Jump to content

Indiana Jones

Powerage5

By Powerage5
in SEEN THAT MOVIE TOO

 Share

Best Indiana Jones film  

28 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Graeme LEGEND

Graeme

Posted
Posted

Loving seeing Temple of Doom getting the love it deserves. A lot of people try and give it flak as though it's some sort of inferior filler instalment between Raiders and Last Crusade and they're the "proper" Indiana Jones films. Truth is, it's better than them both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Powerage5 LEGEND

Powerage5

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Loving seeing Temple of Doom getting the love it deserves. A lot of people try and give it flak as though it's some sort of inferior filler instalment between Raiders and Last Crusade and they're the "proper" Indiana Jones films. Truth is, it's better than them both.

QFT!

I like them all to some extent. Crystal Skull had potential to be good, but it was poorly executed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zint LEGEND

Zint

Posted
Posted

"iiiiiiindyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy"

"iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy"

"you cheat Doctor Jones"

"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY"

**click click BOOM**

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Estranged Reality LEGEND

Estranged Reality

Posted
Posted

Temple of Doom was probably the worst of the original trilogy (imo). Everyone involved with it felt that way, with Spielberg later saying he regretted making it so dark (trivia note: ToD and Gremlins are the reason the MPAA created a PG-13 rating, after parents complained that the material was inappropriate for young children).

I do think Temple of Doom has its heart in the right place in terms of being a bit more of a pulpy adventure yarn. Raiders was an homage to the '30s/'40s serial adventures and I think Temple of Doom was a mix of that, and a mix of the shlockier B-movie stuff as well. All the stuff with the occult and the over-the-top action sequences were somewhat sillier compared to Raiders, but in retrospect it's not a bad movie - I think Raiders was just so well-received that people weren't really digging the change of style when Doom came out. Its vibe is just a little darker, goofier and shlockier and I know people at the time really didn't care much for Short Round or the love interest, especially compared to the chemistry Ford had with Karen Allen in the first one.

Last Crusade has always been my personal favourite. I like how it recaptures the simple adventure style of the first film, while becoming sort of a buddy-comedy. I think a lot of the storyline is more personal (I've always loved how it opens with a flashback to young Indy, and his transition from the guy putting the fedora on him and lifting his head up and suddenly he's Harrison Ford). I love Connery in it. Some people who don't like it seem to base it on the fact that the movie is too comedic and goofy, but I enjoyed that aspect of it. I thought despite its comedic tone, it was still a LOT less goofy than Temple of Doom, and Indy's sidekick wasn't anywhere near as bad as Short Round or Spielberg's wife.

Kingdom of Crystal Skulls was just poor filmmaking in my opinion. I remember when it came out, going to the midnight screening, and starting a thread for it on MyGNR lamenting how disappointing it was. :lol: Of course then it became a big meme with the South Park episode and Indy getting raped, and I think people go overboard with the hatred for it (it's really not a TERRIBLE movie), but I don't understand why it received such strong critical reviews. To me, everything from the script to the acting to the cinematography was poor. I know it was an homage to the sci-fi flicks of the 1950s with the giant bugs and all that, they made it pretty clear during pre-and-post production that was the case, but I felt like the sets all looked really unintentionally cheap and tacky. Not like they were trying to replicate cheesy B-movies, but like the lighting and background effects were just really poor, like Spielberg's heart wasn't really in it and that everyone involved in the film just wanted an easy paycheck. :shrugs: (Still kinda sad Connery turned down Skulls, but his reasoning for it was because he felt like his character was in the script for no reason and had no purpose - after seeing the movie I can totally see that! I bet his character would have been substituted for the John Hurt character.)

The whole film was just a disappointment to me, and I hope they do make another one in some ways just to make up for it, but I honestly think Ford lost his mojo a long time ago - he only signed on to Indy 4 after his career hit dire straits...apart from Indy he literally hasn't had a hit movie since Air Force One 15 years ago. :tongue2: There were articles about how studios were starting to refuse to pay him his huge blockbuster salary per film, so Indy was like an easy career lifesaver for him. But if they all go into Indy 5 with noble intentions and have a solid screenplay, then maybe it'll turn out better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Powerage5 LEGEND

Powerage5

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Crystal Skull is rape. I refuse to watch it.

Calls film rape...

Has never seen film.

Nor will i. I didn't watch the other two star wars movies after the first prequel either.

Which you say after saying in the Star Wars thread that its not worth seeing Phantom Menace and Attack Of The Clones just to be able to watch Revenge Of The Sith? :popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vincent Vega LEGEND

Vincent Vega

Posted
Posted

Temple of Doom was probably the worst of the original trilogy (imo). Everyone involved with it felt that way, with Spielberg later saying he regretted making it so dark (trivia note: ToD and Gremlins are the reason the MPAA created a PG-13 rating, after parents complained that the material was inappropriate for young children).

