Indy 4 Ending Discussion - Spoilers.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Outbound
Dont read thread if you havent seen it.

(first post is to prevent accidental mouse-over from spoiling)

Outbound
So, how about the climax eh? Bit of a let down really, wish they just left the skeletons inanimate and had some weird voodoo thing happen, something bad happens and the bad guys die, the good guys run away which would then lead to the temple collapse.

The whole alien/spaceship thing was just poor, the effects looked mad as hell, but the plot was just stupid beyond belief. There would have been more mystery if they left just the skulls and Area 51 body and had us use our imagination.

WrathfulDwarf
I think that there is nothing wrong with the direction of the film. Previous Indiana Jones films involved some Religious artifact gone missing. This one however moves more to the science fictional out of space mystery story. It fits perfectly with the time period. The 1950s were a time in which Martian men were very popular in fantasy.

The ending hints that the torch won't be pass to Shea...notice Indy takes it away from him and puts it on.

GGS
Let's be honest...SS and Lucas have had raging hard-ons for aliens and stories to do with space and aliens etc. for the past few years..so it was not surprising even if it wasn't set in the 1950's it would of probably been alien themed it was just dissapointly done imo.

Man that OX guy sucked badly the oh i'm a gibbering mad man now i'm back to normal self lol talk about overdevelopment of a irrevelant character.

queeq
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I think that there is nothing wrong with the direction of the film. Previous Indiana Jones films involved some Religious artifact gone missing. This one however moves more to the science fictional out of space mystery story. It fits perfectly with the time period. The 1950s were a time in which Martian men were very popular in fantasy.

The ending hints that the torch won't be pass to Shea...notice Indy takes it away from him and puts it on.

But the other films kinda smoothly rubbed the mystery bits, here it's all out in the open. That's not great, it doesn't leave much room for imagination.

I mean: the Ark - what happened there really? Was it the wrath of God, did the nazi's have it coming... I mean, we see ghosts and that's all. After taht it's 'just' that box again.
Sankara: Do they really have power or it a thing of human decency again.
Grail: we lose it, again, it';s a test of human character.

Aliens: well... knowlegde... allright, nothing to do with human character in the end... So tehre is a difference.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by queeq
But the other films kinda smoothly rubbed the mystery bits, here it's all out in the open. That's not great, it doesn't leave much room for imagination.

I mean: the Ark - what happened there really? Was it the wrath of God, did the nazi's have it coming... I mean, we see ghosts and that's all. After taht it's 'just' that box again.
Sankara: Do they really have power or it a thing of human decency again.
Grail: we lose it, again, it';s a test of human character.

Aliens: well... knowlegde... allright, nothing to do with human character in the end... So tehre is a difference.

There was mystery in this film queeq. Life in other planets have been one of the great mysteries in our world. Aliens certainly belong in the realm of the unknown.

GGS
Even though we'll never find out the solidiers and cate blanchett could of been transported to the other dimension.

GGS
double post

I mean it's advanced aliens who come back to life after millions of years being a skeleton just because you saw her physical form dissapear doesn't mean she's dead...

queeq
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
There was mystery in this film queeq. Life in other planets have been one of the great mysteries in our world. Aliens certainly belong in the realm of the unknown.

You are wrong. In this case the existence of aliens is no longer a mystery: the proof is there - 13 of them. Plus a space ship.

exanda kane
It was great.

queeq
The space ship?

Kazenji
I actually like what they did with the spacechip thing myself.

exanda kane
Right, now I've got over the joy of realising it was in no way a disappointing Indy outing, I can safely say that the ending will probably be the thing that divides people about the film.

I liked it. Reminded me of lots of nice films I remember like This Island Earth and Terror! From Outer Space.

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by exanda kane
I can safely say that the ending will probably be the thing that divides people about the film.


Not as safely as you would think.

CGI Monkees and Gophers, ants and whatever fake looking phail rendering you can think of in the movie, bad dialogue, an unevenly paced implausible plot (starting with the nuke thing) mixed up sense of what the film wanted to be to its detriment, too much focus on unimportant characters (such as Mutt), John Hurt's character "Ox" (Who should have been shot, eventually and slowly to f***ing death by the Russians by way of payoff for the audience who had to sit through every scene he was in)... The arguable waste of Karen Allen's return, the patchy acting... theres a lot more than just the ending that'll divide people on this.

queeq
Well, I can easily forgive a dodgy ending as long as the way there is worthwhile. And I have very mixed feelings about that journey.

exanda kane
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Not as safely as you would think.

