Indiana Jones... still misunderstood

Rating: 10/10 (20 February 2005)

All these complaints about plot holes only serves to show how people don't understand what the movie IS. Indiana Jones was based on the serial action pics of the 40s and 50s. In that regard it is PERFECT because it isn't too overworked in the details. Those movies were pumped out at a terrifyingly fast rate and as such generally had a minimum of effort expended (if only due to time constraints).
The German Language uses the same alphanumerics as English with the exception that some of the characters have special accents and emphasis. So Mr. Hitler's signature was authentic, enough. Again whether Hitler was left or right handed takes away the question of what this movie was. Hitler approaching Indy was just supposed to be another incredible moment of impending doom. The guy could have just as easily been Dolf Lungren (and I am not even sure he knows how to write) if the impact had been generated (which it wouldn't have been).
For my vote, there is NO way that the second one even comes close to the first of the last. Kate Capshaw is such a limp weed that she isn't even convincing when she's supposed to be mad. I would think that angry would be one of the easier moods to demonstrate while acting.
I'm not too impressed with the "love interest" in the last movie either, but she's easier to ignore with Sean Connery on the screen. Also, let's not forget that it is the third movie that offers the flashback at the beginning, of a young Indiana Jones (River Phoenix). That alone would forgive a lot of other problems in my opinion!