Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

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!

Wedwood

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.

Spielberg indicated he wanted to do more serious movies after Schindler’s List. He’d been infamously snubbed as best director by the Oscars over the years prior to 1993’s Schindler’s List, despite year after year of smash hit movies throughout the 70s and 80s.

His other movie of 1993 was Jurassic Park which I often think was his last great blockbuster movie. He hasn’t made any really bad movies since, but they haven’t hit the heights of his first 20 years. Oddly enough, Crystal Skull, despite all the criticism, is probably his most financially successful movie since Jurassic Park.

johnny_ultimate

I dunno about ‘no really bad movies’, BFG and Ready Player One are fairly stinky career nadirs IMO.

pixelburp

Then of course there's Hook. Even Spielberg himself acknowledged that Hook was the worst. There's a weird counter opinion springing up from people who loved it as a kid, but they're wrong. It's an ugly, terrible misstep; moreso than the equally self-revilled (IIRC) 1942

FunLover18

pixelburp wrote: »

Then of course there's Hook. Even Spielberg himself acknowledged that Hook was the worst. There's a weird counter opinion springing up from people who loved it as a kid, but they're wrong. It's an ugly, terrible misstep; moreso than the equally self-revilled (IIRC) 1942

I loved it as a kid but yeh having rewatched it recently, it's a mess. I still enjoy elements of it.

Viscount Aggro

Filming in Dalkey this summer. Coliemore harbour.

Kunta Kinte

pixelburp wrote: »

Then of course there's Hook. Even Spielberg himself acknowledged that Hook was the worst. There's a weird counter opinion springing up from people who loved it as a kid, but they're wrong. It's an ugly, terrible misstep; moreso than the equally self-revilled (IIRC) 1942

1941.

Kingp35

Viscount Aggro wrote: »

Filming in Dalkey this summer. Coliemore harbour.

Where did you hear that?

silverharp

Kingp35 wrote: »

Where did you hear that?

Is it a Young Indiana Jones reference? if so there would be a scene where he walks past the GPO and makes some deja vu comment :pac:

Viscount Aggro

Kingp35 wrote: »

Where did you hear that?

Its on IMDB.com

Look up the film,Indiana Jones 5
Filming locations.

They have kept it quiet so far.

pixelburp

IMDB is user generated so I wouldn't hold it as gospel TBH. Not least for the immediate, obvious question to start with: I'd the film industry open again in Ireland? The UK, yes. But has Ireland allowed productions to start again?