So why is Raiders of the Lost Arc an amazing movie, while Crystal Skull is a terrible movie? Lets talk about the problems: 1) Indy survived a nuclear blast in a fridge in Skull, while Indy survives taking a ride outside of a submarine in Raiders. 2) The endings are stupid in both - God's wrath vs aliens. 3) The final outcome in Raiders would have basically been the same had Indy not been involved. Similar plot issue in Skulls. I am getting at a similar thing here that I did with the Lucas thread. I feel that had Raiders come out now, it would be panned as silly and would not have the status that it currently has in the movie community.
The best Indy films are Raiders and Crusade, they are both fun little movies. That's not to say the other two don't have their moments but not as many as the Raiders and Crusade.
Crystal Skull is much more fun than Temple Of Doom, but yes, Raiders and Crusade are the best. Both have their improbable/supernatural elements.
WWII era submarines were more like submersible ships than true submarines. They spent most of their time travelling on the surface, only diving when they were under a threat or were preparing to attack during the daytime. Most night attacks were conducted from the surface. The most incredible aspect in the sub scene was that there weren't any lookouts on the bridge Lookouts would have discovered a stowaway pretty quickly. Submarines maintain a 24 hour watch when they are underway so they can detect possible threats and normal maritime traffic.
Geez, where do I start? You know what, can't be bothered. Raiders = One of the best movies ever. Skull = hugely disappointing. By the way, God's wrath? So much more terrifying than aliens!!
Raiders was awesome. Temple O' Doom was great. Crusade was lazy drek. Crystal Skull was more awesome than anybody will give it credit for. Run it down all you like.
I think people are slightly misunderstanding my opinion here. While I find both movies entertaining, Raiders is clearly the better movie. The thing is, I believe that had Raiders come out in the 21st century, people would be too busy finding plot holes to actually enjoy the movie. Similarly, had Crystal Skull come out in the 80s, and used the more practical effects of the time, it would be considered a great movie as well.
Crystal Skull suffers from that knee jerk reaction of the internet, the internet hates it. I rarely find such a visceral reaction to it by non-entrenched movie people. That's not to say I find it perfect but I do enjoy it. Raiders and it's submarine ride has been given possible explanations(that I don't recall right now) but one thing people overlook is that Indy is essentially Agnostic. To him the Wrath of God and Aliens are equally the same. Only the audience separates it out as plausible(God) vs unplausible(Aliens). I'd rank it: Raiders Crusade Skull Doom I don't dislike any of the 4 and Doom has grown on me over the years.
crystal skull was an exercise in showing you just can't pull some franchises into the 21st century. if it was made back in the day, then it -might- have worked. but it did nothing but show that indiana jones was a product of its time and was a disappointing movie overall. i mean does anyone really want to see their childhood movie hero being old and getting upstaged by that kid from transformers? i didn't.
I saw it differently. Despite his age Indy showed he's still got it! I think they had fun with his age. I love anything to do with aliens and I really liked that aspect of the movie. I thought it was a heck of a lot of fun. Not as enjoyable for me as Raiders and Crusades was but it is a movie that I think doesn't deserve the bad rap it gets.
Did you really think Indiana was upstaged by Mutt? He's shown a few times to be brash and too quick to action by Indy. When Mutt tries to get a tough and "brings a gun to a knife fight", Indy quickly organizes away out "hit that kid". When they are in the graveyard and Mutt's like "that's a dead end", to which Indy discovers it's not "this way genius". If anything I felt the movie showed that Indiana while moving through the decades since we last saw him had handled things well. Working for the war effort, being a decorated hero and when thrust back into things with the Skull situation was easily able to get back into that saddle.
The plot holes and special effects were the least of that movie's problems. The bigger issues were the silly tone, the cheesy Syfy-level storyline, and the generic dialogue that lacked any of the previous movies' wit and charm.
Your OP barely gave an opinion at all, which probably led to said misunderstanding. Anyways, Raiders is very simply a far superior film. The characters are much more complex. The script is far tighter, with some very clever setups and payoffs, as the Mr. Plinkett review noted: we're introduced to Marion as a very hard drinker, so when she starts boozing with Belloq, we think she'll get the best of him... until we learn he grew up on a vineyard! Compare this to Skull's political persecution of Indy subplot which goes nowhere, and is indeed blithely disregarded at the end. Also, as JacksonArcher noted years ago, even the look of Skull is all wrong: sugary, processed, and utterly sweat-free. It's not an awful movie, and it's got some good bits here and there, particularly the college chase and the diner, but it's certainly not a great movie, not even close. If Raiders came out today, it'd probably be received much like The Dark Knight: yes, there are huge plot holes and ridiculous elements (a large Nazi force in 1930s Egypt?), but still first-rate entertainment.
I just watched the last third of "Crystal Skull" the other day. Yes it does have this annoying glossy sheen, the CGI doe detract at times. But other than that, it's still a really fun film. I think the jungle chase is as good as any of the chases in the other three films. The way they jump around from vehicle to vehicle with relative ease is in keeping with the "goofy fun" tone of the series. I really do need to sit down and watch it all the way through again, I've only done that about three times. On the other hand, I don't think it comes close to Raiders, and if Raiders was released today it'd still be seen as the fun thrill ride it was 30 years ago.
Absolutely this! Wit and charm was replaced by snark and arrogance, and the silliness was just too much to take. I sat in the theatre gritting my teeth and counting the minutes until this farce was over instead of taking part in a fun ride. If Raiders was released today and marketed appropriately ( a fun popcorn movie done in the style of old black and white serials) I think it would still find an audience.
Yeah, people may complain about the campier tone of Doom and Crusade, but for me the grittiness of the settings and action scenes does an awful lot to make up for that, and makes what happens still feel fairly believable and real. Skull, on the other hand, looks overly clean and romanticized, and just turns into more and more of a cartoon as it goes along.