At their worst, comedic troupe Monty Python was still able to draw awkward chuckles. At their best, they were capable of the kind of unparalleled comedic genius that fills this film from start to finish. While there are those who frown upon Monty Python’s silly antics and those who simply do not get dry, British humor, I believe that it is impossible for a sane and living person to watch this film and not laugh at least one time.
There is very little that I can say about this film that hasn’t already been said. Monty Python were masters of just about everything to do with comedy- timing, sight gags, wit, play on words and use of props. Every ounce of their creative brilliance is on display in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Most amazingly is the fact that this film, with all its memorable scenes, quotes and gags, is only an hour and a half long.
That’s right- the Black Knight, the French, the Three-Headed Knight, the Keeper of the Bridge of Death, the Knights Who Say Ni and the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog come at you faster than most films that pass for comedies these days. To me, this makes the film even more impressive. To dissect and depict as much of the Arthurian legend as they do and craft such an epic adventure tale with such inherent silliness boggles my mind. I could have sworn the film was two hours long but I stand corrected.
I first watched this film as a part of a high school English class. We read parts of the Arthur legend and watched this film at the end of the unit. My teacher claimed that Monty Python actually treated the Arthurian legend source material quite well (all silliness aside of course) and that they didn’t give into any of the romanticism that has plagued films about Arthur and Camelot ever since.
Graham Chapman is delightful as the serious-minded King Arthur. He presents a very earnest character who genuinely seeks to fulfill the epic task that has been given to him by God. He just happens to be surrounded by and encounters a bunch of nitwits. The rest of the Python players fill in nicely as Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table, lending their own comedic specialties to their diverse characters. In true Python fashion, all the lads don multiple costumes and portray nearly all of the notable supporting characters. The bond these men shared from working on their television show for three years prior to the making of this film enhances their on-screen chemistry in ways that no casting director-selected set of funny men ever will.
I simply have to stop here. There’s just nothing I can say to do justice to this film. It is one of the most popular, quotable and beloved films of all time. Monty Python and the Holy Grail is by far one of the funniest films ever made. Watch and enjoy (but watch out for bunnies).
Set one year before Raiders of the Lost Ark (making this George Lucas first actual foray into prequels), Indiana Jones finds himself dodging bullets and assassins while trying to rescue enslaved children at the same time. It’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it. Fortunately, Indy is up for the task. Unfortunately, Temple of Doom fails to relive the glory of its predecessor. While certainly no failure by any means, this film does disappoint on a number of levels.
It is impossible to avoid comparing Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom to Raiders of the Lost Ark. Both films are built around the same motifs, emulating and exploiting the character elements of old time adventure serials. The trouble lies in the fact that Raiders emulated and exploited those elements so perfectly and Temple changes the formula ever so slightly to avoid redundancy. These changes are not all for the better though.
Indy’s companions (for it is difficult to consider them true sidekicks) now consist of a smart-mouthed Chinese boy named Short Round and an airhead night club singer named Willie, who is along for the ride because Indy didn’t have ample enough time to ditch her while trying to escape from Shanghai with his life. Short Round injects some youthful humor into the mix, which is good considering the darker tone of the film, but Willie is more or less annoying from the start and fails to grow on you much. But she is a necessary component to the story and provides romantic tension and sight gags where needed.
The quest Indy embarks on this time around is not one of his own choosing. After escaping a plane crash in the Himalayas, Indy and his friends float down river to India where some locals beg him to find their stolen children, believed to be enslaved by a Thuggee cult in a nearby palace, and a sacred stone that protected their village. Saving the children is noble but the stone is a bit too foreign for most viewers to get a handle on. Despite Indy’s explanations about ancient Sankara stones and their supposed powers, the archeological side of the story isn’t as gripping. Western audiences can wrap their minds around the Ark of the Covenant but magical Indian rocks are a stretch. It also doesn’t help that Indy isn’t as passionate about this quest as he was in Raiders.
A lack of many geographical set pieces also holds the film back slightly. Raiders saw Indy traveling all over the globe, hitting virtually every single continent. Temple only offers us a glimpse of Asia. While this is the most forgivable change to the Indy formula, it is also one of the most noticeable. Very few iconic locations are used and the oft-lampooned Indy-map sequence doesn’t really pick up much mileage this time around.
The most noticeable change is the darker tone of the film. While Indy’s tongue-in-cheek attitude and cocky swagger still pervades, Temple of Doom touches on some dark territory. Cults, enslavement of children and human sacrifice have a way of sobering an audience up. Instead of sitting on the edge of your seat with excitement, this film will have you sitting more against the back of the chair with a look of half excitement and half concern on your face.
I think the biggest reason that Temple isn’t adored as much is because Indy, the unflappable hero who can do no wrong, turns to the dark side. Though only brief, Indy’s conversion to the forces of evil is unsettling. The archetypal hero can have his dark moments but to be shown as fully corruptible? That crosses the line for me and I’m sure it’s the same with many fans.
