Indiana Jones

1155156158160161201

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Benny wrote: »
    I'm not too concerned about the movie as a whole. Reviews, opinions, critics. It's all hogwash.
    If DoD is better than Kotcs then I'll be more than happy.

    That's all I can ask for. If it's better than KOTCS, I'll consider it a success. Mangold's a great director so I hope he can deliver.
  • I view skull as being a bit like die another day. I like the first half and then the second half is just so, so disappointing.
  • Can't wait. The proper film mags like Empire and Total Film are giving it 4/5 and better than KOTCS. I listen to their opinions rather than you tube amateurs.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 488
    Both mainstream film mags and YouTubers ultimately say what they think their audience wants to hear, preferably within the confines of reality.
    Film mags cater to an older crowd who has followed Indy's adventures since the eighties and wants some degree of positivity. Of course, they'll say that it's a pleasing conclusion to the adventures of one of the greatest characters in all movie history, as nobody in their right mind would claim that it's the best episode since Raiders.
    YouTubers rely more on outrage, real or feigned, and some of them are definitely feeding an agenda that fits their values or appeals to people who now have an angry take on popular culture. But, frankly, when some guy makes a 8 minutes negative analysis to a 2 minutes trailer, even if the trailer is densely packed, I would never trust that guy. Save your analysis for when you have actually seen the stuff that matters, aka the film.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,083
    Just today, I spent quite some time reading old movie reviews by Hellmuth Karasek, the main movie and theatre critic of Der Spiegel for about 40 years (he died in 2015). I was surprised to notice that he even tore ROTL apart but became more friendly to the sequels. His Bond reviews were also quite mixed. I remembered from the 80s that he preferred NSNA to OP, but then, so did I, and do still. On the other hand, he did show a certain affinity to the Bond movies, while blasting some individual ones. Quite interesting in hindsight.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,413

    :))
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    A couple of quick snatches of the score in this, which sounds wonderful:


  • edited June 2023 Posts: 364
    I'll mention the morbidly obese elephant in the room. It's so fat hardly any can get in and out of the room...

    Harrison Ford is far too old to be playing Indiana Jones.

    That's not a cheap ageist comment. It's painfully obvious he's miscast due to getting old.

    Put it another way...

    Do you think any cinema goers saw Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, and as they left the cinema they said "that was a cool film. I can't wait to see a 80 year old Indiana Jones!"

    No. Anyone that enjoyed the original trilogy never said "oooh, let's have more Indiana Jones films when he's very old and grumpy!"

    Likewise, no James Bond fan ever watched Dr.No and said "be cool to see a 80 year old Bond."

    Disney/Lucasfilm are selling the public a bogus product. The whole point of Indiana Jones is he's a man in his physical prime finding lost treasure and defeating the bad guys. George Lucas didn't create a hero to reach eighty years of age. Unfortunately, Hollywood always chases the dollar so they couldn't leave the franchise alone. They has to jump-start it again in 2008 with the much disliked Kingdom of thr Crystal Skull,and now, in 2023 it's even more creaky and ready for retirement.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,477
    On one hand @bondywondy I find this elephant to be somewhat ageist. Too often stars are thrown in the scrap heap when they reach a certain age. The actor might be talented and still able to act but because of their age they are now only suitable for the "grumpy old" parts. The comedic sidekick to the young hero but not the main character.

    However, you have hit on something that all movies face. The act of taking an audience out of the story. We will know that Harrison is not doing all the stunts and we will have to suspend our disbelief. If the story is engrossing and the action believable then this becomes an easier task. On my first watch of SF I was so caught up in the story Silva's breakout was not questioned, however on subsequent views I started to see how non-sensical it was. However if our hero is riding a horse into a subway and that hero is clearly a stunt person, then we are taken out of the action in the moment.

    People are critical of Waller-Bridge being in the movie, but a younger sidekick was always going to be needed for this movie to help bring some reality to the action situations. Much like Mutt was supposed to be that guy for the last movie. However people don't come to watch the sidekick swing from vines, they come to see Indy do it. It will be fascinating to see how this movie pulls off the young side kick. All reviews I have seen say that her role is underdeveloped and changes within the movie itself. Much like Mutt it seems that people are resentful of Ford sharing the stage.

    As you have stated Hollywood is a business and while it has a creative side to it, the big studios are really only concerned with making money. It is up to the talent to make a story that is engaging, interesting and worthy of investment. In this case the studio is clearly pushing the chips in on a last adventure. They are milking the cow and we can debate whether the cow is dead. Will the milk taste sweet and be plentiful? Or will it be curdled and a trickle? Time shall tell, early signs are somewhere in between.

    I say lets ride with Indy one last time. Or at least the Indy played by Ford. Because at some point a studio head will say "you know we could recast the role and have another actor play the part". When that day comes a new discussion will arise, but for now lets watch our fedora wearing hero get the send-off he deserves!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    I think Ford is such a huge talent that I'd probably watch him in anything, and it already looks like he's great value in this again. Even the poor reviews say he's fantastic in it. I find it quite surprising in fact that his age actually hasn't been a subject of much conversation around this film: I think everyone's just accepted it and moved on.

