44 replies to this topic

[Jackanaples]

I voted Bond all the way! I've been obsessed with both James Bond and Indiana Jones all my life, but it's hard to ignore that:

While there are 3 Indiana Jones movies, only RAIDERS is a classic. I consider TEMPLE OF DOOM flawed but highly watchable. LAST CRUSADE remains unwatchable crap even all these years later.

The James Bond series has far more unwatchable crap, but it has also generated at least four classics: FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, GOLDFINGER, THUNDERBALL, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, CASINO ROYALE. Then you get into just the highly watchable entries in the series: DR. NO, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. Even the worst Bond movies are still more watchable to me than LAST CRUSADE: I'd pick DIE ANOTHER DAY, A VIEW TO A KILL, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, MOONRAKER, or OCTOPUSSY over INDY 3 any day of the week.

Also, I find that I keep going back to the original six Bond movies in a way that I don't with the Indiana Jones films.

The first four Bond movies were exciting adventures which were by turns stylish, darkly witty, and exotic. While they are products of the 1960s they feel oddly timeless. There always seems to be something new to discover in them.

Conversely, the Indiana Jones were made in 1980s and yet still feel somewhat dated, with few new details to notice on repeat viewings. But maybe that's just me.

[Colossus]

Raiders and Temple were solid with the razor-sharp rough n tumble sly cynical loneshark Indy.
Crusade dropped the ball with the little boy act, and goofyness.

[Loomis]

I do find RAIDERS more than a tad overrated

How so? What's wrong with it?

Nothing much. It's probably a bit overlong, and there aren't really any characters to care about other than Indy and to a lesser extent Marion, and it does have its moments of dullness, but overall it's a very good and enjoyable film. When I say it's "more than a tad overrated", I'm just referring to the belief that a lot of people seem to have that it's one of the very greatest works of cinema of all time. Which is an opinion I don't happen to share. It's good, yes, but not that good. I think its reputation is inflated, just as I don't think STAR WARS is one of the best things ever, or that The Beatles were the best band in history. All comes down to personal taste.

For me, the Bond series has given us at least two entries that are superior as films to RAIDERS: FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and CASINO ROYALE. Maybe GOLDFINGER, too.

[Mr_Wint]

I do find RAIDERS more than a tad overrated

How so? What's wrong with it?

Nothing much. It's probably a bit overlong, and there aren't really any characters to care about other than Indy and to a lesser extent Marion, and it does have its moments of dullness, but overall it's a very good and enjoyable film. When I say it's "more than a tad overrated", I'm just referring to the belief that a lot of people seem to have that it's one of the very greatest works of cinema of all time. Which is an opinion I don't happen to share. It's good, yes, but not that good. I think its reputation is inflated, just as I don't think STAR WARS is one of the best things ever, or that The Beatles were the best band in history. All comes down to personal taste.

For me, the Bond series has given us at least two entries that are superior as films to RAIDERS: FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and CASINO ROYALE. Maybe GOLDFINGER, too.

I think RAIDERS is a great film that never seems to falter in its pace and structure. I wouldn't remove one single frame from the film. "Overlong"? Its about 116 min... and CASINO ROYALE is about 142 min!

[Publius]

For me, Raiders is better than even the best Bond movie, and Temple holds its own against the likes of FRWL and LTK. Even Crusade is better than most Bond movies, IMO. However, while I could see Indy running as long as Bond has (really, Ford is the Connery of his franchise, but there's room for a Dalton, Craig, etc.), I don't think it will, and if nothing else that's why I'm more a fan of the latter. In other words, aside from their respective settings, I consider theirs only a difference between consistent but infrequent greatness, and inconsistent but frequent goodness.

[marktmurphy]

I do find RAIDERS more than a tad overrated

How so? What's wrong with it?

Nothing much. It's probably a bit overlong, and there aren't really any characters to care about other than Indy and to a lesser extent Marion, and it does have its moments of dullness, but overall it's a very good and enjoyable film. When I say it's "more than a tad overrated", I'm just referring to the belief that a lot of people seem to have that it's one of the very greatest works of cinema of all time. Which is an opinion I don't happen to share. It's good, yes, but not that good. I think its reputation is inflated, just as I don't think STAR WARS is one of the best things ever, or that The Beatles were the best band in history. All comes down to personal taste.

For me, the Bond series has given us at least two entries that are superior as films to RAIDERS: FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and CASINO ROYALE. Maybe GOLDFINGER, too.

It's taste, yeah- but I really would put it down as one of the best bits of cinema of all time. I can't think of any film which does adventure better -or even one which accomplishes what it sets out to do as well as Raiders-, and which has more invention, wit and just every department coming together to make such a great product. Comparing it to Bond films it still comes off better for me- it's much purer than Casino Royale, which, good though it is, still has plenty of baggage from the old Bond films (it tries to do a few too many things and is a little muddled- it has to be a big action film when it seems to want to be a smaller thriller) and is far too long (I still maintain that the sinking house bit really shouldn't be there); and Goldfinger, which practically grinds to a halt when Bond is captured. As for having no characters to care about than the heroes... well I'm not sure which adventure film does. Who do you care for other than Bond and Vesper in Casino Royale? And when you've got Sallah and Marcus in such great, warm little roles I find it a little hard to understand. The only flaw I can think of is a plot mistake where the bit where Indy is told that looking at the Ark when its opened is somehow mislaid which spoils the ending a bit. Otherwise it's just a completely sayisfying movie for me.
The only Bond film with as many moments which have been remembered as iconic is Goldfinger, and great and classic though it is, just isn't as well a made movie as Raiders for me.

