1984, the best year in movies?

[Drizzle]

Hell no. Temple of Doom was awesome. It was a stand-alone Indiana Jones adventure, which really took him out of his Nazi-hunting element and placed him against an evil cult leader who friggin' grabbed your still-beating heart from your chest and set it aflame. It scared the crap out of me as a kid and I'll always love that bridge scene where Indy tells Short-round to hold on to the ropes in Cantonese before he cuts it like the bad mofo he is. And the messed up banquet scene where Indy cuts the large snake and lots of little snakes come wriggling out. And the mine-cart scene. And the room with the insects and spikes. Or the first scene in Shanghai where Indy shish-kababs a dude sitting across the table from him. So many classic scenes.

It was much more original and memorable than the slap-sticky 'Last Crusade' which rehashed jokes from 'Raiders', completely ruined the characters of Marcus (bumbling idiot) and Saleh (duplicitous Arab stereotype) and basically had a crap plot.

The only thing I'll concede is Indy Senior beats Willy the blonde.


And 'Kingdom of the Crystal Whatever' just never happened period.

*screams into a pillow*

I am TIRED of this mofo opinion on these MOFO boards.

First off, I really like TOD. But you can't deny that it was inferior to Raiders, thanks mostly to Kate Capshaw. As for Last Crusade, we'll just have to agree to disagree because I thought it was much better than TOD.

 

[The Morningstar]

I thought 1986 was better personally. Aliens, Platoon, Big Trouble in Little China, The Color of Money, The Fly, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Stand By Me, Hoosiers, Blue Velvet. Probably more, can't remember now.

 

[SoulManX]

hell no. Temple of doom was awesome. It was a stand-alone indiana jones adventure, which really took him out of his nazi-hunting element and placed him against an evil cult leader who friggin' grabbed your still-beating heart from your chest and set it aflame. It scared the crap out of me as a kid and i'll always love that bridge scene where indy tells short-round to hold on to the ropes in cantonese before he cuts it like the bad mofo he is. And the messed up banquet scene where indy cuts the large snake and lots of little snakes come wriggling out. And the mine-cart scene. And the room with the insects and spikes. Or the first scene in shanghai where indy shish-kababs a dude sitting across the table from him. So many classic scenes.

It was much more original and memorable than the slap-sticky 'last crusade' which rehashed jokes from 'raiders', completely ruined the characters of marcus (bumbling idiot) and saleh (duplicitous arab stereotype) and basically had a crap plot.

The only thing i'll concede is indy senior beats willy the blonde.


And 'kingdom of the crystal whatever' just never happened period.

i second this !!!

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

First off, I really like TOD. But you can't deny that it was inferior to Raiders, thanks mostly to Kate Capshaw. As for Last Crusade, we'll just have to agree to disagree because I thought it was much better than TOD.

Please explain why you think Last Crusade was better than Temple. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm honestly interested.

Yes, Kate Capshaw sucked. But the awesomeness of Short Round restored balance in the film. Capshaw whined, but she was mostly missing during the middle of the film iirc. To me Last Crusade is like the Return of the Jedi of the Indy franchise with stupidity and slapstick starting to rear its ugly head. (And Kingdom of course, would be like Phantom Menace)

 

[Secret Fawful]

First off, I really like TOD. But you can't deny that it was inferior to Raiders, thanks mostly to Kate Capshaw.

Yes, I can completely deny that. They tie thanks to Temples nearly superior pulp atmosphere and elements, gorgeous locations, gorgeous lighting and cinematography, a more anti-hero-ish Indy, and because Kate Capshaw doesn't annoy me at all.

 

[DACrowe]

1999 was an awesome year for films. Maybe the best.

American Beauty, The Matrix, Three Kings, Sixth Sense, Fight Club, Being John Malkovich, The Iron Giant, Run Lola Run, Stir of Echoes, Arlington Road, Magnolia, Girl Interrupted, Eyes Wide Shut (I realize some hated that one), Talented Mr Ripley, Cider House Rules, Man on the Moon, Boys Don't Cry, Blair Witch Project (it's a joke now, but I loved it at the time), Austin Powers 2, Toy Story 2, Bowfinger and others I'm forgetting.

