I've just watched Last Crusade again and it has a perfect ending. A bit of banter on the horses between Indy and his dad. Sallah roaring with laughter. Marcus pleading with them to go home. And so they do. Galloping through the canyons and then out into the desert, riding towards the sunset. Indy passes something to Marcus (his best friend) - what he passes, we don't know, but we know they are together again. Sallah and Henry Jones riding close behind. It's a great send off to Indy and all the other characters too. As for Spielberg, he should stop making sequels to things unless he knows they will be at least equal to the previous installments. Raiders was near perfect as films go - a masterpiece. I hope Spielberg has another in him but they really need to make sure the story and script are perfect before going into it.
Incidentally, some 25 years previously, the original draft for "Back to the Future" had the time machine as a fridge that one walked into, and the only way to get it back to the future was to bring it to an atomic test site.
wheres mark here ? looks like hes in the opening scenes of inception, in saitos love nest apartment, with the revolution kicking off outside, lets hope they got the carpet right
what i do find is that even where i disagree with him I still find him interesting and reasonable. And he's just a good talker too. I've never read him, but i love listening to him talk
I had forgotten about the Young Indiana Jones thing. Also just reminded me of Erie Indiana, going to have to check that out and see if it lives up to the old memory.
The only issue with Frank Darabont is that 90% of his work has come from other source materials. Shawshank, Green Mile and the Mist are all Steven King. Walking Dead is also based on a comic script so he isn't hugely experienced at coming up with original ideas. Saying that i'm sure his script was still 500% better.
Couldn't agree more. Some of the greatest films have been adapted from various sources and that tool of adapting is equally as difficult as being original (how John Hodge managed to adapt trainspotting I will never know). The Godfather is obviously adapted but still holds up as an absolute masterpiece which actually exceeds the source it came from. My original point was only that coming up with original material is a different skill that FB isn't as experienced in.
@KRSsven I know what you mean about the dialogue. Like in Episode 1 when someone's trying to convey the sheer magnitude Anakin's abilities and, having seen him win the podrace which saw all but two contestants reduced to scorched marks on the desert rocks, mumbles that he has a noticably high count of some sort of molecules.
From my understanding I don't think Frank Darabont was ever in line to direct the film. That was always going to be Spielberg. It was only the screenplay that he was providing.
I LOVED THIS MOVIE. It wasn't what i expected, but i really enjoyed it. Much better than stone faced cage and Sean Bean after a picture. This was good. Not as good as Raiders or Temple but better than Crusade.
@edmundsampo: Let me add a couple of caveats to that. I like it, although I readily accept that it's heavily flawed - Sofia Coppola cannot act, the whole project wasn't exactly necessary and it was never going to live up to the other two. But having said all that, I think the film holds together much better than we had any right to expect - I like the continuing chemistry between Al Pacino and Diane Keaton, and it handles Mike going straight in an appropriately underhanded way. And the scream...
I think Kermode is being unusually fair to this film. I was driven into an apoplectic rage when I saw this tripe. I nearly felt like shouting "C'est de la merde" at the screen. The only good to come out of this episode it one of my favourite South Park episodes.
I don't think whether a Director can *write* a screenplay should be an issue at all. On one hand you've got Quentin Tarantino who is a self-described "Writer/Director" and apart from "Jackie Brown" (which ironically is my favorite film of his) has written or done the adaptations for all of his films. On the other is David Fincher, who isn't a "writer" in terms of his films and works with adaptations... and both are 2 of the top directors of the last generation. It's simply how some work.
@KRSsven A friend told me it's actually become a phrase- "nuke the fridge" apparently now means to destroy a much-loved series with one daft sequel/prequel.
More or less what I thought: if it had just been named "An Anonymous Explorer on a Routine Jungle Adventure", I would have enjoyed it more. But it was marketed as Indy. So I expected Indy. And got. . .that.
