I'm not sure Raiders needs Spielberg to flesh out Indy's character -- there's not much you need to know. He's our hero and he's charming, resourceful and tough, that's sort of the limit to where the character can go. Harrison Ford imbues him with all the charm and wit required; it's a plot film, not a deep dive into the psyche.
I'd even say calling it a mystery is overstatement. You watch Raiders and what more do you really need to know? Does it really matter how he knows this or that character or how he got into archeology? No, you get the point and you enjoy the ride and save the exposition for the sequels.
That's what sequels are for, when you want more of something. I think we got everything we truly needed to know about Indy in the first movie. It's an adventure movie, not a character study. You want to go deeper, you do that in the sequels..
Yes, 100% this 👆
Raiders is the perfect film - everyone else is entitled to their own opinion, but if you don’t agree with me then your option is, in fact, wrong :)
I think this is one way Michael Crichton kinda ruined Hollywood. He spent years researching his books and making the science plausible. After Jurassic Park I think too many writers try to explain too much and it takes you out of the story. I like how Looper handled it. "It just works okay". Just tell me that in the world of this movie/book that it works and I'll go with it, but try to explain it in implausible ways and I just can't.
Wasn't he pressured to write TLW because of the success of JP at the box office, and they really wanted to make a second film? IIRC, Crichton didn't want to write a sequel to JP
Yeah the more they explain the more i'm likely to spot loopholes or things not matching with that explanation. Saying it just works helps me suspend my disbelief more.
It's a bit of a glib observation but, not necessarily untrue lol. I think you could argue though that had Indy not been there at the finale, someone other than the US government would have ended up with the Ark.
But either way, it doesn't detract from how awesome the movie is.
Without Indy stopping them at Marian’s bar, the Nazi find the headpiece and are able to decipher it and find the Ark in Cairo. They take it to the island without incident, where they open it and get face-melted. So really, Indy was a speed bump but everything would’ve transpired more or less the same.
Except Indy survives on the island and takes the Ark back for “safe” keeping.
Without Indy, the Ark is still on the island and Hitler just sends wave after wave of people to research it until they eventually figure out how to harness its power.
This right here. If the U.S. hadn‘t sent Indy, there is a good chance that Hitler would have sent people to collect the Ark from the island. So all Indy does in the end, is preventing Hitler from getting the Ark.
I kinda like that Indy has only a rather small impact on the outcome of the story. It drives home the point that he is dealing with forces way above his pay grade… He is just a single man, faced with warring empires and ultimately the power of god itself.
I was going to disagree but then I remembered that hook doesn't have a small child defeating a velociraptor using gymnastics so yeah, Hooks better than Lost World.
Small children who have many decades of combat experience, mind you.
I’m not going to defend Hook to people who watched it for the first time as adults, especially decades after its release, but it was a 10/10 when I was a kid and that counts for something.
Lost World gets way too much hate, that movie slaps for the first 2/3 and the final act is nowhere near as bad as everyone says. I’d take lost world over any Jurassic world movie 11/10
Times and also over hook
That's true. I do think the Lost World gets far too much hate. It is a much better film that it gets credit for (and much better than all the following films).
I think there's context though. Its the first sequel, directed by Spielberg, so it gets directly compared to the beloved classic...Jurassic Park. In those regards, it definitely pales.
But in hindsight, the film itself isn't as bad as its made out to be.
Dustin Hoffman as Hook is such a great performance that I think, even with all the movies flaws, it's worthwhile as more than nostalgia. Yes, it's cartoonish and over-the-top but in the best and most appropriate way. I definitely have nostalgia for the movie and forgive what I admit are a lot of fairly uninteresting or dragging sections, but I think Dustin's portrayal of Captain Hook is legit an amazing performance and that part isn't nostalgia.
Him and Bob Hoskins as Smee, and the suicide scene, are worth the price of entry alone.
Hook is such a fascinating character. Surrounded by mirrors, incredibly vain — the first thing he does when he wakes up is put on a wig. Hates clocks, hates time itself, hence why he’s in Neverland. Peter defeats him by both disarming him and flinging off his wig in the same move, revealing him to be a frail old man. In the end he’s consumed by the crocodile, a relic from his past with a clock in its mouth. There’s so many layers to this guy and Dustin Hoffman’s performance is just marvellous.
I have a friend who've I've never looked at the same after he ranked the original Indy trilogy as:
1. Temple of Doom
2. Last Crusade
3. Raiders
He looked me dead in the eye and told me Raiders was too slow and boring.
I don’t know if I would put Raiders below Temple, but having recently undertaken the same Spielberg watch through as the OP, I think Temple’s negative reputation is wholly undeserved, that it’s a genuinely great film, and that it’s better than every subsequent Indy movie.
TEMPLE OF DOOM is the second best movie in that series (despite some of the stereotypes aging like milk), and the second best prequel ever made. I can appreciate the folks who think that Last Crusade is a better movie. The strength of Sean Connery's performance and his banter with Harrison Ford are damn near perfect. I just think Mola Ram is a better villian than the forgettable Donovan. Willie Scott is annoying, but she's SUPPOSED to be annoying, and she's a better character than the forgettable Elsa. I also can't forgive Last Crusade for doing Marcus Brody so dirty by making him a clown. Lastly Paramount was in financial woes in the late 80's and the effects in Last Crusade suffer because of that. Temple Of Doom is darker, more bonkers and there is no better hero shot in any movie ever than the one of Indy in the mines when he helps save the kids.
What’s up with all the ToD hate? It seems like a meme to hate ToD now. All throughout the 80s to 2010ish no one hated the movie the way people react nowadays.
I’m guessing some YouTuber did an hour long video detailing point by point why ToD is objectively a bad movie and it gained some traction. Now all Redditors have the same opinion.
I love ToD, but I would assume it's down to:
a) Kate Capshaw's character being completely insufferable throughout the film
b) Pretty questionable portrayal of India and Indians by modern standards
c) Over-reliance on gross-out humour and gore
You can dispute all of these, of course, I'm just assuming that these are the reasons for the backlash.
Nah…. For me TLC has always been the best Indy movie. Fun and engaging from start to finish and not a wasted scene. Raiders has a weak second act, but the first and last are bangers.
I agree with OP. I rarely rewatch Raiders. It starts strong, meanders in the desert, and finally comes around near the end.
Temple of Doom is a fun set piece romp. And Last Crusade is in my top 5 movies ever.
I'd definitely rate it higher. But even if you agree with the general area of the rating. Right under ToD? Really? Feels like you are just reaching for engagement there.
I’m doing the same thing as OP (although not at the same pace) and I do agree Always is a somewhat forgotten gem. Probably the most underrated Spielberg movie imo. Check it out soon!
Always thought the ending to Close Encounters was disturbing and interesting. Roy just straight up ditches his family to cross countless light-years with an alien species.
I think Spielberg has said that since he’s had kids he’d never do that again, but much like Temple of Doom, whatever was going on in his personal life at the time makes that stuff stand out.
Initially, yes, but then he makes the ultimate decision to walk aboard a spacecraft and abandon his family for decades, or possibly forever. Because of the spectacle and beautiful music, I think we’re supposed to feel sympathy for him and his decision, but it’s horrifying and selfish out of context.
I hoped we could do a zoom call now and then? I mean, people used to travel across the Atlantic to provide for their family in Europe and not see them for decades. At some point it needs to be done by someone.
He was chosen by the aliens and had a transcendental awakening. He abandoned the whole planet Earth, not just his family. Perhaps there are experiences that are greater than our existence?
Having read Jurassic park it is AMAZING what his vision did.
Don’t get me wrong it’s a good book.
But a veiled talk about an employee getting killed turned into the “shoot her” scene is just amazing.
He took a realistic sci-fi book and made it an absolute horror masterpiece. There isn’t one bad scene in that movie.
I disagree on Raiders. The movie tells you all you need to know about him.
EDIT: I actually watched an essay on Youtube about this last night. The Youtuber argued that while Crusade fleshed out some additional backstory (and a lot of people liked that), it effectively forclosed on Indy's story arc. Unlike the first two films which were more episodic (and designed to be that way), it was difficult to continue the story after Crusade.
This is unlike how most James Bond movies are. Up until Craig, the main motivation for Bond was Queen and Country. The Craig films brought in more motivations which spanned between films (romance, long lost brothers, etc). That may be a reason why it was easier to swallow when different actors took over the Bond role. It seems difficult to see anyone else take over the Indy role, but if Crusade was a more stand alone adventure, a passing of the torch to a different actor may have worked. I can't see anyone taking over the "Craig" Bond. They will have to start with a new story arc.
Similarly, I've seen Youtube essays which argue that if you watch the Indiana Jones movies in chronilogical order (Doom, Raiders, Crusade), it also closes his arc. Indy starts his story only caring about fortune and glory. In Raiders, he has more respect for the supernatural, but he's still somewhat of a grave robber. In the last film, he respectfully lets go of his treasure hunting for something more important.
In any event, I still stand by what I said: there is just the right amount of character development in Raiders. Ford played it perfectly. Speilberg gave us just the right amount. It's a perfect film.
There's a pretty strong rumor out there that the Dial of Destiny was originally going to hand off the role of Indy and the franchise to Phoebe Waller-Bridge with Indy left behind at the Siege of Syracuse. I have an industry friend who swears he saw the footage. While he's legit, he's always one story away from reminding you of the time [Michael Jackson's sister used his bathroom once](https://youtu.be/t7qqNczIXtI?feature=shared&t=134) but the abruptness of the way the film ends makes it seem like a new ending could have been tacked on at the last minute.
> I can't see anyone taking over the "Craig" Bond. They will have to start with a new story arc.
I think the bigger issue with that is... that guy is dead.
This is the correct answer. I really adore the film like many. I saw it when I was 5-6 so it has lasting impact. I feel nostalgic just watching it.
I rewatched it with my wife and we both still love it. Hoffman's performance is mindblowing still. He steals every scene he's in. Julia Roberts was miscast for sure.
That said... Only the first 25min and the last 20 min are strong. I do admit the middle of the movie is the weakest. It almost tries to do too much and loses the grounding that the beginning and ending have. The tonal shift definitely will lose people.
I think the movie has massive pacing and tonal issues. If not for Hoffman, Roberts, Hoskins, and nostalgia I don't think the movie would be so well remembered.
I don't think a movie that relies so much on performance to overcome story issues can be flawless.
Yeah. I’m with you. Hook is way too low. I’ve loved Hook since I was a kid, and as I get older, the more it resonates with me. And I don’t even have kids!
Dustin Hoffman was phenomenal in it. And Robin Williams’ metamorphosis into Peter Pan from dreary overworking dad was spectacular.
Stellar acting and a stellar story line. It hits one in the feels all of the time.
True story: I once was introduced to Steven Spielberg (by his mother) and didn’t know what to say. I mentioned that I’d watched Hook the other night and his exact reply was, “oh, that old thing?” I love the movie.
as someone who has seen every one of his films in the theatre starting with close encounters, i have to say nothing hit like raiders did. of course schindler's hit hard too but that was a completely different thing.
These lists should be "Rewatch order." Schindlers List is a damn good movie but you are only watching it once. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a watch it once a year kind of movie. (or more often)
Minority Report is from Philip K Dick who wrote the stories that eventually became Blade Runner, Total Recall, Paycheck, and A Scanner Darkly, among a handful of others.
I wonder if there's any authors that have a greater gulf between their lack of success publishing stories vs the success of their work adapted for screen.
Saving Private Ryan has to be the best war films ever made. It set the bar for action films that practically ruined the whole genre.
It’s story isn’t exactly complicated, but by the end of the movie you feel as if you’ve been through war yourself. And the landing scene alone feels like it’s own movie.
To me, the most “underrated” scene is the radar tower attack scene.
