Does the finale hold up to the original 3? (thoughts & opinions)

Darth Vile said:

That's not what I'd call a "set piece", it's an aside (being generous - a hazard) ... just like the water rush in KOTCS. Besides, you've been quick to dismiss elements of KOTCS for "just being there"... And to think that the flooding water in TOD is anything more than an "abominably staged" excuse for a slight joke... well... Same ole', same ole.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was a centerpiece or showcase set piece, but that's not worth arguing over. Whatever you want to call it, it was still more involved than the two shots that comprised the running-through-the-gears part under discussion.

I don't know why you're taking the "abominably staged" thing so personally. I mean, just watch that part of the movie. I've seen people enter a dentist's office with more immediacy.

Darth Vile said:

Because as a plot point, there is no pay off... Why would Indy even say "C'mon Mac", when Mac has already triple crossed him. If you think about it, it doesn't make sense that A) Indy would try to save Mac. B) Mac would just give up and say "It'll be alright".

Click to expand...

I don't want to come off as if I disagree in general with what you're saying here because I don't, but I do want to say that I actually liked Indy attempting to save Mac. It's that merciful quality of his character that makes him so different from James Bond or another action hero. He's not just going to leave some guy to die.

But yes, the fact that Indy continuously trusts Mac despite the double crosses makes Indy look kind of like an idiot. I've seen people compare Mac to Elsa, but at least she was just some lady he met over the course of that particular adventure. Indy4 wants us to believe that Mac and Indy go way back, and other than a few lines to each other, that whole notion is completely wasted. What's the point of having a built-in backstory if instead of culling from it you're just going to turn him into the standard, one-dimensional greedbag archetype? It's as though the only reason Mac and Indy are given a history is so he can be written as a sidekick in expanded universe prequels, which I'm guessing flesh him out into much closer to the kind of character he probably should have been in the first place in Indy4.

Darth Vile said:

For example, think about how fast Indy solved the riddles/mysteries within the Library/catacombs and in the Grail temple... I'd go as far as saying that TLC is even more expedient in this process than KOTCS (though I do prefer TLC).

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I think what makes the library "riddle" different from anything in Indy4 is the fact that we actually have that visual of Indy finding the corresponding Roman numerals, allowing us to "play along" with him. It's not like I was 100% sure where the realizations were coming from, but the point is that we knew we were looking for a ten, and then Indy finds it. It's brief and I suppose at the end of the day not that big a deal, but it's just got sense of "discovery" that is completely absent in Indy4. When Indy makes his deductions in Oxley's cell or in Orellana's tomb, I just kind of went with it because the movie said so, not because I actually had any reason to believe it or particularly cared. The speaker in the tomb is David Koepp, not Indiana Jones.

I think there's just something inherently satisfying for an audience member about a character in a movie being presented with a problem, and then solving it, even if the "puzzle" is simple or manipulatively portrayed. We didn't have "puzzles" in Indy4 so much as long explanations about things that might have been delivered in ways a mite more inventive. However slight you think the little detective moment in the Venice library is, its existence still makes the entry into the catacombs better, because you get that sense that something was accomplish that "earned" the access. If you imagine the scene playing with Indy just walking into the library and going straight at the floor with the cordon post, you'd have a pretty good idea of how the obelisk scene played for me.

Udvarnoky said:

What I'm saying is that the moment when they reach the top of the temple, and come upon this puzzle that needs to be solved, it was a great opportunity for Indy to flex his intellectual muscles a little bit. It could have been a nice little detective bit, with the audience trying deduce the answer along with the heroes. You know, actually make a scene out of it. Maybe Indy and Ox could have figured it out together. Maybe Ox knows and needs Indy to interpret. Instead of presenting it as a problem and then having the characters come up with a solution, it turns out that no, Ox just already knew. Oh. Cue awesome physical effect that could have been a nice payoff in addition to eye candy if there was any decent writing going on.



You call it a payoff. I call it a setup without a payoff, just as the obelisk was a payoff without a setup. The scene just happens, making it yet another awesome, expensive set with no purpose. That's the kind of waste that the previous films would never have had the luxury of.



I agree, great physical set. The sets in this movie are some of the best in the entire series. Which is what makes it all the more depressing that they couldn't think of better things to do with them than what the movie offered.



