It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The others feel sluggish in comparison.
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?
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.
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.
The films follow the template from the first SW trilogy in that regard.
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.
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! ;)
I concur. ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
With teddy bears and funny muppets all over the place?
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.
The laughing rat
The blue elephant playing piano
Good haiku!
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.