For a couple of years when I was a kid, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas could do no wrong. JAWS was the firs super blockbuster of the modern era and STAR WARS was the first super-duper blockbuster, and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND was just as good and almost as good. I saw STAR WARS in a theatre sixteen times before 1980 and CE3K six. Of course, just a short while later MORE AMERICAN GRAFFITI and 1941 proved that the Wonder Boys were as fallible as any other filmmaker, but before those turkeys Lucas and Spielberg collaborated on RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, which was every bit as epic and satisfying as STAR WARS and CE3K.

I still remember sitting in the office of the high school newspaper, arguing the merits of RAIDERS with a sour faced underclassman who went on to become a miserable human being, possibly because she resembled Margaret Hamilton in THE WIZARD OF OZ. "What's the point?" she demanded to know. "What's it all about?" Obviously, she was looking for the Meaning of Life in the ultimate Popcorn Movie. RAIDERS was about fun and adventure; it was about golden idols, punching out Nazis, and winning over Karen Allen's Marion Ravenwood, the type of gal who would never need to have the appeal of the movie spelled out to her. And snakes. It was about snakes! Mostly it was about recreating, enhancing, and amplifying up the matinee movie serials of yore. It was also about Harrison Ford (Tom Selleck would never have passed mustard) and Industrial Light and Magic (in the days before CGI destroyed cinema magic as many of us remember it). In short, it was a DAMN GOOD MOVIE.

I didn't bother seeing INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM in the theatre; the reviews were that bad. And, except for the opening sequence with River Phoenix as the real "Young Indiana," I thought INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE was stupid, trite and pandering. When I finally did see TEMPLE OF DOOM, I realized that a big part of its problem was Kate Capshaw; Spielberg's future Mrs. possessed none of Allen's spunk or charm. I wouldn't even address the YOUNG INDIANA JONES CHRONICLES, except that Lucas insisted in tying it to the movies. Remember when he re-titled the original film INDIANA JONES AND THE RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK so it would better fit the YOUNG INDIANA JONES videos? I don't care how rich he is, there really ought to be a law preventing this man from altering his own films.

If ever there was a film series that was "of the 80s" it's the Indiana Jones films: RAIDERS (1981), TEMPLE (1984) and CRUSADE (1989). LAST CRUSADE was "definitely the last one" according to its creators, which practically guaranteed there would be another entry. After the creative failures of Lucas's PHANTOME MENACE and ATTACK OF THE CLONES (I'm a fan of REVENGE OF THE SITH), and considering Ford's age (not to mention his numerous box office failures over the last 20 years), did anyone really need another Indiana Jones movie?

No. It's not like there were missing chunks of some greater mythology, as was the case with Lucas's STAR WARS prequels. I certainly wasn't buoyed when Frank Darabont's screenplay was scuttled. And I hated the casting of Shia LeBeouf ("Hey could he be Indiana Jones's son?" "Naaaaaaaah."). At least Sean Connery--who's willing to play a villain in a James Bond movie if they pay him a thick stack of cash--realized that enough was enough. But then some interesting tidbits leaked out: although Cate Blanchette would be playing a villainess, ala Alison Doody (Jeez, whatever happened to her?) in LAST CRUSADE, at least Karen Allen was returning to the series. And so was that warehouse where the U.S. government stored the Ark of the Covenant at the end of RAIDERS. But the trailer sure reveled in obvious CGI (Lucas wanted Spielberg to shoot the film digitally but Spielberg balked). So--is it any good?

That depends entirely on what expectations you take into the theatre with you. It's no better than the MENACE, CLONES, or even LAST CRUSADE, but it's no worse, either. It certainly makes TEMPLE look better in comparison. Harrison Ford's in good enough shape (even if Spielberg seems tired), and LeBeouf is much better than I expected (not annoying at all). It's nice to see Allen again, but where's John Rhys-Davies as Sallah? This tired film could definitely have used his energy. The action sequences aren't breathtaking, largely because they were so obviously achieved with CGI, and the introduction of certain science fiction elements feel woefully out of place in a film about an archaeologist hero. With the success of The Da Vinci Code , you'd think Lucas and Spielberg would have remembered the Biblical underpinnings of RAIDERS. More than anything, I miss the old school SFX of the original films.

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is aimed at the same retro audiences as ROCKY BALBOA and RAMBO, but it's not as fun as either of those Stallone flicks. When RAIDERS was released, James Bond producer Cubby Broccoli remarked, "That's the type of film we should be making." How interesting that two and a half decades later, CASINO ROYAL has made 007 fresh and now Indiana Jones is the anachronism. LOST CRYSTAL is neither bad nor good; it's just unnecessary.

P.S. I'll tell you one thing I experienced that I didn't back in 1981: exhaustion at the sheer amount of crap I was forced to sit through before the feature: 20 minutes of infomercial-style "behind the scenes" pieces, commercials and literally 10 previews. It will be a while before I subject myself to such "entertainment" again.