Least Worst Spielberg Film

[Cha-Ka Khan]

Tonight, Turner Classic Movies:

8:00 PM Eastern. SPIELBERG ON SPIELBERG. The Beard talks about his life and films. Followed by letterbox showings of JAWS and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, without commercial interruption.

Yes.

I've heard if you watch closely, during the Spielberg interview segments, you can just make out the top of Shia's head bobbing up and down in The Beard's lap.

[Fawst]

Urgh, I've got Children of Men and The Fountain to watch, not to mention having taped UFC 73 the other night, along with the fact that I was planning on going to see Transformers tonight. Damn, I really want to check this out, and Jaws/CE3K are always worth watching... but is it the EXTENDED cut of CE3K?

[Cpt Kirks 2pay]

The Sugarland Express: Without question, the most neglected of his movie IMO. Fugitives on the run, it's a finely composed picture and deserves far more credit than it's had. I've only seen it a couple of times but I still rate it higher than some of his later efforts. Basically, it's his low-budget indie movie and it's very, very good.

I know. It is such a crime that this movie is not put on TV more often. I only remember it being on like, once in my adult life. Really wanna see this again, as I do Something Evil, only shown once. I hate it when people feel a neglect to someone's work just 'cos it isn't big or that it's too early.

From what I remember of Express is that there was no compromise, no shorcuts from the happy dizzy innocence of the first part of the film, mirrored to the outright violence and despair at the end.

SPOILERS.














The scene at the end in the car, where everything is opposite of what was shown before. Firstly, Goldie Hawn and William Atherton are given loads of presents from people as they pass them by where Hawn is her usual sunny happy self. But when the cops start firing at them at the end where they're trying to escape and the presents are flying everywhere as they're being torn to pieces and then Goldie Hawn just loses her sanity and gives up and starts screaming madly - then we see them all dead later on... well, you get the picture.

[Seppuku]

But when the cops start firing at them at the end where they're trying to escape and the presents are flying everywhere as they're being torn to pieces and then Goldie Hawn just loses her sanity and gives up and starts screaming madly - then we see them all dead later on... well, you get the picture.

Kind of reminds me of the last time my family got together. Except substitute Goldie Hawn for my Great Aunt Mary after she caught Great Uncle Magus in the broom closet with Grandpa Terrence. I bet it still hurts poor Magus when he tries to pee...

Never seen Sugarland. At least, I don't think I have. It kind of reminds me of scores of other crime flicks that came out in the '70s, and Goldie Hawn isn't exactly a selling point for me. But I guess if you two think it's OK, then I'll try and check it out.

[Cpt Kirks 2pay]

I tell ya what, Sepp. From what I can remember of Goldie Hawn in that movie, I was amazed at how great she was in this dramatic role. Whilst still being your typical Goldie in much of the film she actually is a serious and dramatic actress in this film, with some very very heavy scenes. At the time I was thinking of how I've never seen her being such a straight actor like she is here. She does pull it off as far as I remember, was quite a suprise to see what she did here.

Your Uncle was in the broom cupboard with your Grandpa!?

Er, yes! I WOULD like to know more.

[Cpt Kirks 2pay]

OK, I had this in mind last night and it could have been it's own thread but I had threads within a thread so sod it, I'll put it in here...

Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom vs Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - which one do you guys think is better? I'd like to poll it really, but I can't.

So if you guys can be arsed, list some reasons and discuss them as to which film you prefer. The general consenus when The Last Crusade first came out was that it was better than Doom by a long shot as far as I observed, but as time moves on it seems that there's a very large and growing camp that thinks that Doom is better. Maybe it's becoming the majority.

So here's a little list of why I think that Doom is better than Crusade...

1. There's more colour. Doom is painted in all these blacks and reds, like we're in the fires of Hell. The intensity is all round. Crusade it's the colour of dust, dirt. It's very drab looking in it's sets and locations and makes the overall experience rather feeling bland.

2. There's more imagination in Doom. We had mine cart rides, burning hearts being ripped out of chests, people being lowered into the flames of Hell, parachuting out of planes with a dinghy. Crusade was 'here's an action scene with a train, here's an action scene with a boat, here's an action scene with a tank!'. It all felt too down to earth and 'ordinary' for me. Which sorta leads me to...

3. More fantasy in Doom. We deal with the occult and supernatural forces. We basically go to Hell. We deal with the spiritual more. Fark, even Indy becomes evil just br drinking the blood of the Kali. Crusade was again, too ordinary day setting. The Nazis again. Sure there was biblical content, but not really until the end.

4. More Darkness in Doom. It was more balls out brave and uncompromising. It didn't give a fark who it scared or offended. It was all full on and intense. Crusade played it so safe and pulled itself so far back that it lost it's edge and felt too safe. Something an action adventure should NEVER be.

5. More excess in Doom. Pretty much the same as what I mentioned before, but it sorta sums things up the best. Again, it just got going and refused to ever let up or slow down or indulge in everything it was doing. Action, loudness, comedy, not caring wether anything was far fetched, all out excess. Crusade again just showed a work of minds being so concerned with restraint, about boxing things in too nice and perfectly, but in the end it just made the film lack the life that Doom had. I never really felt like I was being flown away into a fictional universe, of escape and adventure. Doom did all this, and by the end of it, man I was glad to be home, I felt like I had been away doing all this action and I was tired at the end, but in a normal way that one should be. Crusade I just sat there frustrated, gagging for it to really take off but refusing to, like a spaceship refusing to blast off into the stratosphere and keep going up.

I think the tagline to Doom summed it all up best. 'If adventure has a name, it must be Indiana Jones'. That is what Indy is all about. Fantasy Adventure. This is what Doom perfectly was. Crusade just felt like an real world action movie set in and around WW2. I dunno about you guys, but I know what I'd expect and prefer in an Indy movie.

Let's just hope that Indy 4 gives me this but gives it further qualities to make it on a real par with Raiders. Or even better! Heh, it can be done!

I've got more to chime in on, but I can't do these long posts, I don't think it's a good idea here. Maybe if people pick up on this I'll add more later. Right now though, I gotta go back and correct all my spelling and grammar and general bollox talk. Or maybe I can't be arsed.

Speak later,

Love Kirk.

[thebostonlocksmith]

I prefer it too...

I think it was just that i was still young enough to appreciate it as much as i did...

I don't thing crusade was as good as either of the others...

Because i would guess we were about the same age, i particularly liked that there was a small boy that could drive a car... and the bit with the monkey brains and the sheep (?) eyes as i remember... it was a really good adventure film...

I'll be plain in saying that i will rarely go back and look at the films that i used to really love as i feel that they lose a great deal of their charm... i'd rather just be nostalgic and say that i loved it rather then go back and look at it and become increasingly depressed...

Also some of Kirks other points made some real sense to my memory of the film...

[Doc Holliday]

Not as easy as you first think, this one. For me, Last Crusade still just edges it - mostly because the support cast just edges it for me over that in Doom - and leaves it feeling just that microscopic bit closer to that same Saturday Morning matinee feel that Raiders boasted so effectively.

But I will readily leap to Doom's defense whenever I hear someone putting it down - I think Doom is a classic example of people reading a few select reviews and then all of a sudden POOF it becomes this whole school of thought - yet whenever I've challenged people who say Doom was rubbish, they find it hard to really explain why they think that.

I'm sure Doom's detractors in a place like this will have no problem setting out their reasons - but out there, out on the street, the people I've met just seem to be regurgitating popular soundbites like "It was too dark". Now, sure, there's some scenes that would seem to back that up a bit - the heart being ripped out and the children in the mine, perhaps. But I say, really, what is the difference between the heart scene and Otto van Nazi melting to death at the end of Raiders (oops, spoiler, my bad).

And the kids being freed is for me the most uplifting moment in the whole trilogy. Outside of simply the colour palette used, I don't view Doom as any darker or lighter in tone than the other two films - in fact, in Doom there are more than enough comic one liners and sight gags...Willie with the snake, Willie with the elephant, Willie with every single course served up at dinner...and my personal favourite..."Water......>puff puff puff<.... Water........>stops, listens<........ WATER! WATER!"

Doom is also that rarest of things - evidence of Lucas' influence not being completely superceded by Steven knowing best - he credits his divorce as the reason behind Doom's shift in tone.

I think Doom is better off for being slightly out of kilter and Crusade profits from it too. If Doom had been 'more of the same' then I think a lot of people would have had Indy-fatigue by the time of the 3rd instalment - as it is, Doom told a different tale for itself and left us fresh and ready to go back to the trilogy's roots for the final piece.

[Nordling]

TEMPLE OF DOOM is pure B-movie joy. I prefer it to LAST CRUSADE, because ToD was willing to get dirty and gritty in ways that CRUSADE was not. It was even more aware of its roots than CRUSADE was, and in some respects, even more than RAIDERS.

It's not a great movie, but it's a really, really good one.

BTW, the SPIELBERG ON SPIELBERG doc was excellent. I really liked how he basically said the running theme throughout his films was the power of communication, or lack thereof, to bring peace or to start conflict.

[ThisIsTheGirl]

ToD used to scare the shit out of me as a kid - all that heart removal stuff. Pretty racy for a kids' flick.

[Ribbons]

BTW, the SPIELBERG ON SPIELBERG doc was excellent. I really liked how he basically said the running theme throughout his films was the power of communication, or lack thereof, to bring peace or to start conflict.

Man, I kinda wish I'd watched the thing.

[so sorry]

BTW, the SPIELBERG ON SPIELBERG doc was excellent. I really liked how he basically said the running theme throughout his films was the power of communication, or lack thereof, to bring peace or to start conflict.

Man, I kinda wish I'd watched the thing.

Me too... I didn't see that it was on until about 20 minutes into the show, and by then I was already watching another show (Hell's Kitchen )

[Cha-Ka Khan]

By the way, for any Zoners living in the Rochester, NY area... tonight the city kicks off its "Movies on the Beach" series with "Jaws" playing outside at Ontario State Beach in Charlotte.

