Hidden items in OT and other SW — Page 5

I think it's amazing that anyone could find "Doom" or "Crusade" to be superior to "Raiders."

"Raiders" is a perfect adventure film.  There isn't a moment wasted or a character that's uninteresting, and none of the humor is over-the-top or out-of-place.

"Doom" is a corny movie under the guise of a "darker" film.  I hate Willie.  The bad guys are bland and boring.  In general ... the movie isn't very good.  It's lucky that it has some fun moments.  The best thing I can say about it is that they definitely tried to do something different from "Raiders" instead of copying it.

"Crusade" is just the opposite.  It's a carbon copy of "Raiders" with a different religious MacGuffin, Brody's character is completely ruined, all the humor is campy and out-of-place, and don't get me started on the young Indy sequence.  The best thing I can say about it is that any time Sean Connery and Harrison Ford are together in a scene, it's fun to watch them play off of each other.

"Skull" is pretty much the same as "Crusade," but without any heart, and all the secondary characters are boring.  I didn't mind the alien thing, but the CGI was way over-the-top, and the humor was just far too much.  But the graveyard scene was brilliant - hell, everything from Indy meeting Mutt until the graveyard scene was over was pretty damn good.  The rest ... yeah.

"Raiders" 10/10
"Doom" 5/10
"Crusade" 6/10
"Skull" 5/10

Basically, you have "Raiders," one of the greatest films ever made ... and then three shitty movies Harrison Ford starred in that had "Indiana Jones" in the title.

And I just realized that this is INCREDIBLY off-topic, so I'll stop typing right about ... now.

ChainsawAsh said:

I think it's amazing that anyone could find "Doom" or "Crusade" to be superior to "Raiders."

"Raiders" is a perfect adventure film.  There isn't a moment wasted or a character that's uninteresting, and none of the humor is over-the-top or out-of-place.

"Doom" is a corny movie under the guise of a "darker" film.  I hate Willie.  The bad guys are bland and boring.  In general ... the movie isn't very good.  It's lucky that it has some fun moments.  The best thing I can say about it is that they definitely tried to do something different from "Raiders" instead of copying it.

"Crusade" is just the opposite.  It's a carbon copy of "Raiders" with a different religious MacGuffin, Brody's character is completely ruined, all the humor is campy and out-of-place, and don't get me started on the young Indy sequence.  The best thing I can say about it is that any time Sean Connery and Harrison Ford are together in a scene, it's fun to watch them play off of each other.

"Skull" is pretty much the same as "Crusade," but without any heart, and all the secondary characters are boring.  I didn't mind the alien thing, but the CGI was way over-the-top, and the humor was just far too much.  But the graveyard scene was brilliant - hell, everything from Indy meeting Mutt until the graveyard scene was over was pretty damn good.  The rest ... yeah.

"Raiders" 10/10
"Doom" 5/10
"Crusade" 6/10
"Skull" 5/10

Basically, you have "Raiders," one of the greatest films ever made ... and then three shitty movies Harrison Ford starred in that had "Indiana Jones" in the title.

And I just realized that this is INCREDIBLY off-topic, so I'll stop typing right about ... now.

"Raiders" is a perfect adventure film.  There isn't a moment wasted or a character that's uninteresting, and none of the humor is over-the-top or out-of-place.

Raiders is hardly perfect. It's a rather limited film that leaves me disappointed every time I watch it. And it certainly wastes moments on uninteresting characters, seeing as various of the characters are uninteresting (such as Belloq and his Nazi officer). Its humor wasn't great (except when Indy shoots the swordsman).

"Doom" is a corny movie under the guise of a "darker" film.  I hate Willie.  The bad guys are bland and boring.  In general ... the movie isn't very good.  It's lucky that it has some fun moments.  The best thing I can say about it is that they definitely tried to do something different from "Raiders" instead of copying it.

The bad guys are rather more interesting than the unenthusiastically portrayed bad guys in Raiders. Willie can be annoying, but she's acted with enthusiasm and isn't all bad. While Short Round is better than any character in Raiders other than Indy himself. The film has intensity and atmosphere, two things Raiders is sorely lacking.

