You can’t say that Spielberg doesn’t know how to make an arresting intro to his films. In contrast to its predecessor, Temple of Doom opens big with a logistically impossible but rousing song-and-dance number of “Anything Goes” at a Shanghai nightclub in 1935 (we’re entering prequel territory). Here Spielberg introduces our leading lady, Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw). The scene is followed by a smooth, stair-descending entrance of Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford), dressed like he stepped out of a James Bond film. Given the origin of George Lucas’s character, it makes sense; he is an American-bred Bond who relies more on intelligence than luck. Soon, a double-cross situation with gangsters unfolds, followed by an escape through the window with Willie in tow and a meeting with Short Round (Ke Huy Quan), the second sidekick who, unlike many films featuring young performers, doesn’t irritate the older audience members. They’re soon on a flight to India, where the rest of the adventure takes place—perhaps destiny brings them to a downtrodden village to the titular temple of doom, and from there, the ride on the reel rarely slows down.

This plot sounds like exciting material for a new adventure for a beloved character, so what are the complaints and issues that have been lobbied at the film? Let’s first look at the “Willie Scott problem.” We know that Willie Scott is no Marion Ravenwood; however, why should she be? Yes, Willie is shrill, lacks toughness and adaptability, and is often plain annoying. That’s what a pampered nightclub singer would be like, dropped into the remote regions of colonial India. Yes, Spielberg did exaggerate her character traits during certain sequences. However, how would we act if we saw strange dining, insect infestation, and ritual sacrifice carried out by supernatural means? Somehow, I don’t believe that most of the audience would have the calmer demeanor of Jones and Short Round.

This brings us to the next often-raised criticism of the film: the depiction of Indian culture. First, this film is a spiritual sequel to the Cary Grant-helmed Gunga Din of 1939. Just as the villainous Thuggees (the etymology of the commonly used “thug”) of that film don’t represent all Indians, neither do the Thuggees and the evil leadership of the superb villain, Mola Ram (Amrish Puri), represent anthropological studies either. Critics will often protest the banquet scene, mentioning that most Indians have a vegetarian diet, but then they will fail to reason why it’s there as an introduction to the palace’s atmosphere. It’s not there to portray the average Indian as bizarre diners, but it’s to show the audience that something off and nefarious is going down at Pankot Palace, though the influence is then unknown. Let’s not forget that this picture is a throwback to the adventure films of the 1930s. Those films were of a different period, often quickly plotted, and didn’t allow much room for nuance. We’re not watching a documentary with Temple of Doom. Furthermore, the more serious-minded Gandhi came out two years before and won multiple Academy Awards, but you can easily guess which film is being discussed decades later.

What issue is with Temple of Doom? I believe that Spielberg felt that the film was too thematically dark during the production process and not after the release. This is why I believe there are too many humorous elements that are incongruous with the sinister atmosphere and deeds of the villains. While Raiders has incidental comedy, tinged with irony, it feels that Spielberg put in superfluous gags to lighten the mood, and most of these deliberately call back to Raiders. Thus, while Mola Ram is intimidating and perhaps the singular memorable villain of the series, his lackeys often seem to be just fodder for the sequential shenanigans. When Mola Ram is not on screen, opposite Jones, I never feel that our hero is truly in danger. Somehow, Spielberg has turned the menacing, cult-like presence of the Thuggee followers of Gunga Din into a weaker performance, resembling Three Stooges antics. Maybe he was adding another 1930s genre to the earlier mix of adventure, screwball comedy, and musical.

Harrison Ford’s acting is impeccable, even when confronted with silly antagonists. Because he’s accompanied by two companions with differing personalities and he’s brought to his lowest point in the series, he must display a range of emotions through body language and facial expression. Although Ford appears more comfortable portraying a stoic disposition, a sly grin, or righteous indignation in his roles, he is capable of going beyond these expressions to take Indy on this character-changing journey. Compare the scenes of the spike pit booby trap, when he realizes the dire situation of the enslaved children, and when he comes under the influence of the “blood of Kali”—it’s no wonder Ford was later praised for his roles in less fantastic fare, such as Witness and The Mosquito Coast.

Finally, John Williams’s score contributes much to propel the characters through the film’s various set pieces. The memorable scenes of the inflatable raft escape, journey to the temple by elephant, Mola Ram’s Kali ritual, mine cart chase, and the climatic rope bridge confrontation would still be lessened without the music. The “Raiders March” will always be the most identifiable Indiana Jones theme, but pieces like “Short Round’s Theme” and “Slave Children’s Parade” bring a new sense of grandeur and wonder to the adventure.

