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
Is there any more Iconic films than Goldfinger, Raiders and STAR WARS?
No, but The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Snow White and Gone With the Wind are in the same category.
Very true.
Raiders is one of the few films i consider perfect. Everything works. Story, pace, action and performances all top notch. Seeing it in 1981 at the cinema was a breath of fresh air and it kicked Bond's arse into gear. Sorry, but it's FAR superior and more entertaining than FYEO. And I do like that film....
In actuality, I enjoy the second and third films just a bit more, myself.
It's like DN, for some people-- FRWL got better, and, to some GF was gold...
But, like DN, ROTLA was the template to build from.
I concur!
So tonight I continued my viewing of the Indy films with the 2nd entry. I've seen this a couple of times in the past when younger, and again as with Raiders wasn't all that impressed. So I didn't expect much with this viewing either. Strangely, I think I enjoy this one more than Raiders, even though it's far less well balanced. I can imagine this film must have been very controversial back in the day, because tonally it's quite different from the first film, and dare I say, a bit 'adult'. Weren't these early Indy films aimed at kids? What's with the kid torture, mind control and scare tactics? Also, how about the dinner scene? Whereas the one in the prior year's OP is amusing to me and subtle, this one is borderline insulting to people from the Indian subcontinent imho. Did they really eat live snakes and monkey ice cream? I can't see something like this passing today.
The humour in this film doesn't quite work so well either, and seems a bit slapstick. Apart from the aforementioned dinner scene which goes on and on, there's also that bit when Willie is running around like an idiot stepping all over animals at the camp site. It's just downright silly. Did Spielberg/Lucas really think it was amusing, or was Steven so infatuated with his future spouse that he thought anything could work? Also, what's with all the screaming?! Bloody annoying. Still, she's easy on the eyes, and I can understand what Spielberg saw in her. I didn't like the kid too. Some of it does work though. I thought the stop start foreplay seduction scene at the Pankot Palace (interspersed with the fight) was really well done.
So why do I perhaps prefer this to the first one? I'm not sure. It certainly has far more highs and lows and isn't as balanced. However, I think when it hits the right notes, it's truly excellent. The opening club scene for example. Nobody wears a white dinner jacket like Sean Connery or Roger Moore, but Harrison surely comes close. It's a great sequence. The same goes for the rollercoaster mine chase and finale on the bridge. Spielberg's direction is top notch and all of that is really superbly done. I also liked the bit when Willie is being dropped into the fire pit. How did they get those special effects in 1984? It looks better than half the crap churned out by the CGI freaks today imho.
It's just a pity that the film sags in the middle and the tone is a bit disjointed and disturbing.
I very often knock todays movies for cramming humor down our throats-- my biggest recent examples include Terminator Genisys, Crystal Skull, most Marvel movies.... I'm sure you know what I mean.
But even here, Raiders has exactly the type of humor I like in my action movies: it's not drawn out and eye-rolling, and it's situational humor
One of my favorite examples is during the truck chase, and it's blink-and-miss-it: Indy and the un-named Nazi are fighting for control of the wheel, the truck crashes into all those workers, knocking them all down, and one lands on the windshield with a dopey look on his face. Indy & the Nazi take a brief second to laugh at him, then right back to fighting!
I find stuff like that hilarious!
It's SO simple- I wish todays movies could just get back on that.
But of course besides the humor, the action, mystery and plot are all top shelf for me.
Though, I must admit to enjoying THE LAST CRUSADE equally as much. They're both wonderful films, laced with great humour and action. Of course, it helps that the villains in both films are the nastiest bastards to walk the Earth.
In Raiders he's a well repected intelligent colleague of Indy who in a line of dialogue suggests he was once like Indy himself in his younger days.
Temple of Doom is full of childish humour and has a pretty crap simplistic script.
True, but it also has a cracking opening, superb special effects and score, and a pretty awesome finale. Doesn't really negate any of your valid criticisms of course, but it certainly helps alleviate them for me.
It is like a Bond pts.
The opening scene is indeed awesome. Really Bondian. But it's all downhill from when they 'land' in the taxi...
Raiders set the bar, Temple sidetracked with something different, and Crusade gave us Connery in addition to everything else. I basically consider the three movies as one entity, like Nolan's Batman or Back To The Future, or (to a lesser degree) Raimi's Spider-Man.
A shame Crystal Skull missed the mark by so much- but there's a bit of fun to be had with it. In a way.