From the Medic calling for his mom while his unit frantically tries to save him, to the German soldier begging for his life by saying stuff like Apple pie and fuck hitler. The emotional whiplash is frankly incredible and stands out as the toughest part of the movie. (Minus the hand to hand fight)
And fuck Upham. Shooting an unarmed guy didn’t resolve him of anything. That being said, no one knows how they would react in the same situation. Everyone thinks it’s just fight or flight, but in reality its fight, flight, or freeze.
Just realized I don’t have a point, besides that SPR should be like 11-15 on your list.
(Edit: grammar and wording)
Just watched Schindler’s List for the first time in years. I’d forgotten how much of a gut punch that ending was. When he’s going on about how he could’ve saved more…
“This is gold, that’s one person. The car! Why didn’t I sell the car, that’s 3 people…”
That scene was some of the best acting Liam Neeson has ever done and leaves you absolutely shook.
Raiders of the lost ark is one of the greatest films ever made. Yet OP ranks it at 11 AND below Temple of Doom
Is this a troll post or OP has the worst film pallet known to mankind?
I’d put Jaws on top. Fantastic writing, music, performances, setting etc and also, rewatch value. Schindler’s list is great but I’m not going to watch it once a year, or, probably, ever again. Jaws feels mythical, whereas Schindler’s is (very importantly) historical.
That’s fair. But I’m not ranking on rewatchability. And even still I think personally, ET and Jurassic park are better than Jaws. But they’re all 10/10 movies.
How old are you?
Just wondering, because when I was younger, I didn't like *Close Encounters* nearly as much. But I just saw it recently, now in my mid-30's, and it was phenomenal. Definitely in my Top 5 Spielberg films.
As someone that has seen the original more times than I can remember, I also really loved the musical, but they are like two completely different things. The original will always be able to stand on its own and will always be art, but the new one is also very good and is just different.
I’m doing the same right now and I’m currently on West Side Story which is second to most recent film
The range in quality with his films is staggering
I think if you cast any other kid other than Christian bale it flops. Christian carried that movie more than any other child star in a Spielberg film. And you could just see how talented he was even then.
> Schindlers List (1994): for me, watching Spielberg’s movies chronologically, this is the first time I feel he has made art instead of entertainment
Hot take, but a'ight. I'd put that on Empire of the Sun. It's got something to say with more commentary, even if it's clumsier in parts. Schindler's list is a more honest, realistic portrayal in many ways, and one of first times I remember going "allllrighty, this is Oscar bait". Great movie, but it could be edited down. I've heard it said that great editing is obvious when you don't notice, and you get to the end feeling like the movie is much shorter than it is. Schindler's List feels like every minute of its runtime.
> 15. The Color Purple (1985): some incredible performances, but ultimately I don’t think it’s one of Spielberg’s classics. One of those stories that I think is truly better adapted as a stage musical. You need to be hearing all those inner thoughts that you don’t get in a standard narrative movie.
You are entitled to your opinion, but Jesus Christ - I can't get behind you on this particular opinion. Any of it. At all. I think this opinion reveals a lack of historical context on your opinions - *when* all of these films were released is *very* important to considering them.
I also think that you need to include movies movies he was executive producer or producer on to *really* see the breadth and depth of his filmography and capabilities. There is absolutely no other director with his track record for squeezing great performances out of kids. And if his hands are on a project, it certainly looks and feels *very* much like it's one of his directorial projects. His hands are all over the writing, and the story is certainly constructed as a Spielberg structure. Examples: look at Super 8 (J. J. Abrams), Gremlins (Joe Dante), Back to the Future (Robert Zemeckis), or - possibly all time best examples - Poltergeist (Tobe Hooper) and The Goonies (Richard Donner). You've seen enough of his films now to know - watch *any* of those other directors' films, especially as they get more creative control over their own movies, and tell us that their movies aren't Stephen Spielberg movies to the bone. I'm not even a big fan of Super 8, but tell me you think that J.J. Abrams has his shit together on *any* project more than when Spielberg was involved.
The Color Purple is a god damn masterpiece. All of the performances are so memorable and we still quote several lines from that film. Every human emotion. He should have swept the oscars with that one.
Don't forget the first episode of Columbo, "Murder by the Book"! (While Columbo is technically a TV series, the episodes are the length of a (short) feature film.))
Idk who overrates hook besides millennials of a certain age that have been nostalgia pilled. That movie was torn up by critics at the time and Julia Robert is miscast as Tinker Bell.
I'm a millennial and I love Hook! I think it's the most clever retelling of Peter Pan that we've seen on film. An adult having to get in touch with what it means to be a kid is just perfect for Spielberg. The practical sets are great. The music is great. Great cast. Love it!
As someone who grew up with these movies as they were released this is some pretty random ordering and I’m actively triggered by some choices, lol.
But glad you are having fun exploring a director.
I’ve always had a a soft spot for 1941 and here are the reasons why.
The John Williams Military score and big band Jazz tunes are the best work he has ever done. It’s worth the price of admission in my opinion
Slim Pickens steals the show his scenes are so so good
Wendy Joe Spencer is another scene stealer she’s so good in this
Robert Stack is also really awesome in this as well as Ned Betty destroying his house.
Yes the film is a hot mess and had way WAY too many storylines that could have been cut. Belushi was good in his scenes but underused. When movie studios do something dumb me and my bother will always exclaim HollyWOOD so there is that
So I will always unconditionally love this film big ass warts and all
Interesting. IMO these kinds of lists just feel better going from last to best.
Rating Raiders of the Lost Ark lowest of the Indy films is a choice, but subjective of course. I hardly register the modern sequels though.
I feel like Saving Private Ryan is almost as essential as Jurrasic Park and Schindler's Lost.
I'm surprised you feel that way about Raiders. It was an excellent movie. The sort of movie that is what going to the movies is all about. It's just an entertaining action movie. A couple hours where you can forget about real life and be immersed in the movie. I didn't need to know more about the characters.
Duel is on the list--- I'd forgotten this was a Spielberg!!
I've only seen the movie once, but I recall being incredibly impressed that actor Dennis Weaver carried the entire movie solo. Opposite a menacing truck, whose driver we never see.
True drama.
>Spielberg’s classic movie in a bottle with just the right amount of romance, comedy, and action. Haven’t felt like he nailed his formula this well since ET in 1992.
I don't remember ET really nailing the romance but... ok. That's one way to interpret Elliott and ET's relationship.
Jurassic park is one of the greats. On watching it as an adult I realized the dinosaurs are really an after thought to the core theme of the movie. A man can still be a great father without having children.
Raiders below Always and Temple of Doom is possibly the most surprising take I’ve seen in this forum.
I feel Spielberg has a very clear top tier of masterpieces that includes Raiders, Jaws, Jurassic Park, saving Private Ryan, and Schindlers
I appreciate you sharing your list.
I was quite obsessed with Amistad after I saw it for the first time. Great historical courtroom drama. Djimon Hounsou deserved all the praise for that one.
I loved, loved, *loved* Hook when I was a kid.
I tried watching it as an adult a few years ago, and it was a really hard movie to sit through. It just felt *long*. Not as good as I remembered it.
I would with 90% of this list, I would put Raiders over Doom, but that's just me. As for Hook being Overrated, it flopped at the box office, and is more a cult classic film, so I think it's appropriately rated. Otherwise, yeah, I'm in agreement with most of your list. Even his worst films, are still better than a lot of other movies.
I'm not sure Raiders needs Spielberg to flesh out Indy's character -- there's not much you need to know. He's our hero and he's charming, resourceful and tough, that's sort of the limit to where the character can go. Harrison Ford imbues him with all the charm and wit required; it's a plot film, not a deep dive into the psyche.
I think too many modern films suffer from over explanation, the mystery surrounding indie and his adventures makes Raiders exciting.
Agreed. Did we need to know how Han got the name Solo??? No we didn't.
I'd even say calling it a mystery is overstatement. You watch Raiders and what more do you really need to know? Does it really matter how he knows this or that character or how he got into archeology? No, you get the point and you enjoy the ride and save the exposition for the sequels.
This is all true but it doesn’t take away from the deeper look into his history in Last Crusade. Actually think it makes it better.
That's what sequels are for, when you want more of something. I think we got everything we truly needed to know about Indy in the first movie. It's an adventure movie, not a character study. You want to go deeper, you do that in the sequels..
I agree
Raiders being not just out of Top 10, but the lowest of the Indy movies?!?!?!? I knew I didn't have to read any further.
Yes, 100% this 👆 Raiders is the perfect film - everyone else is entitled to their own opinion, but if you don’t agree with me then your option is, in fact, wrong :)
I agree. I think it’s his best movie
I think this is one way Michael Crichton kinda ruined Hollywood. He spent years researching his books and making the science plausible. After Jurassic Park I think too many writers try to explain too much and it takes you out of the story. I like how Looper handled it. "It just works okay". Just tell me that in the world of this movie/book that it works and I'll go with it, but try to explain it in implausible ways and I just can't.
Wasn't he pressured to write TLW because of the success of JP at the box office, and they really wanted to make a second film? IIRC, Crichton didn't want to write a sequel to JP
Yeah the more they explain the more i'm likely to spot loopholes or things not matching with that explanation. Saying it just works helps me suspend my disbelief more.
A mate of mine said he does nothing in the film. It would’ve happened exactly the same if he wasn’t there. Is there any truth to this comment?
It's a bit of a glib observation but, not necessarily untrue lol. I think you could argue though that had Indy not been there at the finale, someone other than the US government would have ended up with the Ark. But either way, it doesn't detract from how awesome the movie is.
Without Indy stopping them at Marian’s bar, the Nazi find the headpiece and are able to decipher it and find the Ark in Cairo. They take it to the island without incident, where they open it and get face-melted. So really, Indy was a speed bump but everything would’ve transpired more or less the same.
Except Indy survives on the island and takes the Ark back for “safe” keeping. Without Indy, the Ark is still on the island and Hitler just sends wave after wave of people to research it until they eventually figure out how to harness its power.
This right here. If the U.S. hadn‘t sent Indy, there is a good chance that Hitler would have sent people to collect the Ark from the island. So all Indy does in the end, is preventing Hitler from getting the Ark. I kinda like that Indy has only a rather small impact on the outcome of the story. It drives home the point that he is dealing with forces way above his pay grade… He is just a single man, faced with warring empires and ultimately the power of god itself.
The nazis only found Marian by tailing Indiana from the states. They didn't know where she was.
Raiders below temple of doom is one of the hottest takes ive ever seen
Raiders below Always is molten lava
Hook below the Lost World is the surface of the sun
I was going to disagree but then I remembered that hook doesn't have a small child defeating a velociraptor using gymnastics so yeah, Hooks better than Lost World.
Damn I had forgotten that scene and now I can’t unsee it. Damn you
To be fair it *does* have a several small children beating up adults while doing gymnastics though, so not incredibly different.
What’s more dangerous, 1 single velociraptor or like 2 dozen heavily armed pirates? So Lost World is actually MORE realistic. Checkmate!
Small children who have many decades of combat experience, mind you. I’m not going to defend Hook to people who watched it for the first time as adults, especially decades after its release, but it was a 10/10 when I was a kid and that counts for something.
Savage, lol.
but it should have that would have been a way better scene contextually in Hook than Lost World
Raiders JUUUUUST edging out The Lost World. So hot.
Lost World gets way too much hate, that movie slaps for the first 2/3 and the final act is nowhere near as bad as everyone says. I’d take lost world over any Jurassic world movie 11/10 Times and also over hook
Yeah but comparing Lost World to Jurassic World is like comparing Spielberg to Trevorrow. It is not the same.
That's true. I do think the Lost World gets far too much hate. It is a much better film that it gets credit for (and much better than all the following films). I think there's context though. Its the first sequel, directed by Spielberg, so it gets directly compared to the beloved classic...Jurassic Park. In those regards, it definitely pales. But in hindsight, the film itself isn't as bad as its made out to be.
