127 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

I hope Bond 23 isn't his Last Crusade. While a good movie in its own right, it paled in comparison to the first two.

What? It's my favourite of the three films.

I personally love TOD, but Last Crusade is a great film too, in fact all three Jones movie's are great.

[DamnCoffee]

I hope Bond 23 isn't his Last Crusade. While a good movie in its own right, it paled in comparison to the first two.

What? It's my favourite of the three films.

Mine, too. I love Raiders and Doom, but Crusade is my personal best. If Bond 23 is Craigs 'Last Crusade', I'll be very happy.

[Tybre]

I hope Bond 23 isn't his Last Crusade. While a good movie in its own right, it paled in comparison to the first two.

What? It's my favourite of the three films.

Dits on that count. Although if Bond 23 were to become his Raiders, making Royale his Crusade, I sure won't complain. Heck, even if it were his Doom, I'd go for it. Long as we avoid fridgesplosions we're good. And I really need to stop milking the comparisons.

[Jack Spang]

I don't want Bond 23 to be more fun than Casino Royale. I think the amount of humour in this film was just right. I liked the more realistic dialogue in QOS. I didn't like Haggis's banter between Bond and Vesper in the taxi cab. I think the only piece of dialogue I didn't like in QOS was when Camille said "we can discuss it over drinks" or something like that.

Edited by Jack Spang, 25 January 2010 - 01:07 AM.

[The Shark]

I definitely want Bond 23 to be more fun and light-hearted than Casino Royale. Hopefully something more tonally like FRWL and TB.

Casino Royale, while a good Bond film, is far from perfect.

There's still considerable room for improvement in the "Fleming-esque" department.

[JimmyBond]

I definitely want Bond 23 to be more fun and light-hearted than Casino Royale. Hopefully something more tonally like FRWL and TB.

Casino Royale, while a good Bond film, is far from perfect.

There's still considerable room for improvement in the "Fleming-esque" department.

That is something that I can agree on. Sure I love his first two, and I've made it known several times, but if his third film aims to be a fun Bond film in the vein of Thunderball. I'm all for that too.

Incidentally, while making the Jones comparisons, I think it's funny how we're still referring to it as a trilogy, and no one has tried to correct us.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Incidentally, while making the Jones comparisons, I think it's funny how we're still referring to it as a trilogy, and no one has tried to correct us.

I think they're doing it on purpose, though; for many, Crystal Skull doesn't count.

[sharpshooter]

Incidentally, while making the Jones comparisons, I think it's funny how we're still referring to it as a trilogy, and no one has tried to correct us.

I think they're doing it on purpose, though; for many, Crystal Skull doesn't count.

You've got that right.

[Harmsway]

Thanks for the info. I wonder if Craig will give an honest appraisal of QoS when doing the promotional tour for Bond 23 - "This one is much more like CR and has a sense of fun that QoS lacked" etc. If so, it would remind me of Steven Spielberg's interviews about Last Crusade versus Temple of Doom back in '89.

I hope Bond 23 isn't his Last Crusade. While a good movie in its own right, it paled in comparison to the first two.

Well, it pales in comparison more towards RAIDERS than it does to TEMPLE. But yes, it's the weakest of the original Indy trilogy. The energy and creativity had largely left the franchise by that point; TEMPLE, for all its faults, at least displays a lot of imagination in its crazy set-pieces.

[HildebrandRarity]

I wonder how they will reconcile the "More Fun" (Craig) stuff with the "Shocking" (Morgan) stuff?

It'll be interesting to see if "More Fun" and "Shocking" mixes as well as all those Vodka Martinis!

[Loomis]

Well, it pales in comparison more towards RAIDERS than it does to TEMPLE. But yes, it's the weakest of the original Indy trilogy.

True. And the Connery/Ford pairing ought to have been one of the greatest matchups in movie history, but it's badly fumbled, largely because Connery is for some unfathomable reason made to play drastically against type. The role of Indy, Sr. ends up playing to his weaknesses.

However, LAST CRUSADE is a blinding masterpiece compared to CRYSTAL SKULL.

[volante]

Well, it pales in comparison more towards RAIDERS than it does to TEMPLE. But yes, it's the weakest of the original Indy trilogy.

True. And the Connery/Ford pairing ought to have been one of the greatest matchups in movie history, but it's badly fumbled, largely because Connery is for some unfathomable reason made to play drastically against type. The role of Indy, Sr. ends up playing to his weaknesses.

