CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › The MR. PLINKETT & RED LETTER MEDIA Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The MR. PLINKETT & RED LETTER MEDIA Discussion - Page 17

post #801 of 1422
5/18/10 at 4:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
We're not talking a gradual rise in appreciation like, say, Blade Runner. It was a huge hit at the time of release. Sure, critics and parents' groups hated it, but the kids who ate it up then are still attached to it now. Just like the prequels.
See, I disagree. I was a kid when I saw DOOM at the opening midnight screening at the Chinese Theater and even though it was an absolute blast of a screening, there was a definite (anecdotal) sense amongst myself and my friends that it hadn't lived up to RAIDERS even back then. The popular film that summer was GHOSTBUSTERS. The notion that a Spielberg/Lucas film wasn't #1 back in the mid-'80s was (then) nearly incomprehensible.

But again, what's the problem with DOOM being just a rollercoaster ride? It was a rollercoaster that delivered. The difference to me is, RAIDERS is a historical drama that just happens to have some of the most kick-ass spectacle ever filmed. DOOM is unapologetically all-action the same way that BUTTMAN'S ULTIMATE WORKOUT is unapologetically all-girl. If you compare it to RAIDERS, yeah, I guess it's a disappointment. But on its own action porn terms, I think it fully accomplishes what it sets out to do.

But hey, fine, if Plinkett gets around to it, I'll certainly watch a DOOM deconstruction. I'd love to see Mola Ram rip pizza rolls out of some dude's chest.
Reply
post #802 of 1422
5/18/10 at 4:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
Now that, folks, is how you First Post. Welcome!
Thanks. Temple-lovers - please don't kill me!

I still have very very vivid memories of seeing Temple in the cinema as a kid and I loved it to death. But it's not on a par with Raiders by a long shot.

Anybody have that great gif of Ford's odd little frown in the bug chamber?

Cheers
Reply
post #803 of 1422
5/18/10 at 4:14pm
Reply
post #804 of 1422
5/18/10 at 4:15pm
I think the problem with him focusing his withering Movie Logic glare on good movies is that its going to come across as nitpicky. I'm not saying it wouldn't be amusing, but poking holes in LOTR isn't really going to underscore a deeper criticism of the film(s). What was great about the Phantom Menace review was that by pointing out that the plot made no sense, it knocked out the load-bearing columns of the whole movie. There was literally nothing left to hold on to. It was indicative of the laziness that permeated the entire trilogy.
Reply
post #805 of 1422
5/18/10 at 4:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litmus Configuration View Post
The difference to me is, RAIDERS is a historical drama that just happens to have some of the most kick-ass spectacle ever filmed.
And that, to me, is an important distinction. Then Doom comes along and treats the whole concept as a winking cartoon.

Quote:
DOOM is unapologetically all-action the same way that BUTTMAN'S ULTIMATE WORKOUT is unapologetically all-girl.
On this we agree.
Reply
post #806 of 1422
5/18/10 at 4:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litmus Configuration View Post

Awesome. God, he was the man wasn't he?

What was next? Was it Witness? Damn. The glory-run.

Yeah, it's a hard call on the entertainment vs cinematic art argument/value judgment. Lord knows it's been some truly questionable movies that have gotten me through bad times. But I think it's important to draw the line between something like Raiders that has it all and Temple that satisfies on a purely in-the-moment level.


Cheers
Reply
post #807 of 1422
5/18/10 at 4:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
And that, to me, is an important distinction. Then Doom comes along and treats the whole concept as a winking cartoon.
To me that's the charm. I believe after having Nazis suffering the wrath of God, Spielberg and Lucas realized that with the next entries that they might as well just embrace that B-movie/serial shlock and just have fun with it. It's nonsense, for sure, but also colourful, cool, charming fun.