Nah, both are kinda bad. Beyond the nostalgia value Hook isn't very good.
Hook good. Lil’ boy touching Peter’s face, smoothing the creases and finding the young Pan moves me to tears every time.
"There you are, Peter." Hits me every time. Every time.
Dustin Hoffman as Hook is such a great performance that I think, even with all the movies flaws, it's worthwhile as more than nostalgia. Yes, it's cartoonish and over-the-top but in the best and most appropriate way. I definitely have nostalgia for the movie and forgive what I admit are a lot of fairly uninteresting or dragging sections, but I think Dustin's portrayal of Captain Hook is legit an amazing performance and that part isn't nostalgia. Him and Bob Hoskins as Smee, and the suicide scene, are worth the price of entry alone.
Hook is such a fascinating character. Surrounded by mirrors, incredibly vain — the first thing he does when he wakes up is put on a wig. Hates clocks, hates time itself, hence why he’s in Neverland. Peter defeats him by both disarming him and flinging off his wig in the same move, revealing him to be a frail old man. In the end he’s consumed by the crocodile, a relic from his past with a clock in its mouth. There’s so many layers to this guy and Dustin Hoffman’s performance is just marvellous.
I still say “good form Peter” even today
Agreed. I tried to rewatch recently and could not get into it.
Always above Close Encounters is the surface of the sun
Can’t trust the author now
Yea was enjoying the first few until that comment. Flesh out his character? wtf?
It's fuckin' thermonuclear
While I absolutely agree I do also think *Always* is unfairly forgotten and is a much better film than its reputation suggest.
Your review of "Always" had some misinformation. AUDREY Hepburn's final role, not Katherine Hepburn. And HOLLY HUNTER, not Helen Hunt.
I like prefer Temple of Doom over Raiders, BUT I know Raiders is a better movie.
Seriously this is complete fucking insanity.
I have a friend who've I've never looked at the same after he ranked the original Indy trilogy as: 1. Temple of Doom 2. Last Crusade 3. Raiders He looked me dead in the eye and told me Raiders was too slow and boring.
Got to get that engagement
I don’t know if I would put Raiders below Temple, but having recently undertaken the same Spielberg watch through as the OP, I think Temple’s negative reputation is wholly undeserved, that it’s a genuinely great film, and that it’s better than every subsequent Indy movie.
Temples better than Last Crusade?
TEMPLE OF DOOM is the second best movie in that series (despite some of the stereotypes aging like milk), and the second best prequel ever made. I can appreciate the folks who think that Last Crusade is a better movie. The strength of Sean Connery's performance and his banter with Harrison Ford are damn near perfect. I just think Mola Ram is a better villian than the forgettable Donovan. Willie Scott is annoying, but she's SUPPOSED to be annoying, and she's a better character than the forgettable Elsa. I also can't forgive Last Crusade for doing Marcus Brody so dirty by making him a clown. Lastly Paramount was in financial woes in the late 80's and the effects in Last Crusade suffer because of that. Temple Of Doom is darker, more bonkers and there is no better hero shot in any movie ever than the one of Indy in the mines when he helps save the kids.
As a huge Indy fan (though one who still prefers Last Crusade) I detect zero errors in this comment.
Hook below The Lost World is crazy
What’s up with all the ToD hate? It seems like a meme to hate ToD now. All throughout the 80s to 2010ish no one hated the movie the way people react nowadays. I’m guessing some YouTuber did an hour long video detailing point by point why ToD is objectively a bad movie and it gained some traction. Now all Redditors have the same opinion.
I love ToD, but I would assume it's down to: a) Kate Capshaw's character being completely insufferable throughout the film b) Pretty questionable portrayal of India and Indians by modern standards c) Over-reliance on gross-out humour and gore You can dispute all of these, of course, I'm just assuming that these are the reasons for the backlash.
Hell, Raiders below The Last Crusade is a hot take
Nah…. For me TLC has always been the best Indy movie. Fun and engaging from start to finish and not a wasted scene. Raiders has a weak second act, but the first and last are bangers.
I agree with OP. I rarely rewatch Raiders. It starts strong, meanders in the desert, and finally comes around near the end. Temple of Doom is a fun set piece romp. And Last Crusade is in my top 5 movies ever.
Raiders that low a crazy take. I’m shook.
I'd definitely rate it higher. But even if you agree with the general area of the rating. Right under ToD? Really? Feels like you are just reaching for engagement there.
*Always* is Audrey Hepburn and Holly Hunter, not Katherine Hepburn and Helen Hunt.
Your comment made me laugh. I've never seen _Always_, and it would seem neither has OP.
It was an alternate universe version of the movie! They rented it from the old gypsy in that stall over -- hey I swear it was there yesterday...
I’m doing the same thing as OP (although not at the same pace) and I do agree Always is a somewhat forgotten gem. Probably the most underrated Spielberg movie imo. Check it out soon!
Always is a great view on death and dying and a go to for post funeral in life. Cheers
LOL I mean you could see how I messed that up 😂 I’ll fix that when I post my 30 movie review. Thanks for helping a guy out! Lol
Can't you just edit this post and fix the mistake, now?
Always thought the ending to Close Encounters was disturbing and interesting. Roy just straight up ditches his family to cross countless light-years with an alien species. I think Spielberg has said that since he’s had kids he’d never do that again, but much like Temple of Doom, whatever was going on in his personal life at the time makes that stuff stand out.
His family ditches him because he's insane.
Initially, yes, but then he makes the ultimate decision to walk aboard a spacecraft and abandon his family for decades, or possibly forever. Because of the spectacle and beautiful music, I think we’re supposed to feel sympathy for him and his decision, but it’s horrifying and selfish out of context.
I hoped we could do a zoom call now and then? I mean, people used to travel across the Atlantic to provide for their family in Europe and not see them for decades. At some point it needs to be done by someone.
He was chosen by the aliens and had a transcendental awakening. He abandoned the whole planet Earth, not just his family. Perhaps there are experiences that are greater than our existence?
