Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

kunst nugget

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Crystal Skull: A lot of the criticism revolves around the computer generated stuff. I can live with this and it has become a fact of life in modern action films.

The CGI is just the bird poo sauce on the shít sandwich - it's not the only reason the sandwich tastes so bad. There's nothing redeemable about the film.

alchemist33

In decreasing order of awesomeness, it's 1, 3, 2.......................4 for me. Raiders is iconic and as someone above said, perfect. Crusade was brilliant with Connery and the scenes in Venice. I haven't seen the relevant South Park episode so can say without influence that CS was an unlanced boil full of pus. I only wanted it to end quickly.

It's hard to imagine any revival would work, especially a reboot, so hopefully it's let die in peace with its family around the bedside

Jan_de_Bakker

I got the bluRay quad box set - only because the trilogy isn't available on BluRay - unless you buy each one separately ... but safe to say the CS hasn't been touched.

I remember going to see that in the cinema and just not believing the scene with the monkeys - at that stage you thought they must have been on crack writing it.

kunst nugget

I've never seen the South Park episode that's been talked about. I was able to say it was shíte all by myself!!! Very proud of my critical facilities so I am…

brevity

"Part time"

Red-letter media have a good breakdown on the faults with the movie. There are some nice moments but overall it's a huge disappointment.

BuilderPlumber

brevity wrote: »

"Part time"

Red-letter media have a good breakdown on the faults with the movie. There are some nice moments but overall it's a huge disappointment.

Will give it a go sometime over the next week but will enjoy the other 3 first. The only bit I saw was near the end of it which seemed like a variation of the end of the third (even the female Russian was similar to the female Nazi from Crusade) with a homage to the 1st akin to the ark going up into heaven. I'd say its biggest faults would be that it tries to religiously recreate scenes from the first 3 as the last scene is just a variation on the end of Crusade with a homage to Raiders.

Still and all, it is an Indiana Jones film and I am thankful that we have got this one even if it is not quite in the same league as the first 3. It may be the poorest of the 4 (and I am sure I will regard it as such) but I am also sure it will be far from being anything near the worst film I ever saw.

BuilderPlumber

alchemist33 wrote: »

In decreasing order of awesomeness, it's 1, 3, 2.......................4 for me. Raiders is iconic and as someone above said, perfect. Crusade was brilliant with Connery and the scenes in Venice. I haven't seen the relevant South Park episode so can say without influence that CS was an unlanced boil full of pus. I only wanted it to end quickly.

It's hard to imagine any revival would work, especially a reboot, so hopefully it's let die in peace with its family around the bedside

One thing is for certain is Indiana Jones will be revived in some capacity at some stage. There is one planned for release in 2019 with Harrison Ford. Assumption is that this would be set in the 1950s or 1960s.

Sometimes revivals (Mad Max Fury Road) and reboots (Christopher Nolan's Batman films, Casino Royale) work very well while others don't. I will keep an open mind on Crystal Skull which is a revival. One sure thing is anything popular will get revived and/or rebooted. My least favorite reboot was definitely Miami Vice 2006. Though not awful and it had enjoyable moments, it was a letdown and I expected better. Sometimes, a film that is not exactly poor but is not as awesome as it could have been lets one down more than an out and out poor film. A new Police Academy film for instance is not going to excite me much and if it were very poor I'd expect it to be and would not expect anything else.

Other sequels like Batman and Robin were bad but not as awful as some thought. This is regarded as the worst film of 1997 by many but I am pretty certain I could name 20 ones much worse. It may be instead the worst film of 1997 from a wellknown franchise. Or indeed the worst of the best.

A rebooted Indiana Jones to our time could backfire for sure. Certainly an Indiana Jones involving a mission to space would be very risky. You could imagine it titled Indiana Jones and the Quest for Space.

alchemist33

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

One thing is for certain is Indiana Jones will be revived in some capacity at some stage. There is one planned for release in 2019 with Harrison Ford. Assumption is that this would be set in the 1950s or 1960s.

