Cool News
Jim Broadbent’s In INDY 4?!
Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here.
This is the first I’ve heard of Broadbent joining the cast of INDY 4, but if it’s true, I love it. Then again, Broadbent joining any cast is cause for rejoicing as far as I’m concerned. This guy’s a brilliant actor, and with him playing a Marcus Brody-like role and John Hurt allegedly playing Albert Einstein, I must admit... I’m starting to find myself interested in this film after all.
Check out this e-mail, and mark this one as a rumor for the time being:
Hi Moriarty,
You don't know me, but I thought I would drop you a line to tell you that I heard Jim Broadbent confirm that he is in Indiana Jones IV. He is essentially playing the Denholm Elliott part - not actually Marcus Brody - but the same kind of character in the story.
I haven't seen this up on the site - but seems pretty brilliant casting to me.
Call Me Irving.
-
+ Expand All
-
Hope it is good
-
After all the interesting casting decisions I just hope I wont read the " ___________ is soooo wasted in this film" line a lot in reviews, come May 22nd 08. Broadbent is great. And actually younger than Ford. Let's see what the role of his character actually will be....
-
drug using bisexual that lived on Ibiza and went to raves?you might think I'm joking, but it's absolutely true. look him up on wikipedia...as someone who only knew him from the Indy movies, I was so taken aback when I first heard him mentioned on a TV program about Ibiza, I thought it must have been a joke...
-
He's no Denholm Elliot but that is a nice piece of casting
-
Nice to see "Hostel 2" doing so well.. *titter*
-
This film will take us back to the joy of what it was like watching these types of films all of those years ago. I have faith even though we'll have a years worth of negative spy reports, bad internet buzz and concern until the day it opens to look forward too
-
He swoop in at the end of the film in his Orkin Car to help Indu and Short Round fight the giant ants from THEM in the atomic testing grounds of New Me-hico, Great casting for Orkin man.!
-
what a ride
-
in this?
-
If you believe otherwise, you're fooling yourself. My prediction: People will apologize for it just like they did for the prequels ...Harry's future review: "Is it perfect? No. Did I have fun? HELL yeah!!" ...Moriaty's future review: "Is it perfect? No. Did I have fun? HELL yeah!!"
-
... when people predict my reviews.
TopHat, I've been enormously skeptical of the need for an INDY 4 for about ten years now on the site. And I'm not a big fan of INDY 3, to be honest. I've written about all of this before. I do not advocate "turning your brain off," because I find the term insulting.
How about you stick to dealing with your own reactions to films, okay? I'll write my own when the film is done and I've seen it. Until then, you don't know dick. -
just so you know.
-
...thrown at this. Jim Broadbent (for those few who may not know), is a British actor who has ruled in everything he's ever been in. Awesome news. Hurt as Einstein? Sounds a *little* Young-Indy-ish for my tastes, but we'll see...
-
Not that that makes a lot of sense since he can't be a lot older than Ford and Allen and yet he'd be playing the latter one's father. Still, he's in the movie, how can I be sad? And Broadbent does have a resemblance to Denholm Elliott....dear lord, will the movie deserve the talent that's involved?
-
In a thirty-five year career, how many flat-out "train wrecks" has Spielberg made? While opinions might move the number around, I think most would agree that men who habitually conduct train wrecks don't have thirty-five year careers. While it's clear you're enjoying wallowing in negativity (and Kleenex, no matter how many times Mom has told you to clean up), how about we just anticipate what we're likely to get: a loud, tremendously enjoyable, nostalgic, wink-and-a-nod check in with a beloved character...brought to us by someone with a fairly decent track record.
-
Didn't he die 10 years before Raiders?
-
Are Marion and Sallah in this?
-
po' lil' bastid
-
...have top men working on this Who? Top...men. No, really, who? Albert Einstein. Oh...well I'll shut up then.
-
I see! Like the fat guy in "Beverly Hills Cop III"! Amazing, especially since that film turned out so well and was definitely the best sequel since "Highlander II"
-
And deservedly so.
-
Don't get it? and I just dribbled egg yolk al over my coconut Macaroon! :o(
-
For once, can those of you who loathe the idea of another Indiana Jones movie just refrain from commenting in this talkback? If you don't like it, if you don't like the idea of a new Indy movie, just keep your damn mouth (fingers) shut, and go back to telling us how awful Transformers is going to be.
Let's save this discussion for those, like myself, who are genuinely looking forward to Indy 4. -
I respect your opinion more than any other on this site, but I must say I really enjoyed Indy 3. It was a fun romp, with yes, some minor flaws. I stopped being a Lucas apologist after Episode 2, but I think they got Indy 3 right.
-
Vice Principal Nero in "A Series of Unfortunate Events". If they can ever get around to more of it...
-
You the only person I know who doesn't like it. To me, it's the best Indy film
-
In the Eighties and Nineties he played the role of bumbling sidekick in the two person satirical theatre group 'The National Theatre of Brent.' For U.S. readers, that's the equivalent of 'The National Theatre of San Bernadino.' This was a theatre group made up of two middle-aged men in suits who would tackle the biggest tales between them - playing all the parts. This was on stage around the UK. Their productions included The Zulu Wars, The Greatest Story Ever Told and the French Revolution. If Jim gets the chance to play like he did in these productions, many audiences will be in for pleasant suprise.
-
the guy just isn't charismatic anymore. He used to have a real smart-assed wiley charm, but ever since 'The Fugitive' he's seemed sleepy and at best cranky. In 'Air Force One' he looked like he was on horse tranquilizers. I think Ford looks great, he just lost his charm.I really wish they had just rebooted this franchise with Christian Bale or somebody as Indy.
-
I'd love to hear you're reasons. To me, The Last Crusade has always been the best of the series by far. I had no idea that anyone dislikes it...
-
a few people in the world that doesn't like The Last Crusade, but I never expected it from you. That fact doesn't diminish my respect for your tastes I generally agree with, but I'd sure love to know a few reasons, as a fellow Andy Griffith Show lover.
-
Don't be a tool. Spielberg has never made a train wreck - that's right, I SAID NEVER. He's made some films that were a little sub-par, some films that weren't perfect. But he's never pissed up against a wall and charged you $10 for the pleasure of lapping it up. That is the difference between him and George Lucas, and his involvement is why this film is never, no way, going to be a train wreck. Maybe it might not meet our expectations, but our childhoods are safe from further butt-raping. I will leave my childhood in Spielberg's hands any day of the week, and anyone who disagrees is just being needlessly argumentative. Regarding Broadbent, I think you need a Marcus type role in these films, however small, if only to emphasize Indy's derring-do. Personally, I'm gutted that John Rhys Davies is not returning, but I'll live with it. Everything else is falling into place, and, if rumours are to be believed, Marion is in the film. That's all I need. With a new Indy film, starring Karen Allen however briefly, I will be a child once again - and all memories of having my ass violated by George Lucas will drift away.
-
other sequels we were looking forward to: buckaroo bansai 2, tango and cash 2, incredibles 2... seeing a trend? jst because we're looking forward to it (and i have for a while), i still don't think it'll be made
-
What? Talktakers assuming a much anticipated sequel from a beloved franchise will suck after only knowing one or two minor details? I've never heard of such a thing. C'mon guys, for once can you try not being so annoyingly consistent and just wait for a while before concluding a film's going to be a train wreck?
-
Regarding Fords charisma, a think a lot of the problem is down to the roles. For some reason the guy has shown himself completely unable to choose a decent project for more than 10 years now. If I were him, I'd be hanging my agent - because the last decent film he's been in was Air Force One - arguably even the Fugitive - and taking crap role after crap role doesn't give him much room to be charismatic.
-
Was a very different movie to Raiders, and I can imagine some people not liking it. Personally I lapped it up 100%, but I can see people being annoyed with the more light-hearted approach. Not the equal of Raiders of course, but I liked it.
-
If you look at Stallone or Sean Connery, even in their bad movies they are still very watchable. I thought Judge Dredd was terrible, but I still felt like I was watching Stallone. When I saw Air Force One and when I saw the trailer for Firewall I didn't feel like I was looking at Harrison Ford. I felt like I was looking at his boring father or something.I just don't think Ford has that spark anymore. Some actors get more interesting with age (Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman) others just become boring old people.
-
I do understand where you're coming from, don't get me wrong. It's tempting to watch Firewall and think "wait a f*cking minute, this is Indiana Jones! This is Han Solo! So why is he acting like a grumpy old git?". Ford seems to have developed this shtick that involves pointing threateningly at someone at spouting a one liner a 'la "Get your hands off my kids" or "Get out of my office" etc., which personally I find wearing. But lets look at one of your comparisions. Clint Eastwood - he was never a great actor, and didn't really emote any more than Ford when he was younger. But one truly great role (Unforgiven) cemented his place in history (it was there anyway, Unforgiven was just a cap on the top). Ford's never had that kind of role. The kind of role that plays to your strengths as you get older. The kind of role that bookends your younger work, that defines the circle that your career has travelled in. And I don't dispute that it's his fault. He's pickerd nothing but shit for the last decade or more, for no reason I can figure out. For example, the guy passes on Syriana. What the fuck?? Why??? I really think that this complete lack of sense when picking projects has forced him into this continual downward spiral of mediocrity, and consequently he looks like a guy wondering where the hell his career went - prob because that's exactly what he's thinking. I believe (hope) that Indy IV is going to be a role he enjoys, and that will be clear on the screen - after all, he's not doing the film for the money, he's got more money than he'll ever spend. He's doing this film because he wants to, and IMHO he hasn't given a f*ck about a film project for nearly 15 years. Hopefully he'll look like a man who's enjoying himself this time!
-
This cast continually makes my jaw drop. Every day, a new top class character actor that I can count as one of my favorites joins the list. Either this script kicks all kinds of ass or everyone in Hollywood and England wants a chance to keep up with the Joneses. Either way, casts like this are few and far in between.
-
As far as story goes it is almost a carbon copy of Raiders (save for the father angle). It's another christian religous artifact. The nazi's are back. His nemesis is a a fellow archaeology buff (of not an actual archaeologist himself) who has only alligned himself with the Nazis for monetary gain. Chases and action scenes are virtual ticked off a list from Raiders and copied. Hell, we even get the bad guy melting at the end. It's like a TV movie remake of Raiders. It even LOOKS like a TV movie. The effects (for their time even) are totally dodgy and the stunts not exciting at all. Plus the somehow the cinematography came out totally pedestrian. Take the shot of Indy in silhouette as the sun sets over the digging for the well of souls in Raiders. That is visual poetry. It's iconic. And there is nothing that even wipes the ass of that one shot in Last Crusade. Warts and all (and there are many), Temple of Doom is still the far superior sequel. At least they tried to go somewhere different with it.
-
Okay - I am not Moriarty and don't presume to even share the same reasons but as Last Crusade has been a long held fan favourite and seen as a return to form after Temple of Doom I feel that as someone who rates Raiders as my all time favourite movie that I must point Last Crusade out as the charlatan it truly is! See, it was seen as a return to form purely because it is a weak, comedy remake of Raiders of the Lost Ark. It follows a very similar structure, it has Nazi's as the villians, it has a big chase in the desert where Indy has a horse and jumps on a Nazi vehicle. It turns good characters into Laurel and Hardy - compare Marcus Brody 'If I were a few years younger I'd have gone after it myself' (Raiders) to 'Does anyone speak English?' (LC). It's like he is channelling Nigel Bruce. Then look at Sallah - grand, Falstaff of the Desert in Raiders and then comedy Arab who calls a tank a 'steel beast' in LC. There is a lack of faith in the characters. The movie does have some standout sequences and I do not dislike it but after Temple of Doom with a different structure, a darker but hardly gritty storyline and different villains I think that Last Crusade is a lazy piece of film making that returns to the Indy formula far too quickly. It took Bond 10 films before they started becoming too repetetive it only took Indy 3. Doesn't mean that I'm not looking forward to Indy IV though
-
Don't file this one under rumour - file it under 100% true. I was in the room with Broadbent when he announced it on Friday. It even caused a ripple of excitement in a room full of jaded hacks.
-
Ford has the same script picking abilities as Connery - neither have ever been truly very good at doing that. They don't really seem to have an inner voice that says 'Regarding Henry', 'Sabrina', 'Patriot Games', 'Cuba', 'The Man with the Deadly Lens', 'Highlander 2'. 'Hollywood Homicide', 'The Avengers' will be shit! 'Force Ten From Navarone' and 'Shalako' will never been seen for the genius they are though! No but seriously they have both been guilty for turning down some lucrative and genuinely good scripts and signing on for utter bollocks.
-
A really big one, and its name was "HOOK!"
Made the Goonies look like Saving Private Ryan.
-
Don't ever forget 1941!!!!!