To each his own. I found it cringe-inducing, myself. The ending of Last Crusade had a poignancy because it resolved the father/son relationship, which was a thread that was strongly present throughout the movie. The Indy/Mutt relationship in Indy4 didn't really resonate for me so much as it felt like the movie was saying, "Look, it's like Last Crusade, only different!" The ruins scene was just too cheesy and forced, and the re-use of the Grail theme reinforced the cheapness of it all. And being that I didn't like the scene on those grounds, the fact that 90% of the background was back projection didn't really do much to win me over.



Which is what makes the moment where he winks so bizarre. It's like the movie suddenly wanted to go somewhere with the character that it was far too late to do. It gave the impression of there being more to his character than your suggest (and what everything leading up to it suggested), yet it doesn't work as any sort of clear redemptive gesture as might have been the case if, say, Mac would have sacrificed himself to save all of the others, instead of getting killed simply because he was lagging behind. Combine that with the overall shoddy staging/editing of that particular sequence (what's stopping him from just standing up during that period of time where he's clearly not being dragged?) and it comes as no surprise why so many people found Mac's demise completely bewildering.

Click to expand...

I'm just saying that Ox getting into the obelisk is part of the plot, so it makes sense to me. It is what it is.

If the retracting stairs scene is a setup without payoff to you.....then I would suspect something like the boulder in 'Raiders' is a setup with no payoff? What's the difference?

That's an extremely shallow, pessimistc take on the personal side of the story in this film. If you watch the film, they create a story where the characters are kind of lost and they find solidity in each other. And there's a nice little element where Indy finds himself in his father's position, and has a son like he was. The circle of life I guess. Sorry you didn't appreciate it.

Instead of being so quick to call it bizarre, how about trying to put out a little thought. Personally I think Mac knows he's in a losing battle and decides to take the risk by letting go.

Udvarnoky said:

I didn't say it was a centerpiece or showcase set piece, but that's not worth arguing over. Whatever you want to call it, it was still more involved than the two shots that comprised the running-through-the-gears part under discussion.

I don't know why you're taking the "abominably staged" thing so personally. I mean, just watch that part of the movie. I've seen people enter a dentist's office with more immediacy.

Click to expand...

Not sure why you think I?m taking it personal, as I?m quite open to your opinion??? I think the use of flooding water in both movies is weak. My point is that whilst I agree there is no real sense of danger from the flooding water in KOTCS, it at least serves to get Indy, with as little fuss as possible, out of the Akator temple (with a slight nod to Journey to the Centre of the Earth to boot). Whereas, the water chase in TOD seems to be used simply to provide a cheap laugh. I can only say it how I see it/experience it, and for me there was/never has been no sense of danger or excitement in that particular TOD scene (just like its KOTCS counterpart). Personally, I would have had the mine cart tracks leading straight out of the cliff face? that would have been the peril, that would have been the reason for Indy to put on the brakes quickly rather than the ludicrous water scenario.

Udvarnoky said:

I don't want to come off as if I disagree in general with what you're saying here because I don't, but I do want to say that I actually liked Indy attempting to save Mac. It's that merciful quality of his character that makes him so different from James Bond or another action hero. He's not just going to leave some guy to die.

Click to expand...

Yes ? I agree? I like the fact that Indy attempts to save Mac. But as it stands, it always feels like a prior scene/dialogue has been cut, and I feel that I?ve missed something important.

Udvarnoky said:

When Indy makes his deductions in Oxley's cell or in Orellana's tomb, I just kind of went with it because the movie said so, not because I actually had any reason to believe it or particularly cared.

Click to expand...

But why is that? Is it because you are not engaged in the story for other reasons? I?ve never felt that the library/catacombs scenes in TLC were particularly well written, acted or directed. And I certainly don?t feel they are any better than the similar scenes in Oxley?s cell, cemetery or Orellana?s tomb. In fact, I?d argue that Indy?s deductions/puzzle solving in KOTCS, certainly in the first half; appear more linear, logical and deliberate (as he steps though them slowly rather than dashing from one to the other like TLC).

