Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

OU812 · 23-03-2016 12:33pm

Probably would have grown up to be the ideal replacement...

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

Zubeneschamali · 23-03-2016 12:34pm

Tony EH wrote: »

To me 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' is the far superior picture and the only reason Speilberg says it isn't, is because a few cotton wool parents and their mardy arse kids got a bit upset by some of the visuals.

I don't think the mild horror element is the problem. I think that the addition of the superfluous annoying comedy kid sidekick and the swap in of a screaming damsel in distress for the heroine are the start of it.

The second problem is that the Ark of the Covenant and Holy Grail are well known big deals, the Nazis well known to have mystical/occult interests, and the plots involving them have real power and high stakes.

The bad guys in Temple of Doom are an extinct cult, and no-one ever heard of their McGuffins before, and the connection between the magic rocks and bad things happening is not at all clear. Unlike the Nazis, the bad guys are apparently wiped out by 20 British soldiers in the finish. The plot has no weight.

Tony EH · 23-03-2016 1:06pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't think the mild horror element is the problem. I think that the addition of the superfluous annoying comedy kid sidekick and the swap in of a screaming damsel in distress for the heroine are the start of it.

The horror parts of both 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' and 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' were a "problem" for some people, especially in America. Younger kids couldn't handle melting Germans or ripping peoples hearts out of their chests. In fact, I think the latter was cut from the cinema releases in the UK and here. It certainly was in the video releases.

And, yes, while Shortround was annoying (in a typical Speilberg way), it was the reaction to nastier elements that spiked most people. Temple is a pretty dark picture.

As for Willie Scott, I liked her. She's supposed to be a fish out of water type. An annoying, spoilt brat. More interested in sequin dresses, hair, makeup, finger nails and her nightclub career than poncing around the Raj with some (handsome) bozo.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The second problem is that the Ark of the Covenant and Holy Grail are well known big deals, the Nazis well known to have mystical/occult interests, and the plots involving them have real power and high stakes.

The nazis interest in the occult is a myth in itself. But that's another thread. Sure, the Shankara stones aren't the holy grail, but to me that's good. The holy grail is a terrible McGuffin and paired with the ever lasting crusader knight, it's just too much, TBH.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The bad guys in Temple of Doom are an extinct cult, and no-one ever heard of their McGuffins before, and the connection between the magic rocks and bad things happening is not at all clear. Unlike the Nazis, the bad guys are apparently wiped out by 20 British soldiers in the finish. The plot has no weight.

The Thuggee cult existed though, but they are as real in Temple of Doom as the the Germans are in Raiders and Last Crusade, i.e. not really. But, I found them to be a refreshing turn. Dragging out the Germans again would have been tiresome as it was in Last Crusade and in the Last Crusade, they are pretty ineffectual. Doody is nice looking, but meh and Julian Glover doesn't have any of the menace that Ronald Lacey does in Raiders. In fact, none of the bad guys comes close to their counter parts in the first film, or Mola Ram for that matter.

But Last Crusade's biggest and most unforgivable sin is the terribly unfunny "comedy" that plagues the whole film. The guy franking papers in the church that thinks the loud bangs caused by Jones bashing his way through a concrete floor is actually him? That's not funny. It's just stupid. Or Indy throwing a guy off of the Zeppelin and saying he hadn't got a ticket? Again, not funny. Just stupid.

JoeA3 · 23-03-2016 8:49pm

I couldn't disagree more. The Last Crusade is by far and away my favourite of the "trilogy" (I'm not even counting the 4th one). I loved the comedy, I thought it worked very well and the Father/Son relationship was great imo.

I'm not one for silly farcical comedy either, but for me, the Last Crusade is the one that stands up to repeated viewing.

Different strokes obviously!

Wedwood · 24-03-2016 1:20am

The Raiders trilogy followed a similar arc to the Star Wars trilogy. Strong first movie, darker second and the third being a rehash of sorts of the first movie.

The humour was right for the time they were made, today's more 'serious' movies make the older movies look lighter.

