Indiana Jones 5 is officially a go!!

[Spinal]

Temple of Doom

This is one of the most sheerly pleasurable physical comedies ever made.

:crazy:

[MacGuffin]

I remember liking Temple of Doom a lot when I was younger, and the parts I've seen of Raiders of the Lost Arc were... interesting. I haven't seen The Last Crusade all the way through, and the last, most recent one, which I know without having seen it has no business being around, I have no interest in.

[BuffaloWilder]

Oh, Ms. Kael. Will I ever agree with you, on anything?

[transmogrifier]

Oh, Ms. Kael. Will I ever agree with you, on anything?

Yeah, but she's almost exactly right here though, so......where does that leave you?

[number8]

Man, that Pauline Kael is spot on.

[Dukefrukem]

Oh, by the way, I should have mentioned this sooner. This movie is in no way a go.

It clearly says this in the first post quoted text. I mentioned it a few pages back.

[BuffaloWilder]

Yeah, but she's almost exactly right here though, so......where does that leave you?

FILLED WITH HATE



:frustrated:

[Rowland]

Bizarre to me how anyone could prefer Temple of Doom's melange of shrill comic performances, pandering gross-out gags, self-righteously imperialistic attitudes, one-note villains, and utter lack of clever banter or discernible chemistry between the actors. Indeed, Indiana falling for Capshaw's tritely vulgar character by film's end goes beyond unconvincing, belying its lack of a genuine human impulse. Spielberg has essentially admitted that he was a director-for-hire here, that it was Lucas' show and he just wanted to help his best friend realize his artistic vision, which is readily apparent, since Spielberg's sly directorial hand is the best thing Temple of Doom has going for it.

[Spinal]

Bizarre to me how anyone could prefer Temple of Doom's melange of shrill comic performances, pandering gross-out gags, self-righteously imperialistic attitudes, one-note villains, and utter lack of clever banter or discernible chemistry between the actors.

This is an awesome sentence. You nailed it.

[Ezee E]

The action sequences of Temple of Doom are the best of the series, and make it into one of the most fun movies around. Don't care for the beginning though, and I still prefer I & III, but it's still great.

[Watashi]

This is an awesome sentence. You nailed it.

Get a room you two.

[transmogrifier]

Bizarre to me how anyone could prefer Temple of Doom's melange of shrill comic performances, pandering gross-out gags, self-righteously imperialistic attitudes, one-note villains, and utter lack of clever banter or discernible chemistry between the actors. Indeed, Indiana falling for Capshaw's tritely vulgar character by film's end goes beyond unconvincing, belying its lack of a genuine human impulse. Spielberg has essentially admitted that he was a director-for-hire here, that it was Lucas' show and he just wanted to help his best friend realize his artistic vision, which is readily apparent, since Spielberg's sly directorial hand is the best thing Temple of Doom has going for it.

And yet it is the most interesting of the series - it isn't beholden to middle-of-road classical technique as much as the rest. Seriously, the by-the-numbers structure, musical cues and editing of Last Crusade is mind-numbingly dull. Take another look - it's autopilot fluff. Temple of Doom at least has Spielberg wrestling with something.

(Crystal Skull tries to be "interesting", but every single second of that film is another wrong choice from almost everyone involved, from the deadly dull mid-section, to Winstone's magical plot-convenience character to the totally insane decision to have Indy do absolutely nothing but HOLD THE SKULL in the final set piece)

[megladon8]

The Last Crusade for me, please.

[Rowland]

The action sequences of Temple of Doom are the best of the series, and make it into one of the most fun movies around. Don't care for the beginning though, and I still prefer I & III, but it's still great.

The action sequences are proficiently realized, but it sure doesn't help that Capshaw and/or pidgin-speaking Short Round inflectionlessly yammer throughout most of them, compounded by how inauthentic it all feels, even on its own gonzo terms, which effectively relieves a great deal of tension from many of the sequences. It's no wonder the most exciting segment of the picture is the Shanghai prologue.

[Spinal]

The action sequences in Temple of Doom are ludicrous. They outrun water.

[transmogrifier]

The Last Crusade for me, please.

You're welcome to it.

[transmogrifier]

The action sequences in Temple of Doom are ludicrous. They outrun water.

Who cares? It's all in the presentation.

[Rowland]

The action sequences in Temple of Doom are ludicrous. They outrun water.

I was more bewildered by how what didn't appear to be a terribly strong current of water managed to catch up with them through what appeared to be miles of branching caverns enveloped with pools of molten lava in a matter of minutes.

Not that I was particularly bothered by it, since I was already emotionally disengaged, and the film's go-for-broke mentality is one of its more amiable traits.

[Spinal]

Who cares? It's all in the presentation.

So it would be all right if suddenly Indiana Jones could fly? There has to be some sort of consistent reality for action scenes to work. Otherwise, it is not at all incredible that they would be able to escape. That's the difference between the first film and the second.

[Rowland]

And yet it is the most interesting of the series - it isn't beholden to middle-of-road classical technique as much as the rest. Seriously, the by-the-numbers structure, musical cues and editing of Last Crusade is mind-numbingly dull. Take another look - it's autopilot fluff. Temple of Doom at least has Spielberg wrestling with something.

Yeah, I won't comment on The Last Crusade until I've revisited it, maybe tonight.

[transmogrifier]

People only seem to complain about believability in action scenes when they dislike the movie in the first place, for other, more important reasons. There are plenty of films I love that could not have in any way shape or form taken place in the universe we currently exist in. But I love them anyway, and couldn't care less.

There are other movies that I hate where I mutter to myself, "What the hell, as if that could ever happen!" and it is a symptom of underlying problems with the construction of the film.

Long story short, complaining about believability is one of the weakest arguments you can offer, mainly because it is the easiest.

[transmogrifier]

So it would be all right if suddenly Indiana Jones could fly? There has to be some sort of consistent reality for action scenes to work. Otherwise, it is not at all incredible that they would be able to escape. That's the difference between the first film and the second.

See above post.

EDIT: You say consistent reality. I would argue Indy being able to outrun water in a mine is consistent with the tone and mythology of the character, whereas him flying would be inconsistent with such.

There is no black or white in this, but a case of finding the line where logic cannot be suspended anymore and not crossing it. I argue that that line is less noticeable if the film around it has done a good job in terms of plot, characterization, pacing etc.

EDIT II: The Quickening: I guess with your example, the difference is most people know immediately that humans can't fly, whereas they would have to stop and think about the question, "Can you outrun water?" If the movie is good enough, that question will never be asked, let alone answered. Boo-ya!

[Spinal]

I never complain about a film being not consistent with Earth reality.

I complain about a film not being consistent with its own reality that it has established.

[Spinal]

EDIT II: The Quickening: I guess with your example, the difference is most people know immediately that humans can't fly, whereas they would have to stop and think about the question, "Can you outrun water?" If the movie is good enough, that question will never be asked, let alone answered. Boo-ya!

It's not something that I personally have to think too hard about. Seems fairly obvious which is why I think it's such a glaring flaw.

[Watashi]

The first film had Indy avoiding the Wrath of God just by closing his eyes.

I'd say the mythology has been consistent in the entire trilogy.