Which Was The Best Indiana Jones Film?

stumac7

With the new Indiana Jones film out soon, I was wondering which of the original films do you think was the best?
was it
1. Raiders of the lost ark
2. Temple of doom
3. Last crusade

For me it had to be Last Crusade , Sean Connery is great in it!

SpectreIsland

Last Crusade was the most fun for me as well {[]

emtiem

Well, Raiders is pretty much a perfect film, I'd say. It's the best, but they're all absolutely cracking.

Golrush007

My personal favourite happens to be Last Crusade.

It was the first one that I saw. The thing that I enjoyed most was the aeroplane scenes, especially when Sean Connery shoots up the tale of their plane and then explains to Indy, "They got us"!

It's also pretty hard to fault Raiders. I've always had mixed feeling about Temple of Doom though.

darenhat

I prefer them in the order they were released. I'd rather watch a whole movie with Short Round in it, than watch River Phoenix's portrayal of Indiana Jones. |)

emtiem

darenhat wrote:

I prefer them in the order they were released. I'd rather watch a whole movie with Short Round in it, than watch River Phoenix's portrayal of Indiana Jones. |)

To be fair, it's River Phoenix's impression of Harrison Ford's portrayal of Indiana Jones, and I think he does a pretty convincing job

bondaholic007

The Raiders Of The Lost Ark For Me, First One I Saw, just loved it

Loeffelholz

bondaholic007 wrote:

The Raiders Of The Lost Ark For Me, First One I Saw, just loved it

If I had to pick just one, it would be the first. I enjoyed them all---Connery was great in Crusade---but it seemed (to me) that by the third film, the formula had run its course.

Hopefully this long pause between 3 and 4 will have reenergized everyone, and they can finish up on a high note.

Hardyboy

For me, it's Raiders all the way. I saw it when it was first released in 1981, and it blew me away. Every time I've re-watched it I still find it fun, exciting, and exhilarating. Temple of Doom was a huge letdown for me: it's hampered by an annoying kid sidekick and an even more annoying leading lady, and the entire story is like George Stevens's magnificent Gunga Din (1939) on steroids. Last Crusade is better--as Loeff says, Connery adds a lot--but it borrowed a bit too much from the Raiders model. I'm hoping Crystal Skull will be a good film, but I highly doubt it can match, much less better, the original.

emtiem

Hardyboy wrote:

I'm hoping Crystal Skull will be a good film, but I highly doubt it can match, much less better, the original.

Yeah- I'm not expecting that at all (I genuinely think Raiders is a very strong candidate for Best Film Ever Made), but I'm sure Crystal will be a lot of fun.

Napoleon Plural

I never got the hang of Raiders. Admittedly I saw it on a small colour TV on video first time round. To me, this was Ford in his pre-charisma years, generally expressionless. The stunt on the wagon-cars seemed very staged. The bit where he somehow chances it by swimming out to another submarine out in the ocean is just ludicrous, beyond most Moore Bond films. The magic realism (?) of the ending left me baffled a bit.

The first bit of Temple of Doom I loved, but even then it seemed Spielberg was doing his suspected trick of keeping the dialogue low in the mix so as to keep the audience leaning forward in their seats. I saw it again on telly (the first scene) and it was the same.

The third? Great, like a Bond film. Connery in one of his best performances, in the second wind of his career. Ford more animated. A bit too funny at times, sure, but it puts out.

asio

Last Crusade.
I still remember my Mum & Dad taking my brother & I to the local cinemas to see it. I think that Connery & Ford worked well together, and it's something I felt was lacking in the Raiders and Temple. That being said, Channel 7 are playing all three films tonight, and over the next 2 weeks, in the lead up to Kingdom, so I will be watching them all to relive the adventure!

TonyDP

Last Crusade is tops for me as well.

While Raiders has better action and stuntwork, the characterizations and location work in Crusade are more fun to watch.

I find Temple of Doom to be practically unwatchable. The kid is annoying, the plot much too dark, the action scenes far too long and improbable (even for an Indy movie) and the thing just has too many creepy-crawlies all over the place.