On the flip side, the bad movies that did come out were really bad, like really horrendous misguided projects usually based on previously valued properties.... Inspector Gadget, Wild Wild West, and the worst sacrillage of all and one that permanently ruined Star Wars for me... The Phantom Menace

DACrowe just reminded me that 2007 was another great year for films. I never really thought about it, but I guess it is true. Still think 1999 beats out '84 and '07.

Disagree with 2000. I love some of those movies (especially Memento and Gladiator), but c'mon... Gladiator, while a great flick was still a sword and sandals revenge flick and it won Best Picture at the Academy Awards. It was great, but comparing it to movies that won Best Picture in other years shows how weak the selection of films for contention were that year.

Eh. I considered putting in 1999, because it has that same reputation and mystique about it as 1939, 1976 and 1994 do for cinephiles. However, I felt one year from the '90s was fine and I thought 1994 was much better. You have a number of masterpieces that reinvented how movies were made or viewed (Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption), and more masterpieces that helped define the decade (The Lion King, Clerks, Forrest Gump) and just more great masterpieces and cult classics (Léon, Ed Wood, Exotica, etc.).

1999 had Fight Club but I always found American Beauty really overrated. So, while I love FC and The Matrix and Three Kings are good movies....I just don't feel it was quite there.

As for 2000, since they didn't have pretentious Sam Mendes tripe win best picture that tells me it was a better year. I consider Gladiator, O, Brother Where Art Thou (which I actually prefer), Memento and Almost Famous all to be masterpieces. That beats out just Fight Club, imo.

But yeah, if I had to narrow it to just four years, it would be 1939, 1976, 1994 and 2007, in my opinion.

 

[DACrowe]

Please explain why you think Last Crusade was better than Temple. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm honestly interested.

Yes, Kate Capshaw sucked. But the awesomeness of Short Round restored balance in the film. Capshaw whined, but she was mostly missing during the middle of the film iirc. To me Last Crusade is like the Return of the Jedi of the Indy franchise with stupidity and slapstick starting to rear its ugly head. (And Kingdom of course, would be like Phantom Menace)

TLC is better for two words. Sean mofo'in Connery. Okay that's three words.

It's better because it is the only one that really delves into who Indy is. The relationship between him and his father, where Sean Connery playing a bumbling scholar is against type, adds layers to Indy none of the others did. All their scenes together were magical. The Nazis are quite frankly better villains than the Gunga Din knock-offs in TOD and it allows them to avoid staying in one claustrophobic location for half the movie like TOD. The girl is a femme fatale which breaks the formula mold and yet is still somehow more likable than Kate Capshaw. The set pieces for the most part are better, such as the Sewers of Venice and when Indy takes down a tank almost single-handidly on horseback (probably the best action scene in an Indy film after the opening of Raiders).

I thought they used Marcus wonderfully as a great sidekick for Dr. Jones Sr. and the ending where they meet the Templar and have to "choose wisely" is more iconic and memorable than the battle over the crocodile river. It has a sense of majesty and elegance to it. It also has really funny moments (like "No ticket") that don't rely on monkey brains or fish eyeballs.

In short, while I like TOD, TLC is on another level for me. That also applies to Spielberg, who often says TLC was to make up for TOD which didn't work for him. It's the only one on par with Raiders, in my opinion.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

TLC is better for two words. Sean mofo'in Connery. Okay that's three words.

It's better because it is the only one that really delves into who Indy is. The relationship between him and his father, where Sean Connery playing a bumbling scholar is against type, adds layers to Indy none of the others did. All their scenes together were magical. The Nazis are quite frankly better villains than the Gunga Din knock-offs in TOD and it allows them to avoid staying in one claustrophobic location for half the movie like TOD. The girl is a femme fatale which breaks the formula mold and yet is still somehow more likable than Kate Capshaw. The set pieces for the most part are better, such as the Sewers of Venice and when Indy takes down a tank almost single-handidly on horseback (probably the best action scene in an Indy film after the opening of Raiders).

I thought they used Marcus wonderfully as a great sidekick for Dr. Jones Sr. and the ending where they meet the Templar and have to "choose wisely" is more iconic and memorable than the battle over the crocodile river. It has a sense of majesty and elegance to it. It also has really funny moments (like "No ticket") that don't rely on monkey brains or fish eyeballs.

