Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

py2006

Just watched that video. I have to say I kind of agree with him and would be concerned that the movie might just go down the route his is talking about.

johnny_ultimate

pixelburp wrote: »

Isthar was a train wreck

Hey, if there's anything Indiana Jones 5 as good as the magnificent first half-hour of Ishtar, then that'll have been a pretty damn good outcome

pixelburp

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Hey, if there's anything Indiana Jones 5 as good as the magnificent first half-hour of Ishtar, then that'll have been a pretty damn good outcome

Could you imagine Ishtar in 2021? Doubtless, Elaine May would be declared a woke feminist, an avalanche of YouTube Performative Outrage, half it gleeful, released over her flop; spinning some BS about May emasculating Hollywood men Beaty and Hoffman by making them both total idiots.

RobbingBandit

Ke Huy Quan who played Short Round is almost 50

Wedwood

Most of these videos from the likes of ‘drinker’ etc are just click bait trash from people whose only ‘talent’ is rubbishing everything. They’re the modern equivalent of the two old Muppets up in the balcony slagging everyone off.

When you’re making videos slagging off a movie such as Indy V that hasn’t even been filmed yet, that’s just pathetic.

At the end of the day, I’ll make up my own mind whether I like this movie or not after I see it in the cinema. I certainly won’t have some hateful YouTube moron decide it for me.

Just to say I watched a couple of his videos, along with a couple of similar characters, then quickly blocked them all and YouTube is now a much nicer place !!!

MisterAnarchy

Wedwood wrote: »

Most of these videos from the likes of ‘drinker’ etc are just click bait trash from people whose only ‘talent’ is rubbishing everything. They’re the modern equivalent of the two old Muppets up in the balcony slagging everyone off.

When you’re making videos slagging off a movie such as Indy V that hasn’t even been filmed yet, that’s just pathetic.

At the end of the day, I’ll make up my own mind whether I like this movie or not after I see it in the cinema. I certainly won’t have some hateful YouTube moron decide it for me.

Just to say I watched a couple of his videos, along with a couple of similar characters, then quickly blocked them all and YouTube is now a much nicer place !!!

He doesn't rubbish everything, far from it.
He recommends old films, like The Thing, Starship Troopers, Logan, The Fifth Element, The Expanse, Die Hard, The Lighthouse, Dredd, Watchmen, plus many more.

He is obviously melodramatic and sarcastic as a reviewer, thats a given, don't take everything he says at face value.

His day job is as a writer, he wrote the Ryan Drake series.

arcticmonkeys

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

He doesn't rubbish everything, far from it.
He recommends old films, like The Thing, Starship Troopers, Logan, The Fifth Element, The Expanse, Die Hard, The Lighthouse, Dredd, Watchmen, plus many more.

He is obviously melodramatic and sarcastic as a reviewer, thats a given, don't take everything he says at face value.

His day job is as a writer, he wrote the Ryan Drake series.

I enjoy a lot of the drinkers YouTube vids but I'm in complete agreement with Johnny that to pass off Fleabag and Killing Eve as being drenched in feminist identity politics is a completely ignorant statement to make having only heard mostly positive things about both shows especially fleabag and I do tend to agree with a lot of his viewpoints about modern cinema, Kathleen Kennedy and the like.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

This is just another randomer ranting about "wokeness". Like there's legit criticisms of the decision to make yet another film. But this lot who go on elaborate rants about Star Wars and Indiana Jones because they're upset about diversity etc are just incredibly cringe.

The Critical Drinker is far from "yet another random-er".

Kirby

pixelburp wrote: »

I wonder is Brie Larsen relieved the angry white nerds of YouTube have found a new bete noir to condemn and scream about?

Will be nice when there's ACTUAL FOOTAGE of the movie to talk about. James Mangold still directing yeah? He's arguably one of the best middle tier directors out there TBH. Ford v Ferrari was surprisingly solid. Logan a stone cold classic

Larson deserved some of the flack she received. The film was subpar and she was awful in it. She approached the role and the required media for it with an arrogance she hadn't earned and a disdain for the fanbase from the start. Hardly any of the cast got along with her and she was by all accounts, surly and difficult while doing press.

The film itself was quite poor which didn't help matters. Most marvel fans rate it as being one of the worst in the series. Now, a poor script is not her fault in fairness to her but she did a piss poor acting job with a wooden half-smirk in practically every scene.

The problem with idiots on the internet is that they hurl personal and sexist abuse at people. That's obviously not okay but then legitimate criticism gets co-opted and suddenly you can't voice dislike for an actor or film without being lumped in with the idiots.

It's easy to see criticism and cry sexism but the majority of the issues people had with Larson weren't leveled at Scarlett Johanssen. Or Evangeline Lily. Or Zoe Zaldana. Or basically any of the other leading ladies.

Some people just don't like Larson and that should be okay, to be honest.

johnny_ultimate

It’s absolutely fine to say ‘I didn’t like Brie Larson’s performance in Captain Marvel’. Most people see the film, share their thoughts, and immediately move on with their life. I saw the film, didn’t like it, and have barely given it another thought since.

There are some YouTube dudes, however, who have literally made several *dozen* videos about the woman and the film. That’s not even an exaggeration. It’s immensely creepy and clearly sexist.

There are quite a few semi-prominent YouTubers who use their platform to disproportionately target women or women-led films they don’t like under the guise of ‘pop culture criticism’, and it’s not hard to see. Although frankly the quality of their perpetually outraged pop culture criticism tends to be utterly terrible as well even when you remove the latent or blatant sexism :pac:

pixelburp

Kirby wrote: »

Larson deserved some of the flack she received. The film was subpar and she was awful in it. She approached the role and the required media for it with an arrogance she hadn't earned and a disdain for the fanbase from the start. Hardly any of the cast got along with her and she was by all accounts, surly and difficult while doing press.

Oh I'm no fan of Larsen or Captain Marvel (like you said it's easily one of the worse MCU films), and she had put herself in the firing line with some of her self-serious attitudes - but her and the film absolutely copped a disproportionate amount or screaming from the YouTube Nerd Outrage market. Negativity sells I guess, and easier to come by than actual analysis. Pop culture fandom has become aggressively monetised.

The comparison probably doesn't track given Waller Bridge is clearly a talented, self-aware writer unafraid to rip into herself, but seems like the end result is the same. The performative Outrage market must churn out its bile - which seems equally insane on a movie that hasn't even started filming yet. Waller-Bridge isn't even writing the damn thing, she's just an actor.

What tires and bores is that there are so many interesting conversations on film on YouTube, but we end up with these (questionably authentic) Last Angry Man routines put forward as emblematic) of the service. Can't talk pop culture without the inevitable tedious grenade that amounts to empty, limp rage. Amazing how brittle the male ego can be when even vaguely challenged.

The conversation should be "why the F is there an Indy 5", instead of "why is this lippy woman playing with my nostalgia toys?"

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It’s absolutely fine to say ‘I didn’t like Brie Larson’s performance in Captain Marvel’. Most people see the film, share their thoughts, and immediately move on with their life. I saw the film, didn’t like it, and have barely given it another thought since.

There are some YouTube dudes, however, who have literally made several *dozen* videos about the woman and the film. That’s not even an exaggeration. It’s immensely creepy and clearly sexist.

There are quite a few semi-prominent YouTubers who use their platform to disproportionately target women or women-led films they don’t like under the guise of ‘pop culture criticism’, and it’s not hard to see. Although frankly the quality of their pop culture criticism tends to be utterly terrible as well even when you remove the latent or blatant sexism :pac:

Yep this is the thing, they tend to have a pretty clear leaning. Another one was the character of Rose Tico in Star Wars who was subjected to both sexist and racist abuse. Tonnes of videos on YouTube documenting why she is supposedly the downfall of Star Wars. It's very much reminiscent of the personalities during gamergate and such.

silverharp

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It’s absolutely fine to say ‘I didn’t like Brie Larson’s performance in Captain Marvel’. Most people see the film, share their thoughts, and immediately move on with their life. I saw the film, didn’t like it, and have barely given it another thought since.

