The newspaper bashed Temple of Doom!

[ Reply ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Brett (Maverick) Lambert from aig65386y28se.ab.hsia.telus.net on July 19, 2000 at 19:30:24:

Can you believe this, in an article from the Edmonton Journal (that is written
by some Florida dude), and they talked about bad movies that were
bulletproof from bad reviews and poor audience reception yet everyone went
to see the movie nevertheless. Temple of Doom was one of them. Oh, we'll
find a way for this writer to pay! Oh yes! :)

Anyway, here's the damn article:

------------------------------------

When bad movies get worse and still make a fortune
Even our best friends can't keep us from seeing the
irresistible-but-awful

_____________
BILL KELLEY
Herald-Tribune, Sarasota, Fla.
_____________

The only thing louder than the ringing of the cash register for Mission:
Impossible-2 is the outcry of the moviegoers who've been suckered into
seeing the film.

Or have they been suckered? Mission: Impossible-2 is the newest
entry in a unique category: Bad movies that everyone sees, and nearly
everyone dislikes.

Lots of movies are critic-proof; audiences flock to them regardless of what the
critics say.

But only a handful are word-of-mouth proof, and contain something so
irresistible that you'll pay to see them even if a person you trust says he
hated it from start to finish.

Such films are a fairly recent phenomenon, and, although it is easy to knock
them, they command a grudging respect.

That's because nearly all are mammoth in scope and size, which is one
reason why they are irrestible.

Only a few filmmakers possess the know-how to deliver a movie that large.

Herewith, then, is a selective chronological survey of Hollywood's latest
genre.

• Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom -- Steven Spielberg's
Raiders of the Lost Ark(1981) was grand fun -- a 1940s serial brought
to 1980s life. This numbingly gruesome sequel inexplicably gets everything
wrong, but its chief offence is its sadistic tableau of sickening tortures.

Moviegoers who suffered through the gory melee were singularly apalled, but
telling their friends about it did nothing to discourage the parade of ticket
buyers who rushed to the film throughout the summer of 1984.

•Die Hard 2: Die Harder -- If this film had been half as good as the first
Die Hard(1988), the audiences who hurried to it in record numbers
would have been satisfied. Instead, they got a moribund follow-up from a
new director (the dreaded Renny Harlin, who would go on to
Cliffhanger, see below), riding herd on a script laden with
unfathomable coincidences, a poor supporting cast and grainy photography
riddled with closeups.

Only the presence of a nonplussed Bruce Willis reminded them that the 1990
movie was part of an established franchise. For Part 3, original director John
McTieran returned to resurrect the franchise.

•Cliffhanger-- This 1993 mess about Rocky Mountain rescue rangers
made a ton of money, especially overseas, but left audiences so angry that it
just about killed Stallone's career. The erstwhile superstar had to gain 20
pounds and take a cut inpay to be taken seriously in Copland (1997),
but when that film flopped, he disappeared from movies altogether.

•Twister -- A truly soporific timewaster about amateur scientists who
chase tornadoes, this 1996 film hung its hat on lavish, computerized storm
effects.

These sequences occupied most of the movie's running time... yet, it was
still boring! Nonetheless, audiences flocked to it all summer, even
after being told that the film's signature image was a flying cow.

•Mission: Impossible--Audiences didn't seem to care that the plot of
this 1996 film ws impossible to follow (it was even mocked on the 1997
Oscars), even though every critic writing about the movie mentioned it. They
were drawn by the promise of Tom Cruise fleeing a helicopter while stuck to
the rook of a train, in a tunnel.

•Godzilla-- Arriving on the heels of a promotional campaign that
literally lasted years, this 1998 remake of the Japanese kitsch classic unveiled
a "new Godzilla" who looked like a reject from the cutting room floor of
Jurassic Park.

Dark and gloomy rather then fast and exciting, the film even left little kids
feeling cheated. The movie's human element was as bland and generic as
the computerized monster, with Matthew Broderick succeeding only in making
Raymond Burr, the star of the 1956 original, seem macho by comparison.

•Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace--Devoted Star Wars
fans grew a generation older waiting for this long-promised "prequel." Then
they, along with most moviegoers last summer, watched in silent amazement
as the finished product creaked along for two hours.

The sole fragment of news value to emerge from the film was the fleeting
charge of racism levelled by watchdog groups at one of its characters, Jar Jar
Binks.

•The Blair Witch Project--Finally, my favorite -- a 1999
semi-professional film which cost almost nothing but with a clever ad
campaign that reaped millions.

The hyped promised something different, and did it deliever: a shot-on-video,
ersatz documentary with a plot that was almost as difficult to follow as
Mission: Impossible.

---------------------------------------------

That's the article. This guy, for the most part is on crack. I loved ToD, Die
Hard 2, TPM, M:I-2 and enjoyed Cliffhanger. I didn't like Twister, Godzilla or
the first Mission: Impossible though. Didn't see Blair Witch. There is
elements of truth in what he says, but come on? How can ToD, Die Hard 2,
TPM be considered up there with God-Frickin-zilla! Even if you didn't like
them, they aren't considered THAT bad!

Follow Ups:


Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]