Udvarnoky said:

I think there's just something inherently satisfying for an audience member about a character in a movie being presented with a problem, and then solving it, even if the "puzzle" is simple or manipulatively portrayed. We didn't have "puzzles" in Indy4 so much as long explanations about things that might have been delivered in ways a mite more inventive. However slight you think the little detective moment in the Venice library is, its existence still makes the entry into the catacombs better, because you got that sense that something was accomplish that "earned" the access. If you imagine the scene playing with Indy just walking into the library and going straight at the floor with the cordon post, you'd have a pretty good idea of how the obelisk scene played for me.

Click to expand...

Yep - So I get your point and I agree (as I?ve always done) that the whole Akator section is the weakest part of the movie. However, I still find the earlier scenes (namely the hunt for Oxley and the skull) to be more engaging/interesting and mysterious than the aforementioned TLC scenes. I don?t think that?s because I?m not getting TLC in some way, or that I?m being generous to KOTCS? Simply put, I find the Peruvian section of KOTCS more intriguing, atmospheric and less rushed than TLC. Indy may find the skull by default (as he?s actually on the trail of Ox), but I thought his reward was equally ?earned?.

Cole said:

I'm just saying that Ox getting into the obelisk is part of the plot, so it makes sense to me.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what that has to do with the glaring missed opportunity to make the scene something more than it was. The story would not have in any way been affected.

Cole said:

If the retracting stairs scene is a setup without payoff to you.....then I would suspect something like the boulder in 'Raiders' is a setup with no payoff? What's the difference?

Click to expand...

The difference is that the boulder is a small part of a much larger scene. There is quite a bit of setup/payoff in the Raider prologue. The booby trap triggered by the light. The chasm that has to be crossed. The poisoned darts. Each of these things are paid off when Indy swipes the idol and all hell breaks loose. The boulder is just another part of the domino effect that was already triggered.

Where, by contrast, is the tension in the staircase scene? They land on some stairs, realize they're retracting, and race down, only to fall in some shallow water. The stakes aren't clear, the threat is vaguely established, and there's no suspense because it all happens so fast. The other Indy movies have had scenes like that, but they were extensions of larger set pieces that actually had some real momentum going. I agree, the set itself was breathtaking, but what's the point if nothing is going to be done with it?

Cole said:

That's an extremely shallow, pessimistc take on the personal side of the story in this film. If you watch the film, they create a story where the characters are kind of lost and they find solidity in each other. And there's a nice little element where Indy finds himself in his father's position, and has a son like he was. The circle of life I guess. Sorry you didn't appreciate it.

Click to expand...

My take on the story is as shallow and pessimistic as the movie showcases it. I know what the movie's themes are, and I understand what it's trying to say, but if all movies were judged by what they were in theory, there would be no bad movies. Indy being a disillusioned loner who finds solace in getting a family is a solid idea for an arc. I'm as sorry as you are that the movie presented it in such a ham-fisted way that I couldn't enjoy it.

Cole said:

Instead of being so quick to call it bizarre, how about trying to put out a little thought. Personally I think Mac knows he's in a losing battle and decides to take the risk by letting go.

Click to expand...

And hey, that explanation works. It doesn't really change anything about how badly the character was handled.

Cole said:

That's an extremely shallow, pessimistc take on the personal side of the story in this film. If you watch the film, they create a story where the characters are kind of lost and they find solidity in each other. And there's a nice little element where Indy finds himself in his father's position, and has a son like he was. The circle of life I guess. Sorry you didn't appreciate it.

Instead of being so quick to call it bizarre, how about trying to put out a little thought. Personally I think Mac knows he's in a losing battle and decides to take the risk by letting go.

Click to expand...

I may not always agree with him, but Udvarnoky puts just as much thought into his responses as I do...

Darth Vile said:

My point is that whilst I agree there is no real sense of danger from the flooding water in KOTCS, it at least serves to get Indy, with as little fuss as possible, out of the Akator temple (with a slight nod to Journey to the Centre of the Earth to boot).

Click to expand...

Oh, I need to be clear here. I'm not referring to the part where the water rushes toward the heroes and shoots them out the well. I actually like that part. I'm talking about the very brief segment right before where they rush up the stairs to avoid the water wheels. A very small moment, the handling of which nonetheless stands out immensely to me.

Darth Vile said:

Whereas, the water chase in TOD seems to be used simply to provide a cheap laugh. I can only say it how I see it/experience it, and for me there was/never has been no sense of danger or excitement in that particular TOD scene (just like its KOTCS counterpart). Personally, I would have had the mine cart tracks leading straight out of the cliff face… that would have been the peril, that would have been the reason for Indy to put on the brakes quickly rather than the ludicrous water scenario.