There are some YouTube dudes, however, who have literally made several *dozen* videos about the woman and the film. That’s not even an exaggeration. It’s immensely creepy and clearly sexist.

There are quite a few semi-prominent YouTubers who use their platform to disproportionately target women or women-led films they don’t like under the guise of ‘pop culture criticism’, and it’s not hard to see. Although frankly the quality of their perpetually outraged pop culture criticism tends to be utterly terrible as well even when you remove the latent or blatant sexism :pac:

Maybe if Hollywood didnt make sexist movies then there wouldnt be sexist criticism of sexist movies

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

The conversation should be "why the F is there an Indy 5", instead of "why is this lippy woman playing with my nostalgia toys?"

Bingo.

pixelburp

silverharp wrote: »

Maybe if Hollywood didnt make sexist movies then there wouldnt be sexist criticism of sexist movies

"The real sexism is sexism against men" is not really the intellectual gotcha you think it is TBH. tantamount to victim blaming in a certain light. There's scope for friendly debate within the space of each film just how awful poor men are getting it, sure. It's snowflake stuff but sure, have at it But you can't forgive the actual, wholesale hounding of female actors or creatives that some on YouTube make their living from. As protonmike mentioned, what happened to Kelly Marie Tran was shameful, and an indictment over the dogma and tribalism of modern pop culture.

And circling back to the main, really important point here. The movie doesn't exist yet. The critical drinker is literally wasting megabytes on something that he can't possibly know about

pixelburp

Plus, to the point on Hollywood scriptwriting these days, let's try and remember Hanlon's Razor here;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Never attribute to malice that which is easier explained by stupidity. Hollywood blockbuster writing is, generally, shít. Mary Sues abound and have always done the last few decades at least - but that some of those might be now be female doesn't mean a concerted, horrible prejudice against the poor aul white man. Just that it's now women's time to have awful lead characters with an apparent lack of professional writing.

MisterAnarchy

I'm not familiar with this hate for Brie Larson.
I've watched The Critical Drinkers review of the film just now and it seems fair enough and doesn't overly criticise Larson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKHEjpFF6J0

Never attribute to malice that which is easier explained by stupidity. Hollywood blockbuster writing is, generally, shít. Mary Sues abound and have always done the last few decades at least - but that some of those might be now be female doesn't mean a concerted, horrible prejudice against the poor aul white man. Just that it's now women's time to have awful lead characters with an apparent lack of professional writing.

This video is a good overview of why we are seeing these unrealistic female characters and weak villains.
From 9 minutes on is pretty much spot on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnRP7SKzOgk

mikhail

pixelburp wrote: »

Plus, to the point on Hollywood scriptwriting these days, let's try and remember Hanlon's Razor here;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Never attribute to malice that which is easier explained by stupidity. Hollywood blockbuster writing is, generally, shít. Mary Sues abound and have always done the last few decades at least - but that some of those might be now be female doesn't mean a concerted, horrible prejudice against the poor aul white man. Just that it's now women's time to have awful lead characters with an apparent lack of professional writing.

That's a fair point, but I think some of the reactions are provoked more by the tone-deaf marketing than by the films themselves. And some of the uglier public responses have provoked statements from the film-makers that amount to "if you don't like this movie, you're sexist". That's not a conversation worth engaging with on any level. And you can see the bloody awful knock-on effects here, where I haven't read anything about Indiana Jones in any of the posts I've read today, and now am wishing again that there was an ignore list for threads.

Sudden Valley

I think the critical drinker can be interesting when he is speaking about films he likes. He is not against diversity or strong female characters, he likes the expanse for example. But! He does obviously hate brie Larson, he mentions her in numerous videos where she is not the main topic and even takes apart her YouTube videos- can't imagine mainstream movie critics being bothered with that. And to dismiss fleabag as feminist claptrap ?? The worst characters in that are mostly women.

pixelburp

Sudden Valley wrote: »

I think the critical drinker can be interesting when he is speaking about films he likes. He is not against diversity or strong female characters, he likes the expanse for example. But! He does obviously hate brie Larson, he mentions her in numerous videos where she is not the main topic and even takes apart her YouTube videos- can't imagine mainstream movie critics being bothered with that. And to dismiss fleabag as feminist claptrap ?? The worst characters in that are mostly women.

