I remember being completely blown away when I first saw Raiders of the Lost Ark, I don't think I had ever seen such an action-packed film up to that point. I watched it again recently and it holds up amazingly well after all of these years. A lot of people have given the fourth installment a lot of flack for not living up to its predecessors, but I think that's a bit of a bum rap. Yes, they probably waited a decade too long to make it, but most of the other complaints I feel can be equally levied against the second two adventures as well. I didn't find the refrigerator scene to be any less believable than jumping out of an airplane with only an inflatable raft. Were the inclusion of aliens a bit far fetched? Maybe, but not more so than an immortal King Arthur looking dude hanging out in the cave of grails. Some took exception with Shia LaBeouf, but was his performance worse than Kate Capshaw? I think time may have softened some of the rough edges of those earlier films in many viewers' eyes.
8 comments:
I completely agree with the assessment of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Indy movies. Not a single one of them holds a candle to Raiders, but I find them all entertaining. There's a "pseudo-realism" to Raiders that was absolutely abandoned for all the subsequent films. Still love them, yes, even the 4th, still think they are high-quality filmmaking...but they all tread directly into a "cartoony" sort of world.
I feel the same way. I liked the 4th and I think I always will. Sometimes I think people put thier fond movies of the past on pedistals that can never be reached again.
Genius!
You just keep getting better and better!
I also enjoyed the 4th movie. I feel that the Crystal Skull was to the 1950s what the first three were to the 1930s, so how could you not have a plot centered around atomic bombs, the Russians, and aliens? It really does seem logical when making a tribute film to the fifties. It's also nice that they poked fun at the character's age at several points. I feel like this film just didn't get a fair reception at all.
Great cover by the way.
The Last Crusade had the enormous starpower of Sean Connery as Indy's dad (an origin story that can't be beat). The 4th really lacked this.
Two years late to the party, here, but I have to comment on this. I might have enjoyed "Crystal Skull" for what it was, if not for the aliens. I consider that a betrayal of the entire series, which heretofore had included only "fantastic" elements based in real religions. Worse, it was grossly insulting to the Meso-American people (of whom I am one, by heritage at least) - "The Abrahamic and Hindu gods are real, but yours are just a bunch of aliens."
Bleh! Just talking about makes me angry.
Anyway, I love everything else about this blog. Great work, and great fun. - MIT
I think it was the 100% correct thing to do, setting ...CRYSTAL SKULL in the 1950's. Harrison Ford has grown older in the real world, so why not have Indy equally age? And, as the real-world Fifties were a lot grimmer than the Never-Never Thirties of the pulp-fiction era, I think that grimness only made the fourth IJ film all the more believable! To me, especially.
I for one liked the 4th movie. I didn't care for it as much as the originals, but I didn't think it was bad and I certainly don't think it deserves all the hate it gets.
I love the creativity you put into your covers, and this is another one that had me grinning!
Post a Comment