Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

Tony EH

@JPup

Ah hear. You can't seriously be arguing that Temple of Doom was better than the 3rd one?

It was MILES better.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120614180#Comment_120614180

Et tu, Tony?

MisterAnarchy

First reviews are in, it doesnt sound promising, mostly 3 out of 5.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/may/18/indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-destiny-review-harrison-ford-cracks-the-whip-in-taut-sequel

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/review/2023/05/18/indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-destiny-review-pure-hokum-of-the-cheesiest-hue/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/indiana-jones-dial-of-destiny-review-harrison-ford-cannes/

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120613651#Comment_120613651

Not filled with hysterics but definitely still has it. A grown adult wrote this:

https://twitter.com/theatomreview/status/1659288324685590546

And people wonder why Film Discourse has gone to the dogs? Meanwhile, David Ehrlich, a fairly good reviewer I found through Blank Check, wrote a more sober assessment:

https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/movies/indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-destiny-review-1234864859/

silverharp

ohoh !

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/indiana-jones-5-cannes-standing-ovation-harrison-ford-1235615678/

"Indeed, the standing ovations for Ford were louder before the movie played. The film’s elaborate action scenes and witty one-liners delivered by Waller-Bridge received a less-than-rapturous response inside the theater. During parts of the 142-minute film, audience members could be heard whispering out of boredom in French."

johnny_ultimate

Film sounds middling, but LOL - the difference an adjective can make!

https://twitter.com/ViewerAnon/status/1659304998142898178?s=20

Sad Professor

Not saying it's not deserved but were any of the Indy sequels particularly well received? I recall Leonard Martin I think and others writing about TOD and TLC at the time as if they were endurance tests to sit through.

TheIrishGrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120615076#Comment_120615076

Rude French people talking in the cinema???!!!! Sacre Bleu!!!!

Nah. JK.

I really REALLY didn't want another Indy. I still don't want one. BUT if we have to have one, at least the pedigree is good. Phoebe Waller-Bridges is offensively talented. Mangold's Logan is fantastic. And anything that can wipe that last one from memory is a good thing.

I mean, I'll go to see it. The reviews seem good so far. It seems to be the end THIS time so fingers crossed. Didn't need it. Didn't want it. But now we have it, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120615732#Comment_120615732

They were whooping and a hallering when they saw Top Gun a couple of years back so they can behave if they are entertained lol. Mangold good yeah, Waller-Bridge could be setup to fail here if she comes across as annoying. One reviewer on RT said it was better than Crystal Skull but not by much.

TheIrishGrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120615781#Comment_120615781

Oh jeez.... Better than Crystal Skull but not by much? That's not exactly praise

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120615943#Comment_120615943

It's shaping up to what I had kinda been expecting all along: that the movie would be perfectly fine. There was always little chance of it being amazing, but with James Mangold working it, nor did I expect it to be outright terrible. It's the curse of mediocrity: there's nothing to get excited or incensed about so the movie just flatlines; if this eventual final part is just ... OK? That'll be both success and failure at the same time.

silverharp

A question is, did they alter the movie by editing/reshoots in any way based on the fan backlashes after rumors about them killing Indie, or Helena being there to put Indie down in his own movie. Best case its a bland film that costs Disney hundreds of millions ..ha ha! , thats Capitalism as Helena might say

silverharp

Dammmmmn! Reading excerpts from reviews is going to be entertaining

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/indiana-jones-dial-of-destiny-review-harrison-ford-cannes/

Here, though, the action is generic and clunkily staged – for all the local detail in every individual shot of the heavily advertised tuk-tuk chase, it might as well be taking place on an endless conveyor belt. As for the comedy – well, Waller-Bridge has clearly been given the instruction to “just do Fleabag” but she’s operating without Fleabag-level material here, and her frequent attempts to juice up the clumsy gags with her trademark winking delivery tend to fall flat. (While she’s perfectly decent in the role – and every bit as much the hero of the piece as Ford – audience members unfamiliar with her television work may be puzzled as to why she’s here in the first place.)

The film is loaded with mayhem but painfully short on spark and bravado: there’s no shot here, nor twist of choreography, that makes you marvel at the filmmaking mind that conceived it. 

Even the unapologetically pulpy climax, in which the dial’s time-travelling powers are finally put to use, feels frivolous and offhand. As the antikythera does its history-altering thing, you can’t help but wish someone would twist it back to the point at which this film was commissioned and say: “Actually, do you know what? Four were enough.”

Kermit.de.frog

Really bad particularly considering some articles from publications normally pro Disney and pro their social agenda aswell.

If they can't muster much enthusiasm this might be pretty grim.

TheIrishGrover

It would be nice to have ONE thread not descend into the evils of mythical Liberal agendas.... just one

MisterAnarchy

While she’s perfectly decent in the role – and every bit as much the hero of the piece as Ford

Oh dear.

It seems strange that Disney would show this at Cannes with no review embargo.

Instead of six weeks of eager anticipation, they're going have six weeks of poor reviews just sitting out there and Mission Impossible opening 12 days after it.

It seems like sabotage.

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120617903#Comment_120617903

MI is going to hurt it for sure, a lot of cinema goers will not go to the cinema more than once a month, which is going to win , a poorly reviewed film or one that has momentum behind it.

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120617869#Comment_120617869

And have people not try to make every single thing revolve around their opinions, shirley you jest.

pixelburp

All depends on the projections: I can't believe this is expected to kick doors down. And if it's marked for quick migration to Disney+ then maybe box office won't matter so much.

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120618457#Comment_120618457

Its not like Disney can write cheques to themselves and call it a win. The film cost in the $250-$300m range plus marketing. The only way to get that back is in ticket sales, Disney+ subscriptions or write it off as a marketing vanity project. Unless it does really well in the cinema it will be seen as an L for Disney?

Big Gerry

Apparently Indie 5 is even worse than Crystal Skull.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120615062#Comment_120615062

🤣

best mooovie evar!!!

BruteStock

Another minor featurette. Im not liking the color shades , dull and lifeless. The lighting on nighttime scenes not much better like most modern movies. Watch Rambo's breakdown in First Blood to see nighttime lit to perfection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deacRH_uoJc

Compare to TLC trailer that looks visceral ,cinematic and beaming with multcolor. Proper moviemaking

The overuse of digital effects on the new film tells me it wasn't a labor of love and just another consumer product.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKg36LBVgfg

Big Gerry

I wonder if Ford knew this film would be sh!t but he couldn't resist one last big pay check before retirement ?

loyatemu

The overuse of digital effects on the new film tells me it wasn't a labor of love and just another consumer product.

of course it's product - Disney own the rights and they want to get one last payday out of them while HF is still available (though I'm sure they're looking at digitally recreating him for future episodes). It's heritage cinema aimed squarely at middle-aged fans of the first 3 films.

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120634711#Comment_120634711

Payday is debatable based on the cost and poor reviews 😏

Theboinkmaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120618729#Comment_120618729

I swear Disney just love to lose money....

gmisk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120618729#Comment_120618729

Jeepers that is a lot of money.

The last one made about 790m...the reviews seem worse for this one.

Arghus

I'll be happy enough if it's just an entertaining enough time at the cinema. I find a lot of the hand-wringing about it to be overdone. We all know it's not going to come within an asses roar of the classics and the original trilogy is still going to be there, so I'm okay with it just being what it is without it being downright bad.

silverharp

apparently the plot is posted somewhere on Reddit, if true and you dont want you're hero led around by the nose and have major decisions make by the side kick for him, you will be disappointed

Bobby_Bolivia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120643524#Comment_120643524

Let me guess, Indy is old, useless, broken down, can't do anything right and Pheobe Waller Bridge is great at everything, full of sass, wit and puts down Indy at every single opportunity.

Hopefully Hollywood gets the hint and Waller Bridge goes away. She ruins everything she touches. Heavily featured in the worst Star Wars movie at the box office, portraying probably the worst character in Star Wars film history in L3, who yes, was actually worse than Holdo and Jar Jar. Writing credit on a bottom 5 Bond movie. And a starring role in what's shaping up to be the worst Indiana Jones movie. She truly has the anti-midas touch.

MisterAnarchy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120644063#Comment_120644063

Unfortunately that seems to be the case according to the BBC Review of the film.

Like another of Ford's so-called "legacy sequels", Star Wars: The Force Awakens, this one brings back old characters (John Rhys-Davies's Sallah has a pointless cameo), introduces new ones who are strangely similar to the old characters, and has the air of a film passing the torch (or whip) to the next generation. But it does all this in an even gloomier fashion than The Force Awakens did. I'm not sure how many fans want to see Indiana Jones as a broken, helpless old man who cowers in the corner while his patronising goddaughter takes the lead, but that's what we're given, and it's as bleak as it sounds.

