Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny | June 30 2023 | Very mixed reviews out of Cannes

[Hatebox]

1 minute ago, Jayhawk the Hutt said:

I am a defender of it. Think the action scenes (especially the opening) are pretty great. There are plenty of annoying bits, it's definitely too reliant on CGI, the last 20 minutes is mediocre, and it is thin in its characterization, though I don't think Spielberg really is all that interested in going deep on Indiana Jones (I think Dial of Destiny will be, for better or worse).

The opening half hour or so is solid. It falls apart when him and mutt are exploring the ruins and never really recovers. I remember liking the punch-up by the ants and that’s about it.
 

Totally agree that this movie ‘going deeper’ into Indy’s character would be walking on thin ice. It didn’t work for Craig’s bond and I’m not convinced it’d be a good idea here. 

[Jayhawk the Hutt]

4 minutes ago, Hatebox said:

The opening half hour or so is solid. It falls apart when him and mutt are exploring the ruins and never really recovers. I remember liking the punch-up by the ants and that’s about it.
 

Totally agree that this movie ‘going deeper’ into Indy’s character would be walking on thin ice. It didn’t work for Craig’s bond and I’m not convinced it’d be a good idea here. 

On and off it did. Casino Royale is one of my favorites ever.

 

For Indy, I don't mind it. I really mean for better or worse. The movie is clearly going to be more reliant on a more emotional journey for Indy (which I think was well executed with Last Crusade with the daddy issues though that wasn't particularly deep). It just relies on the execution. I'm not expecting a masterpiece but Mangold can direct a really solid picture.

[Hatebox]

2 minutes ago, Jayhawk the Hutt said:

On and off it did. Casino Royale is one of my favorites ever.

Oh CR’s great, but it’s great because the character work is really finely tuned and actually rather sparse in the scheme of things. Then the producers leaned into it hard and (skyfall excepted) we got serialisation - anathema to bond. 
 

But anyway, this isn’t the bond thread and whatever else I’ve said about this movie I’ve always championed mangold’s talent so I really do expect a better than average blockbuster. Just please have gone easy on the green screen.

[TheDude391]

Clip looks bad but I'm not raising the alarm bells, it's 1 minute out of context in a 2.5 hour movie. I'm amazed HOW much discourse it caused on social media. 

[Cmasterclay]

I liked Crystal Skull pretty well until the internet told me not to  I can't let my mask of hip irony slip!

[ThomasNicole]

1 hour ago, TheDude391 said:

Clip looks bad but I'm not raising the alarm bells, it's 1 minute out of context in a 2.5 hour movie. I'm amazed HOW much discourse it caused on social media. 

Agreed, i’ve started the discussion exactly because i was shocked at how aggressive the discourse is. 
 

I also think the video doesn’t look that great but It’s so obviously heavily edited to be posted online that i was surprised seeing so many people that works with Cinema having a meltdown over it (along with the alt-right weirdos).

[Reddroast]

2 hours ago, Eric Toretto said:

I dread the day when The Emoji Movie becomes this "unfairly maligned classic" from people who watched the movie when they were 7. People need to acknowledge that just because you liked something as a kid doesn't mean you still have to like it.

Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

[MovieMan89]

Nuking the fridge, Shia swinging with monkeys and horrific CGI, Cate Blanchett thinking she’s time travelled into an Ed Wood movie or something, and Karen Allen’s over-excited, shoehorned feeling role are all that stands out about CS to me. 

[Eric Furiosa]

 

[Jonwo]

Is Paramount licensing it to Disney+ or is it a shared agreement like with Avatar: The Way of Water on both Disney+ and Max?

[Ryan Reynolds]

33 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

Is Paramount licensing it to Disney+ or is it a shared agreement like with Avatar: The Way of Water on both Disney+ and Max?

I'm sure it's Paramount licensing,  maybe a complete boxset in exchange 

[Firepower]

Honestly, before watching the actual film, the only problem I have with it is Tobey Jones' and Phoebe Waller-Bridge's characters. I have nothing against those actors obviously and I think they'll do a good job, but when you create new close friends and relatives, that were never ever shown or mentioned before, in the fifth film, it might be ok for Fast & Furious where it's a meme at this point, but it's not ok when you are doing something that's supposed to be good, it's is one of those popular bad storytelling choices and it's baffling to see filmmaker like Mangold using it (buy hey, even Cameron himself just used it). Mangold could just make Phoebe Brody's daughter as she was rumored initially and it would make sense more or less, and she looks like Brody's daughter, but when you also create a new best friend who "was always there, just never shown or mentioned", it's just utter nonsense.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Firepower

[baumer]

Well I might be the biggest Indiana Jones Looney at this site or maybe even in the world LOL so probably no surprise when I say that I saw Crystal skull six times at the theater and I really enjoyed it. It's not on the level of the first three but I can still watch all four of them again and still enjoy them. There's no movie I'm looking forward to more this summer than this one.

[Porthos]

 

Young Indy ALSO coming to D+!!!

[dudalb]

15 hours ago, Firepower said:

I mean they decided to hate the movie before it even started principal photography.

And you have always seen some of that on this forum.

[dudalb]

4 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

Nuking the fridge, Shia swinging with monkeys and horrific CGI, Cate Blanchett thinking she’s time travelled into an Ed Wood movie or something, and Karen Allen’s over-excited, shoehorned feeling role are all that stands out about CS to me. 

Really was disspaointed in "Crytal Skull"I rewatched it a year ago and found it no better.

The Hoohaa over the clip is ridiculous, though I am not sure it's politically motivated.

ANywas one person here called Phobe Bridge Waller "some British Chick". I shake my head in sadness.

[Plain Old Tele]

33 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

Young Indy ALSO coming to D+!!!

Can’t wait for a new generation to discover that series.  

[dudalb]

1 minute ago, Plain Old Tele said:

Can’t wait for a new generation to discover that series.  

I loved the idea behind Young Indy Jones....use Indy to get people interested in history,....but was not that well executed.

Some of the bits were clerver...like Indy running into the young George Patton in Mexico but could not save the show.

[George Parr]

8 hours ago, Firepower said:

Honestly, before watching the actual film, the only problem I have with it is Tobey Jones' and Phoebe Waller-Bridge's characters. I have nothing against those actors obviously and I think they'll do a good job, but when you create new close friends and relatives, that were never ever shown or mentioned before, in the fifth film, it might be ok for Fast & Furious where it's a meme at this point, but it's not ok when you are doing something that's supposed to be good, it's is one of those popular bad storytelling choices and it's baffling to see filmmaker like Mangold using it (buy hey, even Cameron himself just used it). Mangold could just make Phoebe Brody's daughter as she was rumored initially and it would make sense more or less, and she looks like Brody's daughter, but when you also create a new best friend who "was always there, just never shown or mentioned", it's just utter nonsense.

Don't see much of a problem with it. Sure, in theory you could just namedrop people in movies just for future reference, in case you need someone who sounds familiar once you connect that name to an actual role, but that is more something you can do in tv-shows, not so much in movies.

 

There are also other factors involved. For one, we don't know yet how long the two know each other. Three out of four Indy movies played prior to WW2. If they got to know each other during the war, then he obviously couldn't appear in those. Then you have to add location. If the character is British, he wouldn't have much of a reason to appear in any of the movies, seeing how Indy never is in Britain or its vicinity in any of them. Short Round is in a movie connected to Asia, Sallah in movies connected to the Middle East / North Africa, neither appears when the movie is happening elsewhere. That is perfectly normal. It would in fact be rather odd if these people always showed up no matter where the action happens.

 

The concept can feel odd if just dropped into an ongoing timeline. But here we have a large gap between the first three and the fourth movie, we have sonmeone from a place that has yet to be visited in the movies, and we don't even know his exact fate, so he may very well have been dead by the time he could have appeared (say, for Indy's wedding). This gives more than enough time and space to add such a character. Doesn't necessarily mean that it will work, but it could very well fit if done right.

[Firepower]

4 hours ago, George Parr said:

Don't see much of a problem with it. Sure, in theory you could just namedrop people in movies just for future reference, in case you need someone who sounds familiar once you connect that name to an actual role, but that is more something you can do in tv-shows, not so much in movies.

 

There are also other factors involved. For one, we don't know yet how long the two know each other. Three out of four Indy movies played prior to WW2. If they got to know each other during the war, then he obviously couldn't appear in those. Then you have to add location. If the character is British, he wouldn't have much of a reason to appear in any of the movies, seeing how Indy never is in Britain or its vicinity in any of them. Short Round is in a movie connected to Asia, Sallah in movies connected to the Middle East / North Africa, neither appears when the movie is happening elsewhere. That is perfectly normal. It would in fact be rather odd if these people always showed up no matter where the action happens.

 

The concept can feel odd if just dropped into an ongoing timeline. But here we have a large gap between the first three and the fourth movie, we have sonmeone from a place that has yet to be visited in the movies, and we don't even know his exact fate, so he may very well have been dead by the time he could have appeared (say, for Indy's wedding). This gives more than enough time and space to add such a character. Doesn't necessarily mean that it will work, but it could very well fit if done right.

Maybe it'll work somehow, but I just think it's usually in poor taste when you do that in the fifth+ film and know characters very well at this point. For example, in Aliens Ripley having a daughter makes perfect sense because it was just second film and we didn't know much, if anything, about her, so character who works as a "space trucker" and on a long trip away from home very likely has family which is waiting for her on Earth, so it doesn't contradict anything and adds to the character. Here I just think it's too late to introduce new best friends "who were always there, just never shown" and goddaughters who didn't even come to Indy's wedding, but "were always there", I guess...

Edited May 17, 2023 by Firepower