Just thinking more about it, there were things I didn't enjoy - maybe he was a little too die hard 4 invincible, maybe the villain did less and less as the movie progressed (Actually, that's not really a complaint - more exploration and sharing cool stuff instead of conflict for its own sake wins with me), maybe the map just wasn't as cool as the grail diary, but it still doesn't matter, as explained above. (Or in blogland, below?) But unless you agree with me that No Country for Old Men was an adventure, I don't remember the last good adventure movie to hit before this one. Certainly none of that awful national treasure / tomb raidery stuff.
Good things: Mutt was not nearly as awful as I thought he might be. The chase sequence was incredibly elaborate. There were subtle references (you know the ark is gonna show up) but it's not full of self-quotes and in-jokes.
Also, and the more I consider this, I think it's really neat - previous flicks are a 30s adventure with 80s tech. This movie, clearly chock full of modern whatchamacallits, doesn't dip back to the 30s, it's goes back 50 years, like the previous set. I think that's going to put a lot of people off, who were expecting the former. A number of the ideas, big and small, are concerns of 50s B-Movies.
So is it shaping up to be a lousy year for movies (I've seen 6 releases of 2008) or a great one (I really enjoyed 3 of 'em)?
And finally - eyes open! There's a Vertigo poster in there somewhere, though I didn't spot it.