I think this video sums it for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CNQQbotPmE
Reply
post #808 of 1422
5/18/10 at 4:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Floyd View Post
I think the problem with him focusing his withering Movie Logic glare on good movies is that its going to come across as nitpicky. I'm not saying it wouldn't be amusing, but poking holes in LOTR isn't really going to underscore a deeper criticism of the film(s). What was great about the Phantom Menace review was that by pointing out that the plot made no sense, it knocked out the load-bearing columns of the whole movie. There was literally nothing left to hold on to. It was indicative of the laziness that permeated the entire trilogy.
If that's how this hypothetical LOTR review goes, I'll be disappointed. Until then, I have faith that he can point out some really non-obvious stuff from those movies that I've never considered before. That's part of what made Phantom so much fun, even though we already knew it was a horrible film. The guy's just really funny to me, so I'm largely indifferent to which film he chooses. I'm just curious what it would look like if he did a film everyone loves.
Reply
post #809 of 1422
5/18/10 at 4:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post
To me that's the charm. I believe after having Nazis suffering the wrath of God, Spielberg and Lucas realized that with the next entries that they might as well just embrace that B-movie/serial shlock and just have fun with it. It's nonsense, for sure, but also colourful, cool, charming fun.

I think this video sums it for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CNQQbotPmE
That's a good point (though Speilberg has been quite vocal on Temple's shortcomings). Perhaps this is what should have happened with Quantum of Solace? A lighter touch. The guy finding the fun in the job perhaps.

Was there ever a good reason for setting Temple before Raiders? That seemed to confuse everybody. The movie itself is confused by it.

Cheers
Reply
post #810 of 1422
5/18/10 at 4:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Strange View Post
If that's how this hypothetical LOTR review goes, I'll be disappointed. Until then, I have faith that he can point out some really non-obvious stuff from those movies that I've never considered before. That's part of what made Phantom so much fun, even though we already knew it was a horrible film. The guy's just really funny to me, so I'm largely indifferent to which film he chooses. I'm just curious what it would look like if he did a film everyone loves.
True enough, and I don't particularly care myself--I'll watch these reviews until I get sick of them, and I'd say that's at least three away regardless of the subject. But the STAR TREK: NG reviews seemed nitpicky to me, and those weren't even good movies themselves. Although the FIRST CONTACT review was the best one because he deflated the perception that it was actually pretty good. So I'm talking myself out of my own argument here.

It's probably just all going to be slightly downhill from the most disappointing movie of all time, really.
Reply
post #811 of 1422
5/18/10 at 4:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nardo View Post
Perhaps this is what should have happened with Quantum of Solace? A lighter touch. The guy finding the fun in the job perhaps.
Absolutely for the next one, as long as it remains believably consistent with the previous too in a sense. Casino Royale did have lighter moments that I'd like to see more of in the next entry.
Reply
post #812 of 1422
5/18/10 at 5:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nardo View Post
That's a good point (though Speilberg has been quite vocal on Temple's shortcomings). Perhaps this is what should have happened with Quantum of Solace? A lighter touch. The guy finding the fun in the job perhaps.
For the record, Spielberg's criticisms of TEMPLE OF DOOM came long after the fact and smack of revisionism. He originally defended DOOM's dark mean streak with his oft-cited quote, "It's called INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, not INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF ROSES. The warning is clearly marked on the box!"

It wasn't until his NBC Today Show advance sneak peek interview of LAST CRUSADE that he started changing his tune: "I don't think any of us were that inspired by the second picture." I honestly believe he only went there because popular opinion of DOOM was leaning slightly negative back then.

If you watch Frank Marshall's Making Of documentary on DOOM, I think it's clear that they were inspired and having fun.

Quote:
Was there ever a good reason for setting Temple before Raiders? That seemed to confuse everybody. The movie itself is confused by it.
How so? The Indiana Jones films are like Bond films. They're mostly one-offs. I think making DOOM a prequel was merely to get around the Marion Ravenwood factor but it also shows that these films are singular adventures. They only started getting bogged down when they gave its lead mercenary graverobber a (shudder) family.
Reply
post #813 of 1422
5/18/10 at 5:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litmus Configuration View Post
For the record, Spielberg's criticisms of TEMPLE OF DOOM came long after the fact and smack of revisionism. He originally defended DOOM's dark mean streak with his oft-cited quote, "It's called INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, not INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF ROSES. The warning is clearly marked on the box!"

