Last film you watched and your rating

Last Crusade is great fun! The chemistry between Connery and Ford carries the whole film.

Anyway, bit of a change of pace, but High Noon is on 4OD. It's probably the greatest of the classic westerns, and is pretty much compulsory viewing for anyone interested in the genre.

10/10

Temple of Doom is an abomimation. Racist, sexist, it's a really vile piece of work.

Raiders of the Ark is one of the all time great adventure games and Last Crusade is wonderful, thanks to the relationship between Connery and Ford.

strawberry float Temple of Doom though.

Thief - 9/10

A brilliant Michael Mann film and James Caan in one of his best lead roles

Tomous wrote:Temple of Doom is an abomimation. Racist, sexist, it's a really vile piece of work.

Raiders of the Ark is one of the all time great adventure games and Last Crusade is wonderful, thanks to the relationship between Connery and Ford.

strawberry float Temple of Doom though.

It is indeed very, very nasty.

Jenuall wrote:Return of the King is noticeably weaker than the other two LotR films.

And the other two are already crap

I suspect you'd rather watch Revenge of the Surfboarding Killer Bikini Vampire Girls.

Actually, come to think of it, i'd like to see that one too.

RetroCora wrote:

Tomous wrote:Temple of Doom is an abomimation. Racist, sexist, it's a really vile piece of work.

Raiders of the Ark is one of the all time great adventure games and Last Crusade is wonderful, thanks to the relationship between Connery and Ford.

strawberry float Temple of Doom though.

It is indeed very, very nasty.

I've only ever seen Temple of Doom once and that was quite a few years ago, i can't remember much regarding the sexism/racism, but i do remember thinking it was rubbish.

Victor Mildew wrote:Anyone who doesn't rate the BTTF trilogy is going on the list.

It would have been on the list but we’re now in 2022, 7 years after the time the film was set in and we neither have proper hoverboards or flying Deloreans, so that takes it out of the equation for great trilogies

It’s a very, very good trilogy though

Putting aside the lazy stereotypes in Temple of Doom, the film itself isn't bad. It's just... rather bizarre. It's like Spielberg wanted to make a horror film but couldn't get away from the fact it's a family Indiana Jones flick, so it ends up being two films mashed together and neither works as well as it should.

Wasn't he going through a nasty divorce at the time? He's spoken often about his regrets in how that film turned out. It contains some genuinely impressive filmmaking though, it's a great looking film. I think I actually prefer how he directed it to how he directed Last Crusade, which lost a lot of the gritty feel from Raiders and ToD.

I do prefer Crusade to ToD though, the story doesn't get bogged down at all and is just more interesting/enjoyable.

Imrahil wrote:Putting aside the lazy stereotypes in Temple of Doom, the film itself isn't bad. It's just... rather bizarre. It's like Spielberg wanted to make a horror film but couldn't get away from the fact it's a family Indiana Jones flick, so it ends up being two films mashed together and neither works as well as it should.

Wasn't he going through a nasty divorce at the time? He's spoken often about his regrets in how that film turned out. It contains some genuinely impressive filmmaking though, it's a great looking film. I think I actually prefer how he directed it to how he directed Last Crusade, which lost a lot of the gritty feel from Raiders and ToD.

I do prefer Crusade to ToD though, the story doesn't get bogged down at all and is just more interesting/enjoyable.

I'd say the film goes past lazy stereotypes and is firmly in the territory of being extremely racist and culturaly insensitive, with the white saviour going to rescue the monkey brain eating, savages.

It was Lucas going through the nasty divorce I believe which happened in 83. Which probably explains the treatment of the female lead.

Temple of Doom released in 84, during which Spielberg was rekindling his relationship with Amy Irving who he married in 85 and divorced in 89 before marrying Kate Capshaw in 91 who he met when he cast her in Temple of Doom....

Goldfinger 7/10

Great fun but FRWL is definitely better. It's also a shame how PG's story ends. She was really cool until she just became another Bond shagger.

Only a 7! Christ, there are some tough critics out there

Goldfinger is a perfect Bond film, top 3 easily.

