Reviews

I don't know why IMDb's user base is being so tough on this movie, but what really amazed me about it, besides the beautiful production design and use of special effects, is how much I know I would have loved it as a kid. It is SUCH a fun kid's fantasy, with gadgets, creatures, and the chance to act grown up without grossing people out. I liked this movie a great deal; not sure why it's being maligned here.

What's also interesting about it is Robert Rodriguez's ability to work his Mexican pride into this film. While there are a lot of great Latino filmmakers, I think it's cool how Robert Rodriguez is able to put Hispanics into the mainstream, be it with his casting or with his films themselves. I've always said that as much as I love the indie heroes, the mainstream have the power to effect real change, and it's nice to see that actually at work.

I absolutely adored this movie. For me, the best reason to see it is how stark a contrast it is from legal dramas like "Boston Legal" or "Ally McBeal" or even "LA Law." This is REALITY. The law is not BS, won in some closing argument or through some ridiculous defense you pull out of your butt, like the "Chewbacca defense" on South Park.) This is a real travesty of justice, the legal system gone horribly wrong, and the work by GOOD lawyers - not the shyster stereotype, who use all of their skills to right it. It will do more for restoring your faith in humanity than any Frank Capra movie or TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. And most importantly, I wept. During the film, during the featurette included at the end of the DVD - it's amazing. Wonderful film; wonderfully made. Thank God the filmmakers made it.

I read the script for this thing while I was an intern at the agency that helped cast it, and it sounded great to me. It was originally intended for LL Cool J, rewritten by Steven DeSouza as ULTIMATUM at one point, but I'm glad to see the BLAST version, which I'm told was predicated on Eddie Griffen taking an interest, saw the light of day. I'm glad they added Vivica A. Fox to the cast - we haven't seen her do a full lead (KILL BILL VOL. 1 was kind of a cameo, I thought) in a long time, and I miss her. MPCA could use a big hit, too, and if executed well, this might do it. We'll see.

-Khan http://rottentomatoes.com/vine/j/akhan41

Only seen one episode of this, "Virtual Vixen," which is about a comic book geek whose "bad girl" heroine comes to life, and is nicely played by Julie K. Smith, allowing him to get with Carrie Westcott. A good storyline because this is the kind of thing nerds fantasize about all the time, and both Smith and Westcott look like comic book characters. They are both very voluptuous, what with Smith being a Penthouse pet and Westcott being a _Playboy_ Playmate. I thought it was clever. I haven't seen any other episodes of this series, but would like to. Oh, and Ava Fabian, another Playmate, does all of the intros. It's another good softcore series, which I wish Cinemax would do more of. Gets you more of what you watch softcore for quicker.

Actually, I'm not ashamed to say that as softcore films go, this is a good one. It has a sense of humor about itself, first of all, the cast are all very attractive, and on that note, the real reason to see this film is Krista Allen. There are few B actresses as attractive, right down to her voice. She's well-endowed, spectacularly built, can actually act, and again, has a voice that will melt any heterosexual man. Seeing her in this kind of film is a real treat. The production design and lighting and camera work and so on are above average too. If you're the type of person that actually pays attention to / compares softcore fare on "Skinemax" and the like, this is one of the better ones. A surprisingly good B movie series.

If you're Asian, the thematic stuff in HAROLD & KUMAR GO TO WHITE CASTLE is dead on the money. At various points I was internally screaming at Harold on screen. I am SO him, but wish I was Kumar. So I loved it on that level.

The problem is that the jokes in this film aren't funny and it often veers into cartoon territory (READ: WAY over the top).

I think that it would have worked if it were directed better. John Landis would have totally made a movie like this work. But give the director credit for even attempting a film like this. I'm glad they made it; glad I saw it. I give it an "A" for effort above all else.

The comments already listed for this film are perfect, but I just wanted to add is that this isn't so much a film as much as it is functional art. If the definition of "art film" can roughly be put as anything on film that breaks the traditional Hollywood narrative (clearly defined protagonist with clear-cut goals and every scene of the film relating to the obtaining of / confinement of those goals), then this film is pretty much the benchmark for how broad that definition is. Not exactly a "must see," but important because it gives us language with which to talk about "art film" in general.

This is less a comment on the film and more a response to the original review. While I'll agree that the film is the least of the three Indiana Jones movies, as a fan of it, I can tell you that it's not for lack of action. Indeed, what's /most/ interesting about this film is that, completely opposite to the existing review, anyone who sits down and watches it will note that it's a nearly continuous linear path. Every scene in it comes from the scene before. Whereas RAIDERS and THE LAST CRUSADE feature "stops", wherein they deliver exposition, add characters, and most importantly, change locales, this movie opens with the musical number that brings Willie and Short Round together with Indy. The three of them escape. That escape leads their having the famous "monkey brains" dinner to finding the evil temple. They go into the temple and have adventures there. They see the human sacrifice. Indy becomes evil. Everything else happens until they come out of the temple and onto the bridge. The bridge scene occurs. Then the movie ends. In other words, while the opening of RAIDERS takes place in one temple just to introduce Indiana Jones, then we hear about the Ark, then they go after the Ark, then the Ark is moved and they have to change locations again, INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM is one continuous trip, and thus fascinating on that level. (And the scene where Short Round and Indy are playing cards while Willie is getting attacked by everything in the jungle is /hilarious/.) That said, why does everybody hate this movie? It's GORY. Really gory. And while I'm sure many people would appreciate blood and guts in a gore flick, in an Indiana Jones movie (read: ostensibly for kids, although after reading Grimm's Fairy Tales and RL Stine's GOOSEBUMPS, not to mention attending public school, I can't imagine what kind of wimp kid gets frightened by anything anymore), that's not seen as appropriate, I guess. So on that basis, I too say it's the least of the three because it takes the character in places he was maybe never meant to go. Nonetheless, Hitchcock had a dark side, and it's nice to see, in this movie (along with POLTERGEIST and THE LOST WORLD) that Steven Spielberg has one too.