Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (30th June 2023)

1165166168170171196

Comments

  • Posts: 6,883
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Yeh mate. Am debating whether or not I will bother with the latest one! Hated 'Crystal Skull' and I just want to remember 'Raiders' for the superb action/adventure it is, with a nearly as good sequel in 'Temple of Doom'
    And not think about the rest!
    What? Not even "The Last Crusade"? If I'm not mistaken, it is second favourite for almost everyone here.

    And I'm very happy for them. For me 'Last Crusade' was too lightweight, it had a forgettable villain, the action sequences were poor, and the finale was a real damp squib! Connery was the best thing about it, but even that was a minus because his character upstaged Indy!
  • TheSkyfallen06TheSkyfallen06 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    Posts: 1,000
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Yeh mate. Am debating whether or not I will bother with the latest one! Hated 'Crystal Skull' and I just want to remember 'Raiders' for the superb action/adventure it is, with a nearly as good sequel in 'Temple of Doom'
    And not think about the rest!
    What? Not even "The Last Crusade"? If I'm not mistaken, it is second favourite for almost everyone here.

    And I'm very happy for them. For me 'Last Crusade' was too lightweight, it had a forgettable villain, the action sequences were poor, and the finale was a real damp squib! Connery was the best thing about it, but even that was a minus because his character upstaged Indy!

    If i remember well, Spielberg made Crusade trying to recreate the Raiders tone and soften it as possible as it could get after Temple was criticized for being "Too dark to be PG", maybe that's why you consider it too "lightweight".
  • Funny watching some clips of KOTCS how much of young man Ford looks! 15 years ago. The first hour of this film is honestly so good. Better than the first of DoD I'd say. There are great bits from both films!
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Yeh mate. Am debating whether or not I will bother with the latest one! Hated 'Crystal Skull' and I just want to remember 'Raiders' for the superb action/adventure it is, with a nearly as good sequel in 'Temple of Doom'
    And not think about the rest!
    What? Not even "The Last Crusade"? If I'm not mistaken, it is second favourite for almost everyone here.

    And I'm very happy for them. For me 'Last Crusade' was too lightweight, it had a forgettable villain, the action sequences were poor, and the finale was a real damp squib! Connery was the best thing about it, but even that was a minus because his character upstaged Indy!

    I agree mate. Cannot for the life of me get the massive appeal of Last Crusade. Ford and Connery are brilliant together, but it's just a rehash of the far superior Raiders. The action editing is quite poor. And the film commits the ultimate sin IMO by turning Marcus into a buffoon for 'comedic' effect.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,034
    I stumbled on this today from YouTube! I enjoy this guys channel and while none of this is really new to me, I was somewhat surprised how many scripts and re-writes Skull had. Seems they kept adding on to previous ideas which explains the muddled second half of the film.

  • Posts: 5
    thedove wrote: »
    I stumbled on this today from YouTube! I enjoy this guys channel and while none of this is really new to me, I was somewhat surprised how many scripts and re-writes Skull had. Seems they kept adding on to previous ideas which explains the muddled second half of the film.


    They shouldve just made the City of the Gods script, it's not perfect by any means but it has a coherent 2nd act. Lucas piling things on top of it ruined the project.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,908
    @itsraw please check your messages
  • Posts: 3,169
    Cannot for the life of me get the massive appeal of Last Crusade.
    Blasphemy! It's one of the most entertaining and flawless movies ever made. So much fun action, and still it has much more emphasis on character development, than the first two.
  • Posts: 3,281
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Not to mention people just skip most movies now and wait for it to come out on streaming services that they already pay for, myself included. I mean I wouldn't have seen it yesterday if I didn't have an AMC gift card that I've been holding on to since Christmas. I think since COVID-19 faded and theaters fully reopened, I've seen maybe 5-6 films. And thats mostly due to having kids who want to go. NTTD, Matrix 4, Sing 2, Sonic 2, Super Mario and Indy. I usually just wait nowadays for streaming.

    That too. I still don't think we're close to a "theaters are dead" stage but when the turnaround rate is so fast and you save so much money in the process, why not be patient? I really only go anymore if it's something I'm absolutely dying to see or if it's one I could probably wait on but I really don't want to get spoiled in doing so.

    Exactly. I mean I could have watched Ant Man 3 in theaters and took my sons and pay $50 including tickets and snacks or just wait 2-3 months and watch it on Disney+.

    Only Indy and MI:Dead Reckoning are the films that were on my must see in theaters. .

    Oppenheimer must be on that list too, surely? That film sounds like an absolute must at the cinema.
  • Posts: 3,281
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    I never cared to watch the second instalment of that Air Force commercial called Top Gun. The first one was well-made and captivating, no doubt, but I haven't felt the urge to see another one. Plus I think that Tom Cruise is generally a lousy actor. Kindly leave me alone with that kind of stuff.
    Top Gun 2 is one of the best films to come out of Hollywood in years. It urinates all over the likes of NTTD and DOD.

