Rate the last film you watched out of 100 Page 2212

  • Page

    of 3066 First / Last

  • Deleted user 30 April 2013 11:36:12
    @Mola_Ram

    Oh yeah, me dur...
  • nickthegun 30 Apr 2013 11:36:48 64,273 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 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.
  • Mola_Ram 30 Apr 2013 11:49:07 10,616 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 3 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 64,273 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Its one of the few series that go 1>2>3, although 3 is no slouch.
  • Deleted user 30 April 2013 11:51:46
    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 2,390 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 5 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 36,819 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 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.
  • b0rk 30 Apr 2013 11:57:01 4,487 posts
    Seen 37 minutes ago
    Registered 9 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 72,592 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 12 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 8,173 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    "Sheesh a naashee. Shee talkshh in her schleeep"
  • Mola_Ram 30 Apr 2013 12:05:21 10,616 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    "He schlipped on hish tea"
  • Deleted user 30 April 2013 12:06:15
    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.
  • Mola_Ram 30 Apr 2013 12:07:48 10,616 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Was that kid from The Goonies ever in anything else?
  • Mola_Ram 30 Apr 2013 12:08:22 10,616 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 3 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 18,287 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 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
  • nickthegun 30 Apr 2013 12:36:16 64,273 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 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..
  • Deleted user 30 April 2013 12:39:08
    Wait, you think BTTF 3 is better than 2? Seriously??
  • Deleted user 30 April 2013 12:42:05
    Also slightly mental, but ok.
  • Dougs 30 Apr 2013 12:42:24 72,592 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 12 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 64,273 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 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.
  • Mola_Ram 30 Apr 2013 12:44:12 10,616 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 3 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.
  • Deleted user 30 April 2013 12:47:47
    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.
  • Deleted user 30 April 2013 12:52:26
    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 3066 First / Last

Log in or register to reply