The Descent: Part 2:
Neil Marshall's spelunking 'chicks with picks' claustrophobic nerve shredder was a truly wonderful piece of pin-sharp scare mongering, but annoyingly for the American release it had to have an 'up' ending (relatively speaking) ... or, rather than 'up', an ending capable of providing a sequel.
So here we are with a second part that brings in a bunch of American spelunkers, including one beligerant bastard of a Sheriff, and off we go again as the sole survivor of the first quietly goes along with the plan to head back down into the caves.
There are a few moments of nice scene setting, but there's no mystery here. The first had mystery, and it had build-up (lots of it), and most importantly it was nail-bitingly claustrophobic and provided a handful of proper scares. Sadly, yet entirely predictably, this unnecessary sequel can't beat Marshall's superior original, which should have always been a stand-alone affair.
Lost Highway:
Having been all about Twin Peaks for a few weeks, I figured I'd give David Lynch's surreal dose of disjointed nightmares another go - I say that because during my teenage years I attempted to watch it and gave up after half an hour. So a good ten-or-more years later I returned, determined to see it through to the end.
There's not really much of a plot, nor does it seem there is supposed to be one, so really it's a series of vaguely connected nightmares and nightmarish ideas. Like a blended mixture of shreds of various disturbed night's sleep. I much prefer Blue Velvet, but it was good to finally see this one through to the end.
The Bird With The Crystal Plumage:
Everything that Dario Argento is, does best, and does time-and-again, is exemplified during an early sequence in which an artist witnesses a mysterious attempted murder in an art gallery. Everything about this sequence summarises Argento's direction, writing, and attention to appearances.
Typically, the plot has its fair share of holes (particularly the typically last-minute-seeming twist), but Argento has never really been about having a solid plot. It's all about the carefully crafted design behind the camera of what is in front of the camera, and Crystal Plumage proved to be an involving muder mystery.
Deep Red:
Similar to Crystal Plumage, this gore-flecked murder mystery features an artist (a pianist) becoming fascinated by solving a murder, which becomes a series of murders, featuring a figure clad in leather gloves, a black hat, and a leather trench coat. Once again the plot isn't the main focus - it's the lush visuals and sheer design aesthetic - and, again, the twist reveal is all a bit hurried. However, once again, this proved to be a hypnotically good bit of giallo.
The Cat O'Nine Tails:
It's not really a horror flick, it's a murder mystery, that just so happens to feature moments of horror-movie-like crimson grue, and - you guessed it - aesthetic takes the driver's seat. The plot is a little more dense than either Deep Red or Crystal Plumage, and while I enjoyed it least of the three, I still dug the overall vibe.
Up In The Air:
Thank You For Smoking, and Juno, were both memorable comedies with an indie-ish vibe that stretched beyond the dull and banal traditions of many recent Hollywood laughers, and Up In The Air continues in a similar vein. The final act may prove less assured than the first half, which provides a strong central protagonist for George Clooney to sink his teeth into - a protagonist who is a bit of a narcisistic git who only cares about getting to 10 million frequent flier miles and being away from 'home' as much as possible. Yet, much to the quality of the script and direction, you never feel put off by this man - indeed you find yourself becoming fascinated, impressed even, by his carefully organised business travel life going from city-to-city sacking employees of various companies, whose bosses are too wimpy to do the deed themselves.
I really quite enjoyed it, and out of Reitman's two previous flicks, it feels more like Thank You For Smoking - with it's not-that-likeable-yet-still-likeable protagonist - than Juno, with it's face-punchingly-sarcastic high schooler.
Showing posts with label crystal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crystal. Show all posts
Sunday, 2 January 2011
Saturday, 29 August 2009
August 2009: Flavours of the Month Pt. 2: Indiana Jones...
I really don't understand why people bitch-out Crystal Skull so much - have they seen Temple of Doom lately? As I got the double-disc DVD of Skull recently, I decided to do a retrospective of the movie saga. It's been a number of years now since I've seen the first three, so let's have a gander across the series.
Raiders of the Lost Ark:
When all is said and done, this is probably the best of the lot - filled with moments of cinematic history, moments that are universal ... like Star Wars universal.
By today's standards, in terms of action, it's somewhat light - but that's what happens with the action and/or adventure genre over the years. For example, go back to Batman 1989 and compare it to The Dark Knight - it's quite surprising how sedate Burton's flick is nowadays.