In short, while I like TOD, TLC is on another level for me. That also applies to Spielberg, who often says TLC was to make up for TOD which didn't work for him. It's the only one on par with Raiders, in my opinion.

Okay, well kudos for giving actual reasons.

Disclaimer: I haven't seen this movie for about a decade so I'm going by memory here.

Marcus and Saleh IMO were both turned into crude parodies of the characters they played in 'Raiders'. Marcus, especially just seemed there solely for comic relief, which was a shame considering he was originally intended to be a serious academic. Saleh seemed less competent too, trying to bargain for everything and the camels thing. It just seemed out of place. Like I said, going on memory, I just remember the new interpretations of those characters irking me. A shame since the guy who played Marcus died soon after.

The Nazis acted much more cartoonish too. That Skeletor-looking bad guy had none of the charisma or realism of Belloq. And Indy, despite not knowing how to fly, knocks out other Nazi fighter planes in dog-fights. Okay. Speaking of Nazis, Elsie was okay, but not really that memorable. Honestly I had forgotten her until you brought her up. I guess that's better than Willie who was memorable for all the wrong reasons, but she was still no Miriam (sp?).

Honestly, I wish I could recall more instances of stupidity (I vaguely recall Indy staring down a Panzer tank on a horse...), but I haven't thought much about this film, because I really did think it was subpar compared to RotLA and ToD (although still vastly superior to 'Kingdom..').

But we're all entitled to our own opinions. The only thing I really take issue with is you citing Spielberg.

Dude, who cares what Spielberg thinks? Just like Lucas, the guy has no credibility, not even when it comes to his own films. He'll say whatever he thinks is the popular thing to say at any given time. This is a guy who AFTER he made those comments, then produced the heaping pile of crap that was 'Crystal Skull', so yeah. He was probably just trying to assure people that he wouldn't cast family-members in any more of his movies.

 

[Secret Fawful]

Except-

A. Crystal Skull was a fine movie and a great homage to the 50s.

B. Spielberg has more filmmaking credibility than the average joe, aka you and I, and is probably more than intelligent enough to argue you or I under the table.

C. On the list of truly bad sequels out there, Indiana Jones sequels don't register on the radar. I mean, with stuff like Meet the Fockers and Birdemic 2 out there, Indy does NOT EVEN REGISTER.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Except-

A. Crystal Skull was a fine movie and a great homage to the 50s.

Lies.

B. Spielberg has more filmmaking credibility than the average joe, aka you and I, and is probably more than intelligent enough to argue you or I under the table.

I'm sorry, but you can talk about how smart Spielberg (and Lucas) are until the cows come home. Yes, they used to make brilliant movies. That doesn't mean I can never say a bad word about them or their judgement. There is nothing brilliant about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It's a bloated CGI film starring a nuked fridge, a sadly geriatric Indiana Jones, aliens and Shia LaBeouf with hair gel. I rest my case.

Also, there are different kinds of intelligence. I don't know what Spielberg can argue me under the table about. Probably some things, probably not some others. I doubt he could give me a compelling defense for some of his crappier films that would convince me to change my mind.

C. On the list of truly bad sequels out there, Indiana Jones sequels don't register on the radar. I mean, with stuff like Meet the Fockers and Birdemic 2 out there, Indy does NOT EVEN REGISTER.

Meet the Fockers is an affront to God. I have no idea what Birdemic 2 is and don't even want to know. But Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was, is and always will be a crap movie, mostly because it tarnished the legacy of an action hero from my childhood and turned him into some sad camp spectacle.

 

[The Morningstar]

You know, after seeing the Star Wars prequels, I actually doubt that Lucas is resonsible for the original trilogy being brilliant.

 

[kickass]

I love all the star wars films. And The last crusade is my fav Indy flick.

 

[DACrowe]

Okay, well kudos for giving actual reasons.

Disclaimer: I haven't seen this movie for about a decade so I'm going by memory here.

