The Trouble City Forums
INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Printable Version

+- The Trouble City Forums (http://citizens.trouble.city)
+-- Forum: Main Street (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Focused Film Discussion (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=94)
+--- Thread: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion (/showthread.php?tid=155331)



- boone daniels - 09-07-2017

Amistad is not good.




- malmordo - 09-07-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mola Ram View Post
 

1941


I saw this again recently and not only did I enjoy it, I would rank it above all of Spielberg's movies post-PRIVATE RYAN with the possible exception of LINCOLN.




- Nooj - 09-07-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

Part of me wants to commit nerd sacrilege and say that Close Encounters is Worst Spielberg, because "Richard Dreyfuss goes crazy because aliens and drives to Wyoming to see a Pink Floyd concert" does not a satisfying story make, but there's just no way I can honestly say it's worse than KotCS, which is basically that minus the legitimately harrowing build-up and the "spectacle" part of the empty spectacle climax.


FASCINATING




- MichaelM - 09-07-2017

*waits for the inevitable small but passionate rush to defend the aggressively shitty HOOK*




- malmordo - 09-07-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

*waits for the inevitable small but passionate rush to defend the aggressively shitty HOOK*


Nah, it's just shit.



Like THE TERMINAL.




- boone daniels - 09-07-2017

Hook is not only a shitty movie, it's a shitty movie that reinforces the worst aspects of Boomer culture.



Peter would be all about MAGA, is what I'm saying.




- mola ram - 09-07-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

Amistad is not good.


It's probably his weakest historical drama, but it's still a pretty solid film. For most other directors it would be one of their best films.



Djimon Hounsou gives an electrifying performance (this dude needs to be in more movies).




- Belloq87 - 09-07-2017

Lots of insanity going on in this thread!  Discussion of "Worst Spielberg" needs to have the disclaimer that even his "worst" movies (and I think he's only made one objectively BAD movie - CRYSTAL SKULL) tend to be filled with incredible moments.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Turingmachine75 View Post

My understanding is that the RV cliff scene was the only thing Speilberg directed on TLW.

Could be wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malmordo View Post
 

That's what I've heard, too.



Koepp is credited as second-unit director but was basically running the show.


An urban legend.  There exist plenty of behind-the-scenes photographs and video clips of him during the shooting of all the major setpieces.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

No. AMISTAD is the worst.



It's performatively woke before we called things performatively woke.


I don't really know what any of that means, but I'll concede that it's lower-tier Spielberg for sure.  Even so, the opening revolt and pretty much any scenes involving Hopkins' John Quincy Adams (a historical figure I have a lot of fondness for... since we're related!) are very solid.  A nice, low-key Williams score, too.



Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

*waits for the inevitable small but passionate rush to defend the aggressively shitty HOOK*


I like it!  Are my feelings clouded by nostalgia?  Probably!



Love the production design, love the score (my favorite John Williams score), and love Hoffman and Hoskins.  The Lost Boys are the biggest misstep (a not inconsiderable one, either); most of their scenes are pretty terrible.  Had Spielberg cast a bunch of U.K. actors, I think those scenes would play better.




- mola ram - 09-07-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

*waits for the inevitable small but passionate rush to defend the aggressively shitty HOOK*


I said Hook is a bad movie while on Reddit, and I got attacked by swarms of people everywhere. An entire generation of 90's kids grew up on that film. It's kind of funny,


Quote:

Originally Posted by Malmordo View Post
 

Nah, it's just shit.



Like THE TERMINAL.


The Terminal is pretty minor Spielberg, but it's super enjoyable. It's a perfectly good feel movie. The airport set is also very impressive.




- boone daniels - 09-07-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mola Ram View Post
 

It's probably his weakest historical drama, but it's still a pretty solid film. For most other directors it would be one of their best films.



Djimon Hounsou gives an electrifying performance (this dude needs to be in more movies).



You're right. He does.



A shame the narrative flips a third of the way through to be about the white guys, though. 

My feeling about Amistad is also largely bound up in that while the middle passage sequence is harrowing, it sort of feels like he's pulling his punches a little in a way that he doesn't with RYAN or SCHINDLER. Now, part of that could be - and probably is - the fact that even since the movie came out, there has been a lot of history written and re-evaluation/re-emergence of just how brutal and violent slavery was. But there were historians saying that and emphaszizing that. And I feel like Spielberg almost gets there. Almost. But not quite.




