[POLL] How would you rank the Indiana Jones movies?

[pinback]

USA Today did a "all of Spielberg's movies ranked" list (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertai ... 584478002/), and while we can discuss the rest of it, I was surprised by how they ordered the Indiana Jones movies. How would YOU rank them?

[AArdvark]

I wanted Skull to be so much better, but no...
Somehow Spielberg isn't the movie genius he was back in the 80s. I wanted Super8 to be as good as Goonies, but no...

Maybe I'm the problem

[pinback]

Neither Super 8 or Goonies were Spielberg movies but okay.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

Hey man, he said he was willing to blame himself.

[AArdvark]

Spielberg did to Super8 and Goonies what George Lucas did to Raiders. He might not have directed the movies but it was his driving vision behind them.

[Flack]

I voted for the order the movies were released: Raiders, Temple, Crusade, Skull. Maybe if I had been 40 the first time I saw Temple I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much, but I was 11 and I thought it was the greatest movie ever at the time. Anyone who doesn't rank Skull last is just trolling.

And yes, Spielberg did not direct the Goonies in the same way that he did not direct Poltergeist, which is to say he was standing behind the director the entire shoot going "ahem" and making suggestions. Actually he did more than that on Poltersteist.

[AArdvark]

After I posted my last I remembered Poltergeist was also a Spielberg joint. Wasn't Gremlins also one of his stepkids movies?

[pinback]

I have to know who it was who didn't put Raiders first. I considered all the non-Raiders-first categories troll categories.

I mean, you have to explain yourself. No matter how you rank them, Raiders is so obviously, outrageously better than everything else on the list that I can't even imagine someone picking something else first with a straight face.

Paul, was that you? This sounds like a Paul bit.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

I had Last Crusade first.

You know what would have happened if Indy missed his flight to the place with the idol?

The Germans would have gotten the ark, opened the ark and killed themselves.

Crusade by a hair, but yes: Crusade.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

After I posted my last I remembered Poltergeist was also a Spielberg joint. Wasn't Gremlins also one of his stepkids movies?

They explain this in Gremlins with a voice over during the first scene.

[pinback]

I had Last Crusade first.

You know what would have happened if Indy missed his flight to the place with the idol?

The Germans would have gotten the ark, opened the ark and killed themselves.

Crusade by a hair, but yes: Crusade.

Well, that's ridiculous.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

I had Last Crusade first.

You know what would have happened if Indy missed his flight to the place with the idol?

The Germans would have gotten the ark, opened the ark and killed themselves.

Crusade by a hair, but yes: Crusade.

Well, that's ridiculous.

It's a problem with the plot! It makes no difference what Indy does. It's why most movies don't end with the protagonist bound and helpless. Well, that's not true with what I've been watching lately, but I mean 80s flicks.

[AArdvark]

Hey, he could have been locked in a bank vault and used the explosives hidden in his false teeth to escape, thay makes about as much sense as keeping him tied up to a lamp post

[Tdarcos]

I have to know who it was who didn't put Raiders first. I considered all the non-Raiders-first categories troll categories.

I mean, you have to explain yourself. No matter how you rank them, Raiders is so obviously, outrageously better than everything else on the list that I can't even imagine someone picking something else first with a straight face.

Paul, was that you? This sounds like a Paul bit.

I voted for "did not see all of them".

[Jizaboz]

I have to know who it was who didn't put Raiders first. I considered all the non-Raiders-first categories troll categories.

I mean, you have to explain yourself. No matter how you rank them, Raiders is so obviously, outrageously better than everything else on the list that I can't even imagine someone picking something else first with a straight face.

Paul, was that you? This sounds like a Paul bit.

I voted for "did not see all of them".

Do you have a laptop or other device that plays DVDs? Or do you use movie streaming services like Amazon perhaps we can send you $ to rent/buy movies you'd like to see on? Also, I tried to call you last week on Thursday night but it was pretty late, like 11:30 pm EST. Will try again soon though man!

[pinback]

I had Last Crusade first.

You know what would have happened if Indy missed his flight to the place with the idol?

The Germans would have gotten the ark, opened the ark and killed themselves.

Crusade by a hair, but yes: Crusade.

Well, that's ridiculous.

It's a problem with the plot! It makes no difference what Indy does. It's why most movies don't end with the protagonist bound and helpless. Well, that's not true with what I've been watching lately, but I mean 80s flicks.

This is why I don't understand you people, and never will. You are consumed with what the movie is about, the plot, while disregarding its quality. Like a perfect still-life painting of a bowl of fruit, but you don't like apples so you give it a thumbs down. Other than not turning the sound on, I consider that the worst possible way to watch a movie.

I've seen Rounders at least fifty times. It is inarguably great. Not the best movie ever, but inarguably great. And yet, it makes no sense.

The whole movie starts with Matt Damon taking the $30,000 he's won/saved up, and going up against Teddy KGB (John Malkovich) in order to "roll up a stake and go to Vegas" to play in the World Series of Poker. He loses it all, and the ENTIRE REST OF THE MOVIE is about him struggling to get it back.

At the end, he wins his money back from Teddy KGB (who pyays thyat myan heez myoney), and HEADS OFF TO VEGAS with the same $30,000 he started off with.

If he could have just gone to Vegas in the first place (which he definitely could have), what the fuck was the point of the movie?

The point of the movie was that it was great, and well-acted, and well-written, and endlessly entertaining, and Last Crusade couldn't lick Raiders' big, fat, smelly, hemmorrhoid-swollen ass on its best day.

Your opinion is bad.

[pinback]

I'm a cranky old man now, just get used to it.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

Well, that's ridiculous.

It's a problem with the plot! It makes no difference what Indy does. It's why most movies don't end with the protagonist bound and helpless. Well, that's not true with what I've been watching lately, but I mean 80s flicks.

This is why I don't understand you people, and never will. You are consumed with what the movie is about, the plot, while disregarding its quality. Like a perfect still-life painting of a bowl of fruit, but you don't like apples so you give it a thumbs down. Other than not turning the sound on, I consider that the worst possible way to watch a movie.

I've seen Rounders at least fifty times. It is inarguably great. Not the best movie ever, but inarguably great. And yet, it makes no sense.

The whole movie starts with Matt Damon taking the $30,000 he's won/saved up, and going up against Teddy KGB (John Malkovich) in order to "roll up a stake and go to Vegas" to play in the World Series of Poker. He loses it all, and the ENTIRE REST OF THE MOVIE is about him struggling to get it back.

At the end, he wins his money back from Teddy KGB (who pyays thyat myan heez myoney), and HEADS OFF TO VEGAS with the same $30,000 he started off with.

If he could have just gone to Vegas in the first place (which he definitely could have), what the fuck was the point of the movie?

The point of the movie was that it was great, and well-acted, and well-written, and endlessly entertaining, and Last Crusade couldn't lick Raiders' big, fat, smelly, hemmorrhoid-swollen ass on its best day.

Your opinion is bad.

What's this about Rounders having sound, now?

[AArdvark]

Hmmmm, I wonder.