MovieChat Forums > Kurt > Replies
Kurt's Replies
Why exactly "Anglos"?
I felt the movie kind of ended as a intro to her story, as if they had planned to make a sequel featuring her story, together with Darth Maul, who apparently is still alive(?) This is in stark contrast to Rogue One, which was a completely self contained story with no open ends. Generally the Solo movie kind of fizzled out at the end, to me that was not a satisfying ending. The whole thing was setting up her story - the ending was pointless unless they had plans to continue her story.
I thought it was entertaining and not too bad, until the last quarter of the movie, which was underwhelming. Qi'ra took over from Dryden Vos, she basically became him - yeah she's now a villain. "Don't trust anyone" and "you don't know her", riiight so she saved the rebellion yet she was the servant of a supposedly dead sith lord? It would have made much more sense if she had died.
I mean, there are books and animated crap which probably explain all this, but ten wild horses could not drag me to watch or read any of that nonsense.
There was actually a sort of explanation early in the story, from the conspiracy nerd working in the shopping centre/mall. There were no further explanations in the movie, which was a bit odd, but I kind of suspected that there would be no real explanation, as it was that kind of movie.
It didn't bother me, but it felt odd that they went to the desert first to test their shooting, then to watch a sunset, considering Casablanca is FAR away from any desert with dunes like in the movie! He even parachuted right on a dune, which was obviously a very artificial looking shot.
Oddly, some of the shots were actually in a desert for real, but they added extra dunes and changed the colour to match those of Moroccan deserts like Erg Chebbi, which is very far from Casablanca. The test shooting of the guns I believe were just shot in a real desert somewhere.
[url]https://media.giphy.com/media/b9aScKLxdv0Y0/giphy.gif[/url]
Jackson appears a lot like captain Ahab in the movie. He doesn't seem like a hero to me at all.
It's much more of a 2001 rip off.
I don't remember the movie that well anymore, perhaps that was a genuine plot hole?
It had a much better post-OW run than usual for a movie like this, with a 3.5 x multiplier. Out of all MCU movies, only Guardians of the Galaxy had a bigger multiplier, but obviously with a significantly smaller total!
MCU movie multipliers (approx)
GotG 3.53
BP 3.5
IM 3.25
AM 3.15
A 3.0
SM:H 2.86
AM2 2.81
T 2.75
DS 2.74
CA2 2.73
CA 2.72
GotG2 2.66
A3 2.63
T3 2.57
IM2 2.44
T2 2.4
A2 2.4
IM3 2.35
CA3 2.28
Some other recent non-MCU superhero movies, made after MCU movies started, for comparison
DCEU
Wonder Woman 4.0 (!)
Man of Steel 2.5
Justice League 2.44
BvS 2.0
SS 2.43
X-men:
First Class 2.66
Days of Future Past 2.57
Apocalypse 2.36
The Wolverine 2.5
X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2.12
Sony's Amazing Spider-Man
TASM 4.22 (highest of all)
TASM2 2.22
The Rapture is not mainstream Christianity as presented in this movie, it is Christian fundamentalism. This is a fundamentalist doomsday movie, not a mainstream Christian movie. Obviously you can expect people of this observation to write in the comments (although that was probably back in IMDB). Fundamentalist movies are almost always about the "rapture/armageddon/end of the world" or sometimes about something from the old testament, like Noah's ark and Jonah, that kind of subject.
There are many movies with Christian themes which are not seen as Christian movies as such, such as the Body (2001) and the Prophecy(1995), while the movies described as "Christian" are typically fundamentalist movies like this one, which are made with the sole purpose of promoting this kind of Christianity.
So fuck you for having more than one user, and good bye.