Sweepy the Cat

On Sunday in the UK on BBC1 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is being shown at primetime (Around 8:00) and is beig followed up (probably in the following sundays) by Temple Of Doom and The Last Crusade.

Sweepy the Cat

After watching 'ROTLA' for the first time (The shame) I can officially say this is one of my top 10 films of all time. I've unfortuanetly had to watch the films in back wards order and this is the first time I've seen the original in whole. When I was about 10 I saw five minutes of it and thought it was a bit naff but now I've seen the whole thing I can really appreciate it. Sure there's some plot holes and occasionaly things are a little silly but overall it's fantastic.

Alex

Raiders Of The Lost Ark is perfect entertainment. I'm at a loss regarding some of the criticism here. Roger Moore like? No characterizations? Are you guys watching the same movie as me??

Granted, I saw it in the theater when I was ten and it blew me away. Grabbed up the movelization as well. Mega Dittoes to Temple Of Doom and it's Giant Sized Marvel adaption. Too dark? Creepy Crawlies? What is wrong with that?? I long for those pre-code adult movies that us kids were being shown. Much better then that sappy and gag inducing pre credit sequence from The Last Crusade. (which I loathe) (Now we know who dressed Indy!) 8-)

Last Crusade is the weakest for me. Despite Connery! Going for the Holy Grail, since we've already grabbed the Ark Of The Covenant? Gimme a break! Not the mention that ludicrous immortal Knight and Indy's instant find under a museum floor by moving a few velvet ropes!

Give me open hearts, human sacrifices, damsels in distress, melting skulls, and rotting cadavers anytime!

darenhat

Alex wrote:

Raiders Of The Lost Ark is perfect entertainment. I'm at a loss regarding some of the criticism here. Roger Moore like? No characterizations? Are you guys watching the same movie as me??

Granted, I saw it in the theater when I was ten and it blew me away. Grabbed up the movelization as well. Mega Dittoes to Temple Of Doom and it's Giant Sized Marvel adaption. Too dark? Creepy Crawlies? What is wrong with that?? I long for those pre-code adult movies that us kids were being shown. Much better then that sappy and gag inducing pre credit sequence from The Last Crusade. (which I loathe) (Now we know who dressed Indy!) 8-)

Last Crusade is the weakest for me. Despite Connery! Going for the Holy Grail, since we've already grabbed the Ark Of The Covenant? Gimme a break! Not the mention that ludicrous immortal Knight and Indy's instant find under a museum floor by moving a few velvet ropes!

Give me open hearts, human sacrifices, damsels in distress, melting skulls, and rotting cadavers anytime!

Ah! A kindred spirit!

Alex

darenhat wrote:

Ah! A kindred spirit!

More spirits for the kindling!

Napoleon Plural

Well I watched Raiders last night and couldn't get into it too much, guess it's like a song everyone else likes but I don't.

It did seem to owe a fair amount to Superman at first; Indy is a hero in his costume, sans glasses, then is in bookish Clark Kent mode back at the university, all nervous and bashful with the women. And then of course the woman is just like Margot Kidder as Lois Lane, there the same dynamic, not that I'm knocking it, I quite enjoyed it but it never struck me before.

Didn't realise that was Doc Oc in the opening scene...

emtiem

Alex wrote:

Raiders Of The Lost Ark is perfect entertainment. I'm at a loss regarding some of the criticism here. Roger Moore like? No characterizations? Are you guys watching the same movie as me??

Granted, I saw it in the theater when I was ten and it blew me away. Grabbed up the movelization as well. Mega Dittoes to Temple Of Doom and it's Giant Sized Marvel adaption. Too dark? Creepy Crawlies? What is wrong with that?? I long for those pre-code adult movies that us kids were being shown. Much better then that sappy and gag inducing pre credit sequence from The Last Crusade. (which I loathe) (Now we know who dressed Indy!) 8-)

Ack! And you were going so well! Yep; Raiders is pretty much perfect, Temple's great too, but... I think Crusade is as well! Probably the weakest, yeah, but it's a really good, funny adventure film. Better than pretty much everything else. I love all three.

