I'm glad you included the article.

Posted by Cereal Killer from 162.10.138.197 on July 20, 2000 at 02:32:51:

In Reply to: The newspaper bashed Temple of Doom! posted by Brett (Maverick) Lambert on July 19, 2000 at 19:30:24:

I agree with this guy on some of this. I think what he's getting at is that some movies will make big bucks even if they're bad just because of their association with another film. In the case of "Temple of Doom," "Die Hard 2," and "Phantom Menace" a big box office was a certainty even before a single frame was shot. They're disappointing only because there is just no way they could match the magic of the earlier films. Honestly, "Phantom Menace" was a guaranteed hit even if it had been filmed with finger puppets in black and white.

He's off the mark about "Cliffhanger" (Stallone's last cool film IMO). It did disappointing box office even though the movie is damn good.

I also liked "MI-2" much better than the first one although it ticked me off in both of them that the bad guy was a member of the Impossible Missions Force.

As for "Twister," cool effects- weak script.

"Godzilla" ack!! a crapfest. Although I can't wait to see "Godzilla 2000." A return to the old style Godzilla flicks I remember as a kid.

"Blair Witch Project" was alright except for all that shaky camera stuff. After I saw it I had trouble driving home because I was so nauseated.

But back to Indy. Be honest. If all the advance reviews said that Indy IV sucked and all your friends said it was awful and even if this forum was filled with advance word that the movie was horrible, you'd still go see it wouldn't you? I think that was the point this guy was trying to make. Some movies you're gonna see no matter what anyone else says about it.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: I agree with this guy on some of this. I think what he's getting at is that some movies will make big bucks even if they're bad just because of their association with another film. In the case of "Temple of Doom," "Die Hard 2," and "Phantom Menace" a big box office was a certainty even before a single frame was shot. They're disappointing only because there is just no way they could match the magic of the earlier films. Honestly, "Phantom Menace" was a guaranteed hit even if it had been filmed with finger puppets in black and white.

: He's off the mark about "Cliffhanger" (Stallone's last cool film IMO). It did disappointing box office even though the movie is damn good.

: I also liked "MI-2" much better than the first one although it ticked me off in both of them that the bad guy was a member of the Impossible Missions Force.

: As for "Twister," cool effects- weak script.

: "Godzilla" ack!! a crapfest. Although I can't wait to see "Godzilla 2000." A return to the old style Godzilla flicks I remember as a kid.

: "Blair Witch Project" was alright except for all that shaky camera stuff. After I saw it I had trouble driving home because I was so nauseated.

: But back to Indy. Be honest. If all the advance reviews said that Indy IV sucked and all your friends said it was awful and even if this forum was filled with advance word that the movie was horrible, you'd still go see it wouldn't you? I think that was the point this guy was trying to make. Some movies you're gonna see no matter what anyone else says about it.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]