Wee-Boon Tang’s review published on Letterboxd:
Much like the artifact that gave the film its namesake, the Indiana Jones movies are precious relics of cinema that withstood the test of time, being more entertaining than your local soulless blockbusters today. Having said that, there was a time when I enjoyed the film that many people called "a poor man's version of Indiana Jones" - that is, Universal's remake of The Mummy from '99. While watching Raiders, I couldn't help but ask myself, "Would one such as me who had grew up watching that movie like it more than Raiders?" I'm glad to say the answer is no.
Of course, Raiders does have its own sets of flaws that peeved me somewhat... that is, if you consider action tropes flaws. From your deus ex machina to your damsel in distress, Raiders has'em all. They are the same problems that I criticized modern action movies like Jurassic World for. But of course, the underlying important question is: does it take away from the enjoyment of the film? I'm glad to say the answer is also no.
Why is that though? What makes the difference between Raiders and that cheap reboot? Why, of course, it's the great character that's kept us engaged with these movies for years, the one key element every great story has. Without Indiana, this would have been another generic action flick with some cool action sequences here and there. But the idea of a professor/adventurer with his iconic whip and manly body-hair? Yeah, I think that's something more memorable and fun than a boring ol' adventurer-imitation like Rick O' whatshisname, or Chris Pratt's character's name for that matter.