Category: #WWMD

#140RVW

Scary/violent/grisly enough to help usher in the PG-13 rating, shows it’s age 30 years later, but still a great movie. Effects pretty good.

What’s more:

What an amazing time the 1980’s were. Gremlins was originally to be a Christmas release (hence the Christmas setting) but the studio moved up the date to 6/8/1983 to directly compete with Ghostbusters, released on the same day. Can you imagine anyone doing that now? Studios flee from competition and avoid other tentpole release dates.

Writer Chris Columbus came up with this highly original story after being creeped out at night by the noise of animals running around in his loft apartment. He actually wrote it on spec, just as a resume of sorts. It obviously launched his career – big time.

It’s a seriously dark story. This movie could have been much more a straight-up horror film. While producer Steven Spielberg, who instantly saw the value in this property, sometimes cheapens serious subject matter with his amusement park ride approach, it seems to have been necessary here. If he didn’t lighten this thing up and drive down the body count, we wouldn’t be talking about it today, or probably even 30 years ago.

As it is, it’s really grisly, violent, scary and mean. The kitchen scene alone was probably enough to force the creation of the PG-13 rating, and frankly, this thing might still have been flirting with an R. I’m not sure this movie is any less brutal or graphic than Alien, when you think about it. If you haven’t seen it in a while, I’m sure you’ll be surprised just how intense Gremlins is. And that’s after they decided not to decapitate the mom, eat the dog and turn Gizmo into a gremlin. Can you imagine?

Joe Dante directed the film. He’s an old-style director of the type that Spielberg seems to like. By that I mean very good at focusing on the important “must-have” shots and story beats, but sort of sloppy and unconcerned with details. There are a ton of continuity errors and characters that are introduced and then completely disappear from the film. The rough cut of this movie was well over 2 1/2 hours. They lost about an hour of film for release. That’s quite a haircut. Reportedly the producers considered giving this to Tim Burton for his directorial feature debut. I would have very much liked to see that. But Dante certainly does a good job.

Placing the story in a Rockwell-esque setting was a great idea and helps the story not seem so dated. Except for the fact that it’s so obviously backlot. It’s a little hard to not notice that you’re in Hill Valley waiting for Marty McFly to show up in a DeLorean.

The film also, frankly, looks terrible. It’s a really ugly picture. It certainly needs to be cleaned up, but I’m not really sure how much that would help. Dante and his DP John Hora are used to making dark, horror pictures and I suspect this was the look they were going for. I’m sure they needed to go quite dark to hide some of the puppetry and other effects, but the dated film stock itself is just really flat and bland.

While this isn’t really a horror movie, it would be hard to explain why or come up with another genre for it. The effects are pretty good, but the character design is fantastic. It’s a great, original story with some welcome appearances by long-time character actors. Gremlins really grabbed attention in 1984, and it had to do so in the face of some other really good movies. The movie is constantly rumored to be in the process of a reboot, and it’s easy to see why. It’s far from perfect, but it is an excellent, thrilling movie.

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Fail

The Representation Test Score: C (6 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

 

Main Cast	Zach Galligan Billy Peltzer, Phoebe Cates Kate Beringer, Hoyt Axton Randall Peltzer, John Louie Chinese Boy
Rating	PG
Release Date	Fri 08 Jun 1984 UTC
Director	Joe Dante
Genres	Comedy, Horror
Plot	A boy inadvertantly breaks 3 important rules concerning his new pet and unleashes a horde of malevolently mischievous monsters on a small town.
Poster
Runtime	106
Tagline	Cute. Clever. Mischievous. Intelligent. Dangerous.
Writers	Chris Columbus (written by)
Year	1984

#140RVW

Hey fanboys, it’s a Disney movie based on a princess story. It’s not for you. Shouldn’t you be getting ready to savage TMNT or Transformers?

What’s more:

Maleficent is a live-action film closely based on a cherished Disney animated classic, Sleeping Beauty. (Which of course was based on established classic works; La Belle au bois dormant by Charles Perrault and Little Briar Rose by The Brothers Grimm.) Disney has fistfuls of animated movies that they based on classic tales, and you should expect to see nearly every one of them made into a live action film over the next 10-20 years. After the monster success of the live-action reimagining of Alice in Wonderland, Disney became bullish on these and it’s easy to see why. They can essentially recreate their early days as a studio, updating classic tales one at a time, only with actors instead of pencils this time.

After Alice, Disney next took on The Wizard of Oz with their 2013 film, Oz the Great and Powerful. Alice and Oz shared the same production designer, special effects professional Robert Stromberg (also designed Avatar), who is given the reins for Maleficent as his directorial debut. Yes, Disney hired a first-time director for a 200 million dollar film. Think they don’t know how important the look of these movies is?

Written by Linda Woolverton, who with her last picture (Alice in Wonderland – seeing a trend here?) became the first female to be sole screenwriter to a one billion dollar movie. She also wrote Beauty and the Beast, co-wrote The Lion King and brought both to Broadway.

All of this is a very long introduction to illustrate a very simple point: these are movies for kids. They are meant to be the new generation of Disney classics. While they borrow heavily from modern CG films which seem to have some requirement for massive battle scenes – de rigeur since Lord of the Rings – they are essentially modern updates of the characters that made Disneyland, so if the fanboys aren’t happy, who cares…

Maleficent is a good movie. I quite enjoyed it, but much more importantly, my daughter loved it. It simply cannot be overstated how important it is to have strong female roles, particularly at this time in history, when misogyny seems rampant. If this movie draws comparisons to Frozen, Disney’s last big hit, well that’s a good thing. Sure, the praise for that film may have been over the top in comparison to its actual merit, but that’s a perfectly natural response to such a dearth of meaningful film portrayals of female relationships. (I’d argue that this film shares more in common with the musical Wicked.) If Maleficent now makes you nervous that pro-female stories are gaining a foothold – GOOD. It’s about time there were movies that acknowledge the other half of the human race. If all this “girl power” is making you uncomfortable, I’m sure you can find something in the 700 other movies geared to men that are being released this season. Maybe try that one with the dinosaur robots – I’d hate it if they spent that much money to make a crappy Mark Wahlberg movie and no one showed up…

So does this mini-rant mean that Maleficent is the feminist movie of the season? Don’t be silly. It’s a kids movie; a modern telling of a very old story. And it’s a good one.

You know the story of Sleeping Beauty or you wouldn’t have come this far. While I haven’t seen that movie in a while, I saw it more than enough during my daughter’s princess years and recall it as a surprisingly meaty movie. It was the one that really stuck with you as a kid, and that’s entirely because of the villain. She was mean, nasty and turned into a dragon – one of the greatest screen dragons of all time, mind you.

The look of this character is so important. Marc Davis (one of Disney’s Nine Old Men) was the animator credited with developing the look of Maleficent in the original Disney film and he is actually acknowledged in the end credits of Maleficent – a nice gesture.

For the live-action film, they’ve taken this character and run with it. Maestro Rick Baker applied his makeup wizardry to transform Jolie into a horned, angular vision that is enchanting. The amazing costumes were designed by Anna B. Sheppard, who you would have to consider a mortal lock for an Academy Award here.

Angelina Jolie is masterful here. She really embodies the character so fully that it’s hard to remember another role she so completely filled. You quite simply could not have made this picture with anyone else. This is a King & I/Yul Brynner moment.

The movie really belongs to the main character. That’s good. The other characters are probably a bit under-written as a result, though. Elle Fanning is wonderful as Aurora, even if not given a lot to do. They make an interesting choice in never calling her Briar Rose. The two women have some very nice scenes together, but nothing is as funny or charming as Maleficent interacting with the younger versions of Aurora – great stuff.

King Stefan (Sharlto Copley) is a total tool whom you can’t wait to see less of (the character, not the actor). He has a queen, presumably, but blink and you’ ll miss her. English actor Sam Riley gets a nice role as the shape-shifting Diaval. I actually think the sometime-crow gets the most screen time of anyone besides Maleficent herself.

Visually, I’d have to say it is a success. Not a triumph, because I’m still not totally at home with these overly digital creations. There’s a sameness to them that’s cheapening modern films. If you took stills of the individual creatures that inhabited this movie, Narnia, Wonderland, Oz or any of the other semi-recent CG movies and mixed them all up, I’m not sure you’d have any idea which film they came from. These things could be climbing a beanstalk, roaming Hogwarts, sailing the Caribbean or fighting in the arena and I don’t think you’d notice a difference.

The big exception is the “good” fairies. They’re terrible. Motion capture of the worst variety. The closer we get to digital actors the more the little differences matter (I’m sure that’s a quote or a maxim; if not, it is now). Their heads are too big and the dead eyes are really unnerving. I stopped just short of closing my eyes every time they were onscreen.

Maleficent is a good picture. It’s a good summer movie, it’s a good kids movie, and it’s fun for anyone who lets it be so. It’s not a new classic, but lots of kids will think it is, and that’s fine.

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass

The Representation Test Score: B (8 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

 

Main Cast	Angelina Jolie Maleficent, Elle Fanning Aurora, Sharlto Copley Stefan, Lesley Manville Flittle
Rating	PG
Release Date	Fri 30 May 2014 UTC
Director	Robert Stromberg
Genres	Action, Adventure, Family, Fantasy, Romance
Plot	A vindictive fairy is driven to curse an infant princess only to realize the child may be the only one who can restore peace.
Poster
Runtime	97
Tagline	Evil has a beginning.
Writers	Linda Woolverton (written by) &, Charles Perrault (based from the story “La Belle au bois dormant” by)
Year	2014

#140RVW

It’s not the worst movie you’ve ever seen. Faint praise, maybe, but most every other review has given that impression. #StillBetterThanTOD

What’s more:

Let’s get the simple stuff out of the way first.

1. You’re right, they never should have made this movie; should have left off in 1989 with Last Crusade. Was a perfectly logical place to stop.
2. Yes, Harrison Ford is far too old to play this role.
3. Spielberg, Ford and everyone else who blanched at making a sci-fi “B” movie should have stuck with their gut and told Lucas to get real.

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, how is this admittedly ill-advised film? Meh…

When this came out in 2008, I was rooting for it; hard. I really wanted to love it in spite of how nervous I was and how against the existence of the movie I was. It arrived in theaters with a ton of pressure, which it never could have lived up to – and didn’t. I didn’t condemn it as a total loss, but I sure wasn’t pleased.

But a funny thing happened when it came out on home video; I watched it at home and kind of liked it. Once I had accepted that it really wasn’t a very good movie and got over all the things it wasn’t, I was able to see it for what it was. And in truth, there’s a lot of stuff to like here (to go along with the myriad things to dislike). All the stuff that made me apoplectic in the theater merely annoyed me at home. Faint distinction perhaps, but it’s there.

Seriously, try it for yourself at home. It isn’t a good movie and so don’t look for it to be. Just watch it knowing that so many talented people can make for some moments even if the sum total is somewhat lacking.

I mean, really, it’s not that bad. Ford isn’t that old here. Now if they tried to have him play, say Han Solo at his age, that would be a real problem. Can you imagine?

Play-by-play (thoughts written down while watching the movie):

• Old Paramount logo dissolving into prairie dog mound – cute. Digital prairie dogs? Less so…
• Drag-racing to bring us right into the time period is a good touch and gives some energy. This is also the last time anything in the movie will look good. Janusz Kaminski is a fine cinematographer, but the movie looks awful. I know they worked really hard to study Slocombe’s style and lighting, but it just isn’t working.

• 19 years after Last Crusade, both in real life and in setting of 1957
• The costumes just look off…
• Dr. Spalko – can’t decide if I hate the character more than I hate Blanchett’s performance. Tough call…

• A sword? Really?
• The problem here with the opening is that you’re just being dropped into it – that’s fine, but there isn’t feeling of an established relationship as there was with Belloq, so it’s not as effective.

• Indy’s moving in slow-motion. I’m not going to spend the whole review saying Ford is too old for the character, so let’s just say it once and be done with it…
• Some good stunts, though…
• Rocket sled is cool setpiece.
• What, they don’t know where he is but just leave?
• Atomic test site is creepy, but not as creepy as he looks in modern time.
• Sigh…the refrigerator gag…
• I didn’t realize how much they’re relying on shorthand of common knowledge until I watched this with my daughter and had to pause for ten minutes to explain Communism and McCarthyism.
• They had to dress LaBeouf as Brando? Really?

• This plot is beyond confusing. I’ve seen the movie 3-4 times now and I still haven’t figured out what Harold Oxley has to do with “Mutt”. Must be a script remnant from when they were making this character Abner Ravenwood.
• Exposition deadly…
• Motorcycle chase through “Barnett College” (Yale) pretty good with good practical effects, not digital, even though the body doubles are pretty hard to not see.
• Broadbent is always great, of course, but it’s a wrench not seeing Denholm Elliot…
• The Peruvian cemetery set is pretty good. In fact this sequence may be the best in the film, although I’m still not sure who the heck these guys attacking them actually are.