I remember when Temple of Doom was verboten by my parents. There was a time when I was at Montgomery Ward, and one of the electronics displays showed the film’s ending, followed by the credits rolling a few minutes later. I ran to my parents, excitedly telling them that I had just seen part of the film. Soon after, I watched the film in its entirety at a friend’s house. The mystery and ambivalence around this entry still exist in the world, but time has diminished those sentiments. Spielberg may no longer appreciate the film, but the viewer must acknowledge it when a creator goes in a new direction with a popular property, especially when contemporary family films have become numbingly safe.

Back in 1982, director Ridley Scott dropped the audience into the then-future world of 2019 Los Angeles. It’s a seedy environment of perpetual darkness, rain, and urban sprawl. In this sci-fi noir, the police bring Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) back into work after a self-imposed retirement from blade running. A blade runner is a specialized detective whose job is to track down bio-engineered humanoids called replicants. These are not robots, but society does not consider them fully human due to their synthetic creation and lack of emotional maturity. Will Deckard maintain his humanity during this ruthless pursuit, or has his life in this dystopia already stripped him of it? Furthermore, there are deeper puzzles to solve, especially in the 1992 and 2007 cuts.

1982 was a special year for science fiction films. In addition to Blade Runner, the year saw the release of E.T., The Thing, and Star Trek II; The Wrath of Khan, among others. Likely due to the crowded field and possible audience surprise at the film being not a typical heroic Harrison Ford picture, the film was a box office disappointment. It made just near 1.5 times its production budget, and this not including advertising, one can feel Scott’s and the studio’s hurt. Contemporarily, it’s still not a mainstream hit, but it’s developed such a cult following that the studio released a sequel years later. Moreover, Blade Runner’s aesthetic and mood influenced more popular science fiction films since its release than nearly any other property. This is why it’s good to see what makes Blade Runner still a thing.

Even years later, the visuals are still a wonder to observe. The combination of design and in-camera effects put the viewer in a world that is both tangible and strange. For those who have grown up on a diet of CGI, this is all physical and camera trickery. For the cityscape, the team utilized models and matte paintings, but the world is real enough that you can feel you can just drop in and shuffle amongst the crowded representation of the future. Just think of the time needed for the multipass exposures that helped give the film its unique neon-lit against darkness lighting. It gave the audience a different idea of what science fiction could be from the Star Wars and Star Trek properties.

But who are the characters that we’re following in this update of noir cinema? Deckard is the typical film noir detective: burnt-out, possibly alcoholic, and with no future. Really, he’s not much of a hero. Throughout the film, he barely makes it out of his scraps, and when he does, there’s nothing triumphant. It’s not surprising that audience interest fell off the film; word got out that Ford was not playing another Indiana Jones or Han Solo. However, it’s interesting that Ford risked playing a role different from his previous pulp characters. One could say he was reaching back to his brief role as an army officer in Apocalypse Now. Some say the disinterested attitude was due to his dissatisfaction on the movie set. It worked that it matched the listless character he was supposed to portray.

The star of the film is Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer). Despite being artificial, he’s the most sympathetic character, even after some of his brutal actions. Despite being a type of superman, he displays the most human qualities during his quest with his fellow replicants. He often shows this without words; though, his dialogue is memorable as well. The femme fatale Rachel (Sean Young) is probably the weakest of the main characters. Still, her stilted manner and speaking could be considered to be a positive attribute to add to the mystery of who she is revealed to be. Other acting props are for the weirdness of Gaff, the cold detachment of Tyrell, and the playful quirkiness of Pris.

What is most memorable about Blade Runner is the music. The production could’ve gone with traditional orchestration. Vangelis instead composed a melancholy, jazzy synth score. This perfectly sets the mood for the future setting, while paying tribute to the tropes of film noir. In fact, in addition to the synthesizers, the score utilized a saxophonist for the popular “Love Theme.” In addition, you can hear bits of Asian and Middle-Eastern tinges throughout the film. These showcase the multiethnic atmosphere of 2019 Los Angeles.

Does it date the film from being of the eighties? To a certain extent, yes. However, one should distinguish between quality and mediocre synthesizer work. Quality work brings a sense of wonder, charm, or menace depending on the emotional mood of the film. It gives added texture to remind a person that this film is from a never to be repeated era. Vangelis is one of the masters to bring on that nostalgia.

Some have leveled criticisms of dullness, lethargy, and aimless plotting against Blade Runner. Looking at the film from a certain point of view, these thoughts could have some merit. This is not an action film, at least not in the modern sense. It’s a work that emphasizes mood and atmosphere. Often, other films focus on getting the hero from point a to point b. Some will balk at this type of cinema. That’s their right. There’s a reason why the film has been re-released in multiple cuts over the years beyond the Ridley Scott revisions.