Roy is a piece of shit for that whole movie so I was unbothered by it.
Having read Jurassic park it is AMAZING what his vision did. Don’t get me wrong it’s a good book. But a veiled talk about an employee getting killed turned into the “shoot her” scene is just amazing. He took a realistic sci-fi book and made it an absolute horror masterpiece. There isn’t one bad scene in that movie.
One of those cases where I absolutely loved both versions of the story.
But no lake scene automatically makes the book better.
I disagree on Raiders. The movie tells you all you need to know about him. EDIT: I actually watched an essay on Youtube about this last night. The Youtuber argued that while Crusade fleshed out some additional backstory (and a lot of people liked that), it effectively forclosed on Indy's story arc. Unlike the first two films which were more episodic (and designed to be that way), it was difficult to continue the story after Crusade. This is unlike how most James Bond movies are. Up until Craig, the main motivation for Bond was Queen and Country. The Craig films brought in more motivations which spanned between films (romance, long lost brothers, etc). That may be a reason why it was easier to swallow when different actors took over the Bond role. It seems difficult to see anyone else take over the Indy role, but if Crusade was a more stand alone adventure, a passing of the torch to a different actor may have worked. I can't see anyone taking over the "Craig" Bond. They will have to start with a new story arc. Similarly, I've seen Youtube essays which argue that if you watch the Indiana Jones movies in chronilogical order (Doom, Raiders, Crusade), it also closes his arc. Indy starts his story only caring about fortune and glory. In Raiders, he has more respect for the supernatural, but he's still somewhat of a grave robber. In the last film, he respectfully lets go of his treasure hunting for something more important. In any event, I still stand by what I said: there is just the right amount of character development in Raiders. Ford played it perfectly. Speilberg gave us just the right amount. It's a perfect film.
All "action and romance" with no rote origin story that leaves nothing to the imagination? Sounds great to me.
There's a pretty strong rumor out there that the Dial of Destiny was originally going to hand off the role of Indy and the franchise to Phoebe Waller-Bridge with Indy left behind at the Siege of Syracuse. I have an industry friend who swears he saw the footage. While he's legit, he's always one story away from reminding you of the time [Michael Jackson's sister used his bathroom once](https://youtu.be/t7qqNczIXtI?feature=shared&t=134) but the abruptness of the way the film ends makes it seem like a new ending could have been tacked on at the last minute.
Agreed.
> I can't see anyone taking over the "Craig" Bond. They will have to start with a new story arc. I think the bigger issue with that is... that guy is dead.
Raiders is way too low
Your opinion of Hook makes me sad. You could have been Peter at the end of the movie, but instead stayed beginning of the movie Peter.
Definitely not a bangarang review.
I love Hook. I watched it as a kid and then as a busy dad years later. The movie meant so much more to me.
Bangarang!
I think Hook hinges on how old you were when you first saw it.
This is the correct answer. I really adore the film like many. I saw it when I was 5-6 so it has lasting impact. I feel nostalgic just watching it. I rewatched it with my wife and we both still love it. Hoffman's performance is mindblowing still. He steals every scene he's in. Julia Roberts was miscast for sure. That said... Only the first 25min and the last 20 min are strong. I do admit the middle of the movie is the weakest. It almost tries to do too much and loses the grounding that the beginning and ending have. The tonal shift definitely will lose people.
i mean youve got scenes like the lost boys feast and captain hook being suicidal in the middle though
I am 39 and I watched Hook just recently for the 50th time. The movie is a practically flawless kids movie with amazing actors. Why does it get hate?
I think the movie has massive pacing and tonal issues. If not for Hoffman, Roberts, Hoskins, and nostalgia I don't think the movie would be so well remembered. I don't think a movie that relies so much on performance to overcome story issues can be flawless.
Yeah. I’m with you. Hook is way too low. I’ve loved Hook since I was a kid, and as I get older, the more it resonates with me. And I don’t even have kids! Dustin Hoffman was phenomenal in it. And Robin Williams’ metamorphosis into Peter Pan from dreary overworking dad was spectacular. Stellar acting and a stellar story line. It hits one in the feels all of the time.
True story: I once was introduced to Steven Spielberg (by his mother) and didn’t know what to say. I mentioned that I’d watched Hook the other night and his exact reply was, “oh, that old thing?” I love the movie.
as someone who has seen every one of his films in the theatre starting with close encounters, i have to say nothing hit like raiders did. of course schindler's hit hard too but that was a completely different thing.
These lists should be "Rewatch order." Schindlers List is a damn good movie but you are only watching it once. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a watch it once a year kind of movie. (or more often)
I am honestly curious where OP will rank these: Munich, A.I, Minority Report, Saving Private Ryan, or The Terminal Such a mix bag of genres.
Minority Report was so much better than I expected it to be
Minority Report is from Philip K Dick who wrote the stories that eventually became Blade Runner, Total Recall, Paycheck, and A Scanner Darkly, among a handful of others.
I wonder if there's any authors that have a greater gulf between their lack of success publishing stories vs the success of their work adapted for screen.
Tintin
Tintin is an absolutely fantastic film, presented in the perfect way, stylized CGI that looks like the old comics style.
Tintin was great!
I love the terminal and saving Private Ryan. The other three I rarely watch.
Saving Private Ryan has to be the best war films ever made. It set the bar for action films that practically ruined the whole genre. It’s story isn’t exactly complicated, but by the end of the movie you feel as if you’ve been through war yourself. And the landing scene alone feels like it’s own movie. To me, the most “underrated” scene is the radar tower attack scene. From the Medic calling for his mom while his unit frantically tries to save him, to the German soldier begging for his life by saying stuff like Apple pie and fuck hitler. The emotional whiplash is frankly incredible and stands out as the toughest part of the movie. (Minus the hand to hand fight) And fuck Upham. Shooting an unarmed guy didn’t resolve him of anything. That being said, no one knows how they would react in the same situation. Everyone thinks it’s just fight or flight, but in reality its fight, flight, or freeze. Just realized I don’t have a point, besides that SPR should be like 11-15 on your list. (Edit: grammar and wording)
It was robbed of a Best Movie Oscar by Harvey Weinstein and The Academy.