• The character of “Mutt” is such a problem for this movie. It’s sort of hard to get past, even when you’ve let most of the other stuff go. Contrary to what you might suspect, I really don’t have a problem with Shia LeBeouf. He was so good in The Greatest Game Ever Played that I’ve given him a pass since then (which is easy, because he makes crap movies that I don’t see).

• But Karen Allen is back! Never mind, all is forgiven.

I actually stopped making notes after awhile because I just wanted to watch the movie, and I was frankly finding my nitpicking to start seriously affecting my ability to enjoy the movie. And I do actually enjoy Crystal Skull, although it’s hard to justify why. When I note all the things about the movie in a list, it seems really awful. And it isn’t a good movie – it has way too many problems for that. But my daughter was really having a good time with it, so I lightened up a bit. And there were enough fun scenes, barely. I guess I’m just not quite as hard on this movie as I probably should be. That’s what comes of wanting to enjoy something – sometimes you succeed…

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

The Representation Test Score: D (3 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

 

Main Cast	Harrison Ford Indiana Jones, Cate Blanchett Irina Spalko, Shia LaBeouf Mutt Williams, Karen Allen Marion Ravenwood
Rating	PG-13
Release Date	Thu 22 May 2008 UTC
Director	Steven Spielberg
Genres	Action, Adventure
Plot	Famed archaeologist/adventurer Dr. Henry “Indiana” Jones is called back into action when he becomes entangled in a Soviet plot to uncover the secret behind mysterious artifacts known as the Crystal Skulls.
Poster
Runtime	122
Tagline	In May, the adventure continues.
Writers	David Koepp (screenplay), George Lucas (story) …
Year	2008

#140RVW

Now that’s more like it! Shrugging off joylessness of Temple of Doom, fun-loving but not slight. Still as much fun as it was 25 years ago…

What’s more:

After the mine cart wreck that was Temple of Doom, virtually everyone involved realized that if the franchise was to continue, a return to form was necessary. (Spielberg wanted “to apologize for the second one”.) One of the ideas frequently suggested by Temple of Doom supporters is that the Indy trilogy closely mirrors the Star Wars Trilogy. That is to say, Raiders was the fun-loving adventure in the vein of Star Wars (1977) and so Temple of Doom followed the mold of The Empire Strikes Back, in that it was darker and more serious. I don’t doubt that was the intent – Lucas has stated as much – but it falls apart for two principal reasons.

• The first is that Empire had to be darker as it was the second part of a three-part story and so needed to develop and raise the stakes; that’s not what Temple did – it was a prequel so the chronology doesn’t make sense. (Besides, Empire is the greatest sequel ever made and Temple sucked – not because it was dark, but because it was poorly conceived and executed.)
• The second reason is that The Last Crusade is by extension the Return of the Jedi of this series, which is nonsense. I know, Last Crusade has some cutesy moments and if you liked Temple you would necessarily regard this third installment as a dumbing down or retread of the original, much as Jedi is (rightly) accused of. But while The Last Crusade is certainly the most family friendly, humorous and accessible of the series, that isn’t actually supposed to be a bad thing. You get that, right? Trying to make crowd-pleasing movies isn’t in of itself a flawed plan. If you sacrifice the character of your story (or your characters) in order to appease, well, yes, that’s pandering and shame on you. But I reject the idea that The Last Crusade does this. On the contrary, I believe it to be nearly as good of a film as the original Raiders, and if it lacks the edge of the original (and it does), so did all of the parties involved. Everyone was 8 years richer and fatter and more content.(Besides, if this is Jedi, where are the Ewoks? If anything, Short Round is the Ewok of this series…)

No, the two big trilogies have some significant differences to go with their many similarities, although it is certainly difficult to not think of these franchises as relatives. (Note: I wonder if one of the reasons that Temple is so divisive as a film is because it was released after Jedi? Certainly you brought your feelings about the final SW film into the theater with you when you saw Indy 2.) Last Crusade needs to be judged on its own merits. And how does it fare? Wonderfully…

Writing this installment was a circuitous journey; Chris Columbus first sent Indy to Africa to battle the Monkey King. Wisely passing on the chance to insult all of African descent as they had recently those of Indian descent, Spielberg came up with the introduction of Henry Jones, Sr. and worked with first Menno Meyjes, then Jeffrey Boam (Innerspace, The Lost Boys) to come up with the screenplay. (They weren’t done there, though, as Tom Stoppard did an uncredited rewrite of almost all of the dialogue and some of the scenes.) None of this is visible on-screen, as the story feels very streamlined and direct.

