Indiana Jones 5 (30th June 2023)

199101103104105

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Each moment I draw closer to the Divine.
    Posts: 43,902
    I am very much looking forward to a trailer and title reveal.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 2,520
    I am very much looking forward to a trailer and title reveal.

    Fingers crossed by the end of the year, we’ll have both. Plus a confirmation of Marion returning.
  • Posts: 1,294
    I hope she doesn’t return in this one . Crystal Skull was decent until she came back at that point of the film . Not entirely blaming her but that’s when the script went off the rails .
  • Posts: 11,084
    Going to guess Marion passed on somehow.
  • Posts: 1,167
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Going to guess Marion passed on somehow.

    Wife’s of Harrison Ford characters in movies tend to have bad things happen to them.

  • Posts: 11,084
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Going to guess Marion passed on somehow.

    Wife’s of Harrison Ford characters in movies tend to have bad things happen to them.

    Yes. I say this because Karen Allen was never confirmed and also the personal losses lndy took in the last film (“First Dad, then Marcus”). Could have easily been a separation or divorce again too, though I really feel like that would defeat the purpose of the supposed closure that arc got, even though it was an on-and-off relationship before.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 746
    Prefer if they just don’t mention her at all
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,496
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Prefer if they just don’t mention her at all

    Well they got married at the end of the previous film; so minimally she will be mentioned.

    I suspect that Marion has passed and Indy hasn’t been in the field since the events of Crystal Skulls. He may still be teaching but something is missing; he truly does feel like a relic . Then something happens, possibly linked to an earlier adventure, that pulls him into one final quest.

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,496
    https://screenrant.com/indiana-jones-5-harrison-ford-mad-mikkelsen-performance/

    “ “It was the first time I met him, and he’s an insanely powerful person. Not just as an actor, but physically. I remember the first day we were shooting, it was a night shoot, then we stopped at 5 a.m. — and then he got on his mountain bike and went biking for 50 kilometers. Harrison is a monster of a man, a very nice monster.”
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Each moment I draw closer to the Divine.
    Posts: 43,902
    talos7 wrote: »

    I don t know about that. An "easter egg" usually refers to a big Nothing. Would be cool if I am wrong.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,496
    I don’t even know if it’s legit, but it’s pretty cool.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 10,451
    That footage is the video game teaser; I think these guys are saying they have some info about Mikkleson’s character.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,222
    Somebody needs to tell Spielberg that TEMPLE OF DOOM is actually the best. Because it is.

    https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/steven-spielberg-worst-indiana-jones-temple-of-doom.html
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 10,451
    Yeah he's crazy if that's what he said. I'm not sure I'd quite rate it as the very best of them, but it's still brilliant and Spielberg is on absolute fire in it: it might even be the best directing he's ever done (not his best movie, but on a scene-by-scene basis he's packing everything with energy and invention). I also think that Ford is at his absolute peak here too: he's great in Raiders but by '84 he'd got all that bit more experience and was a total movie star.

    But saying "the Indiana Jones franchise has a 50/50 hit rate on the positivity spectrum" really is total nonsense. You've got three completely excellent films plus one average (but not actually bad) one.
  • Posts: 629
    Temple of Doom has really grown on me over the years. Raiders was fantastic on first watch whereas TOD was a bit meh, I thought, but now I think it’s a great film. Love it.
  • Posts: 1,167
    Somebody needs to tell Spielberg that TEMPLE OF DOOM is actually the best. Because it is.

    https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/steven-spielberg-worst-indiana-jones-temple-of-doom.html
    Somebody needs to tell Spielberg that TEMPLE OF DOOM is actually the best. Because it is.

    https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/steven-spielberg-worst-indiana-jones-temple-of-doom.html

    First Indiana Jones movie I ever saw on one of my first trips to the cinema in 1984.I absolutely love it.And I think Willie Scott is hilarious!
  • Posts: 12,679
    mtm wrote: »
    But saying "the Indiana Jones franchise has a 50/50 hit rate on the positivity spectrum" really is total nonsense. You've got three completely excellent films plus one average (but not actually bad) one.

