Raiders of the Lost Ark, any film its match?

[2D8HP]

I've never seen an action-adventure movie that's grabbed me as much as Raiders of the Lost Ark (Temple of Doom, and Last Crusade, while good, just didn't reach the same heights for me, and I never saw Crystal Skull).

Since I remember a lot of films of that time (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fantasy_films_of_the_1980s) fondly I'm sure that what age I was at the time effected how much I liked it, so folks please tell me, what action-adventure film do you like nearly as much or more than Raiders?

[Leewei]

The Mummy (1999) seems to be cut from the same cloth. I still like Raiders better.

[Rodin]

The Mummy is a strong contender.

I'm also one of those weirdos that likes Last Crusade more than Raiders. It's close, but Sean Connery just adds so much.

[Peelee]

The Mummy was just not nearly enough for me. I like Brendan Fraser, but he's no Indiana Jones.

[GloatingSwine]

Back to the Future.

Mayyybe Gremlins.

[Yora]

I was recently doing some researching and analysis of adventure storytelling and one of my conclusions was that Raiders of the Lost Ark really is the gold standard by which all others should be measured.
The only comparable movies I could think of are the three good Star Wars movies and Fury Road.

[Peelee]

I was recently doing some researching and analysis of adventure storytelling and one of my conclusions was that Raiders of the Lost Ark really is the gold standard by which all others should be measured.
The only comparable movies I could think of are the three good Star Wars movies and Fury Road.

Star Wars and Back to the Future, taken as standalone movies, fit with Raiders as gold standards, IMO.

[Mordar]

I've never seen an action-adventure movie that's grabbed me as much as Raiders of the Lost Ark (Temple of Doom, and Last Crusade, while good, just didn't reach the same heights for me, and I never saw Crystal Skull).

Since I remember a lot of films of that time (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fantasy_films_of_the_1980s) fondly I'm sure that what age I was at the time effected how much I liked it, so folks please tell me, what action-adventure film do you like nearly as much or more than Raiders?

Raiders gets mandatory watching whenever it is on, for me, regardless of the point in the movie. It has aged wonderfully. Star Wars and Empire get the same chance, but since they are always the "enhanced" versions on TV they don't get the same credit.

Strictly in the "nearly as much" category...Big Trouble in Little China and Aliens. They are opposite ends of an action-adventure spectrum (Camp to Pulp to Dark) with Raiders in the middle spot.

- M

[Rodin]

One that's more on the comedy end, but Crocodile Dundee 2 is very much in the "no matter where it is in the movie on TV, I will sit down and watch".

[Lord Joeltion]

Back to the Future.

Mayyybe Gremlins.

These two are probably the first that would come to mind if you asked me about Best 80's Fun-Time Movie, before any other action film. Personally, BTF Trilogy is, according to my standards, the best trilogy of all cinema. It's just that perfect (specially the first two). So I think those three (BTF 1-3) would solidly beat any Indiana Jones movie in my regard. Gremlins could arguably be considered action films, but I think they lean more towards horror/suspense, I'd rather exclude it from the competition entirely.

As it was mentioned, The Mummy is basically THE archetypical action movie, in the sense that it does all the major tropes and succeeds. Maybe the movie isn't as high quality as Raiders, but that still is something to take into a account, I think. Raiders would probably beat The Mummy on the creativity aspect and also direction. I think it's a fair competition there. For me, Egyptian Gods adds a flavour I can't simply say 'no' to. I think I enjoy it a tad more because of that. But objectively, I think they are fair match.

From OP's list I would mention the original Ghostbusters, I've always been a sucker for that film (and I get bored with ghost stories). It's just that good. Also (with no particular order) Labyrinth, Dark Crystal and The Legend have a fond personal place there, because I'm a huge fan of films with puppets. They aren't on the scale of Raiders though.

There's only one that beats all previously mentioned, solidly and irrevocably. Just one: The Princess Bride.

ETA: Ever since a kid, I always preferred Last Crusade. The only reason is that Sean Connery makes a better partner for Indy than all previous companions.

[Peelee]

As it was mentioned, The Mummy is basically THE archetypical action movie, in the sense that it does all the major tropes and succeeds. Maybe the movie isn't as high quality as Raiders, but that still is something to take into a account, I think. Raiders would probably beat The Mummy on the creativity aspect and also direction. I think it's a fair competition there.

I have trouble wrapping my mind around this. The Mummy was, IMO, pretty average. Not terrible, but not great. Kind of forgettable, honestly. Whereas when I found out my wife had never seen any Indiana Jones movie and I got super excited to show her Raiders, she greatly enjoyed it even though, in her own words, it seemed like she had already seen half the movie, since so many of the scenes were incredibly famous and have been parodied to death. Which is something I hadn't even considered before. It is the polar opposite of forgettable, it is indelibly etched into our very culture.

If there is any singular archetypal action/adventure movie, I would hands down say Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's not even close.

[Jasdoif]

There appears to be a distinct lack of Castle of Cagliostro in this thread.

[Mordar]

There appears to be a distinct lack of Castle of Cagliostro in this thread.

Here, hold my beer...

Because that's just a cartoon, not an action-adventure movie.

Hehehe...

- M

[McStabbington]

The only action-adventure films that really compare with Raiders are Die Hard and Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai.

I've sometimes noted amongst my gaming group that if you were to cut those three movies into their respective scenes, and then start assembling the components, you could recreate just about any action-adventure film ever made, and tell the story better in the process. That's an exaggeration, but barely so.

