Darth Vile said:
I've always felt that an Indy movie is only as good as the actions sequences, and if they don't quite hit the mark (for whatever reason)... everything else will suffer as a consequence. I've always believed TOD to be the least intelligent, most obvious Indy "cash in" movie to date. However, most of the action sequences (even the more ridiculous/outlandish) have a certain originality and kinetic energy that made (still makes) the movie stand apart - something Spielberg could not emulate in KOTCS... and whilst I believe KOTCS to be a more intelligent and considered movie (and more enjoyable for me) than TOD, I'd concede that TOD is the better action movie.... and after all the over intellectualisation about dialogue, narrative structure etc. etc. it's the direction/editing of the action sequences that counts more than anything I think.
This reminds me of a couple points that had occurred to me in different contexts - well, one opinion and one question, really. First, it seems to me that one way in which the two theatrical installments of this series that are generally regarded as the "lesser" ones differ from one another is that
Temple of Doom pretty much succeeds at doing exactly what it sets out to do, but wasn't particularly narratively ambitious to start with, whereas
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull aspires to and doesn't quite hit a somewhat loftier set of aspirations. If so, do we credit Doom and decry Skull for squarely hitting and not quite hitting their respective marks, or do we credit Skull and decry Doom for setting out greater and lesser goals to begin with? Personally, I'm fine with enjoying both for what they are, but then I'm kind of easygoing and forgiving that way (and inclined to be more so in the case of this series, I freely admit, since I just want to enjoy as much Indy as I can).
The other is a question I was thinking of giving its own thread (and probably will later), but I'll go ahead and mention it here since I think it's relevant to this line of discussion: what do we (and more general audiences) want or need from an Indy movie? Might we enjoy or appreciate a totally different
sort of story - one that differed in style and tone not in the relatively limited way that the four extant movies differ from one another, but more along the lines of how very different some episodes of the TV show are from the movie series? What would people think of, say, a contemplative drama built around the character, as opposed to the pulp action-adventure we generally associate with him?