Double post

Tomous wrote:

Imrahil wrote:Putting aside the lazy stereotypes in Temple of Doom, the film itself isn't bad. It's just... rather bizarre. It's like Spielberg wanted to make a horror film but couldn't get away from the fact it's a family Indiana Jones flick, so it ends up being two films mashed together and neither works as well as it should.

Wasn't he going through a nasty divorce at the time? He's spoken often about his regrets in how that film turned out. It contains some genuinely impressive filmmaking though, it's a great looking film. I think I actually prefer how he directed it to how he directed Last Crusade, which lost a lot of the gritty feel from Raiders and ToD.

I do prefer Crusade to ToD though, the story doesn't get bogged down at all and is just more interesting/enjoyable.

I'd say the film goes past lazy stereotypes and is firmly in the territory of being extremely racist and culturaly insensitive, with the white saviour going to rescue the monkey brain eating, savages.

It was Lucas going through the nasty divorce I believe which happened in 83. Which probably explains the treatment of the female lead.

Temple of Doom released in 84, during which Spielberg was rekindling his relationship with Amy Irving who he married in 85 and divorced in 89 before marrying Kate Capshaw in 91 who he met when he cast her in Temple of Doom....

Ah, I knew it was something like that. I guess they just got wrapped up in a dark place together making that film.

Turning Red - 8/10

Best Pixar film in years.

Tomous wrote:

Imrahil wrote:Putting aside the lazy stereotypes in Temple of Doom, the film itself isn't bad. It's just... rather bizarre. It's like Spielberg wanted to make a horror film but couldn't get away from the fact it's a family Indiana Jones flick, so it ends up being two films mashed together and neither works as well as it should.

Wasn't he going through a nasty divorce at the time? He's spoken often about his regrets in how that film turned out. It contains some genuinely impressive filmmaking though, it's a great looking film. I think I actually prefer how he directed it to how he directed Last Crusade, which lost a lot of the gritty feel from Raiders and ToD.

I do prefer Crusade to ToD though, the story doesn't get bogged down at all and is just more interesting/enjoyable.

I'd say the film goes past lazy stereotypes and is firmly in the territory of being extremely racist and culturaly insensitive, with the white saviour going to rescue the monkey brain eating, savages.

I think these are all perfectly valid criticisms. Would it be fair to say that you find the portrayal of the Hovitos in Raiders -as a representation of indigenous South American tribes- as equally repugnant?

Moonfall - 8/10

Yes it is a completely stupid disaster movie but I enjoyed it & it's better then

floydfreak wrote:Moonfall - 8/10

Yes it is a completely stupid disaster movie but I enjoyed it & it's better then

ID 2

Agreed, it's incredibly dumb, yet really entertaining.

I can half ignore the problems in Indiana Jones with the logic that it's a fantasy world and isn't actually our societies being depicted, but that's a stretch certainly and Temple really pushes it to the limit

Vermilion wrote:

Jenuall wrote:Return of the King is noticeably weaker than the other two LotR films.

And the other two are already crap

I suspect you'd rather watch Revenge of the Surfboarding Killer Bikini Vampire Girls.

I mean, it's a classic.

I do tend to just skip forward to the scene where the good-looking unconventional female journalist who wore glasses and a tight sweater is trapped, deep in the bosom of the surfboarding killer bikini vampire girls' lair, and she comes up with this truly award-winning escape plan.

I just saw Joker (2019) on Netflix.

Blimey, that was pretty gloomy. There are plenty of positives; Phoenix is excellent as Joker, I liked the 80s setting and the film was successful in creating a deliberately uncomfortable vibe. I wouldn't describe it as enjoyable although I did admire the focus on mental illness and the sometimes twisted perspective of society. Then again, the violence was pretty shocking and I wonder if the film glorified rebellion and carnage with rather a heavy hand.

It was an intriguing film but not one I'd rush to view again. It has made me think about things more than most films, though. [6]

* On my review scale, 6 is above average rather than being bad.

Preezy wrote:Only a 7! Christ, there are some tough critics out there

Goldfinger is a perfect Bond film, top 3 easily.

7 might have been a little too critical. Might have to make it an 8.

Candyman (2021) - 6/10

It was all right and nothing was special about it.

I am also watching James Bond marathon and I'm now up to OHMSS.