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

1188190192193194

Comments

  • Posts: 1,394
    peter wrote: »
    Whether a kid on YouTube with a silly name likes a film or not is a moot point.

    And you're right, this IS a discussion forum, so posting these YouTube rants actually does the opposite -- especially since most don't bother watching what you keep putting up here!

    Again,how do you know it is a rant if you haven’t watched it? No one is forcing you to watch it.If you can’t accept criticism of the film just ignore me and move on.

    The video provides in depth analysis of the film and praises what the film does right as well as wrong.

    Actual quote from the video “ How the film makes more out of less “.

    Filmento has 802k subscribers and is a very popular channel.He/They provide in depth analysis and are not one for rants.There are plenty of other channels for that.



  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2023 Posts: 14,790
    I swear, every Youtube video rant's thumbnail i've seen has either that exact same image of Indy with a scared expression, or an image of PWB with horns making a Grinch-like smile.

    That and text on the thumbnail in large yellow font.


    ogDRbOr.jpg

    MbC6DBG.jpg

    Googly eyes always mean you have an important and intelligent point to make.
    About Kathleen bloody Kennedy!!! Grrrr!!! Bloody wiimiinnnn!!!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    I prefer text over videos. Written articles are more accessible because you’re able to read at your own speed, or even jump straight to the main idea presented if you don’t want to read it in full.

    Looking at the YouTube video, it’s almost 20 mins long. No thanks.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,790
    I prefer text over videos. Written articles are more accessible because you’re able to read at your own speed, or even jump straight to the main idea presented if you don’t want to read it in full.

    Looking at the YouTube video, it’s almost 20 mins long. No thanks.

    Complete tangent, but I use a lot of software in my job and often have to google for solutions to new problems I find, and one of my bugbears is that everybody posts a video to youtube now instead of just writing it down so I can find the answer quicker.
    I don't want a video for everything: reading is quicker. If there's a new car out, I just want to see a picture of it, not a YT video which is a slideshow of the photos from the press release with an AI voiceover.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    I think YouTube videos about movies only make sense if you’re gonna provide clips to illustrate points relevant to them. Otherwise, it’s just narcissism at display.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,636
    peter wrote: »
    I’ll finally be watching DoD tonight, so I can’t comment on the actual film, but I think posting non-stop YouTube videos is becoming a gas-lighting tactic by now. It’s obvious most aren’t watching these, but they’re posted too often.

    Bottom line, I don’t understand why one can’t accept that many of the members on this site liked the film, and don’t want to be bombarded by YouTube nobodies telling us why we must see how the film was bad, and spoon feedipetng us reasons why we shouldn’t like a film.

    It’s all getting repetitive, childish and yes, gaslighting, I think, to get a rise for anyone who doesn’t think as they do.

    @peter, please be sure to let us know what you thought about the film. And when writing this, I hope you enjoyed it.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,819
    It's funny the comment about some video rants likely made before the viewing (or even release) of the film proper.

    Not so different from many of the (written) reviews of Bond films from the 70s forward I read that repeated the same complaints for replacement of actors, Bond's age, etc. etc.

    They read like Mad Magazine features really, though less entertaining. But it's all entertainment regardless, agree or disagree.


    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR4KuOqzYXlDaBY84rOKb3uua2519cunUq3gAYtaT0Q5Hioo9r8
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 197
    Well, I finished the film five minutes ago.
    Ending is a bit of a messy rush, and a couple of scenes needed… better direction or less green screen. Indy’s moment about Mutt on the boat was over lit, and was shot too wide. Helena needed a little more time to really get a thread going that’s started and ended, but tangled in the middle, about how Indy is more of a father figure in some respects to her than her own father was.

    Overall, it was alright, quite good. Just needed a little… something. Spielberg, possibly.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2023 Posts: 14,790
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I’ll finally be watching DoD tonight, so I can’t comment on the actual film, but I think posting non-stop YouTube videos is becoming a gas-lighting tactic by now. It’s obvious most aren’t watching these, but they’re posted too often.