However, LAST CRUSADE is a blinding masterpiece compared to CRYSTAL SKULL.

I only went away for the weekend; how did this thread get onto Indiana Jones? lol

[Mr. Somerset]

Well, it pales in comparison more towards RAIDERS than it does to TEMPLE. But yes, it's the weakest of the original Indy trilogy.

True. And the Connery/Ford pairing ought to have been one of the greatest matchups in movie history, but it's badly fumbled, largely because Connery is for some unfathomable reason made to play drastically against type. The role of Indy, Sr. ends up playing to his weaknesses.

However, LAST CRUSADE is a blinding masterpiece compared to CRYSTAL SKULL.

I only went away for the weekend; how did this thread get onto Indiana Jones? lol

Wondering that myself. I liked Last Crusade Where were we now? Oh yes, Craig and QoS. Well, they will just have to do better next time, eh?

[JimmyBond]

Well, it pales in comparison more towards RAIDERS than it does to TEMPLE. But yes, it's the weakest of the original Indy trilogy.

True. And the Connery/Ford pairing ought to have been one of the greatest matchups in movie history, but it's badly fumbled, largely because Connery is for some unfathomable reason made to play drastically against type. The role of Indy, Sr. ends up playing to his weaknesses.

However, LAST CRUSADE is a blinding masterpiece compared to CRYSTAL SKULL.

Last Crusade does have some of the same faults as Crystal Skull though, namely misplaced humor. But what LC does have that CS does not, is great set pieces.

[The Shark]

Well, it pales in comparison more towards RAIDERS than it does to TEMPLE. But yes, it's the weakest of the original Indy trilogy.

True. And the Connery/Ford pairing ought to have been one of the greatest matchups in movie history, but it's badly fumbled, largely because Connery is for some unfathomable reason made to play drastically against type. The role of Indy, Sr. ends up playing to his weaknesses.

However, LAST CRUSADE is a blinding masterpiece compared to CRYSTAL SKULL.

Last Crusade does have some of the same faults as Crystal Skull though, namely misplaced humor. But what LC does have that CS does not, is great set pieces.

Misplaced humour - Could you name some examples (I'm referring to Last Crusade)?

[Publius]

TEMPLE, for all its faults, at least displays a lot of imagination in its crazy set-pieces.

And it's the purest adventure of the three, the one that could have easily been the template for an extended Bond-like series. I also give it bonus points for not Goldfinger-ing the protagonist, as Raiders did when Indy ultimately failed to stop the evil plot but the day was saved anyway by forces beyond his control.

I only went away for the weekend; how did this thread get onto Indiana Jones? lol

That was probably my doing. At least I didn't steer the thread into a Star Trek discussion.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I also give it bonus points for not Goldfinger-ing the protagonist, as Raiders did when Indy ultimately failed to stop the evil plot but the day was saved anyway by forces beyond his control.

True, true... but it is the friggin' Ark of the Covenant, after all.

[JimmyBond]

Well, it pales in comparison more towards RAIDERS than it does to TEMPLE. But yes, it's the weakest of the original Indy trilogy.

True. And the Connery/Ford pairing ought to have been one of the greatest matchups in movie history, but it's badly fumbled, largely because Connery is for some unfathomable reason made to play drastically against type. The role of Indy, Sr. ends up playing to his weaknesses.

However, LAST CRUSADE is a blinding masterpiece compared to CRYSTAL SKULL.

Last Crusade does have some of the same faults as Crystal Skull though, namely misplaced humor. But what LC does have that CS does not, is great set pieces.

Misplaced humour - Could you name some examples (I'm referring to Last Crusade)?

Most of the stuff involving Brody and Sallah. In Raider's they were both great characters who you could believe could handle themselves. In Crusade Brody's been turned into a bufoon who can't even find his way through his own museum. And Sallah was brought back strictly for comic relief.

[The Shark]

Well, it pales in comparison more towards RAIDERS than it does to TEMPLE. But yes, it's the weakest of the original Indy trilogy.

True. And the Connery/Ford pairing ought to have been one of the greatest matchups in movie history, but it's badly fumbled, largely because Connery is for some unfathomable reason made to play drastically against type. The role of Indy, Sr. ends up playing to his weaknesses.

However, LAST CRUSADE is a blinding masterpiece compared to CRYSTAL SKULL.

Last Crusade does have some of the same faults as Crystal Skull though, namely misplaced humor. But what LC does have that CS does not, is great set pieces.