Sometimes revivals (Mad Max Fury Road) and reboots (Christopher Nolan's Batman films, Casino Royale) work very well while others don't. I will keep an open mind on Crystal Skull which is a revival. One sure thing is anything popular will get revived and/or rebooted. My least favorite reboot was definitely Miami Vice 2006. Though not awful and it had enjoyable moments, it was a letdown and I expected better. Sometimes, a film that is not exactly poor but is not as awesome as it could have been lets one down more than an out and out poor film. A new Police Academy film for instance is not going to excite me much and if it were very poor I'd expect it to be and would not expect anything else.

Other sequels like Batman and Robin were bad but not as awful as some thought. This is regarded as the worst film of 1997 by many but I am pretty certain I could name 20 ones much worse. It may be instead the worst film of 1997 from a wellknown franchise. Or indeed the worst of the best.

A rebooted Indiana Jones to our time could backfire for sure. Certainly an Indiana Jones involving a mission to space would be very risky. You could imagine it titled Indiana Jones and the Quest for Space.

Yeah, I think the 1930s setting was a huge plus for the first three films, and a major part of the charm. We lost a good bit of that with CS and anything later would be worse. That's why I think going on with Harrison ford is a mistake, leaving a reboot as a better option. But even that option seems poor to me because some (or all) of the first three were just so damn good that a replication is doomed to fall flat.

Wedwood

Might be going against the trend here, but I think Crystal Skull's main problem is it was released after the Internet.

Crystal Skull is no better or worse than Temple of Doom, but suffers from this modern phenomena of Internet savaging, which afflicts some movies. Basically, some internet nerd who fancies himself as a movie expert decides to savage a movie and starts a trend that becomes a campaign which ends with a movie being savaged, as happened with Crystal Skull.

The cynical South Park episode in which 'Lucas raped Indiana Jones' became a gag that got out of control and ruined a fairly innocuous family popcorn movie to the point where to seem 'with it', you have to diss Crystal Skull. People seem to forget that Crystal Skull got generally good reviews until that rotten South Park Episode spoiled that movie.

Is it the best Indy movie ? certainly not, but it's nowhere near as bad as the Internet keyboard warriors would have you believe.

Avatar MIA

Wedwood wrote: »

Might be going against the trend here, but I think Crystal Skull's main problem is it was released after the Internet.

Crystal Skull is no better or worse than Temple of Doom, but suffers from this modern phenomena of Internet savaging, which afflicts some movies. Basically, some internet nerd who fancies himself as a movie expert decides to savage a movie and starts a trend that becomes a campaign which ends with a movie being savaged, as happened with Crystal Skull.

The cynical South Park episode in which 'Lucas raped Indiana Jones' became a gag that got out of control and ruined a fairly innocuous family popcorn movie to the point where to seem 'with it', you have to diss Crystal Skull. People seem to forget that Crystal Skull got generally good reviews until that rotten South Park Episode spoiled that movie.

Is it the best Indy movie ? certainly not, but it's nowhere near as bad as the Internet keyboard warriors would have you believe.

OR

Some (most) of us were appalled mid watch. I know I was. The only thing I really liked was the opening sequence with the atomic bomb. And that didn't include Shia. Coincidence?

Den14

Avatar MIA wrote:

Some (most) of us were appalled mid watch. I know I was. The only thing I really liked was the opening sequence with the atomic bomb. And that didn't include Shia. Coincidence?

Have to say Shia kinda ruined it for me too

pixelburp

LeBeouf's character was definitely poor enough on average, but the little moments of bonding between him and Indy worked quite well IMO. The scene in the diner was a particularly decent bit of characterisation that fleshed out their relationship, and it deftly lead into the motorbike chase that I was was a lot of fun myself. Silly, but not stupid. And he was still a better sidekick than flippin' Short Round.

In fact most of the US-set scenes, all the way up to the capture in the jungle were pretty solid. Nothing stellar but honestly I was broadly entertained and felt like decently 'Indy'esque. The back-half of the movie definitely ran off the rails somewhat, but not to a catastrophic extent.

brevity

I know it was a stupid set piece but this is a cool shot

jimmy blevins

JoeA3 wrote: »

Ok pedantic Pat, but I think you know what I mean. There were several scenes in the older films that clearly didn't look "real". Green screens / CGI, whatever.

There most be some type "uncanny valley" reaction going on in my head as modern CGI really puts me off films, it ruined the star wars sequels as well as making transformers want me to puke.