Click to expand...

It's a laugh, but it's also yet another danger they have to escape from. However "ludicrous" it was is pretty irrelevant to me. (Although admittedly the mine cart stuff that preceded it could totally happen in real life.)

Darth Vile said:

Yes – I agree… I like the fact that Indy attempts to save Mac. But as it stands, it always feels like a prior scene/dialogue has been cut, and I feel that I’ve missed something important.

Click to expand...

No, that's fair enough.

Darth Vile said:

But why is that? Is it because you are not engaged in the story for other reasons? I’ve never felt that the library/catacombs scenes in TLC were particularly well written, acted or directed. And I certainly don’t feel they are any better than the similar scenes in Oxley’s cell, cemetery or Orellana’s tomb. In fact, I’d argue that Indy’s deductions/puzzle solving in KOTCS, certainly in the first half; appear more linear, logical and deliberate (as he steps though them slowly rather than dashing from one to the other like TLC).

Click to expand...

It's more engaging simply because the movie is inviting us to take part in it. Putting aside any issues of plausibility/logic/convenience, the movie wants us in the loop. Indy could have spouted off a bunch of gibberish and the movie could have cut to the X on the floor with the implication that he figured it out based on the Grail Diary, but that would have been far less fun.

In Oxley's cell Indy finds the cemetery scrawl on the floor by, apparently, pure intuition. He recognizes it as a particular cemetery because he already knew about it. These things get the job done in moving the story along, but I think you can imagine scenarios where the screenplay could have handled this in a more compelling way.

Udvarnoky said:

I'm not sure what that has to do with the glaring missed opportunity to make the scene something more than it was. The story would not have in any way been affected.



The difference is that the boulder is a small part of a much larger scene. There is quite a bit of setup/payoff in the Raider prologue. The booby trap triggered by the light. The chasm that has to be crossed. The poisoned darts. Each of these things are paid off when Indy swipes the idol and all hell breaks loose. The boulder is just another part of the domino effect that was already triggered.

Where, by contrast, is the tension in the staircase scene? They land on some stairs, realize they're retracting, and race down, only to fall in some shallow water. The stakes aren't clear, the threat is vaguely established, and there's no suspense because it all happens so fast. The other Indy movies have had scenes like that, but they were extensions of larger set pieces that actually had some real momentum going. I agree, the set itself was breathtaking, but what's the point if nothing is going to be done with it?



My take on the story is as shallow and pessimistic as the movie showcases it. I know what the movie's themes are, and I understand what it's trying to say, but if all movies were judged by what they were in theory, there would be no bad movies. Indy being a disillusioned loner who finds solace in getting a family is a solid idea for an arc. I'm as sorry as you are that the movie presented it in such a ham-fisted way that I couldn't enjoy it.



And hey, that explanation works. It doesn't really change anything about how badly the character was handled.

Click to expand...

Ox figured out how to get into the temple in his cell. I don't see it being a problem in the story.

Running down the retracting stairs is a fun little scene. Indy outruns the boulder. Here they outrun the stairs. Nothing more nothing less.

Your opinions on the personal side of the story and on Mac is just that - your opinion.

Darth Vile said:

I may not always agree with him, but Udvarnoky puts just as much thought into his responses as I do...

Click to expand...

It seems more like the "haters" try to see the worst in everything.

Cole said:

Ox figured out how to get into the temple in his cell. I don't see it being a problem in the story.

Click to expand...

Neither do I...what were you talking about?

Cole said:

Running down the retracting stairs is a fun little scene. Indy outruns the boulder. Here they outrun the stairs. Nothing more nothing less.

Click to expand...

All things considered though, shouldn't it have been something more? As far as the boulder, I've already told you why I don't consider the two scenes analogous.

Cole said:

Your opinions on the personal side of the story and on Mac is just that - your opinion.

Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding me.

Cole said:

It seems more like the "haters" try to see the worst in everything.

Click to expand...

I'm a die-hard Indiana Jones fan. I could talk about and dissect the Indiana Jones movies all day (and often do). That's why we're all here. It's all on friendly terms. If I have problems with Indy4, I'm pretty sure it's my right to discuss them in a frank manner. These discussions tend to be the most interesting and fruitful anyway.