Still, when you look at the ripoff movies made at the time like Romancing the Stone and King Solomans Mines, all the Indy movies are light years ahead.

Just to add, despite its detractors, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was miles better than most of its contemporaries like Tomb Raider, Sahara and The Mummy sequels. (I'd give the first of those Mummy pictures the nod ahead of KOTCS)

Arghus · 24-03-2016 2:10am

Raiders is perfect.

Temple is dark and demented fun and is underrated generally. But it mixes a dollop of cheese with a touch of racism. Problematic! It also contains the worst love interest in the entire series - Crystal Skull included. I know that her character is supposed to be that of the damsel in distress, but did she have to be so bloody annoying?- INNNNNDEEEEE.

The Last Crusade does itself an injustice by travelling ever further towards the realm of somewhat cheesy light comedy. Wry humour should been the order of the day, not lowly aiming for yucks. It's also the most uninspired of the trilogy, being basically a rehash of Raiders. The prologue and it's mythologising - this is how he got the whip, this is how he got the scar and this, ladies and gentleman, is why he fears snakes - is unnecessary fan service and pandering; you can see the series losing balls, wit and grit before your very eyes here. BUT - Sean Connery. I thoroughly enjoy every minute him and Ford are on screen together. I also think the action is superb in this film: it's grand, imaginative and exciting. Also at some level I prefer the fact that he's up against the dirty Nazis in this movie. Yeah, it's something we've seen before, but something about him fighting The Reich rings right. Right? He's on a mission from God, against villains we all can get worked up about; An Indian death cult doesn't have the same allure to it.

So score draw between the sequels!

Sad Professor · 24-03-2016 2:19am

I think most trilogies are like Star Wars. The first film is a hit, so they take risks on the second which even if they pay off tend to be coolly received by audiences at the time, so they play it safe with the third. There's also the fact that directors usually don't hold back anything for the third film and when they do you end you end up with the "difficult middle act".

Personally I love Doom almost as much as Raiders. I also find it hilariously funny which I know most people don't. It's like a silent comedy. You could turn the sound off and still get nearly all the jokes. I dunno but Spielberg's slapstick has always worked for me, except perhaps for when he does it in an otherwise fairly serious film. Like Tom Cruise chasing after his bouncing eye balls in Minority Report, which is awesome but belongs in a different movie.

As for Raiders rip-offs, King Solomans Mines, yes, but Romancing no way. It was actually written before Raiders and probably rode its slipstream into production, but it's a very different and in my view greatly underrated film.

I keep meaning to re-vist Crystal Skull. I always thought at the time that it would work a lot better for me if I could just appreciate it on its own merits instead of comparing it to the previous films. But even at the time, my biggest issue was the CGI and the overly glossy A-movie look of the thing. The aliens and the fridge stuff didn't bother me that much. Aliens were a good idea but making them inter-dimensional aliens was probably too much (I believe it was Spielberg who pushed Lucas in this direction). And the fridge scene is actually another piece of inspired slapstick by Spielberg, but the effects are all wrong. Imagine the same scene with some restrained b-movie-ish effects from the '80s and it would have worked a lot better.

Tony EH · 24-03-2016 2:27am

Sad Professor wrote: »

Imagine the same scene with some restrained b-movie-ish effects from the '80s and it would have worked a lot better.

This sentence applies to about 80+% of CGI drenched films.

Ridley · 24-03-2016 3:09am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Most people (including Spielberg) seem to thing Temple of Doom was a miss, and Last Crusade was a hit.

I think everyone agrees the Crystal Skull was a miss, but Harrison Ford being too old was not the problem there - Lucas and Spielberg were the problem. Fridge nuking, interdimensional aliens, Mutt as a greaser, CGI gophers - this stuff is all the fault of Spielberg and Lucas.Per wikipedia: Screenwriters Jeb Stuart, Jeffrey Boam, Frank Darabont, and Jeff Nathanson wrote drafts before David Koepp's script satisfied the producers.That's the same Koepp Disney have announced for this one.Not getting my hopes up.

