WHY does this movie get such a bad wrap?
-
weejockxxx — 9 years ago(April 19, 2016 06:31 AM)
The reason this film gets bad press can be summed up in two words: Kate Capshaw. She's a terrible actress. Her character spends ninety percent of the film screaming and one hundred percent over acting. Whatever possessed Spielberg to cast her? Oh yes, that's why. You can't imagine Meryl Streep, Jennifer Lawrence or even Karen Black or Alison Doody producing such a rubbish performance. I like the movie but it's ruined by her.
Oh gravity, thou art a heartless bitch! -
The_Ultimate_Hippo — 9 years ago(April 19, 2016 04:47 PM)
LOL, Alison Doody read her lines off a teleprompter, she gave the most bland, excruciatingly painful performance I have ever watched. Capshaw had her fair share of faults, she screamed almost as much as Kim Basinger in Batman, but she was nowhere near the level of failure of Alison Doody. Plus you cannot defend such painful dialogue like "giddy as a schoolboy" or "oh yeah we're going to the library, I have to arrange for it to stay open longer" (STFU) The only reason she was even in the movie to begin with is because she had like 2 lines in A View to a Kill and Spielberg was on a mission to cast every actor who had ever been in a James Bond film.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine -
weejockxxx — 9 years ago(April 20, 2016 02:20 AM)
You have got to be joking? I counted the screen time Capshaw was screaming, it was incredible., Either way it doesn't detract from the fact that Capshaw was a lousy actress.
Oh gravity, thou art a heartless bitch! -
thylacine80 — 9 years ago(April 20, 2016 05:17 AM)
I counted the screen time Capshaw was screaming, it was incredible
Yepof course it was ! She is a comic relief playing a night club singer totally out of place in the adventure. That's exactly the point of her character, and it was far more interesting than Marion or Elsa.
Either way it doesn't detract from the fact that Capshaw was a lousy actress.
The fact that you didn't like the character of Willie doesn't make Capshaw a bad actress.
You should read my review on that character : http://www.imdb.com/board/10087469/board/post/tt0087469
You're gonna LOOOOVE it. -
The_Ultimate_Hippo — 9 years ago(April 20, 2016 04:23 PM)
That's fine if you don't like Capshaw, I had my complaints about her, she was miles better than Alison Doody. I seriously think my top 5 worst performances of all time come out of Last Crusade:
- River Phoenix
- Alison Doody
- Julian Glover
- Sean Connery
- Denholm Elliot
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine
-
thylacine80 — 9 years ago(April 20, 2016 01:07 AM)
The reason this film gets bad press
It doesn't get a bad press anymore. More and more people like TOD and realise it's a far more interesting movie than the three others.
It has a real cult following and is not disliked anymore.
can be summed up in two words: Kate Capshaw. She's a terrible actress. Her character spends ninety percent of the film screaming and one hundred percent over acting.
If you're complaining about the character and her screalms, I don't see why you're concluding that Kate Capeshaw is a terrible actress.
She plays the part as written, and that's a proof that she is indeed a great actress.
Plus, her character was far more difficult to portray than Marion or Elsa. She had to be sexy, to show that she was unconfortable and she had to be funny too.
Punching guys like Marion or delivering wooden lines like Elsa is not "being a good actress".
Whatever possessed Spielberg to cast her? Oh yes, that's why.
False.
She was cast because of her talent and comedic skills, and Spielberg didn't even know her.
They got married after the movie. -
buddyboy28 — 9 years ago(April 20, 2016 11:52 AM)
More and more people like TOD and realise it's a far more interesting movie than the three others
You can like the movie all you want but stick to facts.
Raiders is regarded by most as THE Indiana Jones movie.
Crystal Skull gets tons of flack, Last Crusade while very popular gets some, Temple Of Doom has it's haters but Raiders gets little criticism because it's mostly loved. The true masterpiece out of all four. -
-
Trax-3 — 9 years ago(April 23, 2016 08:48 PM)
Everybody agrees ROTLA is the best Indy movie and is considered as a masterpiece.
Everybody? I've never liked it all that much and rewatching it recently after 15-20 years didn't change my opinion. Temple of Doom felt far more exiting and much funnier
(Willie is hilarious) after Raiders, and the story, while still problematic, feels far more "full" and less hollow and full of holes. It's a wild ride and even pulpier than Raiders. -
thylacine80 — 9 years ago(April 25, 2016 01:38 AM)
Everybody? I've never liked it all that much
Of course when I say "everybody", I mean "most people", because for some reasons many people just worship that movie.
I, for one, never was that much into it. Like I said in my opening post, it's great but it's just not as funny, fast and entertaining as TOD.
And I even feel like the meaning, message and poetry in TOD was stronger. -
muybueno16 — 9 years ago(April 27, 2016 10:28 PM)
Temple of Doom works as a horror adventure film but not so much as a pure Indiana Jones film plus aside from some of the annoying characters, the pacing drags in-between adrenaline-fueled segments and it only really stands out with the various one-liners and gorgeous cinematography near the end.
-
The_Ultimate_Hippo — 9 years ago(April 28, 2016 01:13 PM)
I love both Raiders and Temple but I gotta be honest Raiders is the better movie. I might even make an argument for Temple being more entertaining but overall Raiders beats it.
Crusade however is one big pile of sh!t.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine -
The_Ultimate_Hippo — 9 years ago(April 29, 2016 04:03 PM)
There is not a movie on the face of the Earth that I hate more than
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
I feel I get dumber every time I watch it.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine -
The_Ultimate_Hippo — 9 years ago(April 29, 2016 06:46 PM)
I dislike Phantom Menace, I HATE Last Crusade. To me Marcus and Henry bumbling around like idiots was worse than anything Jar Jar Binks ever did, in fact I assumed that Lucas based Jar Jar Binks off of Marcus and Henry in Last Crusade.
"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine -
thylacine80 — 9 years ago(April 29, 2016 04:08 AM)
Temple of Doom works as a horror adventure film but not so much as a pure Indiana Jones film
Really ?
What is exactly a pure Indiana Jones film ? And who decides what it is ?
Just because Raiders was a "from the university to the desert with the nazis", some people expect every Indiana Jones movie to be the same, and get confused with any other kind of story. -
degree7 — 9 years ago(May 06, 2016 10:53 AM)
Simply put, it is inferior to Raiders in a few departments. It's certainly not a bad movie, but it's not a great one either.
I do appreciate that it's a prequel, although it sort of ruins the character a bit with Indy encountering these supernatural villains before the events of Raiders. The whole point of the first film was that Indy didn't really believe in the "power of God" or magic scrolls or any of that. So as a companion to the first film, it doesn't make much sense. However, the opening in Shanghai with Jones escaping from the mob boss is classic, thrilling stuff.
The general issues with the film are Kate Capshaw's character (an annoying, dumb screaming blonde with a bad 80s perm), Short Round the annoying sidekick, and the movie being too kid oriented with saving the child slaves (which seems to clash with the darker moments). The whole plot with the stones seems rather uninteresting and lacks the mystique of the Ark from the first. Also, the scene with the pilots jumping out the plane instead of just killing Indy in his sleep, and the raft landing on the side of the mountain was rather unconvincing. It's full of moments like that.
However, I must give Temple of Doom bonus points for introducing new villains and not just rehashing the Nazis like Last Crusade did. And the climax on the bridge is thrilling. For what it's worth, I think it's as good as the third one.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here. -
king_cooler — 9 years ago(June 30, 2016 12:50 PM)
it sort of ruins the character a bit
It sure does.
He's supposed to be more of a rogue and yet he tries to save the life of a guy who tried to kill him from the crusher.
This is the guy who in Raiders shoots the swordsman before he's even attacked, and lets the big guy get chopped up by the propellers.
And Raiders Indy would never have had a kid for a sidekick. -
Arvin-G-Borkar — 9 years ago(December 24, 2016 05:01 PM)
I watch that part over and over and I do not think he actually tries to save the guy. It is a bit neutral. He holds onto the rope to get away from the crusher. If you look at it, the rope is the only way to get away from it. That and he likes to swing from ropes in movies (signature Indiana). The crusher is pretty high up from the ground and so he could not just jump down, nor stay on the ledge for too long. That rope was his only way of stabilizing himself and transporting himself to the next safest place. It just so happened that that guard was holding onto that same rope and he makes a gesture like "Oh wait, I was possessed too. I did not mean that. HELP ME!"
THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR. COLLEGE FOOTBALL IS HERE!!!