The previous instalments set up the power and wonder of the artifact relatively early, and we get all the other exposition out of the way. That frees up the rest of the film for a succession of incredible action beats. Instead what happens here is that Indy is to uncover a mystery that frankly we don't really care about, so the film has to keep stopping and isn't able to build any real momentum. And since unlike its predecessors the action is pretty "unremarkable", it's just not lively enough.
I never meant to imply otherwise: only that Darabont isn't "less" of a Director in his own right just because he's mainly directed Adapted Works and not Original (and I forgot to mention that point, that while he doesn't write *original* work he does Adapt to film which is just as much a talent.) ...I doubt I'd want to see an Indy Film NOT directed by SS. But I've read FD's script, and it's lightyears better than KOTCS. And man, that's a hard-to-pronounce acronym. ;-)
The plot, put simply, is that Indy goes rogue to save his pal Mutt in Peru and gets sucked into the mystery the crystal skull. Also, it seems like Indy can't raise a finger without getting captured by Russians, honestly it starts to feel kind of BDSM after a while.
Remarkable, Unremarkeble (Hope writes this way) Well, I love Herge's Tin Tin, I think, that's the reason Why I loved Kingdom of Crystal Skull, I bought the merchandising, I enjoy see Harrison ford back again in Indiana's Outfit, and I really liked the Humanization of the hero, again, repeating what he had done so cool in Last crusade.And Kermode, Raiders, a film like that, we will never see that agin, a Obsession with a twinkle in the eyes.
Kermode kind of missed the mark on this one. Instead of rambling about the worthless movie title for 5 minutes he should've taken apart the whole "suspension of disbelief" theme the Indiana series has had. There's a huge difference between "believing" a movie about the Lost Ark or a movie about a freaking alien head in a temple which is actually a UFO which then quickly travels into an intergalactic vortex destroying 100 square miles of jungle but Indy and his team make it out alive etc.
Why didn't Kermode get the same sickly feeling I did after watching Indy 4? I still feel sad. Maybe Spielberg should have just done the best he could do - no trying to go back and re-capture the magic - just use what he'd got up his sleeve at the time.
@edmundsampo: I agree that it can't live up to the first three by quite some distance, but it is better than the STar Wars prequels because it is at least being made with a deliberate if problematic nostalgia. The fact that it is so old-fashioned and unremarkable is both its central problem and the thing which elevates it above those films (although I quite like Godfather III)
One thing that strikes me about Lucas, and this applies to the Star Wars prequels too, is that his style of film-making is EXACTLY the same as it was twenty years ago, the same transitions, the same set-ups, the same reliance on extravagant studio sets. He's really a one-tick pony, his style of direction just hasn't gone anywhere, he hasn't evolved. At this stage I doubt that he is really capable of making a 'great' film, he just doesn't have the inspiration for it.
The only time they ever read out any of my many e-mails to the show... and its me rubbishing my own favourite film franchise! :( The film was keek, and it pained me to say it! Roll on Indy 5!!
on your marks, get set, GO..and its speilberg on the inside taking the lead..didnt make much of that film but on the outside its..yes,.. the coen brothers taking the lead..oh and its an early departure for indiana jones and the crystal skull...
The film’s issues are its lack of originality & performance from Shia LaBeouf, however the film’s well acted, stylish, well directed & an intriguing entry into the series. (71%) (3.5/5 stars) (positive)
"It's just remarkably unremarkable" is probably the best summation of this film that I've ever heard. I regularly see the first 3 Indiana Jones films being shown on tv and I always watch them. I have never gone back and watched the kingdom of the unforgettable title. It was an okay way to kill a couple of boring hours but that was it. A complete disappointment when compared to the original trilogy
I loved the movie because I unlike other people did not try to put the weight of the universe on it!! it's just meant to be fun and exciting ....and guess what?? IT WAS!!!