Supposedly Spielberg was happy with Darabont's screenplay but Lucas said no.

INDY
Willie Scott.

MARION
Yeah, her. Still in touch?

INDY
On and off. She moved out to
Hollywood to be a star. Last I heard,
she fell in love and married some
bigshot director.

py2006 · 29-03-2016 2:13pm

I watched the Last Crusade last night with the aul fella and we both thoroughly enjoyed it. He particularly thought Connery was great. He saw it with me back in the day but couldn't remember it.

It has some very funny moments and a great throwback action movie.

Mr Freeze · 29-03-2016 2:23pm

py2006 wrote: »

I watched the Last Crusade last night with the aul fella and we both thoroughly enjoyed it. He particularly thought Connery was great. He saw it with me back in the day but couldn't remember it.

I watched it again recently and its brilliant, its one of my favourite films ever.

BuilderPlumber · 18-12-2016 11:39pm

Someone said to me there is a new one coming out in 2018 or so. Hopefully this will happen as I enjoyed the others. I have yet to watch Crystal Skull though. Anyway, I think the first 3 were very good and Temple of Doom is probably my favorite. A quick review:

Raiders of the Lost Ark: of course this will be everyone's favorite and is the quintessential Indiana Jones film and the original. I love the film but prefer the first sequel but that does not take away from my love of this or the third one either. You have the right balance of action, humor, exotic locales and romance here and this was the first serious rival to James Bond in many many ways. The bad guys needed no introduction: greedy Nazis who met a violent end at the hands of god after trying to outwit Indy and his allies across the entire film.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom: Even better I feel. The plot combined Indiana Jones with that of a Mad Max classic or a classic Western like Shane or Magnificent Seven. Indy after escaping from bad guys in China and a plane crash ends up in a repressed Indian village impoverished by an ISIS-like cult. They practice voodooism and slavery and Indy is persuaded to help them and bring back treasures robbed from the village. Once the action starts, it is among the most exciting ever.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The third of the series is more like the first than the second. We get more evil Nazis and also some double crossing fellow archaeologists. The love interest this time is not like the ones in the first 2 and is actually an undercover Nazi. Her relationship with Indy is complex up until the end and she dies because of her greed.

Will get around to seeing The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull this Christmas as I will get the DVD. Some mixed views regarding it for sure but still rated highly enough to be decent. There are many decent Bond films rated lower so I am sure this 4th Indy adventure will be good. Maybe not the best of the series but a good entry nevertheless.

Osmosis Jones · 18-12-2016 11:50pm

Don't watch Crystal Skull, don't hope for a new one, don't choose poorly.

Mariomaker · 18-12-2016 11:52pm

Avoid Crystal Skull. They should dump Spielberg as director 2. The Franchise needs new blood. Crystal Skull ruined my Indiana Jones it was that bad.

Ardent · 19-12-2016 12:06am

Crystal Skull was beyond awful. When I think about it now I find it hard to believe it was actually released.

Avatar MIA · 19-12-2016 12:11am

Not sure what everyone is on about, there were only ever 3 Indiana Jones movies... and no amount of contradiction will make me change my mind.

*mutters* swinging through trees like tarzan ffs!

AMKC · 19-12-2016 12:13am

sugarman wrote: »

Its really not as bad as everyone makes out. Its an okay watch. Bad casting and a weak script is what kills it.

But its a bit like Star Wars and the prequels.

Agree I don,t think it was that bad and certainly not as bad as the Star Wars prequels. The acting them is terrible altogether.

Den14 · 19-12-2016 12:20am

There was little or no CGI in Indiana Jones movies until they made the Crystal Skull and it made it look shockingly bad and false. Killed the magic. One of the big ruinations of that film.

JoeA3 · 19-12-2016 10:33pm

Den14 wrote: »

There was little or no CGI in Indiana Jones movies until they made the Crystal Skull and it made it look shockingly bad and false. Killed the magic. One of the big ruinations of that film.

Temple of Doom had some horrendous cgi. The scene where they escape the doomed airplane in an inflatable boat springs to mind. Granted it's 30+ years old but still.

My favourite by far is the Last Crusade. Definitely the one I'd reach for first for a rewatch. The Crystal Skull was awful. I've only seen it once start to finish whereas I'm sure I've seen the other 3 countless times.

TinCool · 20-12-2016 10:19am

JoeA3 wrote: »

Temple of Doom had some horrendous cgi. The scene where they escape the doomed airplane in an inflatable boat springs to mind. Granted it's 30+ years old but still.

There was no cgi in Temple of Doom. They were either optical effects, blue/green screen or stop motion.

lawred2 · 20-12-2016 10:21am

I turned off crystal skull. Utter toss.

Aliens?

Ffs

lawred2 · 20-12-2016 10:24am

JoeA3 wrote: »

Den14 wrote: »

There was little or no CGI in Indiana Jones movies until they made the Crystal Skull and it made it look shockingly bad and false. Killed the magic. One of the big ruinations of that film.

Temple of Doom had some horrendous cgi. The scene where they escape the doomed airplane in an inflatable boat springs to mind. Granted it's 30+ years old but still.

You recognise that it was 30 years ago but still talk of CGI... Exactly what systems do you think were available for CGI in the mid eighties?

pumpkin4life · 20-12-2016 10:27am

Is there any other action movie out there as perfect as Raiders of the Lost Ark?

Like the other two films are superb and Crystal Skull is bum but Raiders?

Top five movie of all time for de pumpkin.

Sklarker · 20-12-2016 10:40am

Found a copy of Raiders last week on an old hard drive. Happy days. Great movie. Hadn't seen it in 10 years. Some dodgy CGI for sure but still great.

pumpkin4life · 20-12-2016 10:42am

:D:D:D:D:D

AOH77A · 20-12-2016 10:44am

Raiders is one of my favourite films ever, a classic. Loved Last Crusade also. Temple of Doom was my least favourite of the three films.

pixelburp · 20-12-2016 11:07am

I'd sooner watch Crystal Skull than Temple, and that's purely down to Kate Capshaw and Short Round. And maybe the slightly embarrassingly crass Indian stereotypes throughout.

The series should be laid to rest of course, Ford is too old and the role too iconic to have anyone else step into it, but while there's a fandom pining for the series, there'll be producers feeling they can monetise our nostalgia. Whether it's on TV or films we have followed Indy from child to OAP.

As for the black sheep of the family, Crystal Skull ain't great, but it's nowhere near as apocalyptic bad as the hyperbole on the internet would make it seem. There are some legitimately good set-pieces and moments in there, such as the Area 51 & University chases, and even some of the quieter character moments hit the right beats. It definitely has its problems both in script and casting there's no question there, but honestly the worst I can say about it is that it was a misjudged, lukewarm return of a franchise that didn't need a 4th film.

I mean sure, some people are going to just hate it and that's their prerogative of course, but it feels like South Park and the rule of memes legitimised making it an easy target for fanboy / internet overreaction, all because Spielberg had the temerity to make another Indy film that wasn't great.

Avatar MIA · 20-12-2016 11:33am

pixelburp wrote: »

I mean sure, some people are going to just hate it and that's their prerogative of course, but it feels like South Park and the rule of memes legitimised making it an easy target for fanboy / internet overreaction, all because Spielberg had the temerity to make another Indy film that wasn't great.

Nah, there's loads wrong with it. But, to regurgitate here would enable barely repressed flashbacks come back to mind.

kunst nugget · 20-12-2016 11:48am

pixelburp wrote: »

I mean sure, some people are going to just hate it and that's their prerogative of course, but it feels like South Park and the rule of memes legitimised making it an easy target for fanboy / internet overreaction, all because Spielberg had the temerity to make another Indy film that wasn't great.

