MovieChat Forums > MiamiFootball001 > Replies
MiamiFootball001's Replies
Chief. The character is the embodiment of a buzzkill.
I see what you mean and I agree with your thoughts on this totally. Based on a few Milius interviews that I have seen, he really seems to emphasize the fact that he felt a connection with Conrad's Heart of Darkness during his formative years. It is no secret that Milius is an avid outdoorsman, this no doubt certainly is an element of the story that he connected to. The beauty of this film is that there are so many strong elements of quality writing and story telling, if you are going to take inspiration then why not take it from the cream of the crop?
As a heterosexual male, I will admit that Bob Falfa is the obvious winner here.
Robert Mitchum
Agreed. Harrison Ford is pretty much the Bogart of our era. I feel like Ford always been a big Humphrey Bogart fan, it shows.
- Cast Lazenby in Diamonds are Forever.
- Cast Timothy Dalton in View to a Kill, giving Dalton's Bond a trilogy.
- Cast Sean Bean as Bond and Brosnan as Trevelyan. I always felt that Sean Bean would have been an excellent 007 as opposed to Brosnan.
Cast Dalton as Bond, Moore was too damn old to carry a Bond film. And cast Rutger Hauer as Zorin.
Nothing against Christopher Walken, he is an excellent actor - but I feel like he was not really a good fit for Zorin, he was too American for the character. I know that M mentions that Zorin is fluent in 5 languages with no accent, but it just felt off to have him play a European 007 villain. However, Rutger Hauer would have been perfect - besides, he actually did speak 5 languages with no accent.
It makes sense when one realizes how lean and thin Bond was in the earlier films. I am guessing by Diamonds Are Forever he had swapped out the green figs and yogurt for an egg mcmuffin and plenty of hash browns lol.
I definitely agree with you here: Spielberg and Lucas always have maintained the fact that 007 was a huge inspiration for the Indiana Jones movies and this film really does show that. In addition to the similar elements that Last Crusade has with this, I always thought that this film has a similar feel to Raiders. I feel like a lot of the elements of Raiders were inspired by the tropes introduced in this movie.
The Godfather Part II is on the AFI top 100 list and rightfully so - much like Godfather II, Empire is a sequel that has proven itself to be equally (if not more) iconic to the first installment of its series.
I mean, I feel like Kenobi killing Anakin would have been more compassionate than cutting his legs off and leaving him to literally burn in a lake of fire....
I would have included a scene that has Indy going into a cave and meeting a man who has been there for 700 years
The fact that he never showed Billy an ID card, badge, or even a fucking business card really made him look sketchy as hell. I am not sure what the protocol was in those days for the feds interviewing suspects/detainees, but one would assume that somebody working for Uncle Sam would have to show official proof on who they are/who they work for.
Looking back on the film, the fact that the guy never showed up to Billy's trial to testify for the prosecution also made him seem sketchy - I honestly think the guy was part of a larger drug smuggling ring that had a deal going on with the Turkish cops.
He's a villain in the frame of the story, at least while looking at it from the perspective of Michael being the hero. Granted, Michael is a "nominal hero" at best (at least during this point in his character trajectory on the show) and Charles is the guy who is on the opposing side yet he is far from being a straight up Blofeld type of villain (at the harshest, he is pretty much the designated "punch clock villain" of the plot arc). So yeah, it is all about perspective with the major characters lol.
Honestly, I really think of this film as being a modern day version of "Shane"
I think the character was purposely presented as being a bit ambiguous. The character really is a combination of two tropes that were each two very common elements to characterization in 80s films:
- The "tall and athletic blonde haired rival" character whose function in the story was used to highlight how outmatched and average the primary male protagonist was.
- The "well meaning yet slightly awkward suitor" character who had an interest in pursuing a relationship with the female lead. This type of character was typically portrayed as being slightly jealous, yet not at all malicious.
I think that this worked really well within the story itself.
What Apocalypse Now is to war films and what Blade Runner is to science fiction is what this film is for the gangster film genre: a slow burning film that features a cold lone wolf protagonist that tends to be loved or hated by audiences.
Personally, I love this film. Yet, I totally understand why folks have a hard time getting into it. These nihilistic and slow paced sorts of films have certainly proven to be an aquired taste.
It really is a brilliantly crafted opening that both foreshadows the climax of the film and makes the ending a classic bookending - -
- both the beginning and the end of the film features a group riding on horseback in the desert which leads to Indy entering a cave and trying to obtain a historical artifact of religious significance for the purposes of winning his father's acceptance and approval.
Yes, but he was wearing it in the car during the drive to the castle, before he thought of the Scottish lord ruse
Totally agree lol - the crazy and absurd elements of the primary characters /story really makes this feel like The Office if it were set in the 16th century. A lot of Aguirre's lines and antics really seems like shit that Dwight Schrute would say and do lol.
All that it is missing here are the interview moments.