MovieChat Forums > SpaceAce2001 > Replies
SpaceAce2001's Replies
Osasio-Cortez is a ditzy bimbo who doesn't LIKE even know LIKE what she's talking about.
Considering it was established that Gus had been in close contact with the DEA for quite some time seeing Hank, Merkert or Gomie is entirely possible. I feel like though if they brought back Hank it would just be seen as fan service.
I figured it was just his paranoia, the chances of him being someone looking for Jimmy are far too outlandish.
Yeah in the teaser I was kind of on the edge of my seat because I thought something might happen but for the remainder of the episode it was all build up to something that never happened.
I didn't like LeBeuf either but I'll take him over Doody, Glover or Elliot, hell I'd take him over Connery in Last Crusade. The ants were a cool scene, maybe they shouldn't have made the CGI so obvious. The nuke scene I can't defend, but Ford's age didn't bother me.
The only moment in Crusade that even remotely suspenseful was Donovan's death and that only lasted about 15 seconds and then it was right back to the campy nature that ruined the rest of the film. Toning down the violence was an idiotic move, Spielberg was just trying to appeal to parents who complained that Temple was too dark and scary for children despite the film having a "Parental Guidance Suggested" warning and did they even see the first film? What the hell did they expect?
Crusade was basically a rehash of Raiders, Temple went and did something different and I respect that a lot. Any humor in Temple again was meant to be comic relief to ease the tension but again it wasn't the main focus, the kiddie slapstick humor was the focus of Crusade and that is why Marcus and Henry had basically been reduced to Jar Jar Antics.
Quick question: Even though it's obvious that Temple is objectively better than Crusade why is it that you consider Crusade to be a great film but Crystal Skull to be a bad film? To me they are pretty on the same level of buffoonery, I just found Crystal Skull to be less obnoxious.
I think what's most important is to take a good hard look at the primary focus of each film: Temple despite having a little bit of comic relief through Willie (who I fully admit wasn't as good as Marion) is primarily about the Thuggee Cult and the Temple of Doom and about Indy undergoing a character arc where at first he is only about finding his fortune and glory to a guy who is willing to risk his life to do what is right which is saving the kids and conquering the Temple of Doom. Crusade on the other hand is completely about slapstick humor and Mickey Mouse jokes, the quest doesn't matter, the characters don't matter, Spielberg realized he had to dumb down his 3rd movie to appeal to little children and I guess he figured 4 year olds don't care about complex character development or believable acting (both Glover and Doody gave 2 of the worst performances I have ever seen).
Again when you were trying to justify Temple being a kids movie I noticed you conveniently left out the voodoo doll, the heart sacrifice, the whipping, the bridge standoff, etc. You are biased and you are dishonest. As far as the Indiana Jones films go the first half is really good, the second half is a bunch of mindless nonsense.
Ok now I think you’re trolling me. All you’re doing is cherry picking bits and pieces of comic relief out of Temple and acting like it made up the whole movie, it didn’t, Temple was a serious adventure film with traces of comic relief, Crusade was all comic relief just really really bad comic relief. I noticed you didn’t site the sacrifice scene, the whipping scene or the bridge standoff
Yes Crusade had atrocious acting, Glover was a great Bond villain I have no idea what happened here and Alison Doody was PAINFUL to listen to (capshaw wasn’t). She seriously sounded like she was just regurgitating what she was reading off a TelePrompTer she wasn’t acting. The story was lame, there was no sense of danger or excitement and the film is riddled with plot holes. Again Raiders and Temple are the only ones I count.
No I am no DCEUfanatic, other than the dark knight films I don’t do superheroes
Temple dealt with very mature subject matter such as black magic and child slavery, while it did have some comic relief overall it took itself very seriously and presented a real sense of danger for the heroes as did Raiders. Last Crusade was a film for 4 year olds, it was just one lame joke after another, the boat chase was the worst boat chase I have ever seen (and yes I've seen the boat chase in Moonraker), it has this light hearted "prancing through a prairie" music and the fact that Indy and the guy who just tried to kill him walked away best friends was dumber than dumb. Last Crusade was all about humor, the adventure didn't matter, it was alot like Monty Python in the sense that the plot wasn't the focus, the jokes were, the only difference is Monty Python was actually funny. Not to mention that Last Crusade had hands down the WORST acting I have ever seen in a major motion picture, how anyone like it is beyond me.
Wait hold on, are you seriously trying to tell me that Crusade is the more serious film??? What about it did you find serious? The campy boat chase? Young Indy hopping on top of a circus train? The Mickey Mouse jokes?
