Spielberg/ Lucas films

The critics are downplaying Indy, whilst not being a Ben Sherman ?it stinks.? Read for yourself:

http://blogs.wsj.com/buzzwatch/2008/05/19/buzz-links-heres-what-indiana-jones-reviews-are-saying/

This is kind of BS and I think they are forgetting the point of Spielberg/ Lucas films. You go to Indy, Star Wars, E.T., Close Encounters, Jurassic Park, and, Phantom Menace films to be sucked into a different world, in short they made movies fun. For those who remember the late 70?s early 80?s I am sure they will agree that Spielberg/ Lucas films were a relief from thick, boomer orientated films like: Kramer vs. Kramer, On Golden Pond, Terms of Endearment, An Officer and a Gentlemen, The Big Chill, and, Field of Dreams for a short list. I remember that filmmakers were trying to make moves new novels with all the thrills of an F Scott Fitzgerald story. Although I am not knocking fine literature, my point is that Spielberg and Lucas made movies fun again. They had a good story, adventure, and, fantasy. They created a template on which movies today are based. They are also responsible for making the film industry profitable in a time when it was competing with television and cable. I feel that this criticism is unfair: you are supposed to go see Indy and enjoy yourself. I can say that I did.

I think when it comes to Indy movies, it is about all the fun you had. I can see here and talk about all the flaws in Temple of Doom or Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but at the theater, I was laughing at crazy scenes(I did facepalm at the Tarzan scene), and it was smiling like a 9-year old hyped up on Fruit loops during the action set-pieces. The kids sitting in a few rows below me going crazy reminded me when I was a kid watching the originals. I could list a hundred things I hate about Temple of Doom, but in the end its a good movie. Not great, but I enjoyed it a lot.