this one is a bit overrated imo - Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) Discussion

[–] spurtle467 (1502) 2 years ago

Completely disagree. I don't even understand how you can consider this one cornier than the other 2, when Temple has Winnie constantly screaming and a kid for a sidekick, and Last Crusade has all the comic relief surrounding Indy's dad and Brody? This one to me has always seemed a little more on the darker and serious side.

reply

[–] pjl69 (2440) 2 years ago

Yeah, 70's influence can still be seen on RotLA (and The Empire Strikes Back). Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade are products of the 80's kiddie era that started with E.T. and Return of the Jedi.

reply

[–] jriddle73 (326) 2 years ago

Yes, RAIDERS is very much a movie made in that way, a time when it was understood that to sell something implausible, one must make it and everything that unspools around it seem as plausible as possible. By TEMPLE OF DOOM, that was long gone, and it and the other Indy sequels are godawful for it.

reply

[–] sONOMArEturns (1253) 2 years ago

i said this already to someone else here, but i think it's a staple of every Indy movie to have the ridiculous stunt pieces that nobody would ever survive in real life, like jumping out of a plane in a life raft, or riding a tank over a cliff. i think the story in raiders is the least interesting of the first three. ToD is a borderline horror film at times, and harrison ford teaming up with sean connery is an awesome dynamic.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

"or riding a tank over a cliff."

Um, Indy NEVER rode the tank over the cliff, he jumped out and clung onto the plants growing out of the cliff at the last fucking moment.

reply

[–] blindfolded (1530) 2 years ago

I'd say 1940 serial was what it was trying to encapsulate.... and it definitely has its own identity.

Using the word "silly" as a descriptor of this one in opposition to the other two seems...silly.

Respectfully disagree with your take.

reply

[–] strntz (10897) 2 years ago

.. but i had a hard time getting absorbed into the action because of how silly it is.

Shakespeare this ain't.

Maybe the movie just isn't for you. I don't think there are many people who will agree that Raiders is too silly compared to the sequels.

reply

[–] sONOMArEturns (1253) 2 years ago

ToD and TLC are certainly both darker movies, though a movie being "dark" isn't what makes it good. all three movies have the humor and over-the-top stunts that nobody would ever survive, but RotLA feels the most ridiculous to me. the idea of ancient incans constructing a giant rockball that sat there for centuries is just as dumb as the nuke fridge scene from Indy 4.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

"the idea of ancient incans constructing a giant rockball that sat there for centuries"

OMFG how FUCKING STUPID are you?? They were not Inca, they were Hovitos!! And I see no problem with the boulder, since that's what it was.

reply

[–] TheMouseShadow (414) 2 years ago

I can’t even imagine having the opinion that this is overrated but to each his own.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

So you're finally figuring out that it's basically a modernized pulp serialization? Wow.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (2809) 2 years ago

I’m gonna get shit for this but Jaws feels a bit too much like it’s trying to be a movie about a shark

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I thought there was a shark in there someplace. I was just interested in the portable shower... or was that a monkey cage?

reply

[–] sONOMArEturns (1253) 2 years ago

damn, people cant handle the opinion of others. how sad. now im starting to think Raiders fanboys are all a bunch of crybabies lmao

reply

[–] BeaSouth (2809) 2 years ago

I was just kidding around sONOMA. I respect your willingness to go against the grain and to contribute to MovieChat. My substantive response: I think the movie intended to be the very thing you criticized and up until that point, no one had done anything like it. It deserves credit for that. In the meantime, we movie chatters have to give each other shit sometimes so we don’t take ourselves too serious.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

It's a modern take (back then at least) of the old 1950s action serials (also like Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon) that honestly made no sense then, but Lucas and Spielberg grew up with them, so they wanted to homage them in a (then) high-budget movie with advanced special effects.

reply

[–] NotoriousRio (12927) 2 years ago

Watched it yesterday on 4k, I enjoyed it as much then as I did watching it in 1981, when I saw it for the first time at the local cinema.

One thing that seems dated are the gruesome deaths at the end, that's the only thing from this film I wish would receive some kind of special edition treatment with CGI.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

"One thing that seems dated are the gruesome deaths at the end, that's the only thing from this film I wish would receive some kind of special edition treatment with CGI."

OMFG, now NotoriousRio IS TROLLING!!! That sequence is absolutely 100% practical and photographic effects and it is FLAWLESS! How the FUCK does that sequence that I've seen literally thousands of times without tiring of it seem DATED to you???

reply

[–] NotoriousRio (12927) 2 years ago

I was never a fan of the melting faces tbh, the fake heads didn’t look realistic, but I do not support Channel 4 (UK) who completely cut it out of a Raiders TV airing!