Now it’s time to get positive! I understand the reason for many of these changes. Had Temple of Doom stuck with the formula laid out in Raiders it would have felt like a cheap copy of the original. Short Round and Willie were added to balance out the darkness in the story (it’s easy to see why Indy doesn’t stick with her after the film but one does have to wonder what happened to Short Round). The globetrotting was scaled back because the story required it. Lucas and Spielberg recognized that certain elements that had made Raiders such a blast had to be cut out because they didn’t fit into the story they were trying to tell. Making sacrifices for the sake of the story is admirable and I respect Lucas and Spielberg for that. It’s just unfortunate that the story they told isn’t quite as gripping.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is still a rollicking good time. There’s plenty of action and adventure to get your heart racing and adrenaline pumping. Once again, Spielberg pulls out all the stops in crafting fantastic action sequences (dated though they may look now) that are still a thrill ride to watch. Yes, this sequel/prequel isn’t quite as good as the original but hey- this is still Indiana Jones we’re talking about.
This is the film that broke Martin Scorsese into the big time and helped launch the careers of Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel. Its gritty realism and hip cultural awareness was lauded upon its release and it continues to be held in high regards in terms of its originality and historical importance. Sadly, I am unable to give Mean Streets the credit it is due.
Harvey Keitel stars as Charlie, an Italian-American Catholic who is trying to respectably work his way up the ranks in the local Mafia establishment while also trying to atone for his sins by trying to help his off-kilter and borderline sociopathic friend Johnny Boy clean up his act. For Charlie, its purgatory on Earth, as Johnny Boy’s antics grow wilder and more destructive, both outwardly and inwardly. Though saving Johnny Boy from himself is the ideal, Charlie would settle for saving Johnny Boy from Michael a local loan shark tired of being jerked around one too many times by the kid.
Mean Streets is filled with masterful touches. The dialogue is witty but realistic, never sounding false or overdone for one second. Some characters attempt to speak in a dignified manner while others like Johnny Boy keep their vocabulary pleasantly in the low-brow gutter they live in. At the end of the day, they’re all street rats; local bums jostling for position at the bottom of the totem pole. The only difference is who has respect and who doesn’t.
The film is shot on a very intimate scale. Gritty camerawork makes it feel more like a documentary than a film at times. The use of slow motion and voice-overs bring an added flair to an already stylish film. Scorsese provides the voice for Charlie’s conscience and inner-monologue, often times providing a wry outlook on things while Charlie outwardly seems to be having a good time. It helps accentuate Charlie’s inner conflict.
I can’t talk about this film without mentioning the stellar soundtrack, apparently provided almost entirely from Scorsese’s personal record collection. My generation fell in love with Quentin Tarantino’s eclectic and inspired musical selections for his films but there is a difference. While Tarantino includes music that few have heard before for the sake of keeping things interesting, Scorsese includes a stellar mix of popular and secondhand tunes that elevates the hipness, coolness and attitude of his characters to new heights.
While directors like Francis Ford Coppola portrayed organized crime on grand white collar levels, Scorsese focused on the gritty small time hustlers, pushers and loan sharks that make crime dangerous on a day to day level. It’s a far more believable, yet jagged pill to swallow. Instead of stylized violence, allegory and inference, Mean Streets is brutally honest and upfront about everything, no matter how graphic and disturbing it may be. This is why the film was hailed as an American original.
This all sounds like it’s leading to a glowing review and a high rating, right? Well, not exactly. Here’s why- ever since Mean Streets and Scorsese’s ensuing work, this kind of gritty realism and exposure to big city crime on its lowest levels has become the norm. Nowadays a film is almost expected to be brutally honest and realistic if it is to be taken seriously. People in my generation, myself included, have been exposed to this kind of stuff our whole lives and we take it more or less for granted.
After doing some research on Mean Streets, I understand the film’s importance in cinema history and can instantly spot its influence on dozens of motion pictures, but I can’t quite feel the marvel of its originality while watching it. It’s the same problem I encountered while watching films like Frankenstein and Rear Window. I’ve been exposed to so many references, allusions, parodies and spoofs of their themes and concepts in my lifetime that I can’t capture the originality of it all while watching it. It’s as if my film-going experiences have spoiled me from latching on to something truly great.
While I appreciate Scorsese’s breakthrough for all the impact and influence it has had on all the films I watched growing up, and while I understand the cultural and historic importance of the film, Mean Streets is one of the ones that got away; an otherwise great film falling victim to my sometimes-jaded generation.
At their worst, comedic troupe Monty Python was still able to draw awkward chuckles. At their best, they were capable of the kind of unparalleled comedic genius that fills this film from start to finish. While there are those who frown upon Monty Python’s silly antics and those who simply do not get dry, British humor, I believe that it is impossible for a sane and living person to watch this film and not laugh at least one time.
Set one year before Raiders of the Lost Ark (making this George Lucas first actual foray into prequels), Indiana Jones finds himself dodging bullets and assassins while trying to rescue enslaved children at the same time. It’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it. Fortunately, Indy is up for the task. Unfortunately, Temple of Doom fails to relive the glory of its predecessor. While certainly no failure by any means, this film does disappoint on a number of levels. 
This is the film that broke Martin Scorsese into the big time and helped launch the careers of Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel. Its gritty realism and hip cultural awareness was lauded upon its release and it continues to be held in high regards in terms of its originality and historical importance. Sadly, I am unable to give Mean Streets the credit it is due.