It’s a funny movie, which may be one reason so many people count this as their favorite. It had been five years since the humorless 2nd film, and during that time Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (or as it seems generally to be known “the one with the whales”) had come out and made fans of even non-Trek moviegoers. I can’t help but think that was noted by Lucas & Spielberg, but in truth, all of their films had a great deal of humor.

The simple fact is that this is just a very good story. Yes, the tone helps, but at the end of the day it has a better story than Temple, if not quite as good as Raiders. (And heaps better than Skull…)

The actors are great, with Connery as Indy’s dad a brilliant coup. (Even if Connery is actually only 12 years older than Ford and 58 at time of filming, they were projecting the character as approximately 75.) Rhys-Davies is back as Sallah & Elliot as Brody and that’s just all kinds of good. Their inclusion in Temple wouldn’t have saved it but could have made quite a bit of difference. Kevork Malikyan has a small but important role as Kazim, some consolation for being passed over for Rhys-Davies as Sallah in Raiders. I’m a little surprised that they didn’t try to shoehorn in some cameo or mention of Short Round. If Crusade is really the family-friendly cop-out that some claim it to be, why wouldn’t they have included the precocious kid?

While I still don’t consider The Last Crusade to be the equal of Raiders, it is only because nothing can top the original. Besides, the first of anything is always special in a way that can’t be replicated. Nevertheless, I know many consider this the best installment in the franchise – I can’t agree with them, but I certainly see where they are coming from. There’s a lot to like.

Play by play (thoughts written down as I watched the movie):

• Casting for this movie is inspired; Connery & Phoenix, both.
• Opening scenes in Utah so gorgeous.

• This started off the excitement for Young Indiana Jones – such a great series…
• Phoenix eerily good as the early Indy, so many mannerisms from Ford’s portrayal of the character.
• “Everybody’s lost but me.”

• I wonder if Douglas Slocombe has switched to digital photography – I doubt it – can’t get much better than this…(Note: looked this up later – this was actually the last film in the nearly 50 year career for the truly gifted Slocombe, who was responsible for the cinematography of all three of the original Indy films.)
• Usually I think these kind of explanatory backstory flashbacks are cute and gimmicky, and this one is, too, but it’s just so well done that it doesn’t matter.
• What is also wonderful about the opening is that, similarly to the 1st movie, it sets not just the tone for the film, but provides significant story and character insight.
• 1938? That’s only two years after Raiders. Not the years, honey, it’s, ah, you get it…Only eight years in real life time between films 1 & 3 but that’s a long time in grumpy actor years…

• I don’t really get the whole rock star treatment for a professor, but then I guess I’m a long time removed from academia.
• Ah, Julian Glover makes the transition from Star Wars (Ep. V) to Indy. Great choice.
• They just get to the point so quickly in this movie. Such a streamlined plot makes for a fantastic film.
• Wonderful exposition scene. Write great dialogue and give it to skilled actors.
• More Denholm Elliot? Yes, please…
• Alison Doody as Dr. Elsa Schneider is a good pickup. She works very well here. Cute banter between the two makes sense because they are both very smart. She’s not too squeamish, either. Breath of fresh air after Willie Scott.

• Henry Jones Sr. is afraid of rats. Classic…
• Boat chase straight out of a Bond movie; brilliant.
• “Ah, Venice.”
• “Nazis. I hate these guys.”
• I love the interplay between Jr. & Sr. Every scene from now until the end of the movie with these two is a treat. Just the looks between the two…
• Sallah!
• “Our situation has not improved.”

• So much fun with something as simple as a revolving secret door. Comedy genius…
• Motorcycle joust – make this happen now…

• “My boy, we are pilgrims in an unholy land.”
• Good effects on the zeppelin.
• “Ships that pass in the night…”

• The dialogue for the conversation on the zeppelin is some of the best in the series.
• Connery’s best on foot battle against a plane since From Russia With Love…
• Another great action sequence in the canyon. Temple of Doom didn’t have a single scene as good as this – Last Crusade has several of them.
• “You call this archeology?”
• “I thought I’d lost you, boy.” Connery is just so good. You can forget sometimes because he is such a familiar sight, but he is truly a great actor.

