Only recently got round to watching the Indiana Jones quadrilogy. Here's what I thought.

Obviously this is the first in the quadrilogy, and pretty much everyone holds the opinion that it is the best of the lot. I don't really agree with this. Though the opening is probably the best opening of any Action film EVER. And the Desert chase scene is a classic (the bit where Indy is dragging along underneath the van - brilliant) the rest of the film didn't have me as gripped as I was expecting

My personal favourite. It starts off particularly slowly, but after the initial disappointment, it kicks and screams to its climax. I'm surprised that no one really classes this as the standout moment of the series, it has all the elements of a classic. The mine cart chase is seriously one of the best scenes that has been commited to film, and had me completely gripped throughout - that's saying something considering I've only just watched the film, over 20 years since it's original release. Of course, with the good there comes the bad. And the bad here is the company that Indy takes with him on his adventure. Willie. I can take Short Round, even with his 'funny funny' and his rather unsettling love for Indy (seriously, why does he love him so much?) but Willie just takes the proverbial biscuit. Her fear of everything isn't cute, and in no way shape or form does it make me warm to her naivety. She makes me want to take to the mountains in a vow of cellebacy. For fuck sake, Indy, just shove it in her mouth and tell bitch to shut the fuck up.

So the love interest didn't work in Temple of Doom. What do they do next? They only slap fucking James Bond in there. Sean Connery as Indiana Jones' Dad seems like the worlds best idea on paper, so as I was marathon-watching the series, this is the film I was most looking forward to getting to. And I was disappointed. Very disappointed. The Zoo train sequence is the most stupid fucking scene ever. It's amazing how they put such a ludicrous idea into such a popular franchise. We'll accept a young Indy with a silly boyband haircut, fine, but to explain his whole character in under TEN MINUTES? Just go fuck yourselves. In fact, I would've even gone so far as to accept the explanation for his fear of snakes, or how he got that fedora hat, but the whole 'he learnt how to use his whip because he had to tame a lion' thing? That's too far. Ilse, the sort of lost interest in this one, starts off well. That is until she goes all Nazi, and then she only really pops up to show us that even though she betrayed Indy, there might be some hope for her after all.

We don't care. You're a Nazi.

Indy meets Adolf Hitler. That's all I've got to say on that.

The rest of the film from then on purely consists of Indy bitching about James Bond not being a good enough father, never taking him out for a milkshake or a quick game of catch. It carries on along this path, Indy whining, Connery not giving a shit. The Last Crusade basically goes on its way proving the point that Bond is cooler than Indiana Jones. And I bet Bond would have dealt with Willie like a man.

In no way, shape or form is this the worst of the series. Last Crusade holds that title by a country mile. Neither is it particularly astounding. But it is worth watching purely for the shits and giggles. As everyone already knows, this one involves aliens. Regardless of whether or not that's the most stupid thing to introduce in the Indiana Jones series, it made me give more of a shit than the other rubbish he was collecting. A big golden basket, a rock - even the Holy Grail turned out to be an eggcup.

For the most part, Harrison Ford doesn't look too out of place considering he's knocking on a bit now. The one thing I would change about his overall image is those baggy brown trousers he wears - makes him look like my Grandad, were my Grandad an adventurer and not, well, dead.

Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull definitely takes the crown for the most WTF moments in a movie. Ever. It made me wonder why no one turned round to Spielberg during shooting and was like 'Steve, maybe people aren't going to believe you can survive an atomic bomb by hiding in a fridge...'

The car chase at the end, though yet again completely unrealistic, is thrilling and sits just a couple of popcorn boxes behind the mine cart chase for sheer cinematic thrills.


Overall, the series isn't as consistent as everyone seems to think it is. Raiders of The Lost Ark is overrated, Temple of Doom underrated, The Last Crusade unrated and Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull overstated.

Originally Posted by WolfAtTheDoor (Post 631880) I didn't actually! I'll have to look for him now... what part of the movie was he in?

Originally Posted by WolfAtTheDoor (Post 631880) And the only film I saw in the cinema was the Kingdom of The Crystal Skull, but it was much better viewing it as part of the series as I had more of a feel for Indy's character. I probably don't appreciate Marion as much as the old Indiana Jones fans because I'd already seen her in Kingdom of The Crystal Skull, where obviously people were already meant to know how she was important to the series. She wasn't introduced to me in the way that she was to viewers in the 80's, so maybe that's why her character impacted on me a lot less.