    Bottom line, I don’t understand why one can’t accept that many of the members on this site liked the film, and don’t want to be bombarded by YouTube nobodies telling us why we must see how the film was bad, and spoon feedipetng us reasons why we shouldn’t like a film.

    It’s all getting repetitive, childish and yes, gaslighting, I think, to get a rise for anyone who doesn’t think as they do.

    @peter, please be sure to let us know what you thought about the film. And when writing this, I hope you enjoyed it.

    Yes I'd love to hear your thoughts on it too Peter. I'm hoping you like it as well!
    JustJames wrote: »
    Overall, it was alright, quite good. Just needed a little… something. Spielberg, possibly.

    I think that's fair.
  • Posts: 1,394
    Wow.I really enjoyed Filmentos breakdown of the opening sequence.Usually in WW2 scenes ,the Germans have the upper hand but in the DOD opening,the Germans are on the run and the allies are the unseen enemy.

    Kind of like the inverse of Dunkirk.I think a lot of Hollywood screenwriters and filmakers could learn from filmentos videos.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,944
    @j_w_pepper and @mtm ...Just about to feed the dog, and then we will sit down to watch! Thank you very much, and I'm very much looking forward to it!
  • Posts: 1,394
    I think YouTube videos about movies only make sense if you’re gonna provide clips to illustrate points relevant to them. Otherwise, it’s just narcissism at display.

    That’s exactly what filmento does.He provides clips and expertly edits them to make the point he’s making.

    Actually that’s what Nerdrotic,Disparu,Critical Drinker and others do as well.Now that the film is out on digital there are going to be a lot more in depth reviews of DOD.

    Looking forward to the Honest Trailer which I presume is being released next week!😁

  • Can’t wait to see the YouTube post.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,964
    Enjoy @peter! :)
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,842
    I know Nerdrotic has his fans here...... but Critical Doggo has the only opinion that matters.
  • Posts: 1,394
    I know Nerdrotic has his fans here...... but Critical Doggo has the only opinion that matters.

    I really enjoy both of them.Disparu and Chris Gore from Film threat is great too.

    As from HeelzvsBabyface is a bit too much though.He shouts a lot!

    The crew from Filmento are more reserved and professional and even when they dislike something,they break it down and discuss why in a very detailed fashion.That’s why I liked their video which posted above so much.They highlighted the positives as well as the negatives and how the film could have improved in certain areas.

    For comedy value,I am looking forward to the Cinemasins video though!

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,955
    I’ll give the guys behind CinemaSins this: They started CinemaWins.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,312
    peter wrote: »
    Whether a kid on YouTube with a silly name likes a film or not is a moot point.

    And you're right, this IS a discussion forum, so posting these YouTube rants actually does the opposite -- especially since most don't bother watching what you keep putting up here!

    This is exactly what I've been saying for years! This is a discussion forum, not an archive for Tweets or YT videos. The YT comment section is where anger and frustration meet for a life-or-death battle. A discussion forum is where people buy each other a pint and chat all night long about all things Bond.
  • Posts: 1,394
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Whether a kid on YouTube with a silly name likes a film or not is a moot point.

    And you're right, this IS a discussion forum, so posting these YouTube rants actually does the opposite -- especially since most don't bother watching what you keep putting up here!

    This is exactly what I've been saying for years! This is a discussion forum, not an archive for Tweets or YT videos. The YT comment section is where anger and frustration meet for a life-or-death battle. A discussion forum is where people buy each other a pint and chat all night long about all things Bond.

    This is the Indiana Jones 5 thread.I posted a video about Indiana Jones 5 using the YouTube share button ( That’s what it’s for ) because I found the video interesting.It is on topic and people are free to leave their own opinions.

    If they don’t want to watch the video,fine,no one is forcing them to and just move on.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,842
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    I know Nerdrotic has his fans here...... but Critical Doggo has the only opinion that matters.

    I really enjoy both of them.Disparu and Chris Gore from Film threat is great too.

    As from HeelzvsBabyface is a bit too much though.He shouts a lot!

    The crew from Filmento are more reserved and professional and even when they dislike something,they break it down and discuss why in a very detailed fashion.That’s why I liked their video which posted above so much.They highlighted the positives as well as the negatives and how the film could have improved in certain areas.

    For comedy value,I am looking forward to the Cinemasins video though!

    See, now I wouldn't know about those Youtubers were it not for the likes of this thread, and them living in the heads of people rent free. Not that I am subscribed to them, but I have seen a number of their collective videos, and I can't say that I completely like or dislike them. Just like there are people that I am subscribed to, where it's a bit more complex. I can agree with them on one thing, and not on another, but I like how they maybe present their view.

    I am aware of AZ too, but to my knowledge, I don't think I have followed his channel. But I do know that he has upset some people lately, over his play though of Starfield. :)) A little bit of publicity for his channel, i'm sure that won't hurt him.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,944
    Thanks @CraigMooreOHMSS ... Well, it's a shame I didn't see DoD sooner (the summer got away from me), but I'm genuinely pleased with the film we watched;

    Within minutes into it, my wife pointed out that I was smiling, and that smile really didn't leave my face throughout most of the viewing.

    I thought Harrison Ford was all-in on his performance. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but whatever it was, he delivered something so much more poignant.

    He portrayed a man, in the final chapters of his life, who had seen a lot, but..., more importantly, had lost too much.

    He was in genuine pain....

    Henry Jones was a lost soul when we first meet him, and I was really taken aback by how much Ford had commited himself to this aspect of Indiana. It was believable, especially since he confesses how much damage is left behind when parents lose a child. This really hit home.

    It was because of this perspective on the character, and the change of directors, that really did give the film a slightly different tone. I even thought Williams' score was darker, more melancholic. I kept thinking: this feels different than other Indy adventures, but it really does feel the same, at the same time-- if that makes sense??

    Quite honestly, the less said about the so-called "woke-ness" the better. About half way through the film, I had to remind myself that Helena was to represent all the things that helped this film bomb at the box office. All I heard was how "woke" this character and the film was.

    What utter nonsense! I saw no difference in Helena's participation in the adventure compared with Marion's in Raiders. Both are sassy, wily, highly intelligent, and both of them slugged out Indy (Marion in '81, Helena in in 2023). What the hell is so "woke" about this character, and the film? Perhaps these critics should go back and watch the original film?

    And speaking of Helena: I enjoyed PWB, but only after I had to reprogram my brain to accept that this character was not Fleabag, a show and a character I loved. It's almost as if I was expecting her to be playing a variation of this character. But once I corrected my own presumptions she was terrific in the role. Selfish, driven, sweet and yearning for her own connections with others...

    This was a different (yet same) Indian Jones film, but part of that really does come from the perspective of a man who has lost his purpose. Who feels abandoned and left behind in 1969. His true quest is to find purpose and meaning with the people he loves, and it was this adventure that delivers it to him.

    It really was a genuinely fun adventure, but with very serious themes about mortality and loss and family and love.

    I do have some issues, of course. I was a little disappointed early in the film, during the prologue, that a very obvious CG image of Indy running along the top of the train, was accompanied by the first horns of the Indy theme. That felt out of place, jarring, and just wrong to place his theme here.

    And through no fault of his own, Mangold can't build an action sequence like Spielberg did. Spielberg is a Master of escalation in his Indy action set pieces... A Master at one choice, leads to a bigger obstacle, leads to an even bigger obstacle until Indy and his companions eventually find their way out of bad situations.

    When watching Spielberg's earlier Indy films, it's almost mathematical when he design his action sequences. It's clean and makes sense.

    I enjoyed all of the action in DoD, but it didn't quite have that mathematical smoothness. It didn't have the same, clean, breeziness and magic that Spielberg brought to his four films. But I DID enjoy that in Dial's sequences they played a little more gritty. They played to Ford's/Indy's age, and that also changed the rhythm of the action, so I embraced what they were leaning into.

    (I'm also happy they kept in the old-school sound effects, like that sharp "thwack" when anyone is punched in the face, lol!)


    By the end of the film, I wanted to watch the film over again, a feeling I haven't had since The Last Crusade.

