Tweet
My mini reviews:
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (came out in 1984, set in 1935):
Good fun, no problem with it whatsoever. I totally understand people finding it the weakest of the three Indy movies so far, but the outright dislike of it still baffles me. I think it's fun to see a little bit more of a brash, "Honor and glory" Indy before he came a little bit more down to Earth in Raiders and Last Crusade. Viewing the films in proper chronological order of Temple => Raiders => Last Crusade actually gave me a better appreciation of Temple of Doom, and I suspect it would have gotten better appreciation at large had it actually been released first, serving as a bit of a slow-burn to the larger, significantly more epic installments.
Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc (came out in 1981, set in 1936):
I watched Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc (heh) after watching Temple of Doom... yeah, what are you guys smoking talking about Temple of Doom is darker? I get that most of the cinematography is dark and dank for most of the movie back in Temple of Doom... but Raiders is about 10 times as dark and macabre as ToD.
Temple of Doom, aside from the Monkey Brain platter, all we see that's particularly "Oh!"ing is just the dude getting his heart pulled out.
In Raiders... let's see... we've got a guy getting run through an airplane propeller, a couple guys' faces melting off (bloodily and visibly), bullets to the head, men crushed under vehicles... did we see the same movies?
But yes, I get it. The problem with Temple of Doom is that it ends up being about ten times less epic than either Raiders or Last Crusade.
Raiders gets a decent edge over Temple of Doom for me, though not because of Billie or Short Round or anything like that.
At any rate, easily the best, no-nonsense, most epic Indy movie there is that's as gritty an Indiana Jones movie as we'll likely ever get.
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (came out in 1989, set in 1938):
Always fun, always a treat. Though I'd watched it with her before, I quizzed my girlfriend and she seemed to like this one best of all 3, citing the humor and family aspect of it... but that's her thing.
It is certainly the most "fun" of the first three Indiana Jones movies. It retains the epic, globe-trottingness of Raiders while still delivering more or less what is expected of an Indiana Jones movie by this point. Connery is great stunt-casting, but moreover has fantastic chemistry with Junior... can't go wrong here.
Many steps below the grit of Raiders and Temple, though Last Crusade still checks in to give us the withering/dusting scenes when a couple of folks "Choose poorly."
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (came out in 2008, set in 1957):
All right, I'm not going to try an exercise in talking about stuff and yet not talking about stuff... so just highlight below to see my review.
Perfect. Well, near perfect, but exactly what I'd hoped and imagined with all the "It's been 20 years, it better be a ****ing masterpiece to end all masterpieces, a return of Indy that will make the Earth tremble and God cry!" set firmly aside.
Spielburg wasn't lying. The movie kind of makes no bones about it really, truly being one for the fans. The nuggets with, "Oh look, it's the Arc from the first movie," the nods to Indy's dad, the surprisingly large role for Marion, the happily ever after wedding at the end... it's a big gift-wrapped package for Indy fans, and you can tell Spielburg and company had a blast doing this.
My thoughts are a bit scattered on things, so bear with me...
* It's easily the least gritty of all four films, even considerably below Last Crusade. About as gritty as it gets is the "Giant Ants" (and for the record, when I read there'd be giant ants in the movie I was thinking... giant ants... like, doberman-size ants or larger still) devouring a couple of Russians... but we don't really see anything as the people are literally... covered in ants. Ah well, not a big deal.
* Delightful chemistry with Indy and Marion. Better than I expected, far better. It literally looks like they're not even acting at all, and maybe they're not.
* So pretty much everybody's expectations about Mutt being Indy's son turn out to be true. This was the kind of thing I was really holding out, going, "Damn it, you just KNOW everyone is expecting this kid to turn out to be Indy's son... I'm going to gamble that it's not, it's just some student that becomes entangled in things." But nope, it's his son, and what happened between Indy and Marion and the kid all pretty much play out exactly like anyone would expect (he left, she had a kid, she married someone else, blah blah). It's played well though, I had far less of a problem with it after seeing it.
* The aliens. Only... it doesn't really turn out that they're aliens at all, does it? "The space in between space," "interdimensional aliens"... what? This just smacks as Spielburg and Lucas trying to be a little bit different for the sake of different. Oh, for ****'s sake, just have the damned saucer fly off into space... no one is going to care that we've seen it in X-Files and Close Encounters. But I really liked the angle, I liked the way it way played up and still not gotten into at ridiculous levels.
* Henry Jones III and the Case of the Vine-Swinging Monkeys. Yeah. For a few moments there it felt like I was watching a parody movie or something... truly awful, and yet this is the only bad thing I can say about the movie at all. But it's really bad, and completely random.
* Shia made me nervous going in but calmed my worries fairly early on. He does OK here. Still, dude needs at least another 10 years under his belt before he's to serve as any kind of replacement Indy. Easy.
Liked Cate, like Ray, great casting all around. Good fun, and a pretty sensible addition to the Indiana Jones legacy.
I'd rate the movies:
1) Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc
2) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
3) Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
4) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
But I really find it hard to rate them. Yes all four share the same kind of motif, and yes the four all share a similar vibe... but something about each of them makes each one so unique, so in and of itself. Like, with Temple of Doom, I truly love it, it's an awesome movie... and yet I feel compelled to mark it lower than the rest, not because it's any less of a movie or experience than the others, but rather because it's less of an epic, less of an overall "Big" story. It's not a failing, it's just incidental of the story.