Originally Posted by WolfAtTheDoor (Post 631880) And as for Mola Ram. He rips out peoples hearts.

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 631886) He's right near the beginning. After they escape from the nightclub, they go to the airport and talk to a guy with an English accent right before they get in the plane. That guy is Dan Akroyd. I must have seen the movie twenty times before I noticed this. That's probably a big part of it. I thought they made her way less interesting in Crystal Skull. She's such a booze-swilling badass in the first movie. I like her a lot better that way. Yeah but that's about it. Belloq is so much more of a character. And he's such an arrogant jackass I just want to smack him every time he's on screen. I love it.

Originally Posted by WolfAtTheDoor (Post 631905) Just another Nazi though... I think what I was expecting with the Indiana Jones series coming into it was the opening scene of Raiders, just repeated... temples, exploring, risky puzzles. Raiders wasn't really like that after the first scene was finished, much of it was spent in the daytime, outdoors, in a bustling environment. For me, Temple of Doom had the environment I was expecting and the one that I wanted from the movies. And the powerful, destructive, shamanic villain.

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 631906) Er... Belloq wasn't a Nazi. He was a French archeologist .

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 631906) Er... Belloq wasn't a Nazi. He was a French archeologist. In one scene he even makes a point of talking about how he's using the Nazis to help him get what he wants but he couldn't care less about them. Also, I don't know what to tell you about your expectations there. I mean they are what they are but they don't really match up with what the Indiana Jones movies are all about. It's kind of hard to fault them for that.

Originally Posted by WolfAtTheDoor (Post 631958) You can't fault them for it no, but obviously having never watched any of the Indiana Jones films, I was always told I should by those who had. I'd practically heard the plotlines of the stories already, just by people explaining them to me in conversation. And most people drew a comparison with Tomb Raider to help me out... so you can see how I'd be given the impression that this bloke just, well, had adventures in temples. And I was all geared up for that and on paper it sounded brilliant, but I was just a bit disappointed when I actually saw them. Aside from Temple of Doom, which was just on the level of brilliance that I expected.

As 'Inglourious Basterds' is just about to hit cinemas worldwide, I thought i'd give a rundown of my thoughts on Quentin Tarantino's directorial work.

Reservoir Dogs is what many would consider a perfect directorial debut. It contains some of the most iconic scenes in modern cinema, and in the 98 minutes that you spend watching it, you not only feel a great connection with each of it's fantastically well-rounded characters, but you also feel a connection with Tarantino himself. Never will you find a film that so boldly states it's directors ambitions whilst never succumbing to self-indulgence.

Tarantino put it best himself when he stated that his aim for Reservoir Dogs was to create a heist film that wasn't necessarily about the heist. We never see the heist in question, and it is only explained to us by the central characters. However the writing is so sharp and engaging that you never feel like you have missed out, and this is where Tarantino shines the brightest.

Many claim this to be Tarantino's masterpiece. I am one of them.

Pulp Fiction is one of those very rare films that I could literally watch again and again and again. It still manages to impress me each and every time. This was before Tarantino became a little bit too smug and self-indulgent, when his indie-directorial-cool seemed effortless and not as forced as it was in, say, Kill Bill.

The opening scene of this film involving Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield is one of the finest character introductory scenes you will EVER see. And this is even more impressive when you take into account that the characters never discuss themselves or anything remotely linked with the plot, but instead they are discussing quarter pounders with cheese.

Best Bit: Butch Coolidge and the taxi driver. A subtle yet brilliant scene/

Until recently I was very much under the impression that this was Quentin Tarantino's debut as a director. In fact, I had only heard of it after buying the Tarantino boxset, and had assumed that it was his obscure first step into the world of movies. It certainly plays out that way.

To me, Jackie Brown does not have the feel of a Tarantino movie. It does not gel with the rest of his output, and it does not stand out in my mind along with his other work. Even though it is a fairly good crime drama, it is nothing more than that - a crime drama. Certainly, it does have its charm and good, well-rounded characters, but it just doesn't hit you as much as his other work.

