Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

Mrs Shuttleworth

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

I haven't read the thread but if this is going to flop, Crystal Skull has to take the blame. It's just appalling. No one is going to go back for a second dose of that.

Temple of Doom however is spectacular entertainment, don't know they got away with it, even back then.

trashcan

Maybe controversial but I’ve always felt that Raiders is the only really good Indy film. The sequels have only served to diminish it in my view. Left as a stand-alone it would be regarded as an absolute classic. Last Crusade was ok, Temple of Doom less so. Crystal Skull rubbish obviously, and according to all reports the new effort is complete dogsh1t..

Theres a great review of the new film on YouTube by a guy called the Critical Drinker where he absolutely shreds it in highly entertaining fashion. Worth watching.

Arghus

It was neither terrible or particularly great I thought. A slightly - very slightly - above average adventure blockbuster.

I thought the opening was okay, even though there's a real feeling of weightlessness to all the CGI fuelled mayhem: a lot to be said for action that feels real and has physical heft to it, even if it's on a smaller scale.

It sags badly in the middle. Some parts of that were close to properly boring.

I thought the third act perks up a bit and I can just about get over how close it comes to outright schlock.

I think it's about even with Crystal Skull. Its bad parts are not quite as bad as CS, but its good parts are never that truly great.

Have to say it didn't really feel like an Indiana Jones movie to me. Maybe it's because he's so old and generally passive in the film and it lacked that hard to describe Spielberg touch as well.

pixelburp

Can I just take a moment to be vaguely smug? 🤭 After all the talk, and worry, and premature outrage about the thing and what it would or wouldn't be ... surprise surprise it's supposedly as bland as porridge, completely deflated at the box office, with the consensus seemingly amounting to collective shoulder shrugs?

For my follow up, my second feeling is that with it flailing in cinemas it'll be fast tracked onto Disney+. MI: Dead Reckoning is opening in next Friday, and I'd be surprised if that doesn't completely muscle indy out of the way.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119238703#Comment_119238703

silverharp

it possibly works as a film if you know nothing about the other movies. The first 20 min are good but the de-ageing is uncanny valley, Indie's face is almost shimmering at times, they obviously didnt de-age his voice either and they obviously did the fight scene on the train at night because of the constraints of the de-aging.in the first place. Helena is an asshole character and I dont think PWB was a good cast, Disney are obviously obsessed with her but she doesnt move the needle with the audience, at no point do you ever want to see more of her on the screen, she wasnt written as a side kick so it looks like they were eyeing giving her a spin off show or something in the future but given that the film is a complete flop and probably cost Disney a loss in excess of $200m , they can put that idea to bed. Then with the bad guys, they just seem to appear for each chase scene, how, dont know. As or Indie, Disney just did a Luke Skywalker on him so basically the whole movie is a drag. So still only 3 movies

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120801059#Comment_120801059

It's not controversial at all. 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is truly the only great Indiana Jones movie. With 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' being a very good follow up. The rest are poor to very poor.

JoeA3

Seems like I am in the minority here but I really liked The Last Crusade. I'd go as far as saying it's my favourite of the original trilogy! I thought it had a great mixture of adventure, action and fun... and the chemistry and fun between Ford and Connery were great imo. If any one of the 3 originals ever get shown on TV, its the Last Crusade that I'd be more likely to sit watching...

I was never so disappointed coming out of the cinema as when I saw Crystal Skull and it sounds like this latest instalment is not for me either 😣

MisterAnarchy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120802722#Comment_120802722

I think the Last Crusade grows with rewatches.

I didnt like it very much when younger but I rewatched it recently and I found it enjoyable and the comedy was less grating.

Raiders is still the best though.

Theboinkmaster

What I love is all 3 of the original 3 films are very different and classics in their own right. It's like comparing Alien and Aliens - they're both top films in their own right.

The chemistry between Ford and Connery in the third is incredible - lightening in a bottle.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120802722#Comment_120802722

Absolutely love Last Crusade as well. Definitely up there with Raiders as the best 2.

