SummaryYou're in for thrills as Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) confronts snakes, Nazis and one astonishing cliffhanger after another -- all topped off by the discovery and opening of the mystical Ark of the Covenant. [Paramount Pictures]
SummaryYou're in for thrills as Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) confronts snakes, Nazis and one astonishing cliffhanger after another -- all topped off by the discovery and opening of the mystical Ark of the Covenant. [Paramount Pictures]
Raiders of the Lost Ark, the first in the series from Hollywood's own golden idols George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, is still the strongest by far and remains a thoroughly rousing and nostalgic delight to return to.
Raiders of the Lost Ark is, in fact, about as entertaining as a commercial movie can be. What is it? An adventure film that plays like an old-time 12-part serial that you see all at once, instead of Saturday-to-Saturday. It's a modern "Thief of Baghdad." It's the kind of movie that first got you excited about movies when you were a kid.
Ford's performance is an underrated but remarkable achievement; he succeeds in fully embodying a comic-book style hero without ever descending into camp.
Raiders of the Lost Ark (at the Eglinton) is a cinematic roller-coaster, thrilling and frightening in equal measure, a heart-pounding slide down greased lightning. [12 June 1981]
This is better than Temple of Doom, by a mile, but it falls very short of the perfect Last Crusade.
It's an interesting start. It's a shame that Temple of Doom had to ruin it. The series would be fine without the second film.
This movie was just about what I expected in some ways but unfortunately it didn't live up to the hype in others. First with the good stuff, it was exactly what I thought in terms of actions sequences, whip cracks, and archeological hunts. Those things were the strong elements of the film in my opinion. There were also plenty of funny scenes and the effects, while terrible in today's standards, were pretty darn good for a 30+ year-old film. The reason I rated this movie so low, however, is for the few negative parts. Things like the fact that the Indiana Jones character might be the dumbest protagonist in action film history for example. Or the corny scenes that mar so many films of that era. I honestly don't know what people were thinking back then to enjoy such tomfoolery. The other things that hurt the film weren't as major. The mystical/supernatural element was unfortunate but that's more of a personal thing. I tend to zone out when ridiculous stuff comes on the screen in supposedly realistic settings. The acting also wasn't great but it wasn't all that bad either. I was disappointed though in the lack of charisma from Harrison Ford during the movie. The same guy who managed to turn a **** bag smuggler into a fan favorite didn't have much opportunity to do the same here. I mainly blame the writing and directing. Still, the movie was enjoyable and I look forward to seeing the next two being that I've heard the series gets substantially better after the first one.
I saw the movie first when I was 15. Back then, I thought it was spectacular. Now, when I watch it, I think it is extremely cheesy, with really bad dialogue, and with almost every scene looking so staged that it is unreal. You can almost see somebody yelling 'Action' and then the awful action sequence starts. Not an ounce of excitement, it looks just really ridiculous. The Germans are made look so dumb and stereotyped, it is just embarrassing. BAD FILMMAKING ! I guess it was a learning experience for Spielberg...