Why Raiders is my least favorite Indy movie

The first film in the series, which I still think of as Raiders of the Lost Ark (even if it has been officially renamed to Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark to fit with the other two, the credits on the film still call it Raiders of the Lost Ark), was released in 1981, and became an instant classic. It blends comedy and action seamlessly, and even has a neat little love interest that doesn't interfere with the story flow. However I think it's the weakest of the three films, partly because it was made to be able to stand-alone. There a few movies as entertaining as Raiders and it?s a nice feel-good movie. Spielberg?s direction is splendid and the sets, special effects, original music, acting are all outstanding. This film does a superb job of blending Hitler's fascination with the occult, Biblical mythology and archaeology ? I don't know how much of it is authentic, but it doesn't matter, because we're willing to suspend disbelief and enjoy the ride. And it's quite a ride. However Harrison?s performance as Indy is his weakest; he?s not quite comfortable with the part (Harrison himself prefers Last Crusade to Raiders). I find the story to be similar to Richard Wagner?s Parsifal and Indy?s transformation follows Schopenhauer ideology e.g. did not believe that people had individual wills but were rather simply part of a vast and single will that pervades the universe. There are too many bloopers in Raiders for my liking, e.g. how did Indy not drown when the submarine submerged? Another thing that disappoints me about Raiders is that it doesn?t relate to complex numbers. Marion doesn?t have much to do except look scared. Belloq?s character is too cartoonish, just like the baddie from Die Hard was. The opening of Raiders is the best of the trilogy, however the last half cannot sustain that level of inspiration. The truck chase is poorly directed and should never have been left to a second-unit director. The fight under the flying wing also looks amateurish like it was rushed. I was wondering how well the special effects would hold up today, over twenty years later, after we've seen the world of visual effects develop so much. I'm surprised, and delighted, to see that they still look very good indeed. I'm not sure how many times I've seen this film, but I don't tire of it. However they should have kept the mine car chase in it and the film is missing the greatest character Short Round. So to recapitulate Raiders is one of the best action adventure movie ever made but my least favorite Indy movie.

Colonel Vogel said:

There are too many bloopers in Raiders for my liking, e.g. how did Indy not drown when the submarine submerged?

Click to expand...

It did not submerge at all.

I'm pretty certain that I'm on record elsewhere on this site indicating that Raiders of the Lost Ark is my favorite of the Indiana Jones films, so I have to respectfully disagree with parts of your assessment. I've never really viewed Ford's performance in Raiders as weak. In fact, I've always seen his performance as harder-edged than the depictions in the other two films. For me, the somewhat cynical, mercenary Jones hits closer to my perception of the character than any other portrayal. Harrison's performance in Raiders hits on some of the emotional complexities of the character (his choice to leave Marion in captivity while pursuing the Ark; his confrontation with Belloq in the canyon) and is quite consistent over the course of the movie. Honestly, I view Belloq as the most believable and complex villain in the series. His obsession with the pursuit of historical treasures is eerily close to Jones' own, and the clear implication by the story that Belloq and Jones have been longtime competitors adds a strong personal dimension to the film's conflict. Admittedly, I find Elsa's motivations in LC interesting, but Marion in my mind remains the strongest of Jones' love interests. Again, the past relationship between the two that the script alludes to adds a depth to their interaction that the other female leads don't match. Frankly, I've never viewed the action sequences that you named as weak either. Each time I view the film, I still find myself engrossed in them. The truck chase was certainly a nod to Stagecoach, but it was competently directed and remains one of the most suspenseful chases on film.

Just my two cents on the matter.

VP said:

It did not submerge at all.

Click to expand...

I admit that Indy's submarine ride is a major gaffe in the film
but is not enough to detract from it's rightful place as the
best movie in the series. However...

...in the Marvel comic book adaptation, it does submerge,
and Indy ties himself to the periscope with his whip.

Raiders is also my least favorite Indy movie.

Stoo said:

...in the Marvel comic book adaptation, it does submerge,
and Indy ties himself to the periscope with his whip.

Click to expand...

I know, but the periscope didn't submerge.

Uhm - it was an homage to the fast paced serial movies of the 40's and 50's. It's supposed to look dirty and hasty. The movie has a quick pace and is totally unbelievable.

Accept these 3 films for what they are. They are not drama's or tragedy's - they are heroic tales about glory and detemination. That is why Last Crusade is MY least favorite. They departed from what made the series great, IMHO, too much insight into why Indy is Indy. I say leave it up to your imagination as to why. Do you ever ask yourself why Clint Eastwood is so greedy in the Sergio Leone speghetti westerns? Heck no, you just accept the character and enjoy the film...

Don't over-think these movies, it goes totally away from what was intended.

