› ›

Indiana Jones

1…154155157159160…200

Comments

  • PDJamesBondPDJamesBond
    Posts: 669
    shimplyshocking007 wrote: »
    First thing I'd do is get rid of Ray Winstone.

    I have to agree. I LOVE Ray Winstone as an actor (he seems like a really cool person too) but Mac is not a necessary sidekick in a movie where Indy already ends up with two other sidekicks - Marion and Mutt.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 16,534
    shimplyshocking007 wrote: »
    First thing I'd do is get rid of Ray Winstone.

    It's definitely got too many people in it. I think I'd be tempted to ditch Oxley as we don't know him and he barely does anything. Better just to make it clear from the beginning that it's Marion and she's missing.
    I think Mac actually has some potential, but they do fumble his story. There's a story I heard, which may be erroneous, that Winstone turned it down because he thought the script was too poor, but they took that as a salary negotiation tactic and kept making him better offers until he couldn't say no :D
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,062
    shimplyshocking007 wrote: »
    First thing I'd do is get rid of Ray Winstone.

    I like Ray Winstone. But I think his role needed some re-writing badly.
  • shimplyshocking007shimplyshocking007
    Posts: 127
    Yes, more the way the character is written than the actor. His use of "Jonesy" is particularly grating.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,534
    I'm so glad that the trailers for Dial of Destiny feature a little montage of characters shouting 'Indy!' - the way that almost every character in the last film called him something other than Indy really annoyed me.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,062
    shimplyshocking007 wrote: »
    Yes, more the way the character is written than the actor. His use of "Jonesy" is particularly grating.
    You're right. But it is designed to make him appear repulsive.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,194
    Cutting out Mac cleans up a whole lot. I’d keep Indy and Mutt, with Marion and Oxley serving as support much like the way Brody and Sallah did in THE LAST CRUSADE.

    Instead of Spalko trailing Indy via homing devices left by Mac, she actually uses her psychic powers to sense their location. It’s odd that they introduced her supposedly having ESP, but don’t really do much with it beyond h that bit where she tries and fails to read Jones. Doesn’t mean she can’t pick up any other character.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,157
    5kwpvy8l0dxb.gif

    As much as I like Ray Winstone, I'd get rid of Mac. Way too much with the 'JONESY!'
    It's Indy, Dr. Jones, or Indiana Jones. Not Henry, not Junior and certainly not Jonesy.
  • shimplyshocking007shimplyshocking007
    Posts: 127
    Spalko had a lot of wasted potential. Does anyone think another actress could have done any better with the final script?
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,157
    shimplyshocking007 wrote: »
    Spalko had a lot of wasted potential. Does anyone think another actress could have done any better with the final script?

    I honestly don't think anyone could've done anything more with that role that Cate Blanchett didn't do.
    Who would you have in mind?
  • shimplyshocking007shimplyshocking007
    Posts: 127
    I think you're right, it's the script not the actress at the end of the day.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,194
    I thought Blanchett gave a lot more character to the part than the script actually offers. The only weak link in the cast when it comes to the acting department is Karen Allen, who by that point was taken out of retirement to reprise her role and it shows.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,062
    I agree. No hard feelings for Karen Allen, though. Someone thought they were doing her a favour, and maybe they didn't. She was great in ROTLA.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,534
    I tend to think Spalko is actually one of the best Indy villains to date; maybe second only to Belloq. Not sure she does much wrong.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,194
    I like her over Donovan, who’s kind of bland but that’s not Julian Glover’s fault as he was better as Kristatos.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,534
    Yeah he’s not hugely memorable. And Mola Ram is effectively scary, but he’s also barely in TOD, so isn’t exactly three-dimensional.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,194
    Given the kind of film TOD is I think that’s okay that Mola Ram isn’t three dimensional. He’s a voodoo cult leader, there’s nothing nuanced there.
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 218
    Get a lot of voodoo in India.
    Well… there were probably a few video cards in the nineties, but apart from that…
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,534
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Given the kind of film TOD is I think that’s okay that Mola Ram isn’t three dimensional. He’s a voodoo cult leader, there’s nothing nuanced there.

    Yeah; it’s not a criticism- I love ToD.
  • UnivexUnivex
    edited June 2023 Posts: 6,709
    Not bad. Not brilliant. But not bad. Chris knows his stuff.

    So it's meh and entertaining. Just like today's cinema overall. A product of our times. But better than KOTCS, and that was what I wanted.

  • AstonLotusAstonLotus
    edited June 2023 Posts: 1,394
    For the sake of balance here are two reviews from critics I respect,Dan Murrel and Chris Gore.One slightly positive,one EXTREMELY negative

    N.B- There is a spoiler section in the Chris Gore one but he gives fair warning before he gets there to give u time to click out.



  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,157
    X_X
    Predictable.
    I-)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    But @AstonLotus — who cares what anyone says? I haven’t watched the above videos, but I’m assuming they haven’t seen the film.

    And even if they had, why’d you keep posting these things? Is it to make a point that “Hollyweird” has destroyed another franchise by going “woke”? Why don’t you relax on trying to change opinions of this film before any of us have had a chance to see it?

    Just watch the bloody film and form your own opinion. And respect the opinions of others when they may not be the same as yours, jeeeeeeez…
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,229
    I listened to both of the videos posted and did my best to engage with Chris Gore's review, but when they came in with "the studio hates Indiana Jones as a character" crap about two minutes in, I found it difficult to take it seriously beyond that. As a statement, it literally makes no sense and is quite indicative of the mindset he evidently had going into it.

    Helena might be a great character or she may be awful, but I'll wait and see how it goes down for me in a fortnight's time.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    I listened to both of the videos posted and did my best to engage with Chris Gore's review, but when they came in with "the studio hates Indiana Jones as a character" crap about two minutes in, I found it difficult to take it seriously beyond that. As a statement, it literally makes no sense and is quite indicative of the mindset he evidently had going into it.

    Helena might be a great character or she may be awful, but I'll wait and see how it goes down for me in a fortnight's time.

    Bang-on @CraigMooreOHMSS … What a strange thing to say: a studio “hates” the IP or the character that they’ve sunk millions into during preproduction; hundreds of milllions in production and post and PA….. any film of this size is a two to three year project (if not longer), but, yeah, the studio “hates” this character.

    We’ve heard the same thing with Bond.

    Just angry fanboys who aren’t getting exactly what they want; they allow themselves to get enraged about the smallest things….

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 16,534
    I’m feeling a bit more positive about this film now that more ‘normal folk’ reviews have been coming out: most of them I’ve seen said it’s very enjoyable, with a few qualifications. And those qualifications make them seem less hysterical and more balanced: I think it’s looking like it’s going to be a fun film, handles the emotional bits well, better than the last one, not as good as the first three, maybe a bit long. I can deal with that.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,988
    The ONLY opinion that matters, is that of Critical Doggo. I am fighting the urge to reach out and give doggo tummy rubs.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,157
    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.
  • fadetoblack7fadetoblack7 Chicago IL
    Posts: 60
    Stuckmann is who I trust the most on the internet when it comes to film, so I’m more hopeful now!
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    edited June 2023 Posts: 9,062
    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.

    I'd even be happy if it is only as good as KOTCS. Though I'm still hoping it will be even better.

    I'll know in thirteen days at this time of day.
Sign In or Register to comment.