It was absolutely woeful in every aspect. You mention set pieces being good but I can't remember any that didn't make me cringe for my younger self and his love of the series. And it felt like the script was a join the dots exercise between 'Hey, wouldn't it be cool if Indy did this next!' moments. And no, it wasn't cool having Indy escape a nuclear bomb blast in a fridge or having Indy meet aliens. I've always had a soft spot for Speilberg since my eighties youth but the direction in Crystal Skull was beyond poor. Awful, awful film…

FunLover18 · 20-12-2016 12:04pm

pumpkin4life wrote:

Is there any other action movie out there as perfect as Raiders of the Lost Ark?

Well, Die Hard is the definitive action movie. Raiders is more adventure for me but it's still wonderful, I'm not really arguing with you.

The problem with CS is that there's no memorable set piece for me, at least not in a good way. Raiders has that iconic Indy climbs under the truck scene, Temple has the cart chase & the fight with the big lad on the conveyor belt, and Raiders has the fight on the tank, all moments where you're rooting for the hero and in the most part were done for real with a stuntman or double. Crystal Skull has swinging monkeys and a swordfight on a truck which is ruined by terrible cgi and green screen.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 20-12-2016 1:34pm

Crystall Skull was good.

It was good fun and I liked all the jabs about Harrisons Fords age.

The

fridge scene

is hilarious.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 20-12-2016 1:35pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I'd sooner watch Crystal Skull than Temple, and that's purely down to Kate Capshaw and Short Round. And maybe the slightly embarrassingly crass Indian stereotypes throughout.

The series should be laid to rest of course, Ford is too old and the role too iconic to have anyone else step into it, but while there's a fandom pining for the series, there'll be producers feeling they can monetise our nostalgia. Whether it's on TV or films we have followed Indy from child to OAP.

As for the black sheep of the family, Crystal Skull ain't great, but it's nowhere near as apocalyptic bad as the hyperbole on the internet would make it seem. There are some legitimately good set-pieces and moments in there, such as the Area 51 & University chases, and even some of the quieter character moments hit the right beats. It definitely has its problems both in script and casting there's no question there, but honestly the worst I can say about it is that it was a misjudged, lukewarm return of a franchise that didn't need a 4th film.

I mean sure, some people are going to just hate it and that's their prerogative of course, but it feels like South Park and the rule of memes legitimised making it an easy target for fanboy / internet overreaction, all because Spielberg had the temerity to make another Indy film that wasn't great.

Based on Jurassic World (which is the only thing I've seen him in) Chris Pratt would be perfect for it.

Joeface · 20-12-2016 1:45pm

Harrison ford would probably have to Die before the recast Dr Jones , Nathan Fillion was the fan favorite for this before Crystal Skull and could probably still do it , Does the whole confused look very well

Didn't like Crystal Skull but didn't hate it . It was hard to top the set pieces from the originals they were just right amount of Saturday Matinee about them

lawred2 · 20-12-2016 2:28pm

A Christmas just isn't complete with Indiana Jones

Joeface · 20-12-2016 3:35pm

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

Couldn't resist

MfMan · 20-12-2016 3:36pm

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Is there any other action movie out there as perfect as Raiders of the Lost Ark?

Like the other two films are superb and Crystal Skull is bum but Raiders?

Top five movie of all time for de pumpkin.

As iconic as Indiana Jones is, 'Raiders' was the only really very good one of the series, the rest for my money are exponentially inferior. As someone said, Kate 'constantly screaming' Capshaw and token cute kid nearly sank 'Temple', not even Roshan Seth could redeem them. The interplay between Ford and Connery was lively in 'Crusade' and Julian Glover is always worth a look but the plot was nearly throwaway, Denholm Elliot's character changed from gravitas in 'Raiders' to stupidly comedic and there's a massive onscreen vacuum whenever our Alison appears. As for the other one...

