FBG Movie Club - DotM: Steven Spielberg (1 Viewer)

[Ilov80s]

Ok my for sure plan is:

Spielberg Sci-Fi trio of films I haven’t seen: AI, Minority Report and War of the Worlds.

Meta: The Fabelmans and Day for Night

Then I have a couple maybes depending on how the month goes. It’s winter in Michigan though so lots of time spent sitting indoors.

 

[waiver wire]

I watch a ton of old movies, if i was a better writer and more critical of movies & directors, I would participate in this. Instead I'll just follow along and watch some of the movies talked about

If you change your mind and want to jump in, we would certainly love to hear from you

Thanks , I will see if i join in
I am not just a very good writer like the rest of you

My next movie I will be watching is Inherit the Wind , 1960 with Spencer Tracy , Gene Kelley and Florence Eldridge by Stanley Kramer
I have never seen it before

 

[Don Quixote]

The Color Purple (1985) tonight. I don’t want to be one of those “well, it was good, but the book was better ’s”, but the book is one of the greatest novels published in the last 50 years, so, yeah, the book is better. The acting is great (Whoopi Goldberg‘s performance much better than I would have thought going in). I think the movie was held back by Spielberg wanting the PG-13 rating and maybe almost too polished directing. The intensity of the book can be overwhelming at times (with Walker’s writing compelling to keep going through); some scenes start to get there, but a bit softened and could have used some more grit. I’ve at least read that the musical gives Celie’s relationship with Shug a bigger role (which Spielberg himself has since acknowledged that should have done, as it was central to her character’s journey, but people were not ready for that in 1985). That said, still good in its own right — I probably would have been higher on it if I had not read the book.

 

[Ilov80s]

The Color Purple (1985) tonight. I don’t want to be one of those “well, it was good, but the book was better ’s”, but the book is one of the greatest novels published in the last 50 years, so, yeah, the book is better. The acting is great (Whoopi Goldberg‘s performance much better than I would have thought going in). I think the movie was held back by Spielberg wanting the PG-13 rating and maybe almost too polished directing. The intensity of the book can be overwhelming at times (with Walker’s writing compelling to keep going through); some scenes start to get there, but a bit softened and could have used some more grit. I’ve at least read that the musical gives Celie’s relationship with Shug a bigger role (which Spielberg himself has since acknowledged that should have done, as it was central to her character’s journey, but people were not ready for that in 1985). That said, still good in its own right — I probably would have been higher on it if I had not read the book.

I watched it for the first time last summer. I have not read the book and my expectations were low. I expected Oscar bait and a movie that was maybe overly praised for it's cast and story than what it actually delivered but I found it to be quite good. Not a great movie but Spielberg did an admirable job. Whoopi was fantastic. It got to go out and get a copy of the book. I haven't read it yet but it's in my to read pile. Glad to hear that it's exceptional.

 

[Ilov80s]

A.I.
Watched Spielberg's long awaited return to the sci-fi genre this morning and it was a mash-up of 2001, Blade Runner and Wizard of Oz. A.I. had very good production value but how does one match those 3 films? When trying to place your movie among 3 of the best looking films ever made, you almost guarantee to come up looking a little cheap- even when it's Spielberg behind the camera. Of course Pinocchio is the other obvious reference and with it I get what Kubrick/Spielberg were going for here and it's certainly quite interesting given how prominent the idea of artificial intelligence is now. Where the movie lost me was that initial connection between David and his mom. It felt like this could have been a Megan style horror movie more than Pinocchio with the instant creep level of the kid. It does raise some interesting questions of what responsibility we have for the things we create and while David's love for his mom was pre-programmed, isn't a child's love for their mom also pre-programmed? I feel like Spike Jonze's Her could be a nice companion piece to this.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

A.I. is his career inflection point. Starting with this is where things just seem off/overly polished/sanitary.

I've given it it's due - watched it three times. I don't need to watch it ever again.

 

[Ilov80s]

A.I. is his career inflection point. Starting with this is where things just seem off/overly polished/sanitary.

I've given it it's due - watched it three times. I don't need to watch it ever again.

I thought it was fine but I’m surprised to see some critics/movie nerds around my age or younger who love this and consider it a masterpiece. Maybe if I liked the kid more or something, he just didn’t connect with me at all.

 

[jwb]

DUEL

Watched this last night. I remember reading the short story in school, and enjoyed it a lot. I bought the DVD years ago from one of those bargain bins, but I didn't remember much of it, so I was excited to watch this again.

First things first: excellent first feature film effort, but not a great movie by any stretch. You can see what would make Spielberg a legend - the camerwork is fantastic, and he truly makes the truck scary, especially over the first half of the movie. But it's kind of a tale of two halves... this was a short story, and there's really not enough here for a feature film. I found it really started to drag at around the 2/3 mark.

Spoiler: ending spoiler

The ending is pretty good, when Mann finally fights back, and the truck wreck is Mad Max worthy.

Dennis Weaver does a decent job at portraying the sad-sack-salesman Mann, but I also felt he was a little too emphatic at his frustration with the truck (although in all fairness, you kind of have to have him blurt things out that he would have only thought in the story). It also took him waaaaay too long to realize he was dealing with a psycho.

Although it started to drag overall, Spielberg's visual touches kept me in there until the end - he has a good way of using the camera and direction to really tell a story. Like I said earlier, the truck is pretty scary, which is not easy for a director to do.

Movie itself: 6/10 Direction: 8/10. Overall, it's worth your time, especially if you want to see an early example of his excellent camerawork and storytelling.

 

[jwb]

By the way, is this the way we're supposed to do this - post thoughts/rections as we go? I saw others did so I did. I personally think it works best that way (instead of weeks to watch then post at the end). It keeps the thread moving more.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I think the thing that gives the David Mann character more context is how he's such a henpecked milquetoast. Easy pickings for truck driver guy. Not only is he weak but he has nothing to fight back with - driving the underpowered POS car and all.

If you really wanted to get carried away - like the Kubrick Cult - you could say the movie is an allegory for in retreat and bullied 70's era America. But I wouldn't do that.

 

[Ilov80s]

I think the thing that gives the David Mann character more context is how he's such a henpecked milquetoast. Easy pickings for truck driver guy. Not only is he weak but he has nothing to fight back with - driving the underpowered POS car and all.

If you really wanted to get carried away - like the Kubrick Cult - you could say the movie is an allegory for in retreat and bullied 70's era America. But I wouldn't do that.

Like a pairing with Bronson’s Death Wish?

 

[Ilov80s]

By the way, is this the way we're supposed to do this - post thoughts/rections as we go? I saw others did so I did. I personally think it works best that way (instead of weeks to watch then post at the end). It keeps the thread moving more.

I think so, keeps discussion flowing, the thread top of mind and I won’t remember what I wanted to say 2 weeks from now

 

[KarmaPolice]

By the way, is this the way we're supposed to do this - post thoughts/rections as we go? I saw others did so I did. I personally think it works best that way (instead of weeks to watch then post at the end). It keeps the thread moving more.

I think so too, and I've been enjoying the conversations so far. I am also open to other ways if at the end of this month people really disliked it or felt it was too chaotic.

 

[KarmaPolice]

By the way, is this the way we're supposed to do this - post thoughts/rections as we go? I saw others did so I did. I personally think it works best that way (instead of weeks to watch then post at the end). It keeps the thread moving more.

I think so, keeps discussion flowing, the thread top of mind and I won’t remember what I wanted to say 2 weeks from now

Or what 80s said.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I forgot to mention the Spielberg documentary on HBO Max for those with that service. It's appropriately titled Spielberg.

 

[Eephus]

I forgot to mention the Spielberg documentary on HBO Max for those with that service. It's appropriately titled Spielberg.

I thought that was a German language documentary about sports on a mountain

 

[Eephus]

One of the most impressive things about Duel is when you factor in the budget and shooting schedule for those 70s made-for-TV movies. ABC was churning them out in those days and broadcasting two per week in prime time. Most of them were straightforward teleplays with interiors shot on a soundstage but Duel has a lot of location work and action sequences that were complex to set up and execute.

Spielberg and his production company finished shooting in thirteen days which left them ten days for post-production. He brought the movie in which helped to build his reputation in the industry and led to him getting bigger projects.

 

[Eephus]

I'm taking a week off from movie watching but will join in on the fun on Monday. My current plan is to do the Always/A Guy Named Joe double but may sneak The Post in beforehand.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

One of the most impressive things about Duel is when you factor in the budget and shooting schedule for those 70s made-for-TV movies. ABC was churning them out in those days and broadcasting two per week in prime time. Most of them were straightforward teleplays with interiors shot on a soundstage but Duel has a lot of location work and action sequences that were complex to set up and execute.

Spielberg and his production company finished shooting in thirteen days which left them ten days for post-production. He brought the movie in which helped to build his reputation in the industry and led to him getting bigger projects.

There's an interesting extra on the new 4k disc that shows how they storyboarded everything.
They had a relatively short section of highway to use (I don't remember exactly, something like 3 miles maybe) and he explains how they set up cameras on both sides of the road at different spots and angles and how the camera can be tricked into seeing something completely different even though it's on the same part of road.

And the studio was very, very impressed with what they got considering the tight schedule.

 

[jwb]

One of the most impressive things about Duel is when you factor in the budget and shooting schedule for those 70s made-for-TV movies. ABC was churning them out in those days and broadcasting two per week in prime time. Most of them were straightforward teleplays with interiors shot on a soundstage but Duel has a lot of location work and action sequences that were complex to set up and execute.

Spielberg and his production company finished shooting in thirteen days which left them ten days for post-production. He brought the movie in which helped to build his reputation in the industry and led to him getting bigger projects.

I had forgotten this was a made for TV movie. Agreed, that makes the technical stuff even more impressive.

 

[The Man With No Name]

Just got to this thread. And browsed page 1.
Saw E.T. in the theater when it came out.
I like '1941' from 1979 and many here probably haven't seen it.

 

[The Man With No Name]

Just got to this thread. And browsed page 1.
Saw E.T. in the theater when it came out.
I like '1941' from 1979 and many here probably haven't seen it.

Can't do the Spielberg. Going away for 2 weeks Friday and will have 2 dvd's waiting at library for the weekend I get back. Got one yesterday to watch tonight.

 

[AAABatteries]

Just got to this thread. And browsed page 1.
Saw E.T. in the theater when it came out.
I like '1941' from 1979 and many here probably haven't seen it.

I tried to watch 1941 yesterday but it's not on any streaming without a purchase.

Opted to watch AI - got about halfway done. Very interesting and thought provoking so far.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I like '1941' from 1979 and many here probably haven't seen it.

The first time I saw it (maybe 1980 or 1981), I had dropped a tab of acid. That's the best way to watch this film, IMO. I watched it again several years later (straight) and I still thought it was hilarious.

 

[Ilov80s]

Minority Report:

What first struck me was the thought, "oh yeah early 00s digitally filmed movies look awful". I hate the look of this thing. As someone who caught up on the Mission Impossible movies over the summer , I was struck by just how much this could have been an MI movie. The cold action open, the way he was turned on by his own agency, the face swapping tech, the gadgets, it's pretty much all there. Even the new MI focuses on AI that can basically predict the future. It was fun and like I said, answers the question of what a Spielberg MI movie looks like but Mission Impossible: Minority Report is no Jurassic Park, Raiders, etc.

 

[Keith R]

Can't believe I just now saw this thread. I should be able to complete one from each category with 1+ non-rewatch by the end of the month, though with NFL playoffs and NCAA basketball heating up, it will be a challenge. Nevertheless, I'm in!

 

[Eephus]

The Post (2017)

Spielberg's take on the Pentagon Papers case is a well-intentioned prestige project with a fine cast led by Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks. He's chosen to take a rather stylized approach to the source material instead of a more documentary feel. It's shot beautifully with lots of swooping camera motion and tracking shots through the newsroom. This and very crisp editing bring some urgency to what is essentially just people talking for two hours. One of the most critical scenes takes place during a conference call. After a lot of quick cutting between the participants, Spielberg slows things to a halt and holds on a very slow zoom on Streep's character as she decides the fate of the paper. It's a nice scene and Streep is commanding in her role. I didn't care as much for Hanks' performance. Bob Odenkirk had an important supporting role as the liaison between the paper and Daniel Ellsberg. David Cross was also in the cast but unfortunately they didn't do any Mr. Show bits.

