UPDATED: 'Indy 4' for 140
That's a lot of fours!!!
 |
UPDATE: I realized I forgot to credit Hollywood Elsewhere for the running time information and on top of that I have added a video I also found at HE featuring John Williams confirming the run time saying the film is seven reels long and each reel is 20 minutes. The video is at the end of the original article.
I am not especially worried or bothered by the news that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull will run for two hours and 20 minutes. As a matter of fact, if it is anything like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade I expect to love all 140 minutes of it.
I am curious, I think we can all say Temple of Doom is the worst of the trilogy, but are most in my corner and think Last Crusade is the best or does Raiders of the Lost Ark rank as #1 for you?
I'd be interested to hear.
Showing 13 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New CommentNOTE: The Facebook login option has been disabled. We apologize for any inconvenience. |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Last Crusade is great, for sure, but Raiders will always be number one for me.
How is it even a question? Raiders, by a mile, is easily the best of the trilogy.
That said, while I agree that Temple of Doom is overall the lesser of the three, I'd argue it has some of the best individual set pieces and moments. The mine cart chase, the sequence on the rope bridge, both are priceless. Absolutely priceless.
I don't know, for some reason I can never get enough of Last Crusade. I love Raiders just as much as everyone, but when it comes to rewatching them Last Crusade is always the first one I grab. Strangely enough, I never seem to grab Temple of Doom, but I agree, there is some good stuff in there. Perhaps I should give it another look just for the hell of it.
I think the reason that the Indy movies are so much fun to watch, even Temple of Doom sometimes, is because the action sequences have never seemed gratuitous. Lots of action/adventure movies put the main characters into an endless array of fight sequences, bizarre stunts, and endless chases with the hero(s) gleefully jumping in like there is nothing unusual about sprinting a mile while exchanging ridiculously accurate gunfire with ninja assassins.
Sure, Indiana Jones tries to put Indy into those situations, but he isn't too thrilled. Indy gets tired of running and gives up. He groans and rolls his eyes at jumping across a chasm. Another huge muscular goon to fight? [Sarcasm]Great[/Sarcasm]. This mine cart goes where? They barely escaped with their lives, and he's worried about his hat?
Some movies manage to pull off the unlikely action sequences while still being serious about the whole thing. The Indy movies don't try to take themselves too seriously. They are just plain fun. Which, in the end, is the whole point, right?
You got it kettch!
You got it exactly right.
Old fashioned good adventures that don't need to go over the top.
just enough to keep it light but exciting and so, so much fun.
I'm not sure why some hate on Last Crusade. I do indeed love it. But Raiders edges it out by a tad. The one thing with Temple of Doom is that it has really improved with multiple viewings. It may be the least of the trilogy but it's still a damn fun film and not the black sheep of the trilogy–eh, quadrilogy–as some have called it.
Yeah, kettch hit that explanation right on the head.
Not sure if you guys noticed, but CHUD is reporting The Dark Knight may end up being almost 3 hours long. They seem to think the running time on these two movies is a bad thing, I however think it's great… of course, the movie has to also be good.
I agree. I'd rather have a movie be overlong or indulgent rather than half-baked. But as Ebert says no good movie can be too long and no bad one can be too short. A 3 hour batman movie makes me quite excited that they'll do the story and characters justice. Personally, i think spider-man 3 would have been much better if went the longer route. we would have ended up with full villains instead of the half-baked ones we were served.
Oh man… If Spider-Man 3 had been any longer I would have killed myself. I understand what you are saying and how it would have helped develop the villains, but there were so many problems with that film outside of the villains it would have been absolute torture.
Well what about the third Lord of the Rings with its 32 endings?
It was a good movie except for that, and as a side effect added length.
I've never understood the complaint about the last 20 minutes of ROTK. It's wrapping up an 11 hour story (if you go by the extended editions) so of course the denouement is going to be longer than your average film. To me, the film has one ending, and the rest is just giving closure to the gigantic cast of characters. If the last 20 minutes of ROTK had happened in any other way (ending at the coronation for instance) I would have felt cheated.
Anyways, I'm not expecting very long denouements for either Indy 4 or Dark Knight. Just kickass movies.
True, they won't have that problem.
But come on, happily ever after used to be enough.
We didn't need to know if Chewie went home after evil had been defeated. How the twins restarted the jedi club. We were just happy that evil was slain, party time. The rest would be ok.
Getting back to the length thing tho it's a tricky process called editing.
With some movies you get bits that'll have you stab yourself out of boredom, others have to be cut back to 90mins leaving you with a lot of questions and a crap movie. Think Deep Blue See where all the scenes containing good acting and storyline ended up in the deleted scenes section.
Just an FYI, CHUD is now reporting Indy 4 is probably only going to be 2 hours.