ChainsawAsh said:Wow.
See "Raiders." That's all I can say. You don't need to see the others, they don't really matter at all. They're very, very mediocre in comparison. I don't know how Vaderisnothayden can really think that it is a bland, uninteresting film, and I especially don't see how he can think "Temple of Doom" is better. Or "Last Crusade," for that matter.
Let me reiterate that I don't hate any of the "Indy" movies, even "Crystal Skull" - it's just that all three of the sequels are vastly inferior to the original. In my opinion, there's "Raiders," then there's a trilogy of inferior spin-offs that, while fun, aren't particularly good, while "Raiders" is a cinematic masterpiece.
I don't know how Vaderisnothayden can really think that it is a bland, uninteresting film, and I especially don't see how he can think "Temple of Doom" is better. Or "Last Crusade," for that matter.
I didn't say uninteresting. It is not totally uninteresting, but it is certainly less interesting. And bland it certainly is. How can I see it as that? Because it is? It is less intense than the next two films and does not have as much sense of fun. Its villains are uninteresting. Belloq and that Nazi Officer? Bland (Belloq edges into annoying too). Vogel (excellent menacing Byrne), Schneider, Donovan (well-played by Glover), Mola Ram and the Asian crime lord (I forget his name) are significantly more interesting. The Nazi torturer is a bit better than the other two Raiders villains, but not as good as the later villains. Its settings are also duller. But the lack of intensity is the key. Temple of Doom vastly improves the intensity and energy. While Crusade is more lively and has a far better sense of fun. Raiders feels rather perfunctory in comparison to those later two films. Kind of underdone. And really everything in the next two films is so much more interesting. Settings, villains, situations, characters. And Crusade has Connery doing one of the best performances in the Indy films, with marvellous interaction with Ford. Elsa is a more interesting character than Marion Ravenwood. Willie is an annoying sort of character but is done well and energetically done and I find her more entertaining than Marion. Short Round is great. Brody is used better in Crusade than in his short little appearance in Raiders. Crusade has those knights of the cruciform sword and the excellent grail knight to add interest. It's all so more alive and colorful in the second and third Indy films. I can't fathom why anybody would think Raiders was better, let alone a cinematic masterpiece. What the fuck is so masterpiecey about it?
If somebody has to pick one Indy film to see they should see Crusade.