Ryaller · 20-12-2016 7:13pm

pixelburp wrote: »

As for the black sheep of the family, Crystal Skull ain't great, but it's nowhere near as apocalyptic bad as the hyperbole on the internet would make it seem. There are some legitimately good set-pieces and moments in there, such as the Area 51 & University chases, and even some of the quieter character moments hit the right beats. It definitely has its problems both in script and casting there's no question there, but honestly the worst I can say about it is that it was a misjudged, lukewarm return of a franchise that didn't need a 4th film.

I mean sure, some people are going to just hate it and that's their prerogative of course, but it feels like South Park and the rule of memes legitimised making it an easy target for fanboy / internet overreaction, all because Spielberg had the temerity to make another Indy film that wasn't great.

Well said.

JoeA3 · 20-12-2016 11:52pm

lawred2 wrote: »

You recognise that it was 30 years ago but still talk of CGI... Exactly what systems do you think were available for CGI in the mid eighties?

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.

BuilderPlumber · 22-12-2016 12:35am

Interesting views here. Catching up on them there seems to be mixed views on Crystal Skull. Will give it a go as I will have all 4 DVDs. I had the the three originals on VHS and thought it was time to get the DVDs. Reacting to some of the themes:

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. With regard to the aliens theme in it, I would have no problem. Indiana Jones has always been about the supernatural and forces from beyond our world. I briefly saw the end of it one year and that's all I ever saw of it. The end was clearly based on Raiders and Last Crusade.

Temple of Doom: I think it is a great film. I agree that Short Round does not add much and the woman is a bit too snobby but these are only minor faults. There is great action and the film is not just a remake of Raiders either. Raiders and Crusade are more similar but both are excellent too.

Action, thriller, adventure?: I have heard the series called all of these. I think that the series is all of these and does all of these well. While they are not comedy films, they can use comedy elements well too. While they are not strictly pure science fiction films, elements of this are key to the plot in all of them.

Series revivals: Hard to know when a series needs or suffers from one or more sequels too many. Some film series have gained a new sequel and it turned out the right move. Mad Max Fury Road is an example. Other film series go up and down and reinvent themselves. Bond is an example and every decade has given us at least 1 classic universally praised Bond film. For me I feel there is massive scope to make numerous Indy films as well. You could have him looking for lost treasures in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Pacific, Papua New Guinea, Greece, Rome, etc. and bring him to places like France, the UK, etc. too.

The one issue of course is who plays Indy. So far it has always been Harrison Ford and he has become so linked with the character that the two are synonymous. Age ruled Roger Moore out of doing Bond by the mid 1980s and age was also a factor why Mel Gibson did not return as Mad Max. I have a feeling that Crystal Skull may be the A View To A Kill of the Indy films: hated by many but actually quite good. That's how I feel about Roger Moore's last Bond film. Harrison's portrayal of an older Indy will be key.

So far, the series has not been rebooted. It could be tempting for someone to reboot it and set it in the current times. Would that ruin it is the other question? Unlike say Bond, which was never set in any given era per se, the 1930s settings of the original series and the Nazi villains were part and parcel of what we came to expect.

Christmas with Indiana Jones: I agree that these films along with Bond films are as much part and parcel of Christmas as turkey, cake and wine are. Growing up, I remember often looking forward to watching them for the first time. The premier of them was always a big event.

Jan_de_Bakker · 22-12-2016 11:43am

+1 on Crystal Skull ... it is a terrible terrible movie, mixes two genres that should just never be mixed.

The cinema near me is showing the Indiana Jones Trilogy over Christmas

He is showing them on separate days and then one marathon session of 3 on new years day.

http://www.phenomena-experience.com/evento/727/.html

Love the way he snubs Crystal Skull ..

kunst nugget · 22-12-2016 11:47am

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 · 22-12-2016 11:53am

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 · 22-12-2016 11:57am

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 · 22-12-2016 11:58am

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 · 22-12-2016 3:29pm

"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 · 22-12-2016 4:24pm

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 · 22-12-2016 4:47pm

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 · 22-12-2016 5:06pm

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 · 23-12-2016 3:40am

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 · 23-12-2016 9:32am

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?

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

Comments