I do think Temple of Doom has its heart in the right place in terms of being a bit more of a pulpy adventure yarn. Raiders was an homage to the '30s/'40s serial adventures and I think Temple of Doom was a mix of that, and a mix of the shlockier B-movie stuff as well. All the stuff with the occult and the over-the-top action sequences were somewhat sillier compared to Raiders, but in retrospect it's not a bad movie - I think Raiders was just so well-received that people weren't really digging the change of style when Doom came out. Its vibe is just a little darker, goofier and shlockier and I know people at the time really didn't care much for Short Round or the love interest, especially compared to the chemistry Ford had with Karen Allen in the first one.

I disagree....I think ToD is the best. It's aged the best, too. Raiders--in terms of today's movies--has a rather slow pace. A little too much exposition for today's audiences. Temple of Doom I love because it's like a rollercoaster. And Indy doesn't choose this adventure--He's thrown into it against his will. It's a borderline horror film in some ways and I love how it segues from being goofy to being very dark. It works for me. And Indy's character in TOD is at his most merciless, mercenary. He's a true anti-hero in TOD....Not the good guy he becomes in Last Crusade or Crystal Skull. The pace and everything with TOD is great. Just doesn't let you up. And I think Willie was a nice change from Marion...She was a challenge for him, whereas Marion is a girl after his own heart. It's nice seeing Indy's interest being his total opposite.

Last Crusade has always been my personal favourite. I like how it recaptures the simple adventure style of the first film, while becoming sort of a buddy-comedy. I think a lot of the storyline is more personal (I've always loved how it opens with a flashback to young Indy, and his transition from the guy putting the fedora on him and lifting his head up and suddenly he's Harrison Ford). I love Connery in it. Some people who don't like it seem to base it on the fact that the movie is too comedic and goofy, but I enjoyed that aspect of it. I thought despite its comedic tone, it was still a LOT less goofy than Temple of Doom, and Indy's sidekick wasn't anywhere near as bad as Short Round or Spielberg's wife.

I do love the depth of Last Crusade. I especially love the intro with River Phoenix. I dislike the buddy comedy aspects not because I dislike buddy comedy but because it ruins characters like Sallah and Marcus Brody--it reduces them to total buffoons. And they feel like dead weight--They don't do all that much in Last Crusade. They're just there because Spielberg and Lucas thought Last Crusade would be the last, but there's not much for Brody or Sallah to do. Connery is the absolute best part of the film. The relationship between he and Indy and the depth of that storyline and how it ties into the Grail is what saves the film and raises it from being OK to a classic.

Kingdom of Crystal Skulls was just poor filmmaking in my opinion. I remember when it came out, going to the midnight screening, and starting a thread for it on MyGNR lamenting how disappointing it was. :lol: Of course then it became a big meme with the South Park episode and Indy getting raped, and I think people go overboard with the hatred for it (it's really not a TERRIBLE movie), but I don't understand why it received such strong critical reviews. To me, everything from the script to the acting to the cinematography was poor. I know it was an homage to the sci-fi flicks of the 1950s with the giant bugs and all that, they made it pretty clear during pre-and-post production that was the case, but I felt like the sets all looked really unintentionally cheap and tacky. Not like they were trying to replicate cheesy B-movies, but like the lighting and background effects were just really poor, like Spielberg's heart wasn't really in it and that everyone involved in the film just wanted an easy paycheck. :shrugs: (Still kinda sad Connery turned down Skulls, but his reasoning for it was because he felt like his character was in the script for no reason and had no purpose - after seeing the movie I can totally see that! I bet his character would have been substituted for the John Hurt character.)

The whole film was just a disappointment to me, and I hope they do make another one in some ways just to make up for it, but I honestly think Ford lost his mojo a long time ago - he only signed on to Indy 4 after his career hit dire straits...apart from Indy he literally hasn't had a hit movie since Air Force One 15 years ago. :tongue2: There were articles about how studios were starting to refuse to pay him his huge blockbuster salary per film, so Indy was like an easy career lifesaver for him. But if they all go into Indy 5 with noble intentions and have a solid screenplay, then maybe it'll turn out better.

I think Kingdom could've been a lot better but it was a compromise. Lucas wanted to do an Indy 4 as early as 1993 and Ford was willing to do it. Lucas' idea would've been MUCH more extreme and would've been a true 50s Sci Fi B movie--There's a script draft from '95 which is called Saucermen from Mars out on the net. Spielberg didn't want to and figured he'd just exec produce. It wasn't that they were looking for a payday, it's just they spent a decade haggling over the story. Spielberg and Ford were against aliens. Lucas pushed for them. Then they compromised, making it a mix of adventure meets 50s B Movie. I do think the film was rushed because of Harrison aging. But in the end I do think it was a good film. Not a bad film or even a subpar film. Just a good film--no more or less. An enjoyable movie that I'm happy was made. I don't understand the hate for it.

Ford had a good run. He was pretty much the biggest actor in the world for 20 years....That's not bad. I do hope a 5th Indy is made anyway, I love everything about that series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Angelica FRONTMAN

Angelica

Posted
Posted

Raiders and Last Crusade are both wonderful. I've never seen Doom get as much love as it is in this thread, and it's baffling me a little. :lol: It does have lovely moments and set pieces, but I just can't with the kid and Kate Capshaw's performance is one of the greatest atrocities ever committed to celluloid. Crystal Gophers is still a travesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...