"Jaws" on the big screen at the beach. How can you pass that up?

[Bob Samonkey]

We did Jaws in the river here. It was fun but very cold...

[monorail77]

OK, I had this in mind last night and it could have been it's own thread but I had threads within a thread so sod it, I'll put it in here...

Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom vs Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - which one do you guys think is better? I'd like to poll it really, but I can't.

So if you guys can be arsed, list some reasons and discuss them as to which film you prefer. The general consenus when The Last Crusade first came out was that it was better than Doom by a long shot as far as I observed, but as time moves on it seems that there's a very large and growing camp that thinks that Doom is better. Maybe it's becoming the majority.

So here's a little list of why I think that Doom is better than Crusade...

1. There's more colour. Doom is painted in all these blacks and reds, like we're in the fires of Hell. The intensity is all round. Crusade it's the colour of dust, dirt. It's very drab looking in it's sets and locations and makes the overall experience rather feeling bland.

2. There's more imagination in Doom. We had mine cart rides, burning hearts being ripped out of chests, people being lowered into the flames of Hell, parachuting out of planes with a dinghy. Crusade was 'here's an action scene with a train, here's an action scene with a boat, here's an action scene with a tank!'. It all felt too down to earth and 'ordinary' for me. Which sorta leads me to...

3. More fantasy in Doom. We deal with the occult and supernatural forces. We basically go to Hell. We deal with the spiritual more. Fark, even Indy becomes evil just br drinking the blood of the Kali. Crusade was again, too ordinary day setting. The Nazis again. Sure there was biblical content, but not really until the end.

4. More Darkness in Doom. It was more balls out brave and uncompromising. It didn't give a fark who it scared or offended. It was all full on and intense. Crusade played it so safe and pulled itself so far back that it lost it's edge and felt too safe. Something an action adventure should NEVER be.

5. More excess in Doom. Pretty much the same as what I mentioned before, but it sorta sums things up the best. Again, it just got going and refused to ever let up or slow down or indulge in everything it was doing. Action, loudness, comedy, not caring wether anything was far fetched, all out excess. Crusade again just showed a work of minds being so concerned with restraint, about boxing things in too nice and perfectly, but in the end it just made the film lack the life that Doom had. I never really felt like I was being flown away into a fictional universe, of escape and adventure. Doom did all this, and by the end of it, man I was glad to be home, I felt like I had been away doing all this action and I was tired at the end, but in a normal way that one should be. Crusade I just sat there frustrated, gagging for it to really take off but refusing to, like a spaceship refusing to blast off into the stratosphere and keep going up.

I think the tagline to Doom summed it all up best. 'If adventure has a name, it must be Indiana Jones'. That is what Indy is all about. Fantasy Adventure. This is what Doom perfectly was. Crusade just felt like an real world action movie set in and around WW2. I dunno about you guys, but I know what I'd expect and prefer in an Indy movie.

Let's just hope that Indy 4 gives me this but gives it further qualities to make it on a real par with Raiders. Or even better! Heh, it can be done!

I've got more to chime in on, but I can't do these long posts, I don't think it's a good idea here. Maybe if people pick up on this I'll add more later. Right now though, I gotta go back and correct all my spelling and grammar and general bollox talk. Or maybe I can't be arsed.

Speak later,

Love Kirk.

Well put Kirks, I completely agree.

LC just feels like they're going through the motions. They played it reeeal safe, going back to all the things that seemed to make Raiders successful - Nazi villains, a biblical McGuffin, the "popular" sidekicks, like Sallah and Brody. The girl, Allison Doody, was deadly boring. At least Capshaw, though annoying, was memorable.

I agree the action set peices in LC seem just slapped on over the story. TOD seemed to be full of imagination. You could feel the energy of the filmmakers letting themselves go crazy. With LC, they pulled themselves way back.

I think Speilberg was more interested in taking his more serious turns at the time and his heart just wasn't in it. It lacks energy. It feels like a "very special" episode of Love Boat "where all your favourite characters return, and a few new ones join the fun, including....Indy's Dad!!!!"

Let's hope that Speilberg feels the crazy fire again. He's done lots of dramatic and serious works, and a few sci-fi and pure fun films since LC. I think he's ready for a new Indy film, full of energy and imagination. He's certainly capable of energetic filmmaking still, and I cite Munich as a good example. I hope they don't play it safe and give us another "Love Boat" episode. I don't care about all the Indy baggage, I just want a balls-to-the-wall, thrilling Indy pic. Here's hoping!

[minstrel]

Temple of Doom doesn't work for me. Here are some reasons why:

1) Short Round. Spielberg often has appealing and likable kids in his movies, but Short Round is not one of them. He’s loud and aggressively irritating.
2) Willie. Why Spielberg replaced a great character like Marion in Raiders with this … this weak, shrieking, useless thing, I’ll never know.
3) Opening sequence. This was ridiculous – poisoned Indy chasing the antidote while dozens of bad guys try to stop him? Please. I didn’t buy it for an instant.
4) You can’t jump out of an airplane using an inflatable boat instead of a parachute and survive (all THREE survived, with not even a single broken bone!). You just can’t.
5) Dinner scene. This was just a gratuitous gross-out. Spielberg stuck it in there in order to just check off another item on his Indiana Jones checklist.
6) No memorable villains. That high priest dude wasn’t much. Where are the deliciously evil characters like Belloq and Toht?
7) Exploitation of children. I don’t mean the bad guys exploiting the kids in the mines. I mean Spielberg exploiting these kids as a way of gaining the audience’s sympathy and make the villain look more villainous. Why does this cult use slave kids? Why not slave adults? They have the power to do it, and adults will be stronger workers. Answer: Spielberg is exploiting the kids.
8) Fabricated mythology. Indiana Jones is far more interesting when he’s going after items we’re familiar with because they exist outside the Indiana Jones stories – the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail. Temple of Doom has some kind of mystic stones that don’t have any real-world resonance.

Last Crusade isn’t a very good movie, but it isn’t as actively annoying. It has a far better supporting cast (Connery, Denholm Elliott, John Rhys-Davies, Julian Glover). It is more character-driven, and not as given to gratuitous action scenes that seem to be there only to fill up time and distract the audience’s attention from the fact that they’re bored and annoyed. And the climax sequence, with Indy going through the trials and finding the Grail Knight, etc. is much better than the final sequence in Temple of Doom. I mean, the Doom sequence on that bridge is really exciting, but that’s all it is. The Last Crusade sequence has a much greater sense of wonder to it.

[Seppuku]

And the climax sequence, with Indy going through the trials and finding the Grail Knight, etc. is much better than the final sequence in Temple of Doom. I mean, the Doom sequence on that bridge is really exciting, but that’s all it is. The Last Crusade sequence has a much greater sense of wonder to it.

I agree with everything you said- save for Short Round, he was my hero when I was a kid- up until this part. The trials at the end of Crusade felt like everyone settled down to play a jigsaw in the middle of an action movie. And also, without that sequence in Temple of Doom, we wouldn't have the mine-cart rides in Donkey Kong Country 1/2/3, which were always my favourite part of the games.

[Lady Sheridan]

I've always preferred LC to Doom, largely because of Sean Connery. And it isn't even the goofy slapstick lines they gave him, it was that it was balanced with scenes that revealed what a scholar he was and how deeply he cared about the Grail:

The quest for the grail is not archeology, it's a race against evil. If it is captured by the Nazis the armies of darkness will march all over the face of the earth. Do you understand me?

LC is, essentially, a medieval quest, an Arthurian tale. And I love that. Indy finds redemption, Henry Sr. finds illumination, and the point of the story is the journey itself--not the Grail.

Temple of Doom, by contrast, is a little too much of a roller coaster ride. It demands you suspend belief a few too many times. I'm not denying it's a lot of fun, but that raft scene...come on!

I also had a problem with Indy's character. I know it takes place before Raiders, so it can be explained that he's younger and more careless....but I hate the whole "fortune and glory" act. Indy trading priceless artifacts for a diamond? It lost track of him as a scholar, which is something I really love about the character. At home, he's merely a cranky archeology professor--no one but Brodie seems to have a clue that he can be a badass if something belongs in a museum.

Temple has also struck me as a bit racist, it really seems to take a colonial outlook towards India. It's not something that turns me off of the movie, it just kind of catches me in the middle. Maybe I say this because it turned me off of going to India ever, and when pressed about why I'd never want to go, I always have to say "Um, monkey brains."

I do defend Willie Scott though--she was annoying, but she was a 40's throwback. I think you needed a heroine at least once who couldn't roll with the punches, especially given the time period the movies are set in. I never assumed she was anything more than a fun weekend in Delhi for Indy and so it never bothered me.

[DinoDeLaurentiis]

I never assumed she was anything more than a fun weekend in Delhi for Indy and so it never bothered me.

More like a the fun weekend for a the Spielberg, no?

Oh anna the Temple of a the Doom? She was a banned inna the India for a quite some time, eh?

[Chairman Kaga]

I also had a problem with Indy's character. I know it takes place before Raiders, so it can be explained that he's younger and more careless....but I hate the whole "fortune and glory" act. Indy trading priceless artifacts for a diamond? It lost track of him as a scholar, which is something I really love about the character. At home, he's merely a cranky archeology professor--no one but Brodie seems to have a clue that he can be a badass if something belongs in a museum.

I don't think he was a professor in ToD and in lieu of what happens during the opening of Last Crusade it makes perfect sense that he would be drawn to the "fortune and glory" and rebel against his father's scholarly approach. If anything his more detestable character in ToD brings him thru a great character arc over the course of the three films from fortune and glory hog to letting the Grail go.

