What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Older Films)

[Quintus 5,399]

I'm not sure if Temple is better or not to Crusade, but there's a very, veeery big quality drop between it and Skull. So in this case, with "second worst" meaning "awesome", I don't care.

Some days I prefer Last Crusade, others Temple of Doom. I find them both endlessly watchable. Crystal Skull, well...

[JoeinAR 1,949]

TOD has possibly a better score than Raiders, it's an even more beautifully shot film, one of the 3 or 4 best shot SS films, the ending is near pitch perfect. It has a great villain, it is innovative in it's visual style, it's hilariously gross, and unlike LC it's not a retread of Raiders.

Okay, it's a great adventure movie, but now you've crossed over into hyperbolic bullshit territory. You have a hard on for Temple of Doom, you have done all your life - we get it. But c'mon nostalgia boy, reign yourself in a bit. And if you think ToD is a better looking movie than Raiders that's fine, but I personally reckon you need your eyes testing.

give me a fucking break. nothing I said is hyperbole, nor bullshit. TOD is one of the most beautifully shot SS films that's obvious to anyone not blind. Are you BLIND Great Eye? Slocombe's cinematography if fantastic. It's definately not a retread of Raiders like LC. True or false quint? And Mola Ram is a wonderously villainous, he's definately not as deadly dull as the villain in LC. It is innovatively shot, that's a simple fact. Today with CGI it would be much easier but in 83 they didn't have CGI, so they found a way, a very clever way.

Just because you don't care enough for the film to admit it, nothing I said was out of line and look up the word hyperbole so when you use it next time it might be appropriate. LC is endlessly turnoffable.

[Brónach 1,301]

he's definately not as deadly dull as the villain in LC.

I don't follow your point. The Last Crusade has Elsa Schneider and Indy's dad to screw up with his plans. Add to that the Hitler scene And the hat guys in the prologue, and the Nazi dude who punches Indy... Sometimes you don't even need a big, scary, awesome villain, it can get in the way.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

he's definately not as deadly dull as the villain in LC.

I don't follow your point. The Last Crusade has Elsa Schneider and Indy's dad to screw up with his plans. Add to that the Hitler scene

you think Donavon is a exciting villain???????????

[Brónach 1,301]

No. We're thinking differently here. The "role" of the Big Villain is achieved using other ways. The lack of a Big Villain doesn't mean anything.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

No. We're thinking differently here. The "role" of the Big Villain is achieved using other ways.

no it's not. Donovan is the villain, elsa is the love interest, she's not the villain, and hitler is the joke, a bad one at that?

[Brónach 1,301]

You're being kind of close-minded right now.

Uuuh, of couurse, you have to have a "love interest", you have to have a "villain", uugh, why????

Elsa, who is a more interesting character than Mola Ram, acts as a villain when she goes against the hero. And Henry's story with his son is other of the problems the hero faces, plus his dad screwing up, or having to be rescued, etc. Add to that a few other things the film does intelligently and you have got a hero that's constantly having to face a shitload of things, thus rendering the Big Villain unnecesary. Donovan? He's just one of these different little things. He's also used as the messenger for the Call to Adventure.

It's a brilliant script. In fact I consider it to be the script most tight and climatic of the three films.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I'm being honest, hardly closed minded, that would be you describing yourself. people need to be more honest about LC, it's the 2nd worst of the 4 films, and really the biggest disappointment. After the prequels you kind of figured KOTCS would not work well.

It's no where close to a brilliant script. It's the most rediculous of the 3 films, it's poorly conceived. It's the most gimmicky and it's a retread of Raiders, it doesn't have a script honest enough to separate it from the first two films. It's technically the worst of the 3 films, so damned sloppy, it's got the least interesting villains, Elsa is the most beautiful and least interesting of the 3 female characters. The tank chase is a, YAWN, piss poor copy of the desert chase from Raiders. Everything about the film except Connery feels forced. The film makers decided to make the film a farce and in that they succeed quite well.

btw, watched Hugo today.

It's a beautifully shot film, wonderful movie with quite a heart. It could have been edited tighter but it's great none the less.

Just finished Warhorse

works even better on the small screen.

John Williams score is simply divine. Like E.T. it's criticized because it plays hell with your emotions, and while some find that a fault, I find it to be it's strength.

I enjoy being wrapped in it's warmth and beauty. Thank you John and Steven.

[crocodile 7,990]

You see, I was kind of afraid of being distracted by the music while watching it (having heard so many bad opinions). Nothing like this ever happened. It is just film music as it used to be. I don't know why this puts so many people off.

Karol

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

Well said, Joey.

I mean about Hugo and War Horse.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Ironman

This was hailed as something of a masterpiece when it was released 4 years ago. It's not.

It IS a very enjoyable film, and elevated by the return of Robert Downey Jr. after years of obscurity. His Tony Stark has exactly the right amount of sympathetic arrogance required for this film.

The special effects are great, the action is fairly cohesive and Jeff Bridges makes for a worthy villain (is there no role that he cannot play?)

But...a superhero movie is of course always ridiculous, but has to be believable inside it's own universe. This film scarcely attempt even that.

Tony Stark manages to build a prototype suit that can fly, shoot energy pulses and deflect weapons fire while being held in a Afghan cave for 3 months???

The movie doesn't even try to make it believable...

Also, the movie does not aim very high...

Superman The Movie, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Watchmen were all movies that attempted to elevate themselves from the comic book pages from were they came, and become something...more. Something not just one-dimensional action.

This one was produced by Marvel, which seems very happy in creating a film that feels just like a comic book, because comic books is what they do, and why would they try to be more, right?

The first moment when Iron man takes flight in his red and gold suit, thumbing guitars underscoring him, there's no majesty, no fear...it's just presented as a kick-ass moment.

The film succeeds in everything it aims for, but it does not aim very high, and it feels like a set up...for a sequel...for the big Avengers film...

Entertaining viewing, but it left me a bit cold..

**1/2 out of ****

[alicebrallice 134]

ah yes, entertaining viewing indeed.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Regarding Temple of Doom. Molo Ram is a really wild and surely great villain. He takes Indy's soul and then Indy fights him one-on-one in the end! Supremely badass.

Indy is also at his most fun and heroic in this one. He saves the kids, which is THE most heroic thing he's ever done in any of these flicks. Forget just wanting to save the girl, dropping down into the Well of the Souls, the fisticuffs or all those feats of derring-do. He saves the kids and restores the village. It's just magic.

As I analyze the various interpretations of the character with Ford in the role, I'd most want to hang out with Indy from Temple of Doom.

Also, Short Round is the best sidekick. And Willie has the best tits.

[Brónach 1,301]

I saw The Incredible Hulk. I'm probably going to be the odd one here, but something happened that I find funny, and it's that my reaction to it was more or less the same than to Ang Lee's film. "Damn, there's good stuff in this film, what the hell?"

Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Watchmen were all movies that attempted to elevate themselves from the comic book pages from were they came, and become something...more. Something not just one-dimensional action.

In my opinion Iron Man is a film with a lot of virtues, but it feels a bit too simple because there are a lot of possibilities for the character but it doesn't tackle them, or barely does something with them.

[Wojo 2,453]

Nope. They're still comic book movies. Why is that so hard to accept?

[crocodile 7,990]

Ironman

This was hailed as something of a masterpiece when it was released 4 years ago. It's not.

It IS a very enjoyable film, and elevated by the return of Robert Downey Jr. after years of obscurity. His Tony Stark has exactly the right amount of sympathetic arrogance required for this film.

The special effects are great, the action is fairly cohesive and Jeff Bridges makes for a worthy villain (is there no role that he cannot play?)

But...a superhero movie is of course always ridiculous, but has to be believable inside it's own universe. This film scarcely attempt even that.

Tony Stark manages to build a prototype suit that can fly, shoot energy pulses and deflect weapons fire while being held in a Afghan cave for 3 months???

The movie doesn't even try to make it believable...

Also, the movie does not aim very high...

Superman The Movie, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Watchmen were all movies that attempted to elevate themselves from the comic book pages from were they came, and become something...more. Something not just one-dimensional action.

This one was produced by Marvel, which seems very happy in creating a film that feels just like a comic book, because comic books is what they do, and why would they try to be more, right?

The first moment when Iron man takes flight in his red and gold suit, thumbing guitars underscoring him, there's no majesty, no fear...it's just presented as a kick-ass moment.

The film succeeds in everything it aims for, but it does not aim very high, and it feels like a set up...for a sequel...for the big Avengers film...

Entertaining viewing, but it left me a bit cold..

**1/2 out of ****

I like the fact that Tony Stark is essentially a war merchant and that they slightly play on that. It's probably the single most intriguing element of this film. That becomes a bit more significant in the second one (especially in the hearing scene), but still not too much. But then, what did I expect?

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Iron Man 2

I actually liked this movie better, because it was less predictable for a lot of the time. The first one followed the conventions of the "superhero origin story" very rigidly, that you could easily see what was going to come up next.

It also digs just a little bit deeper.

Robert Downey Jr. portrayal of Tony Stark was a big hit, so in the beginning of the film they put more of him in, doing outrageous things. boasting, being an arrogant ass, sticking it to the US Senate, driving a Formula One car, getting drunk as Ironman etc...etc...

It takes a while for the actual plot to kick in. Something about Samuel L. Jackson with an eye-patch, looking bad-ass, and Scarlett Johansen in tight leather kicking ass. Oh and since the first movie had a good fight between 2 iron men that really worked, this time there are several dozens of them. Of of these has Mickey Rourke in him. (Rourke is ever so helpful so remove his helmet in the final fight so we can see it's him.... Like Downey Jr. Rourke was an actor long in obscurity because of addictions, and has recently made a come back. He's very good in this film, which asks him to mainly grumble with a slavic dialect and appear enigmatic.

Sam Rockwell is good in the role as a slimey Tony Stark wannabee. And Mrs Paltrow is rather lovely as the silly named Pepper Potts.

I enjoyed this movie as big explosive eye candy, but it does strike me that Tony Stark's world is not that heroic. We don't see him doing any random super hero acts of kindness. (you could always count on Supes to fetch a kitten from a tree). Stark is an egomaniac and a (former) arms dealer, For some reason he's better then the other ego maniacal arms dealers and the US military...

The film doesn't always make clear why?

The score by John Debney was a slight improvement over the first one, but it's still not that good.

*** out of ****

[Brónach 1,301]

The film doesn't always make clear why?

I think we should see Iron Man dealing with real world villains. You know when you look at how the situation of the world is, and think some certain guys should have their asses kicked. Well, that.

[Wojo 2,453]

And how well do you think that will go over with the nations of the world run by these so-called "villains?" That's what Team America did and it worked because it was a spoof, not to be taken seriously...well, the South Park guys didn't ask Kim Jong Il for his opinion and it didn't lead to war so maybe they just go lucky. A Marvel comic book movie is supposed to be higher profile.

Do you forget that Russia was insulted that IJ and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull painted them as the villains in a movie that would have taken place over fifty years ago?

I'm still holding out for the Mandarin...

[Brónach 1,301]

And how well do you think that will go over with the nations of the world run by these so-called "villains?"

Which nation of the world isn't?

I wasn't thinking exactly on that political angle you put there. I had a different idea.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I think we should see Iron Man dealing with real world villains. You know when you look at how the situation of the world is, and think some certain guys should have their asses kicked. Well, that.

In the first film Stark was captured in Aghanistan, but NOT by the Taliban or Al Quada. But by a mixed race terrorist group, one of them even spoke Hungarian....

