It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
It's not that the movie was bad or anything. Obviously, it's beautifully filmed, the music is wonderful, the technological aspects are insane. Although, lingering on shots does kind of ruin some of the effects, like the way they edited the filmed shots of humans into the miniatures. For the 60s it's still awe-inspiring though. And that red processor room is one of the greatest set designs I've ever seen. Anyway, it just wasn't a pleasent experience. I don't mind the 'lack' of story. There is one, but it's just not told very explicitly (though I'll admit, for a film that's considered 'classic', this was kind of a let-down, and I like movies with a not-so-obvious narrative). What bugged me first of all was the monolith. It's one of the few things I could understand by just seeing the film alone. I think the monolith obviously has something to do with innovation and evolution. The scene with the ape-like creatures was the least subtle one in the entire movie: the rock has a direct connection with the monkey finally picking up the bone and using it as a tool (a big break in history). The rest of the story is set in the future, and humans are able to travel to different planets and what not. I didn't like all of this because I resent the idea of 'progress' in history, and I felt that was very much part of the movie. Second of all, the entire atmosphere of the movie felt suffocating, which proves Kubrick's talent as a filmmaker, but left me as a viewer utterly exhausted. The difficulty people have with moving and breathing (since everything is set in space) is very palpable. Kubrick surprisingly didn't touch on themes about loneliness, but that sterile humor-less environment Bowman and the other scientist live in (and all of the other humans in the other spaceships as well, actually) with just three other unconscious companions on board (who look like they're lying in what appears to be a cross between a coffin and a mummified body) again feels very uncomfortable. Because you start imagining what it would be like living like that, and during those moments I feel like I'd rather die. Especially when the camera zooms in on the rotating space station near the beginning, and at some point it goes beyond the construction and for a split-second all we see is stars. I felt like I was about to be hurled into the vast endlessness that is space, and it's discomforting to say the least. I don't find thinking about space a meaningless pursuit at all, but like most people it scares me because of how helpless it makes me feel. And these weren't the only nightmarish sequences. Those ten minutes when Bowman takes a trip beyond infinity were awful, and once we see him standing there aging in his red spacesuit... I just wondered why he didn't kill himself (even though it might have been a dream sequence or some weird negative parallel time stuff). Also the fetus I still don't get (even though fetusses and fetal positions have become an overused motif in cinema eversince). With the aging and stuff there's probably a message about life in there, but it's too vague, in my opinion. Admittedly, the scenes with HAL were easy to watch (though I don't get why the 'open the pod bay door' quote has particularly become so famous). They're the few bits of clear interaction I felt I could hold onto.
Like I said, I really like it when movies take their time and don't follow an obvious narrative, but this was too open for interpretation for me to understand why it has become such a huge following (the critical acclaim, I get). For the technical aspects I greatly admired it. We were talking about Blade Runner a few days ago... I think I can even appreciate ASO for the mere fact that I realize how much it must have influenced Ridley Scott's film (with the pacing and stunning use of miniatures). The glimmering owl eyes even reminded me of the leopard from the beginning of ASO (even though the owl was a robot with fake eyes and the leopard's eyes just capture on film that way).
I often feel like I'm bringing the minority vote to this film. I actually really like the second Indy adventure very much. In my mind I know that Raiders is the better movie but in my heart I appreciate Temple at least as much. For starters, I think this is the one with John Williams' best score. It's big, it's epic, it's magnificent. I'm also one of the few people who don't hate on Kate Capshaw. Her character was a bit annoying at times, but that's what you may expect from a spoiled singer in Shang-Hai. Capshaw played her part with an incredible energy though and I find her amusing more often than annoying to be honest.
As a kid I really loved the wild adventures; hidden passages, bugs, traps... but nothing holds up to that amazing mine car ride. That's incredibly fun theme park stuff (and I happened to ride the Indy attraction at Disney Land Paris in '96).
The 'scary' parts? The things that made them introduce a new rating? I'm a horror fan, aren't I? ;-) I was into that stuff while my class mates were still watching the Smurfs.
Again, this isn't Raiders and I know it, but I often feel like Temple gets only half the appreciation it deserves. It still holds up today (except, perhaps, for that final shot of Mola Ram). Maybe not the best Indy, but possibly my favourite.
It helps that I really love Spielberg. He can manipulate all he wants, I hardly ever notice. And in my opinion he produced some unforgettable moments in Doom (and the other Indy films in the original trilogy).
I know it's sacrilege but I've got to agree with @SuzanneStone.
I can't deny it's influence and visually it's breathtaking but it bores me silly. Not really Kubrick's biggest fan, I admire him but his films just leave me cold for the most part.
Although I can't hold that idea anymore as Raiders is just a masterpiece, the greatest action adventure film of all time. TOD is very entertaining but until the film that will not be named came along I thought it was the weakest of the series.
Crusade is far from perfect but it edged TOD for me.
Once they get to the actual temple however, the movie does a 180 and is incredibly badass! If the whole movie was like that, Temple of Doom would likely be my favorite of the bunch.
As it stands, Raiders wins for me!
I agree all three original Indy movies are great fun and favorites of mine and Skull has got the advantage that it has Harrison as Indiana Jones and he remains the same cool character.
The reaction to Temple of Doom has certainly warmed over time. I had always remembered disliking it, but upon re-watching it a few years ago I found myself really enjoying it and still do. It remains in an eternal flux with Last Crusade as my second favorite Indy film.