SpaceAce2001, The movie isn't mature just because it has violence, and as you mention the violence of Last Crusade it also seems like you don't mind contradicting yourself. The humour in Doom is just completely juvenile bordering on fart jokes, which is something the other two didn't have. In fact, Last Crusade is far more similar to Raiders of the Lost Ark, while Doom is the odd man out, seemingly very unfocused, with the way it goes from gross out humour to death by heart ripping, and how it includes a child sidekick (who has some stupid slapstick fighting during supposedly intense Indy scenes) in a child friendly manner despite the violence. It's an uneven, unfocused movie. It is rightly considered the weakest by most people (of the three original movies).
And to that question you asked, "what adult humour?" Well, pretty much anything involving the dialogue between Indy and his dad, for starters. One of the main differences between this and Doom is exactly that they dropped the juvenile humour of the second movie, and put a lot of the humour in the dialogue (instead of gross out and slapstick in the second) or can you give some substantial examples of this "kiddie humour" in Crusade?
I can only repeat what I wrote to the TheUltimateHippo: But opinions are divided, there's no real factual "right" opinion and Crusade has a higher tomatometer score and a much higher audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. So many people surely disagree with you.
I only agree about this for the first half of the movie, what I think is a bit of a cop out is the sudden change of focus, like a new story out of the blue, just so it could have its sixth sense moment.
It may have had a single line like that, but Crusade is chock full of adult humour and innuendo and is definitely the most mature of all the Indy movies, especially because it does not take itself too seriously.
It is actually Temple of Doom which is the most "reduced" movie out of the three, as it has endless scenes of gross out humour. It even has a child as a comedic "slapstick" sidekick. It's pretty juvenile despite it has some "dark" scenes. Those scenes, which are very over the top, does not eliminate the slapstick and the gross out humour.
But opinions are divided, there's no real factual "right" opinion and Crusade has a higher tomatometer score and a much higher audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. So many people surely disagree with you.
The most juvenile aspect of the original SW movie was definitely some of the Creatures. It really, clearly places this movie as kind of a fairytale movie for kids. I mean, they are so obviously fabric covered dolls that only a kid can accept them as sort of passable, while for an adult it just takes you out of the movie because of how ridiculous it is. If it was a Muppet movie, it wouldn't have mattered, but for the kind of movie it seemed to be, it just wasn't acceptable.
But you're right, Star Wars as a movie is not as bad as other "fondly remembered" movies, and the story itself is not bad.
Good or bad, it was still a hugely successful and influential movie. It defined the post apocalyptic look and feel for decades (maybe together with movies like Damnation Alley). If you don't like that kind of setting, then see other movies of different genres.
It did start Gibson's career as a star, but he only became really big when he made Lethal Weapon, which is a much more mainstream movie. So blame that movie as well.
I did, I didn't like it at first, I thought it was ridiculous. Later I came to like it because unlike all the other SW movies, this one is a bit self aware and doesn't take itself too seriously. However, there's one thing I feel is worth mentioning, the second looked better. The original Star Wars didn't look that good. It did create new techniques, and certainly new sound tech, but it did look very far from perfect. It was only when they made the second that it looked good.
I think most of the core audience were children, or sort of older children. I was not adult, but a couple of years older than most of the children there. I think it's the reason why people have so fond memory of this, it's because they were kids when they saw it. Kids don't notice all the flaws in the same way adults do. I was not really adult either, but I did definitely see all kinds of artifacts in the movie, which I can't see now, for some reason. Back then there were huge noticeable borders around the spaceships and they looked like toys, I'm not even kidding. Some of the creatures looked like total shit, they looked like stuffed toys. I mean, some of them were annoyingly stupid looking.
I don't know if this was because it looked different in the cinema, but it just didn't look that good at all. Concurrent movies like close encounters looked infinitely better than Star Wars.
Lol you'd almost think they read the forum. It seems they did the same as happened with AWIT, as we discussed earlier. It shows they were willing to do what it takes to get it past 700 million, so yet another milestone for BP.
I agree 100%, she just owned that role. Pretty amazing that she stood out like that among a group of standouts. My favourite is Christina Ricci as Wednesday, but Cusack surely comes close.