MovieChat Forums > Heisenberg > Replies
Heisenberg's Replies
Yeah your reconstruction makes sense, Odenkirk must have vouced for a bunch of ex cast members, his partner Cross with the toupee was so superfluous, it could have been just anybody playing that role.
BTW, why get Odenkirk to play an old man, I have no idea, he was totally wasted playing such a low key character.
Indeed, that's a clear indication of timeless quality: the oscars...
I'm afraid you didn't miss anything, you saw what most people saw too: stupidity kicking in.
Yes, indeed, it's the flavor of this month.
Don't worry after the oscars it goes straight back to the sunken place.
I'm saying it could have been a classic, not just a"yet another twilight zone horror".
I think you're right, it's too bad that the wirter/director didn't take the potential of his material more seriously because it could have been a real little masterpiece.
Instead it's just the flavor of the month.
No, actually he waited for too long, but I think it was because he is a nice man and had some black guilt of not wanting to be found in a white house after killing everybody in it.
I mean, I would have started to behave violently right after finding the pictures in the box, ANY action would be acceptable after that for me to get out, but I'm not black.
Not happy with this delay at all. It's not such an incredibly intricate writing, of course you'd think the longer you work on it the "better" it can be, but in reality:
1- artists, especially talented ones, under pressure perform better than when they have too much freedom.
2- over polishing drama takes the life out of it.
3- actors are aging badly, they should speed up not slow down, assuming they want to go for a fifth season, I will find it difficult to believe Mike and Saul are younger than in Breaking Bad (unless they just focus on the after Breaking Bad).
I think the trilogy is all good, but I agree with you, they are the only ones that take themselves seriously.
Here's what happened:
1) They made raiders, it was waaay better than they expected it to be (it's the best action movie ever and they were going for a low budget, no brains, quick shooting project...).
2) So they say "let's make this into a series with all sorts of archeological adventures from 30s/40s".
3) Temple is not even remotely as good, too much Spielberg and Lucas's touch in it, too much money in it, everybody is pissed especially Harrison Ford who thinks he's better than this (while he's not). So they put Indy on hold.
4) They bring it back copying raiders feel with "Last Crusade", but Lucas decides to cash in on the success: he wraps it up as a triolgy to opt for a series of TV andventures (more money and less headaches making a good story). It's crap.
5) I won't discuss that horrendous travesty after that.
So, yeah, they were the only two that took themselves seriously as an entry in a series of adventures of Indiana Jones, like another 007 entry. The rest is Hollywood post modern marketing strategy.
Can I pick Spielberg?
Well if the choice is limited to those two, I guess I have to pick Short Round:
I agree he's more integrated in the Asian plot than a vanilla white blonde b***h, but they try to make him into the hero by having him fight and jump like Indy. It's annoying and insulting to our intelligence, even as kids, he gets in the way of the movie itself, not just the scenes.
Willie is just offensive to women in general, but at least she's believable in her actions and doesn't try to be the female version of Indy to prove "see screaming useless girls, you could be like him too!"
So, I pick Spielberg.