I don't Spielberg can make a bad film but The Post didn't knock my socks off. My main problem was with a script that plodded along without creating the suspense that Spielberg's fast-paced directorial style implied. I think part of the problem is that 2017 audiences required more exposition than contemporary viewers of All the President's Men in 1976 which made the first half of the movie kind of clumsy. The second half seemed rushed by comparison; the climactic Supreme Court case was over almost as soon as it began followed by some corny dialog about the first amendment and an unnecessary coda showing the Watergate break-in.

 

[Mr. Mojo]

Spielberg is one of my all time favorite directors (along with William Wyler and Peter Weir).

But one area that has always been a little suspect is using the same composer for nearly every film, even one as brilliant as John Williams. There are too many "heartwarming" scenes in various films where you can practically hear the music before it happens because you've heard it so many times previously. I'm glad that he has used some other composers more recently for Bridge of Spies (Thomas Newman) and Ready Player One (Alan Silvestri) just to mix it up a little. In comparison, Leone and Morricone also had a great partnership, but it wasn't nearly as many films as Spielberg/Williams.

 

[Eephus]

I wasn't going to nitpick on the greatest Boomer director but a few little things that bothered me about The Post have stuck with me today as much as the many admirable qualities about the movie.

The first was a matching pair of scenes with two young interns from New York Times and Washington Post running down a street and then crossing the street directly in front of their destinations, almost getting hit by a car in the process. The scenes struck me as so silly and obvious without adding anything to the film. I doubt a younger Spielberg would have wasted the time and effort to set up the shots but established genius Spielberg never lacks for resources and is able to indulge himself, maybe not to the detriment of the film but to no apparent advantage either.

There was also a big scene toward the end where Streep's Kathryn Graham character leaves the Supreme Court and walks through a cheering crowd that's entirely made up of women. You'd have to be blind not get the symbolism but I found it to be a gimmicky way to show Graham as a trailblazer for women. Spielberg has never been a master of subtlety and he lays it on heavily in the third act of The Post.

 

[Ilov80s]

I wasn't going to nitpick on the greatest Boomer director but a few little things that bothered me about The Post have stuck with me today as much as the many admirable qualities about the movie.

The first was a matching pair of scenes with two young interns from New York Times and Washington Post running down a street and then crossing the street directly in front of their destinations, almost getting hit by a car in the process. The scenes struck me as so silly and obvious without adding anything to the film. I doubt a younger Spielberg would have wasted the time and effort to set up the shots but established genius Spielberg never lacks for resources and is able to indulge himself, maybe not to the detriment of the film but to no apparent advantage either.

There was also a big scene toward the end where Streep's Kathryn Graham character leaves the Supreme Court and walks through a cheering crowd that's entirely made up of women. You'd have to be blind not get the symbolism but I found it to be a gimmicky way to show Graham as a trailblazer for women. Spielberg has never been a master of subtlety and he lays it on heavily in the third act of The Post.

The movie was fine but it did come out in 2017 and felt very transparent in its motives. Which maybe I’m not even opposed to but just how it went about it turned me off, not sure I can fully articulate why.

 

[Eephus]

I had a little think on my throwaway line of Spielberg being the greatest Boomer director.

Scorsese, Bertolucci and Coppola are a little too old to qualify and even if they're included I think Spielberg's catalog aligns better as the voice of the generation he represents. Kubrick, Woody Allen and Eastwood are older still.

Rob Reiner and Ron Howard fit chronologically but I think they're probably on a lower tier artistically. Oliver Stone is two months older than Spielberg but now represents the Boomer aesthetic of your weird Uncle Ollie who you try to avoid at holiday parties.

David Lynch and Wim Wenders are also the same age as Spielberg but neither has had the popular impact of Spielberg. I may be missing someone else but I'm ready to crown Spielberg as the greatest of his generation.

 

[Eephus]

The movie was fine but it did come out in 2017 and felt very transparent in its motives. Which maybe I’m not even opposed to but just how it went about it turned me off, not sure I can fully articulate why.

Maybe a less cynical 2017 me would have appreciated the movie more.

 

[Ilov80s]

The movie was fine but it did come out in 2017 and felt very transparent in its motives. Which maybe I’m not even opposed to but just how it went about it turned me off, not sure I can fully articulate why.

Maybe a less cynical 2017 me would have appreciated the movie more.

Even then it struck me as very naive and the exact kind of “liberal Hollywood” movie that people roll their eyes at. I don’t think Spielberg and politics is a great mix. He’s usually very obvious and that works great with adventure and family relationships but maybe not so much with contemporary political issues.

