Indiana Jones and the Last Lost Crystal Thread of Doom

Sharky wrote:

I really don't get the love for TEMPLE.

Raiders = Empire
Crusade = Star Wars
Doom = Jedi (right down to Shortround being the Indy universe version of the Ewoks)

Short Round was awesome, a fun riff on the old fashioned wiseass kid sidekick that was very much a part of the 1930s comic book era.

"Hey Doctor Jones, no time for love, we got company!"

I don't get the low opinions on TEMPLE, I think it's a lot of fun, much more so than what came after.

Salomé wrote:

Sharky wrote:

I really don't get the love for TEMPLE.

Raiders = Empire
Crusade = Star Wars
Doom = Jedi (right down to Shortround being the Indy universe version of the Ewoks)

Actually it's more like: Star Wars = Raiders (the original and in the opinion of many the best), Empire = Temple (the darkest of the 3), Jedi = Crusade (the third installment that lost a bit from the first two and tried a little too hard for "family style" humour and gimmicks).

Makeshift Python wrote:

Short Round was awesome, a fun riff on the old fashioned wiseass kid sidekick that was very much a part of the 1930s comic book era.

"Hey Doctor Jones, no time for love, we got company!"

Or my favorite: "You call him Dr. Jones, dolll!"

Short Round rules.

Drax wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Sharky wrote:

I really don't get the love for TEMPLE.

Raiders = Empire
Crusade = Star Wars
Doom = Jedi (right down to Shortround being the Indy universe version of the Ewoks)

Actually it's more like: Star Wars = Raiders (the original and in the opinion of many the best), Empire = Temple (the darkest of the 3), Jedi = Crusade (the third installment that lost a bit from the first two and tried a little too hard for "family style" humour and gimmicks).

Yep, I agree to a large extent there. if there's a "juvenile" Indy film, I'd class Crusade as such far more than Temple. Having a kid in Temple doesn't really diminish the film, as the kid's not written as some kind of annoying brat or a dumbass. He's just a sidekick, a kind of non-annoying surrogate son character. Yet in Crusade, practically everyone becomes a bumbling idiot or a dumbass at some point or another, just to provide the next gag.

Lazenby. wrote:

Drax wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Sharky wrote:

I really don't get the love for TEMPLE.

Raiders = Empire
Crusade = Star Wars
Doom = Jedi (right down to Shortround being the Indy universe version of the Ewoks)

Actually it's more like: Star Wars = Raiders (the original and in the opinion of many the best), Empire = Temple (the darkest of the 3), Jedi = Crusade (the third installment that lost a bit from the first two and tried a little too hard for "family style" humour and gimmicks).

Yep, I agree to a large extent there. if there's a "juvenile" Indy film, I'd class Crusade as such far more than Temple. Having a kid in Temple doesn't really diminish the film, as the kid's not written as some kind of annoying brat or a dumbass.

Not a dumbass perhaps, but definitely a annoying brat. At least in the first half of the film.

And just because something is more violent, humourless, and sadistic, doesn't mean it's any less juvenile. Take THE DARK KNIGHT, for instance. It's a 40 year old virgin's teenage fantasy.

TEMPLE is only comparable to EMPIRE in its more grim tone, but not in popularity. While ESTB is considered by most to be the finest Star Wars film (like RAIDERS is to the Indy series), TEMPLE is much less popular in terms of general reception by the movie going public, and Indy fans alike.

Sure, it's gained a lot more appreciation over the years due to the current trend of darker fair, but it's still an underdog.

For me, CRUSADE is STAR WARS, since both are often ranked in 2nd place, and have a much lighter, more carefree and adventurous tone. Whereas JEDI and TEMPLE are usually given 3rd place, and a have an odd mix of both pulpy, comic book kid friendly humour (Streets Of Shanghi/Short Round/Slave Children), and a somewhat more adult side (Mola Ram and The Emperor, along with their respective underworlds).

Sharky wrote:

Not a dumbass perhaps, but definitely a annoying brat. At least in the first half of the film.

I've never thought that-- he's always struck me as a cool, loyal and helpful kid. Kind of like a son. He also had a plethora of great lines. The only annoying character in TOD is Wille.

Temple of Doom is my favorite for a variety of reasons. Three of the most prominent are the villains, the exoticism and the music. Slave Children is my favorite Indy Track of all and Mola Ram is an incarnation of evil villainous badassery. Also Ford gives what I find his coolest and most assured turn as Indy. He's also in the best physical shape here of the Indy films. Lastly, I think the moments when Short Round "turns" Indy back from the black dark sleep of Kahli and later when Indy rescues the children ("All of us") are my two favorite moments of the whole franchise. My heart still lets out a resounding "Fuck yeah!" every time I see them.

