Indiana Jones 4

At least Steven Seagal doesn't do cgi. He just uses real stunt doubles lol

steven seagal does the special effects HIMSELF through final cut on his mac

I am 100% with Despair, good write-up.

Wow. Now, I'm glad that I waited. I had a feeling that this one wouldn't own up to the other three. All I have to look forward to now is Dark Knight, Wall-E and Tropic Thunder.

I still think the movie fits about as well as the other ones do. Raiders introduced the character as a fun but rough adventurer, Temple made him darker while simultaniously adding in a whole shit-ton of stupid attempts at humor (the elephant, the entire dinner bit, Short Round taking a dump on every scene he was in, Willie being loud), and Last Crusade smoothed out all of Indy's rough edges (the Indy of Raiders and Temple would have never yelled "it belongs in a museum"), made Marcus and Sallah stupid as shit compared to their Raiders counterparts, and managed to essentially be a re-hash of the first movie with Spielberg's daddy issues replacing amazing action sequences (what's there is fine, but nothing matches up to the high points of Raiders or Temple).

At least this movie has the excuse of everyone having aged 20 years, but the idea that Indy was somehow a uniform franchise before this one is bullshit. Each entry had pretty large tonal shifts from the others, and although some sequences in this one did suck big time (monkeys, gophers, waterfalls) the people saying that it ruined Indy's character or whatever just confuse me. Which Indy? The rogueish adventurer from Raiders? The graverobber from the beginning of Temple (where he'd threaten a woman's life just to get paid for an artifact that, ahem, "belongs in a museum")? The boy scout with a whip and family issues from Crusade?

This movie was terrible. There was neat stuff to look at sometimes though, so at least I wasn't bored along with being insulted/disappointed.

Movie's biggest problem was that it was pointless. It added nothing positive to the Indiana trilogy, and plenty of negatives. Even listening to Ford and Lucas in interviews, they all seem to agree the original trilogy was wrapped up well and there wasn't any plans or need to make this fourth one.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't even consider the aged Jones all that compelling. Stallone managed to bring a new type of vitality to a character like Rambo in his later years, but I don't think Ford had his heart in this one.

I just got back from seeing it, I liked it. I really don't see how this rapped any one's childhood unless you're a 30 year old man baby who was clinging desperately to nostalgia.

This thing was just awful. National Treasure 2.0 blows it away.

To anyone that assumes people dislike the movie because it conflicts with their memories of the trilogy, please consider that the movie may just be bad on its own.

I suppose if the earlier movies were worse, then you could say that it's the "best Indiana Jones movie yet", but you'd feel ironic saying it.

Like I said in my posts, I had no nostalgia notions about whole Indy trilogy, comparing them to part 4. This film has alot of flaws on its own that really ruin the film.