 

[Eephus]

Even then it struck me as very naive and the exact kind of “liberal Hollywood” movie that people roll their eyes at. I don’t think Spielberg and politics is a great mix. He’s usually very obvious and that works great with adventure and family relationships but maybe not so much with contemporary political issues.

Spielberg has expressed admiration for Stanley Kramer who specialized in this sort of social commentary film.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Spielberg is one of my all time favorite directors (along with William Wyler and Peter Weir).

But one area that has always been a little suspect is using the same composer for nearly every film, even one as brilliant as John Williams. There are too many "heartwarming" scenes in various films where you can practically hear the music before it happens because you've heard it so many times previously. I'm glad that he has used some other composers more recently for Bridge of Spies (Thomas Newman) and Ready Player One (Alan Silvestri) just to mix it up a little. In comparison, Leone and Morricone also had a great partnership, but it wasn't nearly as many films as Spielberg/Williams.

This is a very good observation. Another thing that makes this pairing as predictable sometimes is that Williams himself writes themes that sound quite similar.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Minority Report:

What first struck me was the thought, "oh yeah early 00s digitally filmed movies look awful". I hate the look of this thing. As someone who caught up on the Mission Impossible movies over the summer , I was struck by just how much this could have been an MI movie. The cold action open, the way he was turned on by his own agency, the face swapping tech, the gadgets, it's pretty much all there. Even the new MI focuses on AI that can basically predict the future. It was fun and like I said, answers the question of what a Spielberg MI movie looks like but Mission Impossible: Minority Report is no Jurassic Park, Raiders, etc.

This one is still a favorite, mostly because I have a very soft spot for sci-fi that is well thought out and grade it higher than maybe a movie deserves at times. Like you said, the look of the movie has lost it's sheen over the years, but I still dig the little details and tech throughout the movie. It's long and uneven but I still with straight face say it's one of the best sci-fi movies of the 00s. Boosted more for me due to rewatchability. Children of Men is better, but a darker watch. Primer is great, but you gotta really be in the mood to watch for detail. To me better than stuff like Avatar, District 9, and Sunshine.

 

[Ilov80s]

Minority Report:

What first struck me was the thought, "oh yeah early 00s digitally filmed movies look awful". I hate the look of this thing. As someone who caught up on the Mission Impossible movies over the summer , I was struck by just how much this could have been an MI movie. The cold action open, the way he was turned on by his own agency, the face swapping tech, the gadgets, it's pretty much all there. Even the new MI focuses on AI that can basically predict the future. It was fun and like I said, answers the question of what a Spielberg MI movie looks like but Mission Impossible: Minority Report is no Jurassic Park, Raiders, etc.

This one is still a favorite, mostly because I have a very soft spot for sci-fi that is well thought out and grade it higher than maybe a movie deserves at times. Like you said, the look of the movie has lost it's sheen over the years, but I still dig the little details and tech throughout the movie. It's long and uneven but I still with straight face say it's one of the best sci-fi movies of the 00s. Boosted more for me due to rewatchability. Children of Men is better, but a darker watch. Primer is great, but you gotta really be in the mood to watch for detail. To me better than stuff like Avatar, District 9, and Sunshine.

It was enjoyable. Super easy watch. I can for sure see the rewatchable part.

 

[Eephus]

Savage (1973)

This curio was Spielberg's final work for television before The Sugarland Express and Jaws launched his film career. Savage is a failed TV pilot starring real-life couple Martin Landau and Barbara Bain after they moved on from Mission: Impossible. They play an intrepid TV journalist named Paul Savage and his equally intrepid and snazzily dressed producer chasing a story involving a nominee for the Supreme Court.

It's a low budget affair consisting of mostly interior shots with an off-screen murder. For his part, Spielberg directs the hell out of it especially during the fast-paced pre-credits sequence and a climax that's shot entirely in silhouette. He's guilty of overdirecting at times with some distracting close-up compositions in depth that add little to the story other than screaming I'm a hotshot film school graduate.