It wasn't until his NBC Today Show advance sneak peek interview of LAST CRUSADE that he started changing his tune: "I don't think any of us were that inspired by the second picture." I honestly believe he only went there because popular opinion of DOOM was leaning slightly negative back then.

If you watch Frank Marshall's Making Of documentary on DOOM, I think it's clear that they were inspired and having fun.



How so? The Indiana Jones films are like Bond films. They're mostly one-offs. I think making DOOM a prequel was merely to get around the Marion Ravenwood factor but it also shows that these films are singular adventures. They only started getting bogged down when they gave its lead mercenary graverobber a (shudder) family.

I was thinking more of his "Everybody screaming" characterization issues (to be fair this was a hallmark of his at the time, even in the Amblin movies).

It must be said, that at the time there was NOTHING like this movie in the cinemas at the time. Now we get them every other month. Never had a problem with the dark streak as it was kind of Kiddy Gross-Out level stuff anyway. I don't think I really took Indy-Goes-Evil seriously. I did feel gypped with the lame crocodile business at the end. Mola Ram needed a Jaws-Level chomping...though I did appreciate the head-to-rock high velocity kissy kissy.

God bless Frank Marshall, but I watched Congo the other day. I think everything is awesome and inspiring to him. Great cheerleader, not so great a player. (I don't hate Congo, because of it's spirit and fan-service casting, but it ain't a well thought out movie)

Indy movies are like Bond from Temple onwards ("Anything Goes" really declares a change in direction, in retrospect). I don't know what Raiders is, but I wish there was more of them.

I think there are just moments where, as with say Aliens, you start thinking "Hey, wait. Am I being insulted?". Those moments increase as the series goes on.

Cheers
Reply
post #814 of 1422
5/18/10 at 5:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litmus Configuration View Post
The Indiana Jones films are like Bond films. They're mostly one-offs.
Maybe now they are, but in the wake of The Young Indiana Jones Adventures there was a strong effort to coordinate everything into a strict continuity, going so far as to re-sequence the films with Doom coming before Raiders on the home-video shelf.

I suspect the original decision to back-date Doom was, as noted, to avoid having to literally follow-up Raiders. But it creates all sorts of weird inconsistencies: In Raiders, Indy is a cynic and a skeptic who disregards mysticism but comes to believe. Then, a year earlier in Doom he has no problem with the idea that a spoken incantation will cause the Shankira Stones to burst into flame. And there's that call-back to the gun-vs-swordsman gag.
Reply
post #815 of 1422
5/18/10 at 5:45pm
We've been around this mulberry bush before, but I've gotten to the point that if I'm going to throw a Jones movie on it's DOOM. And it doesn't surprise me that dark and serious and moody wins the day (even if all three sequels couldn't get the lightly black-humored tone of the original).

But, if you love Spielberg, then DOOM is very much the ultimate Spielberg movie for what he had been hoping to do (and somewhat successfully) with 1941. Just watch how he choreographed the "five minutes" sequence and tell me that's not the work of a master director. But I can see why putting some Busby Berkley, Howard Hawks, and a little Preston Sturges in with your action film is not for everyone (and it's a kitchen sink movie), but I favor this because it's just so lively.
Reply
post #816 of 1422
5/18/10 at 5:54pm
I'm just happy to talk about anything but Star Wars prequels.
Reply
post #817 of 1422
5/18/10 at 5:56pm
I'm glad you guys have finally started discussing the relative merits of the Indiana Jones movies. This topic has been ignored far too long!
Reply
post #818 of 1422
5/18/10 at 5:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte View Post
We've been around this mulberry bush before, but I've gotten to the point that if I'm going to throw a Jones movie on it's DOOM. And it doesn't surprise me that dark and serious and moody wins the day (even if all three sequels couldn't get the lightly black-humored tone of the original).

But, if you love Spielberg, then DOOM is very much the ultimate Spielberg movie for what he had been hoping to do (and somewhat successfully) with 1941. Just watch how he choreographed the "five minutes" sequence and tell me that's not the work of a master director. But I can see why putting some Busby Berkley, Howard Hawks, and a little Preston Sturges in with your action film is not for everyone (and it's a kitchen sink movie), but I favor this because it's just so lively.

"Five Minutes" sequence? You mean the opening through to the plane? If so, that's a wonderful sequence no doubt. I still remember the screams of delight in the cinema when they showed the boxes on Short Rounds feet.

Raiders' opening is pretty incredible though for the way it educates the audience on how to watch the rest of the movie. Temple is obviously more relaxed in that we already know everything we need to know about Indy, but it also suffers from existing in a slightly different reality to Raiders.

(I'm a defender of 1941 BTW. I agree Spielberg was feeling out a different tone after his David Lean wannabe years)

Cheers
Reply
post #819 of 1422
5/18/10 at 6:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
I'm glad you guys have finally started discussing the relative merits of the Indiana Jones movies. This topic has been ignored far too long!
Heheh.

Okay, who would you rather shag:

Marion
Willy
Blonde Nazi Chick
Old Marion
Denholm Elliot

Willy has the bod. Marion has the fire. But Delholm has the soul.
Reply
post #820 of 1422
5/18/10 at 6:06pm
But blonde nazi chick bites ears and has the accent. Winner!
Reply
post #821 of 1422
5/18/10 at 6:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nardo View Post
"Five Minutes" sequence? You mean the opening through to the plane?
He means the sequence where Jones and Willie are in their rooms waiting for five minutes to see if they actually going to fuck or not.
Reply
post #822 of 1422
5/18/10 at 6:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post
He means the sequence where Jones and Willie are in their rooms waiting for five minutes to see if they actually going to fuck or not.
Yeah, that was my second guess. Will take note of the structure when I next watch it. Always liked the bit where he's checking his teeth.

Some very good parts, for sure. Production values were very lush for the most part, I guess supporting semi-Musical vibe going on in places.

Cheers
Reply
post #823 of 1422
5/18/10 at 6:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
I'm glad you guys have finally started discussing the relative merits of the Indiana Jones movies. This topic has been ignored far too long!
Well at least they're not derai... oh...

A pre-release thread for a youtube movie review of Attack of the Clones that came out a month ago full of tired Raiders discussions? Maybe it's time to put this horse down.
Reply
post #824 of 1422
5/18/10 at 6:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Q View Post
Well at least they're not derai... oh...

A pre-release thread for a youtube movie review of Attack of the Clones that came out a month ago full of tired Raiders discussions? Maybe it's time to put this horse down.
There's a new Plinkett video up teasing his next review. It's always going to come back round to cornerstone geek properties when speculation starts I guess.

But yeah, I'll hang up here. It's getting late.

Cheers Chaps. Thanks for a fun first day.
Reply
post #825 of 1422
5/18/10 at 6:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litmus Configuration View Post
But again, what's the problem with DOOM being just a rollercoaster ride? It was a rollercoaster that delivered. The difference to me is, RAIDERS is a historical drama that just happens to have some of the most kick-ass spectacle ever filmed. DOOM is unapologetically all-action the same way that BUTTMAN'S ULTIMATE WORKOUT is unapologetically all-girl. If you compare it to RAIDERS, yeah, I guess it's a disappointment. But on its own action porn terms, I think it fully accomplishes what it sets out to do.
At its core Raiders doesn't aim much higher than just being a rollicking rollercoaster ride either, it just so happened it was elevated to another level by an unusually high level of craft and class. Temple is a rollercoaster ride without a whole lot of either. Despite having a similar setting and objective to Raiders, Crusade is actually more of a departure from the formula than Temple in some respects - it's more a slower, character driven adventure kind of thing than the flat-out action tendencies of the first two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Floyd View Post
I think the problem with him focusing his withering Movie Logic glare on good movies is that its going to come across as nitpicky.
Plinkett *is* nitpicky. That was fun in the early Star Trek reviews when the ridiculous obsessiveness of the criticisms were part of the joke. As a real critic I find him of limited worth. He can make interesting observations but he also comes out with a fair bit of dubious bullshit that I suspect gets swallowed unquestionably because he panders to geek popular opinion. I'd like to see him deconstruct a much loved movie with the same approach as it might help draw attention to the fact that the kind of areas he specialises in picking apart often don't have that much to do with how good or bad a movie is on the whole.
Reply
post #826 of 1422
5/18/10 at 6:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nardo View Post
There's a new Plinkett video up teasing his next review. It's always going to come back round to cornerstone geek properties when speculation starts I guess.

But yeah, I'll hang up here. It's getting late.

Cheers Chaps. Thanks for a fun first day.
That wasn't a dig at you, it's just a mess of a thread at this point. There are plenty of Lucas, Star Wars, Raiders, Harrison Ford threads to get into those discussions on. Having them in so many different places is just a detriment.
Reply
post #827 of 1422
5/18/10 at 6:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Q View Post
That wasn't a dig at you, it's just a mess of a thread at this point. There are plenty of Lucas, Star Wars, Raiders, Harrison Ford threads to get into those discussions on. Having them in so many different places is just a detriment.
No probs. It's probably somewhat equivalent to a dog either pissing on a tree or walking round and round in a circle on it's bed before settling down. It establishes a comfort zone. Star Wars, Raiders, Harrison Ford, Lucas, Done.

Right, off for real this time.

Catch ya.
Reply
post #828 of 1422
5/18/10 at 6:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post

I'd like to see him deconstruct a much loved movie with the same approach as it might help draw attention to the fact that the kind of areas he specialises in picking apart often don't have that much to do with how good or bad a movie is on the whole.
Gnaaah! Hahahah

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
As mentioned a few posts above, I do think it would be great if he ripped apart the 'movie logic' of a universally beloved classic just to show that the stuff he has fun picking apart don't really matter all that much if the story/characters/themes are engaging. As several people have mentioned, you can pick apart almost any movie on the basis of 'logic' and 'plot holes' the way Plinkett does. It's really a matter of degrees and how forgiving you are depending on your engagement with a film.
Reply
post #829 of 1422
5/18/10 at 7:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
Gnaaah! Hahahah
Haha, sorry man. Glad to see I'm not alone in thinking this though.
Reply
post #830 of 1422
5/18/10 at 7:03pm
For the record, I was twenty when Temple of Doom came out. It's not a childhood thing, and I didn't grow up with it. I'm fully aware of its shortcomings, but it's monstrously entertaining all the same. No rose-colored glasses required.
Reply
post #831 of 1422
5/19/10 at 4:03pm
A little late to the Jones party, but my favorite is Last Crusade. Yeah, I'm the odd man out here...but Connery and Ford are just too much fun. The entire cast just seems to have a fantastic chemistry. I know it's over the top so to speak, but I just love it!
Reply
post #832 of 1422
5/19/10 at 7:09pm
I'm not bothered by over the top. Temple of Doom goes over the top plenty. I'm bothered by the fact that The Last Crusade plays like an early seventies Disney family comedy starring Dean Jones and Keenan Wynn. With Buddy Hackett as Marcus Brody.
Reply
post #833 of 1422
5/19/10 at 10:12pm
To me, Raiders is the Empire of the franchise. None of the rest even come close.
Reply
post #834 of 1422
5/20/10 at 4:07am
To, Raiders is the Star Wars of the franchise. But it means the same thing.
Reply
post #835 of 1422
5/20/10 at 8:55am
To me, Last Crusade is the Jedi of the series...
Reply
post #836 of 1422
5/20/10 at 9:26am
If Crusade is Jedi, then that makes Crystal Skull the Caravan of Courage of the series.
Reply
post #837 of 1422
5/20/10 at 11:50am
RAIDERS = ALIEN
World-building perfection. Birth of an iconic hero. Still the best.

TEMPLE OF DOOM = ALIENS
Action, action, action in a dark underworld. With a kid in tow.

LAST CRUSADE = ALIEN 3
Tries to recapture the feel of the first film. Very mixed results.

CRYSTAL SKULL = ALIEN RESURRECTION
Absurd, silly, lazy, dumb. Tries to resurrect the franchise but pretty much kills it for good.
Reply
post #838 of 1422
5/20/10 at 12:39pm
There we go.
Reply
post #839 of 1422
5/20/10 at 12:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litmus Configuration View Post
RAIDERS = ALIEN
World-building perfection. Birth of an iconic hero. Still the best.

TEMPLE OF DOOM = ALIENS
Action, action, action in a dark underworld. With a kid in tow.

LAST CRUSADE = ALIEN 3
Tries to recapture the feel of the first film. Very mixed results.

CRYSTAL SKULL = ALIEN RESURRECTION
Absurd, silly, lazy, dumb. Tries to resurrect the franchise but pretty much kills it for good.
>>Golf Clap<<


Cheers
Reply
post #840 of 1422
5/21/10 at 2:00am
Star Trek IV=Empire=Raiders, for me anyway.
Reply
post #841 of 1422
5/22/10 at 3:41am
IV? Heresy.
Reply
post #842 of 1422
5/22/10 at 4:12am
I had a wonderful awakening with Temple of Doom. As a kid, I hated it. Thought it was boring, despised Willie. I loved Raiders and Last Crusade, but just refused to sit through the second film.

Cut to the DVD release in 2003, and I sit down to watch Temple again. And what do I find? A total blast of a movie. And it was so fresh to me that it felt like I was watching a brand new Indiana Jones movie that wasn't a disappointment.
Reply
post #843 of 1422
5/22/10 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
IV? Heresy.
I realize the consensus is that STII is far and away the best of the best when it comes to Trek feature films. However, I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the time-traveling, 1980s San Franscisco bound, Enterprise crew that are in desperate of need finding a pair of humpback whales.
Reply
post #844 of 1422
6/10/10 at 3:06pm
Not sure if this has been posted, but the actual DVD from the review went for $150 on ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=220596320696
Reply
post #845 of 1422
6/10/10 at 3:08pm
Ha! Love the item description.
Reply
post #846 of 1422
6/18/10 at 11:20am
Baby's day out review: http://www.redlettermedia.com/
Reply
post #847 of 1422
6/18/10 at 11:58am
Heh, nice little preview of things to come at the end there.
I've only ever seen bits and pieces of Baby's Day Out when they've showed it on TBS. It was funny to see that shot they cut out of the trailer of the baby hitting the pavement.

Plinkett's right though. That movie COULD have used a lesbian scene.
Reply
post #848 of 1422
6/18/10 at 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Freeze View Post
Plinkett's right though. That movie COULD have used a lesbian scene.
Well, it has at least one lesbian in it, so it sorta counts.

I don't know...I thought this was kind of a waste of time. It provided a few chuckles here and there, I guess. But I'd prefer Plinkett go after big game.
Reply
post #849 of 1422
6/18/10 at 12:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litmus Configuration View Post
But I'd prefer Plinkett go after big game.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Pretty much an easy target. Still funny, nevertheless.
Reply
post #850 of 1422
6/18/10 at 3:03pm
Though arguably his other bigger reviews accomplish the same thing, this exists as a commentary on his own ridiculous meticulousness. It's everything the haters have ever said is wrong with his stuff.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › The MR. PLINKETT & RED LETTER MEDIA Discussion