That scene in Raiders was nightmare fuel for a 6 year old. Not just the face-melting but the ark ghost's face turning evil freaked me the hell out. Much like Ghostbusters library ghost or Pee Wee trucker. I'm scarred and still don't want to watch the latter two.

Temple of Doom did not bother me, although I can see why it's the reason we now have PG13. I just recall everyone at school thinking the dinner scene was the most amazing piece of cinema ever and discussing it nonstop.

Raider is definitely one of the top movies of all time. I used to avoid Temple of Doom, but last few times I watched it I found a new appreciation for it. Kind of the opposite for Last Crusade. It's a good movie, but there something too slick about it, and some of the actors seem bored.

Gotta feel bad for Tom Selleck. He is a good actor, but obviously things worked out for the best having Ford land the role.

Need to do a rewatch of this trilogy although I guess ToD is actually a prequel, right?

Regardless, I haven't watched any of these in decades.

YouBet said:

---

Need to do a rewatch of this trilogy although I guess ToD is actually a prequel, right?

Regardless, I haven't watched any of these in decades.

---

I just rewatched all of them a couple weekends ago, but did so from last (Dial of Destiny) to first (Raiders)

YouBet said:

---

Need to do a rewatch of this trilogy although I guess ToD is actually a prequel, right?

Regardless, I haven't watched any of these in decades.

---

All three are standalone films set in the 30's. The only connection is that a couple of the characters from Raiders show up again in Last Crusade. I was always under the impression that ToD took place first chronologically, then Raiders, then Last Crusade. Checked wiki and that appears to be correct.

Mathguy64 said:

---

Last Crusade is better but they also used a cheat code. They had the three most iconic actors of their generations. And they all delivered. That puts it over the top for me.

Imagine being on set with the two male leads that delivered the three most recognizable characters in 40 years (at the time). Bond, Indy and Han Solo.

---

True, but FIFY?

Ag87H2O said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Btron said:

---

Bruce Almighty said:

---

Raiders never did anything for me, but for whatever reason, this was just one of those movies that I just never watched as a kid. Temple of Doom was always on tv, so that was the Indy movie I grew up with. The Last Crusade came out when I was 10 and I loved it, but I never got around to see ROTLA until I was in my late 20s, and by then, the movie felt a bit dated.

---

I don't disagree with this. To me Last Crusade is my favorite. The booby traps leading to the Holy Grail plus the clues from his dad's diary all to race to save his dad and beat the Nazis. That was epic, I'd never seen anything like that before.

---

What elevated TLC for me was not the action - opening sequence, boat chase, motorcycle chase, tank vs horses and camels - but the father-son dynamic and the arc that both went through during the course of the movie. The addition of Henry Jones Sr literally elevated this sequel well above the Temple of Doom and to basically a more poignant version of ROTLA.

---

When Jones is reaching for the chalice in the crevace and doesn't want to let it go and his dad finally uses his nickname and says "Indiana, let it go", it gets me every time.

Also love the ending scene where outside the entrance to the temple his dad reveals to Salah that Indiana was the dog's name. Racing the horses out of the gorge into the sunset to the title soundtrack is one of the best movie endings of all time.

---

Agree with both of those, and I'll add when Sr, Salah, and Brody are staring over the cliff and Jr comes up behind them, Sr grabs him in a big bear hug and we see that smile on Jr's face, that one also gets me.

Temple of Doom trumps all

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Mega Lops said:

---

Temple of Doom trumps all

---

I rate it as the "worst" of the original 3, and it depends on my mood when watching which is "worse" between that one and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - do I want annoying as hell blonde and kid sidekick, or do I want annoying 20-something kid swinging on vines with monkeys?

---

Crystal Skull was awful. Will find out if it annoys me now but when I first watched it "Dr. Jones! Dr. Jones!" Didn't annoy me.

But as i sit here, I don't think I've actually watched ToD since it came out which is kind of wild. That will be basically an entirely new movie for me.

Quote:

---

Crystal Skull was awful

---

Gotta disagree, as there is simply no awful Indiana Jones movie. Awful to describe a movie is getting to the level of 1959's The Alligator People, or some such slop.

