Indiana Jones 5 - 2019

[Grappler]

It was a nice closure for Indy's character, and did they really kill his son off screen? Crystal Skull had such a bad reputation that they had to pull a "Poochie died on his way back to his planet"? 

I really enjoyed the movie, but I've never been as critical as others.  As for your quote - Shia LaBeouf got really weird when Crystal Skull came out.  Harrison Ford has always understood that actors have to do the promotional circuit and promote the film.  Shia trash talked Indy 4 and Ford called him a fucking idiot.  Around that time, he also decided that big-budget films weren't his thing anymore and he only wanted to do indie films. 

I'm guessing they just found a way to write him out of the film so they didn't have to deal with him, and it had nothing to do with the performance or criticism of the last film.

[BlackInk]

For me it’s a toss-up between Crystal Skull and Dial when it comes to which is worse/better. I don’t actively hate either of them, they’re mostly a big bundle of nothingness in my mind that don’t really kindle any particular emotions at all. I will say though that Crystal Skull feels more like an Indiana Jones movie to me, even if it’s not a particularly good one.

[soupytwist]

I will say though that Crystal Skull feels more like an Indiana Jones movie to me, even if it’s not a particularly good one.

Crystal until the final act is OK.  Dial is just quite depressing in tone, and it looks awful.

[Cool Chris]

Got around to this one today. Having a hard time processing it all in my head. I loved the Indiana Jones franchise as a kid. That along with Star Wars were the benchmarks for how enjoyable film could be, to both a child, and a child at heart. So I am very protective on how I evaluate films in those franchises at this point in my life. It was enjoyable, I never felt bored or distracted, or that it dragged on. It just has the same problem as Crystal Skull. I never cared about the McGuffin. I've seen Crystal Skull twice and I still don't really get what the Skulls did or why they were so important. I got Mads*motivation for getting the Dial, and there were ramifications if Indy couldn't get it from him. It just didn't hold the gravitas that the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail did. Even getting those stones back for the village just feels so dang important.

*The last two movies I've watched are this and Rogue One. That is back to back doses of Mads. Which of course is a good thing.

[jammindude]

Still a bit shocked at the lukewarm reaction from most. I still feel like 5 was *MILES* better than 4, which I thought was absolutely unwatchable.  The plot was more engaging, the chase scenes were more exciting, the premise wasn’t as absurd… I would place 5 at a very close 3rd in the franchise, and 4 at an extremely distant last place.

[Cool Chris]

Still a bit shocked at the lukewarm reaction from most. I still feel like 5 was *MILES* better than 4, which I thought was absolutely unwatchable.  The plot was more engaging, the chase scenes were more exciting, the premise wasn’t as absurd… I would place 5 at a very close 3rd in the franchise, and 4 at an extremely distant last place.

An ancient mechanism designed by someone in 200BC to locate a fissure in time; crystal skulls being remnants of omnipotent inter-dimensional beings.... it's a bit of a push 

[BlackInk]

While the very end may have gone a bit too far over the shark (along with stuff like swinging on vines and nuking the fridge), I do still feel that ancient Mayan aliens or whatever is a very Indiana Jones thing to base a movie on. It feels similar in feel to the original trilogy, at least more so than the 5th movie. An actual time traveling device--and then actually traveling back in time and participating in ancient battles--it just feels... not like Indiana Jones, or at the very least not as much like Indiana Jones as the others. Maybe it's just bias talking though, and in a few years time they will all blend better for me.

[T-ski]

My main problem with 5 for me is the absurdity of watching an 80 year old man doing physical things 80 year old men can’t do.

I mean, at least try to put some realism into it.

[Cool Chris]

While the very end may have gone a bit too far over the shark (along with stuff like swinging on vines and nuking the fridge), I do still feel that ancient Mayan aliens or whatever is a very Indiana Jones thing to base a movie on. It feels similar in feel to the original trilogy, at least more so than the 5th movie. An actual time traveling device--and then actually traveling back in time and participating in ancient battles--it just feels... not like Indiana Jones, or at the very least not as much like Indiana Jones as the others. Maybe it's just bias talking though, and in a few years time they will all blend better for me.

I've been thinking about this, and i largely agree. My experience is that once they get to the temple at the end of 4, I've largely lost interest in the whole quest. I don't care about the antagonist (I cannot even remember her name) or what she was ultimately looking for. I appreciate that they were going for something supernatural, but it ended up just being aliens, or something, I guess. And so what if she finds what she is looking for, really? At least if Mads finds the whole Dial, we can buy in to the possibility that this could be a really bad thing, and we want Indy to stop him. Actually going back to 200BC lost me a bit, but I like how they incorporated the idea of Indy's "I've studied history my entire life, I belong here..."

The chase/actions scenes were a bit over the top but they never lost me. They should have, with Indy being involved, as T-ski says, but I was willing to suspend the disbelief enough.