Regardless, it's a great adventure flick - but it's got it's own share of silly moments. I do think some, even many, people have unfairly and harshly judged Crystal Skull and remained looking at the original flicks with rose-tinted glasses.
Throughout the series, there are plenty of "why didn't they just...?" moments, or "how did they not figure that out?" or "how did they miss that?" or "how is that going to work?" moments. Hell, in Raiders there is a monkey - a Nazi monkey - a Nazi monkey that heils Hitler at one point! To think people bitched about three quick shots of gophers in Indy 4...
It's still an absolute classic, and thank fuck Spielberg & Lucas didn't revamp it digitally - such stuff is disrespectful to the original (think what happened to E.T. or the original Star Wars flicks).
Anyway, moving on - Temple of Doom:
Having completed by retrospective of the series, I can definitely say that Doom is the least of the series for me quite easily. It lacks the suspense and interest of the original movie, the prequel aspect is pointless (how on earth does it provide any character background to Indiana Jones at all? They managed all they needed to do in the first ten minutes of Last Crusade for character background).
Kate Capshaw's character is a useless cardboard cut-out cliche that bumbles from one scene to another screaming incessantly and getting in the way, while providing a luke-warm 'love interest' for Indy himself. Then there's "Short Round" who, while providing the odd moment where you let out a giggle, is just a high-pitched nuisance. A child side-kick was really not what Indy needed.
Temple of Doom is also surprisingly dull for the most part, it feels like everybody was just cruising along - or at least that's what I found - I found myself struggling to really care what was going on, like I had with Raiders.
Save for the fun mine cart scene, and the cool bridge scene at the end, there's nothing in Doom which truly grips or interests, and the elements of dark & violent, as well as light & comedic, are just clunky or ill-fitting.
Next up - The Last Crusade:
For a long time this was my favourite of the series, but I think Raiders has just pushed it back into second place again, but that said, it's a bloody good ride, especially after the lacklustre second outing.
Even still, it has daft moments too - I'm sure people would have been bitching about Indy 4 if a character had ran off to gather a few camels in the middle of a firefight, but here it's fine (not that it bothered me - but you know how stupidly picky some folk have been about Indy 4).
People moaned about the whole refridgerator scene in Indy 4, but what about Indy wading through a river of petroleum with a lit torch that's dropping several, very noticeable chunks of flaming cloth into the river - then when it does all catch fire, he swims with his eyes open just fine and doesn't have to wash them out.
Then of course there's that bit with Sean Connery downing a fighter plane with a flock of scared birds...I wasn't bothered, but again - the Indy 4 complainers really need to look back over the other three flicks without the rose-glasses on.
Finally - The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull:
It's a bloody good effort I'd say, and a rip-roaring fun ride with a consistent and unrelenting pace. It's faithful to the original films (none of which really moved into any new territory from each other back in the 1980s), but also does a good job of updating things. Indy is now 20 years older, Henry Jones Senior has passed on, as has Marcus Brody (both dealt with efficiently, and respectfully).
Being set in the 1950s also gives it an injection of something different, as well as fun to play with. We get a veritable Top Ten list of 1950s icons - Elvis, the Cold War, Area 51 (kinda), McCarthyism, nuclear testing, the birth of "the teenager", greasers vs lettermans, and so on. While the original three were distinctly 1930s, so the fourth is distinctly 1950s - a decade though, that had a lot more going for it's culture in terms of standing out than the 30s, which might explain some of the complainer's complaining about the first 40 minutes.
I really enjoyed the nuclear test site segment, even with the daftness of the fridge part - but do remember that Indiana Jones is based on the serial adventures of the 1930s-50s, where some pretty daft things would happen. It's just supposed to be FUN, it isn't supposed to be 'post-9/11' or 'gritty' or anything else which colours many new franchises and summer blockbusters these days.
I loved the comic book Russians (replacing the equally enjoyable comic book Nazis), the discovery that the Ark was housed in Area 51, that whole action set piece with Indy cracking out the whip ... indeed, it's also great to see Harrison Ford getting so much screentime during the action sequences thanks to developments in stunt work and safety - he's still in great physical shape and can therefore get really stuck in to the onscreen action - and this works great.