I'd call into question if the author has even watched Fleabag in the first place. Which, given the video is about a film that doesn't exist made purely to grind an axe about one of its stars, reveals the Bad Faith for what it is. And even Killing Eve has existed without Waller Bridge longer than with her. Plus, it was a novel first, she merely adapted it. (Never read it so open to correction)

But here we are again, yet another thread segue about the same, tired brittle paranoia. Nothing new to share just the same Greatest Hits again. And yeah, I accept I'm as bad for responding to those boring video dumps I should learn to leave the poor beseiged men be Even if you truly believe Hollywood is sullied by An Evil Agenda™, just move on. It's obvious these films aren't for that viewer, so god speed. There has never been so much choice so why constantly moan about mainstream Hollywood.

silverharp

pixelburp wrote: »

"The real sexism is sexism against men" is not really the intellectual gotcha you think it is TBH. tantamount to victim blaming in a certain light. There's scope for friendly debate within the space of each film just how awful poor men are getting it, sure. It's snowflake stuff but sure, have at it But you can't forgive the actual, wholesale hounding of female actors or creatives that some on YouTube make their living from. As protonmike mentioned, what happened to Kelly Marie Tran was shameful, and an indictment over the dogma and tribalism of modern pop culture.

And circling back to the main, really important point here. The movie doesn't exist yet. The critical drinker is literally wasting megabytes on something that he can't possibly know about

I didnt really get anything you in your first paragraph but what rules say you cant talk about a film before its made?

pixelburp

silverharp wrote: »

I didnt really get anything you in your first paragraph but what rules say you cant talk about a film before its made?

There are no rules at all, but ranting about a film - and an actor specifically - before it has even started filming just comes across as petty and the kind of shallow YouTube content that floods the service. Especially when it's obvious Drinker has some bee in his bonnet about Waller-Bridge as some kind of apotheosis of "woke feminism". And that's speaking as someone who cannot stand Jared LEto - but I don't try to work in an ideological rant about him at everyone opportunity either.

And it's irritating that this thread has become sidetracked by what amounts to a video-dump by a Bad Faith YouTube peddler; something some fora here actually, explicitly forbid.

Not like there IS much to talk about this movie beyond casting choices and the bafflement why it even exists in the first place (the answer is obviously "money" of course), but circling the drain of "OMG the woke of it all!" is ... well. Like I think I"ve said to you before, the last time we had this discussion, it's the realm of the office bore We should at least wait til there's some actual footage to get annoyed about!

Now. To the thread.

Last Crusade was better than Raiders.

*drops mic*

silverharp

pixelburp wrote: »

There are no rules at all, but ranting about a film - and an actor specifically - before it has even started filming just comes across as petty and the kind of shallow YouTube content that floods the service. Especially when it's obvious Drinker has some bee in his bonnet about Waller-Bridge as some kind of apotheosis of "woke feminism". And that's speaking as someone who cannot stand Jared LEto - but I don't try to work in an ideological rant about him at everyone opportunity either.

And it's irritating that this thread has become sidetracked by what amounts to a video-dump by a Bad Faith YouTube peddler; something some fora here actually, explicitly forbid.

Not like there IS much to talk about this movie beyond casting choices and the bafflement why it even exists in the first place (the answer is obviously "money" of course), but circling the drain of "OMG the woke of it all!" is ... well. Like I think I"ve said to you before, the last time we had this discussion, it's the realm of the office bore We should at least wait til there's some actual footage to get annoyed about!

Now. To the thread.

Last Crusade was better than Raiders.

*drops mic*

You remind me of when the villain at he end of a Scooby-Doo episode is unmasked and they exclaim, "I would have got away with it if it wasnt for you pesky kids". There just seems to be far too much irritation with these Youtubers and dismissing them like everything they say is wrong when in fact they articulated very well the problems with films like Star Wars and the rest.

Either way as I think Red Letter Media put it "you mightn't notice it but your brain will". As someone raised on 80's and 90's films my brain will still notice that these latter day doppelganger films are off even if I cant put my finger on it and no amount of stunning and brave virtue signallers on Twitter will get me to part with my green.

Samsonsmasher

Harrison Ford is almost 80. He's too old. He was too old to star in the last movie which was overflowing with CGI.
The more sensible thing would be to continue the character but cast another actor like Chris Pratt who bears a strong resemblance to the young Ford? There was actually a youtuber called Anthony Ingruber who played the younger version of Ford's character in Age of Adaline in 2015 but was not cast in Solo. He has a striking resemblance.
Anyway an actor doesn't have to strictly resemble Ford to play Jones.
There are any number of tall handsome lean lantern jawed actors who could do it.
Sadly I would imagine this new movie will be even more heavily CGI.
There also has to be an artifact that we actually care about.
The ark of the covenant and the cup used at the last supper created a deep emotional bond with the first and third movies.
The evil of Mola Ram and the Thugees made the Temple of Doom great.
What will this movie be about? The Golden Fleece? The Holy Lance? The Crown of Thorns? The Garden of Eden? Excalibur?

pixelburp

silverharp wrote: »

You remind me of when the villain at he end of a Scooby-Doo episode is unmasked and they exclaim, "I would have got away with it if it wasnt for you pesky kids". There just seems to be far too much irritation with these Youtubers and dismissing them like everything they say is wrong when in fact they articulated very well the problems with films like Star Wars and the rest.

Either way as I think Red Letter Media put it "you mightn't notice it but your brain will". As someone raised on 80's and 90's films my brain will still notice that these latter day doppelganger films are off even if I cant put my finger on it and no amount of stunning and brave virtue signallers on Twitter will get me to part with my green.

Shrug. I never said I dismiss everything, I said I dismiss those that seem reactionary or inherently biased towards a consistent, maybe even manufactured, agenda. And YouTube actively promotes those kinds of polemics (it's a well-noted phenomenon that "negativity" tends to attract more views & engagement. You'll read plenty of content creators who can attest to that, without having any proof YT skews its algorithms that way. It's a famously Black Box environment, constantly changing the rules).

Twitter I couldn't give a shít about TBH, so whatabout the slacktivists means nothing to me - but to the point on your 80s/90s appetites, maybe instead of it being some shadowy agenda, it's simply that movies are different from when we grew up?

Born in 1980 myself so we're more similar than you think But I'm not naive to the realities that Hollywood has changed, especially the shape and manner in which Blockbusters are born. Priorities have shifted: you'd never get another Back to the Future, but not because of 'de Woke. That we're even talking about Indy 5 shows this: the industry is more focused on gouging the likes of you or me for our nostalgia dollars ATM, tipping the hat that the IP is more critical than the idea or concept. It's a safer bet to regurgitate something old than take a chance on a new script. Ready Player One surely the great Smoking Gun to that cultural emphasis, while South Park had that famous "'Member Berries" episode lampshading the concept. Every studio now says "can we have a shared universe?" instead of "is this a good story?" I guarantee there's quiet talk about a Back to the Future reboot happening right this minute, waiting for Robert Zemeckis to pop his clogs.

I mean sure! Culturally, scripts have changed - and it was always thus: even between 50s to 80s cinema (the generational gap that spawned Lucas, Spielberg, Zemeckis, Coppola, DePalma et al), you'll see a marked switch in how stories portrayed their foreigners, women etc. etc.. I recently rewatched NOrth by Northwest and as amazing as that film remains, the romantic subplot is quite hokey, to put it mildly. Here though the difference of opinion comes down to whether those changes now drive productions. They don't, not to the degree that some might suggest. And even if there's a conscious decision to upsell the female roles, is it any different to those decades of films with unflappable, impossibly successful (male) leads? Like I said already, the one thing that HASN'T changed is that mainstream Hollywood scriptwriting remains pretty terrible.

And if we want to talk what drives Hollywood, the foreign & Chinese market has far greater sway than the Twitter performative mobs TBH; and if you consider conservative markets like China, Russia or India, if anything, those markets are why you'll find films like the Fantastic Beasts sequel desperately trying to downplay the gay relationship between Dumbledore & Grindlewald (oh they were such close friends, ahem).

Jesus, I didn't expect that to become the word salad it is.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Last Crusade was better than Raiders.

*drops mic*

"Right, that's it you little fu....come back here!"

pixelburp

I'll be honest Tony, I knew you really hated Last Crusade so kinda couldn't resist :pac: but I would also stand by the statement. Everything just clicked way more in Crusade: the action set-pieces; the characterisation; the plot (Raiders' finale being a meme now for Indy's irrelevance to it); and yes, the comedy. Senior's heartfelt hug and exclamation of "...my boy!" was never undurcut by the comedy of that moment on the cliff (as a for instance).

That entire tank sequence should, IMO, be considered a gold standard for escalating stakes, tension and drama. It obviously took the truck chase in Raiders and sequelised it in the best possible way. While Crystal Skull tried again with a chase in the jungle and it sucked, hard. Spielberg really was on top of his game back in '89. Only the TinTin movie comes close in terms of an Indy-style set-piece from Spielberg.

Arghus

Re: The critical drinker, off topic I know.

I first started watching his videos maybe about two years(?) ago and while I often didn't agree with everything I thought he was perceptive enough and articulate, but he really seems to have leaned into his persona over the last year or so. He's basically pandering to people at this stage, every analysis is smathered in this "anti woke", "anti PC" "anti feminist" garbled lens with which to view everything.

There's legitimate reasons to critique the media that he does and he can hit upon it sometimes, but everything is put through this anti wokeness filter the whole time now, so the final conclusions he comes to are knee jerk, reactionary and lacking in completeness.

It's a pity, because he's not all bad, but he's pandering to a certain audience now. Even the slurred speech affect has been amped up and the thumbnail of him of a really cool dude drinking JD, with sunglasses on, is just pure cringe. But I'm sure 16 year old me would have thought it was pure class.

And then you've mawkish incoherent shyte like this. Seriously, some of my toes will never uncurl:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow79eUHFhp0

pixelburp

It's not just Drinker; there are a few channels in my subs list on YouTube that have definitely pivoted into more "persona" driven output. Few with anything so blatantly ideological, but there's obviously a train of thought now that says for maximising your audience, one must really lean into whatever outsized personality was concocted for the channel. It has certainly made me reconsider following them; like, I enjoy Patrick H Willems' videos but the last year his bookends became longer & increasingly daft or distracting (though lately, he has put a "video starts at <timecode>" at the start of the essays, so clearly he has got pushback)

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

I'll be honest Tony, I knew you really hated Last Crusade so kinda couldn't resist :pac: but I would also stand by the statement. Everything just clicked way more in Crusade: the action set-pieces; the characterisation; the plot (Raiders' finale being a meme now for Indy's irrelevance to it); and yes, the comedy. Senior's heartfelt hug and exclamation of "...my boy!" was never undurcut by the comedy of that moment on the cliff (as a for instance).

That entire tank sequence should, IMO, be considered a gold standard for escalating stakes, tension and drama. It obviously took the truck chase in Raiders and sequelised it in the best possible way. While Crystal Skull tried again with a chase in the jungle and it sucked, hard. Spielberg really was on top of his game back in '89. Only the TinTin movie comes close in terms of an Indy-style set-piece from Spielberg.

We know where you live and we're coming for you.











Seriously though, nothing beats Raiders.

MisterAnarchy

Raiders is definitely the best, followed closely by The Last Crusade.
Temple of Doom is a good bit behind but still a good film.

The Crystal Skull, well lets just pretend that garbage never happened.

FunLover18

I enjoy Doom up until the final act when I find it extremely hard to get past the fact that there really wasn't a lot of water and also it would have all boiled off in the caverns of lava the carts go through. I don't even think it's needs the oncoming water which is why it's doubley annoying but that's just my little nitpick.

pixelburp

Putting down the pitchforks for Crystal Skull for a second, there's an interesting point to extrapolate between it and other blockbusters from Spielberg around this time & later. Crystal Skull, The BFG, Ready Player One; they have been pretty bloody poor all told, arguably going a long way to suggest Spielberg neither has the interest or the chops for big blockbuster entertainment anymore. His strongest films have been the smaller, human dramas. It doesn't forgive Crystal Skull but does add some context IMO.

MisterAnarchy

pixelburp wrote: »

Putting down the pitchforks for Crystal Skull for a second, there's an interesting point to extrapolate between it and other blockbusters from Spielberg around this time & later. Crystal Skull, The BFG, Ready Player One; they have been pretty bloody poor all told, arguably going a long way to suggest Spielberg neither has the interest or the chops for big blockbuster entertainment anymore. His strongest films have been the smaller, human dramas. It doesn't forgive Crystal Skull but does add some context IMO.

Dont forget War of the Worlds, thats one of his worst films, its arguably as bad as Crystal Skull.
Ready Player One was very enjoyable, albeit very dumbed down from the book.

pixelburp

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Dont forget War of the Worlds, thats one of his worst films, its arguably as bad as Crystal Skull.
Ready Player One was very enjoyable, albeit very dumbed down from the book.

Huh, I'd not agree; it's nowhere near as bad as something like 1942 or Always. The film kinda loses its way when Tim Robbins shows up but before that point, I'd argue it was one of Spielbergs best modern films; the tension just kept rising as the aliens mercilessly picked off whole crowds, the futility of the situation always foremost on-screen. Other moments like Cruise covered in dust, or the whole ferry sequence, a brilliant example of PG13 horror.

FunLover18

pixelburp wrote: »

Huh, I'd not agree; it's nowhere near as bad as something like 1942 or Always. The film kinda loses its way when Tim Robbins shows up but before that point, I'd argue it was one of Spielbergs best modern films; the tension just kept rising as the aliens mercilessly picked off whole crowds, the futility of the situation always foremost on-screen. Other moments like Cruise covered in dust, or the whole ferry sequence, a brilliant example of PG13 horror.

I'd agree with this, I watched it for the first time recently and enjoyed the first two thirds as an alien invasion from the eyes of the average Joe but it definitely struggled in the final act to have some sort of ending. I've not read the source material but it was a bit of a lame duck ending.

pixelburp

FunLover18 wrote: »

I'd agree with this, I watched it for the first time recently and enjoyed the first two thirds as an alien invasion from the eyes of the average Joe but it definitely struggled in the final act to have some sort of ending. I've not read the source material but it was a bit of a lame duck ending.

It's thematically faithful to the book, as have been most adaptations TBF. HG Wells wrote the novel to decry the arrogance of men and how civilisation was a thin thread easily pulled apart. We weren't saved by our technology but by microbes the aliens had no immunity to, so as a last act, the book was always more a humbling realisation than dramatic finale. The 2005 film couldn't really do much else if it was staying true, and is probably why just prior there was that scene of personal / flukey triumph against a single tripod

johnny_ultimate

War of the Worlds and Crystal Skull have the same problem (good first half, weak second half) albeit almost the opposite cause.

War of the Worlds benefits from a bleaker, more hopeless tone than other disaster / invasion films. It also looks great as it was shot on film, and has a sort of old-fashioned look that suits the material / tone and masks the artificiality of the digital effects. It’s also relatively reserved at times, keeping the action at a distance when needed. The problem is it can’t handle the more character-driven, quiet stuff. Tom Cruise is woefully miscast - the scene where he tries to make sandwiches is almost surreally unconvincing.

