Siskel and Ebert more or less adored the movie, with Ebert’s four-star review calling it “not so much a sequel as an equal.” The famously hostile Pauline Kael actually preferred Temple to Raiders, which she dismissed in 1981 as the cynical product of film-makers operating as marketing departments. If we look back at the contemporary reviews, we’ll find that the film wasn’t merely tolerated on release but outright acclaimed by some heavy hitters. Indeed, the notion that Temple is being “reappraised” in a positive light in recent years is a bit of a false narrative. Few things herald the arrival of the uncourageous take more accurately than the opener “This might be an unpopular opinion, but.” This is not an uncommon sentiment, and in fact it has become outright trendy to proudly declare one’s undying love for Indy’s second cinematic outing, often with a weird undertone of self-congratulatory martyrdom. While my brain assures me that Raiders is the best Indy film, Temple is my favorite, and possibly the best side effect the institution of divorce has ever produced. Some things are a matter of opinion, but not the fact that the Earth is round. That is to the exclusion, of course, of anyone who would try to rank Crystal Skull anything ahead of distant last. We all have our preferences, and varying tastes should be respected. One could make a convincing case that Fate of Atlantis is the only sequel that actually succeeds at capturing the spirit of Raiders. Nor am I provoked by those who would argue that Raiders never really had a worthy follow-up on film, as Bill Eaken believes. I myself would rank the Indiana Jones movies in order of release, but when it comes to the original trilogy, the contestants are close enough in quality that I don’t begrudge anyone their favorite of the three. The best and the favorite aren’t always the same horse. Jason believes that Temple of Doom is a masterpiece.
0 kommentar(er)