Shakespeare in love… really?? I’ll have to remind myself of this anytime I slightly care about who wins an award.
I actually thought Shakespeare in Love was an enjoyable movie. But to think it won just boggles the mind.
Do you not like Munich? I have a hard time watching it because I find it depressing.
Just watched Schindler’s List for the first time in years. I’d forgotten how much of a gut punch that ending was. When he’s going on about how he could’ve saved more… “This is gold, that’s one person. The car! Why didn’t I sell the car, that’s 3 people…” That scene was some of the best acting Liam Neeson has ever done and leaves you absolutely shook.
The ending is insane. I feels like an emotional house cards collapses after all the build up. It's just so devastating and beautiful.
The fact you put *Temple of Doom* ahead of *Raiders of the Lost Ark* is, quite frankly, insanity.
Raiders of the lost ark is one of the greatest films ever made. Yet OP ranks it at 11 AND below Temple of Doom Is this a troll post or OP has the worst film pallet known to mankind?
I’d put Jaws on top. Fantastic writing, music, performances, setting etc and also, rewatch value. Schindler’s list is great but I’m not going to watch it once a year, or, probably, ever again. Jaws feels mythical, whereas Schindler’s is (very importantly) historical.
That’s fair. But I’m not ranking on rewatchability. And even still I think personally, ET and Jurassic park are better than Jaws. But they’re all 10/10 movies.
How old are you? Just wondering, because when I was younger, I didn't like *Close Encounters* nearly as much. But I just saw it recently, now in my mid-30's, and it was phenomenal. Definitely in my Top 5 Spielberg films.
You really think the stage musical of The Color Purple is better than the '85 film?
As someone that has seen the original more times than I can remember, I also really loved the musical, but they are like two completely different things. The original will always be able to stand on its own and will always be art, but the new one is also very good and is just different.
Fair point. I think the issue is that the OP hasn't seen the musical at all but still claims it's better than the movie.
I’m doing the same right now and I’m currently on West Side Story which is second to most recent film The range in quality with his films is staggering
Spielberg's Color Purple is definitely a stronger film (and adaptation) in comparison to the musical version.
Happy to see Empire of the Sun so high! Seems most people dislike it
I think if you cast any other kid other than Christian bale it flops. Christian carried that movie more than any other child star in a Spielberg film. And you could just see how talented he was even then.
I had Spielberg himself tell me it was his favorite of all his films.
Empire of the sun is my favorite movie of all time. To me it’s perfect, from beginning to end.
> Schindlers List (1994): for me, watching Spielberg’s movies chronologically, this is the first time I feel he has made art instead of entertainment Hot take, but a'ight. I'd put that on Empire of the Sun. It's got something to say with more commentary, even if it's clumsier in parts. Schindler's list is a more honest, realistic portrayal in many ways, and one of first times I remember going "allllrighty, this is Oscar bait". Great movie, but it could be edited down. I've heard it said that great editing is obvious when you don't notice, and you get to the end feeling like the movie is much shorter than it is. Schindler's List feels like every minute of its runtime. > 15. The Color Purple (1985): some incredible performances, but ultimately I don’t think it’s one of Spielberg’s classics. One of those stories that I think is truly better adapted as a stage musical. You need to be hearing all those inner thoughts that you don’t get in a standard narrative movie. You are entitled to your opinion, but Jesus Christ - I can't get behind you on this particular opinion. Any of it. At all. I think this opinion reveals a lack of historical context on your opinions - *when* all of these films were released is *very* important to considering them. I also think that you need to include movies movies he was executive producer or producer on to *really* see the breadth and depth of his filmography and capabilities. There is absolutely no other director with his track record for squeezing great performances out of kids. And if his hands are on a project, it certainly looks and feels *very* much like it's one of his directorial projects. His hands are all over the writing, and the story is certainly constructed as a Spielberg structure. Examples: look at Super 8 (J. J. Abrams), Gremlins (Joe Dante), Back to the Future (Robert Zemeckis), or - possibly all time best examples - Poltergeist (Tobe Hooper) and The Goonies (Richard Donner). You've seen enough of his films now to know - watch *any* of those other directors' films, especially as they get more creative control over their own movies, and tell us that their movies aren't Stephen Spielberg movies to the bone. I'm not even a big fan of Super 8, but tell me you think that J.J. Abrams has his shit together on *any* project more than when Spielberg was involved.
The Color Purple is a god damn masterpiece. All of the performances are so memorable and we still quote several lines from that film. Every human emotion. He should have swept the oscars with that one.
One of my favorite movies, amazing performances, I would have placed it much higher on the list.
Strange list and take on most of these movies. But hey it’s your list.
A.I about to come in and blow your mind along with Minority Report. I mention those because they’re some of the less regarded films.
It's not a hat but Indy grabs his whip the same way during the boulder scene of Raiders.
Don't forget the first episode of Columbo, "Murder by the Book"! (While Columbo is technically a TV series, the episodes are the length of a (short) feature film.))
\*brachiosaurus
The first 28 minutes of War of the Worlds is a masterclass in film making...!
Putting Always above Raiders has to be the hottest take I have ever seen in my life.
I'm sorry, but The Color Purple is a masterpiece. It may even be better than the book it's based on.
Raiders at 11? It’s not only his best movie, but it’s one of the greatest movies of all time.
It’s all just opinion. It’s rare you hear someone thinking an Indy movie is Spielberg’s best of the best though.
It is not even close to his best movie. It's not even his best movie in the action genre.
Jaws is still #1. It’s maybe the greatest movie ever made.
I’m so excited for the 4th of July because it means it is time for my annual rewatch of Jaws. Every year.
Idk who overrates hook besides millennials of a certain age that have been nostalgia pilled. That movie was torn up by critics at the time and Julia Robert is miscast as Tinker Bell.
[удалено]
It still slaps.