Although I do agree with what you say about Star Wars! I like it and everything, but it's clearly not the best film ever! Drags a bit and is quite simplistic: Raiders is by far the best thing Lucas ever did!

[Loomis]

I do find RAIDERS more than a tad overrated

How so? What's wrong with it?

Nothing much. It's probably a bit overlong, and there aren't really any characters to care about other than Indy and to a lesser extent Marion, and it does have its moments of dullness, but overall it's a very good and enjoyable film. When I say it's "more than a tad overrated", I'm just referring to the belief that a lot of people seem to have that it's one of the very greatest works of cinema of all time. Which is an opinion I don't happen to share. It's good, yes, but not that good. I think its reputation is inflated, just as I don't think STAR WARS is one of the best things ever, or that The Beatles were the best band in history. All comes down to personal taste.

For me, the Bond series has given us at least two entries that are superior as films to RAIDERS: FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and CASINO ROYALE. Maybe GOLDFINGER, too.

It's taste, yeah- but I really would put it down as one of the best bits of cinema of all time. I can't think of any film which does adventure better -or even one which accomplishes what it sets out to do as well as Raiders-, and which has more invention, wit and just every department coming together to make such a great product.

Well, I guess this is more an "action" film than an "adventure" one, but I'd say DIE HARD is superior to RAIDERS.

As for having no characters to care about than the heroes... well I'm not sure which adventure film does. Who do you care for other than Bond and Vesper in Casino Royale?

Solange. Leiter has a lot of charisma. Even Le Chiffre is strangely cool and almost someone you root for at times (or maybe that's just me), rather like Rickman in DIE HARD. I think RAIDERS is really lacking in terms of a decent baddie. Also, even the minor characters in CR seem to me to be well-developed, well-acted and memorable (Obanno, the jovial Swiss banker and so on).

(Not, of course, that the mark of a good film is necessarily how many wonderful characters it has - for instance, LOST IN TRANSLATION, one of my favourites of recent years, has just two characters of any importance. But I do find myself more engaged by more people in CR than in RAIDERS.)

[marktmurphy]

Well, I guess this is more an "action" film than an "adventure" one, but I'd say DIE HARD is superior to RAIDERS.

It is very, very good, yes. Certainly the most perfect example of its kind (although, as you say, more an 'action film' than an 'adventure film' as Indy and Bond are), so yeah, I couldn't disagree that it's way up there in the list of perfect movies. I don't see it being superior to Raiders, though- that just comes down to preference, and I like witty films where every shot and everything's been so thought out to the nth degree; every shot in Raiders feel like its been designed perfectly.

As for having no characters to care about than the heroes... well I'm not sure which adventure film does. Who do you care for other than Bond and Vesper in Casino Royale?

Solange. Leiter has a lot of charisma. Even Le Chiffre is strangely cool and almost someone you root for at times (or maybe that's just me), rather like Rickman in DIE HARD.

Well I'd say that Sallah is easily up there with them. 'Bad dates'! Brody makes an impressive impact; even the boat Captain is memorable. And Le Chiffre's interesting as he's the only Bond villain you almost feel sympathy for; but I wouldn't put him anywhere near Gruber- he's all time greatest. Leiter is very good, though- yeah; makes a great impact in the little time he has. As for Solange- well she's not that well acted, is she? And you only really feel sorry for her because she gets killed; I never really felt any interest in the character beyond her looks, to be honest. M, I could understand, but not Solange.

I think RAIDERS is really lacking in terms of a decent baddie.

I'd say Belloq is better than a good number of Bond baddies- he's no Rickman, no, but then at least there are another two Nazis to help him out. He's a good villain, mainly because he doesn't even seem all bad- the audience wonder if he'll turn to help Indy in time. Well-acted too.

Also, even the minor characters in CR seem to me to be well-developed, well-acted and memorable (Obanno, the jovial Swiss banker and so on).

'Top men' FBI guy; Brody, the boat captain, the Gestapo fella, Sallah (although I think Mathis has potential to be as good), the chap with the plane who keeps snakes (and he's only got one line); even the Nazi monkey- all very memorable and well-developed for their purposes in the film. Do people really remember Obanno all that much? He's a bad guy with a machete; that's pretty much all. Took me a little while to work out that it's the same guy from the beginning of the film.

But I do find myself more engaged by more people in CR than in RAIDERS.)

Well, it's personal taste of course, but I simply can't see it. I don't think film fans will be saying 'a brother from Langley' in the same way you'll hear a 'bad dates' or 'asps- very bad' line being uttered in future.