Misplaced humour - Could you name some examples (I'm referring to Last Crusade)?

Most of the stuff involving Brody and Sallah. In Raider's they were both great characters who you could believe could handle themselves. In Crusade Brody's been turned into a bufoon who can't even find his way through his own museum. And Sallah was brought back strictly for comic relief.

I think Denholm Elliot's Brody always was something of a bumbling idiot. Not misplaced at all, his character adds a bit of well executed comic relief.

Sallah is another matter. While I don't think he should have returned, his presence isn't significant enough to trouble me.

[Harmsway]

And it's the purest adventure of the three, the one that could have easily been the template for an extended Bond-like series. I also give it bonus points for not Goldfinger-ing the protagonist, as Raiders did when Indy ultimately failed to stop the evil plot but the day was saved anyway by forces beyond his control.

You're right that TEMPLE would have been a good template had they decided to go all Bond-style "adventure of the month" on the series. But there's nothing wrong with RAIDERS' "GOLDFINGER-ing" (it's unclear to me whether you mean to slight RAIDERS' finale or not... If you're just getting at the idea that it was wise of TEMPLE OF DOOM to avoid GOLDFINGER-ing the protagonist a second time, well then, you're quite right).

[JimmyBond]

I've always said Temple was my favorite and that's because it dares to be different from it's predecessor. I always enjoy sequels better when they take the character's that we're used to and give us something different.

[DR76]

True. And the Connery/Ford pairing ought to have been one of the greatest matchups in movie history, but it's badly fumbled, largely because Connery is for some unfathomable reason made to play drastically against type. The role of Indy, Sr. ends up playing to his weaknesses.

I loved Connery as Henry Jones Sr. It is one of my favorite roles he has ever done, aside from Roy Urquhart in A BRIDGE TOO FAR and Jimmy Malone in THE UNTOUCHABLES. It's sooo different from the usual Connery schtick.

I definitely want Bond 23 to be more fun and light-hearted than Casino Royale. Hopefully something more tonally like FRWL and TB.

I don't recall FRWL being fun and light-hearted.

However, LAST CRUSADE is a blinding masterpiece compared to CRYSTAL SKULL.

I don't think so. At least CRYSTAL SKULL can claim originality by spoofing 50's B movies. I don't think I can say the same about LAST CRUSADE.

[bond 16.05.72]

True. And the Connery/Ford pairing ought to have been one of the greatest matchups in movie history, but it's badly fumbled, largely because Connery is for some unfathomable reason made to play drastically against type. The role of Indy, Sr. ends up playing to his weaknesses.

I loved Connery as Henry Jones Sr. It is one of my favorite roles he has ever done, aside from Roy Urquhart in A BRIDGE TOO FAR and Jimmy Malone in THE UNTOUCHABLES. It's sooo different from the usual Connery schtick.

I definitely want Bond 23 to be more fun and light-hearted than Casino Royale. Hopefully something more tonally like FRWL and TB.

I don't recall FRWL being fun and light-hearted.

However, LAST CRUSADE is a blinding masterpiece compared to CRYSTAL SKULL.

I don't think so. At least CRYSTAL SKULL can claim originality by spoofing 50's B movies. I don't think I can say the same about LAST CRUSADE.

KOTCS is horendous and despite Crusade being not that original it has a charm that completely eludes that awful mess of a film I witnessed on the big screen summer 2008.

Edited by bond 16.05.72, 27 January 2010 - 08:30 AM.

[The Shark]

I don't recall FRWL being fun and light-hearted.

Really?

The score is, there's a general light mood (contrasting with the impending doom of Grant) and Connery's even smiling in action sequences.

[Safari Suit]

I think the notion that FRWL is a really serious film is mostly a retrospective thing developed in comparison with many/most of the later entries. The contemporary Time Magazine article posted here recently suggests it was seen as a rather humourous film at the time, perhaps even a pastiche.

[00Twelve]

I don't recall FRWL being fun and light-hearted.

Really?

The score is, there's a general light mood (contrasting with the impending doom of Grant) and Connery's even smiling in action sequences.

Ditto with Shark and Safari. It's absolutely light-hearted, nearly to a fault IMHO. Way moreso than Craig's outings. It's why I personally rank CR #1 above FRWL. Quite a bit more tongue-in-cheek than the novel.

[The Shark]

I don't recall FRWL being fun and light-hearted.

Really?

The score is, there's a general light mood (contrasting with the impending doom of Grant) and Connery's even smiling in action sequences.