ive never thought the indiana jones films were anything to get excited about, they are popcorn movies, with no narrative structure no real caring characterisation and i have never seen why so many people hail them as classics
I think that this film will definetly devide people. Me I loved it and is a popcorn movie. Not as good as Raiders, but then it is a sequel and you knew that they wouldn't be able to catch lightening in a bottle. But I'm telling you go with the thought of enjoying a good thrills and spills ride and you'll love. Oh and I completrely disagree with Kermode about Shia LaBeouf, he was the only thing about Transformers that kept me watching he is the one to watch I think
He was being far too kind to this utter waste of time and money. The only good thing about it were the college sequence which was shot in New Haven, Connecticut and I got the chance to walk around and see how all the store fronts were dressed up to look like the 50's. Sadly, you see very little of that in the actual movie and the whole sequence could have been shot on some Hollywood backlot. A few people I worked with appear as extras. It was nice seeing the city dressed up like that.
I watched the other 3 indy movies all in a week or so before seeing this- and in that context i enjoyed the movie and felt it really had the same kind of feel as the first 3. since watching it again on dvd though, it somehow seemed pretty lame. i still dont have a problem with the whole aliens thing though, and dont know why people do- as if the other 3 movies were grounded in reality!
This movie is so underrated in my opinion. Sure, I think it's the weakest of the series when compared to the original trilogy, but come on, it's not THAT bad. I for one find the film quite enjoyable.
War of the Worlds better than Munich?!!? I agree with everything you said except for that obviously wrong statement. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I dont' know one person that would agree with you.
Very true: The Godfather is *THE* example of the adaptation that is far better than the Original Work it came from (the novel is horrid, pulp garbage & I've no idea how Puzo got it published). So... we're pretty much in agreement with each other. :-D
![[Gegagedigedagedago] NEW Help Gegagedigedagedago Nugget escape from Nikocado Avocado Challenge](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hJWnwRC2Fz8/mqdefault.jpg)
'as if George Lucas is the great man to ask about stories....' genius
My best Indiana Jones movie was Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. That was just so great and Sean Connery was funny too.
Yes. apologies for the error, now corrected
great thanks
It doesn't exist - Indy rode off into the sunset with his Dad & his friends. End. Of.
I've just watched Last Crusade again and it has a perfect ending. A bit of banter on the horses between Indy and his dad. Sallah roaring with laughter. Marcus pleading with them to go home. And so they do. Galloping through the canyons and then out into the desert, riding towards the sunset. Indy passes something to Marcus (his best friend) - what he passes, we don't know, but we know they are together again. Sallah and Henry Jones riding close behind. It's a great send off to Indy and all the other characters too.
As for Spielberg, he should stop making sequels to things unless he knows they will be at least equal to the previous installments. Raiders was near perfect as films go - a masterpiece. I hope Spielberg has another in him but they really need to make sure the story and script are perfect before going into it.
FYI, it was a complete coincidence than when Mark mentioned George Lucas and then Shia Lebouf's names two emergency vehicles separately passed by him.
Kermode hits the nail on the head once again.
Incidentally, some 25 years previously, the original draft for "Back to the Future" had the time machine as a fridge that one walked into, and the only way to get it back to the future was to bring it to an atomic test site.
This film was a disgrace.
wheres mark here ? looks like hes in the opening scenes of inception, in saitos love nest apartment, with the revolution kicking off outside, lets hope they got the carpet right
I'm not sure, but it might be Cannes
I heard the Darabont script was great. Is it available to read any where?
Why didnt they just call it Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull!!
Such a better title.
"Indiana Jones and the Refrigerator of Protection" would be a better title for the film.
i think Kermode is easily the best critic in the world
what i do find is that even where i disagree with him I still find him interesting and reasonable. And he's just a good talker too. I've never read him, but i love listening to him talk
He's more entertaining than most of the films
He's really not, says a lot without actually saying anything
I think Mayo does that as a bit of an act... sort of gives Kermode a natural soundboard
I had forgotten about the Young Indiana Jones thing. Also just reminded me of Erie Indiana, going to have to check that out and see if it lives up to the old memory.
I'm expecting Kermode to announce who is bowling, right arm over wicket.
I agree I think Jaws is Spielbergs strongest and best movie
No, have you seen Minority Report?