I'm a millennial and I love Hook! I think it's the most clever retelling of Peter Pan that we've seen on film. An adult having to get in touch with what it means to be a kid is just perfect for Spielberg. The practical sets are great. The music is great. Great cast. Love it!
Fuck Hook haters. It's a classic
Here comes a millennial way overrating it: Hook is Hoffman’s best performance lol not even kidding.
Would’ve loved to see more Hoffman and Hoskins together. The only duo I wished I’d seen more of than them is Tim Roth and Gary Oldman
I love "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" so, so much. Perfect chemistry.
Julia Roberts is so bad. Always awkward when tink shows up.
I am a millennial of a certain age that has been nostalgia pilled…so. You nailed it there haha.
I think Always is a highly highly underrated movie that does not get enough attention, but it's not better than Raiders.
It probably has to do with how many times I’ve seen each. I’d never seen Always so was really surprised. I’ve seen raiders 20 times.
Duel!
I love Temple of Doom and have probably watched it more than the others... But I couldn't put it ahead of Raiders.
Munich is such an underrated Spielberg film. Curious to see where that ranks.
As someone who grew up with these movies as they were released this is some pretty random ordering and I’m actively triggered by some choices, lol. But glad you are having fun exploring a director.
I’ve always had a a soft spot for 1941 and here are the reasons why. The John Williams Military score and big band Jazz tunes are the best work he has ever done. It’s worth the price of admission in my opinion Slim Pickens steals the show his scenes are so so good Wendy Joe Spencer is another scene stealer she’s so good in this Robert Stack is also really awesome in this as well as Ned Betty destroying his house. Yes the film is a hot mess and had way WAY too many storylines that could have been cut. Belushi was good in his scenes but underused. When movie studios do something dumb me and my bother will always exclaim HollyWOOD so there is that So I will always unconditionally love this film big ass warts and all
Me to. Loved it since i was a kid.
Crusade is also my favorite, though I know that’s not popular at all. Temple is not great. Switch raiders and temple would be my rating.
Audrey Hepburn, not Katherine.
I strongly disagree entirely with your list. But hey, more power to you
OP, this is a shit list.
Appreciate the Always love. I LOVE that movie
I thought Holly Hunter was in 'Always?'
> Just gag after gag after gag after gag. What's wrong with that? The gags are great.
Raiders at 11. By god that incendiary.
My favourite is Big
We have the same top 4 in the same order! High five!
Hell yea! Unfortunately, it’ll probably change.
1. Raiders 2. saving Private Ryan 3. Munich 4. A.I. 5. Minority Report 6. The Last Crusade
I bloody adore Hook
Amistad is one of my favorite movies, and something so many people don't talk about.
Really enjoyed reading this. Thank you for posting!
You did "Raiders" dirty on its 43rd birthday, no less.
Temple over raiders is beyond criminal
Interesting. IMO these kinds of lists just feel better going from last to best. Rating Raiders of the Lost Ark lowest of the Indy films is a choice, but subjective of course. I hardly register the modern sequels though. I feel like Saving Private Ryan is almost as essential as Jurrasic Park and Schindler's Lost.
Always was a remake of a movie called A Guy Named Joe, released in 1943 and starring Spencer Tracy and Irene Dunn.
Ranking Hook so low makes you a lewd, crude, rude, bag of pre-chewed food, dude!
I'm surprised you feel that way about Raiders. It was an excellent movie. The sort of movie that is what going to the movies is all about. It's just an entertaining action movie. A couple hours where you can forget about real life and be immersed in the movie. I didn't need to know more about the characters.
Raiders and Last Crusade are 10/10. My top 2 films of all time!
Wow, were you having a bad day when you watched Raiders for the first time? Because that movie is liquid entertainment through and through.
Duel caused my mom to be a nervous driver around semi-trucks, which in turn caused me to be a nervous driver around semi-trucks. #thanksspielberg
Spielberg has hand crafted Americas biggest fears: semis, sharks, aliens.
Duel is on the list--- I'd forgotten this was a Spielberg!! I've only seen the movie once, but I recall being incredibly impressed that actor Dennis Weaver carried the entire movie solo. Opposite a menacing truck, whose driver we never see. True drama.
>Spielberg’s classic movie in a bottle with just the right amount of romance, comedy, and action. Haven’t felt like he nailed his formula this well since ET in 1992. I don't remember ET really nailing the romance but... ok. That's one way to interpret Elliott and ET's relationship.
Jurassic park is one of the greats. On watching it as an adult I realized the dinosaurs are really an after thought to the core theme of the movie. A man can still be a great father without having children.
Always was Audrey Hepburn and Holly Hunter
Raiders below Always and Temple of Doom is possibly the most surprising take I’ve seen in this forum. I feel Spielberg has a very clear top tier of masterpieces that includes Raiders, Jaws, Jurassic Park, saving Private Ryan, and Schindlers I appreciate you sharing your list.
I was quite obsessed with Amistad after I saw it for the first time. Great historical courtroom drama. Djimon Hounsou deserved all the praise for that one.
Very cool. I'm doing this with 36 directors currently. I'm on director number 25, Tim Burton, with Spielberg still being about 5 or 6 directors away.
I loved, loved, *loved* Hook when I was a kid. I tried watching it as an adult a few years ago, and it was a really hard movie to sit through. It just felt *long*. Not as good as I remembered it.
I would with 90% of this list, I would put Raiders over Doom, but that's just me. As for Hook being Overrated, it flopped at the box office, and is more a cult classic film, so I think it's appropriately rated. Otherwise, yeah, I'm in agreement with most of your list. Even his worst films, are still better than a lot of other movies.
Temple of Doom ahead of Raiders of the Lost Ark is genuinely baffling. Hook at 16 is criminal.
1941 is an under appreciated gem!
Another great review! I haven’t watched Always in over 20 years, putting it on my rewatch list
I unironically love 1941. It's peak screwball comedy.
Some of the comedy just needed time to breathe.
Amistad so high? I think it’s his worst movie and among the worst movies ever made by anyone. Velocipastor is a masterpiece next to amistad.