[Tyndmyr]

Raiders gets mandatory watching whenever it is on, for me, regardless of the point in the movie. It has aged wonderfully. Star Wars and Empire get the same chance, but since they are always the "enhanced" versions on TV they don't get the same credit.

Strictly in the "nearly as much" category...Big Trouble in Little China and Aliens. They are opposite ends of an action-adventure spectrum (Camp to Pulp to Dark) with Raiders in the middle spot.

- M

Raiders, Aliens, both fantastic. I also greatly enjoyed Sixth Day while growing up, and watched it a fair number of times. May not have aged as well, though. Die Hard, definitely.

[Jay R]

Die Hard. "Only John can drive somebody that crazy."

The Avengers. "There's only one God, ma'am, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that."

Dirty Harry. "You got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?"

The Adventures of Robin Hood. "Are you a friend to our King Richard?" "I love no man better."

The Three Musketeers. (1973) "Then let's go and be killed where we're told to! Is life worth so many questions? "

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. "This is the West. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Crocodile Dundee. "That's not a knoife."

Seven Samurai. "The farmers have won. Not us."

[BeerMug Paladin]

I'm not typically in the mindset of thinking which movie is best or the greatest in any sense. But there are a few action movies that I recall having really liked. "Shoot 'Em Up" and "Crank" are both enjoyable and don't get talked about that often, I think.

"El Mariachi" is good. I really liked "Duel (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067023/)" as well.

I'm surprised that "Terminator 2" hasn't been mentioned yet.

[Lemmy]

Raiders is a great movie, specially for its time... But I doubt it'd make to even my Top 10 Action/Adventure movie... Even limiting it to nostalgic live action movies from the 80s-to-early-90s that I can remember off the top of my head, I'd put Aliens, Mad Max Road Warrior and Terminator 2 ahead of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

[DavidSh]

The 1933 King Kong is surprisingly good, though it isn't really an action movie in the sense that Raiders is.

[Peelee]

I'm not typically in the mindset of thinking which movie is best or the greatest in any sense. But there are a few action movies that I recall having really liked. "Shoot 'Em Up" and "Crank" are both enjoyable and don't get talked about that often, I think.

"El Mariachi" is good. I really liked "Duel (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067023/)" as well.

I'm surprised that "Terminator 2" hasn't been mentioned yet.

Shoot 'Em Up was a horrible, horrible movie, but entertaining as hell. I absolutely loved it. Completely over-the-top, ridiculous scenes every other minute. It was just fun.

[Maelstrom]

Agreed, Raiders is firmly rooted in my mind as my all time favorite, most frequently watched (and rewound back in the day). Star Wars (just Star Wars back in the day, the New Hope thing only came about for me in the mid 90's) is certainly second. One of the others that is way up there that has not yet been mention is ' The Goonies '...might even be number three now that I think about it a bit more.

[Lord Joeltion]

I have trouble wrapping my mind around this. The Mummy was, IMO, pretty average. Not terrible, but not great. Kind of forgettable, honestly.
You don't need to exceed expectations to succeed. "Archetypal" (sorry my misspell before) means for my analysis "typical". The Mummy being forgettable/average for some, reinforces the idea of "very common" or rather, that it gathers the most general basics of how to write an adventure story. For instance, I would never deem "Lord of The Rings" Archetypal in any sense, precisely because of its great quality and the uniqueness about it. But I'm not saying you can't be both archetypal and have great quality; "A New Hope" is the typical hero's journey with little addition or change, but the quality is better than most heroic movies.

There aren't many movies/books I can quite compare with Raiders that haven't come from a very specific kind of adventure stories (comics from the Golden Age, maybe?) and aren't rips off of it themselves. So, on one hand; I find difficult to conceive Raiders as the "prototypical" adventure movie. The Mummy, on the other hand, has a very typical setting, with kinda stereotypical characters and plot points; but it is written well enough to avoid being lousy. Meaning, it's a very typical movie for me. The reasons I like it (not exactly "more than", mind you) are because it reminds me of a lot of stories I read since I was a child, and because Egypt+mummies=win. Also, Ancient History references*!

*Not that either are accurate or anything, but in The Mummy that part plays a bigger role, in my opinion. As a Historian guy, Indy makes a very good G.I.Joe.


Whereas when I found out my wife had never seen any Indiana Jones movie and I got super excited to show her Raiders, she greatly enjoyed it even though, in her own words, it seemed like she had already seen half the movie, since so many of the scenes were incredibly famous and have been parodied to death. Which is something I hadn't even considered before. It is the polar opposite of forgettable, it is indelibly etched into our very culture.

Which is fine, but from my perspective, most of those elements hit the media because of Raiders, not because Raiders is the best way to write an adventure or because it codified most of the tropes. Alien, for example, could be considered a typical horror movie because it codifies a lot of the tropes from that genre. The character of Indy, instead, codified a lot of new tropes because of the movie's ingenuity at the time. Yet there's a whole bunch of adventure movies that are nothing like Raiders. But there's probably a lot of bias on that statement that I failed to communicate in my original post. The only part I never intended as purely subjective opinion was the part about Princes Bride. That is the best Adventure movie, PERIOD. Science told me! :smalltongue:


If there is any singular archetypal action/adventure movie, I would hands down say Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's not even close.

I obviously disagree, but I think it's mostly because we are seeing things from opposite sides of the lens. Or because I read a lot of more books like The Mummy than anything like Raiders.

[Fyraltari]

No love for The Fifth Element?

[Tyndmyr]

No love for The Fifth Element?

That's more of an oddball cult classic than a genre defining epic. Things like Raiders or Die Hard are copied endlessly by things that come after them, and represent turning points in cinema, not merely being good films, though they are also that.

I don't think The Fifth Element is that kind of film, though it is certainly well liked.

[Fyraltari]

That's more of an oddball cult classic than a genre defining epic. Things like Raiders or Die Hard are copied endlessly by things that come after them, and represent turning points in cinema, not merely being good films, though they are also that.

I don't think The Fifth Element is that kind of film, though it is certainly well liked.

Good point.

[Peelee]

You don't need to exceed expectations to succeed. "Archetypal" (sorry my misspell before) means for my analysis "typical". The Mummy being forgettable/average for some, reinforces the idea of "very common" or rather, that it gathers the most general basics of how to write an adventure story.

Archetype is usually either the thing being copied (eg Animal House is an archetypal Crazy College movie in this sense) or a typical example (eg Star Wars is an archetypal Hero's Journey in this sense). The Mummy is neither. What are the general basics of an adventure story? How does The Mummy exemplify them in ways Raiders doesn't? How does The Mummy do such things particularly well, in ways that Raiders doesn't?

Remember, this thread is about any film that can match Raiders, which is inarguably an archetype in the first sense. Saying "well this other movie hits the most generalized points for an adventure movie" isn't doing it any favors here.

[Lemmy]

Most (if not all) movies (and books, songs, games, etc) that help create, define and cement their genre are eventually surpassed by their future peers, who have the benefit of hindsight. This doesn't diminish their quality or significance in any way, of course, but it does mean that nostalgia and reverence aside, the iconics rarely (if ever) remain unmatched in quality or popularity.

I'd say that's the case of Raiders. It's a great movie and it's hard to exaggerate the iimpact it had on cinema as a whole, but it's definitely been surpassed by other movies (IMHO) who, of course, only managed to be as good as they were because they could learn from (and be inspired by) Raiders of the Lost Ark (and other great movies).

tl;dr: Raiders probably has no equal on the "historical significance to adventure movies" aspect, but at least IMO, it's been long dethroned from the title of "best action/adventure movie".

[Mordar]

Most (if not all) movies (and books, songs, games, etc) that help create, define and cement their genre are eventually surpassed by their future peers, who have the benefit of hindsight. This doesn't diminish their quality or significance in any way, of course, but it does mean that nostalgia and reverence aside, the iconics rarely (if ever) remain unmatched in quality or popularity.

I'd say that's the case of Raiders. It's a great movie and it's hard to exaggerate the iimpact it had on cinema as a whole, but it's definitely been surpassed by other movies (IMHO) who, of course, only managed to be as good as they were because they could learn from (and be inspired by) Raiders of the Lost Ark (and other great movies).

tl;dr: Raiders probably has no equal on the "historical significance to adventure movies" aspect, but at least IMO, it's been long dethroned from the title of "best action/adventure movie".

But what usurper has taken the Raiders' throne?

(And yes, I very much agree with the idea of "...stood on the shoulders of giants." I'm curious about what movies we think managed to climb all the way up to those shoulders.)

- M

[Lord Joeltion]

Archetype is usually either the thing being copied (eg Animal House is an archetypal Crazy College movie in this sense) or a typical example (eg Star Wars is an archetypal Hero's Journey in this sense). The Mummy is neither. What are the general basics of an adventure story? How does The Mummy exemplify them in ways Raiders doesn't? How does The Mummy do such things particularly well, in ways that Raiders doesn't?

Remember, this thread is about any film that can match Raiders, which is inarguably an archetype in the first sense. Saying "well this other movie hits the most generalized points for an adventure movie" isn't doing it any favors here.

Well, I suppose that if I had the time to compose a written essay I could compare both movies with some literature of the genre to show how from a certain perspective one fits the second meaning of archetypal while the other doesn't fit as well. I don't particularly like that kind of essays, because I consider them inherently biased, ie: interesting only as far as looking at new perspective goes. Also, I never said one was better than the other; I just mentioned that I could enjoy them both equally, precisely because The Mummy reminds me a lot of the books I read as a kid.

And I proposed one adventure movie that is inherently superior than Raiders, or any other movie mentioned before (it wasn't The Mummy, btw). It has pirates an all. And real puzzles :smalltongue:

[The Glyphstone]

The Goonies? :)

[Mordar]

And I proposed one adventure movie that is inherently superior than Raiders, or any other movie mentioned before (it wasn't The Mummy, btw). It has pirates an all. And real puzzles :smalltongue:

It has a pirate, in a non-pirate role. At best, it is pirate-adjacent.

- M

[Peelee]

It has a pirate, in a non-pirate role. At best, it is pirate-adjacent.

- M

Stardust??

[Lector87]

For action-adventure that I like as much or more than Raiders, I've got to give my vote to Big Trouble in Little China. I should also mention The Rocketeer, which isn't a cinematic masterpiece, but is a classic adventure popcorn flick I have a lot of affection for.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Is it a dread pirate?

[Peelee]

Also, I've never seen The Goonies.

[Knaight]

I've never seen an action-adventure movie that's grabbed me as much as Raiders of the Lost Ark (Temple of Doom, and Last Crusade, while good, just didn't reach the same heights for me, and I never saw Crystal Skull).