• The whole “three tests” sequence is well thought out.

• Just gushing now – it’s just a great movie, ok?

 

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Fail

The Representation Test Score: D (3 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

 

Main Cast	Harrison Ford Indiana Jones, Sean Connery Professor Henry Jones, Alison Doody Elsa, Denholm Elliott Marcus Brody
Rating	E
Release Date	Wed 24 May 1989 UTC
Director	Steven Spielberg
Genres	Action, Adventure
Plot	When Dr. Henry Jones Sr. suddenly goes missing while pursuing the Holy Grail, eminent archaeologist Indiana Jones must follow in his father’s footsteps and stop the Nazis.
Poster
Runtime	127
Tagline	He’s back in an all new adventure. Memorial Day 1989.
Writers	Jeffrey Boam (screenplay), George Lucas (story) …
Year	1989

#140RVW

Temple of Doom is a terrible movie, nearly as bad as Raiders was good. I keep trying to find things to like about it & failing miserably…

What’s more:

There are people who consider this the best Indiana Jones film. I have absolutely no idea what they are watching when they see this. Maybe there’s another movie called Temple of Doom that isn’t dreadful. I do know that there are fan edits of this movie – maybe that’s what they are referring to. I have one by InfoDroid that removes all of the slapstick, monkey brains and the music number (which I actually sort of like), providing an 18 minute haircut. The thing is, I still haven’t watched it yet, even though it’s been years since I acquired it. Why? Because I’d still have to watch the other 100 minutes of the movie and I have a very hard time queuing up Indy 2. It’s just so bad.

I only watched the original film again now because today is the 30^th anniversary of the release of the film and I thought I should revisit it. As a result, I’m watching the Indy movies with my daughter for the first time. I thought about skipping this one with her. After all, having just seen Raiders of the Lost Ark, why should she be grossed out and disappointed as I was 30 years ago? But ultimately I felt that I wouldn’t be doing my job as a parent if I sheltered her from all of the heartbreaks in life. She’ll need to learn to be snarky and derisive just like me…

She is now the same age I was when we filed into the Cleveland Circle Cinema in Brookline, MA thirty years ago, full of excitement at seeing the continuing adventures of Dr. Jones. The best thing that happened that night is that my parents bought me the official movie program, which I’m sad to say I let go of in a yard sale. (That is, I’m sorry I sold my Return of the Jedi program; I’m quite ok with divesting myself of the souvenir from this one…) I desperately miss those souvenir programs for big tentpole movies. Why did they ever stop making those? If they truly want to make theatrical presentations of movies events again, this might be one way to help.

The worst thing that happened that night is that they screened Temple of Doom. I vividly remember freaking out with everyone else in the theater at how gruesome it was. My folks were disgusted and spent the walk back to the car wondering why the film wasn’t given an R rating. In retrospect, it’s not really that much more grisly than the first film; the main difference may be how cruel and mean-spirited the sequel feels. Spielberg has always reveled in his ability to scare and gross out his audience, but it’s clearly understood that he’s trying to elicit fun house ride reactions that we all secretly crave. The violence in this one is more like an older kid deliberately scaring a pre-schooler by locking them in a trunk with an animal.

Want proof that they were on the wrong track with this movie? Lawrence Kasdan, who wrote such an amazing script for the first film, didn’t want any part of it. He took one look at the story and decided he didn’t even want to be associated with such a horrible and mean picture, calling it “very ugly and mean-spirited”.

As is often the case with second outings in the music world, just about anything good about the sophomore effort was unused material from the first. The minecart chase, the scenes in Shanghai, the plane escape – these were all written for Raiders.

The movie is truly awful and gets worse every time I revisit it. (Paradoxically, it looks better than ever – the restoration is fantastic and the blu-ray is gorgeous. Typical.)

Play by play (random thoughts while suffering through the movie):

Alright, here we go (stay frosty):

• Growing up, I had no idea that this was a prequel. (Takes place in 1935; Raiders is 1936) I don’t know if they didn’t make that obvious or if I was just too young to pay attention to that sort of thing. I don’t think I was aware of the fact until well into adulthood.
• I actually like the musical number. It’s good for setting the tone for the time period. It is the only thing Kate Capshaw does well in this movie. The ONLY thing…
• Willie Scott is the worst character ever developed by Lucas. Yes, I’m including Jar Jar…
• Actually, I suspect the only reason for Capshaw in this is that Spielberg was allegedly pursuing a liaison with her – not sure if real or implied, but if you watch the behind-the-scenes footage on this it’s sickening – like watching a septuagenarian play footsie with a co-ed.