Tarantino is best at making Tarantino movies. This is a crime drama, pure and simple. And there are better crime dramas out there.

Best Bit: Any scene with Robert De Niro in. He inevitably steals the show.

If Reservoir Dogs was Tarantino's heist movie, Pulp Fiction his gangster movie and Jackie Brown his 'blaxploitation flick', then the Kill Bills were his balls out martial arts movies.

The term 'style over substance' was given a new definition upon Vol 1's release, with every single last detail of the entire movie seemingly created purely for the benefit of cool computer wallpapers and ringtones.

Saying this makes the film sound bad, but it isn't by any means. No, it's not as engaging as his other work. But that's not the point. Kill Bill makes you sit back and think "yeah, that was pretty fucking cool" for its entire runtime.

Vol. 2 was more of the same, but tweaked into a state of surrealism that was charming in the first installment, but a bit tired and try-hard in the second. I'm not sure whether the whole scene with The Bride digging herself out of a grave with a spoon was supposed to be funny, but if it was, then it's slightly disappointing that the film spent so long on the whole 'palm-fist' scenario just for that stupid and throwaway outcome.

That leads me onto another negative - Pai Mei. I understand that his character was intentionally overblown, but that overblown? Eventually I grew tired of any scene featuring him and I found myself grateful when he met his demise, allowing the film to venture onto genuinely interesting action scenes.

All in all, both films are what they were intended to be - a collage of great action scenes. They both have their faults, in particular Vol. 2, but Kill Bill remains a good foray into a franchise from Tarantino. Plus, it has The Bride, one of the best femme fetales in cinema history.

Death Proof

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s...th-proof-1.jpg

Perhaps Tarantino's only directorial 'flop' as it were, Death Proof is what all it's cynics say it is. A self-indulgent, low-budget yet highly-hyped foray into the depths of Tarantino's mind and perversions. Yet, even with that being said, it's still not as bad as people would lead you to believe.

The dialogue isn't as sassy as you'd expect from a cast almost entirely comprised of ladies, and the only part of this film other than the car chase that had me fully engaged was the conversation involving Stuntman Mike and the girl sitting at the bar. Stuntman Mike is a fantastic character, a withered old pervert who is easy to love and loathe simulataneously. He's an excellent creation in an otherwise mediocre film, which is a shame, as if Tarantino didn't become so obsessed with attempting to make a 'Grindhouse' feature, then he could have had a classic premise on his hands here.

The main problem with this film is the overwhelming amount of dialogue involving characters we really don't care that much for. The original line-up of female leads are given way too much screen time when they really don't have anything good to say at all. Then, alarmingly, they are killed off in a flash and we are left feeling cheated out the last 45 minutes that was spent trying to make us feel anything for any of them. It isn't enough that they're sexy, if they're going to be on the screen for so long then at least make them interesting, too. The next group of females are decidedly more likeable, lead by a fantastically tomboyish Zoe Bell. You feel that if the film focused more on this group, it would have been a lot more successful with dialogue.

Then there's the car chase, which, even with all the hype, wasn't as good as expected. The girls beat Stuntman Mike to death, and then it ends. Anti-climax...

Best Bit: The bullet in Stuntman Mike's arm and the realisation that he has now became the hunted and not the hunter.

Originally Posted by ToeAndno (Post 717920) And as for the Indiana series, nice to see a review there from Spielberg himself. Seriously, Crystal Skull was dire, bad plot, bad CGI, and barely any fun to watch. Temple of Doom isn't as bad as people make it out to be but definitely second worst, again, not many fun parts for a 'fun action adventure' and Spielberg's wife deserve a bitch slappin'. Raiders of the Lost Ark is the best out of the series and Last Crusade is second. Both are fun, have great action scenes and have similar structure.

I was 9 years old when the hype for The Phantom Menace took control of the world. I had seen the original trilogy, forced upon me by a particularly fanboyish best friend at the time, and eventually grew to love it. He had all the old action figures, passed on by his sister, and everytime I went to his house I was the TIE fighters, he was the Millenium Falcon, and that was the end of that. More and more friends would come over and play and we'd have a big Star Wars-fest, with barely any of them having actually seen the movies, but fuck those toys were cool.