Since I remember a lot of films of that time (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fantasy_films_of_the_1980s) fondly I'm sure that what age I was at the time effected how much I liked it, so folks please tell me, what action-adventure film do you like nearly as much or more than Raiders?

I'm with the group consensus on Princess Bride being just as enjoyable. I'd also push a slightly less conventional angle, which is that there are a lot of similarities between action-adventure and certain types of martial arts films. Ong-Bak, for instance has at least a few major scenes that hook in the same way, though there are substantive differences in intervening structure.

There's also a case for heist films having certain structural parallels. The Italian Job is generally what I'd recommend as an entry point to the genre.

[Avilan the Grey]

Never was a real Indy fan.

Movies I rate higher without having to think about it:
Star wars trilogy
Back to the future trilogy
Jurassic Park
Ghostbusters (the original)
The first three Pirates of the Caribbean movies

[Knaight]

The first three Pirates of the Caribbean movies

The very first of which in particular is a classic action-adventure movie in a fairly similar form.

[veti]

Two words: The Rock.

Also Highlander, although that hasn't aged quite so well.

[Mightymosy]

Is there any movie that is as good or better than Raiders which also does the "archaelogical treasure" thing?

I think the Mummy is pretty good, and I really liked it, yet I think Indy was better.

So is there another movie about digging up hidden archaeological treasures that is as good as Indy?

[The Glyphstone]

National Treasure.

[Mordar]

National Treasure.

Even were I reading this on a monochrome monitor I would have seen what you did there...

:smallwink:

[Peelee]

National Treasure.

You mean 2, surely.:smallwink:

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Two words: The Rock.

As far as I'm concerned that one is required watching in film school for one simple reason: at the beginning of the movie they promise that however this goes it ends in a huge explosion, and they manage to get to a good ending and still deliver that explosion.

Best Michael Bay movie and best Nicholas Cage movie, by far. (Even though those bars aren't very high maybe.) The music is good as well.

[Peelee]

As far as I'm concerned that one is required watching in film school for one simple reason: at the beginning of the movie they promise that however this goes it ends in a huge explosion, and they manage to get to a good ending and still deliver that explosion.

Best Michael Bay movie and best Nicholas Cage movie, by far. (Even though those bars aren't very high maybe.) The music is good as well.

I've heard tales of professors of law schools recommending that students watch My Cousin Vinny. The legal processes and are apparently better presented than any other lawyer movie.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm throwing my hat in with The Princess Bride. Probably the most enjoyable film I regret missing as a kid.

I also rank Seven Samurai high above Raiders, but that's because of how a lot of the things the film does still come off as refreshingly unique. Yojimbo is also great.


Stardust??

I'm torn on Stardust. A lot of the film is good, but the change to how the candles work bugs me.

Specifically the fact that it changes the ending. In the film the candles are light it, teleport, and the candle is gone. So at the end Tristain and Yvainne use a candle to return to her home.

In the book you lit the candle and essentially had seven league boots. You still teleported, but in the direction you were walking (and over a scale where Earth is flat). It's also specifically the candle wax that allows this, saving the wax from the old candle and being willing to damage his hand allows Tristain to get himself and Yvainne out of a tough situation.

Therefore it's explicit that Yvainne can't get back home. In addition, it turns out that having the metaphorical heart of a star doesn't grant immortality, therefore Tristain dies, and Yvainne is left alone to rule the kingdom, occasionally having the free time to climb to the tallest tower and look at her old home. It turns out that they can't even have children, due to being completely different species.

The ending is sad, beautiful, and fits the story perfectly. The main character gets his happily ever after, and the story decides to go on for a bit, discuss what happened afterwards, and explore what that happily ever after might result in.

The other changes are actually fine to me, it's how this one change affects the story that makes me not a fan of the film. It's a great film, but it doesn't have that ending which made me love the story.


It's not a film, but with the Gaiman discussion, the TV series of Neverwhere ranks up there for me. Much less action, but it delivers on the adventure and has some great ideas.

[Peelee]

I enjoyed the happenstance of not reading the book before seeing the movie, so I absolutely loved the movie without reservation. I suppose I should read it, though, that ending sounds great.

[Lord Joeltion]

Is there any movie that is as good or better than Raiders which also does the "archaelogical treasure" thing?

I think the Mummy is pretty good, and I really liked it, yet I think Indy was better.

So is there another movie about digging up hidden archaeological treasures that is as good as Indy?

I concede Raider is a better executed film, by cinematographic standards; but the archeological aspect is where I would argue The Mummy does better than IJ in my opinion. It's probably the only aspect where it can be considered "superior" (from a narrow POV)

Specifically, because of a better optimization of the party. i.e: By splitting O'Connel's badassery and Anaksunamum Rachel Evelyn's lore savviness into two well defined characters, the duo comes off as a more believable and relatable characters than Indiana Jones is in almost any of the films (a more human side of him is shown in Last Crusade, imo, but I digress). Also, most of the sidekicks/side characters/foes are better fleshed than those shown around Indy most of the time. That means something, specially when the dialogue, filmography and direction tends to favour Indiana Jones trilogy.

There's also the fact that George Lucas, being GL, pays little to no attention to backstory, meaning that the historical/archeological aspect is mostly handwaved. Other than saying Indy is a professor, the script offers little time for Harrison Ford to actually interpret an intelectual and not yet another John Rambo with a P.H.D (Doctor in Pain and Hurt). The Mummy is one of those rare films that, while the accuracy is certainly handwaved*; at least there is some sort of actual archaeology behind. Or at least it makes you want to google the names and places mentioned (which are, again, oddly enough, all based on real archeology).