Optimalprimerib

For me it's 3, 1, 4, 2. I didn't hate 4 nearly as much as I thought i would but the temple of doom was dreadful altogether. This is after watching them all again last month. All in all though I am not a huge Indy fan, the whole franchise is overrated.

Ursus Horribilis

I enjoyed the "Nuke the fridge sequence" even though it was daft. It all fell apart after that. It definitely had too much CGI but that's not what killed it. The storyline was rambling and incoherent but I thought the characters in it were poor and unmemorable. It was a waste of actors such as Kate Winslet, John Hurt and Ray Winstone. The less said about Shia LaBeouf the better. It was nice to see Karen Allen again though as I thought she was the best of Indy's female sidekicks. Whatever it was about this one, it lacks the charm of the other three.

Avatar MIA

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

All in all though I am not a huge Indy fan, the whole franchise is overrated.

You take that back!

Avatar MIA

On BBC1 now, just forget he was irrelevant to the whole story

LastLagoon

Not sure why Temple of Doom is so maligned ,some fantastic set pieces (opening scene,mine chase,rope bridge,conveyor belt fight) plus gotta love mola rom. Read an interview with Spielberg where he said the reason it's so dark and gruesome is that he was going through a divorce at the time.
A lot of the objections seem to be taking PC offence on behalf on Indians
Halfway through on RTE1 at the moment

jpm4

LastLagoon wrote: »

Not sure why Temple of Doom is so maligned ,some fantastic set pieces (opening scene,mine chase,rope bridge,conveyor belt fight) plus gotta love mola rom. Read an interview with Spielberg where he said the reason it's so dark and gruesome is that he was going through a divorce at the time.
A lot of the objections seem to be taking PC offence on behalf on Indians
Halfway through on RTE1 at the moment

Completely agree - Temple is unfairly maligned, it has by the far the best action of all the films, it just never lets up. Probably my fav to watch.

Some probably controversial opinions:

Raiders starts off amazingly but finishes with a wimper rather than a bang. The ghosts of the Ark (or whatever they are supposed to be) have not aged well, and Indy doesn't do anything in this sequence. How does he know he is supposed to close his eyes? Always annoyed me, I didn't realise till years later a deleted scene explained this. Maybe leave that scene in?

Crystal Skull - bad but pre internet it would have not been cut to ribbons as much by fans. The weight of expectations on these big franchise sequels/reboots tends toward polarizing opinion - how last years Star Wars film was so well received (grand film but nothing memorable) is beyond me. La Beouff's character was actually one of the few things that made sense to me, it needed young blood - it was all the other doddery old f**kers in it that was completely pointless.

BuilderPlumber

LastLagoon wrote: »

Not sure why Temple of Doom is so maligned ,some fantastic set pieces (opening scene,mine chase,rope bridge,conveyor belt fight) plus gotta love mola rom. Read an interview with Spielberg where he said the reason it's so dark and gruesome is that he was going through a divorce at the time.
A lot of the objections seem to be taking PC offence on behalf on Indians
Halfway through on RTE1 at the moment

I feel the same. Temple of Doom is my favourite and is the perfect action film to enjoy around this time of year. Watched it last night and Raiders the night before. Onto Crusade tonight and then Crystal Skull.

Temple of Doom reworked a classic Western film theme that also was common in the 3 Mad Max sequels. A stranger wanders into a village and agrees to help a downtrodden set of people get rid of a tyrant. The action set pieces you mention are among the highlights of this great film.

It is underrated perhaps because it decided to be different. Raiders was the first and also was different to anything else that went before it. Temple proved to be different again. Crusade played it safer and is most similar to Raiders. Crystal Skull from what I saw of the end of it was the same.

BuilderPlumber

jpm4 wrote: »

Completely agree - Temple is unfairly maligned, it has by the far the best action of all the films, it just never lets up. Probably my fav to watch.

Some probably controversial opinions:

Raiders starts off amazingly but finishes with a wimper rather than a bang. The ghosts of the Ark (or whatever they are supposed to be) have not aged well, and Indy doesn't do anything in this sequence. How does he know he is supposed to close his eyes? Always annoyed me, I didn't realise till years later a deleted scene explained this. Maybe leave that scene in?

