. Certainly no more far-fetched than Indy falling out of a plane in a raft in Temple of Doom. And I'm one of those folks who loves Temple of Doom despite its flaws and human sacrifice and child slavery. I think it's a far better movie than Last Crusade, which was lazy and uninspiring (but still enjoyable as an Indy movie).

At this point I'd rank the movies: 1) Raiders and 2) Temple of Doom with Last Crusade and Crystal Skull battling for third place.

Unless, of course, you consider that Henry Jones Jr. gave himself a dog-related nickname (taking Indiana, the name of his family dog). Then, the fact that this kid's name is "Mutt" is likely to inspire this response: "So, that's his DOG name, but what's his REAL name?" And it's no surprise when we learn what that is.

And besides, anyone tuned in to the not-so-subtle humor of Lucaspielberg's obsession with family relationship "surprises," would probably smirk when the very first thing Mutt says in the film is "Old man!" to Professor Jones.

I went to a late show last night (after 12 hours of proofreading) and am happy to say that, at least for this viewer, the second time was much more enjoyable. My friend Danny (known around here as Croaker) came away from the press screening fuming and disgruntled, but he went with me and he really enjoyed it this time too. He said, "Now that I know what it *is*, I know how to watch it."

This time, my expectations were in the right place, and I enjoyed it like a big juicy Saturday morning cartoon. I was able to relax and enjoy Kaminski's amazing, resourceful camerawork. Almost every shot in this film is interesting for one reason or another. And yes, the first half of the film, right up through the moment when that big freaking blade-wheel comes flying off of the forest-eating machine and smashes into Marion's jeep, is for me really quite enjoyable. It's after that big laugh that the movie just flies off the rails into increasingly preposterous twists. And yet even then I found a lot to enjoy. As goofy and ridiculous as it all is, I really, really enjoy this movie. In part because the people making the movie seem to be having so much fun themselves.