*It wouldn't be Hollywood otherwise

There are very few movies similar to Raiders that also follow the treasure hunting path. The first that come to mind are obvious ripoffs which are understandably bad; and those who aren't as bad have a different thematics altogether. The Goonies IS a good movie, but the "treasure hunting" is not central to the plot. Lara Croft is... a "good" videogame movie, at best. I think treasure hunting is a very narrow subgenre and is often not played very good. You'd find a much more easier time looking for books including/based around archeology that are better than the Indy movies. I think literature is THE place for archeology/treasure hunting, as a rule of thumb.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I've heard tales of professors of law schools recommending that students watch My Cousin Vinny. The legal processes and are apparently better presented than any other lawyer movie.

And of course there's Armageddon, which NASA helped fund, and which they now use as a test of sorts for trainee's, seeing how many of the many, many errors and inaccuracies they can point out.


I also agree that The Mummy is a very fun movie. I saw that one in cinema at the time, so I'm a little biased by memory, but it strikes a good balance between fun and plot, much better as far as i'm concerned than for instance any of its sequels, Sahara, Legionnaire (debatable whether it fits the discussion, but a lesser movie either way) or the National treasure movies. Or, you know, the Crystal Skulls film.

[Ramza00]

There are very few movies similar to Raiders that also follow the treasure hunting path. The first that come to mind are obvious ripoffs which are understandably bad; and those who aren't as bad have a different thematics altogether. The Goonies IS a good movie, but the "treasure hunting" is not central to the plot. Lara Croft is... a "good" videogame movie, at best. I think treasure hunting is a very narrow subgenre and is often not played very good. You'd find a much more easier time looking for books including/based around archeology that are better than the Indy movies. I think literature is THE place for archeology/treasure hunting, as a rule of thumb.

That is because treasure hunting is a sub-genre of the greater genre of "The Lost World" adventure genre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_world

It is so very hard to tell a good lost world story it is like threading a needle and if you do not do it just right it does not work it falls apart into a pile of string instead of forming a system of interlocking knots with the thread. Arguably the easiest way to tell a Lost World or Treasure Story is to either involve a young adult / teen who is on the cups of transition from one world to another (see treasure island) or to use an outsider who is not part of the world you are exploring (see Bilbo Baggins in Book Version of The Hobbit.) By having an outsider or a person who is transitioning from one world to another you can do a story of self discovery that also parallels the similar story of the quest that the hero is performing when he searches for the treasure.

Even stuff like Pirate of the Caribbean (the first one) follows the two themes I listed above, it was Will's coming of age story and Elizabeth being the outsider in the world of pirates. Jack Sparrow in this story is the Gandalf figure, the person who is the wise old man, the senex, who is the person who performs the call of adventure for Will Turner but also acts as a mentor. Jack shares both wisdom but also has a down to earth practicality. Yes Jack is a drunk with his own goals and interests with wanting to gain the Pearl but that does not stop him playing the senex figure to the two primary protagonists / Deuteragonists of the film.

[Aedilred]

I think it's worth noting that it's not just that Indiana Jones was the standard to which all later movies in that genre aspire. It was itself a distillation of all the existing tropes in the history of that genre, and deliberately so. It is to that type of action-adventure movie what Star Wars was to fantasy adventure movies; stripped down to its most basic elements and familiar themes.

If it were made by someone just a little more self-aware and cynical than George Lucas, we'd be calling it a parody.*

I do have to admit that therefore there is an element of snobbery in my critical assessment of the film. There's a "you didn't build that" mindset that comes into play when I consider its relative quality. Much like the films of Tarantino, it steals without remorse, grabbing bits and pieces from other works that it thinks are cool, but does very little itself that's original, even, and unlike Tarantino, in the way it assembles them.

Now, I do have to accept that it does this well. And further unlike Tarantino it doesn't broadcast that it's doing so more than necessary. It's pretty easy to do this badly: Van Helsing comes to mind. For that matter, The Mummy, which I agree with what seems to be the thread's consensus is probably the film that most closely approaches Raiders on its own terms, is a film I don't really like at all.

However, the upshot of this is that, like the first Star Wars film at least, the Indy films and Raiders in particular have very little depth. None of the characters veer far from archetype and few if any of them stray into a third dimension. The plot is linear and almost entirely predictable even to people who haven't seen it before.

None of which is to say I don't enjoy it, because I'd have to be a monster not to. But it does mean that I find it hard to view it as the pinnacle of its genre in the way that I might, say, Once Upon a Time in the West for Westerns, or Some Like it Hot for romantic comedies. It feels more like an introduction to the genre than its crowning accomplishment: a cinematic equivalent of a D&D starter set.


*Compare for example, Hot Fuzz, in many respects a great buddy-cop movie. But it's cheating and openly so, in both executing the genre's tropes very well and making fun of them at the same time - in a way that Raiders stops some way short of.

[Anonymouswizard]

I enjoyed the happenstance of not reading the book before seeing the movie, so I absolutely loved the movie without reservation. I suppose I should read it, though, that ending sounds great.

It's interesting. I too saw the film first, but then I read the book a year or two later and now when watching it it's interesting. Oh, spoilers on some of the stuff the film changed incoming.