The good things
Harrison Ford is a great actor. I used to take him for granted but over the years I've come to see him as more than 'just' the guy playing Han Solo and Indiana Jones. He can be serious and emotional, has great comic timing, a wonderful voice and exceptional stamina. Seeing him again in one of his iconic roles is a blast no matter what his age at the time.
Skull has a couple of great shots. The mushroom cloud, the sand mechanism raising the temple obelisks or whatever, the inter-dimensional ship taking off, ... Just beautiful!
William's score is my least favourite of the four but that's like saying that one Dom Perignon is slightly more acidic than another; it's still Dom Perignon. The score nevertheless has some great moments and especially some nice callbacks to the previous films.
Our mistakes
Yes, our mistakes! We spent years crying for another Indy film when obviously neither Lucas nor Spielberg were anything more than marginally interested. Eventually they succumbed. Lucas' SW schedule had been cleared and Spielberg's always busy so it made little difference to him.
But we really expected another Indy film like the other three. Well that's not going to happen. Not if you're close to two decades since Crusade anyway. No-one is going to make a movie like he used to 20 years ago! So naturally we get CGI and some older people and thus a story set in the 50s, not in the late 1930s or early 1940s. And since we, as fans, are so much into sequels these days, it's pretty normal for Spielberg and Lucas to recruit someone for the proverbial passing of the torch. So yes, the kid from Transformers, who just happens to be a pretty good actor himself, will play Indy's son. The facts of life. Get over it. The only alternative would've been recasting and we would have screamed bloody murder if they had ever so much as considered that.
The whole inter-dimensional beings thing - not space aliens, mind - often gets criticised. Why? Indy can't chase the Ark or the Grail again, can he? And we bought the magic of the Shankara stones so why not creatures from another dimension. Why is one bit of bull less bull than another piece of bull?
I've heard fans get pretty mad over the Grail thing. Indy drank from it; isn't he technically immortal? See my former remarks. Ford gets older and only Ford can play Indy so now what? Also, it's not exactly an exciting film if Indy cannot die, is it? Besides, I just presume that his five minutes of immortality were over once he stepped over that seal in the floor at the end of Crusade.
I've heard people complain that Indy miraculously survived a nuclear explosion. He survived some amazing things before, didn't he? It's the biggest thing so far, I agree, but must that be an issue? It's not like the bomb dropped on his head, is it? If you can't give them that little conceit, the whole concept of these Indiana Jones films might be a tad problematic for you.
Lastly, no-one seems to entertain the thought of having someone else do an Indy film, yet maybe that's not a bad way to go. We always seem to think that the originals are the only ones who can do it right but is that so? Lucas disappointed many people with his SW prequels yet he's the one who made the brilliant Star Wars in '77. Scott wasn't able to please everyone with Prometheus yet he's the force behind the classic Alien. Spielberg made Raiders but he's a changed filmmaker too. So now that we're in full anticipation of The Force Awakens, it begins to show that sometimes an entirely new set of creative minds can do it better than the originals. Maybe Lucas should have allowed someone else to sit down for another Indy film in the 90s or early 2000s. Spielberg is still a genius, a tremendous talent, but that also means he likes to move on, to not look back. He didn't make Jaws 2, wasn't on board for Jurassic Park 3 and for many years expressed little interest in Indy despite the 5 movie deal with Paramount. I'm not saying anyone could have made an Indiana Jones movie as this property is no doubt very well protected, but because of Lucas and Spielberg, most of us just assumed it would be as brilliant as Raiders. Filmmakers change too you know.
Their mistakes
I will admit that the filmmakers oversaw a few interesting opportunities. For example, Indy never retrieved that headpiece from Belloch. Let him go after it again and finish the job it all began with in '81. And what's with that Ox dude? That Character had to be Abner, right? John Hurt could have played him with considerable ease and preferably without the madness. It would have tied up more loose ends.
While we're seeing that spectacular chase through the jungle, the monkeys were utterly wrong and I feel like we're spending more time with Mutt than with Indy. If you're making another Jones movie, there's no point in shying away from him.
Overall I like Skull. I have fond memories of seeing the film in the theatre with my mum, and I have seen it a few times on DVD since. But I can honestly say it's not exactly my favourite Jones film:
- Raiders: the best
- Temple: my favourite
- Crusade: the most interesting
- Skull: ...
Skull?
I don't think Skull bests the other three in any department. But like I said before, it's not a bad movie.
Burton's?? I love that film. And I actually just watched Burton's Big Eyes - easily his best film since Sweeney Todd. Really enjoyed it.
The Avengers - I didn't expect to love it, but I did expect to like it at least a bit. I was actually surprised it was so utterly uninteresting. Obviously there are some good actors in it, but that didn't help as they were pretty much wasted and the movie was so bad. Just boring, really. I kept trying to figure out why this was/is so popular, but failed. Apparently I won't need to bother going to see The Age Of Ultron, then.
Iron Man 3 - Much better. Not great by any means, but didn't bore me for most part and had more of a story in it at least. Better than Iron Man 2 for me.
After 7 movies I think I can safely make my conclusions: this stuff isn't for me. Some of those movies were ok, but not enough to try and keep watching for more of these - and I certainly wouldn't pay to watch any. I mostly felt like I was watching computer games - and I've never been interested in those, either. Apparently a lot of people find these movies fun and exciting for some reason... they actually care, but I didn't really care about the characters or the stories. This was a somewhat interesting exercise in trying to understand a popular phenomenon, but I'm giving up and leaving it to those who enjoy it.