I don't know if anyone's ever watched the bonus disc to the Indiana Jones trilogy, but it really pisses me off.
In the Making Of The Temple Of Doom, both Geoge Lucas and Steven Spielberg are constantly saying how it's their least favorite film and it was too dark and all that.
If it hadn't been for the precedent of George Lucas already ripping apart his past masterpieces of film history, I wouldn't believe it. But now, they don't supprise me anymore in their stupidity.
Temple Of Doom was by far the most imaginitive, most enjoyable of the three films with the best action, funniest comedy, best music, best special effects. All of the most memorable scenes are in this movie. The bug scene, the spike room scene, the pulling a heart out of a man's body scene, etc.
Anyway. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg just never cease to piss me off in their old age. Their inability to recognize their greatest achievements of the past is astounding.
I can't wait for Temple Of Doom Special Edition where they try to lighten-it up by having the Kali run by Ewoks and use a lesbian feminist as Indy's love interest.
By contast, many people seem to think that Last Crusade was the best of the three. But having watched all three movies probably 50 times each. I can easily say without a doubt that Last Crusade has the least longevity. The action, suspense, and suprises are just too sparse. The suprises we do get aren't very imaginative (like the obvious one where in the first scene at school, he says X never marks the spot, and then at the library, X does mark the spot. It was clever the first time I watched it. But now it's just boring. In constrast I never get tired of Short Rounds one-liners in Temple.). What else do we have. The pen is mightier than the sword. And we're hit with the lame "all the action takes place in a desert" trick, like so many low-budget action/sci-fi movies before and since. And the cheap attempt for a moral ending, where he doesn't reach for the grail and follows his dad's advice... Raiders was much more thought provoking, with the Ark going to a CIA wharehouse, and Temple just more fun with all the kids rushing back to the greened-up village. And not to mention that the music in Last Crusade is quite unmemorable. Not any great themes or melodies. Temple had catchy hum-for-days indian-inspired themes.
But criticism of John Williams is another story. It seems that sometime in the mid 80's his creativity just took a nosedive. Just look at the prequels.
That's the only thing that's a con for Rambo III too is the 'all action takes place in a desert" bit. But hey, I love anything where Sly shoots exploding arrows.
Anyway, I just think people's judgement of Crusade is clouded by the fact that Sean Connery is in it. And granted, he provides some of the best scenes, but he still can't bring it up to par with either Raiders or Temple.
In the Making Of The Temple Of Doom, both Geoge Lucas and Steven Spielberg are constantly saying how it's their least favorite film and it was too dark and all that.
If it hadn't been for the precedent of George Lucas already ripping apart his past masterpieces of film history, I wouldn't believe it. But now, they don't supprise me anymore in their stupidity.
Temple Of Doom was by far the most imaginitive, most enjoyable of the three films with the best action, funniest comedy, best music, best special effects. All of the most memorable scenes are in this movie. The bug scene, the spike room scene, the pulling a heart out of a man's body scene, etc.
Anyway. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg just never cease to piss me off in their old age. Their inability to recognize their greatest achievements of the past is astounding.
I can't wait for Temple Of Doom Special Edition where they try to lighten-it up by having the Kali run by Ewoks and use a lesbian feminist as Indy's love interest.
By contast, many people seem to think that Last Crusade was the best of the three. But having watched all three movies probably 50 times each. I can easily say without a doubt that Last Crusade has the least longevity. The action, suspense, and suprises are just too sparse. The suprises we do get aren't very imaginative (like the obvious one where in the first scene at school, he says X never marks the spot, and then at the library, X does mark the spot. It was clever the first time I watched it. But now it's just boring. In constrast I never get tired of Short Rounds one-liners in Temple.). What else do we have. The pen is mightier than the sword. And we're hit with the lame "all the action takes place in a desert" trick, like so many low-budget action/sci-fi movies before and since. And the cheap attempt for a moral ending, where he doesn't reach for the grail and follows his dad's advice... Raiders was much more thought provoking, with the Ark going to a CIA wharehouse, and Temple just more fun with all the kids rushing back to the greened-up village. And not to mention that the music in Last Crusade is quite unmemorable. Not any great themes or melodies. Temple had catchy hum-for-days indian-inspired themes.
But criticism of John Williams is another story. It seems that sometime in the mid 80's his creativity just took a nosedive. Just look at the prequels.
That's the only thing that's a con for Rambo III too is the 'all action takes place in a desert" bit. But hey, I love anything where Sly shoots exploding arrows.
Anyway, I just think people's judgement of Crusade is clouded by the fact that Sean Connery is in it. And granted, he provides some of the best scenes, but he still can't bring it up to par with either Raiders or Temple.