CGI Monkees and Gophers, ants and whatever fake looking phail rendering you can think of in the movie, bad dialogue, an unevenly paced implausible plot (starting with the nuke thing) mixed up sense of what the film wanted to be to its detriment, too much focus on unimportant characters (such as Mutt), John Hurt's character "Ox" (Who should have been shot, eventually and slowly to f***ing death by the Russians by way of payoff for the audience who had to sit through every scene he was in)... The arguable waste of Karen Allen's return, the patchy acting... theres a lot more than the ending that'll

Sounds like you were expecting Raiders of the Lost Ark. We got Temple of Doom and that is fine by me.

Sadako of Girth
This movie wasnt even a pimple on Temple of Doom's ass.

Originally posted by queeq
Well, I can easily forgive a dodgy ending as long as the way there is worthwhile. And I have very mixed feelings about that journey.

100% Agreed.

exanda kane
Oh it was, believe me.

Sadako of Girth
I cant.

For I have seen the movie.
Sorry.

stick out tongue

exanda kane
Well, let us put it into a context that would make Uncle George's hat spin; was it or was it not better than The Phantom Menace?

Sadako of Girth
Id have to say that the Phantom Menace is a good comparison in terms of damage done to both sagas.

But it is the better film.

Anakin didn't survive a nuke in a fridge, and Jar Jar wins over the Gophers and Monkees, as his inclusion in the films was more subtley done and his character did actually have something even vaguely connected to the plot.

Both films were highly anticipated with quasi-religious zeal and a feeling of letdown dogs both, but 1st watches wise, Menace owned Indy 4.

But we had Lightsabres, A glaxy to explore, the force, Darth Maul, young Kenobi, Young Palpatine and all that awesome shit.

Whereas in Indy 4, only 2 characters from the originals survive and 1 and a half of those suck in this movie, serving the purpose of cynically being there to pass the torch or just guardianise the new more inferior Jones.

TPM was a beginning.
The movies that followed TPM got better.

The same can not be said for the beginning factor,
and the sequel factor in this new leg of the franchise is weak looking judging on what we have seen and detracted more from the original films than it reinforced in any positive way, imo.

Outbound
I think they should have killed off one of the good guys, to give us a little more emotional pull, like have the Soviets kill off Oxley in the alien chamber cause he doesnt want to let them put the skull back, or something. All through the movie, the good guys always came out without a scratch.

Sadako of Girth
That could have been cooler. yes

Yes it bores me to watch invincible good guys on film.

Its like playing a game on cheat mode.
It can look good, sound good, it just still feels....flat/hollow. sad

exanda kane
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Id have to say that the Phantom Menace is a good comparison in terms of damage done to both sagas.

But it is the better film.

Anakin didn't survive a nuke in a fridge, and Jar Jar wins over the Gophers and Monkees, as his inclusion in the films was more subtley done and his character did actually have something even vaguely connected to the plot.

Both films were highly anticipated with quasi-religious zeal and a feeling of letdown dogs both, but 1st watches wise, Menace owned Indy 4.

But we had Lightsabres, A glaxy to explore, the force, Darth Maul, young Kenobi, Young Palpatine and all that awesome shit.

Whereas in Indy 4, only 2 characters from the originals survive and 1 and a half of those suck in this movie, serving the purpose of cynically being there to pass the torch or just guardianise the new more inferior Jones.

TPM was a beginning.
The movies that followed TPM got better.

The same can not be said for the beginning factor,
and the sequel factor in this new leg of the franchise is weak looking judging on what we have seen and detracted more from the original films than it reinforced in any positive way, imo.

I can't take you seriously after that. Sorry.

sweersa
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Id have to say that the Phantom Menace is a good comparison in terms of damage done to both sagas.

But it is the better film.

Anakin didn't survive a nuke in a fridge, and Jar Jar wins over the Gophers and Monkees, as his inclusion in the films was more subtley done and his character did actually have something even vaguely connected to the plot.

Both films were highly anticipated with quasi-religious zeal and a feeling of letdown dogs both, but 1st watches wise, Menace owned Indy 4.