Napoleon Plural wrote:

And then of course the woman is just like Margot Kidder as Lois Lane, there the same dynamic, not that I'm knocking it, I quite enjoyed it but it never struck me before.

Not a bad observation. I fancy both of 'em!

Dan Same

Napoleon Plural wrote:

It did seem to owe a fair amount to Superman at first; Indy is a hero in his costume, sans glasses, then is in bookish Clark Kent mode back at the university, all nervous and bashful with the women. And then of course the woman is just like Margot Kidder as Lois Lane, there the same dynamic, not that I'm knocking it, I quite enjoyed it but it never
struck me before.

A great observation. {[] However that of course is one of the things that IMO makes Raiders so great. It refers back to other classical super heroes and adventure films but adds its own twist.

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Didn't realise that was Doc Oc in the opening scene...

Me neither, until you mentioned it. )

Dan Same

For me, it's Raiders followed by the second half of Last Crusade.

Raiders is IMO a brilliant film and among Spielberg's best (I much prefer it to the overrated E.T.) but I don't think it's perfect. I think it drags a bit during the car chase, which IMO was rather confusingly shot. I'm also annoyed that Marion cut her hair at the end and I think that the locating of the ark was perhaps a little too easy. These may seem like small complaints but for me they very much lessen this masterpiece.

And I would describe it as a masterpiece. Ford IMO is superb (sorry NP ), most of the action scenes are great, the dialogue is extremely fresh and often quite funny, Marion is fantastic (why, oh why, did she not get the career she deseves? ), the plot is clever, the hero it introduces is absolutely brilliant (the whip was surely born out of genius ) and the scene in which Indy shoots the sword wielding assailain must surely rank as one of the greatest moments in the history of cinema. To conclude, Raiders is a magnificent film. {[]

Temple of Doom is my least favourite of the three films, and it is the only one which I wouldn't tape if it was on television and I wasn't at home (speaking of which, it's on Australian TV tomorrow night at 8:30 on Channel Seven.) Its flaws are substantial; the female lead is unmemorable (she is no match for Marion) and is often extremely annoying, the film is too dark, the screenplay lacks the creativity of Raiders and the film is unnecessarilly offensive. There's also Short Round, but to be honest, I didn't mind him.

Anyway, the film does present some moments of pleasure. The scene in which Indy uses his whip to defeat the villain in his room is one I always look forward to. Ford does his usual fine job as Indy and many of the action scenes are well staged. I don't love Temple of Doom, however nor do I hate it.

I find Last Crusade to be an interesting film in that it is a film of two halves. The first half (up to the point Indy reaches the house where his father is being held hostage) is fun, but not overly so. I enjoyed the investigating, but the boat chase went on far too long. I like chases, but only if they are done well, and IMO this wasn't the case in Last Crusade.

Also, the 'young Indy' scenes were all very well done, but I would have preferred that Indy not be demystified, and certainly not in that way. (I can understand why he adopted the whip, since it's so darn cool, and how he got his fear of snakes, but why adopt a hat simply because some robber he met only once gave it to him? ?:)) I would have prefered not to have the demystification and instead for the film to imply, like in Raiders, that Indy adopts his identity and particular outfit because it is practical and because he is simply leading a 'double life.'

All in all, the first half went on far too long for my liking. Raiders felt like it dragged a bit towards the end; The Last Crusade feels like it drags during much of the first half. (I often skip over the first half if it's on TV or if I taped it.)

The second half is brilliant. The interaction between Ford and the superb Connery is truly wonderful, the action scenes are great, the ending (including passing the obstacles) is terrific, I love the humour and, the second half goes by in no time. My only complaint would be the reference to Hitler (which Spielberg himself regrets), but really, the second half is fantastic and almost as good as the best of Raiders.