Marcus and Saleh IMO were both turned into crude parodies of the characters they played in 'Raiders'. Marcus, especially just seemed there solely for comic relief, which was a shame considering he was originally intended to be a serious academic. Saleh seemed less competent too, trying to bargain for everything and the camels thing. It just seemed out of place. Like I said, going on memory, I just remember the new interpretations of those characters irking me. A shame since the guy who played Marcus died soon after.

And Willie and Short Round were there mostly fo comedy...but of the annoying variety. I thought TOD, despite being darker, had more slapstick than the other two with Indy killing a snake without knowing it, their raft falling out of a plane and landing onto a mountain before they slide into a river and THEN go over a waterfall? The whole monkey brain scene was so immature and stupid.

Marcus was an academic. Most academics don't go horseback riding into the field fighting Nazis. It was funny because of his personality being a fish out of water, not gross out scenes or Abbot and Costello sight gags.

The Nazis acted much more cartoonish too. That Skeletor-looking bad guy had none of the charisma or realism of Belloq. And Indy, despite not knowing how to fly, knocks out other Nazi fighter planes in dog-fights. Okay. Speaking of Nazis, Elsie was okay, but not really that memorable. Honestly I had forgotten her until you brought her up. I guess that's better than Willie who was memorable for all the wrong reasons, but she was still no Miriam (sp?).

The Nazis were cartoonish in both films. These aren't serious portrayals. However, the guy who sends them out there (I forget his name) who turns out to be the traitor was a better villain than the guy in TOD. For the simple fact that he shot Indy's father made him so despicable. Again though, the focus was more on Indy and his dad, not as much the villains this time. Elsa was a femme fatale and a good one. You pitied her and hated her throughout the movie. The fact she slept with both Sean Connery and Harrison Ford was also a great twist. And she didn't have to scream every five seconds.

Also, Ind didn't take down any fighters in a dog fight. They got shot down (actually Jones Sr. shot them down by accident when he shot their own tail). The Joneses took the planes down on foot after crash landing. Unrealistic yeah? But that's part of the charm.

But we're all entitled to our own opinions. The only thing I really take issue with is you citing Spielberg.

Dude, who cares what Spielberg thinks? Just like Lucas, the guy has no credibility, not even when it comes to his own films. He'll say whatever he thinks is the popular thing to say at any given time. This is a guy who AFTER he made those comments, then produced the heaping pile of crap that was 'Crystal Skull', so yeah. He was probably just trying to assure people that he wouldn't cast family-members in any more of his movies.

Spielberg has a ton of credibility. He was one of the greatest living directors currently and of all time. Period. He isn't like George Lucas. Keep in mind KOTCS took so long because Spielberg didn't want to do aliens, but Lucas kept insisting upon it to the point where he threw out Dabont's script because it didn't have enough room for CGI. But Spielberg has a ton of insight into filmmaking and his own movies. He also is critical. He'll tell you that 1941 was a bad movie. He'll admit that The Lost World didn't quite work. And he agrees in retrospect TOD was off (though he is more critical of it than I am). That is why he came up with the father angle (to be played by Sean Connery, the original Bond) and rejected Lucas's original idea of a haunted house movie because Lucas's Gunga Din-esque TOD didn't work for him.

You don't have to agree with Spielberg's opinion, but the man holds a lot of credibility. He, Scorsese and Tarantino are the three filmmakers who are the three living filmmakers who are always fascinating to listen to because they are so honest about their own films and have such a wealth of knowledge about all of cinema. At least, in my opinion.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Spielberg has a ton of credibility. He was one of the greatest living directors currently and of all time. Period. He isn't like George Lucas. Keep in mind KOTCS took so long because Spielberg didn't want to do aliens, but Lucas kept insisting upon it to the point where he threw out Dabont's script because it didn't have enough room for CGI. But Spielberg has a ton of insight into filmmaking and his own movies. He also is critical. He'll tell you that 1941 was a bad movie. He'll admit that The Lost World didn't quite work. And he agrees in retrospect TOD was off (though he is more critical of it than I am). That is why he came up with the father angle (to be played by Sean Connery, the original Bond) and rejected Lucas's original idea of a haunted house movie because Lucas's Gunga Din-esque TOD didn't work for him.