Shia Labeuf does a spiffing job as Mutt, and his time with Ford on screen throughout mirrors the father/son play-off of Last Crusade. It's great to see Marrion Ravenwood back again, John Hurt is wonderfully nuts, Blanchett has fun chewing the scenery and, well, it's just a bloody good fun time.
As for the jungle segment ... yes, the bit with the monkies is probably the worst bit of the film - but at least they weren't saluting Hitler this time round - and yes, the waterfalls bit is hard to swallow ... but only if you're seeking realism, which Indiana Jones was never, ever meant to be.
Indeed - look back at Temple of Doom - the trio leap out of a crashing plane with no parachutes, just an inflatable raft, land on a snowy mountain, slide down it, then fall over a cliff and crash land safely in a river. If you've got no qualms about that, shut the fuck up about the waterfalls sequence in Indy 4!
...
In closing though, there is one significant difference between the films of the 80s that I grew up with, and the new flick which I got to see on my 24th birthday in the cinema. The original three are rated PG in the UK, but the fourth is a 12A ... and yet it's nowhere near as violent as the original three. More action packed, sure - but not more violent - for instance:
Raiders of the Lost Ark - at the end, one guy's head drains of all fluid and collapses inwards, the famous Nazi's flesh melts off in a really gory few seconds, and Indy's archeological nemesis' head explodes graphically into the camera lens.
Temple of Doom - hearts are ripped out, monkey brains are eaten, rotten corpses lunge at the camera, Indy gets whipped graphically, and people are devoured by crocs ... or aligators ... whatever.
Last Crusade - Indy shoots three Nazis in a row, and we actually get to see the bloody bullet holes, and at the end that treacherous side-switching greedy bastard grows horrifically old in seconds as he screams in terror, eyes dissolving, flesh shrinking, grey hair shooting out of his crusty scalp, as he holds the Nazi femme fatale, who is screaming wildly, in his grip. That one in particular freaked me out as a kid - but you need to give kids a scare now and then, and at least The Dark Knight deserved its 12A rating (Two Face's reveal even gave me a shock - it was awesome though).
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, however, has a tribe massacred offscreen with barely a sight of bullet wounds, a couple of CGI Russians caught in the jet flame of that supersonic thingymajig at Area 51, and a couple of dudes (one more graphically than the other) swarmed by giant CGI ants. Indeed, the goriest part is when Spalko crushes a giant ant between her knees and a gooey mess shoots into the lens.
...
These days we can get more action and punching into family films, but it seems you could never have what you got at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark - a movie I watched numerous times as a child, and it did me no harm at all.
Anyway, Raiders first, Crusade second, Skull third (in respect to the Raiders & Crusade for their history - but it is bloody good fun), and Doom fourth.
Raiders of the Lost Ark:
When all is said and done, this is probably the best of the lot - filled with moments of cinematic history, moments that are universal ... like Star Wars universal.
By today's standards, in terms of action, it's somewhat light - but that's what happens with the action and/or adventure genre over the years. For example, go back to Batman 1989 and compare it to The Dark Knight - it's quite surprising how sedate Burton's flick is nowadays.
Regardless, it's a great adventure flick - but it's got it's own share of silly moments. I do think some, even many, people have unfairly and harshly judged Crystal Skull and remained looking at the original flicks with rose-tinted glasses.
Throughout the series, there are plenty of "why didn't they just...?" moments, or "how did they not figure that out?" or "how did they miss that?" or "how is that going to work?" moments. Hell, in Raiders there is a monkey - a Nazi monkey - a Nazi monkey that heils Hitler at one point! To think people bitched about three quick shots of gophers in Indy 4...
It's still an absolute classic, and thank fuck Spielberg & Lucas didn't revamp it digitally - such stuff is disrespectful to the original (think what happened to E.T. or the original Star Wars flicks).
Anyway, moving on - Temple of Doom:
Having completed by retrospective of the series, I can definitely say that Doom is the least of the series for me quite easily. It lacks the suspense and interest of the original movie, the prequel aspect is pointless (how on earth does it provide any character background to Indiana Jones at all? They managed all they needed to do in the first ten minutes of Last Crusade for character background).
Kate Capshaw's character is a useless cardboard cut-out cliche that bumbles from one scene to another screaming incessantly and getting in the way, while providing a luke-warm 'love interest' for Indy himself. Then there's "Short Round" who, while providing the odd moment where you let out a giggle, is just a high-pitched nuisance. A child side-kick was really not what Indy needed.
