You call him Dr. Jones! My Indy movie marathon memories

Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones

This past weekend -- because my fiancee was feeling under the weather and I thought my city might be getting hit with a hurricane, I did something I've been meaning to do for a long time -- I watched all four Indiana Jones movies in a row.

This is one of the most successful and beloved franchises in movie history, which despite its flaws (some uncomfortable portrayals of foreign cultures, for instance) is the gold standard in terms of smart and engaging escapist action.

Back in 1981, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg did a brilliant job updating the adventure serials they adored in their youth, and created one of the most iconic characters ever.

Indiana Jones also helped Harrison Ford escape the shadow and stigma of Star Wars, showing he had more range and star appeal than the industry initially thought he did.

Here are my thoughts on the four Indy films after having watched them again with fresh eyes.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981): The original Indiana Jones movie is pretty much a perfect film. It was nominated for Best Picture and it's easy to see why. It's popcorn cinema at its finest. A fast-paced film that is lively, accessible and charming. I think a case could be made for it as the best action movie ever (although Die Hard fans would beg to differ). The mixture of live stunts and the mystical elements of the arc of the covenant are irresistible. Like most people -- probably -- this is my favorite
Indiana Jones movie.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984): A much more relentless film than the original, which is not always a good thing. A darker, more gruesome entry that still has some incredible set pieces along the way. Its opening may be my favorite of the series and the moment where Indy cuts the drawbridge may its most badass. Still, it's story is lacking in comparison to the first and third entry, which makes it the weakest of the first three films -- but it's still a classic.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989): In many ways this film is a return to the spirit of Raiders; the Nazis are the bad guys, the artifact he's chasing has biblical significance (this time the Holy Grail) and the emphasis is more on the Jones character than the pyrotechnics. The addition of Sean Connery as Jones' father was an inspired choice and although some of the FX hasn't held up quite so well, the finale provides the perfect capper to one of the best trilogies in movie history.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): And then there was this one. Now, here's the thing, I have always defended this movie. I liked it a lot when I first saw it in theaters and I have never considered it a total disaster on par with the Star Wars prequels.

In other words, I think it is a legit Indiana Jones film, just the worst one. I am not angry they made it nor do I think it was destined to be terrible. In fact, if you revisit it now I'd say it's hard to argue that the first 30 minutes or so aren't just good but great. Surehe CGI moles are little much but I liked the nuking of the fridge.

It's when the movie really kicks into its plot that it badly loses its way. If there was ever a movie where the title spells out what's wrong with it, it's this one. It's too long and suffers from too many cooks. I loved the idea of transplanting the Indy character to the 1950s, the movie has a great look to it and I think the Communists could have provided Jones with a formidable foe. But the movie can't decide what it's about, so it throws in a bunch of stuff -- red scare, FBI agents, Marian and Mutt, aliens, backstabbing former allies -- and a babbling old kook played by John Hurt.

I actually had no problem with Crystal Skull being ultimately an alien movie but the aliens looked horrible and were sort of pointless. I had no problem with Shia LaBeouf playing Indy's estranged son but he's so perfunctory to the plot that I never really cared about him or their relationship. I thought Cate Blanchett could have played a good villain but her performance is pitched almost as parody, so I never really found her to be a legitimate threat as I did with the bad guys in previous films.

And then there's Marian Ravenwood, played by fan favorite Karen Allen. I thought it was cool that they brought her back, she was always the toughest and most fleshed out female lead in the series. But then they made her this conventional, sort of frumpy mom whose only function is to nag Jones and ultimately marry him. Couldn't they have given her a more fascinating back story or reveal.

I liked this fight scene.

Basically, there were a lot of missed opportunities. At 65, Ford not only looked great but was still plausible as Indiana Jones. He gives the character a gravitas and world weariness here that is terrific. It would have been interesting to see a film where Indy grapples with the inevitability of having to hang up his signature hat due to the arrival of his son and perhaps an adventure that could prove the most costly of his career.

Instead the stakes in this movie feel too low -- literally one character is killed on camera by Indy -- and the giant set pieces (like the awful, extended truck race through a forest) mostly fall flat. But again, I enjoyed some parts of this film and I think had director Steven Spielberg had complete creative control over the project (as opposed to collaborating with the tone deaf George Lucas) this could have been a better movie.

Now, there's talk of rebooting this franchise again because, you know, nothing is sacred in Hollywood. I am pretty vehemently opposed to this idea. For one thing, I just don't want to see anyone else as Indiana Jones but Harrison Ford. I'm biased because he's one of my favorite actors, but I also just think there's no one else out there who can bring more to the role than he did. I am not interested in seeing a brooding, millennial version of the iconic archaeologist but clearly money rules everything around me so you can't stop the inevitable.

So in the meantime, I will cherish the original three and tolerate the fourth. They were sometimes criticized upon initial release as being sort of soulless theme park rides but I think they are better than the sum of their set pieces.

Yes, they are examples of visual filmmaking of the highest order (especially the first film, which director Steven Soderbergh once recut as a silent black and white film, only highlighting its effectiveness), but they are also tributes to inquisitive minds with a sense of daring adventure. In this age of cynicism where characters are always one step ahead and speaking in pithy one liners, I admire the earnestness of these films and their sense of wonder.