jwr@ccieng5.UUCP ( James Walter Reid) (05/29/84)
ATTENTION: All critics of "Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom"; I think that you're all off your rockers! You can sit back and play closet critics, but the fact remains that ANYONE can say the same things that you are. Obviously, "Temple of Doom" has it's holes. It's packed with them, for that matter. Do you honestly think Speilberg doesn't realize this ? Do you think that he feels he has created a movie masterpeice ? No, he has created one of the most FUN movies I have ever seen, and there are a few million other people that might second this. I see a movie mainly for the meaning that it conveys. I enjoy a well thought out study with delicate character development. But that does not mean I cannot see a film simply for the fun of it. That's exactly what "Temple of Doom" was made for. If you really expected a deep plot with peircing character development, you were only fooling yourself. Go see "Ghandi" again, I did. I feel that "Temple of Doom" is not only a fine movie, but it is also another great success for Mr. Speilberg. He has succeeded, once again, in doing exactly what he set out to do, and has strengthened his claim as the greatest film maker today. If you enough sense to realize what vein a movie was made in, then maybe you too can enjoy other than "mentally stimulating" movies. One point of agreement though, the film adopted a slightly morbid tone halfway through. That was surprising, but did not come close to spoiling the overall effect. I give it a 9.5/10. Verbosely yours... JR
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (05/30/84)
> Obviously, "Temple of Doom" has it's holes. It's packed with > them, for that matter. Do you honestly think Speilberg doesn't > realize this ? Do you think that he feels he has created > a movie masterpeice ? No, he has created one of the most > FUN movies I have ever seen, and there are a few million > other people that might second this. > I see a movie mainly for the meaning that it conveys. I enjoy > a well thought out study with delicate character development. > But that does not mean I cannot see a film simply for the fun of it. > That's exactly what "Temple of Doom" was made for. > If you really expected a deep plot with peircing character > development, you were only fooling yourself. Go see "Ghandi" > again, I did. I feel that "Temple of Doom" is not only a fine > movie, but it is also another great success for Mr. Speilberg. > He has succeeded, once again, in doing exactly what he set out to > do, and has strengthened his claim as the greatest film maker today. Well, I wasn't expecting a "deep plot" and "piercing character development", but I was expecting something a bit more than a 2 hour rollercoaster ride. For me, it was precisely because there wasn't *any* plot or character development to speak of that I *didn't* find it to be all that much fun. "Raiders" didn't have a deep plot or piercing character development either, but at least the plot and characters were enjoyable. And as for the holes in the story - well, after a while my disbelief got very tired of being suspended. This was a movie aimed straight at the glands - the adrenal glands. People aren't comparing it unfavorably to "Gandhi", they're comparing it unfavorably to "Raiders of the Lost Ark". It wasn't intended to compete with the former, but if it wasn't intended to stand up well against the latter, I don't know what it *was* intended to stand up well against. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
grw@fortune.UUCP (Glenn Wichman) (05/31/84)
[C-3P0! Reach in and pull the lever with the bugs on it!] Well, I object. 1. Your article was not so much a PRO review of IJ&TD, but an CON review of those who panned IJ&TD 2. I think it unkind and uncalled for to call someone "off his rocker" because s/he didn't enjoy this picture. I know it was supposed to be a fun movie. I didn't have fun. The purpose of my review was to let others with similar tastes to mine know that they ought not waste their money. It's fine that you enjoyed it. I don't think that I am in ANY way mentally deficient for having not enjoyed it. By the way, just so you know, I like FUN movies, such as: Muppet Movie Xanadu Romancing the Stone etc. I did not feel insulted by these movies. I did by IJ&TD. (uncalled for sarcastic remark coming -- WARNING WARNING) Maybe if I got off on child abuse, mutilation, sexism, etc. I would have had fun at this movie (uncalled for sarcastic remark complete) -Glenn
moriarty@uw-june (Jeff Meyer) (06/01/84)
>You can sit back and play closet critics, but the >fact remains that ANYONE can say the same things that you are. Quite correct. And anyone can say the same things that you are. Obviously, it all comes down to value judgements of movies. So don't get upset because the rest of us didn't like it... just give your review. A eccentric America is a Safe America... Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer UUCP: {ihnp4,cornell,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!moriarty ARPANET: moriarty@washington
terryl@tekchips.UUCP (Terry Laskodi) (06/02/84)
Well, just to add my two cents worth to this discussion, I would like to refute one point someone made comparing violence between the two Indiana Jones movies. The point made was that the violent content of the two movies was roughly the same. Maybe so, but the point I would like to make is that the violent content of Raiders was mostly fantasy(when was the last time you saw someone's face melt away after openning a magic box?), whereas the violent content in Temple of Doom was more realistic (like someone else already pointed out in a previous article child abuse, etc.). For me at least, it was all of the explicit and realistic violence that turned me off to the movie. Terry Laskodi of Tektronix