Temple of Doom is also surprisingly dull for the most part, it feels like everybody was just cruising along - or at least that's what I found - I found myself struggling to really care what was going on, like I had with Raiders.
Save for the fun mine cart scene, and the cool bridge scene at the end, there's nothing in Doom which truly grips or interests, and the elements of dark & violent, as well as light & comedic, are just clunky or ill-fitting.
Next up - The Last Crusade:
For a long time this was my favourite of the series, but I think Raiders has just pushed it back into second place again, but that said, it's a bloody good ride, especially after the lacklustre second outing.
Even still, it has daft moments too - I'm sure people would have been bitching about Indy 4 if a character had ran off to gather a few camels in the middle of a firefight, but here it's fine (not that it bothered me - but you know how stupidly picky some folk have been about Indy 4).
People moaned about the whole refridgerator scene in Indy 4, but what about Indy wading through a river of petroleum with a lit torch that's dropping several, very noticeable chunks of flaming cloth into the river - then when it does all catch fire, he swims with his eyes open just fine and doesn't have to wash them out.
Then of course there's that bit with Sean Connery downing a fighter plane with a flock of scared birds...I wasn't bothered, but again - the Indy 4 complainers really need to look back over the other three flicks without the rose-glasses on.
Finally - The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull:
It's a bloody good effort I'd say, and a rip-roaring fun ride with a consistent and unrelenting pace. It's faithful to the original films (none of which really moved into any new territory from each other back in the 1980s), but also does a good job of updating things. Indy is now 20 years older, Henry Jones Senior has passed on, as has Marcus Brody (both dealt with efficiently, and respectfully).
Being set in the 1950s also gives it an injection of something different, as well as fun to play with. We get a veritable Top Ten list of 1950s icons - Elvis, the Cold War, Area 51 (kinda), McCarthyism, nuclear testing, the birth of "the teenager", greasers vs lettermans, and so on. While the original three were distinctly 1930s, so the fourth is distinctly 1950s - a decade though, that had a lot more going for it's culture in terms of standing out than the 30s, which might explain some of the complainer's complaining about the first 40 minutes.
I really enjoyed the nuclear test site segment, even with the daftness of the fridge part - but do remember that Indiana Jones is based on the serial adventures of the 1930s-50s, where some pretty daft things would happen. It's just supposed to be FUN, it isn't supposed to be 'post-9/11' or 'gritty' or anything else which colours many new franchises and summer blockbusters these days.
I loved the comic book Russians (replacing the equally enjoyable comic book Nazis), the discovery that the Ark was housed in Area 51, that whole action set piece with Indy cracking out the whip ... indeed, it's also great to see Harrison Ford getting so much screentime during the action sequences thanks to developments in stunt work and safety - he's still in great physical shape and can therefore get really stuck in to the onscreen action - and this works great.
Shia Labeuf does a spiffing job as Mutt, and his time with Ford on screen throughout mirrors the father/son play-off of Last Crusade. It's great to see Marrion Ravenwood back again, John Hurt is wonderfully nuts, Blanchett has fun chewing the scenery and, well, it's just a bloody good fun time.
As for the jungle segment ... yes, the bit with the monkies is probably the worst bit of the film - but at least they weren't saluting Hitler this time round - and yes, the waterfalls bit is hard to swallow ... but only if you're seeking realism, which Indiana Jones was never, ever meant to be.
Indeed - look back at Temple of Doom - the trio leap out of a crashing plane with no parachutes, just an inflatable raft, land on a snowy mountain, slide down it, then fall over a cliff and crash land safely in a river. If you've got no qualms about that, shut the fuck up about the waterfalls sequence in Indy 4!
...
In closing though, there is one significant difference between the films of the 80s that I grew up with, and the new flick which I got to see on my 24th birthday in the cinema. The original three are rated PG in the UK, but the fourth is a 12A ... and yet it's nowhere near as violent as the original three. More action packed, sure - but not more violent - for instance:
Raiders of the Lost Ark - at the end, one guy's head drains of all fluid and collapses inwards, the famous Nazi's flesh melts off in a really gory few seconds, and Indy's archeological nemesis' head explodes graphically into the camera lens.