But ah, hell, that's enough about this. I need to watch the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles sometime.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (came out in 1984, set in 1935):
Good fun, no problem with it whatsoever. I totally understand people finding it the weakest of the three Indy movies so far, but the outright dislike of it still baffles me. I think it's fun to see a little bit more of a brash, "Honor and glory" Indy before he came a little bit more down to Earth in Raiders and Last Crusade. Viewing the films in proper chronological order of Temple => Raiders => Last Crusade actually gave me a better appreciation of Temple of Doom, and I suspect it would have gotten better appreciation at large had it actually been released first, serving as a bit of a slow-burn to the larger, significantly more epic installments.
Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc (came out in 1981, set in 1936):
I watched Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc (heh) after watching Temple of Doom... yeah, what are you guys smoking talking about Temple of Doom is darker? I get that most of the cinematography is dark and dank for most of the movie back in Temple of Doom... but Raiders is about 10 times as dark and macabre as ToD.
Temple of Doom, aside from the Monkey Brain platter, all we see that's particularly "Oh!"ing is just the dude getting his heart pulled out.
In Raiders... let's see... we've got a guy getting run through an airplane propeller, a couple guys' faces melting off (bloodily and visibly), bullets to the head, men crushed under vehicles... did we see the same movies?
But yes, I get it. The problem with Temple of Doom is that it ends up being about ten times less epic than either Raiders or Last Crusade.
Raiders gets a decent edge over Temple of Doom for me, though not because of Billie or Short Round or anything like that.
At any rate, easily the best, no-nonsense, most epic Indy movie there is that's as gritty an Indiana Jones movie as we'll likely ever get.
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (came out in 1989, set in 1938):
Always fun, always a treat. Though I'd watched it with her before, I quizzed my girlfriend and she seemed to like this one best of all 3, citing the humor and family aspect of it... but that's her thing.
It is certainly the most "fun" of the first three Indiana Jones movies. It retains the epic, globe-trottingness of Raiders while still delivering more or less what is expected of an Indiana Jones movie by this point. Connery is great stunt-casting, but moreover has fantastic chemistry with Junior... can't go wrong here.
Many steps below the grit of Raiders and Temple, though Last Crusade still checks in to give us the withering/dusting scenes when a couple of folks "Choose poorly."
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (came out in 2008, set in 1957):
All right, I'm not going to try an exercise in talking about stuff and yet not talking about stuff... so just highlight below to see my review.
Perfect. Well, near perfect, but exactly what I'd hoped and imagined with all the "It's been 20 years, it better be a ****ing masterpiece to end all masterpieces, a return of Indy that will make the Earth tremble and God cry!" set firmly aside.
Spielburg wasn't lying. The movie kind of makes no bones about it really, truly being one for the fans. The nuggets with, "Oh look, it's the Arc from the first movie," the nods to Indy's dad, the surprisingly large role for Marion, the happily ever after wedding at the end... it's a big gift-wrapped package for Indy fans, and you can tell Spielburg and company had a blast doing this.
My thoughts are a bit scattered on things, so bear with me...
* It's easily the least gritty of all four films, even considerably below Last Crusade. About as gritty as it gets is the "Giant Ants" (and for the record, when I read there'd be giant ants in the movie I was thinking... giant ants... like, doberman-size ants or larger still) devouring a couple of Russians... but we don't really see anything as the people are literally... covered in ants. Ah well, not a big deal.
* Delightful chemistry with Indy and Marion. Better than I expected, far better. It literally looks like they're not even acting at all, and maybe they're not.
* So pretty much everybody's expectations about Mutt being Indy's son turn out to be true. This was the kind of thing I was really holding out, going, "Damn it, you just KNOW everyone is expecting this kid to turn out to be Indy's son... I'm going to gamble that it's not, it's just some student that becomes entangled in things." But nope, it's his son, and what happened between Indy and Marion and the kid all pretty much play out exactly like anyone would expect (he left, she had a kid, she married someone else, blah blah). It's played well though, I had far less of a problem with it after seeing it.
* The aliens. Only... it doesn't really turn out that they're aliens at all, does it? "The space in between space," "interdimensional aliens"... what? This just smacks as Spielburg and Lucas trying to be a little bit different for the sake of different. Oh, for ****'s sake, just have the damned saucer fly off into space... no one is going to care that we've seen it in X-Files and Close Encounters. But I really liked the angle, I liked the way it way played up and still not gotten into at ridiculous levels.
* Henry Jones III and the Case of the Vine-Swinging Monkeys. Yeah. For a few moments there it felt like I was watching a parody movie or something... truly awful, and yet this is the only bad thing I can say about the movie at all. But it's really bad, and completely random.
* Shia made me nervous going in but calmed my worries fairly early on. He does OK here. Still, dude needs at least another 10 years under his belt before he's to serve as any kind of replacement Indy. Easy.
Liked Cate, like Ray, great casting all around. Good fun, and a pretty sensible addition to the Indiana Jones legacy.
I'd rate the movies:
1) Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc
2) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
3) Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
4) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
But I really find it hard to rate them. Yes all four share the same kind of motif, and yes the four all share a similar vibe... but something about each of them makes each one so unique, so in and of itself. Like, with Temple of Doom, I truly love it, it's an awesome movie... and yet I feel compelled to mark it lower than the rest, not because it's any less of a movie or experience than the others, but rather because it's less of an epic, less of an overall "Big" story. It's not a failing, it's just incidental of the story.
But ah, hell, that's enough about this. I need to watch the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles sometime.
Comment