But we had Lightsabres, A glaxy to explore, the force, Darth Maul, young Kenobi, Young Palpatine and all that awesome shit.

Whereas in Indy 4, only 2 characters from the originals survive and 1 and a half of those suck in this movie, serving the purpose of cynically being there to pass the torch or just guardianise the new more inferior Jones.

TPM was a beginning.
The movies that followed TPM got better.

The same can not be said for the beginning factor,
and the sequel factor in this new leg of the franchise is weak looking judging on what we have seen and detracted more from the original films than it reinforced in any positive way, imo.

I totally agree. I actually like most of Episode I though. Except for the obvious things in it most others hate. But I didn't let that ruin a good movie.

GGS
It's true though you knew once he survived a nuke blast and found out mutt was his son apart from the alien coming back to life and flying off that the story was going to be a bland rip off of Raiders.

It's still a extremely cheesy feel good kind of movie though. It's not as if it is the worse movie to come into existance you can still really enjoy it.

S_D_J
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Id have to say that the Phantom Menace is a good comparison in terms of damage done to both sagas.

But it is the better film.

Anakin didn't survive a nuke in a fridge, and Jar Jar wins over the Gophers and Monkees, as his inclusion in the films was more subtley done and his character did actually have something even vaguely connected to the plot.

Both films were highly anticipated with quasi-religious zeal and a feeling of letdown dogs both, but 1st watches wise, Menace owned Indy 4.

But we had Lightsabres, A glaxy to explore, the force, Darth Maul, young Kenobi, Young Palpatine and all that awesome shit.

Whereas in Indy 4, only 2 characters from the originals survive and 1 and a half of those suck in this movie, serving the purpose of cynically being there to pass the torch or just guardianise the new more inferior Jones.

TPM was a beginning.
The movies that followed TPM got better.

The same can not be said for the beginning factor,
and the sequel factor in this new leg of the franchise is weak looking judging on what we have seen and detracted more from the original films than it reinforced in any positive way, imo.

Even though I agree with everything you said about TPM, I still somehow got the feeling that Indy IV ends up as slightly better movie... can't really say what it is, maybe that Indy IV is somehow closure for the franchise, while TPM began a new trilogy that got heavily criticized by fans and Critics alike..... or maybe it's just Harrison Ford that completely saves the movie, he is old but still manages to work the character, aside from the beginning, when we are reminded constantly (as if we needed) of the character's age, I still saw him as the same Indy I remember.

everything that happens in between it's what belittles the movie (gophers, monkeys, sentient alien bones, the ants climbing on top of each other, the friggin fridge and Indy's lecture during a motorcycle chase, to name some...)

"I got a bad feeling about this" big grin

Even though I thought it was a bit odd to hear him say that (not why he said it, but when he said it) I still got a chuckle out of that line...

Memories work all around the movie, and some say that's why you get a good feling out of this movie: Nostalgia

queeq
Ford is good in Indy 4... plus the lines are better. In TPM everything is wooden, both the lines as well as the acting. plus it's more presumtuous than Indy 4... I prefer the latest Indy film myself, given the choice.

Stun
Indy 4 had much stronger acting and dialogue than TPM. But i loved both anyway. I'm not a critical, nit-picky nerd - it's all entertainment and having a good time to me.

Spartan005
Originally posted by exanda kane
I can't take you seriously after that. Sorry.

lol that makes two of us

queeq
Now now.

Stun
Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Dont forget that.

General Kaliero
I really must say: What ending?

Seriously. There was no gain from the actual adventure.

Raiders: The Ark is gained, though the government spirits it away.
Temple: The Sankara stone is returned to its rightful place, as well as the children.
Crusade: Though it was slightly shoehorned in, Indy "gained" his father through the Grail.

In this? The Skull is returned to its rightful place, but it, the "throne room", the ship, all of the archaeological wonders, even the temple are all lost. And before someone argues that knowledge was what was gained, no, because nobody would believe the group anyway.

Once the ship activates, the film just kind of grinds to a halt, then the marriage scene is tacked on.

I'm a scifi fan. I love aliens and space and spaceships. But it didn't feel right here. Perhaps if the thirteen skulls and their skeletons had been said to be carved as a monument to their "gods", leaving it up to the viewer to decide if they had been actual alien skeletons or something more earthly, I could have stomached it. I even would have believed them being some sort of compendium of knowledge then. But resurrecting an alien and then having that alien serve no real purpose didn't sit well with me.