"Crusade" is just the opposite.  It's a carbon copy of "Raiders" with a different religious MacGuffin, Brody's character is completely ruined, all the humor is campy and out-of-place, and don't get me started on the young Indy sequence.  The best thing I can say about it is that any time Sean Connery and Harrison Ford are together in a scene, it's fun to watch them play off of each other.

Hardly a carbon-copy of Raiders or you'd probably like it more. It's a distinctly different film, with a different tone and mentality and it's defined by the Indy-Indy's dad double-act, something very different from Raiders. There's some humor that's overdone or too silly, but much of the humor is good fun, a considerable improvement on Raiders, which took itself way too seriously. The young Indy sequence was surprisingly likeable. Brody's character? Seriously, who gives a damn about Brody. Boring character. Also, the MacGuffin was much better handled in Crusade.

"Skull" is pretty much the same as "Crusade," but without any heart, and all the secondary characters are boring.  I didn't mind the alien thing, but the CGI was way over-the-top, and the humor was just far too much.  But the graveyard scene was brilliant - hell, everything from Indy meeting Mutt until the graveyard scene was over was pretty damn good.  The rest ... yeah.

Skull is way different from Crusade. A very bland film.

Basically, you have "Raiders," one of the greatest films ever made ... and then three shitty movies Harrison Ford starred in that had "Indiana Jones" in the title.

God knows how you can see a mediocre film like Raiders as being one of the greatest films ever made. Two good films (Crusade and Doom), one mediocre film (Raiders) and one bad film (Skull).

Akwat Kbrana said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

God knows how you can see a mediocre film like Raiders as being one of the greatest films ever made. Two good films (Crusade and Doom), one mediocre film (Raiders) and one bad film (Skull).

Wait...are you really saying that Doom is superior to Raiders?

 

Of course. It's way superior. It's alive. Raiders is subdued.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Raiders is hardly perfect. It's a rather limited film that leaves me disappointed every time I watch it.

I really have to ask, you say it leaves you disappointed "every time" you watch it, why do you watch it them? You know it is going to disappoint, so why not just give it a pass everytime the opportunity to see it arises? Maybe it is just me, but I really prefer not to rewatch movies I've already seen once and been disappointed by. Just feels like a waste of time to me.

 I have relationships with some movies that are similar to unhealthy relationships I had with some women.

"Xmen 3" is the perfect example. I watch that movie whenever I catch it on TV, and the (very) few moments that make me feel it's a good film keep me holding on, even during the moments that make me want to cry and hurt myself.

u ever think about seeing a thereapist? because u sound really disturbed.

that's the only indiana jones movie i've seen, crystle skull that is, so i don't know how the other ones stack up against it.

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.

My order:

1 Raiders: the best from a cinematographical point of view.

2 Doom: the best from a fun point of view.

3 Skull: A good mix between all the first 3 ( but what a messed up script...!)

4 Crusade: Can't watch it anymore, I fall asleep each time. I've seen Infodroid edit the other day, and it's so better! (I need to say that I liked it very much back in 89'. It's just that this movie does not work with me no more.)

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.

skyjedi2005 said:

The only movie in the series i don't own in my dvd collection is crystal skull.  I won't even ackowledge that as an indiana jones movie and i own star wars epsiodes 1-3 on dvd.  Crystal Skull was 10 times the dissapointment of the prequels in general and tied with phantom menace for the two biggest cinematic dissapointments in my entire life.  Probably the 2 biggest over hyped dissapointments in motion picture history as well.

Aliens in indiana jones was the stupidist thing ever.  What is dumber than ripping off a quasi ron hubbard book by some hack from the sixties called chariots of the gods.   When George runs out of ideas film fans should head for the hills,lol.

I would have much preferred the nazis and the spear of destiny plot over the russians and the aliens and the nuked fridge.

I don't hate Crystal Skull like you do, but it was definitely an example of Indy getting prequelized. It was bland. It didn't feel real. It didn't look real. Things that should have been menacing weren't. And the whole aliens angle was handled really poorly. I don't mind putting aliens in Indy, but they should have done it in a classic way, not this otherdimensional bullshit. And the aliens thing ended up being this whole load of meaningless show. That whole alien temple location was such bull. We got a lot of meaningless show shoveled at us. Contrast that with the menacing grail temple with its head-chopping and with the well-acted old grail knight. Or with the sinister menacing thugee temple in Doom. I didn't mind the Russians, but I would have preferred them done more menacingly and without Cate Blanchett being silly. The villains in previous Indy outings weren't a joke. Making villains a joke is like the Trade Federation and the droid troopers in the prequels. And Ray Winstone's character was fucking annoying.

But I find it much more acceptable as an Indy film than the prequels are as Star Wars films. We didn't have Sean Patrick Flanery playing Indy, thank god and we didn't have Hayden Christensen playing Indy, his son or his father. Jake Lloyd was nowhere in sight. There wasn't a stomach-turning sort of romance. Jar Jar didn't pop up, nor General Drearyass. There were no goddamn stuffyass prequel Jedi, posery Kenobi, Mace bloody Windu, pompous Yoda flipping around or the other bloody council wankers. There were no huge meaningless battle scenes or feelingless lightsaber fight scenes or torturous lava planet battles. We didn't have to suffer through Padme being incredibly dumb.

I liked the introduction of Indy's son. I think Shia LaBeouf fit the role and did a good job. I liked him in Transformers too. I think giving Indy a likable son played by an actor a bit reminisicent of Ford was one of the best things in the film. My one problem was his name. For god's sakes, "Mutt"? Just because Indy's named after a dog doesn't mean his son has to be too. That was going way too far.

I think if we want to get annoyed over stuff done to Indy we should start with that awful 90s tv show about Young Indy. Sean Patrick Flanery was no more appropriate for Indy than Hayden was for Anakin. Really, having Indy played by somebody other than Ford for more than a short sequence to back up a Ford story doesn't work. The character is too dependent on how Ford plays him. If they'd had an actor other than Ford in the role, Raiders would never have been a big success. Ford gave that character his soul, made him distinctive, gave him his connection with the audience. Indy without Ford isn't Indy. A short little flashback sequence of another actor's Indy as a cute novelty can be tolerated (like in Crusade), but not a whole bloody show. Plus the stories in the show were dumb. For the sake of being "educational" they had Indy meet pretty much every famous historical figure in existence back in that time, which was ridiculous. It's been described as "cerebral" but it strikes me as being dumbed down in a way reminiscent of the prequels. The show was a fucking insult to the whole Indy thing. Dragged it all in the shit. It was to Indy what the prequels were to Star Wars.

skyjedi2005 said:

That is intresting that you say that because the young indy series was mostly the same crew.  But they also had good writers like frank darabount.  And good actors like Sean Patrick Flannery.

Also the show i believe was nomiated for emmy's i think.  And the fans generally like the young indy series but hate crystal skull.  Me i never really got that into young indy but i liked the trenches of hell episode.  And another one of them can't remember the name where he gets the girl and is a spy.  Kind of like bond,lol.

Flanery being passed off as Indy is torture of a truly cruel and unusual sort. Flanery is no more Indy than Hayden is Anakin.

A lot of things are nominated for Emmies that should never have seen the light of day.

As for fans preferring that Young Indy drivel to a film that at least has Ford, I will never fathom the preferences of fans -just look at the majority of Star Wars fans, who are so into the prequels. At least the general public prefers the Crystal Skull (they don't give a fuck about Young Indy, but Indy 4 did well at the box office). The Crystal Skull was disappointing but it's a million miles ahead of Young Indy. 

I don't really care if Young Indy had much of the same crew -it tried to pass off The Adventures of Flanery in Silly Kids' History Features as The Adventures of the Young Indiana Jones, and the just doesn't work. No amount of same crew can save that. And the single most important individual in making an Indy film into Indy is not any of the crew or even Spielberg or Lucas. It's Ford. Without him you've got no Indy. They should never have even tried a young Indy series.

The fake convoluted connection to historical events would not have been so bad if lucas did not embellish or willfully stray from what actually happened in history.  But nobody really cares because the historical stuff was only a framing device. 

I care. That historical stuff was as annoying as hell. It was so incredibly contrived and dumb.