So I can thoroughly understand the reasoning behind the hype behind The Phantom Menace, and how much people anticipated it. Star Wars was a franchise that was easy to love - enough imagination to captivate children and a fantastic, classic storyline to draw in their parents. Obviously, some people took the hype a bit too far, and even though I understand the greatness of the original trilogy, turning up to see a movie dressed as Boba Fett will NEVER be acceptable.

The Phantom Menace is, then, as you all have heard by now, a huge disappointment on all counts. I went to see this film at the cinema, and I was one of the many children that Lucas evidently wanted to impress with Jake Lloyd being the central character and Jar Jar Binks the 'lovable' sidekick. However, it just didn't work. The storyline was too convoluted for any child to get into, with talk of Trade Federations, Galactic Senates, Medechlorians. Sure, at the time I got along just fine with the idea of Jar Jar Binks - at that point he was the only thing that could stop the film from sending me into a boredom induced coma. Almost 10 years later I can watch the film back and understand the story (although it's still boring as shit and I couldn't care less about any of it) but the childish elements of it that were acceptable when viewed through the eyes of a child annoy the fuck out of me now I'm a little older and wiser.

I'm one of the 'lucky' few that can completely deny the claim that the Phantom Menace was Lucas' film for the kids. It wasn't, we hated it.

For many, the above image summarises the tone of Attack Of The Clones. Which is a pity, because if you take away the poorly written and honestly embarassing love story tacked onto Episode II, it really is quite a good addition to the Star Wars franchise. The character of Anakin got off to a pretty bad start with The Phantom Menace. Portraying the soon-to-be-Darth-Vader as an overexcitable child was a bold, if somewhat poorly thought out maneuver. He doesn't do too well in Attack Of The Clones either.

Many blame Hayden Christensen's poor acting, but in all fairness, I don't know how anyone could have made any of his dialogue sound at least half respectable. There's even a part where he yelps 'Its Not Fair!!!' like a pre-pubescent whining little bitch. The love story is incredibly bland and you just feel uncomfortable watching it. I know it's integral to the story and it had all the potential to be a classic plotline, but Lucas' dialogue has always been notably patchy and it really is the case here. In the original trilogy, Han, Leia and Luke's love triangle had some spectacularly campy moments full of hammy dialogue, but we cared about the characters so it left us wanting more. We don't care about Anakin or Padme here, which is the biggest failing of Attack Of The Clones.

Otherwise, it's a good watch. I love that Jar Jar effectively ruined the entire galaxy by passing powers over to Palpatine, the opening chase scene through the city reminded me of the Fifth Element, the whole Obi-wan versus Jango Fett plotline was also handled very well in my opinion. I'm glad we got to see what Boba would have been like if he actually knew how to use any of his weaponry. And, of course, the final battle between Yoda and Dooku was a classic moment of cinema.

Revenge of the Sith is, in my opinion, the second best Star Wars film. Not of the prequels, no no no, but the second best Star Wars film of the whole franchise. I know it's widely regarded as the best of the 'new trilogy', but fanboys are adamant that it comes nowhere near the original trilogy in terms of quality.

Finally, the legacy of Darth Vader is done some justice and he is no longer excitable-kid or angsty-teen, but a mature young adult who feels he has no other choice to go to the Dark Side. Obviously, Lucas' adversion to decent dialogue doesn't make this whole scenario as heartbreaking as it may sound, but from what we've come to expect from the Star Wars prequels in terms of emotion then it's no mean feat that this time around we actually feel something for poor Ani's downfall.

Aside from the obvious few linking errors between this film and the original trilogy (the whole 'Leia remembering her mother' debacle) but all in all it does a very good job at tying up all the loose ends, and I think that's what's so special about Revenge of the Sith. You are actually getting to watch all the answers to all the questions you had about the original trilogy. From the reasoning behind Anakin's transition into Vader to Yoda's retreat to Dagobah, it's all there. The lightsaber battles are all spectacular, and both the opening space battle and the battle for Kashyyk are similarly epic. My only major disappointment with the film was the treatment of General Grievous, who, as a four-lightsaber wielding beast, should have been the highlight of the show - he wasn't.

Best Bit: Ian McDiarmid's portrayal of Palpatine/Darth Sidious. A classic villian, completely stealing the show.