Stun
Overall though, it was a satisfiing ending for me. I accept KotCS as part of the franchise - however bold it was, it didnt shy away from anything, and i admired that aspect - even if it wasnt typical of Indiana Jones, it still delivered in a profound way.

Kazenji
Originally posted by queeq
In TPM everything is wooden, both the lines as well as the acting. .

And not to mention the only good thing about the prequals that was done right was the cgi for the different locations, The battles and saber fights



as for the ending imo it does fit in with all the other movies, Its still
archaeology and all that but they've gone done the path of the Mayan and Inca and their gods how they were apparantly aliens all that sort of thing.

queeq
Originally posted by General Kaliero
I really must say: What ending?

Seriously. There was no gain from the actual adventure.

Raiders: The Ark is gained, though the government spirits it away.
Temple: The Sankara stone is returned to its rightful place, as well as the children.
Crusade: Though it was slightly shoehorned in, Indy "gained" his father through the Grail.

In this? The Skull is returned to its rightful place, but it, the "throne room", the ship, all of the archaeological wonders, even the temple are all lost. And before someone argues that knowledge was what was gained, no, because nobody would believe the group anyway.


Good point.

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by exanda kane
I can't take you seriously after that. Sorry.

Gee. Sorry to hear that.

That devastating news just ruined my life and everything,
so pivotal to my daily existance was you taking me seriously. stick out tongue

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by Spartan005
lol that makes two of us


Here.... I'll book yous guys a room.

Single or double...? stick out tongue

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by General Kaliero
I really must say: What ending?

Seriously. There was no gain from the actual adventure.

Raiders: The Ark is gained, though the government spirits it away.
Temple: The Sankara stone is returned to its rightful place, as well as the children.
Crusade: Though it was slightly shoehorned in, Indy "gained" his father through the Grail.

In this? The Skull is returned to its rightful place, but it, the "throne room", the ship, all of the archaeological wonders, even the temple are all lost. And before someone argues that knowledge was what was gained, no, because nobody would believe the group anyway.

Once the ship activates, the film just kind of grinds to a halt, then the marriage scene is tacked on.

I'm a scifi fan. I love aliens and space and spaceships. But it didn't feel right here. Perhaps if the thirteen skulls and their skeletons had been said to be carved as a monument to their "gods", leaving it up to the viewer to decide if they had been actual alien skeletons or something more earthly, I could have stomached it. I even would have believed them being some sort of compendium of knowledge then. But resurrecting an alien and then having that alien serve no real purpose didn't sit well with me.

Well assessed. yes

queeq
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Here.... I'll book yous guys a room.

Single or double...? stick out tongue

laughing out loud

Spartan005
Originally posted by General Kaliero
I really must say: What ending?

Seriously. There was no gain from the actual adventure.

Raiders: The Ark is gained, though the government spirits it away.
Temple: The Sankara stone is returned to its rightful place, as well as the children.
Crusade: Though it was slightly shoehorned in, Indy "gained" his father through the Grail.

In this? The Skull is returned to its rightful place, but it, the "throne room", the ship, all of the archaeological wonders, even the temple are all lost. And before someone argues that knowledge was what was gained, no, because nobody would believe the group anyway.

Once the ship activates, the film just kind of grinds to a halt, then the marriage scene is tacked on.

I'm a scifi fan. I love aliens and space and spaceships. But it didn't feel right here. Perhaps if the thirteen skulls and their skeletons had been said to be carved as a monument to their "gods", leaving it up to the viewer to decide if they had been actual alien skeletons or something more earthly, I could have stomached it. I even would have believed them being some sort of compendium of knowledge then. But resurrecting an alien and then having that alien serve no real purpose didn't sit well with me.

well, its actually the same thing as raiders when you think about it. The nazis thought that they could rule the world with the ark and the russians thought that with the skull. In the end though, they both wound up dying... the only real difference is that the ark got stored in a never ending warehouse, while the skull just got destroyed

General Kaliero
Originally posted by Spartan005
well, its actually the same thing as raiders when you think about it. The nazis thought that they could rule the world with the ark and the russians thought that with the skull. In the end though, they both wound up dying... the only real difference is that the ark got stored in a never ending warehouse, while the skull just got destroyed
At least Indy was able to bring the Ark back. It was still gathered as a plot trophy.