But they shouldn’t discount the impact that the film has. People will never widely love it like many of the blockbusters of the time. Even some more critically and popularly derided fare of the time like The Thing have seemed to rise to more public consciousness than Blade Runner. Still, Blade Runner welcomes at least a first view for the uninitiated. We see bits of the future running before us rather than soaring into space through this type of relatively grounded science fiction.

When director Steven Spielberg came together with conceptual story writers George Lucas and Philip Kaufman and screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan, what initially started out as a tribute to Republic Pictures serials became much more. With an estimated budget of $20,000,000, the film has since grossed $350,000,000+ theatrically, not including rentals and home purchase. As the number one film of 1981, Raiders set the new standard for family-friendly adventure tales. What is the premise? It’s 1936, and the Nazis are searching for the famed Ark of the Covenant of the Bible. The United States government authorizes skeptical Indiana Jones to find the Ark before they do. It’s simple, but the adventure story, having elements of action, comedy, romance, and horror, still enthralls nearly four decades later.

Who is Indiana Jones? He is our charming protagonist portrayed by Harrison Ford. However, he is neither a John Wayne-like white hat-type, nor is he Clint Eastwood-like anti-hero. He’s intelligent, but finds himself in situations where sometimes it takes a combination of ability and chance to triumph. He has no qualms of “fighting dirty” when he is being pressed. He’s a bit of a scoundrel in his dealings with females. He has a determination to reach his goals, but his attitude along the journey is typified, as he says to his friend Sallah (John Rhys-Davies), “I’m making it up as I go along.”

Ford is not known as one of the top actors, in the sense of possessing great range of character portrayal. However, one should take note of his facial expressions and body language when he displays triumph after retrieving relics, shows fear in the presence of snakes, and oozes contempt for his rival Belloq (Paul Freeman). In contrast with other action stars, Ford portrays the character with a sense of vulnerability. After the truck chase scene, he reveals his physical pain and general weariness to his love interest, Marion (Karen Allen). He becomes more identifiable to the every-man in the audience.

This brings us to the other characters of the film. What can be said of Marion Ravenwood that hasn’t been said many times before by other viewers?  She’s tough, spunky, stubborn, but full of charm. All of these qualities are depicted in her introductory scene in Nepal. The audience gets an inkling of her past frayed relationship with Indy. Still, despite her conflicted feelings toward Indy, the audience knows that the two are meant for each other. The peril of the adventure will reignite the flames of romance.

The viewer also gets to glimpse further at Indy’s personal life with his interactions with his friends Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott) and Sallah. The film’s antagonists round out the cast. There’s Toht (Ronald Lacey), the mysterious and brutal Gestapo agent, Col. Dietrich (Wolf Kahler), the leader of the excavation, and Belloq, the French rival archaeologist, who has his own agenda for finding the Ark.

There are other aspects that truly elevate this film from just a fun romp to classic status. John Williams’s score, like his Star Wars music, not only fits the film, but lives outside the screen. Of course, nearly everyone is familiar with the rousing “Raiders March.” If you can’t crack a grin while that plays, you might want to check your vital signs. However, I encourage one to pay similar attention when the “Ark Theme” plays. It gives off a tone of wonder, spiritual awe, and ancient eeriness that lingers. Further, one should pay attention to the wind sounds that accompany the theme; it’s as if God has made his presence known. Touching in another way is “Marion’s Theme.” This brief piece brings to mind the melancholy-tinged romance between Indy and Marion.

In recent viewings, I have paid more attention to the cinematography, especially use of lighting and shadows. When Indy first appears on the screen, the audience doesn’t see his face.  He is as a walking shadow until he triumphantly steps into the light after countering one of his treacherous guides. It’s interesting that later in the film Belloq refers to Indy as a reflection of him. One should note that Belloq is nearly always dressed in lighter hues, while Indy is usually dressed in darker shades. When Indy meets Marion, you first glimpse his shadow on the wall before his body is visible. Even a bit later during the bar fight, the viewer sees some of the only in shadow. In contrast, consider the brilliance of light that floods the area when Indy discovers the Ark’s location in the map room.

I can still recall playtime from my childhood where I would swing from my treehouse to my playset mimicking the action of Indiana Jones.  For most of my life, Raiders has been a part of it.  To me, it’s a perfect film. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any goofs. However, it’s a movie that intelligently entertains young and older alike.  It’s a phenomenon that’s hard to duplicate. Yes, there are blockbusters coming out every month, it seems like.  However, most won’t become part of the public consciousness.  If you know a person who hasn’t seen Raiders, introduce them to this classic.  If you’ve seen it, watch it again.  You won’t tire of it.  As Indy says to Marion, “Trust me.”