- Dent6084 - 09-07-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malmordo View Post
 

I saw this again recently and not only did I enjoy it, I would rank it above all of Spielberg's movies post-PRIVATE RYAN with the possible exception of LINCOLN.


I don't know if I'd go that far, but I do think it's underrated. It's such a weird experience to see Spielberg so completely punch-drunk gonzo behind the camera - the only other time he approaches that level of batshit is... I dunno, the second half of Temple of Doom, maybe?




- mondguy - 09-07-2017

AI view 'Lost World' and 'Amistad' as an accidental attempt to recapture Spielberg's 1993 vibe. Neither gets there.


- boone daniels - 09-07-2017

This could probably go in a separate thread, but the reason I'm so excited for THE POST is that Spielberg seems to really come alive over the last 10 years or so when he's working on these period pictures he's done over the last decade, particularly with Hanks. I've spoken before about how surprised I was by BRIDGE OF SPIES, and CATCH ME IF YOU CAN is among his very best. Add to that MUNICH and LINCOLN and you've got a hell of a run with those period pictures.



I need to see WAR HORSE.




- Belloq87 - 09-07-2017

1941 is a total failure as a comedy, but the scale of the mayhem, the incredible energy behind the camera, and the first-rate cast (who ever thought we'd have Christopher Lee, Toshiro Mifune, and Slim Pickens sharing scenes?!) make it a consistently enjoyable watch.  No question it's a misfire, but an entertaining one.




- Belloq87 - 09-07-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

I need to see WAR HORSE.


You do.  I'm a big WAR HORSE advocate.  It's Spielberg's love letter to John Ford and David Lean.




- mola ram - 09-07-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malmordo View Post
 

I saw this again recently and not only did I enjoy it, I would rank it above all of Spielberg's movies post-PRIVATE RYAN with the possible exception of LINCOLN.


I.... don't even know what to say. That's just insanity.




- mola ram - 09-07-2017

Anyway, going back to Indiana Jones 5, why is Spielberg doing this movie? Does he really want to?




- Dent6084 - 09-07-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 

1941 is a total failure as a comedy, but the scale of the mayhem, the incredible energy behind the camera, and the first-rate cast (who ever thought we'd have Christopher Lee, Toshiro Mifune, and Slim Pickens sharing scenes?!) make it a consistently enjoyable watch.  No question it's a misfire, but an entertaining one.


The Swing Swing Swing dance hall sequence, the dogfight over Hollywood (the wide shot of the anti-aircraft fire over Los Angeles is genuinely breathtaking), the Ferris wheel rolling down the pier are all sequences that would be all-timers for the vast majority of other directors. Hell, the former two are all-timers for Spielberg himself.



And speaking of a first-rate cast, where else are you going to see John Belushi and Warren Oates in the same scene?




- malmordo - 09-07-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dent6084 View Post
 

The Swing Swing Swing dance hall sequence, the dogfight over Hollywood (the wide shot of the anti-aircraft fire over Los Angeles is genuinely breathtaking), the Ferris wheel rolling down the pier are all sequences that would be all-timers for the vast majority of other directors. Hell, the former two are all-timers for Spielberg himself.



And speaking of a first-rate cast, where else are you going to see John Belushi and Warren Oates in the same scene?


Best of all, no CGI or other digital tinkering, which I think often ruins the look of Spielberg's later works (a few people already pointed out the visual phoniness of CRYSTAL SKULL).



1941 actually looks like a movie.




- ravi - 09-07-2017

I'd still take Crystal Skull over 1941 anyday. Yeah, 1941 is full of mayhem, but for me it just grows tiresome with the characters running around screaming and shit exploding. It's easily the worst Spielberg film for me.



I also don't care for Hook, the "Kick the Can" segment from The Twilight Zone Movie, Always (which is just so damn bland) and The Terminal. The Lost World is very mediocre, but it has that trailer over the cliff sequence.




- MichaelM - 09-07-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mola Ram View Post

I said Hook is a bad movie while on Reddit, and I got attacked by swarms of people everywhere. An entire generation of 90's kids grew up on that film. It's kind of funny,


HOOK is the GOONIES of the 90s. Two terrible movies protected by the cloudy lens of nostalgia.




- fatherdude - 09-07-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 

Lots of insanity going on in this thread!  Discussion of "Worst Spielberg" needs to have the disclaimer that even his "worst" movies (and I think he's only made one objectively BAD movie - CRYSTAL SKULL) tend to be filled with incredible moments.



