Indiana Jones: the Original Trilogy

A few days ago, I had the afternoon off and so I watched all three of the old Indiana Jones movies (I watched them chronologically, starting with Temple of Doom, since it takes place a couple of years before Raiders). I'm going to write up how I feel on the newest adventure of Dr. Jones and to put it in perspective, here's my feelings on the other films in the series.

Raiders of the Lost Ark

I don't care what anyone says or what the DVD cover says: there's no "Indiana Jones" in the title and that's the way it is in the opening. And what an opening: from the first shot of the Paramont logo melting into the mountain and seeing the back of Indiana Jones to the classic ending shot, this film is painted darkly and gritty. The atmospheres presented throughout are so rich, you can almost smell the stench and taste the humidity. It really is well shot, with cinematography that I don't think is matched in the first two sequels.

But what about the movie? Well, it's my favorite of the Indy movies and for one reason: Indiana Jones. I'd argue the Indy we've seen in the other films are pale imitations of the man in this movie. Dr. Jones isn't some fortune and glory obsessed treasure hunter or some daddy's boy adventurer, not here. Here he is a world-wise tough guy, whose day job just happens to be going after artifacts to put in a museum, complimenting his paycheck as a college professor. In Raiders, Indiana is at his best. I think in Temple of Doom, he's too far removed from the way he is here: he's a lot colder, kind of dumber, and not that interesting of a character. In Last Crusade, he's not the guy who turns the tables on the Nazis - he's too busy being chased by them while in search of the Grail. I'd have loved to have seen Indy show up at the Grail Temple inLast Crusadewith a bazooka and threaten to blow them all up to keep the Nazis from getting the Grail. That's the kind of Indiana Jones we have in Raiders and that's how I like my Dr. Jones.

One of the other aspects I really enjoy about this movie is how serious they take the action sequences. There isn't really winking at the audience as there arguably is in the last two. Then again, there's nothing to be self-referential with here: at this point, there was no franchise and this was just a straight action-adventure movie.

Marion Ravenwood, as portrayed by Karen Allen, is the best of the Indy love interests. She's strong, independent, a bit bitter towards Indiana, but she still loves him and it's apparent that he still cares for her too. She's the only female in the three movies that can verbally go toe to toe with Indy and on at least one occasion wins ("Come back tomorrow, Indiana Jones."). Yet, she doesn't come off as bitchy, she's rather likable, in a "girl next door" kind of way.

The only complaint I have with Raiders is that at times, it feels like the pace is a little slow. Particularly once Indy and Marion reach Cairo, it seems to drag, until Indy actually uncovers the Ark. Which isn't really a spoiler as that is only halfway through the movie. Then it's full speed forward, balls to the wall action until the end.

As far as adventure movies go, I still think it's the best and the National Treasure and Tomb Raider crop don't even come close (though, I'll admit, I think The Mummy movies do a decent job at trying).

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

This is the dumbest Indiana Jones movie to date. It includes a particularly dumb escape from an airplane by jumping out in a rubber raft while a couple hundred feet in the air, Willie Scott (horrendously played by Kate Capshaw), the worst Indy lady ever who simply whines and screams the whole movie and runs into every woodland creature in the jungle in one scene (wouldn't the animals be frightened by her screaming and run away instead of keep showing up?), a plot involving the Thuggee that no one can follow (were they in league with the Prime Minister guy or were they mind-controlling everyone in the palace?), the least "grand" feeling of them all (the movie was primarily shot on sound stages and looks and feels like it was shot on sound stages), a slightly goofy feeling like no one that is making the movie is taking it seriously (that's subjective, I know), and a mine-cart chase that has a few moments of wince inducing material.

What happened to the gritty realism of the first? And even if it wasn't "real" it was at least "real" in the world of Indiana Jones. This movie doesn't even feel like the same character - the opening would be better suited for James Bond than Indiana Jones, and throughout, he's kind of obsessed with finding things for "fortune and glory." Don't get me wrong, in Raiders he goes after the Ark because it's a monumental historical find, but you don't get the sense that he's a treasure hunter, like in Temple of Doom. Luckily, you don't get that sense in the follow-up either.

So, what is good here? Well, despite the change in character for Dr. Jones, Harrison Ford is still the man. And halfway to being the man is Indy's Asian, kid sidekick, Short Round. Still, I can understand why they would ditch the concept of the kid sidekick later on: as much as it matches this version of Indiana Jones, it doesn't really match the Raiders Indy, and I think that's what they were trying to get closer to in Last Crusade.

What else is good? The climactic sequence on the bridge was very well executed and feels like good old Indiana Jones more than just about everything else in the entire movie. And because of this movie, Steven Spielberg has said he felt compelled to make a third one as a kind of apology to the fans.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

The main problem with this movie is that it wants so hard to be Raiders. But because of the heart-warming nature of the reconciliation story between father and son, it just can' quite match that darkness or grittiness. At least it feels more like Indiana Jones than its predecessor, but if it's Indiana Jones, it's a kinder, gentler Indy than we've seen thus far. Wow, his daddy issues must go pretty deep.

Still, it's a very fun movie and feels much more balanced than the second Jones sequel (which was technically, a prequel). There are some gaps in logic (Why did Indy let the guy go after that whole boat chase? The man was trying to kill them!), perhaps a little bit too much slapstick (mainly with the character of Marcus Brody - the series Jar Jar? I wouldn't go that far, but I'd think a museum curator would be a little less inept...), and some ridiculous traps (spell Jehovah on the floor tiles? What were the creators of that place thinking? At least decapitating blades were a nice touch...), but all in all, it's still a fun movie.

But I think that's also what hurts it. While Raiders was a "fun" movie, it didn't seem as aware of itself being a fun movie as Last Crusade does, which I think makes it a little bit more light-hearted. And frankly, if it involves light-heartedness and Nazis, it'd better be a Mel Brooks movie in my book. Even with that, it never quite falls into self-parody, like the Star Wars prequels (What? That character just said that line that that other character will say in a future episode? Genius!).

Still, unlike the second one, the good far outweighs the bad. What's good? Sean Connery. Continuity (the college, Marcus Brody, Sallah...). Alison Doody (not the best Indy lady, but perhaps the easiest on the eyes?). Walter Donovan (what a summabitch). More Nazis. The entire opening. The last shot.

And so, that rounds up my feelings on the previous Indy movies. Can you tell I really dig Raiders of the Lost Ark? Yeah, it's in my Top 5 favorite movies of all time. And I'm not expecting Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to dethrone it. If it places as my second favorite Indiana Jones movie, I'll be greatly surprised. Actually, I have fairly low expectations for it, expecting it to rank somewhere between Temple of Doom and Last Crusade for me. And if it does, that'll be just fine with me: I think some Indy is better than no Indy. Unless it's Temple of Doom level or lower. Can we please just pretend they don't exist? Maybe I should buy the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles and see if that doesn't wash the taste out of my mouth...