But Crystal Skull did feel "off" in terms of what we had come to expect from an Indiana Jones film. There were some things that felt out of place given that all we'd ever seen of him came from the 1930s. So stuff like a nuclear mushroom cloud, F-86 Sabre jets, and aliens, er, interdimensional beings, did seem out of place.

Still, I think people have forgotten what inspired Indiana Jones in the first place. It wasn't an attempt to make a new 007 kind of hero. It was inspired by the serials of the 20s and 30s. These would take a listener (radio broadcasts) or early movies from one spectacle to the next, would our heroes survive the swinging blade or the raging inferno, that sort of thing. When looked at like that, all of the Indiana Jones movies have done exactly that.

What we got was a series of movies set at particular times in the life of Indiana Jones. I would have preferred that Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford just cranked out a new movie every 2 or 3 years starting in 1981 and going through maybe the mid-1990s, but that didn't happen. Lucas was very well known for sitting on a promising idea for a new movie and then squashing it to begin the story development process all over again. But all in all, what we got was a look at Indiana Jones life, from young kid as portrayed in The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles to old man as portrayed in The Dial of Destiny and his appearance in The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, in one quick scene of him sitting on a park bench getting ready to regale the audience with a tale of his youth. I'm good with that.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Quote:

---

Crystal Skull was awful

---

Gotta disagree, as there is simply no awful Indiana Jones movie. Awful to describe a movie is getting to the level of 1959's The Alligator People, or some such slop.

But Crystal Skull did feel "off" in terms of what we had come to expect from an Indiana Jones film. There were some things that felt out of place given that all we'd ever seen of him came from the 1930s. So stuff like a nuclear mushroom cloud, F-86 Sabre jets, and aliens, er, interdimensional beings, did seem out of place.

Still, I think people have forgotten what inspired Indiana Jones in the first place. It wasn't an attempt to make a new 007 kind of hero. It was inspired by the serials of the 20s and 30s. These would take a listener (radio broadcasts) or early movies from one spectacle to the next, would our heroes survive the swinging blade or the raging inferno, that sort of thing. When looked at like that, all of the Indiana Jones movies have done exactly that.

What we got was a series of movies set at particular times in the life of Indiana Jones. I would have preferred that Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford just cranked out a new movie every 2 or 3 years starting in 1981 and going through maybe the mid-1990s, but that didn't happen. Lucas was very well known for sitting on a promising idea for a new movie and then squashing it to begin the story development process all over again. But all in all, what we got was a look at Indiana Jones life, from young kid as portrayed in The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles to old man as portrayed in The Dial of Destiny and his appearance in The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, in one quick scene of him sitting on a park bench getting ready to regale the audience with a tale of his youth. I'm good with that.

---

Crystal Skull would be a much, much better movie had they just cut the jungle chase scene out. That 5-10 minutes of absurdity from the point where they escape the Russians to the fire ants dragging the guys into the mound made that movie so much worse. I'm not sure I can think of another movie that beclowns itself with less screen time than that one scene.

Other than that, I actually really like it. The reason I wasn't bothered so much by the Nuclear fridge incident is because I actually loved the scene of Indy silhouetted against the mushroom cloud. The contrast of the old school American hero standing in awe of the dawning Nuclear Age really worked for me.

That mushroom cloud scene does work for me as well. I just remember sitting in the theater on opening night thinking it was not right for an Indiana Jones movie, it just took me a little bit of time to get to liking that sequence.

The jungle chase was fine per se, it was the Tarzan and the monkeys vine swinging that was laughable. I never had a problem with the giant ants, either, given that it felt like another one of those "how will our heroes escape the hordes of ants?" old movie serial style of cliffhanger moments.

Quote:

---

the fire ants dragging the guys into the mound

---

They should have just had the ants skeletonize the people. THAT would have been cool.

zap said:

---

Crystal Skull does not exist.
The one they did after does not exist.

Raiders/Doom/Last Crusade...that is all.

---

It's the Arrested Development model

zap said:

---

Crystal Skull does not exist.
The one they did after does not exist.

Raiders/Doom/Last Crusade...that is all.

---

That's one way to look at it. I suppose.

Or perhaps you exist in one of those alternate reality things that basically sank the MCU post Endgame?

Zeke1995 said:

---

Just wanted to point out, as no one has done so far, that the reluctant Nazi chick in Last Crusade was fine as hell.

---

That's Dr. Elsa Schneider to you, sir.