Indiana Jones

13637394142199

Comments

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Raiders is paced to perfection, not a boring moment.

    The others feel sluggish in comparison.

  • Posts: 6,709
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Raiders is paced to perfection, not a boring moment.

    A perfect film. And in a different league from the other two. Yes, two ;)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Univex wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Raiders is paced to perfection, not a boring moment.

    A perfect film. And in a different league from the other two. Yes, two ;)

    'What if' you were born later, and saw them in their timeline first? TOD, Raiders & Crusade? Can you imagine saying that about TOD?
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    Raiders is perfection.

    Temple, I love the first half in spite of Kate Capshaw and then the second isn’t great though the mine chase is good.

    Crusade, personally I don’t care for the River Phoenix or even the Ford bit in the opening sequence... the story is good but everything is played for laughs, characters, action sequences, so it kind of undermines the film for me. It would have been better had ‘Raiders Spielberg’ shown up... he was so disappointed with Temple’s darkness that he took Crusade too far in the other direction.

    Skull, in spite of the superfluous dialogue and too many call backs, I quite like the first half of the movie. Then they get to the Russian camp in the jungle and the wheels come off... last half is a poorly written, CGI-fest, bad sitcom family humor, mess... I like the aliens though. The film gets maligned because of them but they’re not the problem.

  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Raiders is paced to perfection, not a boring moment.

    A perfect film. And in a different league from the other two. Yes, two ;)

    'What if' you were born later, and saw them in their timeline first? TOD, Raiders & Crusade? Can you imagine saying that about TOD?

    Raiders is the last I watched in the trilogy; I first caught them on TV in May 2008 and watched TOD, then TLC the week after that... and I loved them so much that I immediately bought the DVD box set with the full trilogy because I wanted to watch Raiders too. I must say that Raiders immediately stood out as a masterpiece to me. As much as I loved all of them (back then I even loved KOTCS upon watching it at the movie theatre) Raiders stood out as something special, above them all.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    the story is good but everything is played for laughs, characters, action sequences, so it kind of undermines the film for me. It would have been better had ‘Raiders Spielberg’ shown up... he was so disappointed with Temple’s darkness that he took Crusade too far in the other direction.


    The films follow the template from the first SW trilogy in that regard.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    The films follow the template from the first SW trilogy in that regard.
    That's true... good correlation.
  • Posts: 5,767
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    the story is good but everything is played for laughs, characters, action sequences, so it kind of undermines the film for me. It would have been better had ‘Raiders Spielberg’ shown up... he was so disappointed with Temple’s darkness that he took Crusade too far in the other direction.


    The films follow the template from the first SW trilogy in that regard.
    I find that comparison rather far-fetched.

  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    2nd to 3rd in tone. Not so much the 1st.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Raiders is perfection.

    Temple, I love the first half in spite of Kate Capshaw and then the second isn’t great though the mine chase is good.

    Crusade, personally I don’t care for the River Phoenix or even the Ford bit in the opening sequence... the story is good but everything is played for laughs, characters, action sequences, so it kind of undermines the film for me. It would have been better had ‘Raiders Spielberg’ shown up... he was so disappointed with Temple’s darkness that he took Crusade too far in the other direction.

    Skull, in spite of the superfluous dialogue and too many call backs, I quite like the first half of the movie. Then they get to the Russian camp in the jungle and the wheels come off... last half is a poorly written, CGI-fest, bad sitcom family humor, mess... I like the aliens though. The film gets maligned because of them but they’re not the problem.

    Nicely put. I guess what I like about Raiders mostly is the tone. Very serious. The story is good. But I just enjoy TOD more for the over-the-toppness. But hey, I like 'em all in the same way I like all the Bond movies.
  • Posts: 4,813
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Temple, I love the first half in spite of Kate Capshaw and then the second isn’t great though the mine chase is good.


    That’s funny; I have the opposite opinion on ToD. I think the beginning is a chore, full of forced humor, but once they arrive at the Temple the kid gloves come off, and I applaud at just how dark it gets! (Ripping people’s hearts out; child slavery; the birth of PG-13)

    We definitely agree that Raiders is perfection though! ;)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,154
    I feel like I'm in a minority appreciating ToD the way I do. Perhaps it's the absolutely AWESOME Williams score or the Indian setting--my lovely girlfriend is half-Indian--or maybe it's the whole "Goonies for grown-ups" thing that appeals to me, but in any case, it's a film I enjoy from its first to last second. As for Capshaw... she's not as bad a many make her out to be. Annoying? Her character perhaps. But Kate is a competent actress, simply doing what she's told to do, and I'm not feeling the strong disliking for her that many seem to be feeling.
  • Posts: 4,813
    She’s definitely pretty- but Indy had the patience of a saint in that movie.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I feel like I'm in a minority appreciating ToD the way I do. Perhaps it's the absolutely AWESOME Williams score or the Indian setting--my lovely girlfriend is half-Indian--or maybe it's the whole "Goonies for grown-ups" thing that appeals to me, but in any case, it's a film I enjoy from its first to last second. As for Capshaw... she's not as bad a many make her out to be. Annoying? Her character perhaps. But Kate is a competent actress, simply doing what she's told to do, and I'm not feeling the strong disliking for her that many seem to be feeling.

    I concur. ;)
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,757
    Regarding Temple of Doom, to me the Short Round character is unforgivable.
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRHpoU3WJU03cksH52VaVeRK0a8Z085RUAt9ZK9Hy_FEEFJLV3M
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    boldfinger wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    the story is good but everything is played for laughs, characters, action sequences, so it kind of undermines the film for me. It would have been better had ‘Raiders Spielberg’ shown up... he was so disappointed with Temple’s darkness that he took Crusade too far in the other direction.