• Club Obi Wan. Funny…
• Short Round. Hmm…
• 1935 Shanghai is a great location for adventure – should have stayed there for the whole film…
• Aykroyd  – interesting cameo.
• I love Indy changing from tuxedo to his usual rags. Yeah, that’s what I usually do when starting a transcontinental flight.

• The blu-ray really looks great – fantastic job.
• Bad blue-screen when they take the raft out of the plane crash. Wait, they take a raft out of a plane crash? I withdraw my first complaint.
• Now we’re in India, and that’s a big part of the problem, frankly. Just doesn’t make for a good setting.
• And the tone is all wrong. If they wanted to make a prequel, Indy should be a different character, but he isn’t. There’s nothing new here.
• There are nice touches early in the film of Indy showing his education. Too few and too infrequent.
• So the Macguffin is a stone? Or is it the children? I’m already confused, and I’ve seen this dozens of times.

• “Biggest trouble with her is the noise.”
• I love that Short Round cheats at poker…

• The dining scene is so unbelievably offensive, even in this movie, which already set new standards for cultural insensitivity. How did this ever get approved?
• Bedroom scene: my daughter just turned to me and said “that’s the worst flirting ever”. Well spotted, kiddo…
• Even before the heart-ripping out scene, this definitely earned the criticism that it was far too violent for a PG movie. I think it’s funny that this movie reportedly was single-handedly responsible for the creation of the PG-13 rating, yet they didn’t go back and apply the new rating to the film.
• Sigh – Spielberg grossing you out and stuff jumping out at people. Grow up, son…
• See, it’s not that this whole cult in India storyline is so poor (although it is), it’s that this is one of only 3 (technically 4) Indy movies. If this were simply a novel or comic, it would be just another chapter in the adventures of Indiana Jones. Since it’s a movie, it has to be a really great chapter. And it ain’t…
• Did I already say bad blue-screen in this movie? Bad blue-screen in this movie…

• Why is this movie so dark? Reportedly because George Lucas was in the middle of getting divorced when his wife left him for another guy. When Uncle George gets sad, hearts get ripped out. Metaphor much?
• So Spielberg, sensing that this was all getting a bit heavy, would try to lighten the mood in the only way he knew how, with slapstick and cheap gross-out jokes. That’s why this thing is so wildly uneven tone-wise.
• I think this movie exists solely to make The Crystal Skull look better by comparison…
• Remind me again, why is it ok to use makeup to cast white actors as Indian but not to use blackface?

• I wonder if Spielberg would have been ok with it if Lucas had made the cultists Israeli and all talk in exaggerated Shylock mannerisms?
• The whole voodoo doll thing is seriously over-egging the pudding. It’s just too much…
• I think Short Round punches out more people than Indy does. Also, it seems like Indy only uses his whip a few times in the whole picture.

• Once you know that Ford herniated his back during shooting and that tons of the work including virtually everything under the palace was done by stuntman Vic Armstrong, it’s kind of hard to un-see it. The whole mine cart sequence, which was one of the few highlights of the movie as a kid, is so obviously miniatures that it’s completely ruined for me (and now you…you’re welcome.)

• With Indy’s feet smoking, they just came a whip’s length from pulling a Yosemite Sam “My biscuits are burnin’!”
• This villain isn’t exactly Shakespearean material…
• Thank goodness for the English-led Indians, taking care of these savages, what?
• By my reckoning, there should still be some 500-700 Thuggees left after the climax of the film. What gives?

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Fail

The Representation Test Score: F (0 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

 

Main Cast	Harrison Ford Indiana Jones, Kate Capshaw Willie Scott, Jonathan Ke Quan (as Ke Huy Quan) Short Round, Amrish Puri Mola Ram
Rating	PG
Release Date	Wed 23 May 1984 UTC
Director	Steven Spielberg
Genres	Action, Adventure
Plot	After arriving in India, Indiana Jones is asked by a desperate village to find a mystical stone. He agrees, and stumbles upon a secret cult plotting a terrible plan in the catacombs of an ancient palace.
Poster
Runtime	118
Tagline	If adventure has a name… it must be Indiana Jones.
Writers	Willard Huyck (screenplay) &, Gloria Katz (screenplay) …
Year	1984