Rate the last film you watched out of 100 Page 2212

  • Page

    of 2704 First / Last

  • kalel 30 Apr 2013 11:36:12 86,325 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    @Mola_Ram

    Oh yeah, me dur...
  • nickthegun 30 Apr 2013 11:36:48 58,782 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I think Raiders is pretty much the perfect action movie. Its absolutely non-stop but it doesnt wear you out, it has great characters, a good story and is well acted.

    I cant think of a single fault with it, really.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Mola_Ram 30 Apr 2013 11:49:07 6,952 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    I do quite like Temple of Doom (big surprise there). But I definitely agree with the "little bit racist" sentiments. The pulp novels that it probably draws from were likely a bit racist too, but that doesn't really excuse it.

    I think Crusade is the weakest of the original three (not even mentioning 4 here), but the bits with Connery were marvelous.
  • nickthegun 30 Apr 2013 11:50:27 58,782 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Its one of the few series that go 1>2>3, although 3 is no slouch.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • kalel 30 Apr 2013 11:51:46 86,325 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    Its one of the few series that go 1>2>3, although 3 is no slouch.
    Isn't that the most common sequence?

    I guess it's usually 1>>>>2>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3.
  • Dangerous_Dan 30 Apr 2013 11:56:09 2,378 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    It's pointless to argue anyone's personal preference, but I'd strongly disagree with describing Raiders as "the weakest". In what sense?
    I wouldn't say it's pointless to argue about personal preference. That's often what it comes down to. What one values more or less in a movie, compared to somebody else.

    From a detached point of view the first one is probably the best. That's not the reason why and how I rate a movie in this thread though, my personal view ofc.
  • JuanKerr 30 Apr 2013 11:56:45 36,192 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I used to like 2 when I was younger, but I watched it again recently and it hasn't aged very well at all. Also, Kate Capshaw is FUCKING annoying.
  • B0rked_Gamer 30 Apr 2013 11:57:01 2,481 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Indy movies in order of awesomeness 3 > 1 >

    Temple of Doom doesn't even qualify because it is utter shit.
  • Dougs 30 Apr 2013 11:59:50 66,637 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3>>2 imo. I agree that LC is essentially a hammy remake, but it does it bloody well. TOD has some great moments, but as JK says, it hasn't aged very well. Not much in between 2 and 3 though.
  • craigy Staff 30 Apr 2013 12:03:49 7,503 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    "Sheesh a naashee. Shee talkshh in her schleeep"
  • Mola_Ram 30 Apr 2013 12:05:21 6,952 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    "He schlipped on hish tea"
  • kalel 30 Apr 2013 12:06:15 86,325 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Dangerous_Dan wrote:
    It's pointless to argue anyone's personal preference, but I'd strongly disagree with describing Raiders as "the weakest". In what sense?
    I wouldn't say it's pointless to argue about personal preference. That's often what it comes down to. What one values more or less in a movie, compared to somebody else.

    From a detached point of view the first one is probably the best. That's not the reason why and how I rate a movie in this thread though, my personal view ofc.
    I'm not saying you can't argue opinions, but that's not quite the same as a personal preference. An opinion can be rationalised and swayed. A preference can be totally irrational.
  • Deckard1 30 Apr 2013 12:07:03 27,120 posts
    Seen 56 seconds ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    "You call him Doctor Jones lady!"
  • LeoliansBro 30 Apr 2013 12:07:40 43,227 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Mola_Ram wrote:
    "He schlipped on hish tea"
    That's Red October O_o

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Mola_Ram 30 Apr 2013 12:07:48 6,952 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Was that kid from The Goonies ever in anything else?
  • LeoliansBro 30 Apr 2013 12:08:13 43,227 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Oh, and Temple of Doom is the weakest, partially because Nazis are better baddies.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Mola_Ram 30 Apr 2013 12:08:22 6,952 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Mola_Ram wrote:
    "He schlipped on hish tea"
    That's Red October O_o
    I know. I just thought we were doing hilarious Sean Connery quotes in general.
  • Mr_Sleep 30 Apr 2013 12:21:57 16,839 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Oh, and Temple of Doom is the weakest, partially because Nazis are better baddies.
    You should set about making a FPS to prove this truism.

    Edited by Mr_Sleep at 12:22:05 30-04-2013

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • nickthegun 30 Apr 2013 12:36:16 58,782 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    nickthegun wrote:
    Its one of the few series that go 1>2>3, although 3 is no slouch.
    Isn't that the most common sequence?

    I guess it's usually 1>>>>2>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3.
    I dunno. Its usually the difficult second album in a trilogy is the weakest.

    But all I can think of, ottomh, is BTTF and LOTR. Im sure there are more..

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • LeoliansBro 30 Apr 2013 12:38:57 43,227 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    A weak second film leads to a significant risk that the trilogy will be killed off without the third film ever getting made. Interesting that the two trilogies you noted there, BTTF and LOTR, both had third films broadly completed before the second was released.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 30 Apr 2013 12:39:08 86,325 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Wait, you think BTTF 3 is better than 2? Seriously??
  • LeoliansBro 30 Apr 2013 12:40:59 43,227 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Aimed at me? Nope, I think BTTF 2 is the best of the three.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 30 Apr 2013 12:42:05 86,325 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Also slightly mental, but ok.
  • Dougs 30 Apr 2013 12:42:24 66,637 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I do, I love BTTF3. 2 was a bit OTT. And more T/FLAs in a sentence.
  • nickthegun 30 Apr 2013 12:43:41 58,782 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Yeah. BTTF 3 is a great western. BTTF 2 is a few half baked ideas and a eventually a retread of the first one. Three is much better than two by almost any yard stick.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Mola_Ram 30 Apr 2013 12:44:12 6,952 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    I thought 2 was the best of the BTTFs. Which doesn't seem to be the common opinion, but I thought it was absolute genius how the final action sequence was integrated with the first film. And I loved Future Biff.
  • kalel 30 Apr 2013 12:47:47 86,325 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I think BTTF2 is absolutely superb, but it doesn't end, which is a pretty significant fault. It basically can't be viewed in isolation, and that means 3 is effectively the second half of 2, and it's pretty shit in comparison.

    Alos BTTF2 has an unbelievably massive plot flaw even for a comedy time travel film, which I can never get over (the entire plot is grounded in a totally pointless exercice - "fixing" something that hasn't happened yet).

    The first is like Raiders a nearly perfect film. I can't fault anything about it.
  • Deckard1 30 Apr 2013 12:50:53 27,120 posts
    Seen 56 seconds ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    You're right, two perfect 80's films.
  • LeoliansBro 30 Apr 2013 12:50:55 43,227 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Also slightly mental, but ok.
    I just love the way they interwove the first film into the events of the second. The future and altered present stuff has dated a bit (a lot) but I love it for being clever-clever and trying something different (rather than being Marty's Further Adventures With No Overlap To The Events Of The Previous Film Which Are Set In Stone Now Even Though Casuality Is Meaningless.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 30 Apr 2013 12:52:26 86,325 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Deckard1 wrote:
    You're right, two perfect 80's films.
    Spielberg is really a 70s director at heart though. That's why he was able to make quality films that bucked the trend of others in the 80s.
  • Page

    of 2704 First / Last

Log in or register to reply