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20230519-indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-destiny-review-gloomy-and-depressing-final-act

Will these studios ever learn ?

buried

Bringing back old characters and plotlines just for the sake of it is nothing new. The Last Crusade started all this lame throwback $hite over 30 years ago.

pixelburp

The character is 80 years old. Leaving aside the inherent redundancy of a coda to a coda given Crystal Skull GAVE Indy and ending... but not sure how you write an action adventure where an octogenarian lead isn't playing second fiddle to someone younger, regardless of gender or whatever's presumed to have been brought to the script. You just can't make an action film with someone that old in the lead.

Bobby_Bolivia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655237#Comment_120655237

Top Gun Maverick proved what people want to see from these legacy sequels. They want the legacy characters treated with the utmost respect, knowing more than the rookies, schooling them even. They want them to be competent, and still as cool as they were all those years ago.

Maybe he has lost a step but he should still be the sharpest guy in the room still have the quickest wits. He should be the one showing her the ropes. Him still having it is what people want to see, not him being a sad miserable excuse for a man who gets constantly ridiculed by some know-all, great at everything sassy amazing woman.

Unfortunately, Kathleen Kennedy only knows one way to treat a legacy character - like a bumbling incompetent idiot, that needs to be treated with kid gloves, consistently patronised and put down routinely, by the far more superior female character. See also: Obi Wan and the child Leia, Luke and Rey.

~Rebel~

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655527#Comment_120655527

I haven't seen any reviews saying that this thing of Waller Bridge belittling him the whole time is actually real... that's just been something a certain type of person has been whinging endlessly about since way back when it was first mentioned she'd even be in it. Let's maybe see what sort of relationship they actually have before getting into a tizzy.

Maverick was the ideal scenario alright, though it's a lot easier to do when it's the hyper-mobile Tom Cruise, and he gets to do cool stuff in a plane - it's not so easy with a very very old man in a more tangibly physical movie. Also an inherent part of Indy has always been that he bumbles his way into bad situations and then just about scrapes and scraps his way out of them. He's always been smart, but also impetuous and rash, a swashbuckling seat-of-his-pants guy who is not at all in control of the situation. Maybe making him a different, more calm and considered character could be nice character growth, becoming a bit more stoic like his Dad, but it's not something that's actually a part of the guy we know and love.

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655527#Comment_120655527

Imagine if Top Gun Maverick had been made by Disney 🤣

pixelburp

It should be pointed out that Maverick is supposed to be in his 50s(?) during that film, as opposed to - again, to remind - the 80 year old archaeologist Indy is at this stage. Easier to have the old hand teach the young 'uns new tricks when by all accounts their body can still stand upright normally (and by recent accidents, Harrison Ford shouldn't be flying himself)

But not even getting into the weeds of this given ... ... ya know, the movie isn't out yet and it's just another round of rumours acting as Confirmation Bias over the big bad wimmin getting in the way. Or indeed the kneejerk [Kathleen Kennedy|Phoebe Waller-Bridge] Ate My Dog segue. Just gonna wait n' see at this stage: if it's passingly entertaining and gives Indy a vaguely respectable walk into the sunset then, cool.

silverharp

The movie was always going to be subpar, the previous movie ruined it by moving away from the supernatural, they could have course corrected with this one, have a movie based on the Russians finding another artifact to rival the Ark and have Indie do something to hide both again or some such. Or if you have to have nazis in it, do some Nazis on the run, Israel, artifact, the stuff writes itself.

At this stage the it would be amazing if the leaks werent directionally correct so you have a movie going from a possible 8/10 going down to a 5/10

B.A._Baracus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120633653#Comment_120633653

Wouldn't be surprised to hear he thought it was a good script.

Imagine being an actor and given a new script to a movie series you've done... if you look at other movies like fast and furious having 10 movies and now about saving the world and going to space, you'd be like well this sequel script can't be that bad. Maybe people will like it.