I also hope that they NEVER film Indy IV - do you really want "today's" Lucas and Speilberg to go back and crap all over the trilogy like George did to Star Wars?!? And in case you hadn't taken notice - SS hasn't had a HUGE hit in quite some time. Desperation is just on the horizon. Not only that, but did you happen to get a look at HF in the latest Entertainment Weekly? Man, the guy looks worse than my 82 year old grandfather.

They waited too long and now it will just be a joke...

WOW!

Fedoraman. Just 7 posts??? and yet what wisdom!!

Welcome to the Raven.

I could not agree more with your post. So very well said!!

And do you ever ask why Dirty Harry is so dirty??

Nope. Don't need to.

He's not too old to play Indy.

Fedoraman said:

Do you ever ask yourself why Clint Eastwood is so greedy in the Sergio Leone speghetti westerns?

Click to expand...

Yes I do, because the spaghetti westerns were crap! Also, Dirty Harry is overrated and boring.

Them 'dar is fightin' words white boy!
How can you not enjoy the tounge in check humor and intese action of High Plains Drifter, it has ti all, murder, rape, little people, dang, With the fine exception of the Indiana Jones movies I really hae to put the man with no name series as one of the most complete series ever made.
Temple of Doom is my favorite movie. I also regret the lame mine car chase, but hey they bit off more than they could chew in the mid-80's, I think i really shows the most about who Indy as a charater is. But Raiders is such a great movie. If only Temple of Doom had Nazis . . .

Oh yeah - he looks fresh as a daisy



Grampa Indy...

He looks remarkably good for his age, and I'm sure he would do some kind of training to get in shape for the role as well. The main thing, I think, is that he is supposed to be playing an older Indy anyway. As long as the filmmakers don't script the kinds of crazy stunts and action sequences that characterise the original films, there shouldn't be a problem.

Sorry to bump an old thread.

Regarding the submarine, WWII era submarines were diesel powered, and used batteries to run electric motors when they were submerged. The diesel engine of course had to use oxygen, so it could only be operated at periscope depth. Subs at that era could travel much, much faster (and for much greater distances) by utilizing the diesel engine. So if they wanted to make best time, and if they didn't spot any other vessels or planes along the way prompting them to submerge, then they would have stayed at periscope depth the whole time.

This site has all the patrol logs for a WWII era US submarine. If you read through the reports you'll find they spent 95% of the time at the surface, and only submerged to test, train or if they spotted anything they couldn't identify. Things became quite different when they moved away from combustion engines to nuclear.

Dan East

WOW, welcome Dan, what a great first post! My limited knowledge of WWII era nazi subs, lead me to believe that yes, if no baddies were in site, that tehy would run on the surface, and not tax the battieries (thanks U571). Nice post and a great old thread to bump!

Thanks. The only reason I knew that is because I've been in that US WWII era sub before - the USS Batfish. It's in Oklahoma and is now a museum that the public can tour. It's been over 20 years since I went through it, but that thing made such an impression on me as a kid that I remembered about the engines, etc.

Still, I wouldn't want to be drug through the water for who knows how many miles while holding onto a piece of metal. However we're not exactly talking about a normal person now, are we?

Dan East

I rate the Indy movies as they would appear in their own chronology, so in my book Temple comes first... then Raiders.... then Crusade....

But overall it's still the BEST trilogy ever

Someone posted a picture of Ford still quite buff about 5 years ago, which probably would have been a good time to make the film. I saw a recent picture of him with an, uh, tighter shirt on, and he isn't quite like he was back then. I think if this film is ever going to be made it wouldn't be a bad idea to hit the gym to prepare. I'm sure he would though.

I'm a sucker for all three films. All have their distinctive style and they're pretty perfect for it (two-fisted action of Raiders, the weird pulp of Doom, and the high adventure of Crusade). And yes, the submerging sub business is right-- Indy rode the un-submerged periscope. Why anyone would think the sub actually submerged completely for the whole trip while Indy was on it is beyond me.

And Sergio Leone's films were ingenious.

Well, there wasn't much distance between the Bantu Wind and the island base, so there wouldn't be a point in being completely submerged.

I just want to say that RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is without a doubt the best action-adventure film ever made. With such high praise for a movie I've seen at least 150 times, no other action picture could ever come close,

I must disagree that Belloq is cartoonish - the villains in the other Indy films were cartoonish but not Belloq. He was smooth, suave and played both sides against the middle, like any Frenchman And to say the truck chase is poorly directed, well, how so? Give us examples. It is about as perfect a chase sequence as one would expect.

RAIDERS is pure escapism with a hero who only becomes one towards the end because he has little choice. Just like Han Solo.