MovieChat Forums > SpaceAce2001 > Replies
SpaceAce2001's Replies
The only Bond movie that the truck chase reminds me of is Licence to Kill at the end but if memory serves me correctly Raiders came before Licence to Kill so point debunked.
Yes despite what you may think Indy and Bond are different characters. Indy is more well suited for a harsh environment such as a tropical rainforest or a desert as we saw in the first two movies. Europe however doesn't really present much of a threat and considering most of Crusade took place in a large city it doesn't really lend itself to adventure too much.
The Grail wasn't in Africa, it was in Hatay which is part of present day Turkey which many people consider to be a European country (some consider it to be Asian). It is not in Africa, get your facts straight.
You missed my point, the Moonraker boat chase is considered to be one of the most ridiculous chase sequences ever in a Bond film and the Crusade boat chase was even more ridiculous and that is saying ALOT. And the fact that Bond and the same people who just fired automatic weapons at him walked away being best friends reminded me way too much of Batman and Robin where Freeze and Bruce became friends at the end.
When Kerim Bey blew up the consulant, Tatiana and Bond ran through the sewers but got stop by a trail of rats and Bond then insisted that they got back and find another way out. Definite rip off of From Russia With Love which by the way was a far better movie than Last Crusade.
Hmmmmm, so we have Julian Glover (I don't know if we can count him considering he was just playing Random Imperial Officer #3) and Harrison Ford from Star Wars??? Am I missing anyone??? From Bond we have Connery, Doody, Rhys Davis, and Glover which is twice as many as from Star Wars.
What reminds me of Bond??? "Oh Venice" and then he bangs some chick, the exact kind of line we would have in a Bond film although even the worst Bond films would have been a little bit more clever.
The only part in Temple that was even remotely like a Bond film was the opening in Shanghai and even then it was more of a tribute, after they left Shanghai we were in full fledged Indiana Jones mode for the rest of the film.
Oh and I also don't seem to remember Raiders or Temple having Mickey Mouse jokes.
Are you kidding me? Last Crusade was Bond all over the place except that Ford just doesn't have the charisma that Connery, Moore, Brosnan, etc. had. They sent Indy to Europe which is a perfect place for a Bond film but not for Indiana Jones. They reused almost every actor who had ever been in a Bond Film and they even had a boat chase just like a Bond film, although this boat chase was even worse than the one in Moonraker. They even referenced From Russia With Love with the whole Dad is afraid of rats thing, when in From Russia With Love Connery actually ran away from rats.
Julian Glover and Alison Doody gave two of the worse performances I have ever seen, and the plot was just a retread of Raiders just with all of the fun sucked out of it. It boggles my mind why people actually like this movie.
Uh yeah I am the ultimate hippo, someone got my account deleted. I didn't really try to hide it, I also don't remember you but whatever.
Crusade superior to Raiders? OK now you've completely lost me. Raiders is one of the greatest films ever made, Crusade is a very pathetic attempt to rip off a James Bond movie.
Ford and Connery did not have good chemistry, they seemed like they were reading their lines off a script, that scene in the blimp is proof.
Say what you will about Short Round and Willie, but it was obvious that they at least cared and were trying.
Barr isn't a racist, Valerie doesn't know how to take a joke. Again she willingly put herself in the public arena, if she can't take the heat she should stay out of the kitchen.
Right around the same time Samantha Bee called Ivanka Trump the C-word, silence on the left............................................
That one moment by itself was infinitely better than anything from Last Crusade.
And the thing is the world isn't perfect, there are volcanic eruptions emitting all kinds of toxic gases, there are earthquakes and tsunamis, over 70% of the world is covered by water and we can't even live there. By his logic God is eternal so why can't matter and energy be eternal? There was a debate where he and his buddy Ray Comfort were debating 2 atheists and they didn't challenge him on this point and I thought it was a missed opportunity.
Kirk Cameron simply cherry picks the "evidence" that suits his world view and that isn't how science works. In science you use the evidence to guide you to the conclusion. Kirk has started with his conclusion and he is just picking and choosing what evidence he wants to consider valid.