I'm a huge Indy fan and I enjoyed all three Indy films, to varying degrees. Hopefully the new one will be better than its trailer suggests and will remind me why I love Indy so much; I say bring it on! {[]

Cynjin Smyth

Dan Same wrote:

For me, it's Raiders followed by the second half of Last Crusade.

Raiders is IMO a brilliant film and among Spielberg's best (I much prefer it to the overrated E.T.) but I don't think it's perfect. I think it drags a bit during the car chase, which IMO was rather confusingly shot. I'm also annoyed that Marion cut her hair at the end and I think that the locating of the ark was perhaps a little too easy. These may seem like small complaints but for me they very much lessen this masterpiece.

And I would describe it as a masterpiece. Ford IMO is superb (sorry NP ), most of the action scenes are great, the dialogue is extremely fresh and often quite funny, Marion is fantastic (why, oh why, did she not get the career she deseves? ), the plot is clever, the hero it introduces is absolutely brilliant (the whip was surely born out of genius ) and the scene in which Indy shoots the sword wielding assailain must surely rank as one of the greatest moments in the history of cinema. To conclude, Raiders is a magnificent film. {[]



Temple of Doom is my least favourite of the three films, and it is the only one which I wouldn't tape if it was on television and I wasn't at home (speaking of which, it's on Australian TV tomorrow night at 8:30 on Channel Seven.) Its flaws are substantial; the female lead is unmemorable (she is no match for Marion) and is often extremely annoying, the film is too dark, the screenplay lacks the creativity of Raiders and the film is unnecessarilly offensive. There's also Short Round, but to be honest, I didn't mind him.

Anyway, the film does present some moments of pleasure. The scene in which Indy uses his whip to defeat the villain in his room is one I always look forward to. Ford does his usual fine job as Indy and many of the action scenes are well staged. I don't love Temple of Doom, however nor do I hate it.



I find Last Crusade to be an interesting film in that it is a film of two halves. The first half (up to the point Indy reaches the house where his father is being held hostage) is fun, but not overly so. I enjoyed the investigating, but the boat chase went on far too long. I like chases, but only if they are done well, and IMO this wasn't the case in Last Crusade.

Also, the 'young Indy' scenes were all very well done, but I would have preferred that Indy not be demystified, and certainly not in that way. (I can understand why he adopted the whip, since it's so darn cool, and how he got his fear of snakes, but why adopt a hat simply because some robber he met only once gave it to him? ?:)) I would have prefered not to have the demystification and instead for the film to imply, like in Raiders, that Indy adopts his identity and particular outfit because it is practical and because he is simply leading a 'double life.'

All in all, the first half went on far too long for my liking. Raiders felt like it dragged a bit towards the end; The Last Crusade feels like it drags during much of the first half. (I often skip over the first half if it's on TV or if I taped it.)

The second half is brilliant. The interaction between Ford and the superb Connery is truly wonderful, the action scenes are great, the ending (including passing the obstacles) is terrific, I love the humour and, the second half goes by in no time. My only complaint would be the reference to Hitler (which Spielberg himself regrets), but really, the second half is fantastic and almost as good as the best of Raiders.


I would have to agree but IMO the best part is the first intro of Indy. All you see is his back until the whip comes out. I don't think that finding the Ark was to easy once you relize that in the third movie his dad was a very religious man. If I remember in Raiders he even says "I think you got the wrong Jones. I think your looking for my father." In all Raiders will always be the best.

Again TOD was an odd movie because it takes place before Raiders. He does the gun thing again but this time it's gone. Short round is key in the movie because of the conection to the kids in the villege. It all so shows Indy as a kind of father figure. True the female in this movie was not as good as Marion. They should've made TOD as a sequal and had Marion return.
Again agree on some, I did like the opening squence but not the hat. The cross tie in from young Indy and old Indy was good. Even though the Nazi religous artifact was done in Raiders, Hitler was a fanatic when it came to religous artifacts. He had teams looking for stuff like that for real. So it could be done again and again. It was nice to see Connery play his father and that he was sarcastic as Indy. All in all I very much liked TLC. I just hope that the new one won't be the DAD of the Indiana Jones movies. When I heard that Ford was going to do it I had hoped it would be like him telling his class a stoy and a young Indiana on the screen.
I think I will wait to hear word of mouth reviews to go see it.

