mattkerr-73017
Joined Apr 2018
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings260
mattkerr-73017's rating
Reviews39
mattkerr-73017's rating
There is a certain place and time that the perfect adventure movie could be made, and that is during the 1980s, when the nostalgia for the adventure films of the 1930s and the grandeur of the golden age of Hollywood could be balanced, around a decade before practical effects would be replaced largely by years of what is, in retrospect, a CGI hellscape that has not aged well. I understand the irony in speaking of nostalgia driving this film while ranting about my own nostalgic look back, but I don't mean it as an insult; the movie would not exist without it. And if the perfect pieces had not been set in place for what is, without a doubt, the greatest adventure movie of all time (and probably the greatest blockbuster), perhaps it would not still be watched and remembered with the fondness that it is, the nostalgia by itself claiming both the continued admiration for this movie and an ill-received third sequel decades later (and more to come).
While it kicked off the Indiana Jones franchise, it should be noted that this isn't an 'Indiana Jones' movie; the lack of our protagonists namesake in the title being the main giveaway. Much like Star Wars coming out in 1977 lacking "Episode IV" as later additions would add, there was no guarantee that a cultural phenomenon would be born from this movie. Indiana Jones differs from the likes of Star Wars however; in many ways it has aged better. Maybe because we have not been suffocated with it in the way that we have with these other franchises. The continuity has to be tied to Dr Jones, which has saved us from 'Indiana Jones 9', and thank god for that. And there is Raiders, the film that would not be topped despite the efforts of subsequent films in its franchise, which could be an argument as to why many others are extended until the beaten horse no longer breathes - that there is hope of topping what is considered the best.
I love this movie. I watched this again with my partner, and during the film she said "I dunno, I think I prefer The Mummy". I nearly fell off the goddamn sofa.
While it kicked off the Indiana Jones franchise, it should be noted that this isn't an 'Indiana Jones' movie; the lack of our protagonists namesake in the title being the main giveaway. Much like Star Wars coming out in 1977 lacking "Episode IV" as later additions would add, there was no guarantee that a cultural phenomenon would be born from this movie. Indiana Jones differs from the likes of Star Wars however; in many ways it has aged better. Maybe because we have not been suffocated with it in the way that we have with these other franchises. The continuity has to be tied to Dr Jones, which has saved us from 'Indiana Jones 9', and thank god for that. And there is Raiders, the film that would not be topped despite the efforts of subsequent films in its franchise, which could be an argument as to why many others are extended until the beaten horse no longer breathes - that there is hope of topping what is considered the best.
I love this movie. I watched this again with my partner, and during the film she said "I dunno, I think I prefer The Mummy". I nearly fell off the goddamn sofa.
Pro's:
Cons:
- One of the first, arguably the first Noir
- Female lead taking the spotlight for much of the film
- Creative dream sequence.
Cons:
- Dissapointing villian/motive
- Male lead being a plank of wood
- Having an extended dream sequence.
Recently taken polls
2 total polls taken