I agree the film has its problems, not the least of which is its stupid liberties with Indian culture (something that fits with the film's aim to recreate an earlier era of entertainment, but still).

Drax wrote:

the moments when Short Round "turns" Indy back from the black dark sleep of Kahli and later when Indy rescues the children ("All of us") My heart still lets out a resounding "Fuck yeah!" every time I see them.

"F*ck yeah!" indeed. That utterly badass shot of Indy in the tunnel, followed by a thump and the guard's body hitting the deck, then the kids escaping to the cracking Williams cue blaring out triumphantly. Epic stuff, and the film from that point on picks itself right back up big-time, becoming the rousing, unstoppable tour-de-force it was for the first twenty minutes or so. Temple Of Doom at it's best has an awesomely unstoppable rollercoaster quality which puts it comfortably ahead of the two films which followed, IMO. I also love the "cymbal in the face" moment in the opening sequence.

Sharky wrote:

I really don't get the love for TEMPLE.

I like it 'cause it's fun and colorful.

RAIDERS is far more tasteful and elegant and a better film in every respect. But man, TEMPLE has a lot of whiz-bang fun. Sure, it misses as often as it hits, but I appreciate it's gonzo, all-guns-blazing approach. And I maintain that the Shanghai is as marvelous a sequence as any RAIDERS has to offer.

Lazenby. wrote:

Drax wrote:

the moments when Short Round "turns" Indy back from the black dark sleep of Kahli and later when Indy rescues the children ("All of us") My heart still lets out a resounding "Fuck yeah!" every time I see them.

"F*ck yeah!" indeed. That utterly badass shot of Indy in the tunnel, followed by a thump and the guard's body hitting the deck, then the kids escaping to the cracking Williams cue blaring out triumphantly. Epic stuff, and the film from that point on picks itself right back up big-time, becoming the rousing, unstoppable tour-de-force it was for the first twenty minutes or so. Temple Of Doom at it's best has an awesomely unstoppable rollercoaster quality which puts it comfortably ahead of the two films which followed, IMO. I also love the "cymbal in the face" moment in the opening sequence.

Totally. I even love bits such as when the night club tries to calm things down by having the band playing a tune and bringing out the dancers, dropping the celebration balloons, all while Indy is fighting off Chinese gangsters while poisoned. It's the kind of scene that the bar fight in LTK wanted to be but failed horribly.

Sharky is right though, it is the underdog in a lot of respects when it comes to the general consensus of being the weakest of the original three. I think what puts TEMPLE second and way ahead of the two that came after for me is the energy. It has just as much energy as the original and that serial formula intact.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Raiders is clearly the darkest of the three. Doom was the greatest victim of the Lucasication.

Must say, Raiders noticeably pushes its 'PG' rating at times ... especially the 'blood splash' when Pat Roach gets diced by the plane propeller and the exploding-headed, melty-faced Nazis when the Ark is opened.

Salomé wrote:

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Raiders is clearly the darkest of the three.

In what way? I've always found the overall tone of Doom considerably darker. Spielberg acknowledges this and attributes it at least in part to the fact that it was made right in the middle of his divorce.

I'd class the middle of Doom as the darkest, the whole of Crusade as the lightest and the whole of Raiders as the most consistent balance of everything that's great about Indiana Jones.

Lazenby. wrote:

I'd class the middle of Doom as the darkest, the whole of Crusade as the lightest and the whole of Raiders as the most consistent balance of everything that's great about Indiana Jones.

Not the whole of CRUSADE. Only the middle act. That's the most saturated with comedy.

For me, RAIDERS is far more scary than TEMPLE, because it's not as flamboyant and pulpy as the later. More restrained and straight laced, with an indelibly creepy atmosphere. Less obvious if you will.

http://www.blackboxbelfast.com/event.aspx?e=1250

I was at that tonight, very entertaining. :D

So after a recent watching of the Indy franchise I have slightly revised my ratings.

OLD RATINGS:
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) - 10/10
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) - 9/10
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) - 9/10
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) - 6/10


NEW RATINGS:
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) - 10/10
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) - 9/10
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) - 9/10
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) - 7/10

I finally managed to put Temple over Crusade by a hair, and a short one at that. To me it seemed that Crusade was a remake of Raiders and found Temple a little more refreshing, but the difference of those two films are negligible to me; they are both great. And I upgraded Skull from a 6/10 to a 7/10. It has grown on me, and while it is technically the worst Indy film with some questionable scenes (fridge, vine swinging), it still is great fun.

It shouldn't even need to be mentioned that Raiders is still number one!!!!!!!!!!!

Raiders Of The Lost Ark celebrated it's 30th Anniversary this weekend. As someone who was there the first time around and obviously well and truly blown away and hugely influenced by it, it's impossible for me to allow this anniversary to pass without paying tribute to one of the most beloved and oft-watched films of not only my lifetime, but that of many others who too bore witness to cinematic brilliance back in that special Summer of 1981.



From the "so impeccable and natural you don't even stop once to think about it" period recreation to John Williams' creation of one of the most rousing, effective and engaging music scores of all-time, to Harrison Ford's often-underacknowledged but utterly spot-on and iconic turn as Indy, truly incredible action set-pieces, an extremely well-handled undercurrent of biblical supernatural anticipation, grandeur, foreboding and ultimately jaw-droppingly awesome grand revelation, a pitch-perfect tone which helps the film to be at once great fun yet still persuasively and enthusiastically convincing and engaging in the context of it's sometimes otherwise-outlandish concepts, some terrifically witty and memorable dialogue, Ford's classic moment of improv with the Arab swordsman, winsome supporting players, the truck chase to end all truck chases and a heaven-opening finale so mindblowingly epic for it's time in it's execution that it seemed it could be the very stuff of the Bible itself.



I can't think of an action adventure film which has even come close to touching Raiders since, and I guess I truly can't pay it any greater compliment than that, except to say that I struggle to think of many films before Raiders which can touch it either. At accomplishing everything it sets out to achieve and then some, this film is entertainment cinema perfection, and a vital-as-ever lesson to many of today's hacks in just how important elements such as balance, tone, conviction, writing, dialogue, performances, music, period recreation, invention, wit, thrillingly real stuntwork and physical effects are in creating something you'd hope to be so much more than merely the movie-of-the-week blockbuster sh**e we've since become "accustomed" to. These sh**efests are simply passing through history. Raiders.... Raiders IS history. And anybody there that day in 1981 knows exactly what I'm talking about.


Dubya: "S***, he's wearing a turban!!!!"
Indy: "Don't worry boss, I know the drill...."


"For the last time, you LOLZ-Generation fu*ktard, I'm NOT nicking this from Casino Royale!!!!"

Lovely tribute there, Lazzers ... must say there's something oddly soothing about watching Indy batter that Nazi's head off the dashboard over and over again, hehehe.

My favorite Spielberg flick. I sold off my DVD Trilogy, but RAIDERS is the one I would maybe get on Blu-ray. It's pitch-perfect especially in it's pacing and execution. So often these serial-inspired films try to be like regular films in terms of pace, while there should be an action sequence - and preferably a cliffhanger moment - every 15 minutes. RAIDERS is approached more like a traditional action serial, while maintaining some modern sensibilities.

It's perfectly cast, with Karen Allen as a great, and extremely hot, foil for Indy. Damn well written too.

In the 30 years since, I've not seen a film get it this right. Not even THE ROCKETEER, which is paced like a regular film and only has three action sequences.

But TEMPLE OF DOOM is actually good as well. Again, they get the pacing right. LAST CRUSADE is just a regular movie.

EDIT: The Flying wing sequence may be my favorite action sequence of all time. Well, at least one of my favorite fight sequences.

The best Raiders flick is the one with Uncle Sean!!! ===Seriously, I like all of the films, even the last one. And Last Crusade has more Bond series actors than any other non-Bond film.There's at least 9 of them - most prominently Uncle Sean himself.

If only it had Bruce Glover and Putter Smith as Herr Wintzel and Herr Kiddhaus.

I always said THE LAST CRUSADE was the closest an Indiana Jones movie got to a Bond film and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN was the closest a Bond film got to an Indiana Jones film.

I'd say OCTOPUSSY may be the closest.

Though LALD has a "quick and dirty" feel.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I'd say OCTOPUSSY may be the closest.

Perhaps, but what I really mean is that NSNA had a lot of film crew who were behind the Jones flicks the most notable being Douglas Slocombe. I kinda wonder if McClory considered Spielberg for the director's chair. Then again the guy was too busy trying to get everything together during the TWILIGHT ZONE disaster.