    Which isn't to say that it's not compromised by it. I think, when you think of sequels, it's interesting to think whether they're a strong enough idea to have been commissioned if the previous film didn't exist, and certainly the idea of a film about an adventuring archaeologist in his 70s in NYC in 1969, who used to hunt after treasures and fight Nazis in the 40s, and goes on one last big hunt for treasure... well it does sound a bit messy and not exactly the clean concept of Raiders. But, I don't think it sounds intrinsically bad either, and there's scope for an interesting story and themes. Fingers crossed.

    I managed to get a DoD poster from the cinema last night, and it's a thing of beauty. With this and new Williams score, that's almost reason enough for this film to exist anyway, so I'm already up on the deal.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Harrison Ford is Indy. He's the reason I care about the character and the series
  • Posts: 3,278
    bondywondy wrote: »
    It's painfully obvious he's miscast due to getting old.
    So you have seen the movie and know its themes and Indy's relevancy?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 16,602
  • TheSkyfallen06TheSkyfallen06 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    Posts: 1,127

    This belongs in a museum!
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,169
    mtm wrote: »

    This film looks great. Can't wait to see it.
    Thanks for sharing @mtm you're the best.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,917
    To be fair I don't think Harrison Ford is playing an 80-year-old in this film.

  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    edited June 2023 Posts: 7,057
    To be fair I don't think Harrison Ford is playing an 80-year-old in this film.

    He is not. If I remember correctly, Indiana Jones was born in 1899. Therefore, he is 69 or 70 in this film.
  • Posts: 16,223
    mtm wrote: »

    I'm loving this movie more and more and I haven't seen it yet.
  • Posts: 3,278
    New positive review (7/10). It "feels more like a James Bond sequel":
    https://www.blu-ray.com/Indiana-Jones-and-the-Dial-of-Destiny/574252/#Review
  • Posts: 1,499
    Benny wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    This film looks great. Can't wait to see it.
    Thanks for sharing @mtm you're the best.

    Looking good to me.
  • Posts: 6,710
    Oh boy...

  • Posts: 9,858
    Yikez
  • Posts: 669
    At the moment, DoD is certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, for those who care about such things:

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indiana_jones_and_the_dial_of_destiny
  • edited June 2023 Posts: 6,710
    Oh boy...again



    The things these guys are saying...well, they resonate with me. I'll form my own opinion, but these don't bode well for the film.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    Lovely studio version of Helena's Theme by John Williams:

    https://open.spotify.com/track/48HExDxaVyZ3CEaZslrg9g?si=0d3c7e4dfd2c46d2
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,477
    I am really wondering if the re-shoots or re-edits screwed up a better film? Seems like Waller-Bridge's character is a sore spot, not for how it is played but written. I wonder if down the road we get a directors cut of this film to fill in some of gaps in character. I was especially hurt to hear that they had something with the two characters and they just leave it unexplored. From what I know of the director I can't see this type of "hole" or lost opportunity being something he is responsible for.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 488
    A friend of mine saw it at the Cannes premiere. He's definitely not one to be negative because it's Disney, but he hated what he saw. He found it pointless, without personality, trying to be one more Indiana Jones movie without really acknowledging the passing of time (beyond pasting Ford's face onto some stuntman), basically as if they were making a new generic James Bond movie starring Roger Moore at 78, a ton of body doubles, a couple of jokes about aging, and that's it.
    He shared this a month ago, but I didn't want to ruin the mood here before people have a chance to see it soon, and, of course, I'll see it anyway on Wednesday, when it's released in France.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    thedove wrote: »
    I am really wondering if the re-shoots or re-edits screwed up a better film? Seems like Waller-Bridge's character is a sore spot, not for how it is played but written. I wonder if down the road we get a directors cut of this film to fill in some of gaps in character. I was especially hurt to hear that they had something with the two characters and they just leave it unexplored. From what I know of the director I can't see this type of "hole" or lost opportunity being something he is responsible for.

    There weren't any reshoots, the stories about those are bogus. I'm sure they edited the film but there's been no sign that it changed significantly in that process.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    mtm wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    I am really wondering if the re-shoots or re-edits screwed up a better film? Seems like Waller-Bridge's character is a sore spot, not for how it is played but written. I wonder if down the road we get a directors cut of this film to fill in some of gaps in character. I was especially hurt to hear that they had something with the two characters and they just leave it unexplored. From what I know of the director I can't see this type of "hole" or lost opportunity being something he is responsible for.

    There weren't any reshoots, the stories about those are bogus. I'm sure they edited the film but there's been no sign that it changed significantly in that process.

    I scoffed at the ideas of reshoots and defended what Mangold was saying that there were none; but recent quotes from Ford , one’s that he is on video saying, is causing me doubt. I do think there were reshoots; to what extent I don’t know.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215
    Reshoots or additional shooting is typical of Hollywood productions, and is usually done hand in hand with the desire to improve on what they’ve seen in the rough cut. This has been a thing with LucasFilm even way before Disney bought it. However, it’s definitely taken a more negative connotation in light of things like JUSTICE LEAGUE and SOLO. The Hollywood fat cats nefariously taking away a director’s vision to supplant it with someone else’s.

    I’m not sure that’s the case with Indy, but we won’t know until things come out years later. More importantly, most of us haven’t seen the film ourselves to form our own opinions. There’s a danger to having your opinion made up by others before having seen it, so you go into a viewing with the movie already viewing things from a perspective.
Sign In or Register to comment.