[Brónach 1,301]

In the first film Stark was captured in Aghanistan, but NOT by the Taliban or Al Quada. But by a mixed race terrorist group, one of them even spoke Hungarian....

You don't need to put these in the film. It's a fictional world after all.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Then why have it take place in Afghanistan at all?

[Brónach 1,301]

Why not? It's our world, just different.

I thought you liked Watchmen!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I loved Watchmen!

[Wojo 2,453]

Then why have it take place in Afghanistan at all?

Because when Tony Stark debuted in 1963, he was captured in Vietnam, i.e. the major war at the time. Afghanistan is the Vietnam of this generation.

[Datameister 2,037]

TOD has possibly a better score than Raiders, it's an even more beautifully shot film, one of the 3 or 4 best shot SS films, the ending is near pitch perfect. It has a great villain, it is innovative in it's visual style, it's hilariously gross, and unlike LC it's not a retread of Raiders.

I love TOD's score, but it would be a stretch to call it better than Raiders. Now that's an Indy score. And I'm with Quint...you need your eyes checked if you think Raiders is visually inferior, what with the incredible composition of many of its shots and the much more convincing visual effects. The ending feels like weak, campy trash compared to the far more interesting villain deaths and plot resolutions found in Raiders and even TLC. I'll give you the "great villain" part - I prefer Toht by a small margin, but Amrish Puri did a fine job. As for being "hilariously gross", I'm not sure what you found so revolting...or so funny, for that matter. Raiders gets far more disgusting and far more funny, though not simultaneously.

As for TLC...yeah, it tries too hard to be like Raiders, while TOD tries too hard to not be like Raiders, and the result is that neither truly feels like it fits in the same universe. TLC fits a little better, but it's also more boring than it would have been if they'd attempted to capture the spirit of Raiders without rehashing the story of Raiders.

[Brónach 1,301]

without rehashing the story of Raiders.

Sometimes I wonder if you've seen the same Last Crusade that I have.

[indy4 155]

The only bad visual in ToD that I'm aware of is Mola Ram falling down the cliff.

[A24 4,327]

Then why have it take place in Afghanistan at all?

I agree. Luckily, the villains in The Avengers starring Iron Man will be real villains. I disagree with Jeff Bridges. I thought he was boring as hell. He's even more boring and shallow in Tron Legacy.

I didn't see the second Iron Man movie (didn't like the first one) but now that I know that you liked it better than the first one, Steef, I just might give it a peek. After all, when it comes to comic book movies, we do seem to agree with each other. I did like Hulk because it aimed for more than just a dumb, fully marvel-controlled, run-of-the-mill, impersonal comic book movie. Ang Lee gave that movie something special ... something deep, dark, psychological and yet beautiful. It felt more like DC comics than Marvel ... if that makes any sense.

Alex

[Brónach 1,301]

It felt more like DC comics than Marvel ... if that makes any sense.

From an historical point of view it does a bit. DC has produced a lot of comic books like you're describing, they even opened a line for it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I didn't see the second Iron Man movie (didn't like the first one) but now that I know that you liked it better than the first one, Steef, I just might give it a peek. After all, when it comes to comic book movies, we do seem to agree with each other.

I enjoyed the second one, but basically now (the next day) already forgotten about it. It's more or less the same movie then the first anyway. just with Mickey Rourke.

Maybe your kid will like it.

[A24 4,327]

I'll wait for it to appear on TV then.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

So far I haven't been convinced that Marvel is doing anything other with these films then paving the way for there big Avengers film.

But if you are making 4 or 5 films, as a set up to one big film.... that films should strive to be something fantastic right? Not just the same as we have seen before, but all bunched together?

[Quintus 5,399]

give me a fucking break. nothing I said is hyperbole, nor bullshit. TOD is one of the most beautifully shot SS films that's obvious to anyone not blind. Are you BLIND Great Eye? Slocombe's cinematography if fantastic. It's definately not a retread of Raiders like LC. True or false quint? And Mola Ram is a wonderously villainous, he's definately not as deadly dull as the villain in LC. It is innovatively shot, that's a simple fact. Today with CGI it would be much easier but in 83 they didn't have CGI, so they found a way, a very clever way.