@@felyxmillicent6538 Don't be daft.
INDIANA JONES..........................GREATEST ACTION HERO - EVER !!!
DA stands for Ducks Arse by the way... the hairstyle that Fonzie, Elvis etc sport
Last Crusade didn't fizzle out it was the best one
The only issue with Frank Darabont is that 90% of his work has come from other source materials. Shawshank, Green Mile and the Mist are all Steven King. Walking Dead is also based on a comic script so he isn't hugely experienced at coming up with original ideas. Saying that i'm sure his script was still 500% better.
MrEwragg: That’s actually an interesting point.
@@dakritic Why is that an issue? Please respond.
"Only you would get hung up on this." Haha.
"Why did the skull make him mad?" ha ha
@collin292 sadly that's very true... Just imagine how great the Prequels could have been if someone comppetent had been in charge...
At 01:30, I thought my neighbour's house had caught fire.
Couldn't agree more. Some of the greatest films have been adapted from various sources and that tool of adapting is equally as difficult as being original (how John Hodge managed to adapt trainspotting I will never know).
The Godfather is obviously adapted but still holds up as an absolute masterpiece which actually exceeds the source it came from. My original point was only that coming up with original material is a different skill that FB isn't as experienced in.
@KRSsven I know what you mean about the dialogue. Like in Episode 1 when someone's trying to convey the sheer magnitude Anakin's abilities and, having seen him win the podrace which saw all but two contestants reduced to scorched marks on the desert rocks, mumbles that he has a noticably high count of some sort of molecules.
It was just a money-grabbing movie! The South Park parody was hilarious.
From my understanding I don't think Frank Darabont was ever in line to direct the film. That was always going to be Spielberg. It was only the screenplay that he was providing.
A film that gets worse and worse, each time you go back to try and be nice about it. The aliens are the least of its problems.
I LOVED THIS MOVIE. It wasn't what i expected, but i really enjoyed it. Much better than stone faced cage and Sean Bean after a picture. This was good. Not as good as Raiders or Temple but better than Crusade.
Delete this comment please.
Jesus Balls was this really 13 years ago??
16
@edmundsampo: Let me add a couple of caveats to that. I like it, although I readily accept that it's heavily flawed - Sofia Coppola cannot act, the whole project wasn't exactly necessary and it was never going to live up to the other two. But having said all that, I think the film holds together much better than we had any right to expect - I like the continuing chemistry between Al Pacino and Diane Keaton, and it handles Mike going straight in an appropriately underhanded way. And the scream...
I think the closer it sounds to a possible Biggles title for an Indiana Jones film, the better.
If you ask me this is a pretty generous review from Kermode - as the film was infact completely dire.
I think Kermode is being unusually fair to this film. I was driven into an apoplectic rage when I saw this tripe. I nearly felt like shouting "C'est de la merde" at the screen. The only good to come out of this episode it one of my favourite South Park episodes.
Harrison Ford found them fun to make. I'd like to think it was that simple. It might have been some just studio BS for the featurette.
That being said I haven't read the script so I'lll take your word that it's an improvement :)
I don't think whether a Director can *write* a screenplay should be an issue at all. On one hand you've got Quentin Tarantino who is a self-described "Writer/Director" and apart from "Jackie Brown" (which ironically is my favorite film of his) has written or done the adaptations for all of his films. On the other is David Fincher, who isn't a "writer" in terms of his films and works with adaptations... and both are 2 of the top directors of the last generation. It's simply how some work.
If you said you'd walked out after the fridge bit I might have believed you.
what does d.a mean?
@KRSsven A friend told me it's actually become a phrase- "nuke the fridge" apparently now means to destroy a much-loved series with one daft sequel/prequel.
There was no need for this movie to be made.
More or less what I thought: if it had just been named "An Anonymous Explorer on a Routine Jungle Adventure", I would have enjoyed it more. But it was marketed as Indy. So I expected Indy. And got. . .that.
Let's not forget that the stories were by Steven King.
The previous instalments set up the power and wonder of the artifact relatively early, and we get all the other exposition out of the way. That frees up the rest of the film for a succession of incredible action beats.
Instead what happens here is that Indy is to uncover a mystery that frankly we don't really care about, so the film has to keep stopping and isn't able to build any real momentum. And since unlike its predecessors the action is pretty "unremarkable", it's just not lively enough.
I never meant to imply otherwise: only that Darabont isn't "less" of a Director in his own right just because he's mainly directed Adapted Works and not Original (and I forgot to mention that point, that while he doesn't write *original* work he does Adapt to film which is just as much a talent.)
...I doubt I'd want to see an Indy Film NOT directed by SS. But I've read FD's script, and it's lightyears better than KOTCS. And man, that's a hard-to-pronounce acronym. ;-)
The plot, put simply, is that Indy goes rogue to save his pal Mutt in Peru and gets sucked into the mystery the crystal skull. Also, it seems like Indy can't raise a finger without getting captured by Russians, honestly it starts to feel kind of BDSM after a while.
i actually enjoyed this movie. ik lots of fans and film goers were upset, but i had a good time.
Remarkable, Unremarkeble (Hope writes this way) Well, I love Herge's Tin Tin, I think, that's the reason Why I loved Kingdom of Crystal Skull, I bought the merchandising, I enjoy see Harrison ford back again in Indiana's Outfit, and I really liked the Humanization of the hero, again, repeating what he had done so cool in Last crusade.And Kermode, Raiders, a film like that, we will never see that agin, a Obsession with a twinkle in the eyes.
Always interesting... Thank you!
Kermode kind of missed the mark on this one.
Instead of rambling about the worthless movie title for 5 minutes he should've taken apart the whole "suspension of disbelief" theme the Indiana series has had.
There's a huge difference between "believing" a movie about the Lost Ark or a movie about a freaking alien head in a temple which is actually a UFO which then quickly travels into an intergalactic vortex destroying 100 square miles of jungle but Indy and his team make it out alive etc.
So the skull is the 'one ring to rule them all'?
Why didn't Kermode get the same sickly feeling I did after watching Indy 4? I still feel sad. Maybe Spielberg should have just done the best he could do - no trying to go back and re-capture the magic - just use what he'd got up his sleeve at the time.
sadly it was far to much like the pirates sequels, only worse for having Shia Le Boeuf in it
No word of a lie, up until this year I thought Mark Kermode and Charlie Brooker were the same guy
I dont believe you
Fair dos, but I assure you, I really am that oblivious
what does "mean"?
Appalling film & shame it was made as the previous Indiana Jones movies were so good.
Poor John Hurt was given the worst line in the film:
"Not into space... but into the space between spaces...!"
*Heurgh!*
"average" is really a rather optimistic way of putting it...
nice to see that coles/stc ribbon
spot on again, kermode!
@edmundsampo: I agree that it can't live up to the first three by quite some distance, but it is better than the STar Wars prequels because it is at least being made with a deliberate if problematic nostalgia. The fact that it is so old-fashioned and unremarkable is both its central problem and the thing which elevates it above those films (although I quite like Godfather III)
This is probably the best review porn I've ever seen.
_"Sheela Laboof"_
Oh and he somehow survives a nuclear explosion by hiding in a fridge??
i love the southpark review of this film.
One thing that strikes me about Lucas, and this applies to the Star Wars prequels too, is that his style of film-making is EXACTLY the same as it was twenty years ago, the same transitions, the same set-ups, the same reliance on extravagant studio sets.
He's really a one-tick pony, his style of direction just hasn't gone anywhere, he hasn't evolved.
At this stage I doubt that he is really capable of making a 'great' film, he just doesn't have the inspiration for it.
I agree with this review completely. Indy 4 is a mediocre pop-corn movie... But Indy deserves more than that. Guess that Lucas doesnt care anymore.
“War of the Worlds” is better than “Munich”? Slow down there mate.
What a Legend!