[bosk1]

I never saw Crystal Skull.  But given how badly it was panned, even by a lot of pretty hard core Indy fans who had even given that abomination of a film that part III was (I can't even remember what it was called), I never had any desire to see it.  I mean, if it was worse than III, I figured I would probably just walk out partway through, which I almost never do.  That said, I still wouldn't mind eventually seeing it just for the sake of completeness, but just haven't gotten around to it.

I just recently saw Dial, and I thought it was pretty good.  It can't touch the first two, but was still very enjoyable.  Nice way to close out a legendary franchise.

[jammindude]

I never saw Crystal Skull.  But given how badly it was panned, even by a lot of pretty hard core Indy fans who had even given that abomination of a film that part III was (I can't even remember what it was called), I never had any desire to see it.  I mean, if it was worse than III, I figured I would probably just walk out partway through, which I almost never do.  That said, I still wouldn't mind eventually seeing it just for the sake of completeness, but just haven't gotten around to it.

I just recently saw Dial, and I thought it was pretty good.  It can't touch the first two, but was still very enjoyable.  Nice way to close out a legendary franchise.

Wait….you hated The Last Crusade? You are talking about the one with Sean Connery, right?

I’ve just never met anyone who didn’t like that one so that’s a pretty hot take if I’m reading that right.

[pg1067]

I'm guessing that Bosk is mixing up Temple and Crusade.  While I think Temple was the weakest of the first three, I certainly wouldn't call it an abomination.

[bosk1]

No, Temple was great.  But pretty much everybody hates Crusade.  I mean, if you want to say you do, cool, but you'd be the first person I've ever met anywhere that said that.

[Grappler]

No, Temple was great.  But pretty much everybody hates Crusade.  I mean, if you want to say you do, cool, but you'd be the first person I've ever met anywhere that said that.

This is the first time in my life that I have seen anyone state that Temple of Doom is better than Last Crusade.   

Raiders is my favorite - full on action/adventure.  But Last Crusade is so good with Sean Connery injecting some really great humor into his relationship with Indy.  And the action scenes are amazing - they upped the game in that one with the tank chase and the airplane chase. 

[jammindude]

No, Temple was great.  But pretty much everybody hates Crusade.  I mean, if you want to say you do, cool, but you'd be the first person I've ever met anywhere that said that.

Bosk, you’re literally the first person I’ve ever heard of in 30 years who didn’t think that was one of, if not THE best Indy movie.

Are you sure you’re not pulling a late April Fools prank right now?

[jammindude]

Rotten tomato audience scores

Raiders - 96%
Temple - 82%
Crusade - 94%

Critic scores

Raiders - 93%
Temple - 77%
Crusade - 84%

I’m not saying you’re wrong about what the people you hang out with think. But the “everybody” statement is provably wrong.

[The Realm]

I love all 3 of the first Indy movies.

I will agree with Bosk and say that I actually think Temple of Doom is better than Last Crusade, however I love them both with Raiders being number 1.

The weakness to me for Last Crusade is the ending, which feels like a rehash of the start of Raiders and just never felt inventive enough. The Sean Connery/Harrison Ford banter etc is priceless though and Denholm Elliot as Marcus really steals the show. It is hard to believe that someone who likes Raiders and Temple could not like Last Crusade? And I also am not aware of anyone who feels the same as Bosk? A true Outlier!

I know most aren't a huge fan of Temple of Doom but I still love this movie. Indy turning bad always freaked me out as a kid but apart from that the movie is near perfect for me.

I have watched all 3 countless times.

[NoseofNicko]

Rotten tomato audience scores

Raiders - 96%
Temple - 82%
Crusade - 94%

Critic scores

Raiders - 93%
Temple - 77%
Crusade - 84%

I’m not saying you’re wrong about what the people you hang out with think. But the “everybody” statement is provably wrong.

Crusade is also the #117 highest rated movie of all time with a 8.2/10 on IMDb.

[BlackInk]

Last Crusade is the best one.

[The Letter M]

The Odd-numbered Indy films are the better ones. (No green text needed)

-Marc.

[bosk1]

This is the first time in my life that I have seen anyone state that Temple of Doom is better than Last Crusade.   

Raiders is my favorite - full on action/adventure.  But Last Crusade is so good with Sean Connery injecting some really great humor into his relationship with Indy.  And the action scenes are amazing - they upped the game in that one with the tank chase and the airplane chase. 

Rotten tomato audience scores

Raiders - 96%
Temple - 82%
Crusade - 94%

Critic scores

Raiders - 93%
Temple - 77%
Crusade - 84%

I’m not saying you’re wrong about what the people you hang out with think. But the “everybody” statement is provably wrong.

Sorry, but I don't believe either of you.

[pg1067]

No, Temple was great.  But pretty much everybody hates Crusade.  I mean, if you want to say you do, cool, but you'd be the first person I've ever met anywhere that said that.

I have never met or heard of a single person who hated Crusade.  Not a single one.  In fact, I've never heard anyone say Crusade was anything less than great.

Bosk, you’re literally the first person I’ve ever heard of in 30 years who didn’t think that was one of, if not THE best Indy movie.

Yeah...that.