this movie doesn't deserve half the hate it gets

>>86598767
You're absolutely right.

>>86598767
Yes, you are right about this.
1>3>4>2
Crystal Skull is a classic.

>>86598767
Correct It deserves all of it

>>86598767
>my first indiana movie

Nice try.

File: Indiana_Jones_and_the_Temple_of_Doom_PosterA.jpg (211KB, 1008x1500px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1008x1500px

Temple > Raiders > Skull > Crusade

>>86598767
Mutt really is the worst part of it, especially the Tarzan and branches on nuts jokes. Overall it is a decent adventure flick though.

True. Just a mediocre and stupid movie while Temple is utter shit and insultingly bad.

The other two are ok but incredibly overrated.

>>86600548
This is no offense to ToD because I claimed that it was my favorite for years. Then I rewatched the original trilogy for the first time in a decade or so. They never managed to top Raiders. It's simply the overall best.

Honestly what killed it for me was the retarded overuse of CGI, giant UFO at the end, and HE WON'T DIVIDE US.

50s aesthetic was great, good villains in keeping with the occult motifs, nice replacement for the Nazis and realistic too since the Cold War was super powers researching anything and everything to get a leg up.

But fuck, all the CGI. Even in scenes where it could have been practical effects. Fucking swinging monkies, the fucking nuke fridge, gross underuse of John Hurt.

Such potential wasted.

>>86600548
You confused what > and < means?
Crusaders is great.
No offense to Ark, but I think it's the best, even if it's a bit silly.

>>86600734
Last Crusade just has way too many mainstream corny 'Spielberg moments' for me to consider it better than Raiders. Connery and Ford have great chemistry though.

>>86600863
You're not wrong but the fact is that IJ was always supposed to have some corny shit.
But I agree, 'it's a bit silly'.
I guess it's just personal preference that I'd take Crusader over it, but it's not like Ark is bad.

Hell, I even like Temple to a degree. WAY too dark of course, but it had some good moments.

>>86598767
1>3>2>>4

It's true.

>>86601217
I love them all and always will. I guess I just like Raiders the most because it made just before Spielberg and Harrison Ford were mega stars. It has just the right balance.

>>86601349
it was made*

>>86600690
The gophers being CGI was offensive to me

John Hurt could have easily filled a starring role in that movie instead you get like 10 seconds of him

>>86598767
It deserves two-thirds of the hate it gets.

>>86598767
It's fun. So is Temple of Doom, which I love. What you going to do about it? It goes without saying though that they never did manage to top Raiders of the Lost Ark.

>>86601349
Fair enough.
I have a huge soft spot for Dad-son bullshit.
Probably why I love most iterations of Treasure Island.

File: indy6.jpg (103KB, 950x404px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 950x404px

>>86600734
>Crusaders is great
- shit villain
- shit mcguffin
- hitler wants to 'get' the grail but doesn't want to use it or keep it?
- sallah and brody are downgraded to comedy retards
- basically the same as raiders but nowhere near as novel or good

The book burning scene was great, though

>>86601616
There's much more to the movie than those points.

File: 2008_y05_018.jpg (1MB, 1005x750px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1005x750px

>>86601813
perhaps but it's easily the weakest Indy movie

Connery is the only truly standout element of the film

Crusade>Fate>Raiders>Temple>Crystal Skull