Reply #23: For some reason I like it better now on DVD than I did when it came out.

[jobycom]

My own theory goes like this. "Raiders" was the first precursor of the modern plotless blockbuster continuous action flicks. It rarely came up for air to develop the plot, but it still was connected enough to the past to spend some time on plot and characters, despite its string of one-liners and sight gags and action sequences.

But "Temple of Doom" cut out the whole plot/character thing and went for just action and laughs. At the time, people weren't ready for it, still wanting a little story with their gratuitous violence.

Now, though, films have imitated and followed the Spielberg blockbuster format for so long, and so many bad films have been made following that format, that audiences have gotten used to them. And while "Temple" wasn't that good a film, it was still Spielberg, and still better than much of what came later. So watching it now, it seems like a better-than-average film, because what came after it wasn't as good.

Just my theory.

As for the last film, I'd be more inclined to boot "The Last Crusade" from the series and keep "Crystal Skull." I liked "Skull" as a whimsical revisioning of the old characters, but to me "Crusade" was formulaic and lifeless. The only part I liked was the early segment with River Phoenix.