Just because you don't care enough for the film to admit it, nothing I said was out of line and look up the word hyperbole so when you use it next time it might be appropriate. LC is endlessly turnoffable.

You seem to be mistaking me for someone who dislikes ToD, since your passion when defending it is both vehement and strangely over the top - like a mother standing up for her naughty child. FYI ToD remains one of my all time favourite escapist movie's. But I'm still able to step back and view it objectively, see and appreciate its flaws; something you have proven yourself incapable of time and time again - it's the world according to Joey, in your strictly subjective funnel-vision pov. A world where villains always wear black so you don't get confused.

People need to be "honest" about Last Crusade? What do you mean? You want them to lie? Please, keep your cranky arrogance out of it. You're confusing your views with some kind of universal truth, again. Give us a fucking break.

Now, this all leaves one big question. Who do you hate more - Last Crusade or David Fincher?

[crocodile 7,990]

So far I haven't been convinced that Marvel is doing anything other with these films then paving the way for there big Avengers film.

Judging from the early reviews you might be right.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

Ironman

This was hailed as something of a masterpiece when it was released 4 years ago. It's not.

It was? I thought it was entertaining enough, and funnier than normal where these things are concerned. There wasn't really much to it, but it got be on Downey's charm. I still haven't watched the sequel.

[Josh500 1,615]

TOD has possibly a better score than Raiders, it's an even more beautifully shot film, one of the 3 or 4 best shot SS films, the ending is near pitch perfect. It has a great villain, it is innovative in it's visual style, it's hilariously gross, and unlike LC it's not a retread of Raiders.

Okay, it's a great adventure movie, but now you've crossed over into hyperbolic bullshit territory. You have a hard on for Temple of Doom, you have done all your life - we get it. But c'mon nostalgia boy, reign yourself in a bit. And if you think ToD is a better looking movie than Raiders that's fine, but I personally reckon you need your eyes testing.

TLC and ToD - they are both great adventure movies, yes, but ToD is certainly the better movie, in most respects.

TLC seems to be slightly losing focus or steam or both.

[A24 4,327]

So far I haven't been convinced that Marvel is doing anything other with these films then paving the way for there big Avengers film.

Judging from the early reviews you might be right.

Karol

It's the same but with more heroes? Are they surprised the film doesn't have Whedon's stamp on it?

What is the Whedon stamp anyway?

[crocodile 7,990]

So far I haven't been convinced that Marvel is doing anything other with these films then paving the way for there big Avengers film.

Judging from the early reviews you might be right.

Karol

It's the same but with more heroes?

No idea. But maybe if you add one lukewarm premise to another. And then add another then maybe it will generate some more heat?

Karol

[Brónach 1,301]

The general comments on The Avengers can be resumed into "it's sort of like Firefly or Whedon's Astonishing X-Men", as far as I've seen.

[Quintus 5,399]

TOD has possibly a better score than Raiders, it's an even more beautifully shot film, one of the 3 or 4 best shot SS films, the ending is near pitch perfect. It has a great villain, it is innovative in it's visual style, it's hilariously gross, and unlike LC it's not a retread of Raiders.

Okay, it's a great adventure movie, but now you've crossed over into hyperbolic bullshit territory. You have a hard on for Temple of Doom, you have done all your life - we get it. But c'mon nostalgia boy, reign yourself in a bit. And if you think ToD is a better looking movie than Raiders that's fine, but I personally reckon you need your eyes testing.

TLC and ToD - they are both great adventure movies, yes, but ToD is certainly the better movie, in most respects.

TLC seems to be slightly losing focus or steam or both.

Ignoramous! You compared ToD to LC, not I. Do not put words into my mouth.

