Bah-di-dum-dum

Bah-di-dum

Bah-di-dum-dum

Bah-di-dum-dum-dum

Bah-di-dum-dum

Bah-di-dummmmmm

Bah-di-dum-dum-di-dum-dum-di-dum!

Thanks for the review, Jim. I've been kind of waiting for this film with the same sense of trepidation that you have. Glad to hear that the film lives up to it's name!

I mostly agree. Even if Harry IS too damn old for this (and that awful computer movie I have blocked the name of is the real evidence, not the failed Hollywood coop comedy) its a lot of fun nonetheless. What's really interesting about a lot of the prognostication is this idea of "Will the idea of doing a take on the old-time serial mellodramas still work now that we've seen it redone so many times?" which, when you consider that the ORIGINALS worked from the 1930's well through the 1950's of this episode, is kind of foolish, isn't it? Indeed, the last of the many Republic serials made usually featured villians who were part of the "Red Menace" (and even the aliens in them were given very ChiCom leanings--notably one in which the very young Leonard Nimoy played a very, very Maoist martian.)

As for Shia LeBoef's Marlon take, I think the rationale is simple: A kid of that time would be dressing LIKE Marlon's biker guy just as kids in the 70's dressed like...well, like Indy. As for all that talk in the film about the wages of aging, well, heck--it isn't just Ford who's gotten older---Steve and George and the rest of the crew have, too. And for that matter, those of us in the Boomer audience are either experiencing this phenomenon directly or dealing with aging and dying parents, so there's resonance with us even if the modern kids won't "get" that part until they re-view the DVD 20 years from now in a "classics" re-release...probably NOT on DVD by then.

As for plot point recycling, its a matter of money as much as creativity---remember, under WGA rules, all of those prior attempts at sequel scripting were bought and paid for and became property of the production company, so why NOT use the parts that work?

As for the latter-day Indy movies, you can certainly argue that many other franchises we talk about a lot here were at least bastard offspring of Dr. Jones's original derring-do, notably the "National Treasure" and "Pirates of the Carribbean" movies for both plots based in antiquity and special effects "traps" and the like.

Anyhow, between "Iron Man" and "Indy" as the opening adventure kickoffs, this is looking like a good old-fashioned summer...which will be welcome news not only to audiences seeking thrills and fun but certainly to studios smarting from the boxoffice pain delivered by all those "think-piece" political bombs they've been releasing of late. And there's one more thing--a political point of interest--that this movie's debut forces us to confront:

Once upon a time--from about the 1950's of this film's period right through only a few short years ago---the "bad guys" of all our movies other than flashbacks to Nazi or Imperial Japanese evils were....The Commies! Yes, they were the stand-by be-all bad boys and girls of every film right through the more modern such as "Hunt For Red October" and the like. And then...? The Wall fell, and other than a few "Russian Mafia" flicks and the inevitable leftover Chinese/Vietnamese stereotype folks, the film industry was left without a political adversary until 9/11 gave us the new bad-guys: Arab extremist terrorists who, by and large, were without-portfolio non-nationalist enemies which made putting official govt. types against them a bit dicier geopolitically speaking.

WELL....isn't it NICE, even if Ms. Blanchett looks more like a Volga River version of Betty Page, to have the evil, nasty COMMIES back again? Another thing to thank Indy and Steve and George for, I think. We can now have a whole new spate of "nostalgia" movies about the Cold War as big and bold as those umpteen WWII movies that didnt' really die out until the 70's until...yes, you guessed it--we heard Indy utter those immortal words "Nazis. I hate those guys!"

Jim, Raiders of the Lost Ark came out in 1981, not 1982 as you reference throughout your article.

"And I had caught a number of Steve Spielberg’s most recent movies... So – to my way of thinking, anyway -- it had been quite a while since these three have been on their “A” game."

Wow.  You can't please anyone anymore, can you?

"But then that sub crosses hundreds of miles of ocean without ever going below periscope depth. How realistic is that?"

Subs at that time (late 30s), especially in peacetime, would rarely dive except in drills. Without modern ventilation and navigation, subs always stayed on the surface during travel so its crew could get some fresh air and so they could actually see where they were going. In wartime, subs would usually remain surfaced until they saw an enemy ship, and then would dive, shoot the torpedo, get the hell out of dodge, and eventually surface miles away.  Surfaced subs were also great shows of a country's power to foreign populations, igniting fear and awe. Nazis loved to show their power to anyone that would look, so the fact the sub in "Raiders" doesn't dive is probably Spielberg commenting on their megalomania. Or I'm just reading way too much into it...

Anyway...it's great to see Spielberg go back his late-70s/early 80s roots. I've always favored his films from that era (i.e. from "Jaws" up to "Empire of the Sun"), and even though he has made masterpieces since then it's great to see the fun and magical Spielberg we all love.

The shooting of this movie really energized New Haven (Marshall College = Yale), and so I've been excited from July just to see this movie, if for nothing but to see buildings I see every day behind the immortal Indiana Jones.

And its great to see the Russians back as the bad guys!

Indeed, GERMAN subs especially stayed at "periscope depth" (the keel at approximately 50-60 feet but the top of the tower above water) most of the time because the thing alongside the periscope was the SNORKEL (a German invention and word specifically for subs) that allowed not only fresh air for the crew but more importantly gave the diesel engines venting and oxygen---non-nuclear subs run on diesel when surfaced and to recharge their very limited batteries for electric operations submerged. WWII German U-Boats of the type shown (and btw, the sub pens still there to tour in France were those used in the Indy movie--the same ones used in the German film "Das Boot") did indeed stay at that depth--minimally visible but still ready to dive if enemy surface warships were sighted--for most of their transit of the seas, so the Indy scene was not that far-fetched.

Forgot to add that the sub pens mentioned above are in La Rochelle, which is a charming place otherwise quite worthy of tourism, too.

NEWS FLASH....I guess I spoke too soon, but this is TOO hilarious, folks. This just in ....the COMMUNIST PARTY of RUSSIA (yes, in the free and democratic--or sorta--new Russia, they are still around) has officially called for a BAN AND BOYCOTT of the new Indy movie....whyfor? You can guess whyfor, comrade! Because it portrays "a slanderous image of the Soviet Union!"

Don'tcha just love it? Not only are they BACK as baddies, they're BACK to their good old bad old STUPIDITY too! ROTFL!