Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (June 30th, 2023)

snoop101 said:

Adventure has a name

Click to expand...

snoop101 said:

Adventure has a name

Click to expand...

MeatHookGekko said:

(Standard Disclaimer - I'll post some spoiler free thoughts, mostly to indicate whether the film is IMHO worth a trip to the theater or not, then I'll exit the thread overall so I don't accidently let something loose, etc, etc. For the record, I'm not someone who can be considered a hard core Indy fan. I do have great affection for ROTLA and TLC, but I'm not a die hard. )

Here are my thoughts on IJ-DOD

1) There are two ways to look at this film. As a pure "Indy" film and as a film if it was entirely separate from the Indy legacy and franchise. Do I believe this is a good Indiana Jones film? No. Do I believe this would have better received as an action/adventure film outside the franchise and without Ford/Indy? Yes. This is a passable action/adventure film but that gets lost in the weeds under the high expectations of a much beloved IP.

2) I've always considered Harrison Ford as a more than competent "movie star" but not a particularly great actor. I've also believed he's spent the past 15-20 years just basically mailing it in. Ford should be certified by USPS, DHL, UPS and FedEx after this film, because the guy managed to, unsurprisingly, mail it in again. No matter what Ford says in his interviews or how choked up he gets when a camera is panning to him, on screen, he clearly did not want to be there. Watching Ford chew scenery while everyone around him is actually trying their best is like watching Carmelo Anthony feign playing basketball defense. I'm surprised the film didn't open with Ford in a tomb full of packing peanuts and bubble wrap. If he doesn't care, why should the audience? It's a more than fair question. Be aware that Kathleen Kennedy is not going to actually answer that question for you.

3) Mangold does a more than competent job with the script he's given. The problem is the script he's given. Since it's not a great script, there's not much room to develop the Indy character any further, the age problem creates all kinds of practical roadblocks and since Ford clearly is in irritated porn star mode ( i.e. "Hurry up and spray it on my face, I want to go shopping" ) , the film is paced up. It moves from set piece action sequence to set piece action sequence. The answer to being devoid of real emotional weight was just to spend more money and up the action. Mangold did the best he could with this given the constraints he was under. There are some jarring moments when the film shifts from more practical effects to what is clearly heavy SFX/CGI. The latter moments are often immersion breaking. It's at these points where it's clear no director period could have had a ton of potential impact. This is the bane of films that don't use it's extensive CGI/SFX to enhance a strong narrative. You can't outspend a limited script into something more. But Kathleen Kennedy certainly tried.

4) Big believer that in every heavily invested film that misfires is a great film hidden inside of it somewhere. Had this just been a film built around Mads Mikkelson and Phoebe Waller-Bridge with most of the core premise, then I could see it being a pretty good film. Not an epic timeless one like ROTLA, but more than respectable to give audiences a good time. Mikkelson is phenomenal. I don't think much of the early criticism of PWB is quite fair. She's IMHO a true talent. Unlike a lot of woke forcefed inserts for ESG elsewhere, PWB actually has a quite respectable resume under her belt. Whether she's a good fit for this franchise is another issue altogether though. This is her film more than the title character. And, yes, there are some "woke" elements in this film that instantly break immersion. Let that sink in a little.

An observation I've made about productions where Kennedy has her hands in the cookie jar, there is usually an "avatar" character. For example, Hermoine Granger was an avatar of JK Rowling in Harry Potter. Dr. Bailey was an avatar of Shonda Rhimes in Greys Anatomy. Ken Cosgrove was likely the avatar of Matthew Weiner in Mad Men. It's usually a self insert character that carries the real life "voice" of the show runner or lead writer. It's pretty obvious that Rey from Star Wars was a Kennedy avatar and it's not a huge stretch to say PWB's character operates the same here. Usually avatar characters are easy to spot because they generally are not very flawed and their exposition often works like a lecture. With Bailey in Greys, the narrative framework there can actually support it and it works, here though, not so much.

From the industry side, I've been told by more than one person that Mikkelson was stealing so many scenes, that Kennedy wanted his role "adjusted" to not steal the spotlight from PWB. This is obviously not PWB's fault.

5) The film is disjointed. Clearly to try to fit in new scenes and different plot points while trying to churn in large scale changes. In effect, there are elements of two totally different movies here. Mangold made the right decision with the situation, since nothing could fix the tonal shifts that don't line up, so he hit the gas pedal. Given some things I've seen additionally that would venture too far into spoiler territory, IMHO the best play would have been to just split this into two different films. You wouldn't get two good films out of it, but you'd avoid many of the self inflicted problems of Kennedy's human centipede pet project.

6) There is fan service/nostalgia but it's relied on to carry a film pretty empty of true emotional weight. I think fan service is great. But it's like putting ketchup on your french fries. You can't eat a bowl of ketchup. No one wants to eat a whole bowl of ketchup with four french fries at the bottom. How should a hard core Indy fan approach this? IMHO, consider the series closed with Last Crusade. Then see KOTCS and DOD as a kind of superpowered big budget fan fiction with some interesting action sequences.

7) What would have saved so many legacy franchises is if Kathleen Kennedy just made a big budget film about.... Kathleen Kennedy. Instead of gutting beloved IPs to make them as proxies for stories about Kathleen Kennedy. Got it all out of her system with one huge budget bomb, i.e. her own personal Heavens Gate, and then just left Star Wars and Indy alone. It's more than evident at this point she only wants films to be made under her banner for a pure audience of one. That statement, IMHO, encapsulates the total betrayal of actual fans. For loving what they love. For good memories from their childhood. It's tantamount to car jacking a bunch of nuns for their minivan then immediately setting the minivan on fire. Not because it's exciting to see something burn for sport. But because it's a chance to drink someone's tears.

8 ) I've seen enough of Phoebe Waller-Bridge with Fleabag and Killing Eve to see she's a legit talent. In context that she didn't write this script and she was anchored down by whatever David Koepp threw against a wall, she really does her best here given the situation. There are rumors milling about that she cleaned up some of The Banshees of Inisherin. Can't say for certain but it's entirely plausible. A fair argument could be made that Kennedy should have just let PWB write this film entirely on her own. I'd categorize this as a generally good performer but not a great fit for specifically this situation.

MHG Rating - Not worth seeing in theaters. Save your money and eat a big bowl of ketchup instead. I'm not sure there is going to be a ton of difference between the two at this point. Again, it's not a good Indiana Jones film, but it's an entirely passable "check the boxes" action adventure film based on how much money the studio dumped into it. Everyone here should pitch in and let's get Harrison Ford a vintage Carmelo Anthony jersey for Xmas.

Click to expand...

GhostBeard said:

I'm kind of seeing a new trend in a few articles about this flick, seemingly being recycled by various sites, that goes something along the lines of, 'Indy 5 getting horrible early reviews, and why that's a good thing!"

Click to expand...

GhostBeard said:

'Indy 5 getting horrible early reviews, and why that's a good thing!"

Click to expand...

Wor-Gar said:

Well, it does bring down expectations so the natural reaction to the movie is: that wasn't so bad. I suppose that's the best we can hope for with this.

Click to expand...

Wor-Gar said:

True, I can't tell you how many movies I enjoyed because of bad reviews or low expectations.

It is my last hope for enjoying this movie more than its predecessor.

Click to expand...

Khev said:

a human cartoon.

Click to expand...

Wor-Gar said:

Just as with practical FX, there's great digital: T-1000, T-rex, Davy Jones, etc...

And there's bad digital: SE Jabba (all), most modern shark movies, multi-Smiths, right up to rubbery Batman bouncing off high-speed traffic...

Click to expand...