[Lady Sheridan]

He had to be a professor! "You call him Doctor Jones, doll!" "MY professional name." He wasn't that young, he had his doctorate, he had to be teaching.

Clearly, though, he was taking a sabbatical!

[Chairman Kaga]

He had to be a professor! "You call him Doctor Jones, doll!" "MY professional name." He wasn't that young, he had his doctorate, he had to be teaching.

Clearly, though, he was taking a sabbatical!

Having a doctorate and being a professor do not need to be linked. He doesn't appear teaching like in the other installments, he makes no mention of Brodie or university....He isn't teaching yet because he is a "fortune and glory" hog.

[minstrel]

Kaga, in the opening of Last Crusade, he is fighting against the "fortune and glory" attitude! He wants the artifact for a museum.

[Chairman Kaga]

Kaga, in the opening of Last Crusade, he is fighting against the "fortune and glory" attitude! He wants the artifact for a museum.

And what does that get him? In the end the proto-Indy gets it anyway. He can't even get his stuffy, book worm father to pay attention to him and the situation while proto-Indy waltzs in gives him a hat and congratulates him more than his father ever has...Right there was the turning point in his relationship with his distant father from trying to emulate him for approval to rebelling against what he represented.

[DinoDeLaurentiis]

Kaga, in the opening of Last Crusade, he is fighting against the "fortune and glory" attitude! He wants the artifact for a museum.

And what does that get him?

Not much, eh? Just a his a hat, his a whip, his a fear of a the snakes, his a scar, etc.

Alla inna alla, a fairly eventful day for a the young lad, no?

[Puneet]

I was not a fan of A.I. i really think tht kid is a druggy

[minstrel]

Kaga, in the opening of Last Crusade, he is fighting against the "fortune and glory" attitude! He wants the artifact for a museum.

And what does that get him? In the end the proto-Indy gets it anyway. He can't even get his stuffy, book worm father to pay attention to him and the situation while proto-Indy waltzs in gives him a hat and congratulates him more than his father ever has...Right there was the turning point in his relationship with his distant father from trying to emulate him for approval to rebelling against what he represented.

I don't buy that at all. That isn't how the scene played out to me when I saw it. But that's probably because we didn't see young Indy betray his ideals.

Also, I never thought Indy's idealism was dependent on his relationship with his father. It's clear his father has ALWAYS ignored him, and yet he was idealistic anyway.

[Chairman Kaga]

Kaga, in the opening of Last Crusade, he is fighting against the "fortune and glory" attitude! He wants the artifact for a museum.

And what does that get him?

Not much, eh? Just a his a hat, his a whip, his a fear of a the snakes, his a scar, etc.

Alla inna alla, a fairly eventful day for a the young lad, no?

The hat and the scar yes. The whip he didn't take, a fear of snakes I think would be the result of more than what happens there but of course you ignore the point of my rhetorical question...

Kaga, in the opening of Last Crusade, he is fighting against the "fortune and glory" attitude! He wants the artifact for a museum.

And what does that get him? In the end the proto-Indy gets it anyway. He can't even get his stuffy, book worm father to pay attention to him and the situation while proto-Indy waltzs in gives him a hat and congratulates him more than his father ever has...Right there was the turning point in his relationship with his distant father from trying to emulate him for approval to rebelling against what he represented.

I don't buy that at all. That isn't how the scene played out to me when I saw it. But that's probably because we didn't see young Indy betray his ideals.

Also, I never thought Indy's idealism was dependent on his relationship with his father. It's clear his father has ALWAYS ignored him, and yet he was idealistic anyway.

But he only starts becoming idealistic in the middle of ToD (once he sees the ensalved kids before that he is hardly concerned with anything but obtaining the stones) even the beginning of Raiders he is only intent on obtaining the totem to sell it to his benefactor's museum going so far as to make sure Brodie is fully convinced of the quality of the pieces he is able to obtain (for sale) when he fails. His idealism has a price in Raiders until the end.
If Indy is sooooo idealistic instead of simply looking for approval from his father, why does he immediately run home to show him the cross? He could just as easily hide it where it couldn't be located and then later turn it over to a museum (for free I can only assume because he so idealistic ) but instead he runs to his father yearning for approval instead receiving it from the proto-Indy merc. It's obvious based on the timeline that he works as a gun for hire just as proto-Indy did grave robbing and stealing priceless remains of a Chinese Emperor for a crime boss don't strike me as the actions of an idealistic scientist.

[DinoDeLaurentiis]

a fear of snakes I think would be the result of more than what happens there

Hehehe... the Dino, he was a just making with a the funny, but now that a you take issue...

The fear of a the snakes, I think it's a pretty clear she came from a that particular day, as a represented inna the picture, no? Inna the beginning, where a we see a the young Indy with a that Fatty Arbuckle kid, the studly kid, he say "ew, a snake!" anna the Indy, he says "what inna the hell are a you afraid of you goddamn putz! It's a just a the goddamn snake, no?" So clearly, he's a not afraid of a the snakes, eh? Unna'til he fall inna'to a the whole mess of a them anna he has a to pull a the long one out from a the inna'side of a his a pants, no?