The only time they ever read out any of my many e-mails to the show... and its me rubbishing my own favourite film franchise! :( The film was keek, and it pained me to say it! Roll on Indy 5!!
on your marks, get set, GO..and its speilberg on the inside taking the lead..didnt make much of that film but on the outside its..yes,.. the coen brothers taking the lead..oh and its an early departure for indiana jones and the crystal skull...
The film’s issues are its lack of originality & performance from Shia LaBeouf, however the film’s well acted, stylish, well directed & an intriguing entry into the series. (71%) (3.5/5 stars) (positive)
'Indiana Jones and the unmemorable title' lol!
"It's just remarkably unremarkable" is probably the best summation of this film that I've ever heard. I regularly see the first 3 Indiana Jones films being shown on tv and I always watch them. I have never gone back and watched the kingdom of the unforgettable title. It was an okay way to kill a couple of boring hours but that was it. A complete disappointment when compared to the original trilogy
Best thing in it was LaBeef's motorcycle.
Now go watch the Plinkett review!
I loved the movie because I unlike other people did not try to put the weight of the universe on it!! it's just meant to be fun and exciting ....and guess what?? IT WAS!!!
No dumbass. No. It wasnt. It was retarded. Just like you.
Do these two guys hate each other?
Until i saw the last ten minutes, I had no idea that George Lucas was involved in this series, and i wish it had stayed that way
It was a prairie dog.
looks like it makes your hair turn white too.
ive never thought the indiana jones films were anything to get excited about, they are popcorn movies, with no narrative structure no real caring characterisation and i have never seen why so many people hail them as classics
They kinda existed because James Bond existed. Spielberg liked Connery-era 007, but admittedly said he could do a better cinematic hero than Bond.
All the film needed was Jar Jar Binks and it would have been down there with Transformers 2
"Indi(AH)na Jones"
Huh ?
I think that this film will definetly devide people. Me I loved it and is a popcorn movie. Not as good as Raiders, but then it is a sequel and you knew that they wouldn't be able to catch lightening in a bottle. But I'm telling you go with the thought of enjoying a good thrills and spills ride and you'll love.
Oh and I completrely disagree with Kermode about Shia LaBeouf, he was the only thing about Transformers that kept me watching he is the one to watch I think
First three Raiders movies?
You usually read up a lot, Mark.
@dlugas83
Because he's right 99% of the time.
Here especially.
He was being far too kind to this utter waste of time and money. The only good thing about it were the college sequence which was shot in New Haven, Connecticut and I got the chance to walk around and see how all the store fronts were dressed up to look like the 50's. Sadly, you see very little of that in the actual movie and the whole sequence could have been shot on some Hollywood backlot. A few people I worked with appear as extras. It was nice seeing the city dressed up like that.
I watched the other 3 indy movies all in a week or so before seeing this- and in that context i enjoyed the movie and felt it really had the same kind of feel as the first 3. since watching it again on dvd though, it somehow seemed pretty lame. i still dont have a problem with the whole aliens thing though, and dont know why people do- as if the other 3 movies were grounded in reality!
Alright, now here's the thing...
This movie is so underrated in my opinion. Sure, I think it's the weakest of the series when compared to the original trilogy, but come on, it's not THAT bad. I for one find the film quite enjoyable.
Actually... it is THAT bad. You just have a terrible taste in movies and are easily manipulated.
George Lucas rejected a Frank Darabont script?!?! Jesus Christ... the world is upside down.
War of the Worlds better than Munich?!!?
I agree with everything you said except for that obviously wrong statement. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I dont' know one person that would agree with you.
You can survive multiple waterfalls in a tiny boat. Especially if youre a frail old man.
I agree 100%
Very true: The Godfather is *THE* example of the adaptation that is far better than the Original Work it came from (the novel is horrid, pulp garbage & I've no idea how Puzo got it published).
So... we're pretty much in agreement with each other. :-D
The Matrix wasn't a trilogy, there was only one film. Same as there are only two Godfather films.
Because it is.
And is War of Worlds better than Munich? Is it even better than Crystall Skull?