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 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 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" 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" 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!

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

[The Glyphstone]

The Goonies? :)