Wasn't disappointed with Crystal Skull because I knew it would be crap. I was already sick of Hollywood milking old characters way back then. I'll only watch this one if I end up with Disney+ for some other reason.

pixelburp

The Last Crusade was great, don't pay any attention to Tony EH 🤣

The humour mightn't be to everyone's tastes but just in terms of spectacle, there's a solid argument that it's the pinnacle of the series' heights. That tank set-piece alone should make a list of Hollywood's greatest action sequences, with the rest not too shabby either. Sean Connery was inspired casting, and like Ford himself one of those moments where you just can't see anyone else playing the part.

I must go back and watch Temple of Doom 'cos I've seen a good bit of retrospective support for the film, given it's by far the darkest, most cynical of the series. And so violent, it spawned an entirely new film rating in the US (it and another movie basically fast-tracked the PG-13)

Crystal Skull, well; a LOT has been said about that, but while not a great movie it was nowhere near the cinematic cancer some might claim it to be. Undeniably the worst of the then four films, by a distance, but the few moments it clicked it was a rousing enough adventure.

What the first three did have, and perhaps doesn't get enough praise, was fantastic sound design by Ben Burtt (he of Star Wars and basically ALL those sounds we know and love). Part of the formula that I think was lost with Crystal Skull was that lack of aural impact and crunch.

Arghus

Yeah, The Crusade being poor... Ah heyor.

ArmaniJeanss

TOD is decent fun, but I think the overall pacing/location is an issue. It's like 'arrives at the temple, frees the kids, kills all bad guys and retrieves the mcguffin within 6 hours'.

This differed in a big way from one and three - where he had to spend some time figuring things out, visiting various exotic locations before even finding out where the final destination was. So it missed that international sweep we associated with the other films. A single location isn't necessarily an issue (Nakotami Plaza in Die Hard) but I'm not sure it suited an Indy film. It also seemed to have wildly illogical and inconsistent geography whereby you could keep going down the cave structure but eventually exit out at the top of a mountain beside a rope-bridge, but thats probably uber-nerdy complaining!

JoeA3

The main thing that annoyed me about TOD was the supporting cast. The screeching / howling female side-kick and the kid to a lesser extent.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120803600#Comment_120803600

That's all it really has going for it though. The rest is pretty subpar, especially the excruciatingly painful comedy, and the actual story is easily the worst of the trilogy. That Crusader Knight ending is just...ugh...no.

I probably said it earlier, but I recently saw a fanedit of Last Crusade and it was improved INCREDIBLY by some judicious edits. But it's still the weaker one out of the original three.

However, gone is the stupid scene in the library. That idiotic "no ticket" bullshit. That Scottish accent rubbish from Ford is out. Some of Connery's blathering is gone too. That ridiculous dogfight scene is excised, including that absurd scene in the tunnel. And there's a few more snips of stuff here and there. The most lengthy edit is the complete elimination of the River Phoenix opening. But, frankly, that never felt part of an Indiana Jones film anyway.

Over all the movie is now a bit leaner, with less of the cringe worthy moments and feels more in line with the previous two, where there are some humorous moments (mostly limited to the great Denholm Elliot) and they don't make the eyes roll out of your bloody head.

Also, don't listen to Pixelburp. He knows nothing. 😋

buried

The humour in Last Crusade is awful, but the real problem in that film was trying to humanise the actual Indiana Jones character, giving the all out fantastical action hero some sort of family backstory by bringing in his Dad for christ sakes. And then cast the man who played James Bond for 20 years. That's the real problem with that thing and its gotten worse ever since

Imagine in 'Goldfinger' if the makers of that film cast Orson Welles or James Cagney as James Bond's auld lad and shtuck him in for the ride, because, I dunno, we need to know about James Bonds dad for some reason. That would have been the end of that series too.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120801059#Comment_120801059

Raiders and last crusade are both good and temple of doom has some iconic set pieces. The flop is meat for the gammon like the critical drinker who is a misery merchant YouTuber.