The skull, or indeed anything in IV, not so much.

queeq
PLus they didn't gain anything on a personal level... well, except family... but the Skull itself didn't have anything to do with that.

Admiral Akbar
The Skull itself was used poorly. At least the Ark, and the holy grail you had the anticipation of finding out how they work and it happened towards the end of the movie, at the climax of the movie. TOD and KOTCS found theirs too early and made it partially pointless to watch afterwards which is probably why I found the first half up to the point where they found the Skull better than the second half.

queeq
But then in ToD Indy had more difficulties getting it out. they found the Skull Temple fairly easy. Heck, mumbling Hurt had all teh answers. Henry Sr. also had ansers except he didn't know what they meant. Indy had to find out the hard way. Again, the ot's work better.

Bad Ash231
Aliens... haha.

Admiral Akbar
Originally posted by queeq
But then in ToD Indy had more difficulties getting it out. they found the Skull Temple fairly easy. Heck, mumbling Hurt had all teh answers. Henry Sr. also had ansers except he didn't know what they meant. Indy had to find out the hard way. Again, the ot's work better.

True, personally though Raiders and Last Crusade worked better. It wraped up the story more efficiently. I did enjoy the "escape" in ToD though, much better than the race to get to the temple in KOTCS

queeq
ToD had quite a few things going for it.

Sadako of Girth
I agree.

queeq
Happy Dance

Sadako of Girth
*Settles down to a nice bowl of chilled monkey brains*

queeq
Sweet.

willofthewisp
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Id have to say that the Phantom Menace is a good comparison in terms of damage done to both sagas.

But it is the better film.

Anakin didn't survive a nuke in a fridge, and Jar Jar wins over the Gophers and Monkees, as his inclusion in the films was more subtley done and his character did actually have something even vaguely connected to the plot.

Both films were highly anticipated with quasi-religious zeal and a feeling of letdown dogs both, but 1st watches wise, Menace owned Indy 4.

But we had Lightsabres, A glaxy to explore, the force, Darth Maul, young Kenobi, Young Palpatine and all that awesome shit.

Whereas in Indy 4, only 2 characters from the originals survive and 1 and a half of those suck in this movie, serving the purpose of cynically being there to pass the torch or just guardianise the new more inferior Jones.

TPM was a beginning.
The movies that followed TPM got better.

The same can not be said for the beginning factor,
and the sequel factor in this new leg of the franchise is weak looking judging on what we have seen and detracted more from the original films than it reinforced in any positive way, imo.

First of all, nothing is subtle about Jar Jar. Nothing. The "highlights" of TPM you mentioned all describe the other movies. It's a new galaxy filled with foreign spacecraft, planets, weapons, and creatures. It doesn't matter that TPM is a beginning factor. Even though AOTC and ROTS are better, TPM should be able to hold its own against the other movies and it just doesn't, not imo.

Okay, I'll give you the fact that the monkeys were stupid. But they were no more stupid than the eyeball soup in TOD, or the fact that from the clue "name of God," Indy will not only conclude the word to spell is "Jehovah" but to spell it with an "I" in TLC.

TPM made the Force too scientific, relied so much on CGI it forgot about everything else, and gave the highest-anticipated character (Darth Maul) next to nothing to do. Oh, and if a movie is going to show a Force-created "Christ-child," it should be someone a little less annoying than Jake Lloyd.

queeq
Back to SW again?

willofthewisp
Why, what else ya got? roll eyes (sarcastic)

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by willofthewisp
First of all, nothing is subtle about Jar Jar. Nothing. The "highlights" of TPM you mentioned all describe the other movies. It's a new galaxy filled with foreign spacecraft, planets, weapons, and creatures. It doesn't matter that TPM is a beginning factor. Even though AOTC and ROTS are better, TPM should be able to hold its own against the other movies and it just doesn't, not imo.

Okay, I'll give you the fact that the monkeys were stupid. But they were no more stupid than the eyeball soup in TOD, or the fact that from the clue "name of God," Indy will not only conclude the word to spell is "Jehovah" but to spell it with an "I" in TLC.

TPM made the Force too scientific, relied so much on CGI it forgot about everything else, and gave the highest-anticipated character (Darth Maul) next to nothing to do. Oh, and if a movie is going to show a Force-created "Christ-child," it should be someone a little less annoying than Jake Lloyd.

