LEAST favorite Indy film

I always thought that ToD was disliked most, but having been a member here several years, I see a lot of LC haters! I'm curious to see which movie is thought to be the weakest of the three?

Each has at one point been my least favorite and each has at one point been my favorite! Currently, LC is my least favorite. I think it's missing the grittiness of the first two and the humor is a bit overdone and gets old.

However, I wouldn't go to the lengths of saying it's a horrible movie. All three are still very much among my favorite movies. But relatively, LC is the worst for me.

I went for Temple, though I love it. It's kind of like being asked to choose your least favourite child.

I still think all three movies are brilliant. And Raiders is my number 1 movie of all time.

From a filmmaking perspective, Raiders is the best, but I actually enjoy watching TOD and LC more. TOD and LC are just more fun, especially with repeated viewings. Raiders feels more serious.

I think all 3 movies are great! But if I had them in order from what I lked best to whatI liked least it'd be ROTLA, LC,and TOD. So I voted TOD, but it's stil a great movie

Raiders is a shot of whiskey.
Temple is a whiskey with ice.
Crusade is a diet Coke...

I'm in The Raiders boat. I love them all, but it think Temple definitely lacks the emotional power of the third and the originality of the... original.

I love all three films, but I must say LC is my favorite.

I have to agree. Temple is my least favorite and LC HAS to be my favorite. There's just TOO many memorable scenes and quotes. Gotta love it. But they are ALL still in my top 5 most favorite movies!

herr gruber said:

Raiders is a shot of whiskey.
Temple is a whiskey with ice.
Crusade is a diet Coke...

Click to expand...

lol....well said.

For that matter...I can't believe someone voted for Raiders.

I voted Raiders - it's the best of the films, but it just doesn't engage me thematically the way Crusade does, as an essay on the first film, or have that awesomely bad thing going for it that Temple often does.

Attila the Professor said:

I voted Raiders - it's the best of the films, but it just doesn't engage me thematically the way Crusade does, as an essay on the first film, or have that awesomely bad thing going for it that Temple often does.

Click to expand...

What do you mean awesomely bad? As in so bad its good, or that you like the darkness as a contrast to the others?

On a side note, I'm convinced that if you were to sit somebody who's never seen or heard of the films, and get them to watch the whole trilogy, while they would still agree that Temple is darker and that Crusade is more humour-based*, but it wouldn't bother them as much as it bothers those who waited years to see them.

My point is that one of the reasons people are bothered by aspects of the sequels isn't because of the problems themselves, its because of the wait exacerbating those problems in their minds.

*I didn't say funnier

Like all of them, a fine example of what adventure should be but TOD is probably my least favorite even though I watch it more times than the other ones for some reason. I think some stuff in TOD were over the top like the ripping of the heart that was WAAAAAAAAAYYYYY too much! I liked all of them mind you though.

Last Crusade. Watered down and worn out. Just abysmal.

LAO CHE said:

lol....well said.

For that matter...I can't believe someone voted for Raiders.

Click to expand...

I'll give you a clue as to who did.....he's got a character from Raiders as his avatar!

I'd give you another clue Lao Che, but you must understand, this is all strictly confidential.

Last Crusade sucks donkey balls.

Salacious said:

Last Crusade sucks donkey balls.

Click to expand...

"I said NO camels!"

LC is my least favorite, it is good, but lacks something that the others have, I can watch ToD (my favorite) multiple times because it has a good balance of everything, but after a while I think LC loses some of the humor in the jokes.


By the way, the heart ripping scene is awsome

I think TOD has the least imagination/effort spent on it out of the 3. It feels more like a sequel and the story owes much to Gunga Din (or at least the Hollywood movie version). Although it must be understood that when I say the above, I still think TOD is a bloody good movie...

Darth Vile said:

I think TOD has the least imagination/effort spent on it out of the 3. It feels more like a sequel and the story owes much to Gunga Din (or at least the Hollywood movie version). Although it must be understood that when I say the above, I still think TOD is a bloody good movie...

Click to expand...

I don't think its fair to say Temple of Doom has the least imagination....Last Crusade, although I love it, is basically Raiders taking itself even less seriously.

I recently watched Temple of Doom again for the first time in years. That one has always not seemed to fit in the trilogy for me. It's still a good time, but it's the weak link in the Indy chain, for me at least.

A few things about TOD that bother me:
1. They made Indy appear to be more of a mercenary than an archaeologist, or one who fought to preserve artifacts. The movie open with Indy trading the remains of the first emperor of the Manchu dynasty for a diamond. Huh? Indy was treasure hunting for hire? The Indy of Raiders and Last Crusade would not have done that.
2. The movie relied a bit too much on sight gags. The whole dinner scene with "snake surprise", etc. was overdone. Raiders had some gags, but they were incidental to the action (classic moment in the market where Indy shoots the swordsman). In Doom, it felt like the action was trying to set up some of the gags (Crusade was somewhat guilty of this as well).
3. The "bug" scene pales in comparison to the snakes in the Well of the Souls (and was not as good as the rats in Crusade).
4. The Shankara stones were just not an effective artifact. There was no build-up to the moment when their power was really revealed. The Ark in Raiders was perfect. The whole movie built up to the point when the Ark was opened and its power was releaed. The Grail in Crusade was not as good, but the scenes where Indy has to avoid the traps to reach the Grail room, and has the confrontation with Donovan and the Knight in order to heal his father were still effective. Doom has the very cool rope bridge scene, but that was just a daring escape, rather than a revelation of the Stones' power. Afterwards, you find that the return of the stone has "brought life back" to the village, but it just doesn't hit you like the Angel of Death being released from the Ark.
5. The set up of the movie took a long time. After the initial brawl in Shanghai, the pace of the movie really slows down. You're almost an hour into the movie when Indy finally discovers the Thugee temple. The rest of the movie then moves at a breakneck pace.
6. Mola Ram was not a great villian. This is mostly related to #5, because it just took too long to introduce the character. Certainly couldn't compare to Toht from Raiders. Donovan in Crusade was so-so, but Crusade also had the interesting twist of Indy's love interest betraying him.


Some of the above is nit-picking. I still liked the movie. However, Raiders was so pitch-perfect, that Doom just doesn't stack up very well against it. Crusade fares much better. It was closer to the tone of Radiers, although still got a little too slapstick in parts. The action sequences also couldn't compare to Raiders. Sean Connery as Indy's father, however, made up for a lot of the movie's shortcomings.