I mean I get that Stardust was changed from a fairy tale for adults (which is why it has the original ending) to a more family fantasy film, which is half the reason I have no problem with most of the changes (which on the whole are either good, like Captain Shakespeare, or utterly understandable like not giving Tristain one pointed ear). I suspect that's why the ending changed as well, the original is a very 'mature' ending that is rather bittersweet, whereas the filmmakers wanted a more happy ending. But the happy ending was sort of expected, the fact that the book played with it is what makes it one of the few endings I find amazing.


I think it's worth noting that it's not just that Indiana Jones was the standard to which all later movies in that genre aspire. It was itself a distillation of all the existing tropes in the history of that genre, and deliberately so. It is to that type of action-adventure movie what Star Wars was to fantasy adventure movies; stripped down to its most basic elements and familiar themes.

*more good stuff*

his is a very good assessment. Especially about it essentially being the equivalent of a 'starter set'.

Like Star Wars it's drawing from a lot of things that are better in some way or another. One is descended from adventure pulp, and one from space opera pulp, but if you're willing to go outside film there's a lot of examples from it's own genre that outdo it (and with regards to Star Wars, I'd say the films aren't even the best Space Opera in it's own medium*). But it is a great example of the beats to follow if you want to create an X story.

* As one example, I consider Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan to be a much better space opera film than any of the Star Wars films.

[Peelee]

It's interesting. I too saw the film first, but then I read the book a year or two later and now when watching it it's interesting. Oh, spoilers on some of the stuff the film changed incoming.

I mean I get that Stardust was changed from a fairy tale for adults (which is why it has the original ending) to a more family fantasy film, which is half the reason I have no problem with most of the changes (which on the whole are either good, like Captain Shakespeare, or utterly understandable like not giving Tristain one pointed ear). I suspect that's why the ending changed as well, the original is a very 'mature' ending that is rather bittersweet, whereas the filmmakers wanted a more happy ending. But the happy ending was sort of expected, the fact that the book played with it is what makes it one of the few endings I find amazing.
Holdon, what's the story with Captain Shakespeare? That character was fantastic!

* As one example, I consider Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan to be a much better space opera film than any of the Star Wars films.
That's perfectly ok, you're allowed to be wrong. :smalltongue:

[Anonymouswizard]

Holdon, what's the story with Captain Shakespeare? That character was fantastic!

Not in the book, but also a great example of how to change a story when adapting. If you're going to make pointless additions make them great.


That's perfectly ok, you're allowed to be wrong. :smalltongue:

True, although thankfully in this case I'm correct. It is only logical.

[Mightymosy]

Speaking of which, I think the new Star Trek movies are very enjoyable Space Operas if you ask me.

We had lots of fun watching them (with the caveat that you shouldn't expect "real Star Trek", if you pardon that expression)

[2D8HP]

Thank ypu all very much!

Besides some recommendations for films I've never seen I got some suggestions for movies I haven't seen since the 1980's and one that I haven't seen since the 1970's (thanks Jay R)! :smile:

Fantastic!

[Calthropstu]

Action adventure eh?

It was good, but best of all time? Hmmm.

LOTR wins the action and adventure for me. It's more fantasy action adventure but eh...

As far as modern action adventure, it's definitely better than most. I liked the star wars and star trek movies more too.

I also would watch the bourne series over indiana jones series. Didn't care for the mummy series beyond the first. Got too contrived.

[Fyraltari]

LOTR wins the action and adventure for me. It's more fantasy action adventure but eh...

It's an epic, not an action-adventure.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

Of this time period, Cutthroat Island with Genna Davis was a good one. The Shadow was also enjoyable, same as with Hook. Though personal preference still is Tombstone and The Quick and The Dead.

[dps]

The 1933 King Kong is surprisingly good, though it isn't really an action movie in the sense that Raiders is.

If we're going to go that old, then the 1939 version of Stagecoach probably should be brought up.

[Saintheart]

There are very few movies similar to Raiders that also follow the treasure hunting path. The first that come to mind are obvious ripoffs which are understandably bad; and those who aren't as bad have a different thematics altogether. The Goonies IS a good movie, but the "treasure hunting" is not central to the plot. Lara Croft is... a "good" videogame movie, at best. I think treasure hunting is a very narrow subgenre and is often not played very good. You'd find a much more easier time looking for books including/based around archeology that are better than the Indy movies. I think literature is THE place for archeology/treasure hunting, as a rule of thumb.

Side note: and you don't even have to restrict it to the present day, either. There's a great little book, A Talent For War by Jack McDevitt, which is an awesome archaeology/treasure hunt story, set a good thousand years into our future ... and for bonus points the treasure isn't something from our present day, though it does basically use a heavy analogue from the Peloppenesian War as its template. Great, great little book.

I will get tomatoes for this, but I actually consider the National Treasure movies a more worthy successor to Raiders than Crystal Skull was. Glorious Nicolas Cage and all.

[Mordar]

I will get tomatoes for this, but I actually consider the National Treasure movies a more worthy successor to Raiders than Crystal Skull was. Glorious Nicolas Cage and all.

I hate him (as an actor, no opinion on as a person). I only want to see him in movies where he dies. Badly.

But you're right.

- M

[Peelee]

I hate him (as an actor, no opinion on as a person). I only want to see him in movies where he dies. Badly.

But you're right.

- M

You should watch Lord of War. I have no idea what Nic Cage is doing in something that good, but it's fantastic.

Cage's character doesn't die, but I think you'll still appreciate what happens.