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

The melting faces was God's wrath, when burning is not enough.
The fake head exploding would've been too much for the movie censors, which is why they insisted on a wall of flame in front of it to partially obscure it. Besides, the heads of all three work quite well for me.
What about the fake heads for Peter Weller in Robocop, or Arnie in Total Recall? No-one ever complained about them!

Channel 4? Wait, what, so you still watch movies on TV broadcasts?? I gave up doing that when I discovered DVDs in 2000! Only losers who love cuts, advert breaks and schedules watch movies on TV broadcasts!

reply

[–] NotoriousRio (12927) 2 years ago

No I didnt watch it on Channel 4, I own it on 4k.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4108) 2 years ago

TLC is a complete ripoff of ROTLA and its definitely not better!

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6931) 2 years ago

For me, the Indiana Jones movies don't really hold up outside of nostalgia. They’re silly and not in a way I enjoy. I highly respect what they did and I used to love them, but not anymore. I'd rather re-watch The Mummy than any Indy movie.

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

"I'd rather re-watch The Mummy than any Indie movie"

Yuck! horrible nock off of Indiana Jones!!

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6931) 2 years ago

Disagree, it holds up. And I was a die-hard Indie fan, so I feel I have some right to say that.

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

no problems. its your tastes i will respekt that!!

may i ask why you likes it over indy? what do you like so much?

me? i like jerry goldsmith score. that about it. id rather watch kingdom of crystal skulls over mummy.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6931) 2 years ago

It's not that I love it so much, I just enjoy it more because it's more fun, and it knows it's silly, it isn't trying to take itself seriously in any major way. RotLA, in taking itself more seriously, actually amplifies the silliness. Mostly, when I watch back any Indy movie, it just feels dated in a way that I can't really enjoy anymore. I can't say that about The Mummy, it still feels current. All the characters are more memorable, the scenes fit together more succinctly and I guess I just prefer this kind of storytelling.

Don't get me wrong, RotLA still has a lot of good qualities. It's beautifully shot in that Charlton Heston grandiose old movie kinda way. It has a more sinister overtone and the danger is more impactful. It features John Rhys Davies, who I absolutely love. Yes, the score is amazing, for both films. But I don't have a good time watching it anymore, like I used to.

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

I think mummy is very good when you first see mummy - very scaries.

"But I don't have a good time watching it anymore, like I used to"

i understands. one thing i dont likes when i retwatch is the action scenes, which in RotLA is quite boring. i dont think spielberg direct action too well. suspense yes, action no. the truck chases in RotLA - too long and bore! same with tank scene in last crusades - feel like go on forever!!! speilberg use storyboarding too much sometime, his film can be over-storyboarded.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6931) 2 years ago

It happens with a lot of older movies, they lose their magic in some ways because we move on in film, and that's okay.

For me, I'm happy I got to watch and love it as a kid, and I'm grateful for the influence it's had on modern film and TV. That's why I always say context matters in film, and some films can only be enjoyed in a certain time period. I never thought I would dislike the Indy movies, but it happens.

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

"I never thought I would dislike the Indy movies, but it happens."

unfortunate for you that they lost magic. i cant think of too many film i once likes that i now dislike. maybe star wars prequel and some 80s action film like lethal weapon. interesting when a movies fan stop liking film they once watch all time. i guess our taste change with time.

did you like mummy returns?

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6931) 2 years ago

Yeah, I liked The Mummy Returns, but nothing after that.

It's happened to me with a lot of movies, tbh, bt I think that's normal, not all movies have longevity

reply

[–] pjl69 (2440) 2 years ago

I wouldn't be surprised if you meant the Tom Cruise Mummy, not Brendan Fraser one. Both suck by the way.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6931) 2 years ago

I haven't even seen that Mummy, bu Brendan Fraser's Mummy doesn't suck, it was the movie that set him on the path to stardom.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Fraser's path to stardom didn't last long, did it?

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6931) 2 years ago

Because of the trauma of his sexual assault and the subsequent blacklisting that followed, yeah. Not that that's stopped him, he's returned to TV I believe and I wish him well. Not sure what any of that has to do with me liking or disliking a particular film, but it's the truth all the same.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

OMFG, THIS THREAD IS FULL OF ANTI-INDY TROLLS!!!!

reply

[–] aavfreak (2890) a year ago

For me, the Indiana Jones movies don't really hold up outside of nostalgia. They’re silly and not in a way I enjoy. I highly respect what they did and I used to love them, but not anymore. I'd rather re-watch The Mummy than any Indy movie.

I feel this way exactly. The Indian Jones movies were great for their time, but watching them in 2022 is purely a nostalgia play. They don't hold up well at all. I would also rather re-watch The Mummy if given a choice.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6931) a year ago

And it's okay that they don't hold up anymore, they were wonderful for a long time for many people. Not so much anymore. Nothing for anyone to be sensitive about. Besides, The Mummy is underrated because it wasn't the first of it's kind.

reply