cbspt005@abnjh.UUCP (Eric Carter) (05/15/84)
<burp!>
The May 21 issue of "TIME" gives a rave review of Indiana Jones...
"...promises to be this summer's incendiary hit."
"Here's to good movies and good theaters"
Eric Carter
AT&T-IS
S.Plainfield,NJ
{allegra,akgua,ihnp4,mhuxl,whuxle,spuxll}!abnjh!cbspt005terryl@tekchips.UUCP (Terry Laskodi) (05/31/84)
Well, I went to see Indiana Jones Wednesday, nad there is good news
to report and there is bad news to report.
First, the good news. If you like an action-adventure film that is
virtually non-stop action-adventure (I do), then this is the movie for
you. If you can suspend your belief for a moment(and after all, this movie
and Raiders are supposed to be tongue-in-cheek adventure-type movies),
you'll love all of the action. The plot is a little simpler than Raiders,
but it holds up reasonably well.
Now the bad news. This movie is violent. EXTREMELY VIOLENT. Steven
Spielburg is quoted as saying "If I had a 10-year old child, I wouldn't
let him see this movie". I have to agree completely. I would say about
half of the movie is violent, with a couple of really graphic scenes of
violence.
But that's not all of the bad news. Along with the violence, there are
quite a few scenes that are in the movie strictly for shock value. These
scenes could have been played a little milder without any loss or conti-
nuity to the plot.
A minor gripe: some of the special effects were really good, others
really sucked. The bad ones didn't even look remotely like what would
happen in real life.
All in all, I would have to say that because of all the violence and
scenes strictly for shock value, I did not like Indiana Jones nearly as
much as Raiders. In fact, I was a little dissappointed in it. If they
could have toned down the violence, it would have been a much more
enjoyable film. I'd give it a 6 out of 10 rating, for the violence, and
a 9 out of 10 for all of the action-adventure scenes in it.judy@ism780.UUCP (06/23/84)
#R:aecom:-71400:ism780:18000011:000:1352 ism780!judy Jun 19 14:36:00 1984 I agree. When everyone here came back from Indiana Jones I asked if I would hate it as much as I hated Raiders. I was told more. But being an incredibly good sport, I went. And I laughed loudly through the entire thing. Unlike Raiders, Spielberg and Lucas admitted they were doing a spoof on adventure films and so it was delightfully handled (I've never liked spoof as realism). And of course, I had all the squirly girly reaction and was unable to keep my eyes open through most of the feast (peaked often enough to be grossed out). But then, I think I also appreciated perfuming the elephant in a way you men might not. Also, the opening number set the film up beautifully (no one mentioned it, but then I am a HUGE Busby Berkeley fan) "Anything Goes". Also, they avoided the obvious problem with the female by having Jones tell her "Look, you're just along for the ride." It was entertaining. It had had couple of weaknesses. But compared with some of the drivel coming from Hollywood, I liked it. It does NOT, however, deserve an Academy Award Nomination. My biggest complaint has nothing to do with the movie. I think Stephen needs a woman (as lover) in his life. He has real problems with women in his movies. He enjoys abusing them a little too much. And there is never any understanding or compassion for them that I can see.