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120807800#Comment_120807800

gammon sound like a racist term? hay ho, but you mean a Youtuber who I guess predicted this film would be a flop is right, so he seems to know Disney's business better than they do, is the bad guy here? your allegiance to a mega billion corporate entity is admirable

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120807909#Comment_120807909

Nothing in my message had anything pro or anti Disney in it. He doesn't just predict movies doing badly he wished anything that doesn't fit within his narrow definition of what a film should contain should do badly. I say this based on a view of a number of his videos not just his Indy YouTube review.

Traditional reviewer like Roger ebert may not have been perfect but they didn't wish films to do badly based on their own biases

johnny_ultimate

Mod note: Keep it civil, please.

pixelburp

I'm not sure the fate of this film would have required much clairvoyance TBH; speculating this would flop would not have been much of a stretch that I'd attribute success to any one "critic". Indy 5 was always facing an uphill battle,

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120808100#Comment_120808100

in fairness its Disney that are making movies with a narrow focus , digging into old IPs instead of creating new films, they have it in their heads that they cant market new films which makes them creatively bankrupt and figuratively financially bankrupt too

This film could have been better, I saw a great fan inspired potential plot, Indie is retiring but is well off /successful /students devastated he is retiring, and still married, his son comes home from Vietnam (played by Chris Pratt), Short Round comes into the picture with the same macguffin and it being linked with Atlantis which might be the source of other hidden tech. They set off chased by Soviet spies, the rest fills itself in and in the end Mutt and Short Round hint that they might team up for further adventures The End. Budget $125m length 100min, badaboom , might not break the box office but would have been better than this train wreck

johnny_ultimate

As ever, no matter how bad this film is (IMO it's more deeply mediocre), fan ideas on the internet are inevitably terrible.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120808685#Comment_120808685

I think indys son that they refer to in the film was Shia la beoufs character. I'm not sure it would work if they recast him even if the actor is blacklisted. I think the Soviets were not great enemies in the last movie so probably wanted to move back to more familiar foe

Mrs Shuttleworth

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120802894#Comment_120802894

I could be wrong but I watched Last Crusade within the last year and a half on streaming and I could swear there's extra footage in there not in the original theatrical version and the version I watched recently came across far better and more coherent than I remember the original film. Often a theatrical version was trimmed down (particularly in the projected reel days) in order to squeeze in four screenings as opposed to three into a day.

I remember seeing Betty Blue when it came out first and I thought it was rubbish. Then the extended version was released theatrically a few years later and it was brilliant, everything that originally did not make sense suddenly did.

Spon Farmer

Does anyone know if the original Making of Raiders documentary is available to watch anywhere?

I am disappointed to see it is not on the iTunes Extras (supposedly it is included in the blu-ray boxset).

It is one of the best (and one of the first) behind the scenes documentaries and I would to see it again. They went into great detail in how the chase was filmed.

I would love to see it again.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120810009#Comment_120810009

I don't recall any trims to the Last Crusade happening and the film has always been the same since I saw it in the 80's. Temple of Doom, however, was cut for violence in 1984. In the theatrical version shown here and in the UK, Mola Ram doesn't pull the heart out of the poor sap who ends up going into the pit of fire. Instead he just hold up a heart in front of his disciples and they all cheer. So it looks like he's just pulled a heart from under his cloak or something in an effort to fool his audience. Frankly that ends up being much better than the actual uncut version, which is just silly looking.

For years, the only version that was available on video was the cut version and when I first saw the uncut version on bluray, I was WTF?

As for 'Betty Blue', Beineix made a conscious decision to compile a director's cut in 2000, which was about an hour longer than the one that was originally released.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120811295#Comment_120811295

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

All three making of's are on YouTube.

nix

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120808685#Comment_120808685

Two white male leads in the same movie? in this day? No way, why? because box check, Mutt would atleast need to go through a sex change and the back story for that would need to take up 1/4 of the movie..

johnny_ultimate

15 years of fans and the internet giving out about Mutt Williams and there are still complaints that he's not in this one 🤷‍♂️

Frankly, his absence is one of the few things this film handles well.