44 replies to this topic

[NBooth]

Overstreet, on 07 September 2011 - 02:26 PM, said:

(I added the link. Feel free to argue with him.)

I might post a comment over there in a bit, but I doubt I could add anything. I think the lad's invincibly ignorant. Comment posted.

Edited by NBooth, 07 September 2011 - 02:48 PM.

[Greg P]

ET
Schindler's
Jaws

In that order. A.I. would be a runner-up. I also disliked Saving Private Ryan when I saw it in the theater almost 15 years ago (is that right?), and found it even more unpleasant a few years later on DVD,.. only to watch it again last year, on a whim, and find myself completely captivated with it. Love it now.

[morgan1098]

To whoever voted for Temple of Doom, thank you. I thought about voting for that one just to be snarky. I still believe it almost matches Raiders in its gloriousness. It's a fantastic b-movie.

[Ryan H.]

morgan1098, on 07 September 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:

To whoever voted for Temple of Doom, thank you. I thought about voting for that one just to be snarky. I still believe it almost matches Raiders in its gloriousness. It's a fantastic b-movie.

It's the second-best Indiana Jones flick. But I do think there's a significant gulf between TEMPLE's messy delights and the near-perfection of RAIDERS.

[Jason Panella]

morgan1098, on 07 September 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:

To whoever voted for Temple of Doom, thank you. I thought about voting for that one just to be snarky. I still believe it almost matches Raiders in its gloriousness. It's a fantastic b-movie.

Plus, Short Round.

Edited by Jason Panella, 07 September 2011 - 03:57 PM.

[J.A.A. Purves]

My top ten ...

1 - Amistad (1997)
2 - Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
3 - Munich (2005)
4 - Saving Private Ryan (1998)
5 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
6 - Minority Report (2002)
7 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
8 - 1941 (1979)
9 - Jaws (1975)
10 - Catch Me If You Can (2002)

Raiders of the Lost Ark is always the first loved film I think of when I think of Spielberg, but I keep forgetting he also directed Amistad. So my vote has to go for Amistad, as emotionally manipulative as a film as it might be - it's a real story about real events and characters who dealt with a problem in our country's history that is still hard to imagine really happened. Nothing about it is really unrealistic. John Quincy Adams has always been one of my favorite American historical characters and Anthony Hopkins is absolutely perfect for the role. They just get so much right - Calhoun intimidating President Van Buren (right after years of President Jackson always standing up to Calhoun), Adams mentioning the difference in political philosophy between him and Calhoun in oral argument before the Supreme Court on something as elementary as how God created human beings, Jeremy Northam's understatedly Catholic Judge Coglin who is surprisingly immune to political intrigue, one of the slaves converting to Christianity (in spite of the sad incompetence of the Christian protesters) mostly by studying the Bible illustrations by Gustave Dore (and then essentially sharing the gospel with Cinque as a result), the monotoned Captain Fitzgerald's dictated letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Forsyth at the end, etc. It's not a perfect film, but I can't help loving it anyway.

Also, 1941 is a dumb film, but it's still one of Spielberg's underrated films simply because it has John Belushi's "Wild Bill."

[Overstreet]

Jason Panella, on 07 September 2011 - 03:45 PM, said:

morgan1098, on 07 September 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:

To whoever voted for Temple of Doom, thank you. I thought about voting for that one just to be snarky. I still believe it almost matches Raiders in its gloriousness. It's a fantastic b-movie.

Plus, Short Round.

Yes, but... Willie.

[Ryan H.]

Overstreet, on 07 September 2011 - 04:56 PM, said:

Jason Panella, on 07 September 2011 - 03:45 PM, said:

morgan1098, on 07 September 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:

To whoever voted for Temple of Doom, thank you. I thought about voting for that one just to be snarky. I still believe it almost matches Raiders in its gloriousness. It's a fantastic b-movie.

Plus, Short Round.

Yes, but... Willie.

Willie's awfulness, I think, tends to be overstated.

[SDG]

Ryan H., on 07 September 2011 - 07:29 PM, said:

Overstreet, on 07 September 2011 - 04:56 PM, said:

Jason Panella, on 07 September 2011 - 03:45 PM, said:

Plus, Short Round.

Yes, but... Willie.

Willie's awfulness, I think, tends to be overstated.

Without overstating Willie's awfulness, the Willie liability value easily outweighs any Short Round asset value.

Edited by SDG, 07 September 2011 - 09:17 PM.

[Overstreet]

SDG, on 07 September 2011 - 09:16 PM, said:

Without overstating Willie's awfulness, the Willie liability value easily outweighs any Short Round asset value.

You said it, Dr. Greydanus.

Edited by Overstreet, 07 September 2011 - 09:29 PM.

[Greg P]

This discussion got me thinking about Empire of the Sun, which hasn't even been mentioned. I saw it in theaters when it was released and remember being bored out of my mind with it, but maybe this too could benefit from a middle-age viewing.