  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 468
    Should wear Depends then.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,186
    itsraw wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    I stumbled on this today from YouTube! I enjoy this guys channel and while none of this is really new to me, I was somewhat surprised how many scripts and re-writes Skull had. Seems they kept adding on to previous ideas which explains the muddled second half of the film.


    They shouldve just made the City of the Gods script, it's not perfect by any means but it has a coherent 2nd act. Lucas piling things on top of it ruined the project.

    It is good but as you say has issues. CS has a much better opening I’d say, and I can see why they wanted to add Indy’s son: the main cast would all have been a bit old and a bit of variation was good. There were lots of bits I liked though, yes.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Cannot for the life of me get the massive appeal of Last Crusade.
    Blasphemy! It's one of the most entertaining and flawless movies ever made. So much fun action, and still it has much more emphasis on character development, than the first two.

    I'm glad so many people like it. I just find it all a bit Raiders lite. None of the sequels can touch the original IMO.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,028
    Calvin liked it…

  • Posts: 1,455
    talos7 wrote: »
    Calvin liked it…


    Yeah, I'm with him. Thumbs up. I'm not sure I'm quite getting the very negative reviews, but such is life.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,168
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Calvin liked it…


    Yeah, I'm with him. Thumbs up. I'm not sure I'm quite getting the very negative reviews, but such is life.

    Me three. My family wanted pure escapism, and we got it.
  • TheSkyfallen06TheSkyfallen06 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    Posts: 1,000
    I think the ACTUAL problem is that Dial came out during the Cinematic Universe Era, in which every movie has to be dark and gritty (in both the plot and the literal color filters), have deep meanings (religious, political metaphores) and set up the next five movies, just look at the UDU.
  • Posts: 302
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Calvin liked it…


    Yeah, I'm with him. Thumbs up. I'm not sure I'm quite getting the very negative reviews, but such is life.

    Me three. My family wanted pure escapism, and we got it.

    I like this movie too.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    edited July 2023 Posts: 5,034
    Some common beefs I have heard with the reviews is
    • PWB character seems to switch motivations frequently and when it suits the story
    • Indy needs to be saved at the end of the film and really doesn't factor in the climax
    • Time travel is silly
    • Indy is a broken man and frequently is the butt of age jokes
    • CGI is not good and quite obvious.
    • the script has some lazy writing with the young child being able to fly a plane because the plot needs him to. That PWB accuses of graverobbing when her character is doing that very thing.
    • the camera work isn't Spielberg, but then who is?

    Let me be clear, haven't seen the movie, these are only the common mentions that I have heard in reviews. Some of the reviews were generally positive, but still mentioned any one of the above.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2023 Posts: 15,186
    It's best to watch it for yourself and see how you feel. It's more fun that way.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,601
    @thedove, that child character was very ham-fisted and unlikable to me, especially in a series that produced someone as fantastic as Short Round. Still, give it a shot and see how you feel. I didn't particularly love it and doubt I ever revisit it unless I'm doing a full series marathon but it was better than KOTCS and that's all I was hoping for.
  • TheSkyfallen06TheSkyfallen06 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    Posts: 1,000
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @thedove, that child character was very ham-fisted and unlikable to me, especially in a series that produced someone as fantastic as Short Round. Still, give it a shot and see how you feel. I didn't particularly love it and doubt I ever revisit it unless I'm doing a full series marathon but it was better than KOTCS and that's all I was hoping for.

    I'm sorry, i thought everyone here hated Short Round?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,601
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @thedove, that child character was very ham-fisted and unlikable to me, especially in a series that produced someone as fantastic as Short Round. Still, give it a shot and see how you feel. I didn't particularly love it and doubt I ever revisit it unless I'm doing a full series marathon but it was better than KOTCS and that's all I was hoping for.

    I'm sorry, i thought everyone here hated Short Round?

    I guess they do, unfortunately, but I'm in the camp that thinks TTOD is the best of the lot and who really loves Short Round as a character, so I'm not included in that.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,029
    I like Short Round.

    I don’t dislike Teddy. He’s a serviceable side kick to Helena, but he never annoys me.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    edited July 2023 Posts: 8,745
    thedove wrote: »
    Some common beefs I have heard with the reviews is
    • PWB character seems to switch motivations frequently and when it suits the story
    • Indy needs to be saved at the end of the film and really doesn't factor in the climax
    • Time travel is silly
    • Indy is a broken man and frequently is the butt of age jokes
    • CGI is not good and quite obvious.
    • the script has some lazy writing with the young child being able to fly a plane because the plot needs him to. That PWB accuses of graverobbing when her character is doing that very thing.
    • the camera work isn't Spielberg, but then who is?

