Active Users:558 Time:01/07/2025 11:13:49 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
I knew you'd appreciate my post. Legolas Send a noteboard - 08/10/2011 08:42:58 PM
Most of all: it was new, it was fresh at that time. There wasn't such a film since the old cliffhanger shows from the 30s. The mere idea of making a lovable hero stumble from one exotic action sequence to the next doesn't warrant a great film yet, but if you have the talent to make the acting, locations, effects and even the dialogs so much fun, convincing and effective that two hours pass like 10 minutes, you get a classic and that's exactly what happened here.

If I had been entertained instead of bored, I might've agreed... maybe the problem was that I was expecting a movie that was actually good, instead of pure camp - what with the aforementioned reputation of this movie, and IMDB score and all. Having too high expectations for something always makes you rate it even lower than it actually deserves, I guess...
I don't even have to go for the nostalgia effect all that much, I didn't get to see the film before the early 90s. Okay wait, even that's already 20 years ago :disapprove:

I think that counts as nostalgia. :P
The Mummy is a fun film too, but it simply wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Mister Jones.

Yes, granted. Unfortunately it's very nearly the only point in Raiders' favour that I've found in the comparison...

I guess I'll just give the others a pass, accept that Indiana Jones isn't for me, and move on to other classics that I haven't seen yet, and that hopefully I'll find more deserving. Though somehow I doubt too many will be from the '80s, true. :P I do love Breakfast Club, and some others from that decade I'm sure, but I can't think of many.
Reply to message
This one might get some discussion going... we can hope. So I just watched Raiders of the Lost Ark. Legolas - 07/10/2011 10:32:19 PM 648 Views
Harrison Ford? Nate - 07/10/2011 10:56:17 PM 452 Views
Obviously I was always going to miss out on the nostalgia factor. But even so. Legolas - 07/10/2011 11:09:15 PM 389 Views
I can't actually remember when I first saw it. Nate - 07/10/2011 11:18:10 PM 440 Views
Probably the difference between being a great example of the genre and pioneering it. *NM* TaskmasterJack - 08/10/2011 12:03:38 AM 145 Views
exactly dacole - 18/10/2011 07:13:38 PM 292 Views
Now? DomA - 08/10/2011 12:47:16 AM 507 Views
I love the Mummy, but one reason why you shouldn't compare the two movies Roland00 - 08/10/2011 02:52:04 AM 372 Views
I've noticed your difficulties with recognizing the important and great films of the 80s before ironclad - 08/10/2011 03:19:37 PM 393 Views
I knew you'd appreciate my post. Legolas - 08/10/2011 08:42:58 PM 433 Views
It's something I realized before... ironclad - 09/10/2011 04:15:49 PM 354 Views
Or nossy - 09/10/2011 05:47:38 PM 350 Views
Better writing? Better lead actor? *NM* Palatine - 08/10/2011 05:34:12 PM 233 Views
The latter is debatable, actually. As for the former: yeah, right. *NM* Legolas - 08/10/2011 08:36:49 PM 135 Views
You are not my friend. nossy - 09/10/2011 05:35:33 PM 352 Views
It's great sense of fun Mark - 10/10/2011 03:52:28 PM 339 Views
It's just an illustration of how things can be more than the sum of their parts. Cannoli - 11/10/2011 01:38:36 AM 459 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes