Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gatech.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!gatech!spaf From: spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Indiana Jones (NON-SPOILER) Message-ID: <7537@gatech.UUCP> Date: Wed, 23-May-84 23:41:25 EDT Article-I.D.: gatech.7537 Posted: Wed May 23 23:41:25 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 26-May-84 12:54:12 EDT Organization: The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech Lines: 55 Well, I know you've all been waiting for Uncle Spaf's review, so wait no longer. If you're looking for excitement and spectacular effects, go see "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" in 70mm. However, if you find it difficult to cease being logical and analytical, or if you prefer character development to action, skip this and go see "Romancing the Stone" again. 15 of us went to see the movie today at Atlanta's Columbia theater -- 70 mm, 6 track Dolby, and the biggest movie screen in Atlanta. The general consensus was that it was worth our $4 apiece, and most of us will probably go see it again soon. However, we also decided that the movie could have been stronger, plot-wise. The movie is very intense, from start to finish, with one hair-raising prediciment and escape following another. The sets and effects are spectacular, and the sense of the movie is one of unrestrained good times. On that level, it is great fun. However, this time around the plot is even more far-fetched than before. A number of times during the movie I almost lost my thread of concentration by saying "Whoops, now that is almost *too* silly." Character development is non-existant. I believe Kate Capshaw has some talent, but her role doesn't allow any of it to show. She's pretty when called for, and whiney the rest of the time. Her character really had nothing to add to the adventure except someone on whom most of the jokes were told. (Heavens! We can't let Indiana appear foolish!). The little kid (Ground Round? something like that) was just too cute to be believed. I'm not sure why they have the kid in there -- it can't be for kids in the audience, or else some of the really graphic gross stuff in the middle wouldn't be there. Yes, the talk about the rating problem is true. I wouldn't want an impressionable child to view the movie. It is a bit more than many other PG's of my experience. It wasn't bad enough for an R, certainly, but it had its moments which caused us all to flinch. I would strongly recommend that parents preview this before taking their children. All in all, I liked the movie a lot. It entertained me, and I walked off feeling that I had my money's worth. It was only after an hour or two that I began to realize how many holes there were in the whole thing. That still hasn't taken away the feeling of enjoyment. I think if they had made it a little less cartoonish, and if they had combined the character of the kid and the woman into a single character, it might have been a stronger movie. But hey, who am I to argue with undoubted megabuck success? Summation: see it. Don't bother thinking about it. Leave the kids at home. It ain't art, but it is entertainment. -- Off the Wall of Gene Spafford The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech @ CSNet-Relay uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!spaf ...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!spaf