Dan Same

Cynjin Smyth wrote:

I would have to agree but IMO the best part is the first intro of Indy. All you see is his back until the whip comes out.

The first intro of Indy in Raiders was indeed wonderful.

Cynjin Smyth wrote:

I don't think that finding the Ark was to easy once you relize that in the third movie his dad was a very religious man. If I remember in Raiders he even says "I think you got the wrong Jones. I think your looking for my father." In all Raiders will always be the best.

I don't understand. ?:) Why does Indy's father being religious make finding the ark less easy?

Cynjin Smyth wrote:

Again TOD was an odd movie because it takes place before Raiders. He does the gun thing again but this time it's gone.

Exactly. The producers wanted to refer back to Raiders, except TOD is set before Raiders!

Cynjin Smyth wrote:

Even though the Nazi religous artifact was done in Raiders, Hitler was a fanatic when it came to religous artifacts. He had teams looking for stuff like that for real. So it could be done again and again.

True, but I think having an actual reference to Hitler, and especially like that one, was extremely inappropiate. It's not a big deal, but it is something that I don't like. As it is, Spielberg himself regrets that particular reference.

Cynjin, I want to make it clear; I loved the second half of Last Crusade, but I do consider Raiders to be the best, flaws and all.

Sweepy the Cat

'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' is on BBC 1 in about 25mins!!!

After a long hard think my favourite 'Indiana Jones films in order are:

1. The Raiders of the Lost Ark
2. The Last Crusade
3. The Temple of Doom

Cynjin Smyth

I didn't mean for it to seem as though I was saying your not an Indy fan. I can see that you like the films as much as I.

What I ment about his dad being religous is that he dad studied religous artifacts like the grail. Again in Radiers Indy makes a statement about them having the wrong Jones.

darenhat

Cynjin Smyth wrote:

What I ment about his dad being religous is that he dad studied religous artifacts like the grail. Again in Radiers Indy makes a statement about them having the wrong Jones.

Indy never makes that statement in 'Raiders' - only in 'Crusade'. Remember that the main plot point for getting Jones involved in the first film was his knowledge of Abner Ravenwood, not the ark.

Cynjin Smyth

darenhat wrote:

Cynjin Smyth wrote:

What I ment about his dad being religous is that he dad studied religous artifacts like the grail. Again in Radiers Indy makes a statement about them having the wrong Jones.

Indy never makes that statement in 'Raiders' - only in 'Crusade'. Remember that the main plot point for getting Jones involved in the first film was his knowledge of Abner Ravenwood, not the ark.

I think your right, my vhs went caput and havn't gotten the DVDs yet.

emtiem

Dan Same wrote:

Raiders is IMO a brilliant film and among Spielberg's best (I much prefer it to the overrated E.T.) but I don't think it's perfect. I think it drags a bit during the car chase, which IMO was rather confusingly shot.

I'm a bit puzzled by that; I think it's one of the best action sequences ever. How is it confusing to you?

Alex

emtiem wrote:

Dan Same wrote:

Raiders is IMO a brilliant film and among Spielberg's best (I much prefer it to the overrated E.T.) but I don't think it's perfect. I think it drags a bit during the car chase, which IMO was rather confusingly shot.

I'm a bit puzzled by that; I think it's one of the best action sequences ever. How is it confusing to you?

"I don't know, I'm making this up as I go."

Oh and speaking of Raiders' intro, it's not so much the emergence of Indy from black silhouette but his head cocking when the gun does. Brilliant stuff, imo.

emtiem

Alex wrote:

"I don't know, I'm making this up as I go."

Cracking stuff. Here's a fantastic re-enactment:

http://www.cooltoyreview.com/story/front/Probot_Productions_Raiders_Of_The_Toy_Box_Video_114613.asp

(Must admit I gave in and bought myself a little Indy yesterday. I've always wanted one, okay? )