Temple of Doom - hearts are ripped out, monkey brains are eaten, rotten corpses lunge at the camera, Indy gets whipped graphically, and people are devoured by crocs ... or aligators ... whatever.
Last Crusade - Indy shoots three Nazis in a row, and we actually get to see the bloody bullet holes, and at the end that treacherous side-switching greedy bastard grows horrifically old in seconds as he screams in terror, eyes dissolving, flesh shrinking, grey hair shooting out of his crusty scalp, as he holds the Nazi femme fatale, who is screaming wildly, in his grip. That one in particular freaked me out as a kid - but you need to give kids a scare now and then, and at least The Dark Knight deserved its 12A rating (Two Face's reveal even gave me a shock - it was awesome though).
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, however, has a tribe massacred offscreen with barely a sight of bullet wounds, a couple of CGI Russians caught in the jet flame of that supersonic thingymajig at Area 51, and a couple of dudes (one more graphically than the other) swarmed by giant CGI ants. Indeed, the goriest part is when Spalko crushes a giant ant between her knees and a gooey mess shoots into the lens.
...
These days we can get more action and punching into family films, but it seems you could never have what you got at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark - a movie I watched numerous times as a child, and it did me no harm at all.
Anyway, Raiders first, Crusade second, Skull third (in respect to the Raiders & Crusade for their history - but it is bloody good fun), and Doom fourth.
Monday, 2 June 2008
Indiana Jones 4...
Another week and another trip to the cinema, it's certainly become something of an addiction of mine thus far into 2008, and with at least two other must see flicks in the next couple of months or so, it's most likely not about to stop.
So here we are, pretty much two decades since the last Indy movie, and as I was predicting it's suffering the same critical fate as Land of the Dead did. A loved, revered and established trilogy gets a new sibling 20 years after the last ... well, crusade.
Some people are decrying it as garbage, others are saying it's just the same as the other movies ... as for me, I'm somewhere in the middle. I never ever expected it to best either Raiders or Last Crusade, but figured it'd either beat or at the very least tie with Temple of Doom somewhere in the back of the pack.
My assumptions on my own opinion were indeed correct and this is where I stand. While it's a little bit too far fetched at a couple of junctures, twice in one set piece even, it never strides into territory where I'm still not entertained. In fact, the first truly far fetched sequence I absolutely had a blast during (aptly enough) ... it even tied into the quintessentially 1950s vibe of the film (while the predecessors were quintessentially 1930s, in that serial adventure vein in which the Jones films were forged).
Shia LaBeouf, as in Transformers and Disturbia, can do no wrong. The lad is consistently entertaining and talented, bringing a genuine warmth and humour to his roles which sit nicely with the audience. As for Ford, he certainly doesn't look too old for this film, not a jot - if Stallone can do Rambo aged 61, then Ford can do Indy 4 ... and pull it off he most certainly does.
It makes several nods to the previous films, but it never really obstructs proceedings too much, their inclusion feeling natural and necessary.
Mind you, it does get a bit wobbly half-way in before picking up ... at which point you're either with it till the end or you're lost for good. Indeed, what with it being the 1950s it is all a bit sci-fi ... but sci-fi in a jungle with blow pipes, monkies, copious cobwebbing and vines.
I say you're either with it by the end or not, and I stand by this. It does all get quite far fetched ... but then again Last Crusade featured a knight in a cave guarded by an invisible 'faith bridge' who'd been there for centuries guarding Jesus' dad's coffee cup. Raiders has the Ark of the Covenant, look at it and your face melts off ... and then there was Temple of Doom ... well, nuff said beyond monkey brains and that nutter tearing hearts out.
Needless to say Indy 4 will be the awkward sibling of the other three, tight-knit brothers. The new kid on the block will have to work to fit in with the rest of the franchise, but that was always going to be the case, so ignore that as much as possible - indeed, I purposefully didn't re-watch the first three prior to seeing the latest installment so that I could judge it purely on it's own.
I think one of the problems many of the film's detractors will have with it, is that they grew up watching Raiders, Temple and Crusade. There's a special place for them in their hearts and they don't look kindly upon shedding any negative light upon them. They don't like to seek out their flaws in order to cut the new kid on the block some slack ... indeed I can understand such a mindset.