    Let me be clear, haven't seen the movie, these are only the common mentions that I have heard in reviews. Some of the reviews were generally positive, but still mentioned any one of the above.

    I'll try to answer these from my point of view, after having seen the movie once and maybe not totally understood everything.
    First issue: PWB character does seem to switch motivations, but ultimately does the right things, and is overall definitely an asset to the picture.

    Second issue: You may see it as that, but it makes sense in the context.

    Third issue: Time travel is certainly silly, but no more silly than ghosts from the "Arc of the Covenant" (if it ever existed) melting Nazis' faces, an Indian voodoo priest (I apologize if voodoo is not Indian, but I don't know a better expression) tearing hearts out with his own hands while the person remains alive only to be consumed by flames afterwards, an 800-year old knight guarding the "Grail" (if it ever existed) and that entire Alien Crystal Skull story. If one doesn't worry about that kind of stuff, one should not worry about time travel.

    Fourth issue: Indy is in his seventies, a broken man, but not the butt of jokes. He seems to bore his students, but he is not the butt of age jokes. He's being treated respectfully, especially since he's ultimately far fitter than other septuagenarians.

    Fifth issue: I don't know if CGI has ever been indistinguishable, but this gets as close as I have seen so far (and much better than the previous instalment, although I liked most of that as well (minus, maybe, the monkeys in the vine-swinging scene).

    Sixth issue: Yeah, I was surprised why the kid, whom I hadn't really understood where he came from (maybe next time, with subtitles) could fly a plane. But then, flying a plane is not really a secret science. The only time my wife and I were taken on a plane ride on a Cessna, the pilot (after a very basic instruction) let both of us (one after the other) take control by simply saying "Your plane". And it worked, and at the time (over twenty-five years ago) I concluded that if I were on a small plane and the pilot got a heart-attac or so I could probably manage to land it. Helena is a sort of complicated character, in that she has the knowledge of archeology, but her own interests (cash!) dealing with it. That's why she appears a little...uhm...volatile, but she ends up on the morally correct side.

    Seventh issue: The camera work isn't Spielberg, but if ever, it hasn't been in this film. It also hasn't been Janusz Kaminski as usual, but Phedon Papamichael. Check IMDb and/or Wikipedia (or at least Google) for that.

    I hope this is good enough for the Greek Underworld for now (coming from the bayou) :-)
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,460
    thedove wrote: »
    Some common beefs I have heard with the reviews is
    • PWB character seems to switch motivations frequently and when it suits the story
    • Indy needs to be saved at the end of the film and really doesn't factor in the climax
    • Time travel is silly
    • Indy is a broken man and frequently is the butt of age jokes
    • CGI is not good and quite obvious.
    • the script has some lazy writing with the young child being able to fly a plane because the plot needs him to. That PWB accuses of graverobbing when her character is doing that very thing.
    • the camera work isn't Spielberg, but then who is?

    Let me be clear, haven't seen the movie, these are only the common mentions that I have heard in reviews. Some of the reviews were generally positive, but still mentioned any one of the above.

    Site has spoiler tags for a reason. Please continue to use them if you don't mind.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,034
    Sorry @LucknFate I will go back and fix. I wasn't sure if any of what I posted was a spoiler by now, but I suppose one never knows. :)
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,165
    Hate is a strong word. I found Short Round very annoying. Maybe in part because he's the namesake for a character in The Steel Helmet I like very much, handled very well by Sam Fuller.

    With Teddy I liked him a lot as presented in the film. His actions and motivations made sense to me.

  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,745
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @thedove, that child character was very ham-fisted and unlikable to me, especially in a series that produced someone as fantastic as Short Round. Still, give it a shot and see how you feel. I didn't particularly love it and doubt I ever revisit it unless I'm doing a full series marathon but it was better than KOTCS and that's all I was hoping for.

    I'm sorry, i thought everyone here hated Short Round?

    I sure didn't hate Short Round, I just wasn't too fond of his presence and could have done without him. I thought the main problem of TOD was Kate Capshaw's Willie screaming "Indiiiiiiiiiieeeee" constantly, even beating Tanya Roberts in invoking "Jaaaaames". Then again, Willie was allowed to be satire, Stacey Sutton not so much.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2023 Posts: 15,186
    As you say with your mention of satire, Willie screaming kind of was the joke, so it never annoyed me. The point of the gag was that everyone else in the film found her annoying. Some folk say they find her annoying in the film, which to me is a bit like watching Fawlty Towers and saying 'that Basil guy seems a bit rude' :D
Sign In or Register to comment.