Rate the last movie you've seen

[bassman]

Last Crusade is often battling it out with Raiders as my favorite of the series. I also enjoy Crystal Skull. There are obviously several issues, but as a whole it works for me…

[MinionZombie]

Last Crusade is often battling it out with Raiders as my favorite of the series. I also enjoy Crystal Skull. There are obviously several issues, but as a whole it works for me… *high five* ... I don't get the 'TLC is too silly' stuff at all, especially considering that escape from the airplane in Temple and the monkey brains dinner sequence with cross-eyed Willie fainting etc. Sure, there's double-oh-sheven taking down a fighter plane with an umbrella and a flock of seagulls, but beyond that??? I think Temple was too dark. Raiders found the perfect limit to how dark you could be, and then Temple blundered over it. Sure, Crusade is lighter fare (no doubt because Temple was deemed to be, quite fairly, too damn dark and gross), but it really captures the vibe of Raiders outside of the gorier moments (that said - the villain's demise is pretty grim!) ... so many great moments and sequences in TLC - the trip to Venice, the Nazi occupied castle, the boat chase, the motorcycle chase, bumping into Hitler (at a book burning - now that's a pretty damn dark sequence once you get older as a viewer!), the opening sequence (particularly that triumphant reveal of adult Indiana on the boat), Indy making his way through the traps, and choosing the correct grail ... ... and come to think of it, that poor old fucker who's been waiting 700 years just gets left at the end and he looks so bummed out!

[shootemindehead]

Sure, there's crazy moments in both Raiders and Temple, but there's no stupid "slapstick" type comedy. That's the difference. The old guy stamping books while Indy bashes through the floor of the library and he thinks it's him making a loud pounding noise for instance. That's just fucking stupid. It's not funny. The pilot of the 108 who crashes and travels side by side with Indy and his dad in the tunnel and has a goofy look on his face. That's just dumb. And there's far too much of that shite in the film. It comes off as a Charlie Chaplin type picture at times and all because some windy gits got upset with Temple of Doom in 1984. As for "too dark", Raiders has Temple beaten in that area. Even the music at times is darker and more sombre. People's faces MELT and heads explode for gods sake. There's absolute nothing in Temple that reaches that level. Last Crusade has its moments for sure and the dynamic between Ford and Connery was great. But, as a whole, it's easily the worst of the original trio.

[MinionZombie]

I also forgot the fight in/around the tank in Crusade as another great sequence in that movie. While Raiders has some fucked up shit in it, there's a sense of adventure about it that is totally in-keeping with the 1930s serials that inspired the franchise ... whereas Temple has a sense of 'deliberately trying to gross-out the audience'. Temple feels different as a result, a bit mean spirited, a bit of an endurance, as if the filmmakers are constantly egging each other on behind the scenes to see how gross and yucky they can get away with being. I mean: eating snakes and monkey brains (served in the decapitated heads) and slurping the gunk out of beetles?! Raiders had a couple of gory thrills, but Temple was actively trying to make it's audience vomit at times. That's the difference in tone. Temple also feels a little bit lost. They had a hit with Raiders and with Temple they were having to recreate that magic, and so the movie always feels like a half-step off the whole time. Crusade, on the other hand, feels much more assured and, even if it does copy Raiders for certain scenes, Raiders and Crusade feel much closer together than Raiders and Temple. Temple feels like an R-Rated movie in spirit, shoved into PG clothes. Indeed, the PG-13 rating had to be specially created after its release because of how gross and dark Temple of Doom was compared to Raiders (and partly because of Gremlins - another Spielbergian production via Amblin).

[Neil]

I also forgot the fight in/around the tank in Crusade as another great sequence in that movie. Yes, that is one of the best Indy moment IMHO...

[shootemindehead]

While Raiders has some fucked up shit in it, there's a sense of adventure about it that is totally in-keeping with the 1930s serials that inspired the franchise ... whereas Temple has a sense of 'deliberately trying to gross-out the audience'. Temple feels different as a result, a bit mean spirited, a bit of an endurance, as if the filmmakers are constantly egging each other on behind the scenes to see how gross and yucky they can get away with being. I mean: eating snakes and monkey brains (served in the decapitated heads) and slurping the gunk out of beetles?! Raiders had a couple of gory thrills, but Temple was actively trying to make it's audience vomit at times. That's the difference in tone. Temple also feels a little bit lost. They had a hit with Raiders and with Temple they were having to recreate that magic, and so the movie always feels like a half-step off the whole time. Crusade, on the other hand, feels much more assured and, even if it does copy Raiders for certain scenes, Raiders and Crusade feel much closer together than Raiders and Temple. Temple feels like an R-Rated movie in spirit, shoved into PG clothes. Indeed, the PG-13 rating had to be specially created after its release because of how gross and dark Temple of Doom was compared to Raiders (and partly because of Gremlins - another Spielbergian production via Amblin). Temple of Doom is also reflective of the 1930's. It directly channels the likes of Tarzan movies and other "dark continent" stuff, even though it was set in India. There were lots of 30's movies about the white man in "savage" countries. Which is largely where Temple of Doom gets its vibe from. The dinner scene isn't that bad. Certainly not a gross out as a man's face melting off of his skull. And nothing is more "lost" that The Last Crusade. A film that had to drag out the Germans again because they couldn't think of another bad guy for Indy to go up against. Besides the Indy and Indy dad angle, the whole film just feels a little tired, with silly comedy put in place of the darker themes of Raiders and Temple which is, frankly, what made those films as entertaining as they were.