You don't have to agree with Spielberg's opinion, but the man holds a lot of credibility. He, Scorsese and Tarantino are the three filmmakers who are the three living filmmakers who are always fascinating to listen to because they are so honest about their own films and have such a wealth of knowledge about all of cinema. At least, in my opinion.

I've disliked Spielberg since the whole sanitizing of ET (such as digitally replacing the cop's guns with walkie-talkies). I thought that was a big sell-out moment for him. If what you're saying is right about Lucas pressuring Spielberg, then he should have walked. No Indy would have been better than what we got and if Spielberg wasn't doing it for the story, what was he doing it for? Rhetorical que$tion I guess. That haunted house idea Lucas came up with sounds truly horrendous though.

As for his comments about ToD? Often artists and writers hate their own works. Van Gogh intensely disliked his 'Starry Night' painting. I don't care. It's my favorite work of his. Likewise Stephen King hated an award winning short story he wrote entitled 'The Man in the Black Suit'. Funnily enough, it's one of his only works I really love. One famous writer who escapes me (maybe Kafka) had a manuscript rescued from a fire.

I'm not looking for Spielberg's approval of what I should and shouldn't like. I don't care what Spielberg says about his movies. I'll draw my own opinion independent of his comments.

 

[DACrowe]

Fair enough, but I find artist's insights are fascinating and worth listening to. And he did Indy IV because fans kept begging for it to happen for nearly 20 years. Ford wanted it for "rhetorical reason$," but Spielberg thought he was doing a fan service. In the last decade though (since the ET thing) he's made Minority Report, Catch Me if You Can and the amazing Munich. He also has War Horse and Lincoln in the works, both of which sound amazing. It's not like Lucas who lives off of just SW and IJ and then botches them 20+ years later and refuses to admit it. I don't have anything against Spielberg, even if WOTW and Indy IV were disappointments for me.

 

[Secret Fawful]

It's a bloated CGI film starring a nuked fridge, a sadly geriatric Indiana Jones, aliens and Shia LaBeouf with hair gel. I rest my case.

You list those things as if they're bad. Also, the phrase geriatric Indiana Jones is the stupidest related thing I've ever heard. Ford is still very much in his prime. Shia LeBeouf isn't as bad as people make him out to be, and btw, your beloved childhood Raiders is a pointless film that manages to do everything right with a pointless plot. Why do I say this, as a huge fan of the movie myself? To point out that out of all four Indy films, Raiders and Skull stand equally together in having the most pointless plots.

Raiders: Everything at stake, the tension the film builds on the evil of the Nazis, and the point of Indiana Jones are all destroyed when God comes out of the Ark and kills the Nazis almost immediately. There was no reason for anyone to do anything about the Nazis having the Ark ever, because God was simply going to kill their asses anyway.

Skull: The only investment for Indiana Jones until halfway through is a man created as a plot device to be a poor investment for Indiana Jones to go on a hunt for something that ends up being ultimately pointless because the aliens just kill anyone unworthy of their knowledge anyway. Why is Oxley so pointless? Because there is no inherent reason for the audience to ever be invested in this character.

Why Temple and Last Crusade are not pointless.

Indiana Jones' investments are much MUCH better inherently. Having to save one's father and a group of kidnapped enslaved children are two things any audience anywhere can understand and root for. The Ark also fits into this, but it ends up becoming pointless because of the power of God. Which brings me to my next point. The endings of Crusade and Doom do not destroy the point, because they make one feel like something has been accomplished, and some unseen force didn't do the job by itself, rendering Indy pointless. Without Indy, no incantation would have been said with the Shankara stones, and without Indy...oh wait...it was because of Indy in Crusade the Nazis ever found the damn grail, and Donovan probably would have chosen the wrong cup and died even if he had found it. Okay, so only Doom isn't POINTLESS.

Even so, I still love Indiana Jones GREATLY, and don't confuse me saying pointless and BAD are the same things. I'm just putting the films into perspective.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

You list those things as if they're bad. Also, the phrase geriatric Indiana Jones is the stupidest related thing I've ever heard. Ford is still very much in his prime. Shia LeBeouf isn't as bad as people make him out to be, and btw, your beloved childhood Raiders is a pointless film that manages to do everything right with a pointless plot. Why do I say this, as a huge fan of the movie myself? To point out that out of all four Indy films, Raiders and Skull stand equally together in having the most pointless plots.