Ditto with Shark and Safari. It's absolutely light-hearted, nearly to a fault IMHO. Way moreso than Craig's outings. It's why I personally rank CR #1 above FRWL. Quite a bit more tongue-in-cheek than the novel.

I'd say to it's benefit to be honest.

The one aspect where the films improved upon the novels is in the humour department.

[00Twelve]

I don't recall FRWL being fun and light-hearted.

Really?

The score is, there's a general light mood (contrasting with the impending doom of Grant) and Connery's even smiling in action sequences.

Ditto with Shark and Safari. It's absolutely light-hearted, nearly to a fault IMHO. Way moreso than Craig's outings. It's why I personally rank CR #1 above FRWL. Quite a bit more tongue-in-cheek than the novel.

I'd say to it's benefit to be honest.

The one aspect where the films improved upon the novels is in the humour department.

Sure, sure. Horses for courses and all that. The train confrontation was an improvement as well, for sure. I do love FRWL, don't get me wrong. Watching it these days, though, just reminds me of how much more original NORTH BY NORTHWEST was. The action scenes after Grant's death were fine (though the boat chase is a bit "meh"), but they seemed to be all on top of each other. Again, nearly to a fault.

I suppose I like my humor a little more dry in general, with notable exceptions.

[The Shark]

I don't recall FRWL being fun and light-hearted.

Really?

The score is, there's a general light mood (contrasting with the impending doom of Grant) and Connery's even smiling in action sequences.

Ditto with Shark and Safari. It's absolutely light-hearted, nearly to a fault IMHO. Way moreso than Craig's outings. It's why I personally rank CR #1 above FRWL. Quite a bit more tongue-in-cheek than the novel.

I'd say to it's benefit to be honest.

The one aspect where the films improved upon the novels is in the humour department.

Sure, sure. Horses for courses and all that. The train confrontation was an improvement as well, for sure. I do love FRWL, don't get me wrong. Watching it these days, though, just reminds me of how much more original NORTH BY NORTHWEST was. The action scenes after Grant's death were fine (though the boat chase is a bit "meh"), but they seemed to be all on top of each other. Again, nearly to a fault.

I suppose I like my humor a little more dry in general, with notable exceptions.

Drier than FRWL?

I prefer my humour to be something like TB's - "I know a lot about women", "Not from where I'm standing", Bond only handing Fiona her shoes, "Could it be the front doorbell?"

That sort of thing.

The "humour" in QOS seems to be both poorly written, and poorly delivered.

[00Twelve]

I don't recall FRWL being fun and light-hearted.

Really?

The score is, there's a general light mood (contrasting with the impending doom of Grant) and Connery's even smiling in action sequences.

Ditto with Shark and Safari. It's absolutely light-hearted, nearly to a fault IMHO. Way moreso than Craig's outings. It's why I personally rank CR #1 above FRWL. Quite a bit more tongue-in-cheek than the novel.

I'd say to it's benefit to be honest.

The one aspect where the films improved upon the novels is in the humour department.

Sure, sure. Horses for courses and all that. The train confrontation was an improvement as well, for sure. I do love FRWL, don't get me wrong. Watching it these days, though, just reminds me of how much more original NORTH BY NORTHWEST was. The action scenes after Grant's death were fine (though the boat chase is a bit "meh"), but they seemed to be all on top of each other. Again, nearly to a fault.

I suppose I like my humor a little more dry in general, with notable exceptions.

Drier than FRWL?

I prefer my humour to be something like TB's - "I know a lot about women", "Not from where I'm standing", Bond only handing Fiona her shoes, "Could it be the front doorbell?"

That sort of thing.

The "humour" in QOS seems to be both poorly written, and poorly delivered.

Oh, I love that TB exchange, too. My POV is more about FRWL being held up as the untouchable masterpiece it only sorta kind of is. It's not 100% note perfect to me. Love it, could go on all day about its merits, but there are just some moments that fall flat. Just like any other Bond, really. After a particular recent viewing of CR, I found it shocking just how light-hearted FRWL was by contrast. Found it a little disappointing. Again, just me.

I certainly wouldn't call QOS' humor flawless by any stretch of the imagination. My biggest laugh from Bond came at the "Time to get out" line. Very Connery IMO. Also, and I know you disagree, Elvis is hysterical. THE antithesis of the Bondian henchman, emasculated right down to the pants being blown off him in death. He has his following here, and Judo, dino and I will defend him to the death.