    Yeah I’ve always liked all of them, never really understood why Crystal Skull gets talked about as if it’s DAD. It’s much more of a TND imo. Not amazing but still an entertaining way to spend a couple of hours.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,999
    The biggest thing about Crystal Skull for me was that it felt charmless in comparison with the others. I don't think Temple is anywhere close to the other two, but it's an incredibly funny and comforting film for a variety of reasons. The fourth film doesn't really have that for me. It almost feels like it wasn't directed by Spielberg, but someone trying very hard to ape Spielberg and who didn't really do a good job of it. Then, chuck in Shia's annoying performance and the ugly special effects (I don't even mind the aliens that much) and it's clearly way down the bottom of the list.

    I'm still holding out hope for the next one, all the same. Fingers crossed.

  • Posts: 1,167
    mtm wrote: »
    But saying "the Indiana Jones franchise has a 50/50 hit rate on the positivity spectrum" really is total nonsense. You've got three completely excellent films plus one average (but not actually bad) one.

    Yeah I’ve always liked all of them, never really understood why Crystal Skull gets talked about as if it’s DAD. It’s much more of a TND imo. Not amazing but still an entertaining way to spend a couple of hours.

    I’d rate DAD over Crystal Skull.At least it’s fun in you’re in the right mood but KOTCS is just plain bad.

  • edited April 23 Posts: 12,679
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    But saying "the Indiana Jones franchise has a 50/50 hit rate on the positivity spectrum" really is total nonsense. You've got three completely excellent films plus one average (but not actually bad) one.

    Yeah I’ve always liked all of them, never really understood why Crystal Skull gets talked about as if it’s DAD. It’s much more of a TND imo. Not amazing but still an entertaining way to spend a couple of hours.

    I’d rate DAD over Crystal Skull.At least it’s fun in you’re in the right mood but KOTCS is just plain bad.

    I do actually enjoy DAD more (in a so bad it’s good kind of way) but I don’t think KOTCS is that bad at all. It’s a fairly average modern blockbuster imo. Unfortunately CG heavy, but I thought the plot was fine, I generally liked the characters and performances, and I thought the shift from pulpy 30s serial and WW2 iconography to 50s sci-fi and Americana was a fun way of updating it. I dunno, maybe I’m just easily pleased, and I definitely haven’t rewatched it as much as the others. Not sure it was really necessary either, after he’d ridden off into the sunset. But I had a good time with it.
    The biggest thing about Crystal Skull for me was that it felt charmless in comparison with the others. I don't think Temple is anywhere close to the other two, but it's an incredibly funny and comforting film for a variety of reasons. The fourth film doesn't really have that for me. It almost feels like it wasn't directed by Spielberg, but someone trying very hard to ape Spielberg and who didn't really do a good job of it. Then, chuck in Shia's annoying performance and the ugly special effects (I don't even mind the aliens that much) and it's clearly way down the bottom of the list.

    I'm still holding out hope for the next one, all the same. Fingers crossed.

    Yeah, I think that’s fair. It definitely doesn’t have the charm of the others. I didn’t mind Shia though, and I thought there was still enough heart there for it to feel recognisably Spielberg, even though it’s one of his weaker efforts.

