MovieChat Forums > Heisenberg

Heisenberg (151)


Was she in any movie? Awesome! Awful X Gon' Give It to Ya Psycho Somatic Addict Insane Sharon was supposedly 30, she looked at least 40+ This "crap" is a classic and will be forever with us! Worst bond ever or Lazenby is still it? Should have been bolder and gayer I prefer Radio Gaga View all posts >


I do. I mean, I do think this show is not funny. Kinda bad way to put a negative question, you have:-) Yep, great stuff! Could have/should have been in the movie. We see one party where Freddie is having some fun, but all the other Queen members are downers. Why??? Janelsenor, thanks for the info, finally we know the official version of facts. It's quite bad writing unfortunately, I'm glad they tried to minimize it in the film. Thanks again! I know that that's the answer and I think it's a plausible answer. Only the movie didn't make that clear. Not only that, it uses a clearly ambiguous vehicle to transport the Ark. Like I said in one of my previous posts, it could have been just another tanker, no? But it looks more awesome if there's a sub involved, and Spielberg was going for the awesome idea. And he clearly wanted it to be awesome that Indy jumps on a sub just like that to chase the Ark. On top of that, just to cut to the chase about your argument "it's not war time", which is idiotic if I think about it: ok, this sub in the movie does not submerge. Because Indy is just that lucky. Fine. But what if it did? What was Indy's plan in that case? To swim across the mediterranean sea because it's such fun? You do realize that means certain death, don't you? So, for your argument's sake, you want to imply that Indy was 100% positive this particular sub was NOT going down because......? Why? Does the movie explain that? Is it really because it's not wartime? Like subs never do drills or exercise sumbersion during peace time, right? If this one does not submerge because of that reason (or any other reason), I think we should know as the viewers, and know that Indy knows that too for certain. Look, even in the fridge scene, at least they took the time to explain that it was lead lined, to make it "plausible" and make Indy look a bit sane. I wish this submarine moment was better written and explained to us. The main implication of the sub submerging, could be....that it is a sub?!? It's like showing some killer holding a gun hiding at night in the dark behind the curtains, then a woman comes in the same room unknowingly, then cut to the image of her on the floor dead, bleeding. And then you explain that she was murdered with a knife. Would you say "Yes, I was expecting that. There was no implication that the gun would be used to kill her"? Everybody watching Raiders wandered the same question I asked. The explainations given here to me make sense. They are not exactly glaring nor what the movie tells us, though, as the obvious thought you would think is that the sub submerged. This is THE best adventure film EVER made. I don't know about best overall in the decade or more, it's difficult to compare different genres. Die Hard is THE best action film EVER made, for instance. I'd put Raiders above it as a movie overall, but others might not, it's not objective. De Gustibus. Right on the money, that's one mistake they need to fix: Lei is not too bad as a middle aged man, Lee and Law are juicer body builders. Even Bob is too fit. The only unbuffed guy that looks like he should is Noctis, which is "puny little fag". I did, it had enormous hype, I would say the biggest ever till that point. It was actually too much hype considering the quality of this film, and I could feel it even if I was a kid. I still had a great time watching it! No, of course not. Oscars have a political agenda and everybody knows that. Anything else is bothering you? That is better than the way the movie explains it. View all replies >