Crystal Skull - bad but pre internet it would have not been cut to ribbons as much by fans. The weight of expectations on these big franchise sequels/reboots tends toward polarizing opinion - how last years Star Wars film was so well received (grand film but nothing memorable) is beyond me. La Beouff's character was actually one of the few things that made sense to me, it needed young blood - it was all the other doddery old f**kers in it that was completely pointless.

Temple has brilliant action all the way. It certainly is the darkest, most violent and most different of the 4 films. Often there are overlooked, underrated gems in popular franchises and this is certainly one of them.

The ending of Raiders was essential to the overall theme of the film. The pure greed of the Nazis and their desire to control god's power made god destroy them. This type of ending was repeated in the other 2 sequels but Temple decided to try something different and it worked out very well.

Tomorrow I will watch Crystal Skull after watching the other 3 (Crusade tonight) and will decide on it. Of course, there are big expectations from big franchises. A trend in recent times is the revisit to franchises after gaps of decades. Crystal Skull was one such example. The bit I saw of the end looked like convincing Indy fare. The question is if this had been made earlier would it have been better received?

I get it that aliens feature a lot in the Crystal Skull storyline and it has been criticised for this. But hasn't Indy always dealt with the supernatural? If he is dealing with Christian relics with massive power in the 1st and 3rd and stones with massive power in the 2nd, then it was inevitable aliens would come into play at some stage too especially for modern audiences who believe in them more than in the power of god.

Avatar MIA

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I get it that aliens feature a lot in the Crystal Skull storyline and it has been criticised for this. But hasn't Indy always dealt with the supernatural? If he is dealing with Christian relics with massive power in the 1st and 3rd and stones with massive power in the 2nd, then it was inevitable aliens would come into play at some stage too especially for modern audiences who believe in them more than in the power of god.

I didn't like the aliens, but wouldn't consider them supernatural. If they turned up tomorrow we'd not be hugely surprised.

I watched the humour in Raiders today and it was very clever, the monkey doing the Nazi salute and the Nazi apes replying in kind. Indy getting hit by the mirror and screaming out. Very funny. The humour in CS was heinous. The swinging through the trees. Shia, just Shia. And horrid accent of the female lead. Jaysus, it was terrible in every way.

And I've not been influenced by internet reaction (as mentioned by someone earlier). And, it has to be said, Indy is now being played by an old man. Sad, but true. I still think there's a great Indy film out there, just not so sure it can be done by Lucas.

BuilderPlumber

Avatar MIA wrote: »

I didn't like the aliens, but wouldn't consider them supernatural. If they turned up tomorrow we'd not be hugely surprised.

I watched the humour in Raiders today and it was very clever, the monkey doing the Nazi salute and the Nazi apes replying in kind. Indy getting hit by the mirror and screaming out. Very funny. The humour in CS was heinous. The swinging through the trees. Shia, just Shia. And horrid accent of the female lead. Jaysus, it was terrible in every way.

And I've not been influenced by internet reaction (as mentioned by someone earlier). And, it has to be said, Indy is now being played by an old man. Sad, but true. I still think there's a great Indy film out there, just not so sure it can be done by Lucas.

Raiders had the right balance of action, humour, and romance. It was cleverly made and worked very well as a classic action thriller with some comedy and supernatural elements thrown in. The first 2 sequels the same. Going to watch Crusade right now and tomorrow I'll find out about Crystal Skull.

BuilderPlumber

Avatar MIA wrote: »

And I've not been influenced by internet reaction (as mentioned by someone earlier). And, it has to be said, Indy is now being played by an old man. Sad, but true. I still think there's a great Indy film out there, just not so sure it can be done by Lucas.

I believe there is a really great future Indy film out there too. I am unsure if Lucas is the man for it or not. If the new Indy was set in the 1960s and was about space travel and the like, it would ruin the feel of the series. I'd like to see a return to the 1930s setting. Anyway off to watch Crusade.