[Loomis]

I like witty films where every shot and everything's been so thought out to the nth degree; every shot in Raiders feel like its been designed perfectly.

I'll agree that this is a wonderful quality of RAIDERS. I remember it being widely praised as a modern classic even at the time, with "The Film Year Book 1983" (Virgin Books) - despite its title, it covers mostly releases of 1981 - devoting a lot of space to how cleverly done it was, and William Goldman raving on - with much justification - about the cleverness of the script in ADVENTURES IN THE SCREEN TRADE (which I think was published in '83 or thereabouts).

Le Chiffre's interesting as he's the only Bond villain you almost feel sympathy for

Glad someone agrees with me on this one. I can't quite put my finger on why this is, though. Perhaps it's because Le Chiffre, like our hero Bond, is ultimately trying to put one over on the real villains of the piece, about whom more will presumably be revealed in BOND 22. So in a way he and Bond are in the same business, but with rival companies, so to speak.

but I wouldn't put him anywhere near Gruber- he's all time greatest.

Agreed.

As for Solange- well she's not that well acted, is she?

Well, no, but Murino's performance isn't awful, either.

And you only really feel sorry for her because she gets killed

I disagree. We feel sorry for her before that, because she's unhappily married to a thug (and, in a bit of character-fleshing-out backstory unusual for "the obligatory sacrificial lamb", she's candid enough to explain that this is because of her taste for "bad men").

I'd say Belloq is better than a good number of Bond baddies- he's no Rickman, no, but then at least there are another two Nazis to help him out. He's a good villain, mainly because he doesn't even seem all bad- the audience wonder if he'll turn to help Indy in time. Well-acted too.

Fair enough. And he does have a couple of good lines, e.g. "You could warn them, if only you spoke Hovitos". Not that the competition is all that stiff, but Belloq's the best of the Indiana Jones villains.

[Mr_Wint]

I do find RAIDERS more than a tad overrated

How so? What's wrong with it?

Nothing much. It's probably a bit overlong, and there aren't really any characters to care about other than Indy and to a lesser extent Marion, and it does have its moments of dullness, but overall it's a very good and enjoyable film. When I say it's "more than a tad overrated", I'm just referring to the belief that a lot of people seem to have that it's one of the very greatest works of cinema of all time. Which is an opinion I don't happen to share. It's good, yes, but not that good. I think its reputation is inflated, just as I don't think STAR WARS is one of the best things ever, or that The Beatles were the best band in history. All comes down to personal taste.

For me, the Bond series has given us at least two entries that are superior as films to RAIDERS: FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and CASINO ROYALE. Maybe GOLDFINGER, too.

It's taste, yeah- but I really would put it down as one of the best bits of cinema of all time. I can't think of any film which does adventure better -or even one which accomplishes what it sets out to do as well as Raiders-, and which has more invention, wit and just every department coming together to make such a great product.

Well, I guess this is more an "action" film than an "adventure" one, but I'd say DIE HARD is superior to RAIDERS.

As for having no characters to care about than the heroes... well I'm not sure which adventure film does. Who do you care for other than Bond and Vesper in Casino Royale?

Solange. Leiter has a lot of charisma. Even Le Chiffre is strangely cool and almost someone you root for at times (or maybe that's just me), rather like Rickman in DIE HARD. I think RAIDERS is really lacking in terms of a decent baddie. Also, even the minor characters in CR seem to me to be well-developed, well-acted and memorable (Obanno, the jovial Swiss banker and so on).

(Not, of course, that the mark of a good film is necessarily how many wonderful characters it has - for instance, LOST IN TRANSLATION, one of my favourites of recent years, has just two characters of any importance. But I do find myself more engaged by more people in CR than in RAIDERS.)

I'm not convinced that there's "better" characters in CR. Belloq is a great villain, well played and written. And RAIDERS has one of the best henchmen ever with Major Toht ("We are not... thirsty!", "Fr

[Judo chop]

[quote name='Mr_Wint' post='756163' date='18 July 2007 - 16:30']As for the minor characters: How about the man that follows Indy in the beginning ("Give me the whip" / "Adi

[jimbo bond 007]

I love them both and both sets of movies have their respective highs and lows. It is hard to compare them fairly though as Bond obviously has far more films in the series. If I had to make a choice I would have to pick Bond.

Can't wait until next year when we have the clash of the movie screen heroes. Let the battle of 007 and Indy commence!

[Mr_Wint]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='756320' date='19 July 2007 - 19:00'][quote name='Mr_Wint' post='756163' date='18 July 2007 - 16:30']As for the minor characters: How about the man that follows Indy in the beginning ("Give me the whip" / "Adi

[hi-jinx]

Would we expect to see any other winner other than Bond on a Bond forum? I can't say I am eagerly awaiting the results I am too confident that Bond will win.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

[quote name='Mr_Wint' post='756590' date='21 July 2007 - 14:10'][quote name='Judo chop' post='756320' date='19 July 2007 - 19:00'][quote name='Mr_Wint' post='756163' date='18 July 2007 - 16:30']As for the minor characters: How about the man that follows Indy in the beginning ("Give me the whip" / "Adi