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120656947#Comment_120656947

I doubt he did it for the cash, you maybe have 5 or 6 good years left, you dont want to be spending 2 of them schlepping around movie sets, maybe he thought it would redeem the previous movie?

pixelburp

We're talking about an industry where actors, directors and creative people routinely work well into their 80s and beyond (hello Clint Eastwood): why Harrison Ford might have starred in this film nobody here has seen yet can be simply explained by a desire to keep working for working's sake. I very much doubt this will be the worst thing he ever starred in. And it's not like it's a well-covered cliché where "retirement" is hardest for those most defined by an urge to keep busy; not everyone wants to kick back and let death find them sitting down.

loyatemu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120657152#Comment_120657152

Probably a fair explanation, decent roles are rare enough for someone aged 80+, at least Clint can cast himself in his own movies. Apparently HF didn't really enjoy doing the Star Wars movies and only came back for The Force Awakens on condition his character was killed off. But he does enjoy doing the Indiana Jones series. I doubt the stars give much of a damn about the "legacy" aspects of these long running series.

MisterAnarchy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120656201#Comment_120656201

Did you even read the quote I highlighted from the BBC Review of the film ?

I'm not sure how many fans want to see Indiana Jones as a broken, helpless old man who cowers in the corner while his patronising goddaughter takes the lead, but that's what we're given, and it's as bleak as it sounds.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120657185#Comment_120657185

Well exactly to the last sentence: I think it's too easily forgotten that for many actors it's just a job, no matter how iconic the role might be or become. Fans and audiences can exercise way more possessiveness or fundamentalism than the actor ever does, turning into something hostile and toxic.

That said, sometimes there'll be actors who understand the nature and fondness for a particular role: look at Leonard Nimoy as a good example there; someone who, IIRC, initially resented the type casting as Spock but then came around to it & embraced his "ambassadorial" aspect of that iconic role. Could be misremembering mind you. Patrick Stewart also shows a bit of that for a more latter-day example, being the custodian of not just one iconic role but two.

buried

Too much talk here about what the "actors" desire and want. In any real creative work of art, work that is showcased to a paying audience, the audience is a far more important aspect to the work. It is the audience who ultimately gives the work it's legacy, because it is the audience who are the ones who have paid and have enjoyed the creative work, the writing, the mythos of the stories. That's what made the Indiana Jones series work. The actors have F**k all to do with it. That's what, astonishingly IMHO Disney, have failed to comprehend. They just think you stick the same actors from the stories that worked over 40 years ago and that will do. It won't do, because if you stand over a pile of badly written muck, that's all you have, and that's all the audience will experience.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120659378#Comment_120659378

Well not quite: the actors sometimes define the thing the audiences love - it doesn't come out of thin air that viewers embrace an entity with as much passion as they can. Doctor Who was made with 5 quid and some bubble wrap but someone like Tom Baker or David Tenant basically defined the role as theirs, by sheer dint of performance and charisma. The actors essentially owning the role that audiences came to cherish. As said, Leonard Nimoy came to live with becoming that icon.

And it's all well and good decrying Legacy Sequels, but equally, when a studio does try to evolve a character, you can still get wailing and backlash that Favourite Character X wasn't frozen in amber and the exact same as remembered. Like or loath it, Last Jedi tried to move Luke Skywalker's story on - and fans cried foul their hero wasn't still swinging his sword, all resulting in nostalgic junk with Episode 9.

You say Disney but all of popular media is riven by masturbatory nostalgia at the moment, they're just the most industrialised about it through Disney+ and those live action remakes. Sure only this month we got The Flash movie with Michael Keaton playing batman again, trailers showing him spouting catchphrases from the 1989 movie cos Nostalgia Feels.

StevenToast

I would actually pay not to watch this....

Luckily, i can do that for free...

mewso

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120656483#Comment_120656483

The problem here is that we can end up going in circles. For example I might defend a diverse cast in a work of fiction based in Roman times for example. I'd defend it because I don't really care as long as the writing is good and the cast perform well regardless of their ethnicity. Not to mention how much I hate the lazy use of the 'W' word instead of actual criticism with any of these things. But that also means if they decide to make an 80 year old character from a beloved franchise the action hero of the movie then I'd accept that too if the writing was good and the performances entertained. That goes for the god daughter being the hero showing the 80 year the error of his ways too based on the same evaluation. I'm not concerned with the unrealistic 80 year old action hero or the patronising god daughter hero as long as it works.

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120661376#Comment_120661376

the structure of the film needs to be right though , The Last Crusade for instance , the hero was the hero , but his dad saved him at the end but both had satisfying and very touching arcs. What doesnt work is any kind of bait and switch, that cant be written well at all, or main character acting out of character to facilitate another character.