I'm not obligated to like any movie with the Indiana Jones name slapped on it out of some sense of loyalty. I call it like I see it. You liked it, while I found it extremely disappointing. That's what makes the world go round. I'm sorry you divide the populace into "haters" and people who agree with you.

Udvarnoky said:

All things considered though, shouldn't it have been something more? As far as the boulder, I've already told you why I don't consider the two scenes analogous.

Click to expand...

Perhaps they could have.....but what's the point in judging something that doesn't exist.

The scene is what it is. It's a fun little moment, take it or leave.

Udvarnoky said:

I'm not obligated to like any movie with the Indiana Jones name slapped on it out of some sense of loyalty. I call it like I see it. You liked it, while I found it extremely disappointing. That's what makes the world go round. I'm sorry you divide the populace into "haters" and people who agree with you.

Click to expand...

Cheers...

You really start to wonder who it is you're conversing with on these boards. There's a LOT of Chaff to get through to find the wheat.

Cole said:

Perhaps they could have.....but what's the point in judging something that doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure what I'm judging exists.

Cole said:

The scene is what it is. It's a fun little moment, take it or leave.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what it is you want other than for everybody to shut up unless they say something that you would second.

Rocket Surgeon said:

Cheers...

You really start to wonder who it is you're conversing with on these boards. There's a LOT of Chaff to get through to find the wheat.

Click to expand...

Cheers, fellas!

Udvarnoky said:

I'm pretty sure what I'm judging exists.

Click to expand...

You're going off on "they should've done this" and "they should've done that." I'd rather talk about what DOES exist. Judge it on its own merits.

Udvarnoky said:

I'm not sure what it is you want other than for everybody to shut up unless they say something that you would second.

Click to expand...

Sorry I disagree with you. No need to get touchy.

Cole said:

You're going off on "they should've done this" and "they should've done that." I'd rather talk about what DOES exist. Judge it on its own merits.

Click to expand...

And I am. But sometimes when articulating an opinion it's more useful to give examples than to sit there and say, "I didn't like this." Comparisons to the other films (which is what all my suggestions are based upon) is the very basis of this thread.

Alright, alright.......we're just going in circles now.

You asked me if I thought the scene should be something more. I guess to put it plainly......I don't judge movies like that.

Any movie is going to be disappointing compared to the one you've created in your own head.

And all in all, it's not huge scene. If it wasn't the most exciting to you, I don't think it's a make-or-break. That's why I said take it or leave it.

Man, I'm gone for a couple of hours and this thread just explodes with discussion.

Darth Vile said:

To be fair, Raiders is really the only Indy movie where it ever feels like there is a genuine mystery being uncovered. TOD and TLC pay it lip service, but simply employ it (like KOTCS) to link set piece to set piece... For example, think about how fast Indy solved the riddles/mysteries within the Library/catacombs and in the Grail temple... I'd go as far as saying that TLC is even more expedient in this process than KOTCS (though I do prefer TLC).

Click to expand...

Well, that's true. They do go quickly in the other two sequels. But at least we're figuring it out WITH Indy, rather than Oxley babbling something cryptic about how they're going to go off of 3 waterfalls and whatnot. Instead of carrying the clues throughout the movie (like with the headpiece in Raiders and Dad's diary in Last Crusade), briefly dwelling on them, and using them, they are tossed at us in KOTCS immediately before they are relevant. The fact that Oxley has already BEEN to Akator detracts even more from this discovery.

I actually think the general plot structure of 'Crystal Skull' is pretty similar to that of the first 3 films..........perhaps that is the biggest criticism that can be made of the film.

You have Indy in a race against another world super power for an artifact that can tip the balance of world power. The villain is destroyed by the artifact, a friend of Indy's betrays him out of greed and yada yada yada.

Whether Indy is guided by Henry Sr.'s journal or crazed Harold Oxley......I don't know. Not a huge difference to me.

That's why I think an Indy 5 has the potential to be even better. It doesn't have to deal with all the baggage of "Indy's back after 20 years" and I'm anxious to see what George Lucas's "crazy, but great" idea is.

Gabeed said:

Man, I'm gone for a couple of hours and this thread just explodes with discussion.

