In line with its plot of "things happening for spurious reasons".
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
To me anyway Temple of Doom is quite a nasty piece of work and a product of its time really, but done with Spielberg at the helm at a stage when he was still taking risks with his movies. The sense of lunacy and madness is what I love about the whole thing, which is probably why I'd place this behind Raiders. Last Crusade is same song, second verse really and Jones is nowhere near as interesting or dangerous I suppose.
Funny, when I watched Tintin all I was thinking was if they could do the same with Harrison Ford. Continue the Jones films that way.
Last Crusade is probably the only Indiana film I've really enjoyed, might have been because of that nazi chick...
Sorry for not having a more refined taste at a young age, you highbrow Frenchman!
I have to admit liking them all, yes even the Temple of Doom but it is the weakest out of the lot.
Crusade is the strongest for character and pathos (and probably comedy) but the weakest in all other areas. The plot is a rehash of Raiders, and the big action sequences don't come close to the other 2 (I can't even remember what the big one is?) Though I do really like the River Phoenix intro. His Ford impression is really engaging.
I love it, as I do all of them (they all stand the re-watchablility test and then some) but it's probably the one I'd be least excited about being on telly. Though that is likely because it's the one I've seen the most. It's always the one on at Christmas for some reason. Probably 'cos it's the tamest.
I love it, as I do all of them (they all stand the re-watchablility test and then some) but it's probably the one I'd be least excited about being on telly. Though that is likely because it's the one I've seen the most. It's always the one on at Christmas for some reason. Probably 'cos it's the tamest.
Apology granted
Yeah, I thought Last Crusade was one big thrill ride. I enjoyed Raiders but I saw it pretty late and so much of it have been parodied and copied from it so it didn't really feel that fresh to me, for some reason.
I love Raiders, but I don't think it would stand today. I saw it again recently with someone who never had and they were incredulous at the ending. "He did nothing? How did he even know not to look? So, what? God just saved the day? BULLSHIT!"..
It was sobering tbf. Though they loved the rest of it.
Did anyone ever read Darabont's script that was leaked online? It would have made for a great movie rather than the rubbish we got in the fourth flick.
I have not read the script but have read about it and I agree it sounds much better, but then again I did enjoy the last film, I agree it was not great and what the hell were they think about when the did the atom bomb test with him in a fridge.
What were the main plotlines?
Yep, a lack of big footed midgets getting all angsty and emotional on a long walk certainly upped the entertainment value in star wars. That and the thought you could watch all 3 original Star Wars movies in the time it takes to watch about 1.5 Rings films.
George F*ckin Lucas!
Meh, a lot of 'A new hope' is incredibly dull for me, and a lot of the parts with the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi drag on. It's only The Empire Strikes Back that is really gripping from end to end for me.
Apart from the car crash of the 4th movie Crusade is my least favorite Indiana Jones film. Connery distracted all the attention in a rather annoying way. And as you said a rehash of Raiders with poorer stunts.
Funny, while there are similarities between Crusade and Raiders, I don't think it's a rehash at all. They're adventure films with a historic aspect, the formula can't be revolutionary with each film. I get what you're saying about the nazis, but Spielberg probably thought they'd be good adversaries to Jones given the epoch the films are set in. I love Crusade, I find the intro brilliant and the Connery/Ford chemistry spot on. The big action sequence is the one in the desert with the tank and everything, I find it really impressive and I know when we watched it as kids, my brother and I used to get really excited about it.
I hated the fourth one, not because there were aliens specifically (if the plot with aliens had been good, I wouldn't really have cared, it's not like we look for credibility in an Indy film) but because of all the other shitty stuff, the crappy jungle pursuit, the fridge, everything. And Shit la Boof posing as Brando (cringe), even though he has as much charisma as a dead oyster (fun fact: an oyster is alive when you eat it).
That just gives you a little info about the start of the flick. I'm sure you can still find a complete draft of it somewhere online and yeah, it's light years ahead of the 4th film we have in terms of storytelling and dialogue. No bull£hit son either: just all about Indy and Marion.