[Chairman Kaga]

he has a to pull a the long one out from a the inna'side of a his a pants, no?

I think Dino is re-editing this scene in his memory to add some more action to the film.

[DinoDeLaurentiis]

Hmm... maybe he dinna pull it outta his a pants, eh? But I seem a to remember a the big snake, she come outta his a pants atta some point anna she scares a the crappa outta him, no?

Holy crappa, I'm a the old man, eh? It's a been like a the goddamn 6 years since I last saw a the goddamn picture, eh? Unna'like a some of a you putzes, I have a the life, no?

[Chairman Kaga]

You have got me there. My life is pathetic.

[DinoDeLaurentiis]

Hehehehe... the Dino, he KNEW it, eh?

[Chairman Kaga]

I've been outed on the Zone.

[Cpt Kirks 2pay]

Love all the for and against posts for Doom and Crusade, folks.

The Fortune and Glory whole debate is something I never crossed into. I never understood it (neither did Mom!). As far as I'm concerned it has no relevance to Indy, I never quite knew why he said it. I mean, any decent man, let alone a good intentioned hero is gonna forget about a rock in a museum collecting dust, when he could give it to the villagers and save not only them but in effect the entire world. Sure there was more than one, but seeing as the village Sankara got stolen so easily, don't you think that having some spares for them would be a good idea??!?! So Fortune and Glory was never an issue for me. I know it's there, I know why people talk about it, but I just don't get it.


At the end of the day, both are great films, it used to be that on some days I'd prefer Doom, some others I'd prefer Crusade, but now I hold to it that Doom edges out Crusade, not by a long stretch though.

But I think that Crusade's issues should be addressed by me now. Everyone says 'duuuhh well, Crusade has better characterisation'. Well, here's the thing that Spielberg and Lucas forgot and overlooked and misjudged their so called insightful knowledge of what the audience wants. That, number one - better characterisation don't necessarily a better movie make!!!

But secondly, let's have a good look at this characterisation. You had the brilliant Marcus Brody from Raiders returning. So glad was I to see this - only to be turned into some bad comic relief bumbling foolish sidekick, the butt of the jokes. The movie made him look bad and betrayed all the loyalty and respect that I gave him and the series, as well as doing the same to himself. Sallah returned, but didn't seem as great as he was in Raiders too.

The villains? Well they are dull quite frankly. Julian Glover, Elsa Schneider and that stereotypical nazi in tow. They did nothing for me. A good action movie relies on danger, fear, it's where the excitement and sweaty palmed intensity comes from. But with these guys I got none of this. They were pretty mediocre, no impact.

You wanna compare characterisation to Doom? OK, you had a true personofication of Cult Evil in Devil Worshipper Mola Rham. This guy I thought was larger than life and blew away the 3 villains in Crusade. I find he's pretty much the tallest most standout villain of the series, though for all his less pantomineish and more down to earth villain, I still think tha Paul Freeman as Belloq is the best. But Mola Rham basically is running Temple of Doom by supplying all the Evil that one needs from such a cult that is practically running Hell down in the catacombs. Plus he did what every villain should do. He scared the craps out of me!!!

Willie Scott though annoying, was still an entertaining enough a female lead. She wasn't acted badly, just written without much redeeming features, but again, she was up against the shit more than Marion was, so what do you expect from her? Thing is, is that the whole Jar Jar element applies here. Sure both characters are annoying, but man they ARE still classic characters for what they are trying to be. They stand out, they are quite archetypal in the movie genre that they are in for the type of character that they are. They are so easy to define, but most of all - are memorable. Alison Doody? Who was she? Can you remember much about Elsa Chneider as you did Willie Scott?

OK, you've got the biggest issue with Crusade. Now I could copy and paste what I wrote about Sean Connery's Henry Jones from the talkbacks of what I wrote about him, but that's cheating and a bit ranty. But I ain't gonna write about him with as much length as I did there either. So I'll keep it short.

Let's skip the other more basic and less important issues about why Henry Jones was good, as he sure was. Let's talk about the real fundementals here.

Indiana Jones is a boy's own adventure, a form of unadulterated fantasy and escapism. It's a movie for the kids basically - or the kid in us for all us grown ups. We all wanna get away from the troubles of the world and just become kids playing away getting into trouble. Getting into action, getting our lives threatened, rolling about - but not getting killed. It's part of our moviegoing psyche.


BUT - the introduction of Henry Jones sort of ruins this for me. As NOW we all go on this so called adventure, but we have to do it with our old man in tow. Now, don't get me wrong, the addition of all of this Henry Jones character does a lot of good for this adventure, it brings it importance and maturity and humanity. But you gotta consider that it also ruins the fun of it as well, well it does for me personally.

For the presence of an arguing, bickering, disapproving and serious father figure onto what was once a free flying boy's playing about escapist adventure now holds you down. It slows you up, pulls you back down to earth, shouts and tells you off for running around having fun there and tells you to behave yourself. It basically is your old man ruining the fun for you.