[MinionZombie]

Fair points, even though I don't agree with the perspective. I'd argue that the triple head in Raiders is more ghoulishly gruesome in a fun way rather than "gross". Temple's dinner scene, on the other hand, was fucking rank in an actual "gross" way.

[JDP]

I don't get this hate for the dinner sequence in Temple of Doom. It's a great bit of dark comedy. It fits very well into the movie. And yes, folks, native peoples in some countries actually eat things that we "westerners" are often shocked or even repulsed by. It's a fact. The movie is obviously exploiting and exaggerating the topic, but that's the point. Quite frankly, I found the "swarm of insects" sequence in Temple of Doom to be way more "disturbing" than the dinner sequence. I saw Temple of Doom at the movie theaters when it came out, in all its big-screen glory, and during that sequence I was frequently looking at my shoulders to see if I had one of those damn creepy bugs on me! I found it way creepier than the similar "swarm of snakes" sequence in Raiders. Temple of Doom is fucking great! Only second to Raiders. As pointed out, the fact that Spielberg tries to "disown" the movie and apologizes for how dark it came out is actually A GOOD THING! It speaks in favor of the movie, actually, not against it. You want this "darkness" in this type of films.

[MinionZombie]

Yeah, but that's the point I'm trying to make - Temple is just trying to gross-out the audience. The other movies are seeking to thrill them, whereas Temple is actively doing everything it can to make them feel queasy (not exclusively, but certainly in a way that is markedly different to the other three films). As you say, all those bugs - super icky and creepy and gross and squirm-inducing - with the added focus on how horrified Willie was. There was a focus on the infliction of terror and nausea with that character in particular. The dinner scene was part slapstick (e.g. cross-eyed fainting) and part dinner party torture porn. One of the actors said the scene was intended to send-up what westerners would think they'd eat by serving up such gross things in front of Indy/Willie/Short Round ... although that doesn't make any sense because they're all eating it and it doesn't really telegraph that intent. I mean - eyeball soup, really?! I think the way that Willie careens through the film squealing in terror for 90% of the run time reveals how they overstepped the tonal line. Compare it to Crusade when Indy falls into the huge container filled with snakes. It gave him his fear of snakes, it's a shock, it's a thrill, but it's not a major gross-out like slurping goo from a beetle's butt.

[shootemindehead]

Well, of course the dinner scene is a send up. All of these movies are send ups to some degree. Jones can't go anywhere without encountering "strange" foreign crap, as it was envisaged by the average Joe in the 1930's. That's kinda the point. By the way, we'd all be mightily surprised at what some countries consider edible. In Indonesia you can get cow's brain curry. They eat snails in France. My wife on a trip to China was offered sheep's eyes. She refused, obviously, and the Chinese wolfed them down. Bear in mind also, that we've just had over a year and a half of a pandemic because of bats sold for soup ingredients in a market in Wuhan. I just don't see Temple of Doom as being close to the horrors that Raiders had. Jesus, there's scenes in that film that would have genuine horror movies on the backfoot. Marion running into all those corpses when her and Indy are trapped in the Well of Souls for instance. That "throw me the idol" bastard stuck on wall spikes with a death face that's chilling. From the very beginning of the film, Raiders has some very creepy stuff going on. And that's why we love it.

[paranoid101]

Kate Netflix Its a cross between John Wick and Crank, but not as good either, stranded action movie not bad but not great, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is the best part in the movie. but can't save it from being average. 5/10

[Neil]

Kate Netflix Its a cross between John Wick and Crank, but not as good either, stranded action movie not bad but not great, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is the best part in the movie. but can't save it from being average. 5/10 5/10 is harsh... I'd give it at least 5.1

[MinionZombie]

Booooooo! It's a solid 7/10, I had a blast with it, very pleasantly surprised.

[paranoid101]

Booooooo! It's a solid 7/10, I had a blast with it, very pleasantly surprised. Lol ok I will give it a 5.9

[MinionZombie]

Lol ok I will give it a 5.9 Let's round that up to a 6 and we've got a deal!