Hey I didn't say TPM was perfect, just a better movie than KOTCS.
Those things annoyed me too, yes. The positioning of the movie in the saga did dictate pace as it was all being about beginnings to a six episodic arc intended by Lucas to be viewed from 1-6 order..

No truly great saga blows its load on the 1st movie.

(Hence my disregard of the Matrix saga and the Indy saga-as-it-now- stands)

And yes they had the elements I listed in the other films.
It was the Star Wars universe, after all, you expected it to be set in New York...? stick out tongue Its a pity that the successful elements from the Indy movies werent applied well in this latest movie, it might then have not sucked so hard..

I hate Jar Jar more than anyone should 9 years on.
(Just ask Queeq how much posting time I lovingly devoted to tearing that mother a new one onthis very forum.)

But Jar Jar was rapier-like, merely "only-just-detectable" in terms of subtlety and quality when faced in the smackdown against John Hurt (The real actor successor to Binks) and his gangs of pixelated rodents and simians. And after all those years of expectation, it took me months of rewatches to be as disappointed as I was with it.

With KOTCS, it took me one watching.

'Nuff Said. stick out tongue

queeq
MAybe you just got used to detecting rubbish new versions of old classics.

willofthewisp
I think it's hard for any series' sequels to live up to the original. When you're watching a movie for the first time, everything is new. You're introduced to a new world and don't know what to expect. When you hear that a second movie is going to be made, there's a lot of hype, whether it's Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Indy, SW, or POTC, etc. But you're already familiar with the universe of it. You know the characters. So this time around, you're a little more used to things and usually even very good sequels aren't considered on par with the original movie.

queeq

Sadako of Girth
Fair play.

Agreed on Die Hard 4.0.

It was a ray of hope that had me anticipating a barn-stormer with Indy 4.

Bummer. stick out tongue

willofthewisp
I liked Die Hard 4 too, but I don't think it surpassed the first Die Hard. I thought some of it was cliche, but most of the best action movies have some cliches in them. Did you like it better than the other Die Hard movies? I think it kind of flattened John McClane a little bit. He was so expressive in the first movie. Watch his face if you don't believe me. He seemed to be a little bit more of a generic action hero here.

queeq
Die Hard 1 is the best, 2 sucks balls the size of Antarctica. But I do think DH3 and 4.0 are at the same level. Quite an achievement if you ask me. I'd have settled for a Last Crusade type of Indy 4 and be quite happy about it.

But mind you, Die Hard was also a bit silly. A bit over the top. It had that from te beginning. The silly story of a traumatised cop after shooting someone and then killing one of the bad guys at teh end... that was so over the top it was funny. Die Hard had that over the toppishness as comic relief. DH 4.0 had that as well. Nothing to do with flattening the character: McClane was always flat. That was the fun of it.

carnage52
better than phantom menace good enougth for me.

queeq
Easily pleased.

willofthewisp
Originally posted by queeq
Die Hard 1 is the best, 2 sucks balls the size of Antarctica. But I do think DH3 and 4.0 are at the same level. Quite an achievement if you ask me. I'd have settled for a Last Crusade type of Indy 4 and be quite happy about it.

But mind you, Die Hard was also a bit silly. A bit over the top. It had that from te beginning. The silly story of a traumatised cop after shooting someone and then killing one of the bad guys at teh end... that was so over the top it was funny. Die Hard had that over the toppishness as comic relief. DH 4.0 had that as well. Nothing to do with flattening the character: McClane was always flat. That was the fun of it.

I'm not saying McClane was Hamlet, but he had a lot more character in the first one than in the last one.

queeq
They complement each other if you ask me. At least 4.0 wasn't such a big bummer as Spidey 3, POTC 3 and Indy 4...

willofthewisp
Oh man, Spidey 3! Don't get me started.

Jovan
Originally posted by willofthewisp
Oh man, Spidey 3! Don't get me started.
if you don't go and get irritated about how lousy that movie was, I will

queeq
Originally posted by willofthewisp
Oh man, Spidey 3! Don't get me started.

See how good Die Hard 4.0 was. It's really quite an achievement.

Sadako of Girth
He speaks the truth.

'Tis way better than I thought it could have possibly been.

queeq
Oh yeah. once in a while mircales do happen.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.