Those hating on Indiana Jones films don't seem to grasp that it's supposed to be like the cliffhanger serials of the 30's. It's not meant to make sense or be dissected for plot strength....it's a roller-coaster ride of set-pieces and assorted nonsense. They all hit the mark as far as I'm concerned.
Lucy- uniquely stupid. Starts with a fundamental misunderstanding of neurology. Scarlett Johansson takes a drug that makes her autistic. Morgan Freeman isn't even trying anymore. Some seriously dodgy CGI and shitty vague philosophy. Mercifully short. Why is Luc Besson a thing?
Morgan Freeman hasn't acted for at least 10 years.
One of many great aging actors who've become parodies of themselves.
What's Morgan Freeman been great in? I think he's over-rated.
In some cases in those series things that plainly happened in one episode had unhappened by the following week and nobody cared. In one case, I saw in a program about them, that was set in the Wild West a bloke on a horse tried to jump a canyon, didn't make it and he and the horse fell in plain view at the end of the episode. The following week he made it and the story carried on
Chef Pleasant enough to overcome the rather predictable ending and funny at times but lacks a bit of substance. 7/10
He is likable rather than a great actor.
Guardians of the Galaxy - 8.5/10 Loved the movie, it's funny and the 3D effects didn't seem out of place. Great soundtrack too, nicely done with the songs. The dance off was a bit too cheesy, but it's a movie about a raccoon guarding a Galaxy, let's just roll with it.
Nowt. Folk just like him playing the same cool character time after time.
There are a bunch of actors like that including the great De Niro even.
De Niro clearly had range if that's what you mean?
Obviously he's become a caricature of himself though, like Freeman, Pacino, formerly Nicholson.
That is what I mean, of course De Niro has range but have we seen that range within the last 5 or so years? I doubt it, easy pay for some of these actors.
Last edited:
I don't recall MF doing anything like Pacino, Nicholson or De Niro in their early careers. Did I miss it?
Sucker Punch: Zack Snyder further cementing himself as a director who only understands visual effect but has no comprehension of anything below surface level. It would be a bit silly to call this an actual movie, its more a case of 3 parts of 3 completely different movies sewn together with nothing more than a tenuous link, 2 of which are boring and insultingly stupid and one of which might have made a passable thrill ride of a movie had they taken the time. A film that is trying so desperately hard to be some sort of feminist parable but lacks even the most basic idea of structure, coherence or intelligence. Avoid.
3/10
3/10
Last edited:
My point was based on their work of late and Freeman was pretty good in Million Dollar Baby for my money, he just hasn't done anywhere near as much as Pacino and De Niro over his career so get more stick for doing exactly what Pacino and De Niro have been doing of late. Some might also argue that being a black actor there are less varied parts offered for him to actually display range within, he has always been a supporting actor not a main actor.
Who essentially plays the same character.
For some reason black men with deep voices are elevated.
For some reason black men with deep voices are elevated.
He's got a great delivery but it's the only thing he does, kinda...look at me don't I sound like a thespian. He's actually in my head right at this very moment saying 'hey, my name is Morgan Freeman'. It's annoying. But yeah nothing of note that I can recall. In my book he's a mediocre actor who's made a fantastic living doing the same thing ad nauseum.
Last edited:
To Catch A Thief: A fun romp. France and Grace Kelly look beautiful.
The Double
I'm never gonna get that hour and a half back. Beyond tedious.
I'm never gonna get that hour and a half back. Beyond tedious.
The Purge: Anarchy
Was at a loose end so downloaded it yesterday. Better than the first one. Still not great but enjoyable. Worth a watch if you don't take it seriously.
Was at a loose end so downloaded it yesterday. Better than the first one. Still not great but enjoyable. Worth a watch if you don't take it seriously.
We're the Millers - Fairly loathsome stuff.
The Crazies - Actor Timothy Olyphant playing against type as a small town lawman, just one of the new and fresh things this dismal horror had to offer.
The Crazies - Actor Timothy Olyphant playing against type as a small town lawman, just one of the new and fresh things this dismal horror had to offer.
Last edited: