This was the first time I have ever watched the Indiana films. Here's my order...
1. Raiders Of The Lost Ark 8.5/10 possibly a 9/10.
2. Temple Of Doom - 8/10
3. The Last Crusade - 7/10
4. Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull - 6.5/10
I'm probably the only person that rates Skull over Crusade.
I'm sorry, but the love for Crusade leaves me baffled. It's a largely safe, almost Disney like adventure film. It doesn't contain the narrative drive or excitement of the first two or even Skull. It is truly a remake, just watered down and with a different Christian mythological MacGuffin. The film doesn't come alive until the tank chase, which is admittedly a showstopper. The chemistry between Ford and Connery keep the first two acts from being totally bland. In a series with mosrtly weak villains, Donovan is the weakest and barely makes a dent and I don't even remember the typical Nazi henchmans name he's so forgettable. And the love interest/femme fatale has no personality. At least Willie had a personality and sexual chemistry with Ford. Hate on her character all you want, she gives a good comedic performance. Half the stuff people complain about in Skull can be found in Crusade, yet it's lauded as the the best of the series by many fans and even some critics.
It plays it so safe I can almost see Spielberg holding himself back, trying not to deviate from the Raiders formula and whitewashing the action.
Now I know what you are saying about "Crusade," but it baffles me that you rank "Skull" over it because that film puts into overdrive everything that you say faults "Crusade." That film literally feels like a Disney film, there is no sense of danger at all for Indy and company unlike "Crusade" where we are forced to think Indy died falling off a cliff and Indy's Dad being shot. The most perilous thing in "Skull" is Mutt chilling with the monkeys. All the other dangers are played for laughs, such as the nuking of the fridge, the ride through the university, the quick sand, getting the skull back from Irina. Even more, "Skull" is more of an inferior remake of "Crusade."
After 5 Years of Chuck, I have learned that at the end the nerd will ALWAYS get the girl. Chuck me.
Skull is still more energetic and playful, making it more entertaining
shareWell, I will agree it is the most energetic and playful of the entire Indy films, but for me it's too much to be completely enjoyable and entertaining as an Indy film. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
After 5 Years of Chuck, I have learned that at the end the nerd will ALWAYS get the girl. Chuck me.
Transformers is more energetic than The Last Crusade. I guess that makes it better ?
___________
- Booker, are you afraid of God ?
- No. But I'm afraid of you.
My biggest problem with Skull was that 65 year old Indiana Jones was fitter and more agile than 35 year old Indiana Jones. 65 year old Indy free-running across sleepers in the ceiling, surviving a nuclear blast and then the impact from that massive fall? He never did anything like that in the original trilogy.
The original trilogy took reality and merely "stretched" it a little. By reality, I mean mortality and human physicality. Skull was like watching an episode of The Road Runner.
I was extremely peessed off with Shia LaBeouf being cast as the son of Indiana Jones. He is nowhere near "manly" enough. But him swinging through the jungle like Tarzan and fencing with Cate Blanchett on moving cars was just a massive insult to fans of the franchise.
I can't understand why they did that to us.
The original trilogy took reality and merely "stretched" it a little
All superb films, however.
RIP Roger Rees. Movies in theater: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 10/10. Vacation 8/10
[deleted]
[deleted]
T-eschberger,
First, I know two people who rank Skull over Crusade - and that's just me! - so you're not the only one :)
I prefer Crusade because a) I think the father-son relationship is terrific, and it has a complete arc; and b) there are more action setpieces in Crusade, and on the whole they are better (although I'll take the Area 51 chase over the young Indy train chase any day).
Love them both, though!
Yep! I've re-watched Temple of Doom a bunch of times. The movie just has a confidence, flow, and self-effacing sense of fun that makes it stand the test of time. And the action sequences are superbly done. Not to mention, I love the dark tone and theme of that movie. Doom is probably in my Top 5 favorite Spielberg movies he's ever done. Whenever I watch Crusade, which is as little as possible, I literally believe Spielberg and Company decided to just make a copy of Raiders to cash in!
share"Better little personality than an obnoxious, cringe worthy, annoying, omnipresent and just all around movie ruining one"
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you right there. To me, the "love interest" wasn't in this movie, instead functionally replaced by Sean Connery, who was the best supporting character in the series. The only real complaint you have is that it's "playing it safe", which I happily welcomed after all the retarded changes brought in Temple of Doom.
You're not the only one. I do too, and i agree with everything you said.
shareTotal agreement. Not even close to the best. My order is:
Temple
Raiders
Skull
Crusade
I know I'll get blasted for putting Skull before Crusade, but at least Skull offers up something different, while Crusade is a (very) poor clone of Raiders.
[deleted]
but at least Skull offers up something different,
The "backstory" of Indy's origins was the first few minutes of the movie, which was a ridiculous few minutes that "explained" Indy's idiosyncrasies. It was filler. It's not like there were detailed flashback scenes interspersed at various points of the movie. THAT would actually have been more interesting storytelling. After the backstory part, we had Indy against Nazis looking for a religious artifact as the main part of the film, same plot as Raiders. And the father-son stuff could easily be construed as Connery taking on the "female" role, because of the nonstop bickering and (so-called) chemistry, just like with Marion and Willie in the first 2 movies.
shareI guess you missed the scenes in the River Phoenix segment that told us how Indy and his father were distant even during their younger days. It shows us how Indy developed his adventurous spirit and drifted away from his father. River Phoenix does a good job in that scene and it leads to a great transition of adult Indy getting punched in the face. Doing further flashbacks would not have been "interesting storytelling" as that would have just been irrelevant.
The Nazi-stuff was not the same as Raiders. This time the mythology centered around Medieval lore and the backstory of the crusades. The female lead was also in league with the villains. Indy's backstory is also explored bringing in some character development. There is also the Brotherhood of the Cruciform sword and their ambiguous nature, making the story about the grail more interesting as to which side was good and bad.
because of the nonstop bickering and (so-called) chemistry, just like with Marion and Willie in the first 2 movies.
Last Crusade and Crystal Skull tend to rotate for me but these days I'm more likely to marginally pick Crystal Skull. Entertaining as Last Crusade is, for me it's too comical and jokey at times and too deriative of the first movie and lacks the feeling of danger the others have. Still an outstanding film, though.
shareby
CyborgGoblin
too deriative of the first movie
Temple of Doom is by far the best imo, but I still really love The Last Crusade (and still think its definitely better than Crystal Skull).
"Speak of the Devil, and He shall appear."
[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree, it's not the best. However, (in my opinion) it's not the worse either.
My personal order:
Raiders of the Lost Ark
The Last Crusade
Temple of Doom
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
I would have put Crusade and Doom joint if it wasn't for Willie and Short-Round. I found them cringe worthy and next to useless (in fairness, Short-Round actually did something useful occasionally!)
Why, thank you, Thing!