Same here regarding the faces. As a kid I'd watch that part through my fingers, lol. Another part that used to scare me was with the skeletons in the Well of Souls -- and the snake coming out of the skeleton's mouth!

When I go back and watch the first Indiana Jones movie it reminds me of just how much we've lost moving from stuntmen and stuntwomen on location to green screens and motion capture. I'm sure that many injured stuntpersons probably disagree, but there is still absolutely nothing like watching Indiana Jones swing up onto a horse and race along a line of workers, who spring to their feet as he gallops by. Or when he jumps from that same horse onto the convoy and determinedly throws everyone off the truck with the Ark.

Freaking crazy action sequence that, to this day, is the best-ever and most thrilling action sequence I've ever seen. The melting faces is cringe-worthy now, but it's still a visual feast when Belloq first looks into the ark and shoots lightning bolts through the midsections of the Nazis in attendance.

The actual art of film making is gone. It's sad that those movies were actually the end of it. A short time later the technology became so advanced that whatever stupid idea that a writer or filmmaker came up (no matter how far fetched or how ridiculous) they could shoot it thanks to cgi.

@enigmaticocean said:

The actual art of film making is gone. It's sad that those movies were actually the end of it. A short time later the technology became so advanced that whatever stupid idea that a writer or filmmaker came up (no matter how far fetched or how ridiculous) they could shoot it thanks to cgi.

To say the art of film making is GONe is a bit hyperbolic don't you think??

Yes things have moved on, but with the advent of CGI we can now pretty much show anything, whereas previosuly there were limitations imposed on a film maker's vision.

CGI is still an art form and reuires just as much skill as the people building physical props.

I'm a big advocate of - if you can shoot it "for real" - then do so, and use CGI for the stuff that you can't.

No I don't think that I am over exaggerating. Thanks to CGI (which most of the time looks like a video game) any writer or director can think up the stupidest most unrealistic scenario and shoot it. Before they were restrained by the confines of reality and practicality. Which meant that films had to be at least somewhat realistic. That's gone. From start to finish films (action/ sci-fi in particular) have become glorified video games. Did you see those terrible CGI monsters that were in Star Wars The Force Awakens? That was a movie that Jar Jar Abrams said he was going to use as many practical effects as he could and what did he do? He used more CGI than Lucas did in the prequels. Another example is Crystal Skull... did that CGI infested mess look better than the original three Indiana Jones movies? For the most part- no it didn't. CGI has pretty much become a crutch for crappy story telling. The Sy-Fy channel exists for this sole purpose. However, I can forgive crappy low budget Sy-Fy movies/shows for looking like they were made on a computer. Movies like The Force Awakens, Crystal Skull, The (re-imagined) Star Trek franchise (another topic all to itself) and the new Mad Max movie all which have bazillion dollar budgets simply have no excuse.

I don't think Mad Max is a very good example to further that argument, considering there is not much cgi and that it has some of the most phenomenal stunt work put to film!

The giant CGI dust storm ruined it for me.

ONE 5 min scene ruined the ENTIRE FILM for you??? It negates all the AMAZING action and stunts......

Some people go out of their way to look for things to whinge about!

I didn't go out of my way in whinge (interesting word) about something. You liked it- I didn't. You are really so thick to believe that since I disagree with you it means that I am going out of my way to bash it. I am on a message board about movies. I have every right to point out things that I don't like. Would you rather that I just agree with you that the movie was great just to appease you? If so, I recommend that you never take up debating as a hobby.

The movie looked too glossy and polished in comparison to the originals (same with the last Indiana Jones movie). I also despise the fact that they recast Max (like Disney is doing with the new Han Solo movies). And I could give a rats ass about action and stunts. There have been thousands of movies that have come out in the past 40 years have had tons of amazing action and stunts. I could care less about that stuff at this point. The stunts and the action are an added bonus for me at this point. I really only care about the story and for me the story was completely lacking. It didn't engage me at all.

The melting faces are still better than most existing CGI... But what surprised me the most about rewatching Raiders is how the film's photography in general looked more aesthetically pleasing than most big movies today... the big action adventure movies today have much more reduced colour pallettes mostly just bathed in orange and teal... also, the excessively digital and flat look of most of the compositions of current movies recalls animation more than it does a hollywood movie... even the real actors look digitally created or manipulated... add the TV style aesthetic of a lot of talking head dialogue shots and its clear why current movies dont look as cinematic as Raiders does.