Sorry, Scott, Ken (everyone else) for being a childish jerk. I don't know what came over me. I just got a bit miffed by what Jim said and didn't think straight.

Anyways hello everyone and *peace*.

Sorry, Scott, Ken (everyone else) for being a childish jerk. I don't know what came over me. I just got a bit miffed by what Jim said and didn't think straight.

Anyways hello everyone and *peace*.

Pax!

And welcome to the board.

Ken V.

Sorry, Scott, Ken (everyone else) for being a childish jerk. I don't know what came over me. I just got a bit miffed by what Jim said and didn't think straight.

Anyways hello everyone and *peace*.

Sounds good to me.

I'm sorry Jim but I feel you should rethink your statement here. I mean Temple is set in India and India and Africa are two entirely different countries of completely different nationalities. India's part of Asia and the people there are of eastern/ Indo descent. They mostly practice the Hindu religion and such. The people of Africa are usually darker skinned with entirely different facial/ physical characteristics and different cultural backgrounds. Just don't say stuff like this or some people will take offense and take it the wrong way just like I did.

On a related note I wanted to say why I feel Last Crusade is the least of the Indy films for me at least:

- It's derivitive of Raiders: Nazis again, racing them for another biblical artifact again, going through the desert again, etc.

- Boring Villains: The Nazis in Raiders were ferocious, sneaky characters. The Nazis in Last Crusade are a group of bumbling, incompetent clowns. What do we have for villains in this film? Mustached dudes in fezzes? A Nazi General from a Mel Brooks movie? None of whom convey a real threat whatsoever. And for our main villain we get a guy named Walter Donovan who does nothing interesting as a bad guy other than shooting Sean Connery. The guy has no charisma or personality whatsoever.

Brody/Sallah: I'm just not too fond of the way Indy's buddies : Marcus Brody and Sallah are made into bumbling fools for comic relief. I preferred the way they came off in Raiders: a wise mentor/ the best digger in Cairo; respectively. Even Indy is made to look like an idiot. Witness the scenes where he falls down the stairs or it's revelaed he's named after the dog. This just makes the film too jokey for my liking and sucks out any suspense the film might carry.

Action sequences: I find the action in this film (save for the tank) to be rather uninspired and mechanical. They just don't carry the energy or thrills from the first two films. And the film also sports the most dated FX of the trilogy.

Hi, smithers52. Thanks for the warm, friendly [edited] words. I hope you did take the time to read the rest of the thread as the others suggested. My miscategorization of the Indians in Temple of Doom was due to the fact that I just can't get past the many flaws I see in the movie. It in no way means that you can't have a different opinion. I'm sure that we will have other differences of opinion on movies, but that is all they are - differences of opinion. I have absolutely no understanding how such a difference of opinion about a movie could offend you so much that you felt the need to respond as you did. I can't wait til you discover the political forum. :p

Welcome to the board.

Jim

Sorry to disagree but I feel that Crusade is just as flawed (in different ways) as Temple.

Sorry to disagree but I feel that Crusade is just as flawed (in different ways) as Temple.

That's cool with me.

As long as you don't start dissing Raiders!! :p

Why on earth would I (or anyone) diss Raiders? It's one of the greatest films of all time and (IMO) the best film in Spielberg's filmography. Which says a lot since he's made several other classic-great flicks.

I still feel the two sequels aren't bad films.

I do feel that Temple of Doom deserves a bit more love from the public at large, warts and all. I feel that Harrison Ford offers his best performance as Indy and the film has some of the greatest action sequences committed to celluloid. The Club-Obi Wan shootout. The spiked room. The Mine Car Chase and the classic rope-bridge finale. It has flaws yes, but a movie starring Harrison Ford and directed by Steven Spielberg just can't be terrible. Check this out:
http://www.dvdjournal.com/reviews/a/adve...ones.shtml

Despite all my moaning and whining on Last Crusade, I don't hate it. It's a thrill to see Harrison Ford and Sean Connery work together and they do have some nice chemistry. But on the whole I find the rest of the film to be a watered down, derivitive rehash of the first film. Everyone criticises Temple for being flawed when (IMO), Crusade deserves just as much criticism.