[filmmusic 1,823]

Yesterday I watched "Thirty day Princess" with Cary Grant and "With Six you get Eggroll" with Doris Day.

[Datameister 2,037]

The only bad visual in ToD that I'm aware of is Mola Ram falling down the cliff.

I thought about that statement after I wrote it, and I realized that it's really the compositing that's bad in TOD (and TLC). Other examples would include the plane crashing in the mountains, the sacrifice victim hitting the lava, and a number of shots involving the water in the finale. The VFX in Raiders aren't totally flawless, but I don't recall any bad compositing issues. Of course, TOD also has the mine car chase, which I would argue looks a lot better than it would have looked with modern VFX. And all the shots of the sacrifice victim and Willie being lowered into the pit are great, with the exception of when the guy actually sinks into the stuff. If only Mola Ram had gotten a decent death...I like my Indy films to end with the villian being destroyed in grotesque, supernatural ways.

[Quintus 5,399]

Heh, I always liked that shot of Mola Ram hurtling down the cliff side, it's a cool and fitting send off such a scene-chewing character. I remember it being especially ace in 1985. I don't think there's anything wrong with the FX actually - it fits in perfectly with the rest of what that movie has to offer - schlocky thrills wrapped in B-movie aesthetics.

[Incanus 5,713]

If only Mola Ram had gotten a decent death...I like my Indy films to end with the villian being destroyed in grotesque, supernatural ways.

Hey, Mola Ram got supernatural and nasty burns to his fingers when he touched the Shivalinga for the last time before he fell.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I actually watched Temple last night on cable. The general insanity of this movie is one of the things I love about it. There's a lightheartedness and general lack of respect for basic logic that was there from the beginning in Raiders. It's just amped up to a more extreme level in Doom. So for instance, Raiders has the door closing on Indy when he's hanging off the cliff in the idol temple. It clearly would have closed on him, but it magically retracts to allow him to exit once he's pulled himself up. Now, in Temple of Doom you have the spike room going on and on for like 5 minutes when it obviously should have killed them within seconds. Also, Indy pinned down on the conveyor belt seemingly inches from the rock crusher. Once he's sprung back to life. he's like 20 feet away. The great thing is how none of this matters.

[indy4 155]

Now, in Temple of Doom you have the spike room going on and on for like 5 minutes when it obviously should have killed them within seconds. Also, Indy pinned down on the conveyor belt seemingly inches from the rock crusher. Once he's sprung back to life. he's like 20 feet away. The great thing is how none of this matters.

I love these moments. Like I've said many times, the cheesiness of the Indy series is part of its charm, and these are two of best examples of that.

[Datameister 2,037]

That's continuity - or lack thereof - and it doesn't bother me that much in any of the films. (But I'd take issue with the statement that the cheesiness is part of the charm - the series is at its best when it's NOT being cheesy, which is the case for most of Raiders.)

...schlocky thrills wrapped in B-movie aesthetics.

That about sums up why TOD isn't so much my cup of tea.

If only Mola Ram had gotten a decent death...I like my Indy films to end with the villian being destroyed in grotesque, supernatural ways.

Hey, Mola Ram got supernatural and nasty burns to his fingers when he touched the Shivalinga for the last time before he fell.

Snore! I'll take facial melting, gory explosions, implosive mummification, or instant decomposition any day.

[indy4 155]

That's continuity - or lack thereof - and it doesn't bother me that much in any of the films. (But I'd take issue with the statement that the cheesiness is part of the charm - the series is at its best when it's NOT being cheesy, which is the case for most of Raiders.)

There's a very specific type of cheesiness that works well in the Indy series. You get the feeling that Spielberg and Lucas considered what would actually happen according to the laws of physics, etc., and then just gave those laws a big middle finger. It's a really badass disregard for reality.

Snore! I'll take facial melting, gory explosions, implosive mummification, or instant decomposition any day.

Yeah I can see how a having the villain fall hundreds of feet and be devoured by blood thirsty crocodiles might be a little disappointing.