Crystal Skull IMO actually holds up pretty well in its first half. The fridge stuff is deeply silly but fun, but the film really has an abundance of old-school Indy energy when it relocates to the States. The problem is that it becomes increasingly unmoored as it indulges in absurd, cartoonish spectacle. The action has no weight. It just disappears into CG excess, which is again almost the opposite problem to the earlier film.

buried

Spielberg's action packed PG blockbuster movies peaked with 'Jurassic Park'. Everything afterwards has all been downhill.
John Williams too.

johnny_ultimate

Spielberg’s career as a whole peaked with Jurassic Park, and I absolutely include the serious-minded Oscar winners in that :pac:

Tony EH

I still think his best film was 'Jaws'.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

I still think his best film was 'Jaws'.

The background of that film makes it somewhat of a miracle that it turned out to be amazing.

buried

It's 'Raiders' for me. Just for all the occult aspects of it that are executed so brilliantly with various levels of storytelling and subtle/non subtle visuals. And the ridiculously brilliant music score that synced up to the scenes on motion picture film. So good. Pure magick.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

The background of that film makes it somewhat of a miracle that it turned out to be amazing.

Yeh, it's well worth reading about. Sounded like a nightmare.

It's amazing it turned out to be anything at all. :pac:

Tony EH

buried wrote: »

It's 'Raiders' for me. Just for all the occult aspects of it that are executed so brilliantly with various levels of storytelling and subtle/non subtle visuals. And the ridiculously brilliant music score that synced up to the scenes on motion picture film. So good. Pure magick.

I've always counted 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' as a George Lucas film, albeit one with a competent director (i.e. not Lucas).

It's a great film, no doubt, and easily the best Indy outing. But for a sheer timeless classic, you can't beat 'Jaws'. I reckon I watch it at least once a year.

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

I still think his best film was 'Jaws'.

While his best, most misunderstood has to be AI. Seems to be getting a reassessment these days but at the time was arguably misread, bigtime.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

While his best, most misunderstood has to be AI. Seems to be getting a reassessment these days but at the time was arguably misread, bigtime.

Oh AI is a good movie. It just gets let down by the ending. It should really have ended with David asking the blue fairy to make him real.

I'd imagine that that would have driven some of the audience into kiniptions though.

py2006

Ah here, E.T

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

Oh AI is a good movie. It just gets let down by the ending. It should really have ended with David asking the blue fairy to make him real.

I'd imagine that that would have driven some of the audience into kiniptions though.

I dunno, at first the ending seemed a misstep - oh he gets his wish! - but then when you think about it is really a bit of a bummer ending, for what was already, arguably, Spielberg's most deceptively misanthropic film. Or at least a film with a consistently dark theme that posits love is, in fact, a curse. Pure love anyway, the kind without context or intellectual understanding born from experience. Pure, undimmed emotion from Hollywood's most emotionally intelligent director was misread as schmaltz.

The "blank check" podcast did an excellent episode on this film, I'll admit it did a lot of work in reframing my memory of that film. Have been meaning to give it a rewatch as a result.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

I dunno, at first the ending seemed a misstep - oh he gets his wish! - but then when you think about it is really a bit of a bummer ending, for what was already, arguably, Spielberg's most deceptively misanthropic film. Or at least a film with a consistently dark theme that posits love is, in fact, a curse. Pure love anyway, the kind without context or intellectual understanding born from experience. Pure, undimmed emotion from Hollywood's most emotionally intelligent director was misread as schmaltz.

The "blank check" podcast did an excellent episode on this film, I'll admit it did a lot of work in reframing my memory of that film. Have been meaning to give it a rewatch as a result.

It's tacked on, though, and it never feels like anything but an afterthought, because ending with David in the sub endlessly pleading with the blue fairy wouldn't have gone over too well with most audiences I reckon. Personally, I think that that ending would have been far more preferable. I agree, the film is an utterly depressing vision of the future. It's one of the most dystopian depictions I think. It's very bleak all round.

But David getting his wish, and it's a bit of a bogey one at that, I am just never comfortable with it. I just come away from it unsatisfied, which is a bit of a shame.

In saying that, I've always liked the film as a whole and it does seem to be one where people return to it and come away with a better impression. I've known several people who have changed their minds on it. I don't really know what the says about the picture however.



Edit: As an aside, the bloody thing is nearly 20 years old! Fkn 'ell!