-
Jun 18, 2007 9:41:42 AM CDT
"I’m starting to find myself interested in this film "
by firstposterssuck
Really? NO kidding? IT'S INDY 4 FOR CHRISSAKE MORIARTY. you and I would blow old men to find out more about this addition to the legacy of our childhoods. C'MON! One glimpse of Ford in that hat with whip and you would kill your firstborn to know more. Don't bullshit a bullshitter
-
I thought Crusade was a great movie - good action and all but - and I watched it the other day - Indy in a suit, Indy in a tie .... it just wasn't the character. I guess I need Jones in the hat. Doom was just non stop action, I mean, the last 40 minutes was brutal and fun. I liked that they went darker, even though Stevie didn't really buy it. I liked the change in mood. Though, the tank fight in Crusade was awsome, watching it the other day I noticed fights were not editied correctly at all .... the entire lifeguard move on the tank to twist the Krout around and bang his head on the hatch .... could have been tighter. And how the hell did Indy get to dry land in the beginning after jumoing off that boat? Raiders IS my all time fav movie but Crusade was just rushed. Doom is the superiour sequel!
-
I agree with you that Hostage is a crappy movie compared to Die Hard. I'm not talking about the movies per se, I'm talking about how I get into the actor's performance. What I'm saying is that I found Bruce as an actor more watchable in Pulp Fiction, Sin City and Unbreakable than I did in some of his younger roles. I loved him in Die Hard, but got more into his performance in Unbreakable, even though I think Die Hard is a better film.As for Gene Hackman, I found him infinitely more ferocious in Quick and the Dead than he was as Lex Luther in that old Superman movie. I really prefer him as an old man and loved his work in the 1990s.I'm not calling any of these actors' young films bad, in fact many of their young films were better, but I find many of them improve on their acting craft with time whereas Harrison Ford has gotten lazy.
-
They had me at Hello.
-
I don't agree that Hook was a trainwreck. There was a lot about that film *not* to like, and it fell pretty far from the mark in a lot of things, but I'd hardly call it a trainwreck. The thing is, it's all about expectations. When you watch dross by people like Paul Anderson and Uwe Boll(ocks), you see what a trainwreck really is - and Spielberg's never done that. What we're doing is pointing out the lesser films of Speilbergs career, and calling them trainwrecks - but compare them to an utter piece of fetid sweetcorn ridden shit like "House Of The Dead". I'd rather watch 1941 again than that rubbish any day of the week!
-
The Opening scene of the film will be Sean Connery's funeral to the Stones "You Can't Always Get What You Want" while Hurt's Einstein, along with Haley Joel Osment and his Teddy Bear ride in the passenger seat of his beat up Green Porsche. Indy's first line 0f the film: "Figures. The One time in your life they throw you a great party is the one time that you know you can't be there."
-
Doom is far better than Crusade because Doom took itself seriously, where Crusade ventured into campy self-awareness at times.
-
There's a 27 year age difference between Broadbent and Denholm Elliott. It could work.
-
It's interesting how Connery turned down the Matrix trilogy AND LOTR. I don't buy him as Morpheus at all, but I can see him as Gandalf - although I think there would have been a danger of him being so "Sean Connery" it would have taken you out of the film. Connery has been quoted as saying he turned them down because he "didn't understand them" - and that he took the role in the League of Extraordinary Asshats because he thought he had made a mistake. I mean honestly, can't these people read teh scripts, and think "hang on, this stinks, do I really want to be in this"? Connery isn't stupid, and yet he's been in so many shit films it's laughable. I find it interesting that, as much as we deride Tom Cruise, how many genuinely shit films has he been in? 1? 2? What about Clooney, or Brad Pitt? And yet probably 80% of Connery's output has been absolute and utter vomit, but he sails through on the winds of a few iconic roles. Gene Hackman's the same to be honest - I love him, but he has really done some excrement.
-
Jun 18, 2007 10:12:38 AM CDT
Did anyone see that episode of Young Indy w. Harrison?
by thenorthlander
Harrison Ford plays the old Indiana Jones in the 50s, and the whole episode is him telling the story of one of his adventures while hiding in an old cabin somewhere. It's REALLY campy, in a Lucas-bad way, and makes you think an older Indy in the 50s might not be a great idea. Oh yeah, and Indy's got his dad's old beard.
-
You don't think Temple was camp and self aware at times? Club Obi Wan? Wu Han? Dan Ackroyd's cameo?
-
Okay - I do take your point of view but if you look at things comparitavely then compared to Jaws, CE3K and Raiders then 1941 is almost a text book example of a train wreck. It is big, it is bloated and it is a terrible mess. It has some bits that are genuinely funny but on the whole it is a very poor film. I do own it on DVD though. Hook is the same it's aimless, it's bloated, it's tone varies wildly from scene to scene and I find it unbearable to watch. However that's only because it came from Spielberg. I have never seen an Uwe Boll movie and I don't ever really think that I will and maybe that's the difference. I found Hook specifically to be cringeworthy while watching it. So, imho, for me that was a Spielberg disaster
-
I wouldn't want to see Connery as Gandalf. I just don't see how it would work. Gimli, on the other hand. That would work, if you imagine the real Gimli from the book and not the comic relief Gimli from the movies.
-
Yep. It was OK as far as it went - nice to see Ford in the get up once more. Ford did it while filming on the Fugitive, hence the beard. Typical Lucas though - I would have done a lot of more with it if I heard Ford could do a cameo.
-
Spielberg is like pizza - even when it's bad it's still pretty good.
-
A lot more, yeah. And a lot more less camp. I was expecting Burgess Meredith to come through the door dressed as The Penguin...
-
The reason ALL three Indy movies are great is that you can absolutely tell that everyone involved is having fun making a great popcorn adventure film. Raider of the Lost Ark is my all time favorite film, and no matter how many sequels get made, it will continue to be. Harrison Ford has made some poor decisions since The Fugitive, Steven Spielberg has gotten a little more serious since The Last Crusade, and Lucas... well EVERYONE wanted more Star Wars - and no matter what he did with it - it would never meet our expectations. Lets just hope that the stars align with this one and we get an original, exciting, FUN film that sees them all back at the top of their game. This cast is looking brilliant, and fresh. Everything I've heard so far sounds like Spielberg is going for something different. So stop the hating, and wait to see the finished film. You know the first picture we see of Indy in the hat will get us all salivating for more. Indy is Adventure, we've seen so many Indy rip-offs ever since Raiders came out that we forget what these guys can do - lets just let them do what they do best and entertain us again! I for one can't wait.
-
Sure - I take your point too - compared to Spielberg at his best, they're certainly poor. Believe me though, you don't ever want to see a Uwe Boll film!
-
I wonder if it is something that happens between the process of the script and the filmmaking. I know that Connery is pretty bad for beefing up his own lines through the use of some favoured writers and that's always a bit shit in my opinion. But most of his bad films in recent years have also been 'troubled' shoots. Now I haven't read the screenplay for LOXG but I did read 'The Avengers' and it's quite a bit different. Though still not necessarily any good! Maybe it's actors who have never directed, maybe they just really read their own roles and not the full script. I recall he turned down Lord of the Rings because it was too much of a time commitment and I'm glad he did. I have heard that he turned down Morpheus (good - the whole idea of seeing an elderly Connery doing wi-fu would have been awful) but I also heard that he turned down 'The Architect' but it's been a long tradition. He turned down Dressed to Kill, The Birds, The Thomas Crown Affair - so, it's hardly a new phenomenon. I suppose there's an argument for doing a Michael '365 films a year' Caine and hoping some good stuff will stick. You are right Cruise has never made anything as bad as 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight'. I just find it interesting the films that these people have turned down.
-
While not as good as Raiders, it was a blast to watch. It had the trilogy's best villain and the most action. I liked Crusade, but the father-son relationship between Ford and Connery was really the best thing about it. The rest of it was a mild copy of Raiders.
-
Believe me, no-one is more up for this film than me :) In fact, this means a lot more to me than Episode 1 ever did...
-
I just hope that I don't hyperventilate, giggle like a child or ejaculate when I see a trailer! I am in a fugue where I can hardly believe that it's being filmed as we type! It's Indiana Jones and the only disappointment is that this didn't happen 10 years ago because there is NO way in hell we'll ever see a fifth adventure and that is quite sad!
-
You're right about Caine. People forget the 364.5 shit films he does a year, and just focus on the odd good choice - I think Hackman benefits from the same phenomenon, perhaps to a lesser extent. As for casting, I wonder how much of it is down to arrogance - someone like Sean Connery (and his peers) have always been on their own, making decisions with no one's input but their own. And perhaps they end up making bad decisions because they can't see the wood for the trees. People like Cruise, Pitt, Clooney, etc have 'people' who advise them - not saying that those 'people' have the final say, but they give a different perspective on things, and I reckon those guys have grown up with the ability to listen to others because of it. Someone like Connery will never be told.
-
As soon as the film was officially announced, I did a sex wee! IN MY PANTS!!
-
I guess this is another nail in the coffin for hd dvd.
-
sorry drifting
-
Connery always seems to be someone who can be bullish and pig headed about things. He also seems to have a strange relationship with his profession - whether it's a case of not participating in the recent Bond DVD's but voicing the From Russia With Love video game. Or the fact that he's never kept a bit of memorabilia from any of his films (according to an interview I read). He just seems to have a different type of relationship with acting than many of his peers. He also seems to choose roles based on what other credits he might get. In the 70's he was going to return to Bond and was lured with the promise of being a producer and working with Len Deighton. Still - at least he wasn't in Bullseye or any other Michael Winner film (I don't think he was) so he has some taste
-
We can't expect a film maker to be absolutely perfect every time. The man takes more chances than any other living film maker. The fact is that since The Last Crusade and Jurassic Park - nearly 20 years ago, Speilberg's tone has been a bit different. More serious "film making" than "movie making." Hook was released in 1991 - since then he has directed more than 10 films. To say that the man's last real dissapointment was that long ago speaks for itself. The man knows how to make a great movie better than anyone else. And I actually find a lot to like about the films that some are calling "train wrecks" Hook and 1941 have some truly great stuff in them even if the whole doesn't add up the the genius that is Close Encounters, Jaws, ET or Raiders. Dustin Hoffman's Captain Hook is brilliant, and the kinetic energy of 1941 has probably never been duplicated since. They don't make broad commedy like that any more - instead we get dick and fart jokes (don't get me wrong, I can apperciate a good dick and fart joke just like anyone). It might not have worked 100%, but it is fascinating to watch the grand scale of the comedy in that film. When you compare these films to 90% of the dreck that comes from Hollywood these days, you can't really call Spielberg's slight dissapointments to train wrecks. Look at all the crappy horror remakes, and video game movies... those films had budgets that a young Spielberg never dreamed of having - those are nearly impossible to watch. Cut the guy some slack. If he says this is going to be a great Indy film, I believe him.
-
I am genuinely excited by it - I have some concerns obviously - I think Spielberg has potentially lost the ability to end a film satisfactorally (a trait that he has shown in many of his newer films). I hope that he doesn't use that weird heightened film style that he did in Private Ryan for the action sequences (he messed up a great fist fight in Minority Report by doing that). However I am hoping that it will all come together - Raiders is my favourite movie ever and I love TOD and very much like LC. All I was saying about his train wrecks were that they, for him, lost control. About 60% of 1941 makes me laugh - some of it is genuinely exciting but there's 40%that is far too self indulgent (brought on by youth and arrogance - and in 1979 who wouldn't be arrogant?). Hook I find unbearable and for Spielberg I think it is a wreck - it has no real focus and nice performances and set design aside I think it's a messy, aimless, wreck of a film. Is it better than Tomb Raider - yes! Is it better than an Uwe Boll film - I assume so! Is it better than Raiders? No. Is it better than E.T? No! I am using these films in a comparitave manner
-
I think it comes down to being about trust. The thing is, when Lucas announced Episode 1, what reason did we have to trust him? After all, he didn't direct ESB or Jedi. You couldn't credit him with Indy, not really. So what were his prior credentials, since A New Hope? Nothing really. Howard the Duck? We really had no reason to get excited. There's some justification to the point of view that Lucas was a hack who got lucky, in the right place at the right time. Spielberg is a real student of his craft - a fil-maker. Lucas is a general, a leader of men perhaps, a guy who marshalls teams into getting things done. I tend to think the same thing about Peter Jackson. But Spielberg is one of our great living directors IMO, and I trust him - especially with a property that he has such a fondness for. I think he has the integrity to make sure this doesn't suck, whereas I think Lucas is more than capable of rolling out shit to make a few bucks.
-
...a bumbling pratt like Denholm Elliot played Marcus Bodey in The Last Crusade.
As much as we loved DH and the character he created so wonderfully in Raiders, it was pretty disgusting that they turned such an interesting and noble character into a buffoon purely for a few cheap laughs.
For the record, we loathed The Last Crusade with a passion - too much almost Vaudeville humour, no period feel whatsoever (the previous two movies had them in spades) and there were so many ridiculous contrivances in the script.
We're a little pessimistic about Indy IV - we really feel as though it shouldn't be made. Some things are better off being left alone... -
I LOVE in-jokes. Doom didn't hit you over the head with them. They were noticeable, but not in a sledgehammer over the head way. I never thought Doom was self-aware, but I got that out of Crusade. Where Crusade jumped the shark (so to speak) was in the use of a Hitler cameo, "Dad! What? Dad! What? Dad! WHAT?!?", "No ticket." sthick-related humor. When you make a joke about Hitler giving an autograph at a book burning, you're entering Mel Brooks "Heil Myself." territiory.
-
He was too much of a Nigel Bruce Doctor Watson rather than the British Adventurer (Professor Challenger) type that I imagined him as - though I do like LC. I did miss a Pat Roach fight though - talking of which. Mr Roach is dead - huh? Make a phone call guys!
-
And you are the Shaun of the Dead zombie twins. If you aren't then blame Memflix!
-
The missing gun - chronologically it makes no sense but I laughed like a simple minded buffoon!
-
Thanks, Patton Oswalt. Now I can't hear Einstein's name without thinking that.
-
Who goes to Blockbuster?
-
What was a master occult archeologist, like Abner Ravenwood, doing in Nepal in the first place? Duh. He was looking for the legendary civilization of Shangri-la. Seriously, Do you think he went there just to get shirpas into drinking contests with his daughter?! Is he dead? Well lets see. He went out looking for an immortal civilization and never came back. Hmm, I think this was intentionaly left tempting and open-ended in "Raiders". By the way, did you know that the Nazis sent seven expeditions looking for Shangri-La! That is a real fact. What do y'all think of this theory.
-
Then what was that steaming, stinking pile of monkey crap we all know as The Lost World? Hell, Hook could even be categorized as a train wreck. And I'm not hating on Spielberg (I even like Always), but the guy has made a few bad movies (namely the two aforementioned). Anyway, the more I'm hearing about this film, the more afraid I get. It sounds like they're throwing in as many big names as possible (maybe in an attempt to avoid the doubtless backlash when/if Shia is revealed as Indy's son). You know, if God could make a burrito so hot but he still could eat it, he still wouldn't be able to make an Indiana Jones film work with Shia as his kid. So, I'm doubting Spielberg's ability to do the same.
-
Why rag on Spielberg for Hook when you haven't even mentioned "*batteries not included" or "the Flintstones". Start at the bottom and work your way up.
-
He would have gone down to the Well of Souls with Sallah, found the Ark of the Covenant, then before taking it away with Sallah would have left a note saying "Dear Nazis, IOU one Ark, signed I. Jones.".
-
He would have found the Shield in the catacombs, taken a rubbing, then left a note there saying "Dear Nazis, here is my translation of the whole shield, along with my interpretation of it's meaning. Signed, I. Jones"
-
He would have turned up at Club Obi-Wan, immediately given Lao Che the diamond, then he would have smacked his forehead with his open palm and said "Aw crap"
-
He would have left a note outside the Inca temple, saying "Dear baddies, I have gone inside. I will shortly be leaving with a priceless gold idol in my hands. Signed, I. Jones"
-
before leaving after taking the Sankara Stones, he would have carved "Indy Woz here" into the stone dias in the temple room.
-
He didn't direct those films, that's why....
-
And those people are not going to understand what the hell a Blu-Ray is. My sister worked at Blockbuster and gave up on explaining widescreen to the clientele so I don't see how they're going to get their employees to push a format that is a disc that looks exactly like a regular DVD and may or may not have slightly suprerior image quality depending on whether the original film was shot on digital and whether or not the studio did any additional remasterting for the Blu-Ray edition.
-
Jesus Christ that sounds like it sucks balls. Not with the casting of Hurt, he's a great actor, but the fact that Einstein will be doing a historical frakking cameo in Indy 4, just like the cheesy Hitler cameo in Indy 3. Here i was really hoping that they'd move well away from the jokiness of Last Crusade and back to the grit of Raiders. Even the cartoon darkness of Temple of Doom would be preferable to the Young Indiana Jones approach of "hey look! It's !". What will Einstein say? "Hello, Indiana! God does not play dice with the universe!". Sweet tapdancing Christ. p.s. Mori's right about Broadbent, though.
-
Ford is too old and only does rubbish these days.
Lucas has lost all credibility.
Spielberg is probably doing this as he's nostalgic for the old, fun films he used to make. But at least they have sense to pick 2 of the best british actors alive today for smaller parts.
-
I heard him as well I've got a recording of the interview and he said its merely a cameo - a Yale professor not a Marcus Brody character.
http://www.britfilms.tv/index.php?id=2656
This was how he responded to the Marcus Brody character. -
"Now I've got to go meet Reg Barclay on the Holodeck to talk some unified field theory. Walk me as far as Starbucks?"
-
Blockbuster has been reeling the past half decade or so. Direct TV, Video on Demand, and especially Netflix have eaten away at a good chunk of the business they used to almost entirely dominate. Their horrible "no more late fees" campaign backfired on them tremendously, since late fees were how BB made a good chunk of their revenue in the first place, and it failed to bring customers back. This also pissed off customers since the late fees were still actually there, just in a different way. This new "BB total access" attempt might boost short term business, but in the long run it will probably fail as well when customers realize that half the time they won't be able to rent their targeted DVD since it won't be in stock. It's a nice try to take some steam out of Netflix's superior mail service, though.
-
http://tinyurl.com/345vhm
Some...stuff...from the official site. I think now it's time for Puaba, Puaba, Puaba. Yeah, I know , weird enough none from the Coppola family is involved with this film, but I couldn't think of anything better. Let's just hope none gets hurt...... -
cmon anytime now, lets see it.
-
A pic won't do. Also, I hope you have fun with my easy-to-misunderstand use of your language. (I guess it should be "involved IN"...)
-
While Star Wars changed everything, Indiana Jones was alway my favorite. I just want to see Harrison Ford kick some ass again. I think people forget how awesome he was in the 80s. Everyone involved in this film film needs it to be like the old-school fun we all miss. I just find it a bit of a bummer that things haven't changed so much that a lot of people out there seem to want this movie to suck. I want this movie to Rule. Automation Overlord... I like the theory... would really be happy to see this one tie into the Abner and Marion story.
-
Part 3 was good people just not wow good.
-
And I still think Batteries Not Included is a cute, sweet little movie.
