I still think I am going to rent this movie, cause I it sounds like a typical sequel, which really doesn't get me juiced to goto the theater. Even people who have liked it from what I heard on the internet are doing what I call the PT excuses, "Well, what do you expect....it was never going to be like the originals.....you are expecting too much......"

To me a sequel should strive to be as great as the original, and that is all I ask for when goto the theater, as you look at a director like James Cameron, when the man does a sequel, he wants it to be better then the original. He did Aliens and T2, and we can debate which ones are better then the originals, but damnit, they are great sequels, and Cameron could have easily done a paint by numbers sequel of both films, and they would have been good enough for the time, and just be considered so-so 20 years later.

For me, the Indiana Jones sequels are entertaining, but forgettable years later, as they just don't come close to Raiders, so anyone who has seen this 4th Indy, is it on par with a T2 movie where it is a great sequel, or is it just a Lethal Weapon 4, where it is a sequel that is living off its name.

Thanks.