    The films follow the template from the first SW trilogy in that regard.
    I find that comparison rather far-fetched.

    Spielberg said in the Temple of Doom DVD special features that Lucas wanted to make ToD the darkest in the trilogy because he felt that the middle chapter in each trilogy should be the darkest - and Spielberg cites ESB being the darkest in the SW trilogy as an example.

    That said, I find amusing that Lucas totally dropped his philosophy for the prequel trilogy, since the darkest in the trilogy is actually ROTS.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,154
    Regarding Temple of Doom, to me the Short Round character is unforgivable.

    While Short Round can feel like an unforgivable mistake today, back when we were in our single digits in the 80s, his presence made the overall "horror" experience of ToD bearable. He was our 'in'. People eating gruesome things, poor children enslaved underground, voodoo curses, hearts being ripped out of bodies, ... But hey, there's a cool kid, one of us, and he will surely survive this nightmare so we're going to root for him, stay on his side and secretly pretend that we are him. He's one of the Goonies, one of our peers having amazing adventures--and boy, what I would have given to be a part of those at that age.

    Yeah, that was me in the late 80s when I first saw ToD. ;-) So I guess some of that Shorty-is-my-avatar has carried over into adulthood.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,040
    TOD is a great prequel I have no issues with it, I just think ROTLA was better.
  • Posts: 1,916
    It's funny when you look back at those films when they were first released and then later on. When I first saw TOD, I thought it was better than Raiders. I don't think I saw it again until it came to pay cable, but you can get that exhilaration sometimes. I felt the same way about Die Hard 2 after first viewing it.

    The cool thing about Raiders was back in 1981 there wasn't the hype machine there is today and you could discover things. We knew FYEO and Superman 2 were coming out that summer and had high expectations, but the only hint I had of Raiders was a few stills and a small article in the magazine Famous Monsters of Filmland. Even Starlog, the leading genre magazine of the day, didn't have any decent advance articles from what I remember. But that FMoF story had me wanting to see it.

    Then when I did see it I was beyond blown away because the expectations weren't sky-high. You knew the game had changed as far as action-adventure cinema. As a consequence, there was no way FYEO was going to compare to that and hasn't to this day.

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,757
    Unforgivable.

    2ae211817082570b49c67fb47a072e35.jpg
  • edited June 2019 Posts: 5,767
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    2nd to 3rd in tone. Not so much the 1st.
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    ... but everything is played for laughs, characters, action sequences, so it kind of undermines the film for me. It would have been better had ‘Raiders Spielberg’ shown up... he was so disappointed with Temple’s darkness that he took Crusade too far in the other direction.
    ROTJ playing for laughs?
    Playing for characters and Action sequences is equally valid for all three of them.
    TESB and ROTJ trying to ballance one another? I don´t see how. Empire´s Darkness made total sense in front of the philosophical and dramatical Background, it´s a completely different matter than Temple IMO. I don´t feel at all that ROTJ went in any opposite direction.


  • Posts: 5,767
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I feel like I'm in a minority appreciating ToD the way I do. Perhaps it's the absolutely AWESOME Williams score or the Indian setting--my lovely girlfriend is half-Indian--or maybe it's the whole "Goonies for grown-ups" thing that appeals to me, but in any case, it's a film I enjoy from its first to last second. As for Capshaw... she's not as bad a many make her out to be. Annoying? Her character perhaps. But Kate is a competent actress, simply doing what she's told to do, and I'm not feeling the strong disliking for her that many seem to be feeling.
    I´m with ya all the way, @DoubleD. What immediately left a big mark on me was the tempo Right from the start. It took the film About 3min to totally suck me into a whirlwind and leave me dazed and with never experienced happiness two Hours later. It took me a Long time to like Raiders with its bigger number of calmer Moments equally.
    And last time I checked (must already be something like 5 years ago) I was well over 40 and still not annoyed by Capshaw or Round.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    boldfinger wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    2nd to 3rd in tone. Not so much the 1st.
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    ... but everything is played for laughs, characters, action sequences, so it kind of undermines the film for me. It would have been better had ‘Raiders Spielberg’ shown up... he was so disappointed with Temple’s darkness that he took Crusade too far in the other direction.
    ROTJ playing for laughs?
    Playing for characters and Action sequences is equally valid for all three of them.
    TESB and ROTJ trying to ballance one another? I don´t see how. Empire´s Darkness made total sense in front of the philosophical and dramatical Background, it´s a completely different matter than Temple IMO. I don´t feel at all that ROTJ went in any opposite direction.


    With teddy bears and funny muppets all over the place?
  • Posts: 5,767
    @Thunderfinger, what´s funny About those? The Ewoks were made to sell more toys, not to compensate for the tone of the second film. I never felt much difference between the creatures at Jabba´s place and those in the the first movie.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    @boldfinger, there is nothing funny about them. I just feel that they give the movie a very different tone than TESB.
  • Posts: 1,916
    There is indeed a tonal difference between the creatures in SW and ROTJ. In the first film it was all new and welcome. In ROTJ it just seemed like overload.

    When Luke, Obi Wan and the droids go into the bar, you can't tell for sure which are dangerous and which aren't and that lends an edge. It didn't feel like any of them in Jabba's palace had any danger or edge to them.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,571
    The ahh wanna wampa guy
    The laughing rat
    The blue elephant playing piano
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The ahh wanna wampa guy
    The laughing rat
    The blue elephant playing piano

    Good haiku!
  • Posts: 5,767
    Yes indeed.

    I agree About the lack of Edge of the creatures in ROTJ. But I still don´t feel that film Plays it for laughs similar to Indy3.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    In TOD, I love that cave after the bug tunnel and before the temple of doom. I wish we'd seen more of that.
Sign In or Register to comment.