The Silver Screen Oasis

With the new Indiana Jones picture to be premiered at midnight tonight around the country I was wondering what the level of interest was, if any. I find myself relatively uncurious at the moment. Now that may change if I start to hear some good word of mouth (just like I am now very interested in seeing Iron Man, a film that I never gave a second thought to prior to its release).

I still find the original Indiana Jones to be a masterpiece of Saturday matinee madness. It takes all the best elements of the serials (which I dearly love) and glorifies them with a big budget and tip top cast. The sequels were okay, but not spectacular.

How does anyone feel about the new one? Do you have any interest in seeing it? Or is the idea of a 65 year old action hero a little far off the believability scale?

I am looking forward to it. I hated the 2nd one, loved #1 and #3 (hm'. wonder if it had anything to do with Sean Connery?..nah...)

I agree, Chris, I now would really like to see Iron Man, the hype is pretty good.

And John, I really liked the Mummy except for the beetles The 2nd Mummy was pretty good, but that kid needed to be taken out to the woodshed! What a BRAT.

It sounds like we all agree that number two was just that (number two in a child's venacular). I haven't read any reviews on the new one yet but would be curious as to how Speilberg handles the age of Indy. Is there going to be some cute cuddly kid wrapped in there somehow? Maybe E.T. can drop in for a visit.

I read Manohla Dargis' review in The New York Times this morning. I guess you could call it damning with faint praise. She didn't love it, but she didn't hate it. I think she thinks Spielberg is bored with the concept, and she pointed out that the CG effects, after all this time, are still not exactly seamless.

I guess I'll wait until it makes its way to cable TV. Anyway, I find that in my household you can't talk about any new movie these days unless you call it "X Files." (It's not me; it's my daughter. And since they've killed off Frohicke, I just don't much care any more.)

I guess I'm immune to Indiana Jones' charms. I didn't like "Raiders of the Lost Ark," never saw "Temple of Doom" and went to see "Lost Crusade," which never really did much for me.

I've been referring to the new movie as "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Medicare."

I said a few weeks ago, I love Harrison Ford, but as a returned Indy Jones, I cannot believe it. Even though I realize stunt men do most of the tumbles and fights, etc., it's still fun to imagine the leading man is actually doing it, but in this case, it would be ludicrous to even conceive of the thought. Harry should realize he's 65 and no matter what his younger than young little girlfriend tries to tell him, he is not immortal. He must have a medicine cabinet loaded with Viagra and Extenz. He would still be believable as Jack Ryan, so why didn't he stick with that?

Anne

Took my son to see the new Indy yesterday. It was good. Not great, but very much in keeping with the overall tone of the series. There were the usual over-the-top fight scenes (Shia LeBoeuf's character takes over this role to a certain degree) snappy dialogue and mystic archaeology. Indy and others make some old man jokes and there's a plot twist, which if you think about George Lucas' mindset, is pretty obvious. Indy survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a refridgerator in the first 15 minutes, but you have to suspend your disbelief to enjoy these movies anyway. (I figure the Mythbuster guys will be dropping a dummy in a fridge from a plane or something before long...) Cate Blanchett was a great Soviet agent as the villain, though her accent slips occaisionally. I enjoyed it.

Somone said they couldn't see a 60-odd year old being an action hero but it's possible. My father can still take my 17 year-old son down in a wrestling match and my father-in-law goes kayaking and biking and bungee-jumping and so forth and is probably in better shape than I am. Both these amazing men are nearly 70.