It's not a good movie but it's a fascinating one. Spielberg reportedly didn't like the script and I can't blame him--it bites off way than it can chew in 73 minutes. The villain (Will Geer playing against his Grandpa Walton type) is kind of a Jeffrey Epstein figure who hosts parties pairing the rich and powerful with beautiful women that Geer can later leverage for political and financial gain. He's a sinister presence but isn't given enough screen time. Landau and Bain have great chemistry but their relationship isn't explored in the pilot episode. Pat Harrington (Schneider from One Day at a Time) plays a government agent who functions as a Basil Exposition character.

Savage makes for a interesting double feature with The Post. They're both stories about the media set in the early 70s but they take a very different approach to journalistic ethics.

It's on YouTube in a low def but decent rip that's marred by a persistent network watermark. The opening six minutes are definitely worth watching to see a 26 year old Spielberg showing off for anyone who might be watching.

Savage (1973) - Early Steven Spielberg TV Movie

Early Steven Spielberg TV Movie from 1973 with Martin Landau

www.youtube.com

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I've seen Minority Report a couple times. I remember being underwhelmed both times.

I felt the same about War Of The Worlds. But I'm more inclined to revisit that one.

 

[Eephus]

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

I haven't seen this movie for 40 years. I remember seeing it with the future Mrs. Eephus at the last drive-in in San Francisco out by the Cow Palace--it was double billed with Ghostbusters. I can distinctly remember buying burritos to take to the movies. Funny how some memories stick. I've seen the other Indy movies more recently (except for the new one) but never returned to the temple until now.

A more judgemental 20 something Eephus didn't care for the film finding it silly and racist. Four decades on, I'll stand by my first impressions but most of that is on the writers. Spielberg for his part does solid work. The action setpieces are all inventively set up and fun to watch. The linked article goes into detail about the special effects created for the film. This would all be CGI today but the miniatures, mattes and stuntwork are done really well and Spielberg shoots and cuts the scenes so it's hard to tell they're using miniatures unless you're really looking. After watching the two other Spielberg films, I found it interesting how he played things straight in the non-action scenes unlike the moving camera in The Post and the unnatural compositions of Savage. I guess in Temple of Doom the dialog scenes give the audience a break between the almost constant action so restraint makes sense. It's also in keeping with Indy as a homage to old movie serials.

It's certainly still watchable four decades on even though some of the characterizations were cringeworthy then and haven't aged well. I think it's still the weakest of the original trilogy but January isn't long enough for me to give the Crystal Skull a re-watch for comparative purposes.

Visual Effects for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - The American Society of Cinematographers (en-US)

 

[Ilov80s]

War of the Worlds

Honestly not much to say. I thought Cruise did pretty good playing a bit against type as a kind of disgruntled working class stiff dad. Other than that, the action didn't interest me. The aliens were completely boring. This has absolutely none of the magic of Jurassic Park.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

War of the Worlds

Honestly not much to say. I thought Cruise did pretty good playing a bit against type as a kind of disgruntled working class stiff dad. Other than that, the action didn't interest me. The aliens were completely boring. This has absolutely none of the magic of Jurassic Park.

The ending family reunion is SO contrived that it kills the entire movie. If one were asked to give an example of Spielberg schmaltz, I think it might be Exhibit A.

 

[Ilov80s]

War of the Worlds

Honestly not much to say. I thought Cruise did pretty good playing a bit against type as a kind of disgruntled working class stiff dad. Other than that, the action didn't interest me. The aliens were completely boring. This has absolutely none of the magic of Jurassic Park.

The ending family reunion is SO contrived that it kills the entire movie. If one were asked to give an example of Spielberg schmaltz, I think it might be Exhibit A.

I will be honest, I was so bored by the time we got to the ending that I barely even noticed the family reunion.

 

[FarFromHome]

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

I haven't seen this movie for 40 years. I remember seeing it with the future Mrs. Eephus at the last drive-in in San Francisco out by the Cow Palace--it was double billed with Ghostbusters. I can distinctly remember buying burritos to take to the movies. Funny how some memories stick. I've seen the other Indy movies more recently (except for the new one) but never returned to the temple until now.