Thanks for the laugh buddy, Crusade was a kiddie film while the first two were more for teenagers to adults.
By the way I am the Ultimate Hippo, I had to make a new account.
I really don't care at all about ThreeTenToYuma, call him a coward all you want I am not going to lose any sleep over it.
You are the one who said BTTFIII wasn't the first film to have that theme, so therefore Forest Gump ripped off a whole bunch of movies. You shot yourself in the foot, you just gave my argument more merit. You are a complete joke. I am not that attached to BTTFIII or T2 so if you claim that they ripped off previous films I really don't care, however Forest Gump did rip off BTTFIII along with whatever BTTFIII ripped off, you cannot deny that.
I didn't know the history of ThreeTenToYuma, that board got very vicious and for all I know he was justified in reporting them. Again between the two of us you are the only one who ever reported posts because you are a coward.
All you do is misrepresent my posts and put words in my mouth. That is literally your method of debating.
Nope you defeated yourself by claiming victory that I defeated myself. I have never seen a more pathetic attempt of claiming victory in my life.
Are you incapable of comprehending anything I tell you??? Where did I say that BTTFIII was the first film to have that theme? I didn't, you are a liar and you are dishonest. If more films had that theme then that only strengthens my argument so thank you for that.
I didn't resolve my complaint at all, I was just poking a little fun at people who claim Christianity is a peaceful religion. Either way this presents a major inconsistency with Last Crusade, throughout the entire film the Nazis are portrayed as the bad guys yet if God took Sallah's gun away then all of a sudden he would have been on the side of the Nazi's. If God is truly a Nazi sympathizer then that means that Spielberg intended Indy to be the villain (since he was against the Nazis). If you seriously want to go down this road this introduces a serious writing flaw yet doesn't resolve the plot hole that the Nazis still put their guns down and ran away despite Sallah not having one. Again all I did was poke fun at Christianity, you are the one who decided to use this as a way to claim victory and it blew up right in front of your stupid face.
So Forest Gump ripped off BTTFIII and T2 along with other films??? OK works for me.
It's not cased closed at all. Even though it's not your job to correct other people it does show your bias since instead of focusing on the people making inaccurate claims about the film (such as Lucius drowning) you instead focus on the guy who is correcting the inaccurate claims. While you may not have directly stated that you agree with them it is a logical assumption.
Again you failed to show me the thread where LOTR was classified as a science fiction film, it is clearly an adventure fantasy film, show the damn thread and I will go ahead and correct the guy.
I have never used the straw man argument, NEVER. Go back and read this thread, you used Last Crusade to try and further your point on several occasions. Although I want to know straight up: Is not knowing how Bruce got back to Gotham a plot hole yes or no? If you say no then I will gladly concede my complaint about Last Crusade.
So then Indiana Jones was the villain while Adolf Hitler, Donovan and "bland, boring I don't know how to act Jenny Flex" were the heroes? Even if that were the case it still would be a plot hole because the Nazis still laid their guns down despite Sallah being unarmed. Now not only did Spielberg not have a clear cut hero and villain but we now have an even bigger plot hole.
Hey by injecting Terminator 2 into the discussion you are only strengthening my point. Thanks, I didn't think of that. Forest Gump ripped off both Terminator 2 and Back To The Future III, although Back To The Future III is closer to the theme of Forest Gump because both of those deal with destiny not being written on the personal level while T2 refers more to mankind as a whole.
Only saw part of XM:DOFP and never finished it, also didn't see Looper so sorry.
So you just admitted I was right, what I don't understand now is why you were so passionate about debating me when the board was flooded with misinformation and complaints that could easily be resolved if the poster simply understood the film. This shows your bias and your dishonesty.
Your point about ThreeTenToYuma is also irrelevant because between the two of us you are the only one who has reported posts.
That's fine you don't have to like TDKR just understand if you complain about nit picks such as random henchman #14 not falling convincingly or Alfred not making it clear that he paid his check you are going to get laughed at.
I have never once used a straw man argument, I have never put words in your mouth, you are the only one who is guilty of that. I pointed out Last Crusade because if not knowing how Bruce got back to Gotham is a "plot hole" then not knowing how Henry and Indy got to Turkey is a "plot hole" X 100. I was also not the one who injected Indiana Jones into the discussion, it was Arghhhh.
Your point is completely irrelevant, I never claimed that TDKR was rated higher than Forest Gump, you can't even keep up with a simple conversation and the fact that you can't follow TDKR is making so much sense now.