Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

silliussoddius

Spoiler free review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3hLTu5O6nY&t=621s

MfMan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120701508#Comment_120701508

Should have stopped there. First two had pretty much the right balance between darkness, adventure and lighter humour. 'Last Crusade..' played for laughs mainly and from there on, things were dreadful.

CGI train scenes in trailer - automatically I'm out.

Tony EH

I saw a great fan edit of Last Crusade recently that largely strips out the stupid comedy. It made a remarkable difference, I have to say, and greatly improved the movie over all. Lots of nice and seamless cuts made to eliminate the dreadfully unfunny comedy.

Unfortunately, it was done a good few years ago and is only available as a DVD rip. I'd love to see the same faneditor have a go again using the 1080p Blu source.

mrcheez

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

So it's surprisingly good then :)

silliussoddius

Just better than the last one, there seems to be something that happens near the end that looks like a make or break thing.

silverharp

Random video I came across the other day, some scene breakdowns of the first movie , using Black and White and sound off so some of the film techniques pop.

https://youtu.be/ItbCLh4Auoo

McDermotX

Oh dear

Oh deary me

New one for the bottom anyway. Bland, uninspired, devoid of fun..........all the things the opposite of what the majority of Indiana Jones has stood for.

Can only imagine what the original vision was, but this seems like punishment.

recyclops

Honestly enjoyed that. Pretty much as expected, nazis, silliness, ridiculous artefact with ridiculous powers and set piece chases.

Went in expecting alot worse so was pleasantly surprised leaving.

Muller1991

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120781853#Comment_120781853

Same as myself, Pleasantly surprised with the movie as a whole. Nice cameos in there too from Karen Allen and Jonathan Rhys Davies. I thought the de-aging was top notch !

hynesie08

Biggest screen you can find,

Biggest popcorn you can find,

Switch brain off and enjoy.

There's my review.

hynesie08

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120782754#Comment_120782754

I thought the de-aging was top notch !

I thought It was incredible, which makes me both excited and terrified for the future of cinema.

Homelander

Honestly I wanted to like it but I thought it was fairly bad. It dragged, and the plot is silly, and not in a charming way.

This and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are like crap fan fiction of Indiana Jones. Not even sure this one is any better than Crystal Skull, better in some areas and nearly worse in others.

johnny_ultimate

A pretty wildly uneven film - definite bright spots, but long stretches where the pace and tone just fell flat.

A definite strength are the performances. Toby Jones and Waller-Bridge are great support, while Mads Mikkelsen is perhaps the most evil Nazi-like evil Nazi in the whole series to date. It's maybe a low bar to clear for modern Harrison Ford, but to his credit he doesn't phone it in. In fact, the film finds an emotional way into the character that feels fresh and interesting - to the point where it's a shame it takes so long to actually get to it, and has so few scenes where it actually matters. But for one big emotional confession and a few moments in the climax, there's an interesting take on the character there and why he's slightly different, lonelier and grumpier than when we saw him last.

You can definitely tell (at least) four people wrote the script - there are so many things battling for space, even with 2hr30mins, they can't all fit in, and it feels like random threads and characters are just left dangling without much to do.

I don't think Spielberg was the right choice for another Indy choice - I love those early films as much as anyone, but I think it was right to give someone else a shot. Unfortunately, I just don't think Mangold has the spark to make this work. There are the requisite setpieces in the film's first half, often directly - even cheekily - nodding back to past entries. But there's something oddly perfunctory about it, like it can't manage to slip into the higher gear the material demands even with a much older Indy to contend with. And de-aging, no matter how advanced, is still uncanny valley as all hell - at least Harrison Ford is alive and can actually consent to it, unlike some of Disney's other recent ghoulish efforts.

Spoiler Warning

That's rectified in the third act, with a classic tomb-raiding sequence that does do more to capture some of that old magic. But it's the big climax that's most interesting. Don't get me wrong: it's extremely, extremely silly, and purists will not unfairly dismiss its sojourn into pure fantasy entirely. Indiana Jones has always been silly with its big old supernatural finales, but having the character actually travel back in time to have a chat with Archimedes is certainly a big old step even for this series. But I have to say, as absurd and goofy as it was, I found that was when the film actually had some pep in its step: a gloriously outrageous bad guy plot, a sense of old-school spectacle, and just something with a bit of verve. Is it great? Absoutely not, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't the most solidly and weirdly entertaining bit of the film for me. And that the events of the finale actually help Indy reach a satisfying final bow was a nice added bonus.

On the whole though, there's a certain lethargy to most of it that I couldn't really get over. Mangold is a workmanlike director, with a competent but unremarkable eye for setpieces, and that really shows here: I'm sure Mission:Impossible will be along in ten days to show how it's done. The CG is also consistently pretty underwhelming - the big New York setpiece, for one, can't shake its plastic-y sheen. At least there are hints of that old-school Indiana Jones charm here, and even a few decent new ideas thrown into the mix. Not quite enough of either, alas.

RickBlaine

Bond, Dr. Strange, Fantastic Beasts, and now Indy. Mads Mikkelsen has really carved out a decent Hollywood career playing franchise villains, but to be fair, he does it so well. Of course, he is also great in smaller dramas like The Hunt and Another Round.

MfMan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120785246#Comment_120785246

Haven't seen this yet and may not want to. Caught Crystal Skull on Film4 t'other night, and I came to the realisation that it may actually be one of the worst movies I've ever seen, because of the talent involved. CGI-action sequences are so drek and the plot is pure hokum, even by the franchise standards.

silverharp

non spoiler for the first 10min review, sounds bad

https://youtu.be/Sg0Ng_sguUE

conorhal

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

The simple answer to that is 'you don't do it'.

Indiana Jones was the product of a conversation on a beach in Hawaii between Lucas and Spielberg. Spielberg wanted to make a Bond movie, but the Broccoli's were for some reason against the idea (he was too 'American' for Bond), so Lucas pitched him an idea for another 'international adventure man' in the same mould. Jones, like Bond is just 'international adventure man' who goes from thrilling stunt sequence to thrilling stunt sequence, gets the girl and saves the day. That Bond DNA is most evident in the opening of Temple of Doom, which Spielberg chose to open in an exclusive club with a smooth martini drinking Indy in a Tux rather than khakis, his little nod to that earlier ambition.

Like Bond, Jones does not need a back story, a character arc or a continuity, just another adventure to go on. As a lifelong fan of the Jones trilogy (yes, TRILOGY) I have absolutely zero interest in seeing this new move and an octogenarian Indiana Jones any more than I would in watching an octogenarian James Bond, because it’s a stupid idea. Bond is eternally 35-40 for a reason, he’s an avatar for the audience to go on an adventure, for which you need to cast an actor with enough charm and charisma to flesh out what is essentially an architype, 'international adventure man', there to deliver solid B-movie thrills to a popcorn audience. I really don’t know who wants to watch sad old man Indiana Jones shuffle painfully through an adventure, out of touch and out of time, decidedly not getting the girl but rather getting a lecture from her. It’s the anthesis of 'international adventure man' and the escapism he provides.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120787122#Comment_120787122

The simple answer to that is 'you don't do it'.

Well, yes for sure; ultimately that's the correct answer beyond chatter about how Indy's treated - but also the correct answer for basically the glut of these "legacy sequels" we've been getting of late, Disney the market leader for trotting out old faces for the sake of nostalgia. Wait 'til the reboots really kick off!

RickBlaine

Dial of Destiny has some good moments but this movie is very much sad tired old man Indy. It might have worked for Logan but Indy is a totally different character who appeals to audiences for different reasons.

The sequel Star Wars trilogy took the trio of heroes from the original trilogy and made their lives after ROTJ miserable. For all its faults, at least KOTCS gave Indy a happy ending with Marion. But then DOD undoes that happy ending to make Indy miserable again. The problem is that Indy remains miserable for most of the film. He has little agency in the film and was often dragged along by Helena or having being kidnapped by the villains.

Undoing Indy's happy ending from KOTCS and making him a sad sack for most of the film in aid of a cliched character arc just seems like cheap screenwriting basic box-ticking instead of giving fans what we actually want to see in an Indy movie.

I also think it is incredibly cheap and stereotypical that older heroes are now sadder versions of their younger selves (again, see Star Wars). Ford is 80 but I believe Indy was born in 1899 so he is actually playing a 70 year old. Not sure how old Henry Jones was supposed to be in The Last Crusade. Connery was 59 at the time and I think he was playing him older. But nevertheless, Henry still had that sense of adventure, still having fun and enjoying the escapades. His age didn't dull that excitement.

To be fair, I think I read it was Ford's idea to bring the character down that road and I can understand that from an actor's viewpoint. And I also think that Ford gives an excellent performance. But this new aspect of Indy's twilight years has come at the expense of the sense of fun and adventure that endeared audiences to the character in the first place.

santana75

Just back from seeing this and I thought it started off really well. A cracking opening sequence (albeit with one of the worst CGI scenes ever committed to film - Indy running on top of a train) and I thought that this could actually be a lot better than the reviews have made out. I mean it happens, films get slated but when I see it for myself it's actually quite good(The greatest showman comes to mind). Alas this is not the case with the dial on destiny. After the opening I found myself losing interest and zoning out. At some point I realised I was full on bored. Indy is led around by his sidekick who performs ridiculous stunts that never Convince and is quite unlikeable to boot. I was trying to figure out why I lost Interest and halfway home it came to.......this film is soulless. Its movie making off a production line, there's nothing organic about it, which seems to be what Disney specialise in, lifeless movies that tick boxes. Raiders was organic and that's why it holds up so well, that's why even now you could show that film to an 8 year old and they'd love it. And I find this strangely reassuring because it proves you can't bottle lightning, you can't remanufacture something that was successful before. Harrison Ford should've left it alone. There's a scene in the "Irishman" where Bobby D is beating the daylights out of some lad on the side of a street but it's quite obvious the guy is selling it, throwing himself around like a WWE pro. And I found the same thing here, Harrison Ford throwing digs and fellas hurling themselves through windows and down stairs. It doesn't convince. And the plot is silly. I think Indy films work best when they're grounded in Christian mysticism, and both this and the kingdom of the crystal skull descended Into Sci fi, which doesn't work.

johnny_ultimate

Coincidentally rewatched Raiders over the weekend. As open as I am to breaking with the basic formula a bit to do something different, the one most striking thing is how much better that film looks than Dial. There’s a digital sheen here that consistently undermines both the spectacle and the fluency of the action. The bike chase near the start, for example, is so dark and clearly manipulated that it has very little impact. Ditto the parade scene. Of course Spielberg was the best to ever do that particular thing, and even he couldn’t cross the digital divide elegantly with Crystal Skull. Dial is nowhere near as egregiously physics defying as that was. But man, it was kind of sad seeing how staggeringly more money is being spent on these films now and how much worse they look than the same series 40 years ago. Again, it feels like Mission:Impossible is the one series that feels like a truer continuation of the more practical minded blockbuster action film of old, with digital used sparingly rather than a full on replacement for the tangible, physical filmmaking that so impressed in many of the great pre-00s blockbusters. Even John Wick 4 is a good example of how even the most ridiculous fight scenes work so much better when it’s not all digital effects. And the special effects Raiders does use are iconically gnarly and memorable.

This is apparently one of the 20 or so most expensive films ever made. And a 40 year old predecessor with a fraction of the budget looks infinitely better.

gmisk

I saw this morning enjoyed for the most part, hey it was better than crystal skull at least.

The de-aging stuff was let's say inconsistent, at times it was excellent but on the train at certain points it felt very computer game-y. But the cast and globe trotting was a lot of fun. Mikkelsen reliable good. Waller Bridge is fine I thought, hey at least she wasn't Shia LaBeouf.

The script was a bit of a mess and could have done with some let's say tightening up and it was too long.

Might be a stupid question...

Spoiler Warning

But is Indiana not still wanted in relation to a series of murder at his work? Or did going back change that... He also seemed to be able to fly all over the world despite being wanted for murder?

Oh and RIP Mutt I guess terrible character to be fair.

The Black Oil

Some early teens kids who were mostly OK at mine (though most, much like Toom Raider a few years back, didn't stay for the whole thing), plus a family of 4.

It's a serviceable film, that doesn't really go a shade or two beyond that, alas. Some enjoyable human moments. The original trilogy had a certain texture and spirit, and wove together various elements well, character, story, humour, local culture* and spectacle. You felt Indy sweat, you felt the booby traps were bloody lethal, the urgency of what was happening, the supernatural, the blades on the plane closing in, friendships and more. Dial of Destiny, unfortunately, is a rather flat version of these.

*We flew on Royal Air Maroc to Morocco for a family holiday - 1998, iirc.

walkonby

Judging by the 2/3rds empty screen I saw this in yesterday evening, they do not have a hit on their hands.

Film was ok. Too dark in places. Every sequence was too long. The young lad with the crappy ‘tache can barely act. De-aging works best, umm, when the character doesn’t move much…

Incidentally I watched Raiders again in the cinema a few years back. It’s not as good as people remember.

RickBlaine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120795523#Comment_120795523

Maybe Raiders isn't good as you remember but I watched it just last week and I think it's absolutely brilliant.

rgbm1

Enjoyed the beginning and ending, its a bit long, some cuts of the "comedy scenes" would have helped.

I suppose they could have a CGI version of Harrison Ford in future if they get the rights the way things are going.

buried

Once they made the decision to characterize Indiana Jones in the third installment, bring in his family history and all that useless mess, instead of just letting him do the thing he was supposed to be doing, going on crazy adventures, the whole thing was finished.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120794883#Comment_120794883

CGI allows film makers to be stupid. It "frees" them to indulge in things that years ago would have been off the cards.

Of course, there were some effects work decades ago that made ludicrous situations a reality, like the mine cart chase in Temple of Doom. But I shudder to imagine just how more ludicrous that would have been made in the modern CGI era.

Loafing Oaf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120781853#Comment_120781853

Yeah this was my take too, just found the whole thing went on too damn long. Thought the diving scene was pretty tedious, maybe they could have cut that drasticallly...

Agent Coulson

Man that dragged so much it felt every bit of it's two and half hours.

The CGI was really poor and where the hell did they spend the $300m budget.

I was pleasantly surprised that Ford did not phone it in, Indy seems to mean a lot to him.

Waller-bridge was fine however the character was annoying as hell and the banter with Indy just didn't fit for me.

Also you could see the scrpit was written by a room full of monkeys with typewriters

Cut an hour off it and give it a tight edit and it might actually be a really fun movie.