Snake Plisken

I'd actually put Temple as my least favourite Indiana Jones movie even below the Crystal Skull, the reasons imo are as follows
1) Raiders was and still is brilliant I remember seeing this in a packed cinema in the U.K. with my Dad and brother and it was a fantastic experience where everyone cheered laughed and clapped at the end of it, it's the perfect film.
2) Was really looking forward to the 2nd film as i had read about it being darker film, but was really disappointed when I saw it on release they had given Indy a annoying kid as a sidekick and he also had an annoying Kate Capshaw a poor whiny female lead compared to Marion in the first. A stupid occult story line no Nazis. Indy selling a diamond at the beginning the whole musical number the list goes on.
I think with the last crusade they realised their mistakes and went back to Indy and Nazis and introduced Indy's Dad it was a real return to form for the series and became my second favourite movie in the franchise.
Crystal Skull I was just happy to see Harrison back as Indy and the return of Marion and I did enjoy watching it more so then Temple of Doom.

evolving_doors

When youre into sequel 4 it's tired.

BuilderPlumber

Snake Plisken wrote: »

I'd actually put Temple as my least favourite Indiana Jones movie even below the Crystal Skull, the reasons imo are as follows
1) Raiders was and still is brilliant I remember seeing this in a packed cinema in the U.K. with my Dad and brother and it was a fantastic experience where everyone cheered laughed and clapped at the end of it, it's the perfect film.
2) Was really looking forward to the 2nd film as i had read about it being darker film, but was really disappointed when I saw it on release they had given Indy a annoying kid as a sidekick and he also had an annoying Kate Capshaw a poor whiny female lead compared to Marion in the first. A stupid occult story line no Nazis. Indy selling a diamond at the beginning the whole musical number the list goes on.
I think with the last crusade they realised their mistakes and went back to Indy and Nazis and introduced Indy's Dad it was a real return to form for the series and became my second favourite movie in the franchise.
Crystal Skull I was just happy to see Harrison back as Indy and the return of Marion and I did enjoy watching it more so then Temple of Doom.

I rate Temple of Doom very highly and imo there is very little between the first 3 films as they are all good. Watched Crusade last night and Sean Connery of course is excellent in it too.

I agree 100% that the Short Round character could have been done without. The jazz singing woman was ok if a little snobbish but not a patch on Marion. Marion was Indy's true love interest anyway and I think the series drove this message home. I guess Short Round was included to balance the dark story with some humour. If he had been a minor role consigned to the Chinese part of the story and not gone to India, it would have been better.

Temple was certainly the most different of the series. There were no scenes of Indy teaching history, there was no preplanned mission and Mad Max 2 and Octopussy were as important source material for the film as Raiders was. I think though it combined all these in a good way. The meal in the palace was an over the top homage to a similar but less graphic meal in the Bond film Octopussy from the year before that was also set in India. I remember watching both Octopussy and Temple of Doom back to back one Christmas and saw the similarities. Probably the premiers of both. Octopussy inspired elements of Temple and elements of Octopussy was inspired by Raiders too.

BuilderPlumber

Gebgbegb wrote: »

When youre into sequel 4 it's tired.

Sequels of films can fall into the trap of trying to reproduce the original and it all boils down in the end to how well they are done. I feel that the first 3 Indy films got it right and all are imo excellent to watch over and over. Will watch Crystal Skull this evening (this for the first time in its complete form although I know how it ends because I saw the ending).

Crystal Skull and Indiana Jones 5 will determine if this series is still fresh or not. Seemingly tired concepts in film can be revived very well often. Batman is a perfect example. I loved the 1989 Batman film and the sequel from 1992 Batman Returns was solid too. Batman Forever then ripped apart the darker elements of the first 2 and while not awful, it was nowhere near the previous 2. Batman and Robin from 1997 almost killed Batman. Though not as bad as some say it is still a poor film and as far removed as possible from the great film of 8 years previous. Then, Christopher Nolan came along and rescued this franchise and not only did excellent Batman films but he even arguably did them better than the 1989 one.

The future of Indy is full of great possibilities. A lot depends on who will portray him, what age he is to be in the films, who directs it and who writes it.

Tony EH

IMO, 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade' is just fcuking stupid and completely unenjoyable to me now.

The only thing it has going for it is the Ford/Connery dynamic. The actual story is utter shite, the effects poor and the rehash of the nazis is a weak choice.

It's worst sin, however, is the fact that it is littered with some the most awful attempts at "humor" I've seen in any film.

There are really just two films worth watching in the franchise. A truly great one 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' and a very good one, 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom'.

It's time to just let it die.