Last Movie you Watched?

Strange coincidence, ain't it? No, actually that's my real list. Always loved the hell out of CRUSADE, and found RAIDERS (for it all its strengths - like the amazing score, Slocombe's cinematography, Karen Allen, the villains) underwhelming compared to the other two. That's more of a problem with Kasdan's script than anything.

Kasdan's script sure beats the hell out of the scripts for the other films.

Definitely not CRUSADE, by any means, which is by far the sharpest. Apparently Klaus Kinski turned the villain part down for RAIDERS because "the script was shit." I don't think he was too far off there.

Sharky wrote:

Definitely not CRUSADE, by any means, which is by far the sharpest.

Nah. The script for CRUSADE is pretty sluggish and dull.

Sharky wrote:

Apparently Klaus Kinski turned the villain part down for RAIDERS because "the script was shit." I don't think he was too far off there.

Wish he'd shown as much judgment when NOSFERATU IN VENICE came around.

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Definitely not CRUSADE, by any means, which is by far the sharpest.

Nah. The script for CRUSADE is pretty sluggish and dull.

Well yeah, In pacing, but it's a good deal more sophisticated and adult than the first two flicks, especially RAIDERS - the most STAR WARS-like of the trilogy.

I find that other than the Sr/Jr dynamic the script for CRUSADE is basically just a rehash of RAIDERS but with the supporting characters now rendered as cartoonish oafs.

Elsa, anyone? A classic femme fatal was the first for the series.

I didn't really mind Marcus and Sallah being turned into bumbling idiots. It provides for some decent farce, and they never obstruct the plot.

For a third Indy film there should have been different locations, which would mean a different artifact. I think the image of Indy fighting Nazis in the desert is what really fuels the "this is a rehash" criticism. That's why I dug TEMPLE because it threw Indy in a place that was entirely different from RAIDERS with a whole new set of characters. Pretty much like how the Bond films function. That's why the father/son dynamic is the most memorable not just because it was actually excellently handled but that it was the only element that distinguished the film from RAIDERS. I think CRYSTAL SKULL went in the right direction, but suffered from a lousy script by studio hack David Koepp. Also robbing the film the grit of the first three films and cutting off Indy's balls was unforgivable which kinda shows how Speilberg just really no longer has the heart to make anything close to the first three. He's gotten too soft for Indy.

Sharky wrote:

Well yeah, In pacing, but it's a good deal more sophisticated and adult than the first two flicks, especially RAIDERS - the most STAR WARS-like of the trilogy.

Who cares? With a franchise like this, "sophisticated" and "adult" aren't really the goal posts.

Again, what about Alison Doody or the "Young Indiana Jones" PTS? That's something.

Re: locations - i thought CRYSTAL SKULL strewed up badly there. Just too many them.

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Well yeah, In pacing, but it's a good deal more sophisticated and adult than the first two flicks, especially RAIDERS - the most STAR WARS-like of the trilogy.

Who cares? With a franchise like this, "sophisticated" and "adult" aren't really the goal posts.

Who cares if they're not the original goal posts? All films should aim higher. Spielberg grew up, and the films (minus SKULL - which was George's baby) grew up with him.

Sharky wrote:

Again, what about Alison Doody or the "Young Indiana Jones" PTS? That's something.

I'll be honest, I totally forgot of her.

Quote :

Re: locations - i thought CRYSTAL SKULL strewed badly there. Just too many them.

You could say the same of CRUSADE. Italy, Austria, Turkey. CRYSTAL SKULL went to different locations but it was still primarily South America.

Sharky wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Well yeah, In pacing, but it's a good deal more sophisticated and adult than the first two flicks, especially RAIDERS - the most STAR WARS-like of the trilogy.

Who cares? With a franchise like this, "sophisticated" and "adult" aren't really the goal posts.

Who cares if they're not the original goal posts? All films should aim higher. Spielberg grew up, and the films (minus SKULL - which was George's baby) grew up with him.

I'd say Spielberg's hands were definitely on CRYSTAL SKULL, the difference is that he's no longer the same guy from the 80s. He's the guy who at one point digitally removed guns and replaced them with walkie talkies. He just doesn't have that taste for depicting violence unless it was presented in the fashion of MUNICH.

Sharky wrote:

All films should aim higher.