-
fellow Indy 3 haters. It's a relief to find I'm not the only person who thought Last Crusade was easily the worst of the Indiana Jones trilogy: a jokey, cheesy re-tread of Raiders, without the genuine mystery. As for the idea that Spielberg never made a trainwreck, those people have obviously never seen AI. I also wasn't that fond of Minority Report but at least it works as a film. I don't think Indy 4 will be AI bad, but i fear it will be somewhere between the jokiness of the Last Crusade and weary disappointment of the Phantom Menace.
-
i think its great. now im interested in this again. im crossing my finges that it is somewhat based on eric vondaniken type stuff. indy finds some crazy mayan heiroglypics with winged ships and stuff, and while america tests it's nukes, the ufo sightings begin to show face. i know people will hate this but if done right, ofcourse, it could be badass. einstein could be cheesy but everything i see william hurt do lately rocks so i have hopes, and i hope its not just a hitler cameo like III but maybe he explains some stuff to indy.
-
and russians and commies and u.s. adopted nazi scientists come after him.
-
"and the whole episode is him telling the story of one of his adventures while hiding in an old cabin somewhere. It's REALLY campy"
That's not the whole episode. Ford's scenes were small bookends to an entire episode of Young Indy learning jazz from Sydney Bouchet.
And the bookends weren't campy either. -
Broadbent plays my brother, Hurt is Abner Ravenwood in flashbacks. At least thats what it should be. Did'nt Einstein die in '55 and this takes place in '57? I need pics! someone send pics!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Jun 18, 2007 2:59:01 PM CDT
oh and this movie is already awesome. period.
by the ghost of marcus brody
-
what the hell are you doing here? go demand that lucas cast you!
-
Don't agree with this revisionist movement to praise Temple of Doom and trash Last Crusade. Sorry, but everyone had it right the first time - Temple of Doom is by far and away the weakest of the three.
-
Um, they're already shooting it dumbass. Universal is FULL of Indy 4 sets. Hello!
-
That has some nice potential. Very nice.
-
They have no sense of wonder. No sense of magic. No sense of any hope for a project whatsoever. They are under the blanket of the monster AICN created years ago, judging a movie based on the most minute of details.
Basically, these naysayers appear to be scarred from the anticipation that was Episode I. Since then, they can't go into a movie wide-eyed and with an open mind. Instead, the movies are deemed failures from the get go. I feel sorry for them. I pity them:) Because they just don't get to experience a movie anymore in a truthful manner by judging it when they're in that theater.
It's not about "expecting more" from filmmakers and it's not about "raping" anyone's childhood... it's about the death of cinema in a black and white world.
I long for the days when all you heard about a movie was some kickass and enthralling minute long teaser, and maybe a couple of pics in Stardust or Starlog. But hey, at least some of us still have that child's wonder when it comes to movies... rather than the cynical, cup is half empty viewpoint that is the majority at AICN here today.
I can't wait for Indy 4! -
Says its a cameo too:
http://www.britfilms.tv/index.php?id=2656 -
And this is a great choice of casting for this movie. In fact, this kind of news adds a ripple of excitement and 'classic'-ness to the whole project somehow. Excellent!
-
With the exception of the River Phoenix opening of INDY 3 I was very dissapointed with the 3rd film. It just seemed lazy filmmaking, unremarkable action, too campy for its own good. As good as INDY III?
Slapstick boat chases with bumbling Turks in Venice, father-son comic schtick (i.e. "Junior!"), a forgettable villain, comical Nazi pilots smashing into tunnels, a desert chase featuring *one* tank and 4 Nazis who manage to get shot by 1 bullet from Indy's gun, and an anti climax involving a 700 year old Templar ("Choose wisely")??
At least TEMPLE OF DOOM had balls. And a great fucking villain in Amrish Puri.
-
Like bumbling idiots in CRUSADE - the last shot of them literally has Elliot almost falling off the horse going 'Arrrghh' - is that supposed to be funny? I want a return to the straight action and thrills, with the strong occult elements of RAIDERS not the cheese of CRUSADE.
-
As you stated it seemed pedestrian, the wide screen wasnt utilized well (with the exception of the Coronado artifact opening). There was a scene of Indy or Sallah walking with some Sheik in front of a Rolls Royce or something - looked stale, like something out of a tv movie as you stated. There was a lack of kinetic camerawork, everything was smaller scale, instead of thousands digging trenches like in RAIDERS you had a few on screen at a time, seemed very campy or light hearted as well. Two guys tied to a chair in a burning room does not an effective action sequence make. Rats burning in a Venice sewer does not an effective action sequence make. Indiana Jones jousting with a Nazi on a motorbike does not an effective action sequence make. And so forth. And trust me I saw this in the huge theater, the frigging Empire in London and it paled in comparison to THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, thrills-wise. It's as if Spielberg chickened out after the PG13 and darkness of DOOM and went "shit lets just take a time out and slow things down and just give em what they want and shoot this and enjoy ourselves.' I don't detect one frame of cinematic ambition in CRUSADE from Spielberg, its a silly yarn with no gravitas with an anti climax shot in a small soundstage with some old fart Templar asking the hero to choose a cup - at least RAIDERS gave us the opening of the Ark and it was genuinely frightening, a kick arse scene. Besides, the villain in CRUSADE was pure shiite, some businessman working for the Nazis -I think he had like one scene in an Art Deco NY apartment. CRUSADE is among Spielberg's worst films right up there with HOOK, WAR OF THE WORLDS, AMISTAD and A.I.
-
I've been saying FOR YEARS that I enjoy TEMPLE more than CRUSADE, but guess what, I like them both!<
But there is absolutely no need for this movie. None. It's ten years too late. When Harry Ford was making K-19 and RANDOM HEARTS, he should have been on his shit about making this movie instead. This is Ford trying to kick-start his career. I'm not into giving this man charity. -
yeah I know his involvement were bookends to that story, that's what I'm saying. And yeah they were campy.
-
...until I looked at the scores on IMDB and saw that Doom is rated a bit lower that the others, and Crusade is rated almost as high as Raiders (WTF?). Crusade to me is a weird combination of sleep-inducing and just plain painful to watch. The only thing redeemable about it is the opening.
-
"Get off my plane!"
"How dare you sir!"
"GIVE ME BACK MY SON!!!"
"I, AM AN F.B.I.AGENT!!!" Whoops, screwed up those last two there. -
Just saying. Anyway he was great in "Detectives on the verge of a nervous breakdown" and that Longford thing last year. I'm not that bothered about this film but I'll check it out when/if it comes out.
