The 27th General Hall of Fame

For people our age, we've probably seen most of our movies before these sites existed or at least before we knew about them. Going back like that is such a daunting task. If we were like 20 it'd be a lot different.

That's probably true...I'm old enough that I can watch a movie and not remember anything about it, like Raiders of the Lost Ark. The last time I seen that movie was 20 years ago.

Even though I was a kid I saw it at the cinema when it came out, same with Jaws. You probably did too. You probably saw Baby Face when it came out.

True Romance (Tony Scott, 1993)
IMDb

Date Watched: 3/13/2022
Rewatch: Yes.

Full Disclosure: With his roles in Untamed Heart, Heathers, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and this movie, Christian Slater was pretty damn hot stuff to adolescent/teenaged me and I've had a soft spot for him ever since. That I saw this movie in the theater when I was 12 certainly didn't have any negative impact on my opinion of it.

I know some other participants found Slater and Patricia Arquette's characters unlikeable, and I can kind of understand that considering the collateral damage they leave in their wake and Clarence's obsessive personality and bravado, but frankly I find them endearing. Again, I'm pretty biased towards Christian Slater - and, after all, this is my nomination - but they come off to me as dumb kids who are in way over their heads. Clarence is kind of a nerd. He spends his days watching movies and reading comics where the heroes save the day and get the girl. When he finds himself living out his fantasy, he fails to recognize the very real danger and the consequences that innocents will have to pay for what he's done. I think this makes him feel real. And yet if he actually were real I'd be right there with those who are criticizing him. But he isn't real. This whole thing is a fiction and I don't feel even a scrap of guilt watching him blaze through this world filled with crazy characters, vibrant colors, and tense violence. As for Alabama? She's mostly just eye candy for a bit (and she is pretty damn hot in this), but things turn quite in her favor during that brutal motel room scene. Mad respect to both the character and actress for that.

And of course it would be absolutely remiss to not address those crazy characters they encounter. Brad Pitt is a big standout, of course. It's almost a shame he's so good looking because he's really a gifted character actor, especially in comedic roles like this. Christopher Walken, Dennis Hopper, Bronson Pinchot, and Gary Oldman are also great. Literally every familiar face (and wow are there a lot of them) makes an impact with their screentime regardless of how small. Even the like two seconds we get of Samuel L. Jackson is great (and definitely helps to cement the movie as more of a Tarantino flick than a Tony Scott one for me).

Now I won't deny that this film is not flawless. The Elvis scenes feel a bit silly even in a movie filled with things that are utterly ridiculous (but they're brief enough that they don't detract much) and I suppose some of the dialogue could've been cut a bit short, but it's not like this is serious drama. This is a movie with the sole purpose of entertaining its audience and it absolutely excels at it. It is one damn fun ride.

__________________

Raiders of the Lost Ark (Steven Spielberg, 1981)
IMDb

Date Watched: 3/13/2022
Rewatch: Yes.

I don't have a lot to say about this one. It's fun and it's iconic and I've seen it many times in my life, but I've never loved it. And it's not even Indy's problematic past (probably underage) relationship with Marion or the colonialism or whatever. It just that, if I'm being honest, I've always found it a little dull. It just doesn't excite me the way its two 1980s sequels do and, while it has some humor, it doesn't amuse me the way those other films do. Add to that the lack of a badass baddie (I ****ing LOVE Temple of Doom's Mola Ram) and the main effect watching this movie has on me is to give me a strong desire to watch the other two.

I also found myself distracted by nagging thoughts about the "glaring story problem" that was brought up in an episode of Big Bang Theory - namely that Indy had pretty much ZERO effect on the events of the film.

Oh well, still a not bad way to kill a couple of hours. Now to have some dinner and then put on Temple of Doom.

-

I'm way too tired to give that any thought right now, but that is pretty interesting.

__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.

Yeah, that theory has been doing the rounds for a while now. It basically states that if Indy hadn't meddled with things, the Nazis would've still found the Ark, take it to the island or place where they opened it, they would've been burned/melted alive and that would've been it. Indy's interference was ultimately irrelevant, or so they say.

__________________

That's pretty funny

Anyway, I just finished Baby Face. I'm not out yet! Not today, Satan!

All of those observations about Indy are operating in hindsight. He clearly has his reasons to go there to at least try to stop it, so it wasn’t without merit.
He had no way of knowing the Nazis outcome of opening said Ark.

The whole series is funny, especially if you like sci-fi movies and TV shows, superheroes, and comic books. And there were a LOT of great guest stars throughout the series run.

No one knows that the first time they're watching the movie, though, and I don't see how that's a fatal flaw when the result is so entertaining to watch anyway; it's about the journey people, not the destination!

Magical Girl

I have some mixed feelings about this film, but the overall feelings I have are more positive than negative. The film is shot in a cold, sterile way like a lot have mentioned. I'm not a big fan of that, generally I need a film to be visually appealing to me for me to reach a certain level of love for it. It does take the film a while to get its foundation laid, the only positive to that is that it never really shows its hand before certain reveals. In some cases when a film doesn't show you something and allows you to imagine it for yourself because the idea of you imagining worse than what they can show you is a thing works for me, but in this film it doesn't. I would rather see or know what is going on to f*ck this woman up that badly. I know the implication is very violent sexual stuff, but this woman is bandaged from head to toe. I can't even imagine what happened, that's too much for me to even comprehend without some level of explanation. I do like the escalation at the end and the dude who was in prison. Which I'd also like to know more about, it's a pretty big thing to ask of your audience to make up the story for you. I know that I am having more negative to say than positive, but it's not a bad film, just some flaws that stand out to me. The scene where the dude who was in prison does what he does is pretty good and the time where the cold filming style gets to improve the scene.

While the film isn't trying to establish anything new, it manages to be incredibly well shot and I was impressed with the bold noir film style. The cinematography is a highlight for me, being shot in black and white the film feels like a story from another time and place. Multiple times I would sit there and nod my head being impressed by the shot composition. The last "hell" chapter certainly felt like it and the film does an excellent job immersing you into the world of this story, which felt like a stage play at times.

The film is tragic and new to me. Never heard of it before and am glad I am part of these HoF's to be exposed to new cinema. The film could use a trim and be a bit tighter with the edit. Over 2 hrs long, it felt like it at times.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

I totally agree. I don't see it as a "story flaw" because the characters are not aware of that either, and it doesn't make their attempts and the arcs they go through irrelevant at all.

Sorry for butting in but that Big Bang-Raiders thing....Never heard of it but... without Indy, the Nazis are just digging in the sand, right? It's kind of like saying a monkey will write Shakespeare if given a pen and paper and enough time. It's not like the Nazis found the Ark because of Indy, they took it from him. How much time do they get to find it themselves? When/how would they have found the ark without Marions medallion? Do the Nazis even find Marion and get half the headpiece without Indy and why have Toht follow Indy to Nepal if they could find her without him? The Nazis (Belloch) needed Indy to get involved and were counting on it that's why they tailed him. So, without Indy the Nazis are just digging blindly in the desert but eventually everything would be the same?

The Nazis already had their eyes on Marion, who had the medallion, so they would've gotten to her anyway.

While we're on this subject, how do you think Indy hitched a ride on the U-boat to the island where the Nazis opened the Ark without drowning?