A more judgemental 20 something Eephus didn't care for the film finding it silly and racist. Four decades on, I'll stand by my first impressions but most of that is on the writers. Spielberg for his part does solid work. The action setpieces are all inventively set up and fun to watch. The linked article goes into detail about the special effects created for the film. This would all be CGI today but the miniatures, mattes and stuntwork are done really well and Spielberg shoots and cuts the scenes so it's hard to tell they're using miniatures unless you're really looking. After watching the two other Spielberg films, I found it interesting how he played things straight in the non-action scenes unlike the moving camera in The Post and the unnatural compositions of Savage. I guess in Temple of Doom the dialog scenes give the audience a break between the almost constant action so restraint makes sense. It's also in keeping with Indy as a homage to old movie serials.

It's certainly still watchable four decades on even though some of the characterizations were cringeworthy then and haven't aged well. I think it's still the weakest of the original trilogy but January isn't long enough for me to give the Crystal Skull a re-watch for comparative purposes.

Visual Effects for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - The American Society of Cinematographers (en-US)

First movie I went to that I can remember scaring the crap out of me as a kid. Hated that main villain guy. He haunted my dreams. Ha ha

 

[Eephus]

First movie I went to that I can remember scaring the crap out of me as a kid. Hated that main villain guy. He haunted my dreams. Ha ha

It's pretty dark and intense for a PG movie. Spielberg throws in lots of gratuitous shocks which would have played well in a crowded theater.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

First movie I went to that I can remember scaring the crap out of me as a kid. Hated that main villain guy. He haunted my dreams. Ha ha

It's pretty dark and intense for a PG movie. Spielberg throws in lots of gratuitous shocks which would have played well in a crowded theater.

The impetus for the PG-13 rating.

I just think it's a flat out awful movie. Much worse than Crystal Skull.

 

[Eephus]

I just think it's a flat out awful movie. Much worse than Crystal Skull.

Flat out awful implies that Temple of Doom is unwatchable but I don't think it's that. It's dumb all over from the ditzy love interest to a set of lame villains and a boring macguffin but at least it's mostly fun and dumb. The action setpieces all work except for the one where Indy and Short Round are trapped in the room with the spikes which takes forever to play out and is very similar to a superior scene from Star Wars.

Spielberg's craft rescues the movie somewhat. He does a great job of maintaining suspense and visual logic in some complicated action scenes. That said, I don't think Spielberg is able to elevate the material that much--a lot of competent action directors could have made a movie on the same level as Temple of Doom given the resources and Harrison Ford to work with.

To try to prove or disprove my point, I'm going to try to watch Indy knockoff King Solomon's Mines before the end of the month.

 

[Ilov80s]

I just think it's a flat out awful movie. Much worse than Crystal Skull.

Flat out awful implies that Temple of Doom is unwatchable but I don't think it's that. It's dumb all over from the ditzy love interest to a set of lame villains and a boring macguffin but at least it's mostly fun and dumb. The action setpieces all work except for the one where Indy and Short Round are trapped in the room with the spikes which takes forever to play out and is very similar to a superior scene from Star Wars.

Spielberg's craft rescues the movie somewhat. He does a great job of maintaining suspense and visual logic in some complicated action scenes. That said, I don't think Spielberg is able to elevate the material that much--a lot of competent action directors could have made a movie on the same level as Temple of Doom given the resources and Harrison Ford to work with.

To try to prove or disprove my point, I'm going to try to watch Indy knockoff King Solomon's Mines before the end of the month.

I watched Brendan Fraiser's The Mummy for this. IMO, it's clearly getting a lot of inspiration from Indy. I thought I had seen this movie as a kid but I now realize I confused it with Stargate. Let's just say The Mummy made me appreciate the Indy movies much more.

 

[Eephus]

I watched Brendan Fraiser's The Mummy for this. IMO, it's clearly getting a lot of inspiration from Indy. I thought I had seen this movie as a kid but I now realize I confused it with Stargate. Let's just say The Mummy made me appreciate the Indy movies much more.

I watched it last year. It's definitely more influenced by Indy than by the previous tellings of the mummy story.

In retrospect, it's probably good that the Indiana Jones took two decades off because it allowed the series to avoid the dodgy CGI that dates so many movies from around the turn of the century.

 

[Ilov80s]

For anyone interested, one of the movies that Spielberg often cites as an early favorite of his, Captains Courageous is playing on TCM Wednesday. I haven't seen it since I was a kid but I remember really like it. A spoiled brat falls overboard and gets taken in on a fishing boat where he's forced to earn his keep. Spencer Tracy is excellent in it.