-
Sean Connery. How do i know this? Because my 70 year old mother liked Last Crusade because of Sean Connery. Seriously. The people voting for Last Crusade on IMDb aren't actual fans of Raiders, etc. They're the people who go to the movies maybe twice a year, probably because their kids pestered them to, the same folk who just gave Fantastic Four 2 such a massive opening weekend. Any actual fan of the Raiders trilogy knows that Last Crusade is easily the lamest of the three.
-
The fact that Shia's doing "nothing else" but watching the Indy films back to back to back to back to back to back to back to back killed all my doubts. This film will rule the earth. And then Ford came out of his trailer with the Fedora on and ...."OH MY GOD"...
-
...that bearded guy in the beige shirt...really looked like some kind of Memflix.
-
Sorry guys, I didn't have my facts straight on that.
-
That is all.
-
http://www.britfilms.tv/index.php?id=2656
-
I miss being able to talk about movies that are coming out without someone saying they "hate" it before it is even finished. I "hate' it when I stumble, fall and crack my nuts on the curb. Reconing that to a fun movie from 18 years ago that was enjoyable to watch is just lame. All three movie are enjoyable to watch. Even today. Part 4 will be enjoyable to watch too. I'd rather pay my $10 to see this movie even if it isn't perfect, than see the latest Texas Chainsaw Hostel: Part 5. Don't you all remember what it is like to go into a movie and enjoy yourselves?
-
I thought it was short enough, so I didn't make a tinyurl for it.
-
http://www.indianajones.com/ community/news/news20070618.html
Indy 4 started shooting today.
The above link is from the officaial Indiana Jones site. Cool short interview with Shia about his feelings on meeting Harrison Ford for the first time today.
Cant wait!!! -
You're right. I used to have Temple of Doom on Betamax, taped from the TV (for some reason they showed it more often than they did Raiders). And I watched the shit out of it. I can't watch that film now without being reminded of being a kid, nose pressed to the screen, imagining what it must be like to be Indiana Jones. I reckon Spielberg and Ford are going to boot this one out of the park. Fuck Lucas and his Turkey wattle. Speilberg is going to make sure the hymens of our childhood are restored! IT WILL BE AS IF YOUR ASSHOLE WAS NEVER PENETRATED BY LUCAS'S 2 INCH COCK!!! The fetid taste of Lucas's balls will finally be removed from our mouths. I am so psyched for this film it's unreal!!!!!!!
-
when he describe about seeing walking out of the trailer with the fedora! I think I will cry.
-
http://tinyurl.com/2lbt56
-
Or else.
-
Visually bland? That's an oxymoron in a Spielberg film, sure it may not be as visually dynamic as "Raiders" but it's hardly pedestrian. They were both shot by the same DoP, Douglas Slocombe, who didn't even use a fucking light meter when he shot "Raiders." He shot "Doom" as well, but it appears he's retired now. I'm also surprised some of the TBs are bashing the action sequences in "Crusade." How can you not like the inventiveness of the tied-to-a-chair sequences, the tank sequence, or the motorcycle chase! Sure, it's more light-hearted but it also has great little comedic moments like where Indy kills three Nazis with one shot from a luger, the "Ah, Venice" kiss moment, and Connery's delightful performance. "Crusade" also does one thing better than "Raiders" and that we learn more about Indy as a character. Not that necessarily "Raiders" needed that sort of info, since the audience could grasp Indy as a character via the aesthetics of it and Ford's great performance, but it was a nice touch in "Crusade." The chemistry between Ford and Connery in "Crusade" is perfect and the Indy girl is the hottest of the three and the only one to be a femme fatale. And while she's not as good as Marion in "Raiders" she's a helluva lot better than Kate Capshaw's obnoxious fucking performance in "Doom." But I like all three for different reasons, "Raiders" is my fav of course, but I found the light-hearted approach to "Crusade" refreshing even if it borrowed a bit too much from "Raiders." So please "Crusade" haters, give it another shot.
-
I've watched that so many times. it's a perfect action scene. EXTREMELY well paced, some awesome jokes thrown in at just the right time, flawlessly shot...it's really great. go back and watch that scene and tell me that movie's not awesome.
-
that is ALLEGEDLY supposed to be shown. My guess is the first images we see from this will be just like Indy's intro in Raiders. Man in fedora walks out of shadow and into light and yay!!! It's Indy..that or we'll just get an atomic bomb exploding with flying titles coming out of it.
-
lolol
-
I like everyone in this movie so far except for Harrison Ford.
-
Indy's bastard kid this whole time?
-
So the online buzz starting to feel more optimistic about Indy 4, so now we go on and on about how bad Crusade is...jeesh. Every talkback is different and yet they're all the same. A whole new squad of frustrated virgins gets to determine which is the better Raiders sequel, ignoring what fans before have concluded, and unaware that this new batch of opinions will also, mercifully, get flushed down the toilet bowl of wasted time and be forgotten by the time the next know-it-all generation wabbles to the computer and starts slapping the keyboard and pressing "post comment." Back when these movies came out we knew they were good and loved them, now it's as if the only way you squirts enjoy anything is to debate if it sucks and how hard. What a world. When the fuck is 6-25-77 coming out?!
-
Obviously, the rumor is, he got better.
-
Comingsoon.net.
-
Jun 18, 2007 11:57:52 PM CDT
UFO? Ford would never fly the Aluminum Falcon.
by stereotypical evil archer
So far Indy hasn't found a Magical Religious Artifact in the Western Hemisphere. What's the closest thing to religious artifacts in the Western Hemisphere? Fucking UFO debris. Yep, fucking UFO debris. Indy in a UFO is fucking stupid. Indy in a UFO is fucking funny. They could go into Hanger 18, see the crashed UFO from Roswell and Shia could say, "What a piece of junk." Then it would transform into a super spiny super complicated Transformer and Shia will kick it's head off and find that it's powered by Excalibur. But only Indy can pull the sword out of the headless Transformer which means he must defend the planet from the fast approaching time called Ragnarok! So Indy time travels to the year 2012 and must do battle with the Mayan God Kulkulkan, but instead killing Kulkulkan with Excalibur, he just fucking shoots him, and Ragnarok doesn't happen and all magic disappears from the world forever and archeologists are forced to use science until the end of time.
-
Is just a cover-up to keep people from digging the actual secret plot.
-
I hope you're right, but people thought the same thing about midiclorians. Though I must admit it would be cool if the Cross of Coronado and the Golden Idol were somehow connected, no matter how convoluted.
-
Sorry if that sounded a bit harsh, Irving isn't wrong, he's just a little off the mark - and I sent you guys this three days ago and it's going up now? HARSH!