[Deadline]

After combing through the list of honestly really great recommendations, I only have a few additional suggestions:

Willow
The Shadow (with Alec Baldwin and Jonathan Winters!)
Hudson Hawk (I think I like Bruce Willis better in comedy than I do action)
The Big Hit (I can't explain why I like it, but it cracks me up every time, and has solid action sequences, not really an action adventure though)

The Conan movies were solid action adventure as well, but not as light-hearted.

And if you are up for campy action adventure, you probably should watch these:

Beastmaster
Flash Gordon

[BeerMug Paladin]

You should watch Lord of War. I have no idea what Nic Cage is doing in something that good, but it's fantastic.
Every actor makes mistakes in their career. It's seriously so good, I forget he's even in it.

[Clertar]

I'm going to say The Ninth Gate. A good mystery-detective plot with a protagonist chasing a relic, a bad guys organization and an occult mystery, helmed by another great director.

[Velaryon]

I have trouble wrapping my mind around this. The Mummy was, IMO, pretty average. Not terrible, but not great. Kind of forgettable, honestly. Whereas when I found out my wife had never seen any Indiana Jones movie and I got super excited to show her Raiders, she greatly enjoyed it even though, in her own words, it seemed like she had already seen half the movie, since so many of the scenes were incredibly famous and have been parodied to death. Which is something I hadn't even considered before. It is the polar opposite of forgettable, it is indelibly etched into our very culture.

I don't know how much this mattered to anyone else, but for me I think it's helpful to put The Mummy in the context of when it came out - about a month after The Matrix and two weeks before Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, two films that should ABSOLUTELY overshadow it. And yet, The Mummy still looks pretty good 19 years later, when neither of those films has aged terribly well.

The Matrix was followed up by two lackluster sequels, and was so frequently parodied and referenced for years afterward that it felt very overexposed. It's still a good film with some revolutionary techniques, but in some ways hasn't aged well.

And then of course, TPM was one of the most massively hyped films ever, and not only failed to live up to that hype, it disappointed tons of fans to the point where people still gripe about the film to this day.

Stuck in between two of those, it seems like The Mummy did pretty alright. It certainly wasn't as ambitious or groundbreaking as either of those films, but it felt familiar and was fun to watch. I wouldn't say it's better than Raiders, but it's definitely cut from the same cloth.

[Kitten Champion]

The The Mummy was a successful attempt to do what Indiana Jones did, which is recreate the feeling of classic adventure serials - down to the day-for-night shooting and obvious use of models - while being kinda serious about it. I would agree it's mediocre, but it was trying be fairly "b" in its concept and execution.

It's a pretty memorable movie too, and as opposed to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull it's easy to remember it for its good scenes while forgetting the rest.

Personally, if I'm thinking action-adventure movie which surpassed Raiders, I would agree that it's Lord of the Rings. It had the scope of travelling the world, the memorable well-constructed action scenes, some great characters performed well, and most of all I was personally invested in their journey in a way I wasn't with Jones because it wasn't just following around a stock power fantasy.

[veti]

I don't know how much this mattered to anyone else, but for me I think it's helpful to put The Mummy in the context of when it came out - about a month after The Matrix and two weeks before Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, two films that should ABSOLUTELY overshadow it. And yet, The Mummy still looks pretty good 19 years later, when neither of those films has aged terribly well.

It must've been a pretty idle time for me, because I saw all three of those in cinemas during their original release. I'd completely forgotten they even came in the same year. And I definitely thought The Mummy the best of the bunch, even then.

Phantom Menace was universally panned, and deservedly so. The Matrix inspired a cultish following, but I wasn't impressed: the plot was nonsensical, the philosophy incoherent (as really befits a story in which the all-powerful computer tries to debug itself by... beating people up), and the much-ballyhooed special effects - were not nearly as groundbreaking as people say even now. If you'd kept an eye on the slicker end of TV commercials and pop videos in the late 90s, you'd have already seen most of them.

[Mightymosy]

I'm going to say The Ninth Gate. A good mystery-detective plot with a protagonist chasing a relic, a bad guys organization and an occult mystery, helmed by another great director.

Good addition! I think the finale is a little lackluster, but until then I was on the edge of my seat when I first watched it!



I concede Raider is a better executed film, by cinematographic standards; but the archeological aspect is where I would argue The Mummy does better than IJ in my opinion. It's probably the only aspect where it can be considered "superior" (from a narrow POV)

Specifically, because of a better optimization of the party. i.e: By splitting O'Connel's badassery and Anaksunamum Rachel Evelyn's lore savviness into two well defined characters, the duo comes off as a more believable and relatable characters than Indiana Jones is in almost any of the films (a more human side of him is shown in Last Crusade, imo, but I digress). Also, most of the sidekicks/side characters/foes are better fleshed than those shown around Indy most of the time. That means something, specially when the dialogue, filmography and direction tends to favour Indiana Jones trilogy.

There's also the fact that George Lucas, being GL, pays little to no attention to backstory, meaning that the historical/archeological aspect is mostly handwaved. Other than saying Indy is a professor, the script offers little time for Harrison Ford to actually interpret an intelectual and not yet another John Rambo with a P.H.D (Doctor in Pain and Hurt). The Mummy is one of those rare films that, while the accuracy is certainly handwaved*; at least there is some sort of actual archaeology behind. Or at least it makes you want to google the names and places mentioned (which are, again, oddly enough, all based on real archeology).