Raiders: Everything at stake, the tension the film builds on the evil of the Nazis, and the point of Indiana Jones are all destroyed when God comes out of the Ark and kills the Nazis almost immediately. There was no reason for anyone to do anything about the Nazis having the Ark ever, because God was simply going to kill their asses anyway.

Skull: The only investment for Indiana Jones until halfway through is a man created as a plot device to be a poor investment for Indiana Jones to go on a hunt for something that ends up being ultimately pointless because the aliens just kill anyone unworthy of their knowledge anyway. Why is Oxley so pointless? Because there is no inherent reason for the audience to ever be invested in this character.

Why Temple and Last Crusade are not pointless.

Indiana Jones' investments are much MUCH better inherently. Having to save one's father and a group of kidnapped enslaved children are two things any audience anywhere can understand and root for. The Ark also fits into this, but it ends up becoming pointless because of the power of God. Which brings me to my next point. The endings of Crusade and Doom do not destroy the point, because they make one feel like something has been accomplished, and some unseen force didn't do the job by itself, rendering Indy pointless. Without Indy, no incantation would have been said with the Shankara stones, and without Indy...oh wait...it was because of Indy in Crusade the Nazis ever found the damn grail, and Donovan probably would have chosen the wrong cup and died even if he had found it. Okay, so only Doom isn't POINTLESS.

Even so, I still love Indiana Jones GREATLY, and don't confuse me saying pointless and BAD are the same things. I'm just putting the films into perspective.

This was never about the plots having a point or being pointless. This was about good movies and bad movies. A good plot can still have an ultimately futile outcome. 'Watchmen' is another "pointless" book/movie where you can argue that the same outcome would have occurred if all the protagonists had done nothing. There's numerous stories like that. That's not at all related to what I'm talking about. And I'm sorry to say, but you're kidding yourself if you think Harrison Ford is in his prime. He's a grizzled old guy who always seems angry about something, like someone just stole his metamucil.

 

[Secret Fawful]

You were passing off Skull's plot as worse than the rest of the films, and I was pointing out a very good reason why it's not. Also, you're right. Old people are pretty icky.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

You were passing off Skull's plot as worse than the rest of the films, and I was pointing out a very good reason why it's not.

The reason why Skull was bad was for the reasons I mentioned. Terrible CGI, Indy being slow and old, ridiculous events like Indy being nuked in a fridge, annoying new characters like Shia LaBeouf as a "greaser", and... oh yeah.... aliens. I never said anything along the lines of what you're talking about.

Also, you're right. Old people are pretty icky.

DeNiro, Pacino, Hoffman, Ford. What do all those older actors have in common? They just stopped trying once they hit their 60's.

Yeah, I got a metamucil jab in, but watching Harrison Ford today is no comparison to watching him in movies from 20 to 30 years ago. And I'm not just talking about him having youthful looks. Half the movies he makes now he looks like he's (angrily) sleep-walking through them.

 

[Secret Fawful]

I'm just not getting why you hated those things I guess. As far as Ford's new personality, it's just his new thing. He's always had that a bit, but it comes off much stronger and more overpowering when one gets up there in years, especially from someone with as commanding a presence as Ford. I like it. To each their own. It made him so badass in the Cowboys and Aliens trailer, like when he said "I want that man. You give him to me now, or I'm gonna TAKE HIM!" That line was so badass coming from the mouth of the current grizzled Ford. I just love it.

 

[hugekent]

2007 wins easily in my opinion. So many brilliant films.

1939, 1999, 1995, 1994, 1979 and 1962 are some more of my favourites.

 

[Spiderine]

I liked Temple of Doom for what it was worth. I got a lot of fund memories of those films from 84.

 

[DieSmiling]

Put me in the "Temple of Doom" is my favorite Indy movie club. Love me some TOD.

 

[Bunker]

Better than Raiders? Stop the planet. I want off.

 

[The Morningstar]

ToD is awesome. But not better than Raiders. I'd put Last Crusade and ToD at about the same level. Crystal Skull is just boring, imo. I get to the part where Indy and La Beef are getting attacked by those pygmy things and i start falling asleep.