Well, that's true. They do go quickly in the other two sequels. But at least we're figuring it out WITH Indy, rather than Oxley babbling something cryptic about how they're going to go off of 3 waterfalls and whatnot. Instead of carrying the clues throughout the movie (like with the headpiece in Raiders and Dad's diary in Last Crusade), briefly dwelling on them, and using them, they are tossed at us in KOTCS immediately before they are relevant. The fact that Oxley has already BEEN to Akator detracts even more from this discovery.

Click to expand...

Well I'm not sure I'd agree with you there. If anything, KOTCS is too elaborate and over expositional with these scenes (as some already criticize it for). For example, it's not as if Indy goes straight from the Peruvian airport to the cemetery stating, "I just found this map in Ox's cell". We're there with Indy for a lot of the musing around what “Orellana’s Cradle” means. We're there examining the carvings/drawings on the cell wall “return”, we're there with him finding the entrance to Orellana's tomb etc. etc. I don't believe these elements of KOTCS are just "tossed" at us (certainly no more so than the other movies).

Besides, in TLC, remember that it's Indy who seems somewhat on the back foot, and it’s actually his dad who has done most of the hard work off screen (similar to the Ox), leaving all the clues conveniently within a pocket sized book. Also, it's Donovan who finds the Grail temple first and not Indy. Now these things are not necessarily a criticism of TLC, but just an example of how these things are very similar between movies. And for me, KOTCS carries on this tradition.

Darth Vile said:

Well I'm not sure I'd agree with you there. If anything, KOTCS is too elaborate and over expositional with these scenes (as some already criticize it for). For example, it's not as if Indy goes straight from the Peruvian airport to the cemetery stating, "I just found this map in Ox's cell". We're there with Indy for a lot of the musing around what “Orellana’s Cradle” means. We're there examining the carvings/drawings on the cell wall “return”, we're there with him finding the entrance to Orellana's tomb etc. etc. I don't believe these elements of KOTCS are just "tossed" at us (certainly no more so than the other movies).

Click to expand...

I actually like the scenes in Peru a lot. I see them as the last good scenes before the crapfest in the jungle with a Marion character that does sadly little, the monkeys, etc. And although finding Orellana's Tomb is a bright spot in this movie for me, the audience is only exposed to the idea of "Orellana's Cradle" at Indy's house, so it feels like mere minutes later that he solves that riddle with a quick "Oh, btw, there's a second definition for 'cradle.' lol." Nevertheless, it's not a scene I dislike, I was rather criticizing the riddles in the second half of the movie, starting in the Amazon.

Darth Vile said:

Besides, in TLC, remember that it's Indy who seems somewhat on the back foot, and it’s actually his dad who has done most of the hard work off screen (similar to the Ox), leaving all the clues conveniently within a pocket sized book. Also, it's Donovan who finds the Grail temple first and not Indy. Now these things are not necessarily a criticism of TLC, but just an example of how these things are very similar between movies. And for me, KOTCS carries on this tradition.

Click to expand...

But Henry Sr. didn't know what his clues entailed. There was musing on what exactly the clues meant all the way back on the road to Berlin, so I felt like we were really "with" Indy in this case. We hear of them again on the blimp. The diary's contents are wondered over for a good part of the movie, unlike most of the "riddles" in KOTCS, where obstacles are encountered and then immediately addressed, usually, again, by Oxley's crazy talk. I realize that Indy does solve the riddles rather quickly once in Petra, but at least we are familiar enough with them by the climax of the movie that we can actually muse, "Ah, so that's what that meant!" rather than being immediately introduced to them. Finding the rock outcropping that looks like a face is a good example of the latter, and provokes an eye-rolling.

As for Donovan, he clearly just got there mere minutes beforehand, and again like Henry Sr., he doesn't know how to proceed, unlike with Oxley's knowledge about how to work the obelisk, how there will be 3 waterfalls, use the skull on the natives, etc. I didn't find being dragged along by a crazy guy who already knew how to go there particularly adventurous.

You're right about the overall similarity between LC and KOTCS, though. Honestly, it's brought down LC in my mind in the past year or so. . .and I keep thinking that if LC had not had the amazing Sean Connery, I would think TOD a superior movie. I still love the movie, but I can't help but state that the riddles and adventure, although superior to KOTCS, feels lackluster and rushed.