    This was a damn find send-off for Indiana Jones. A top notch action film that always kept moving forward, and a poignant and startling deep performance from Ford himself.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,650
    peter wrote: »
    Thanks @CraigMooreOHMSS ... Well, it's a shame I didn't see DoD sooner (the summer got away from me), but I'm genuinely pleased with the film we watched;

    Within minutes into it, my wife pointed out that I was smiling, and that smile really didn't leave my face throughout most of the viewing.

    I thought Harrison Ford was all-in on his performance. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but whatever it was, he delivered something so much more poignant.

    He portrayed a man, in the final chapters of his life, who had seen a lot, but..., more importantly, had lost too much.

    He was in genuine pain....

    Henry Jones was a lost soul when we first meet him, and I was really taken aback by how much Ford had commited himself to this aspect of Indiana. It was believable, especially since he confesses how much damage is left behind when parents lose a child. This really hit home.

    It was because of this perspective on the character, and the change of directors, that really did give the film a slightly different tone. I even thought Williams' score was darker, more melancholic. I kept thinking: this feels different than other Indy adventures, but it really does feel the same, at the same time-- if that makes sense??

    Quite honestly, the less said about the so-called "woke-ness" the better. About half way through the film, I had to remind myself that Helena was to represent all the things that helped this film bomb at the box office. All I heard was how "woke" this character and the film was.

    What utter nonsense! I saw no difference in Helena's participation in the adventure compared with Marion's in Raiders. Both are sassy, wily, highly intelligent, and both of them slugged out Indy (Marion in '81, Helena in in 2023). What the hell is so "woke" about this character, and the film? Perhaps these critics should go back and watch the original film?

    And speaking of Helena: I enjoyed PWB, but only after I had to reprogram my brain to accept that this character was not Fleabag, a show and a character I loved. It's almost as if I was expecting her to be playing a variation of this character. But once I corrected my own presumptions she was terrific in the role. Selfish, driven, sweet and yearning for her own connections with others...

    This was a different (yet same) Indian Jones film, but part of that really does come from the perspective of a man who has lost his purpose. Who feels abandoned and left behind in 1969. His true quest is to find purpose and meaning with the people he loves, and it was this adventure that delivers it to him.

    It really was a genuinely fun adventure, but with very serious themes about mortality and loss and family and love.

    I do have some issues, of course. I was a little disappointed early in the film, during the prologue, that a very obvious CG image of Indy running along the top of the train, was accompanied by the first horns of the Indy theme. That felt out of place, jarring, and just wrong to place his theme here.

    And through no fault of his own, Mangold can't build an action sequence like Spielberg did. Spielberg is a Master of escalation in his Indy action set pieces... A Master at one choice, leads to a bigger obstacle, leads to an even bigger obstacle until Indy and his companions eventually find their way out of bad situations.

    When watching Spielberg's earlier Indy films, it's almost mathematical when he design his action sequences. It's clean and makes sense.

    I enjoyed all of the action in DoD, but it didn't quite have that mathematical smoothness. It didn't have the same, clean, breeziness and magic that Spielberg brought to his four films. But I DID enjoy that in Dial's sequences they played a little more gritty. They played to Ford's/Indy's age, and that also changed the rhythm of the action, so I embraced what they were leaning into.

    (I'm also happy they kept in the old-school sound effects, like that sharp "thwack" when anyone is punched in the face, lol!)


    By the end of the film, I wanted to watch the film over again, a feeling I haven't had since The Last Crusade.

    This was a damn find send-off for Indiana Jones. A top notch action film that always kept moving forward, and a poignant and startling deep performance from Ford himself.

    Wow, you absolutely nailed it for me!
  • BennyBenny keeping tabs on youAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,722
    Glad you enjoyed it @peter
    Well written honest review.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,944
    Thanks @Benny and @chrisisall … It’s a real shame that it felt like there was a concerted effort to destroy the film by people who hadn’t yet seen the film (and I’m guessing most of the people have some twisted perception of a person they know not anything about, in the form of Kathleen Kennedy).

    It was a genuine and authentic effort by all of the creatives to deliver an entertaining and thoughtful film. As a far as I’m concerned, they succeeded.
  • BennyBenny keeping tabs on youAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,722
    It’s a sad group of people the generation we live in have created. Since the world now revolves around being online all the time, we have to contend with what is often referred to as ‘keyboard warriors’
    I prefer ‘Keyboard Cowards’, faceless and nameless people hiding behind a screen and a keyboard.
    It’s a sad state of affairs.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,790
    peter wrote: »
    Thanks @CraigMooreOHMSS ... Well, it's a shame I didn't see DoD sooner (the summer got away from me), but I'm genuinely pleased with the film we watched;

    Within minutes into it, my wife pointed out that I was smiling, and that smile really didn't leave my face throughout most of the viewing.

    I thought Harrison Ford was all-in on his performance. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but whatever it was, he delivered something so much more poignant.

    He portrayed a man, in the final chapters of his life, who had seen a lot, but..., more importantly, had lost too much.

    He was in genuine pain....

    Henry Jones was a lost soul when we first meet him, and I was really taken aback by how much Ford had commited himself to this aspect of Indiana. It was believable, especially since he confesses how much damage is left behind when parents lose a child. This really hit home.

    It was because of this perspective on the character, and the change of directors, that really did give the film a slightly different tone. I even thought Williams' score was darker, more melancholic. I kept thinking: this feels different than other Indy adventures, but it really does feel the same, at the same time-- if that makes sense??

    Quite honestly, the less said about the so-called "woke-ness" the better. About half way through the film, I had to remind myself that Helena was to represent all the things that helped this film bomb at the box office. All I heard was how "woke" this character and the film was.

    What utter nonsense! I saw no difference in Helena's participation in the adventure compared with Marion's in Raiders. Both are sassy, wily, highly intelligent, and both of them slugged out Indy (Marion in '81, Helena in in 2023). What the hell is so "woke" about this character, and the film? Perhaps these critics should go back and watch the original film?

    And speaking of Helena: I enjoyed PWB, but only after I had to reprogram my brain to accept that this character was not Fleabag, a show and a character I loved. It's almost as if I was expecting her to be playing a variation of this character. But once I corrected my own presumptions she was terrific in the role. Selfish, driven, sweet and yearning for her own connections with others...

    This was a different (yet same) Indian Jones film, but part of that really does come from the perspective of a man who has lost his purpose. Who feels abandoned and left behind in 1969. His true quest is to find purpose and meaning with the people he loves, and it was this adventure that delivers it to him.

    It really was a genuinely fun adventure, but with very serious themes about mortality and loss and family and love.

    I do have some issues, of course. I was a little disappointed early in the film, during the prologue, that a very obvious CG image of Indy running along the top of the train, was accompanied by the first horns of the Indy theme. That felt out of place, jarring, and just wrong to place his theme here.

    And through no fault of his own, Mangold can't build an action sequence like Spielberg did. Spielberg is a Master of escalation in his Indy action set pieces... A Master at one choice, leads to a bigger obstacle, leads to an even bigger obstacle until Indy and his companions eventually find their way out of bad situations.

    When watching Spielberg's earlier Indy films, it's almost mathematical when he design his action sequences. It's clean and makes sense.

    I enjoyed all of the action in DoD, but it didn't quite have that mathematical smoothness. It didn't have the same, clean, breeziness and magic that Spielberg brought to his four films. But I DID enjoy that in Dial's sequences they played a little more gritty. They played to Ford's/Indy's age, and that also changed the rhythm of the action, so I embraced what they were leaning into.

    (I'm also happy they kept in the old-school sound effects, like that sharp "thwack" when anyone is punched in the face, lol!)


    By the end of the film, I wanted to watch the film over again, a feeling I haven't had since The Last Crusade.

    This was a damn find send-off for Indiana Jones. A top notch action film that always kept moving forward, and a poignant and startling deep performance from Ford himself.

    That’s wonderful, so glad you enjoyed it. I agree with your reservations: it can’t match the early instalments of the series and the tone is certainly gloomier, but it is still a superior adventure film with a really great central story and emotional core to it. It knows what it wants to say and the whole film is rather beautifully thought out to build that story. There are so many echoes and important pieces to the themes that it feels like a movie where the script was absolutely nailed before they started shooting, unlike a lot of films which feel more ragged. If you compare this to the latest Mission Impossible for example: that has better action but the story is a real mess and almost incoherent, whereas this is a film with a proper, nailed down, well considered story. It feels like a proper old fashioned big film.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited September 2023 Posts: 7,944
    Benny wrote: »
    It’s a sad group of people the generation we live in have created. Since the world now revolves around being online all the time, we have to contend with what is often referred to as ‘keyboard warriors’
    I prefer ‘Keyboard Cowards’, faceless and nameless people hiding behind a screen and a keyboard.
    It’s a sad state of affairs.

    Agree 💯 %… It seems the goal is to be destructive rather than constructive (always easier to tear something down; far harder to build something!!).

    @mtm … YESSSSS! It does feel like the story was in good hands. They nailed the script. It was tight. And it was simply clear who were the good guys, the bad guys, but also the emotional journey of our main character, Indiana Jones. That’s what makes the zealots who tried to destroy the film so infuriating: they really had to dig deep to try and imagine a “woke” agenda in a film that was the furthest thing from “woke”. It was just a rollicking good adventure film, with some nice emotional layers that elevated it.

    And yes indeed , you’re so right: it did feel like a proper, good old fashioned adventure film. It really was. The goal was to thrill us with this amazing character; there was no other agenda than to give us this one last ride with Harrison Ford/Indiana Jones, and they did that, with heart firmly on sleeve.

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,964
    Excellent review @peter - delighted that you enjoyed it so much.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2023 Posts: 14,790
    peter wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    It’s a sad group of people the generation we live in have created. Since the world now revolves around being online all the time, we have to contend with what is often referred to as ‘keyboard warriors’
    I prefer ‘Keyboard Cowards’, faceless and nameless people hiding behind a screen and a keyboard.
    It’s a sad state of affairs.

    Agree 💯 %… It seems the goal is to be destructive rather than constructive (always easier to tear something down; far harder to build something!!).

    @mtm … YESSSSS! It does feel like the story was in good hands. They nailed the script. It was tight. And it was simply clear who were the good guys, the bad guys, but also the emotional journey of our main character, Indiana Jones. That’s what makes the zealots who tried to destroy the film so infuriating: they really had to dig deep to try and imagine a “woke” agenda in a film that was the furthest thing from “woke”. It was just a rollicking good adventure film, with some nice emotional layers that elevated it.

    And yes indeed , you’re so right: it did feel like a proper, good old fashioned adventure film. It really was. The goal was to thrill us with this amazing character; there was no other agenda than to give us this one last ride with Harrison Ford/Indiana Jones, and they did that, with heart firmly on sleeve.

    Yes indeed. And I respect that they let the film match the story: what I mean there is that I'd have liked things like a big triumphant Temple of Doom-style cheering ending, but that's just not what the film was, and stuff like that wouldn't have sat with it. I just really respect the way they made it, I think they handled it exactly right.

    Is it the best blockbuster of recent years? No: it runs a bit long, the action is good but not amazing, it's a bit low on gags (it really could have done with a few more), there's slightly too much capture/escape business, some of the effects get a touch distracting... but it's still a really good film, and where an elderly Indy could have been embarrassing, it actually does the character real justice (and Ford is superb, yes. I watched the opening last week and I was surprised how drawn into the NYC stuff I was, and it's just because Ford gets better when he's playing the old man Indy: you can't take your eyes off him). It's a blockbuster with a bit of substance, and you don't get many of them.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,944
    Excellent review @peter - delighted that you enjoyed it so much.

    Thanks @CraigMooreOHMSS …. My desire to rewatch it remains too strong (although my wife would give me a kick in my rear… Knowing me, I will break by mid week, and I’ll have my second watch!)
Sign In or Register to comment.