[Overstreet]

Greg P, on 08 September 2011 - 09:25 AM, said:

This discussion got me thinking about Empire of the Sun, which hasn't even been mentioned.

Um....

Edited by Overstreet, 08 September 2011 - 09:52 AM.

[Greg P]

Overstreet, on 08 September 2011 - 09:51 AM, said:

Greg P, on 08 September 2011 - 09:25 AM, said:

This discussion got me thinking about Empire of the Sun, which hasn't even been mentioned.

Um....

Doh!

[David Smedberg]

Ryan H., on 07 September 2011 - 01:33 PM, said:

I'm surprised SCHINDLER'S LIST actually hasn't received a vote.

Don't get me wrong; I have problems with SCHINDLER'S LIST (as explained in the Movies Everyone Except You Loves thread). That said, I'd expect at least a vote for it.

Now I've provided the first vote for SL. (Basically for the reasons I cited in my blurb for the Top 100.)

PS I just noticed that the blurb lists SL as being #41. I wish! It's actually #90 on the Top 100.The only Spielberg entry, I might add. (Does the fact that this movie is on the Top 100 but Raiders is not mean that the Arts and Faith Top 100 is still really the Top 100 Spiritually Significant Films? ... Probably IMO.)

Edited by David Smedberg, 08 September 2011 - 10:36 AM.

[Attica]

Overstreet, on 07 September 2011 - 01:59 PM, said:

There's a 20-something movie buff who follows the Through a Screen Darkly page on Facebook who argues that Raiders is "boring" and as ridiculous as any of the Indiana Jones series. (He also "hates" the score for Raiders... calls it "possibly the *worst* thing Williams has ever done." He then argues that Phantom Menace is the pinnacle of Williams' scores.)

I mention this only to say that I think plenty of young people who weren't around when Raiders was released don't understand why that movie remains significant to many of us here, or why we would treat it differently than "Episode 4."

I had the pleasure of seeing Raiders on the big screen this summer (I never saw it on the big screen as a kid.) It was screened in our city's park and probably two thousand or more people showed up.
It was all very cool.

We had a younger person in our group who didn't quite "get" the film so I felt it my duty to explain to her the brilliance of it all.



I suppose I can kind of see how someone from a younger generation of film buffs could view Raiders as boring. After all it doesn't have all of the over the top action (and noise) that newer action/adventure movies have. But for me those kinds of films are often boring. Raiders doesn't need all of that stuff and to my mind shouldn't have it.

What Raiders does have is a story with perfectly constructed suspense and intrigue that keeps one riveted until the end. Not to mention that it contains some great characters, locations, and concepts.

Edited by Attica, 09 September 2011 - 12:27 AM.

[morgan1098]

Just in time for this thread, this grainy, out-of-left-field video from the set of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom allows us to ponder the question, "Is Willie Scott less annoying than BARBARA STREISAND?" Note: you're gonna need to read the translation below the video clip to make any sense of this...

Barbara Streisand Shows Up in 'Indiana Jones' Footage, Of Course

[Jason Panella]

SDG, on 07 September 2011 - 09:16 PM, said:

Ryan H., on 07 September 2011 - 07:29 PM, said:

Overstreet, on 07 September 2011 - 04:56 PM, said:

Jason Panella, on 07 September 2011 - 03:45 PM, said:

Plus, Short Round.

Yes, but... Willie.

Willie's awfulness, I think, tends to be overstated.

Without overstating Willie's awfulness, the Willie liability value easily outweighs any Short Round asset value.

My thoughts:

Marion > Elsa > Willie > Fifth Wheel 1950s Marion

And Willie is kinda frustrating, but I'm a devoted Short Round fan. He rights all wrongs.

[Overstreet]

I'm really surprised at Raiders' commanding lead here. I thought it would be a closer contest with Close Encounters, E.T., Jaws, Schindler's...

Edited by Overstreet, 08 September 2011 - 04:59 PM.

[Ryan H.]

Overstreet, on 08 September 2011 - 04:59 PM, said:

I'm really surprised at Raiders' commanding lead here. I thought it would be a closer contest with Close Encounters, E.T., Jaws, Schindler's...

Me too. But I'm also one of the folks here who doesn't consider RAIDERS his fave Spielberg outing, as marvelous as it is.

[Attica]

Ryan H., on 08 September 2011 - 05:26 PM, said:

Overstreet, on 08 September 2011 - 04:59 PM, said:

I'm really surprised at Raiders' commanding lead here. I thought it would be a closer contest with Close Encounters, E.T., Jaws, Schindler's...

Me too. But I'm also one of the folks here who doesn't consider RAIDERS his fave Spielberg outing, as marvelous as it is.

I had given a little thought to Close Encounters. There is more emotional depth to it, and in some ways more beauty than in Raiders, I think

Edited by Attica, 09 September 2011 - 12:18 AM.