In today's society fortunately it doesn't seem to be the Christians that are violent (except for the Westboro Baptist Church Cult), I am just sick and tired of being preached to and having comments such as "I feel so sorry for you that you haven't found Christ", "I'll pray for you", "God has thrown you a life preserver, reach out and take it", etc., etc. I'm sick of self righteous, sanctimonious and quick frankly insultingly ignorant attitudes such as those.
Rosanne just made a joke about Valerie Jarrett. The left needs to lighten up and realize that it was all done in the name of comedy (they sure know how to dish it out by the way), honestly their outrage over Rosanne's comments just shows their immaturity. Valerie Jarrett willingly put herself in the public arena, she needs to learn how to take the heat.
The point is it's insulting that he seems to think that he knows more than all of the PhD's on the planet and that he is able to debunk all of evolution when he doesn't even know what evolution says. That and the fact that his "evidence" basically boils down to "the world is so perfect, it had to have been created"
All life evolved from the first cells created by abiogenesis through chemical reactions in the early Earth's atmosphere (or at least the Miller-Urey experiment proves that it's possible for the gases in the early Earth atmosphere to produce organic compounds such as amino acids, not that it without a shadow of a doubt happened), then over billions of years DNA mutated, organisms started reproducing sexually (which means genetic diversity as each parent can only donate one allele from each trait and it's completely random) and Natural Selection weeded out the organisms that did not have favorable adaptations. A donkey never gave birth to a gorilla as Kirk seems to think
I'm also sick of the "I don't see how it could possibly be evolution so therefore it's God" argument. Not understanding the other side doesn't prove your side.
That seriously wouldn't surprise me.
I see what you're saying. And yeah I never really understood the whole "if you believe in God you go to heaven, if you don't believe in God you go to hell" First of all:
1) That would mean like 2/3 of the world's population is going to hell (including all of the Jews executed or survived the Holocaust)
2) That's not a fair system because God has never revealed himself or even given people a reason to believe in him
3) That's an immoral system because he's basically saying "worship me blindly without any evidence that I even exist and if you dare to question this I will torture you forever"
4) By that system if someone is a rapist and a murderer and rapes, tortures and kills a little girl who had never been saved by this system the little girl would go to hell, then the rapist asks for forgiveness, gets saved and he gets to go to heaven.
Praying to a celestial being to fix everything isn't even "personal responsibility" that's saying that God will just solve all of your problems.
I have no problem with personal responsibility but I have a problem with his sanctimonious, arrogant attitude and that he doesn't even understand the theory that he attacks.
That's an understatement, again he doesn't even understand the theory that he's attacking. And the scientists that he claims to know more than are a lot smarter than he is.
He claims to be able to disprove evolution with his "Crocoduck" argument which ironically shows that he doesn't even understand evolution. He claims a transitional form goes as follows: Crocodile gives birth to Crocoduck --> Crockoduck gives birth to duck. The theory of evolution doesn't say that and no scientists say that either. Evolution says that species go through very small changes through time, from generation to generation it doesn't really seem to be any different but compound that effect over millions of years and you have an entirely different species. Then environmental factors select which members of a species are able to live and which ones die (example: in a snowy environment the white rabbits are able to blend in with their environment and hide from predators while the black rabbits are easily spotted and eaten). Evolution is as close to scientific fact as you can get and the fact that he thinks that he's the one who has proof that evolution is false and that he's smarter than every geologist, paleontologist and biologist in the scientific community is insultingly arrogant. He doesn't know what he's talking about, he's a joke.
The thing is there is no reason to believe that there is a god up there, it has never been demonstrated that he exists and the idea of his existence contradicts everything we know about the natural world.
The scene right after "Right all of us" is quite possibly the best moment in the entire franchise.
Kingdom was a letdown, the Star Wars Prequels weren't as good as the OT but certainly far better than Kingdom/Crusade and Episodes 7-8 (Episode 3 is actually on par with the OT). Alien and Aliens were great, Alien 3 is better on repeat viewings and the Assembly Cut is actually quite good (not great but good). Alien Resurrection was just too damn weird.