I haven't worded this as effectively as I did in the TBs i'm sorry. But it basically is him telling you not to be a kid, but to grow up. It's like he's sitting on the fairground ride with you telling you not to shout and scream out loud, telling you again, not to have as much fun as you can. For being young is about going on adventure and going on adventure is what Indiana Jones is all about. Now with the father figure there, you cannot be so young. The adventure element of Indiana Jones is suppressed and quashed. It is suffocated. Not completely, but enough. It ruins it for me. Again, the most important element of Indiana Jones is the Adventure and it sort of gets destroyed. Sorry to keep repeating my words, but that is the point that I am trying to make.

I dunno about you guys, but I don't get on with my dad that brilliantly, and when I'm out of the house, no matter what age, I don't wanna think about him, I don't want him along when I go out to play as a kid, or try to pick up chicks as a teenager or still do both as an adult. I certainly don't wanna be reminded of him when I go to the movies to fucking escape all of this - and Indiana Jones IS ESCAPISM!!!!!!!!

So there's this side of the Indy issue. Yes, you can come at me and tell me all the good that Sean Connery as Henry Jones brings to the movie - and you'd be right, I'd agree probably. But he also brings a bit much negativity also. You gotta take into account the real meaning of Indy, what the films are about in their deepest most ultimate essence, what it is that Spielberg gets to in our real internal psyche, what he's been so great about doing in his films. Here it gets ruined a bit too much for my taste.



It's like Spielberg is telling his young Indy audience to grow up. Well, I as an Indy fan, don't wanna grow up, Steven.



OK. Flame on!

[minstrel]

Kirk, you make some excellent points.

I'd like to comment a bit about your point that Indy is all about escapism. To a large extent, that's true. But the thing that makes it really fascinating to me, that brings the sense of wonder as well as adventure, is that he is an expert archaeologist, and is going after ancient, half-mythical relics that have wonderful and eerie stories behind them.

Indy wouldn't be half as interesting if he was, say, a detective just trying to recover a million dollars stolen from a bank. That might be escapist, but it wouldn't provoke the thrill, the sense of awe that made Raiders such a great film. I loved that scene in Raiders early on when the government guys come to the university and assign the task of finding the Ark to Indy - that was fantastic, and it set up the mystery of the quest, as well as the quest itself.

So for me, Indy's archaeology is part of his attraction. This is what I meant in my earlier post about not liking Doom so much. The mystic stones in Doom were obviously just thought up by the writers to give Indy something to go after; they weren't anything real, that a real archaeologist would go after. That's one reason I didn't like Doom as much as the other two.

And for Indy 4, I want him doing some archaeology! I want him going after something I've already heard of, not something conked up by some screenwriter.

[Cpt Kirks 2pay]

Yeah I pretty much agree with ya all the way. I like it that Indy is grounded in biblical reality. I like the fantasy is given it's realism and intelligence. Doom is more superficial in this sense. I think it's the escapism in the character of Indy that gets trampled on in Crusade with my post. I mean, we find out that Henry named 'Indiana' after himself in reality, and that Henry Jones Jr named HIMSELF after his dog?!?!?!

No, I didn't find that funny, George and Stevey! It was more like 'way to go to spoil the mythology of Indy'. Didn't like it.

As for Crusade being the most mature of the movies with the scholar Henry, hmm, well yes maybe. The quest for the Grail may bring us closer to Jesus, but Raiders sure as 'Hell' brought us closer to God. God and all his raging power and mercy. It's the most serious and hard film of the lot for me.

[monorail77]

Kirks, I think you nailed it again.

And I loved the "archeologist" aspects of TOD. Sacred stones and Thugee cults: that stuff was exotic and brilliant. Was it accurate? I don't know. It wasn't something I've heard of before, but that's part of what I liked. I sure beleived that Indy had heard of it before and took a scholar's interest in it all. I didn't get a "made up by the script writers" vibe off of it at all, even though that may be exactly what happened.

[Chairman Kaga]

Kirks, I think you nailed it again.

And I loved the "archeologist" aspects of TOD. Sacred stones and Thugee cults: that stuff was exotic and brilliant. Was it accurate? I don't know. It wasn't something I've heard of before, but that's part of what I liked. I sure beleived that Indy had heard of it before and took a scholar's interest in it all. I didn't get a "made up by the script writers" vibe off of it at all, even though that may be exactly what happened.

Sacred stones associated with Shiva are "real" and the history of the Thugees and Kali etc was accurate but there isn't any "Shankara Stones" ....

[Cpt Kirks 2pay]

HAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

This brings back so many funny memories!!!! When I was in college there was this hot blonde chick that I fancied the pants off of who studied - hahaahaa - archeology!!!! So I told her all about the Shankara stones. I think she even started to check them out too!!! Man, she might have even considered studying them!!! Hahahaa!!! I never found out what she DID find out about them, I thought they were fake myself. BUT - I do remember being the boy who cried wolf when I found out from someone that they DID sort of exist, in some kind of shape form or way. I can't remember who did tell me this though - I think it might have been her!!! Imagine the irony of all of that eh?!?!?!!?!?
































Never did get hold of that bitch though. She was too busy fancying all my mates. gentleman.

[Brit Pop]

These friends of mine know which is my favorite film of alll time...

You could ask them... if only you spoke Hovitos!

[PF Moon Deux]

EMPIRE OF THE SUN

Always changes, though. Frequently too.

[Lady Sheridan]

I recently looked up the Thuggees as I know absolutely nothing about India. They were real, but they never had any kind of death cult. I got the impression it was more of a rebellion group against the British with a dash of Kali worship for color. No sacrifices or anything!

I think the Shankara stones are really flashy examples of the real phallic rock carvings you find all over India. I had a professor once who kept showing us photos of them saying "What's that look like?" It's a metaphor for you, professor!

[Chairman Kaga]

The thuggees also were involved in organized crime not just against the British.

[DennisMM]

The major action sequences alone killed TOD for me. They're spectacular but meaningless, every one an obvious attempt to match the greatness of Raiders. The nightclub chase/fight/shoot-out (and the under-credits Mandarin-version "Anything Goes") seem jammed in to give us a big opening. Unlike the Raiders cave exploration and chase, the nightclub doesn't tell us anything about the characters. It's the equivalent of a Bond-movie pre-credits sequence, there only to wow the audience. As others pointed out, you can't make a safe escape from a plane by climbing into an inflatable raft. The Mythbusters tested it; you just might make a landing without life-threatening injuries if you could attach a harness to the raft and literally use it as a parachute canopy. Do I have to mention the mine-car chase? It was overlong by half and simply impossible. Even in a fantasy film I won't believe a mine car can jump the track and land safely on another section of track.

The supporting characters in TOD were bothersome. Shortie was a good driver, I'll give him that. But why was Indy running about with a ten-year-old? These many years after, it strikes me that Spielberg and company might have been trying to create a character similar to Ebony White, the Spirit's sidekick/chauffeur. It didn't work. Ebony was sometimes difficult but Short Round was an irritant. The actor was not sufficiently talented to make the character lovable. As a result, his comedy and his drama were both irritating. I really don't want to talk about Willie as a character, so I'll say that Kate Capshaw is a fine-looking woman if you're into blandly pretty blondes. That didn't mean she could act.

[Zarles]

I'll go to the mat with ya over TOD, Dennis. Maybe it's our age difference, (I'm assuming you're older than I, pardon me if I'm wrong) but I saw that movie when I was 10 years old, and it damn near took the top of my head off. Even watching it now, I completely suspend any amounts of disbelief I have in me just so I can watch that mine car jump the gap in the tracks. To this day, I still laugh and raise a fist every time I watch that scene.

Movies like that don't exist in the same universe that I do, and I love that.

[DennisMM]

I was 21, Zarles, and I couldn't buy it. I bought into the mysticism of each film but I couldn't deal with the mine car jump. It just occurred to me that in some ways TOD has more in common with The Goonies than the other Indy movies. They're both built around sequences that seem like amusement-park attractions. And they both feature the irritating Ke Huy (Jonathan Ke) Quan.

Had you seen Raiders before seeing TOD? As I mentioned, TOD suffered greatly IMO because of its attempts to match Raiders in certain areas. LC seemed to take a more character-based approach than the first two films, which may explain why to me it's a better view than TOD.

[Zarles]

I agree with the Goonies analogy, but again, maybe that's why I still love it. It's hard for me not to watch that flick with a kid's eye. Indy was the super-badass hero, Shorty was the sidekick that I wanted to be, and Willie had boobies, whatever those were.

I'll give you the mine car jump, but the spike chamber? Total badassery. Again, totally implausible, but I kinda liked how Spielberg turned it slightly comedic. The hat pressing against Indy's face as the spikes get closer, the expression on his face when Willie finally opens the door...

I saw Raiders when it first came out, and it changed my life as much as Star Wars did. To me, LC seemed kinda silly at the time, but when I watch it now, I get all of the adult themes in it a lot more than when I was a kid. See, there it is again - as a kid. The Indy movies are such an indelible part of my childhood that it's really difficult for me to analyze them too much. I had a real leather bullwhip at 12 years old, for chrissakes...

[Chairman Kaga]

The major action sequences alone killed TOD for me. They're spectacular but meaningless, every one an obvious attempt to match the greatness of Raiders. The nightclub chase/fight/shoot-out (and the under-credits Mandarin-version "Anything Goes") seem jammed in to give us a big opening. Unlike the Raiders cave exploration and chase, the nightclub doesn't tell us anything about the characters. It's the equivalent of a Bond-movie pre-credits sequence, there only to wow the audience..

Well going back to Indy's roots as a mish mosh of George's love of serials and Steven's desire to direct a Bond film that sorta fits in a weird round about way.

[Lady Sheridan]

I love the musical opening. It's over the top but it's so old school. I still want that dress!