All films should aim for greatness, but not the same kind of greatness. RAIDERS achieved gee-whiz popcorn action film brilliance. None of CRUSADE's supposedly more mature elements are particularly noteworthy once you look outside of the Indiana Jones franchise, and they came at the expense of the entertainment value and personality that made Indiana Jones worthwhile to begin with.

And besides, for a guy going on and on about sophistication, talking up the greatness of TEMPLE OF DOOM strikes me as a bit odd. Don't get me wrong, I love it, but it's definitely the most juvenile film in the series.

In a way that's why I call TEMPLE a personal favorite, even though I acknowledge that RAIDERS is technically the better film.

Harmsway wrote:

All films should aim for greatness, but not the same *kind* of greatness.

Bollocks. There is only one *kind* of greatness. Otherwise you end up lost in a sea of pluralities. Endless standards for greatness. Chaos.

Harmsway wrote:

RAIDERS achieved a level of popcorn action film brilliance.

CRUSADE achieved better - a popcorn action film with a heart and soul. That is its brilliance.

Harmsway wrote:

None of CRUSADE's supposedly more mature elements are particularly noteworthy once you look outside of the Indiana Jones franchise ...

Sure, not in the grander scheme of cinema, but in terms of popcorn action films and the franchise itself, it sure is noteworthy.

Harmsway wrote:

.... and they came at the expense of the entertainment value and personality that made Indiana Jones worthwhile to begin with.

Nah, it's still all there. The visual wit of the plane sequence alone is enough to put it up there with the first two in terms of entertainment value, let alone the fire in the castle, the motorbike chase, or the tank chase.

And the personality's still there, maybe not in the cinematography, but definitely in the script and the performances.

Harmsway wrote:

And besides, for a guy going on and on about sophistication, talking up the greatness of TEMPLE OF DOOM strikes me as a bit odd. Don't get me wrong, I love it, but it's definitely the most juvenile film in the series.

It's the saving of India's children that gives it an edge over RAIDERS, really. Though both are pretty juvenile.

Sharky wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

All films should aim for greatness, but not the same *kind* of greatness.

Bollocks. There is only one *kind* of greatness. Otherwise you end up lost in a sea of pluralities. Endless standards for greatness. Chaos.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, Sharky. One kind of greatness? In that case only da Vinci is a great painter or Picasso -- it is impossible for both to be. Who decides what that one kind of greatness is, Sharky? You? And if there is only one kind, and you've decided it, then why don't we ALL agree to it? Some people LOVE Citizen Kane and others DEPLORE it, and BOTH can back up their opinions with rational argument, isn't that a disproof to your statement?

I'm sorrry but there is such a thing as a Great Monster Movie and a Great Crime Film -- and the elements that make both great are not the same. Making a Godzilla picture to emulate The Godfather would not produce a Great Godzilla Film; it's why shooting a superhero movie like The Greatest Story Ever Told doesn't get you a good superhero movie (cough, Bryan Singer, cough)

But I agree that the ending of TEMPLE where the children are said is great.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

All films should aim for greatness, but not the same *kind* of greatness.

Bollocks. There is only one *kind* of greatness. Otherwise you end up lost in a sea of pluralities. Endless standards for greatness. Chaos.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, Sharky. One kind of greatness? In that case only da Vinci is a great painter or Picasso -- it is impossible for both to be. .

It's late and I'm tired, but I think you've seriously misunderstood my comment there. In my mind there's only one hierarchy for film, that's my statement. Not that two objects can't both be great. That would be a looney thing to say.

Sharky wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

All films should aim for greatness, but not the same *kind* of greatness.

Bollocks. There is only one *kind* of greatness. Otherwise you end up lost in a sea of pluralities. Endless standards for greatness. Chaos.

This is a ridiculous position. Of course there are different kinds of greatness. Take beverages, for instance: a great beer is not the same thing as a great wine. And neither really delivers what a damn good lemonade can.

Sharky wrote:

CRUSADE achieved better - a popcorn action film with a heart and soul. That is its brilliance.

If the heart and soul were really all that special or touching, I might be with ya. But it's all obvious, cartoonish character development, nothing especially touching. Frankly, I have more fondness for and emotional investment in the Indy/Marion romance from RAIDERS than I do in the Henry Sr./Henry Jr. relationship from CRUSADE.

Sharky wrote:

The visual wit of the plane sequence alone is enough to put it up there with the first two in terms of entertainment value, let alone the fire in the castle, the motorbike chase, or the tank chase.