*It wouldn't be Hollywood otherwise


There are very few movies similar to Raiders that also follow the treasure hunting path. The first that come to mind are obvious ripoffs which are understandably bad; and those who aren't as bad have a different thematics altogether. The Goonies IS a good movie, but the "treasure hunting" is not central to the plot. Lara Croft is... a "good" videogame movie, at best. I think treasure hunting is a very narrow subgenre and is often not played very good. You'd find a much more easier time looking for books including/based around archeology that are better than the Indy movies. I think literature is THE place for archeology/treasure hunting, as a rule of thumb.

Great point about the "splitting the characters" thing. I have never thought about it that way, but I have always liked these two characters, quite possibly because of that reason!

Also, I have generally liked the Mummy very much. I think I liked Indy a slightly better, but it's a little unfair because Indy movies had the opportunity to impress me at a younger age.

I also liked part 2 and the Scorpion King, but I think stuff went downhill from there. Have watched one of the Scorpion King sequels, and that was not as good as the original.

[dehro]

1) I actually really like the Indiana Jones movies (yes, even the 4th which I believe got a really unfair treatment by most of the fans of the original trilogy)
2) that said: this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWE6M-rhh2U)
(I'm really sorry)

There are so many films that I rate as high or above the indiana jones movies that I can't list them all.. and yes, many of them hold a place in my heart as special as the Indiana Jones movies... titles include the LOTR movies, the Goonies, the Star Wars franchise and many, many more, in a bunch of diverse genres.

[Mordar]

The The Mummy was a successful attempt to do what Indiana Jones did, which is recreate the feeling of classic adventure serials - down to the day-for-night shooting and obvious use of models - while being kinda serious about it. I would agree it's mediocre, but it was trying be fairly "b" in its concept and execution.

I liked the Frasier Mummy quite a bit, but frankly I would have liked it more had it been called something else...something more fun and actiony like "O'Connell and the Lost Pyramid" or something less androcentric.

Why? Because 1932's The Mummy was the best of the Universal "Monster Movies", and it was not an action-adventure story. it was suspense wrapped in tragedy with a dose of horror that was beautifully crafted.

Hairs, split.

- M

[Kitten Champion]

I liked the Frasier Mummy quite a bit, but frankly I would have liked it more had it been called something else...something more fun and actiony like "O'Connell and the Lost Pyramid" or something less androcentric.

Why? Because 1932's The Mummy was the best of the Universal "Monster Movies", and it was not an action-adventure story. it was suspense wrapped in tragedy with a dose of horror that was beautifully crafted.

Hairs, split.

- M

From a marketing perspective, referring to the early Monster Movies was undoubtedly to The Mummy's benefit. Particularly - while not being the same genre - it put audiences in the frame of mind for early Hollywood pictures.

However, when they made it into a franchise it really boxed them in, unlike Indiana Jones. They had to keep doing Mummy-related stuff rather than the further adventures of Rick O'Connell with whatever they could imagine him doing. Him getting married to the Adventuring Archaeologist and having a pretty non-annoying son follow him around would've help differentiate him from Jones, while doing similar things.

[Rodin]

From a marketing perspective, referring to the early Monster Movies was undoubtedly to The Mummy's benefit. Particularly - while not being the same genre - it put audiences in the frame of mind for early Hollywood pictures.

However, when they made it into a franchise it really boxed them in, unlike Indiana Jones. They had to keep doing Mummy-related stuff rather than the further adventures of Rick O'Connell with whatever they could imagine him doing. Him getting married to the Adventuring Archaeologist and having a pretty non-annoying son follow him around would've help differentiate him from Jones, while doing similar things.

Funnily enough, the marketing backfired on me. I am not a big horror fan, so I assumed it was a creature-feature and stayed away. Fortunately, my more clued-in sister and her husband recognized it as a movie I would love and all but dragged me to go see it with them.

[veti]

I liked the Frasier Mummy quite a bit, but frankly I would have liked it more had it been called something else...something more fun and actiony like "O'Connell and the Lost Pyramid" or something less androcentric.

Completely agree. It always irks me when Hollywood remakes a classic movie using the same title. It feels like simultaneously trying to cash in on inherited glory, while also trying to eclipse the memory of the original.

Particularly egregious examples include Ocean's Eleven, The Italian Job, The Ladykillers. Bonus evil points for stealing the good name of a foreign film.

The Mummy is unusual in that it's not a remake, it's a whole original story. But it's still filching the valour of the original.

[Anonymouswizard]

Completely agree. It always irks me when Hollywood remakes a classic movie using the same title. It feels like simultaneously trying to cash in on inherited glory, while also trying to eclipse the memory of the original.

Particularly egregious examples include Ocean's Eleven, The Italian Job, The Ladykillers. Bonus evil points for stealing the good name of a foreign film.

Don't remind me of that one. They were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!

I really do get the desire Hollywood has to profit from old names, and occasionally I've seen a remake that's been made because they've had a good idea for one, but most of the time it just feels like a cash in.

[dehro]

eh... there's one such movie that is especially egregious. I can't remember the title, but it was an English movie, remade possibly less than a year later with an entire african american cast, except for Peter Dinklage, who reprised his role from the original movie in the remake as well.. I can't decide what part of that entire kerfullfe is more moronic.

[DavidSh]

dehro: Would that have been Death at a Funeral? Going by a quick check in IMDB.

[dehro]

dehro: Would that have been Death at a Funeral? Going by a quick check in IMDB.

That's the one, yes.