The Sean Connery one?
deary me.
Indiana Jones only existed because Spielberg wanted to make a Bond movie and the Bond people didnt want any part of him. he then made up his own American James Bond as a pisstake. to further annoy everyone they cast Connery in the 3rd one as a double middle finger to show they could make more money with him than the Bond people ever could. The whole movie was a lazy mess designed around their egos.
you cant be dying on that hill, i wont allow it.
I saw Raiders in Sydney the day it was released in Australia. The theatre was absolutely packed and I can't remember a more positive reaction to a movie either before or since.
Easily the pick of the Indiana Jones movies.
I was a bigger fan of Young Indy books / series than I was the Indiana Jones movies that followed Raiders.
Last edited by The Dunster; 24-10-2019 at 11:55 AM.
No love for Temple of Doom?
A good movie in its own right with a great scene on the rope bridge.
All 3 Indiana Jones movies were great.
These Scorsese comments re:Marvel movies are hilarious.
I mean, hes 100% correct, but the fact he needs to say them, and the Marvel ****boys need to fight back says all you need to know about these nerds.
the fact they dont even understand what hes saying yet get their dukes up is the funniest part.
just enjoy your movies nerds, for the most part i do.
he started out a few weeks back saying Marvel movies 'were not cinema'. again, he was right from his point of view but Marvel ****boys got their knickers in a knot because "HOW DARE YOU DISMISS THE EMOTIONAL TOLL OF WHEN BLACK WIDOW DIED*"
So then he had to expand on it, because people are idiots: there was a whole op-ed in the NY Times about it but the killer quote everyone is putting up was this:
[QUOTE]
But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption./QUOTE]
the bold bits are whats hes always meant. these things are great if thats what you want to see. and if thats what you want (the good guys win, the hero gets the girl etc etc) then they are perfect. and you should love them and enjoy them.
you can literally replace any characters into any Marvel movie and always end up in the same spot. thats cool, but there is no risk.
Thor can have Captain Americas journey, Iron man and Hulk are the same person etc etc.
Now, go slide Captain America and Iron Man into the plot of Goodfellas or The Usual Suspects or Fight Club and see how much audiences like it.
*because shes not really dead is she because theres an all new Black Widow movie coming to a cineplex near you this next year.........
[QUOTE=plague;232014]he started out a few weeks back saying Marvel movies 'were not cinema'. again, he was right from his point of view but Marvel ****boys got their knickers in a knot because "HOW DARE YOU DISMISS THE EMOTIONAL TOLL OF WHEN BLACK WIDOW DIED*"
So then he had to expand on it, because people are idiots: there was a whole op-ed in the NY Times about it but the killer quote everyone is putting up was this:
It's set between Civil War and Infinity war part 1. She's deadBut the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption./QUOTE]
the bold bits are whats hes always meant. these things are great if thats what you want to see. and if thats what you want (the good guys win, the hero gets the girl etc etc) then they are perfect. and you should love them and enjoy them.
you can literally replace any characters into any Marvel movie and always end up in the same spot. thats cool, but there is no risk.
Thor can have Captain Americas journey, Iron man and Hulk are the same person etc etc.
Now, go slide Captain America and Iron Man into the plot of Goodfellas or The Usual Suspects or Fight Club and see how much audiences like it.
*because shes not really dead is she because theres an all new Black Widow movie coming to a cineplex near you this next year.........
40th anniversary of "Life of Brian" must be today or yesterday.
Here's something for the old farts, a live debate with a bishop and a converted critic.
(This is the full story link which gives some context to the interview https://reason.com/2019/11/08/monty-...ts-the-bishop/)
And heres the interview. It's a long one.
Jesus is portrayed as the only legit religous figure in the Life of Brian.
It's all the infant religions that never gained any long term following they are taking the piss out of.
Again a simple case of church types being critical of a movie they had never seen.
Scorsese has a style and while many rave about his movies I don't enjoy them.
However his assesment about Marvel Movies is both fair and correct.
But as a business it's hard to argue with what the Marvel franchise delivers.
Decided to check out some old flicks I watched with my grandparents as a kid [They were old movies even then - thanks for asking Plague]
I watched "The Kid"[1921] starring Charlie Chaplin and Jackie Coogan [Uncle Fester from Addams Family]. Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, starred, as well as scored and played the soundtrack.
Anyone that can watch this movie without laughing and smiling all the way through is dead inside.
I also watched "The General"[1926] starring Buster Keaton - unfortunately time has not been kind to Keaton's films like it has the work of Chaplin.
I didn't hate "The General" but it's a hard slog to get through it.
Anyone else seen either of these films ? If not, just to get an idea how modern comedies evolved they are well worth a look.
Marx Brothers are something else worth checking out - especially for anyone that likes MASH.
Last edited by The Dunster; 19-11-2019 at 03:55 PM.
geez, cant wait for all those Black Widow thinkpieces. it looks like typical formula Marvel trash.
hopefully we can fit in a Ant Man and the Widow team up before Scar Jo's contract runs out.
also, theres a new Star Wars movie out in what, 2 weeks and there seems to be very little buzz about it.
still, light at the end of the tunnel. Spiderverse 2 is less than 900 days away.
oh shit just read they are actually making another Ant Man movie.
id be much more tolerant of the public at large if just some of their shitstain fanbois fessed up and said "you know what, some of these movies are trash".
even the Jets has their Donny De Groot era. its ok to acknowledge it.