    Not sure how I feel about the next one really. I’ll definitely watch it, and while I’m a bit nervous about the lack of Spielberg, Mangold is talented, and maybe some fresh blood is what they need. But I’m a bit worried that Ford is just too old for it now. My main issue with KOTCS was how poor the action was in comparison to the first three, and I can’t imagine the new one will be much better on that front. The first three had an old school, practical charm to them that I’m not sure a modern blockbuster could ever recapture (can’t really pinpoint why, but to me, even the films that still have practical stunts like MI and the new Bonds feel very modern and digital in comparison). Throw in a 79 year old lead and I’m a bit doubtful about how good it’ll be as an action film. If the story’s still good though then I think I’ll enjoy it.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,780
    'Doom' is my favorite Indy film. 'Raiders' is probably the best, but 'Doom' is the one I have, by far, most fun with.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,496
    I’m a big fan of ToD, but the “raft from the plane” sequence always makes me cringe, but it’s not as bad as the refrigerator sequence in Crystal Skulls
  • Love Temple of Doom. Spielberg, Williams, and the whole crew really, are firing on all cylinders with the singleminded purpose to create the greatest blockbuster “haunted house ride” ever conceived. The way it’s structured like a rollercoaster is obviously literally reflected with some of the setpieces, and it gives the film great momentum and anticipation and all the while you get to admire the tremendous craft in the sets, camerawork, etc. It’s not a classy movie, but I like it’s brazen carnival grotesqueness, as the mean and ugly side of it lend it just the right amount of danger and thrill to offset the comic aspect. It really stands apart from the other movies in a way that feels true to the spirit of how Indiana Jones was conceived — a homage to the disconnected pulp serial adventures. I love Last Crusade and I also don’t hate Crystal Skull, but I do wish they hadn’t felt the need to try and “recapture” Raiders quite so much. Skull in particular would have been much stronger imo if it stayed in the United States and played out like an Invasion of the Bodysnatchers esque plot with G-Men and stuff. The atomic stuff and fake suburbia were legitimately great ideas to place Indy in, but the film starts to go sour when we go to the jungle and we get dopey versions of Raiders greatest hits instead of keeping with the thematic track of Indy being out of place and time in his own native soil.
  • Posts: 1,769
    Upon seeing TOD on opening day in '84, I thought it was better than Raiders. Funny how a film is a success then its reputation dragged down and then rises again. The thing that pulls it down for me is Kate Capshaw's Willie. It's obvious they didn't want another tough girl like Marion, but Willie's shrieking and general whining brings it down for me. She reminds me of Stacey Sutton of AVTAK in that way. I don't even mind Short Round. TOD may be the most atmospheric of the Indy pictures, great sets and locales. That last 40 minutes or so are the best of the series, just a literal thrill-ride and some good laughs mixed in.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,222
    I’ll admit my bias, TEMPLE OF DOOM was my first Indy film so that’s why I have more fondness for it than the others. RAIDERS is more of a classic, but TEMPLE gives me that blood rush.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 2,520
    Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is cheap entertainment for me. As for Shia, I’m glad he didn’t get to take over the series, considering how much he hurt his own career. Now people are freaking out about Phoebe taking over. We’ll see. Also, a new rumor.

  • Posts: 1,314
    Raiders is quite simply the best most intelligent action film ever made IMO. It’s a rare case of every single aspect being flawless. I wouldn’t change a frame.

    The other two are great but more popcorn and derivative.

    Crystal skull is absolutely crap. The character of Mack, the unclear plot (Indy starts helping the Russians at one point in the jungle, the lack of clarity as to what the Crystal skull is or does (this is where the scene with the bible and the two agents in Raiders is so good - there’s a pervading sense of dread and consequence underpinning everything.)

    And then there’s the cgi monkey Tarzan scene …
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Omaha, NE
    Posts: 6,222
    Shia was never going to take over the series. Even if Mutt had become a massively popular character, that was never going to be a thing. Maybe get a spin-off, but the gag in the ending of CRYSTAL SKULL made it abundantly clear that nobody was gonna take the hat from Indy.
  • edited April 23 Posts: 1,314


    Just rewatched this. It’s a masterclass. We have the Macguffin, the plot, the history, the context, the consequence, foreshadowing, the scepticism of the audience through the two agents which changes to fear and belief etc etc in one perfectly written acted and filmed scene.

    Filmmaking of this quality is rare. Very rare. It’s one of the reasons I like the severine scene in skyfall is so powerful. It naturally and authentically sets up the remainder of the movie so that when we meet Silva, we actually feel a threat.
Sign In or Register to comment.