I was at the fecking press conference when the word got out, and although I did send Moriarty word about it it's still not come up - bit gutted actually, woulda been cool to see my name somewhere in AICN news.
Anywhoo it's a small role and he's a Yale Prof. that's it.
Quote from the man himself:
"I’m doing a good cameo in the next ‘Indiana Jones’, so working with Mr.Spielberg should be an experience. I’m going to Yale – I’m a professor.”
Jokingly it was suggested that he could be the new ‘Marcus Brody’ character.
“That would do for me (laughs)”
So thur! -
I agree. Crusade is not perfect, but it's far superior to TOD. There was a lot about TOD I liked, and it has a lot of nostalgia for me, but Crusade was a far more 'complete' film. Having said that, I'd f*ck Kate Capshaw senseless, and I'm sure every teenager watching it felt the same. I guess Speilberg thought the same thing too!
-
I like TOD but it seems completely at odds with Raiders to me. Raiders, despite having fantasy moments and over the top action throughout seems able to make me suspend my disbelief and seems like an exciting and somehow even realistic adventure. Temple seems like a load of campy old nonsense aimed at kids, more like the Goonies or something. I suppose you could argue that it's more like the old serials it's based on, in that it has been scripted as if by someone who has no idea what the world outside the US is like, but that seems so different to Raiders, which seems to have at lease some level of realism in terms of the countries visited, and the historical events of the time. I love Temple too, don't get me wrong, but I just sit there thinking "Those are fruit bats, not 'Giant vampire bats'", "Indian people don't eat monkey brains and baby snakes!", "Why would they have that impossibly elaborate mining car track?","The cart would never make that jump!","Why would he have some goofy kid as a sidekick?","That's clearly California and not India","Surviving a fall from a plane in a rubber raft?" and so on. Raiders has its fair share of nonsense, but it somehow manages to make me not notice it.
-
But the thing is this, when we criticize CRUSADE you have to understand we have valid points that most agree with regardless of if they liked the flick or not. They are as follows:
1. An unecessarily light hearted approach to the drama.
* A weak, forgettable villain (Julian Glover)
* A pretty but vapid leading lady (Alison Doody)
* Pedestrian action scenes.
* The dumbing down of supporting characters.
* Anticlimactic (the Templar sequence)
* Absence of occult/mystical elements.
CRUSADE is more like a James Bond flick than a RAIDERS flick, lots of winking at the audience and humor and one-liners.
TEMPLE OF DOOM wasnt perfect, it had a ridiculous raft falling out of the plane sequence, the Indian dinner 'comic' sequence was racist and Kate Capshaw yelled way too much (although I'd take her character over Alison Doody's empty vamp any day) but the great thing DOOM was the villain as well, Amrish Puri kicked all kinds of arse in that ("The Shankara Stones will be found Dr. Jones..You will NOT!").
I like the fact that Indy was saving some obscure little town who had their kids missing, working as slaves, there were skeletons, bugs, snakes, mystical artifacts, all the elements of a great Indy flick and you know something I loved the Busby Berkeley opening ('Anything Goes) and the ensuing fracas in the club leading to the car chase. The film was a thrilling ride.
All we are saying here (and we are passionate Indy fans) to Mr. Spielberg is this: PLS return to the occult, straight action elements of RAIDERS and forget the camp of CRUSADE.
If INDY JONES IV is to be the last flick of the series, then it has to have some gravitas, some seriousness, has to involve the occult, the stakes have to be high and the villains have to be on par with Paul Freeman and Amrish Puri. Pls dont dumb it down like LETHAL WEAPON 4 with characters going "Im too old for this shit!" etc - dont go for cheese is all we're saying.
Remember at the end of RAIDERS when they took the Ark and placed it in a large DC warehouse - that was such a great ending because it promised that the adventure wasnt over, that the threat wasnt over. Great fucking ending. It's a pity that CRUSADE - which had elements of RAIDERS - never measured up to the promise of that last shot. -
Raiders is my favorite film of all time. I enjoyed TOD and Crusade very much. Each had their goods and bads. No need to go into either. I think many have hit on exactly what those were. Too bad some people think that this is going to blow chunks just because of who is going to be in it. I cannot wait for a trailer teaser to hit the theatres. Once that theme music plays I will probably get goosebumps on my goosebumps. I think they are being very cautious with this movie. It will be good. Not perfect as Raiders but in the same vein the other two sequels are. Just enjoy the fact that we get a fourth one.
-
CRUSADE is more like a Bond film than a Raiders flick - worse, it's like a campy Roger Moore Bond film, with lots of comic turns. Although TEMPLE OF DOOM had its share of weak moments, at its core it's a much darker film in tone and ultimately more faithful to the RAIDERS universe than the cheesy schtick of CRUSADE.
-
Well said, we've literally waited over a decade if not more for a sequel. When CRUSADE was released I was in college and now I am looking forward to taking my kids to a thrilling adventure as well. I'll never forget seeing RAIDERS at the Empire Leicester Suare in London, the audience went nuts for it, the swordsman getting shot, the snakes, the jump out of your seat jolts from skeletons popping etc, the action, it was great. I have nostalgia for the film because I went to see it with my dad who loved the movie as well and would always ask me about developments concerning any Indy sequels. Films have a way of bringing fathers and sons together in the most affecting ways. Now I look forward to taking my kids to INDY 4.
-
HE FIGHTS EVERYONE! Crusade had some good action - I loved the tank chase. Doom, I think is better. Raiders can't be beat.BRING ON 4! God Damn I can't wait.
-
You are exactly right. If Indy 4 is going to work, then it needs to be on par with Raiders, not Crusade.
-
And she just screamed again. They're making "Spacecamp 2: The wrath of Lea". Tate Donovan, Tom Skerritt and the Robot with more character than Jar-Jar are all in.
-
The kiss of death in cinema.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 339 total posts 339 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 141 total posts 141 posts
- Quint travels to Barsoom and visits the John Carter set!!! -- 116 total posts 116 posts
- Crom! Grant The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day revenge! And if you do not listen, den to Hell witchu! -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 51 total posts 51 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 65 total posts 50 posts
- Rest In Peace Bethesda’s Adam Adamowicz -- 45 total posts 45 posts
- SEEKING A FRIEND FOR THE END OF THE WORLD is something I'm very anxious to see! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- Capone found nothing mysterious or good about JOURNEY 2: THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND!!! -- 40 total posts 40 posts
- OK. So Harrison Ford Isn't In Talks For The New BLADE RUNNER. But... -- 145 total posts 39 posts