Save for the fire in the castle, they're all pretty lackluster compared to what RAIDERS and TEMPLE have to offer. Like Spielberg was asleep at the helm. Truth be told, I don't think Spielberg has been a great action filmmaker since '84.

Sharky wrote:

And the personality's still there, maybe not in the cinematography, but definitely in the script and the performances.

Nah. Not in the cinematography and not really in the script. Some of the performances carry it over, but not all of 'em.

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Definitely not CRUSADE, by any means, which is by far the sharpest.

Nah. The script for CRUSADE is pretty sluggish and dull.

Well, LAST CRUSADE has the most interesting storyline of all the Indy flicks (which isn't saying all that much, I know). The execution is poor (sluggish and dull, as you say), and the potential is squandered, but at least the potential was there in the first place (and in abundance).

I haven't attempted to watch any of the Jones outings since the first time I saw KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTALL SKULL. I daresay they all seem like masterpieces compared to KOTCS, and I imagine that were I to sit down to LAST CRUSADE again I'd find it astonishingly good after the pisspoor INDY IV.

Yeah, KINGDOM makes CRUSADE look pretty damn good. But that says more about KINGDOM than CRUSADE.

Harmsway wrote:

This is a ridiculous position. Of course there are different kinds of greatness. A great beer is not the same thing as a great wine.

Sure, but in the end - what you consider greater - an equally great beer or wine? There's the rub.

Harmsway wrote:

If the heart and soul were really all that special or touching, I might be with ya. But frankly, I have more fondness for and emotional investment in the Indy/Marion romance from RAIDERS than I do in the Henry Sr./Henry Jr. relationship from CRUSADE.

I'm afraid I can't buy that, since the Indy/Marion romance is devoid of any real chemistry or eroticism.

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

The visual wit of the plane sequence alone is enough to put it up there with the first two in terms of entertainment value, let alone the fire in the castle, the motorbike chase, or the tank chase.

Save for the fire in the castle, they're all pretty lackluster compared to what RAIDERS and TEMPLE have to offer.

The machine gunning the tail, the wingless plane overtaking them in the tunnel, and the flock of birds has got enough personality to it to hold its own with TEMPLE and RAIDERS, even if it's nowhere near the same breakneck speed. Thanks to Spielberg's mastery of the action sequence, the more deliberate pace doesn't detract from any excitement.

Harmsway wrote:

Truth be told, I don't think Spielberg has been a great action filmmaker since '84.

JURASSIC PARK says otherwise.

Harmsway wrote:

Nah. Not in the cinematography and not really in the script.

"AND I'M MICKEY MOUSE" has got more personality in it than 95% of actioners.

Harmsway wrote:

Yeah, KINGDOM makes CRUSADE look pretty damn good. But that says more about KINGDOM than CRUSADE.

Indeed, but it does undeniably make CRUSADE a darn sight more enjoyable to sit through (or at least I assume it does - haven't put this theory to the test). Rather like THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and QUANTUM OF SOLACE made the AVTAKs of this world seem more fun.

Sharky wrote:

Sure, but in the end - what you consider greater - an equally great beer or wine? There's the rub.

Depends on what mood I'm in. The best beer I've had can hold its own with the best wine I've had.

Sharky wrote:

I'm afraid I can't buy that, since the Indy/Marion romance is devoid of any real chemistry or eroticism.

Not really any eroticism, but it's got chemistry. Not every romance is sexually powered. This one feels like an easy friendship, and that's what I find compelling about it.

Sharky wrote:

JURASSIC PARK says otherwise.

JURASSIC PARK is kinda rubbish.

Sharky wrote:

"AND I'M MICKEY MOUSE" has got more personality in it than 95% of actioners.

FWIW, that line wasn't in the script. It was dubbed in in post-production.

And it doesn't really tie into the franchise's unique straight-out-of-the-pulps personality, either.

Loomis wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Yeah, KINGDOM makes CRUSADE look pretty damn good. But that says more about KINGDOM than CRUSADE.

Indeed, but it does undeniably make CRUSADE a darn sight more enjoyable to sit through (or at least I assume it does - haven't put this theory to the test). Rather like THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and QUANTUM OF SOLACE made the AVTAKs of this world seem more fun.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE got me to like DIE ANOTHER DAY. No small feat.