It's the truth.  Even CRYSTAL SKULL has the image of Indy silhouetted in front of the mushroom cloud, but the idea of the most iconic image from any Indy movie being 60% CGI is a disgrace before God, Shiva, and those murderously cute interdimensional beings.  I mean, it's Indiana Jones fer crying out loud!




- fatherdude - 09-07-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mola Ram View Post
 

Anyway, going back to Indiana Jones 5, why is Spielberg doing this movie? Does he really want to?



That's what we're pinning all of our hopes on.




- mola ram - 09-07-2017

I still maintain Crystal Skull is an enjoyable film with a couple of cringeworthy moments. I guarantee if you removed the Tarzan sequence (actually most of the dumb CGI moments during the jungle chase) people's opinion of the film would approve drastically.




- fatherdude - 09-07-2017

1941 and HOOK are deservedly popular choices for Worst Spielberg, but I find certain kinds of bad movies more offensive than others.  I have a soft spot for 1941 and HOOK because they fail while going for broke.  They take big swings.  With CRYSTAL SKULL Spielberg is deliberately trying to hit a single.  No batter, whether veteran or amateur, should step up to the plate with that attitude.  Look, I don't play baseball.



Quote:


Originally Posted by Mola Ram View Post


I guarantee if you removed the Tarzan sequence (actually most of the dumb CGI moments during the jungle chase) people's opinion of the film would approve drastically.



I wish that were true.  But if the worst elements of the movie were monkeys, prairie dogs, Shia LaBeouf and refrigerators (which are kind of tailor made for internet bellyaching), we'd have a much better movie on our hands.  The fact is, the problems are far more fundamental.  There is no sense of momentum, stakes, suspense, or really any other hallmark of good storytelling.  If you were to tell me ten years ago that Spielberg was going to make an Indiana Jones movies without one thrilling escape sequence, I'd have called you a liar.  But alas.




- carnotaur3 - 09-07-2017

AI enjoyed War Horse but I seem to always forget it's in his filmography, in spite of the fact William's theme bounces in my head from time to time.


- mola ram - 09-07-2017

War Horse is Spielberg in full schmaltzy glory. I mostly love it (though Tintin was the superior Spielberg film of that year).




- fatherdude - 09-07-2017

I remember reading that Spielberg shot CRYSTAL SKULL exclusively in the United States because he didn't want to be far from his family, yet he filmed exclusively abroad for WAR HORSE, which was his follow-up film.  Interesting that the stay at home policy was only observed for the movie everyone speculates he had no enthusiasm for.




- carnotaur3 - 09-07-2017

AIt's ridiculous. Indy needs locations, it's built on them.


- MichaelM - 09-07-2017

WAR HORSE is pretty great but I'm guilty of forgetting about it, too. Opening act is a bit slow but the rest of the film is delicious schmaltz.




- Stale Elvis - 09-07-2017

A[quote name="MichaelM" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1550#post_4358253"]
HOOK is the GOONIES of the 90s. Two terrible movies protected by the cloudy lens of nostalgia.
[/quote]

You take that back! Hook is truly truly awful, but how anyone can fail to enjoy The Goonies is beyond me. It's the younger, little more naive brother of Temple of Doom.

I've not seen every Spielberg movie, but of those I have, by far the worst was Warhorse. Just utter, utter shit.

And I've never understood the hate for The Lost World - apart from the embarrassing gymnastic stunt which was telegraphed 20 minutes in, it's a great fun rollercoaster.


- MichaelM - 09-07-2017

GOONIES is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.




- hammerhead - 09-07-2017

Hey, hey, hey, let's save some hate for Always.




- fatherdude - 09-07-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

HOOK is the GOONIES of the 90s. Two terrible movies protected by the cloudy lens of nostalgia.

You take that back! Hook is truly truly awful, but how anyone can fail to enjoy The Goonies is beyond me. It's the younger, little more naive brother of Temple of Doom.


I thought that was YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES?  There's even a ritualistic sacrifice sequence that the heroes clandestinely witness from a ledge.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
 

Hey, hey, hey, let's save some hate for Always.



It's not my kind of movie, but it's got John Goodman and that really impressive shot where Spielberg times his character's arrival with a plane flying overhead.




- Stale Elvis - 09-07-2017

A[quote name="MichaelM" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1550#post_4358321"]GOONIES is full of excitement, comic book adventure, memorable heroes and villains, genuine heart, the innocence of young romance and a fun soundtrack.[/quote]

FTFY.