Having re-watched many of my childhood favourites on DVD, I've rekindled my love for them and gone back in time to when I first viewed them. I recaptured that magic and wonder, but equally - perhaps this is exclusively down to my film school background though - I've also spotted the flaws, the audience-acknowledging smug bits, the lesser quality sequels and so forth ... but I still love them just as much, certainly not less.
With this in mind, I've cut Indy 4 some slack, but I do wonder if Lucas, Spielberg and Co's venture to recapture the magic and fun they had on set didn't fully translate to the film ... or at least the script, which is where any of the film's flaws originate.
Regardless, it's a fun romp and good to see Ford back in the Fedora. Certainly not the best - but it never was going to be - so it's at least as good as Temple of Doom, and frankly that's as much as could ever have been realistically expected ... so just enjoy it.
At least they didn't do a Die Hard 4.0 and water it all down and mutate the formula.
So here we are, pretty much two decades since the last Indy movie, and as I was predicting it's suffering the same critical fate as Land of the Dead did. A loved, revered and established trilogy gets a new sibling 20 years after the last ... well, crusade.
Some people are decrying it as garbage, others are saying it's just the same as the other movies ... as for me, I'm somewhere in the middle. I never ever expected it to best either Raiders or Last Crusade, but figured it'd either beat or at the very least tie with Temple of Doom somewhere in the back of the pack.
My assumptions on my own opinion were indeed correct and this is where I stand. While it's a little bit too far fetched at a couple of junctures, twice in one set piece even, it never strides into territory where I'm still not entertained. In fact, the first truly far fetched sequence I absolutely had a blast during (aptly enough) ... it even tied into the quintessentially 1950s vibe of the film (while the predecessors were quintessentially 1930s, in that serial adventure vein in which the Jones films were forged).
Shia LaBeouf, as in Transformers and Disturbia, can do no wrong. The lad is consistently entertaining and talented, bringing a genuine warmth and humour to his roles which sit nicely with the audience. As for Ford, he certainly doesn't look too old for this film, not a jot - if Stallone can do Rambo aged 61, then Ford can do Indy 4 ... and pull it off he most certainly does.
It makes several nods to the previous films, but it never really obstructs proceedings too much, their inclusion feeling natural and necessary.
Mind you, it does get a bit wobbly half-way in before picking up ... at which point you're either with it till the end or you're lost for good. Indeed, what with it being the 1950s it is all a bit sci-fi ... but sci-fi in a jungle with blow pipes, monkies, copious cobwebbing and vines.
I say you're either with it by the end or not, and I stand by this. It does all get quite far fetched ... but then again Last Crusade featured a knight in a cave guarded by an invisible 'faith bridge' who'd been there for centuries guarding Jesus' dad's coffee cup. Raiders has the Ark of the Covenant, look at it and your face melts off ... and then there was Temple of Doom ... well, nuff said beyond monkey brains and that nutter tearing hearts out.
Needless to say Indy 4 will be the awkward sibling of the other three, tight-knit brothers. The new kid on the block will have to work to fit in with the rest of the franchise, but that was always going to be the case, so ignore that as much as possible - indeed, I purposefully didn't re-watch the first three prior to seeing the latest installment so that I could judge it purely on it's own.
I think one of the problems many of the film's detractors will have with it, is that they grew up watching Raiders, Temple and Crusade. There's a special place for them in their hearts and they don't look kindly upon shedding any negative light upon them. They don't like to seek out their flaws in order to cut the new kid on the block some slack ... indeed I can understand such a mindset.
Having re-watched many of my childhood favourites on DVD, I've rekindled my love for them and gone back in time to when I first viewed them. I recaptured that magic and wonder, but equally - perhaps this is exclusively down to my film school background though - I've also spotted the flaws, the audience-acknowledging smug bits, the lesser quality sequels and so forth ... but I still love them just as much, certainly not less.
With this in mind, I've cut Indy 4 some slack, but I do wonder if Lucas, Spielberg and Co's venture to recapture the magic and fun they had on set didn't fully translate to the film ... or at least the script, which is where any of the film's flaws originate.
Regardless, it's a fun romp and good to see Ford back in the Fedora. Certainly not the best - but it never was going to be - so it's at least as good as Temple of Doom, and frankly that's as much as could ever have been realistically expected ... so just enjoy it.
At least they didn't do a Die Hard 4.0 and water it all down and mutate the formula.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
%20001.jpg)
Posts
