I et nyligt interview som Canal+ havde med Steven Spielberg afslørede han, at efter han har skudt “War of the Worlds” går han i gang med at filme “Indiana Jones IV”. Optagelserne skulle dermed gå i gang i starten af næste år. Spielberg nævnte også, at efter Indy vil han lave en politisk film, hvilket højest sandsynligt bliver “Vengeance”, der omhandler kidnapningen af israelske atleter under de olympiske lege i 1972.

Denne nyhed skal måske ses som en indikation af, at der endelig foreligger et manuskript, som alle involverede parter kan enes om.

“Indiana Jones IV” forventes i biograferne i sommeren 2006.



Vis kommentarer (25)
Gravatar

#21 Captain Vallo 20 år siden

I hate those guys...
If there was a god
then why is my arse
the perfect height for kicking?
Gravatar

#22 filmz-andy dufresne 19 år siden

bli'r sgu skægt at se Ford løbe rundt som helt i den alder han er i nu...
You've got two empty halves of coconut, and you're banging them together
Gravatar

#23 region 2 killer 19 år siden

Den er i linket men den er bare for fed.


But, all that said: Despite its clearly being Spielberg's favorite and most personal film in the series — unresolved Daddy issues and all — Last Crusade commits two filmic sins I won't readily forgive:


It resorts to mockery. It's one thing when a sequel tweaks its characters a little — but Last Crusade revels in making fools of its protagonists, to the degree that it takes me out of the movie and undermines any sense of danger the film may hold. While I generally enjoy the Oedipal dynamic between Papa and Junior Jones, there's just one too many moments for my taste where Henry makes Indiana look like a total jackass. And don't even get me started about what they did to Marcus Brody: In Raiders, Brody is an obvious mentor to Indy and no minor badass himself; as he says, he's only five years too old to have undertaken the quest for the Ark himself. But in Last Crusade, Brody's a doddering buffoon, a drunk with Alzheimer's, a man who gets lost in his own museum. Watch how his comedy "bits" with Sean Connery almost derail any tension to be had in the desert battle with the tank. It's almost unforgivable. And Sallah, so resourceful and charming and filled with music in the first film, is kind of a doofus here, stealing camels for his relatives and otherwise serving as wacky-Arab comic relief.

The movie contains very few actual thrills. In Raiders, Indiana Jones took on sadists, Nazis and a fierce competitor (not to mention a pissed-off ex-girlfriend). In Temple of Doom, he fell into a subterranean hell and took on the very minions of Kali. In Last Crusade, he takes on a bumbling group of idiots — and, as a result, very little of the film's action leads me to believe that Indiana Jones is in any real danger. Seriously. Who are our bad guys here? Guys in fezzes? A Nazi commander out of a Mel Brooks movie? And, dear Lord, I very nearly forget that Julian Glover is even in the damned thing, and he plays the bad guy who gets the supernatural-disintegration treatment! And Glover was my old flame's acting teacher! Am I really supposed to consider this British-channeling-American slice of Wonder Bread a threat? Get back in your AT-AT, General Veers!
Jaws 3 makes Jaws 2 look like Jaws and if Jaws: The Revenge hadn't surfaced to make Jaws 3 look like Jaws 2, Jaws 3 would have been known as the bigge
Gravatar

#24 filmz-Orion 19 år siden

Jeg vil altid holde på 1'eren er den bedste, 2'eren den svageste, og så en fin afslutning med Crusade, der bringer ånden tilbage fra Raiders. Jeg kan godt se den er mere "pjattet" end de to foregående, men jeg har nu aldrig ment, man skal tage Indy-filmene for seriøst; for mig er det ren og skær underholdning - tilmed en af de bedste af slagsen.
"...and those black eyes roll over white..."
Gravatar

#25 filmz-oliverstone 19 år siden

Ja, nemlig ja. Jeg er enig med Orion

Skriv ny kommentar: