Re: Indiana Jones mega thread

264
merged all the Indy threads I could find into one mega thread.

We decided to re-watch all the Indy films as prep for watching the new one at some point. This weekend, we watched the first two.

Raiders Of The Lost Ark - hadn't watched this in quite a while. it's way more horrific than i remembered. meaning, there are a ton of horror elements here, and an incredible amount of violence. all of that is great. but, the one thing that really jumped out at me that i didn't remember is that there are also a ton of really goofy things in this film. part 2 always gets a lot of shit for having lots of goofy things, but i don't know that there are fewer goofy things in this film, which again, wasn't in my head for this film. i'm not complaining, i love the film, just pointing it out as something i hadn't recalled. also, some straight up animal murder here. they go out of their way to make us love the monkey, how cute he is, how smart he is, only to just murder him as a plot point that ultimately changes nothing (but does set up a great joke for part 2). then later, and i only know this due to watching it with subtitles on, apparently the nazi chase car runs over a dog. in the scene where indy races the truck into the town straight into a false storefront/garage, the chase car shows up and circles the fountain, doesn't see them, stops for a minute before taking off. when they take off, the subtitles read something like "Dog yelps". if you didn't have the subtitles on, you would assume it was the wheels screeching (which doesn't make a lot of sense, given the sand roads), but nope, off screen dog death. also, and i feel like this is an artifact of the 4k remastering (watched via Disney+), Indy's gun sounds like a fucking cannon. it has so much low end it's ridiculous. it's a goddamn revolver lol. and the foley work for all the fights is over the top. just little things i don't remember noticing or that weren't carved into my head from all the times i've seen this. really, just kind of makes it more effective.

Temple Of Doom - the entire opening set piece is really telling the viewer that this is not the same movie as the original. in this one, it's literally "anything goes", as it becomes way more bonkers and over the top. kind of a brilliant and subversive way to start the film, in retrospect. again, watching this immediately after the first film, one thing i noticed is that willie isn't really any more annoying than marion in the original, but boy does she get a lot of shit from "fans". i have always loved this film, as over the top as it is, probably because of as over the top as it is. it was the right choice for a follow-up film, as i'm not sure how you top the original so soon after it. speaking of which, the timeline of the films is really weird and something i had never noticed all the times i've watched these over the years, this film takes place the year BEFORE the original film (this is 1935, OG is 1936), which means this is technically a prequel. given that, i wonder what happened to short round in that year that makes him no longer part of indy's life? not to mention willie. so, i know for most people this is the low point of the original trilogy, which i get, but that is still a pretty high bar. i'm not sure i could argue with that, but i haven't yet watched part 3 again yet. i'm assuming the standard order is 1, 3, 2. again, i get that. what i don't get is the hate for this film. i think it's dark and fun, and kind of a perfect adventure film.

Re: Indiana Jones mega thread

265
My main issue with Temple of Doom is it's less of Indy being an archaeologist and using his knowledge to solve a mystery and find the artifacts and more just a lot of action pieces strung together. That said, the film has grown on me a little bit over the years. It's still not one I watch as much as the first one, but I can appreciate for what it is. It's kind of like the Godfather 3. On it's own it's not a bad film. But when you look at it next to Godfather and Godfather 2, one of these things is not like the other. There's no comparison.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Indiana Jones mega thread

266
Well... I did call it. How come Disney aren't paying me the big bucks?

MI7 on the other hand is going to succeed for doing precisely what this film should have done. Lots of real, nail-biting stunts. CGI is part of the mix, yes, but it never overwhelms. Keep the focus on the star actor everyone loves. Doesn't attempt to be sentimental or nostalgic, just sticks to the formula and gets on with it, bigger and better than before.

Re: Indiana Jones mega thread

267
To be fair, Harrison Ford has about 20 years on Tom Cruise and probably isn't going to be running around doing any stunts anymore. Though of course stuntmen exist. I don't know if you can have 80 year old Indy being bigger and better than before. This is one of those franchises so tied to a single person that they probably should have just kept it in mothballs. Or gamble on re-casting.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Indiana Jones mega thread

268
klimov wrote: 05/07/23, 23:46:33 Well... I did call it. How come Disney aren't paying me the big bucks?

MI7 on the other hand is going to succeed for doing precisely what this film should have done. Lots of real, nail-biting stunts. CGI is part of the mix, yes, but it never overwhelms. Keep the focus on the star actor everyone loves. Doesn't attempt to be sentimental or nostalgic, just sticks to the formula and gets on with it, bigger and better than before.
Have you seen Dial of Destiny?

Re: Indiana Jones mega thread

269
From financial POV it makes sense to give the franchise a jump start. The original films are all over streaming now, this keeps it alive for a younger audience. It'll be a good day for Disney+ when the new film lands. Physical media and ancillary will add to the tally come Christmas. But yes, with an 80-year-old lead it was always going to be hard to match the intensity of the originals. You're also dealing with the fallout from the Godawful previous film (Solo had the same problem). And that's before one even gets into the questionable creative choices.

With all this in mind, perhaps the biggest mistake was the budget. If they could've knocked out something (anything) in the $100m range this would've achieved the same ends and maybe recouped its cost. Just cut the CG dept - that's always the answer to everything. And get Short Round back for fucks sake.

Re: Indiana Jones mega thread

270
klimov wrote: 06/07/23, 22:55:21 From financial POV it makes sense to give the franchise a jump start. The original films are all over streaming now, this keeps it alive for a younger audience. It'll be a good day for Disney+ when the new film lands. Physical media and ancillary will add to the tally come Christmas. But yes, with an 80-year-old lead it was always going to be hard to match the intensity of the originals. You're also dealing with the fallout from the Godawful previous film (Solo had the same problem). And that's before one even gets into the questionable creative choices.

With all this in mind, perhaps the biggest mistake was the budget. If they could've knocked out something (anything) in the $100m range this would've achieved the same ends and maybe recouped its cost. Just cut the CG dept - that's always the answer to everything. And get Short Round back for fucks sake.
Totally. Have you seen Dial of Destiny?

Also, I don’t know what you’re talking about with Solo, since it came out after the far-and-away best SW film of the sequel trilogy (at minimum, which we discussed at length here, so if you want to get into that argument again, do so there), so not sure which “godawful previous film” you mean there.

Re: Indiana Jones mega thread

271
Whatever the merits of the film itself, Disney was sending very mixed messages at that point. They released a film (The Last Jedi) that was all about saying fuck you to your nostalgia and it's time to move on. Then followed it up with Solo, a film that relies almost entirely on nostalgia (member the Kessel Run!). Audiences were told we're leaving nostalgia behind, then Disney tried to put out a film contrary to that.

Getting back to Indy, which I'm going to finally try to see this weekend before it most likely leaves theaters, apparently there was a script that Spielberg had approved with more Marion in it and more focused on Indy. Then the powers that be were like, naw, we're not doing that. Again, I haven't seen it yet, but so far it sounds like a muddled mess.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Indiana Jones mega thread

272
Last film I saw in the cinema was Call of the Wild, so there'd be a certain poetry to making this my first film back. But I know it's going to bad, so no. I'll wait for Disney+.

Oppenheimer 70mm on IMAX is tempting, but I'm really not a Nolan fan + that would mean a trip to London, so probably not that either.
Last edited by TC on 08/07/23, 07:05:52, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Moved How Do You Live content to its own thread

Re: Indiana Jones mega thread

273
klimov wrote: 08/07/23, 01:43:17 Last film I saw in the cinema was Call of the Wild, so there'd be a certain poetry to making this my first film back. But I know it's going to bad, so no. I'll wait for Disney+.
My point is, it’s pretty weird to have so many opinions about a film you haven’t seen, especially as a filmmaker.

Re: Indiana Jones mega thread

275
continuing the Indy binge...

Last Crusade - it had been a while since I saw this, so coming into it with relatively fresh eyes, with the perspective of having very recently watched the first two. this is a much tighter film all around - the writing, the story, the pacing, the multiple layers merging, etc. it has a ton of nods to the first two (and star wars, frankly) but they aren't wink-at-the-camera in your face. upon originally seeing this in the theater on first run, it was my least favorite of the original trilogy. however, this time, it feels like a much more evolved and complete film. i don't have any big care about the religious aspect of it, but really, religion was the driver of the first two, so why not this one? years ago i'd say my ranking was 2-1-3, but now on this viewing, i'd say it's probably 3-2-1. but they are all very close. it's a shame River died, as they could have continued Indy with him and i think he probably would have been great. that opening sequence is fantastic.

Crystal Skull - hadn't seen this since the original theatrical run but decided to put myself through it again in the spirit of the exercise. went back and re-read what i said originally and really agree with that still. it's the first half of the film that kills it for me. so many ridiculous and inexplicable decisions and plot points that make no sense and/or were completely unnecessary. the second half is actually pretty good - meaning, everything after the waterfalls. it's an Indy film. well, the whole film feels like some poor video game sequel to the OG Indy films, where there's some loose, tenuous connection done by clearly not Hollywood writers. that hokey wedding at the end is terrible, and thank the film gods that Shia didn't get to pick up the mantle for this. blowing the hat to his feet, having him pick it up, etc - just ugh. awful. outside of that very end and the first half or so of this film, it's not bad. but man, the things that are bad are just bad.

now i wait for Dial to hit streaming and see where that ranks. can't be worse than 4.

Re: Indiana Jones mega thread

276
I finally saw Dial of Destiny. It wasn't totally awful, but it wasn't great either. I think maybe it's better than Crystal Skull, but I need to watch that one again to be sure. Lots of issues though. The cgi. Dear god there's too much cgi. I miss stunt people and practical effects. Just look at the train sequence at the start of this film and the start of Last Crusade and the difference is easily apparent. The underwater cgi stuff was so dark you couldn't make anything out. And someone really loved the fog effect in whatever software they used. I suspect that was to help cover up the obvious cgi. Another issue I had was that about half way through the film Indy kind of became a side character in his own film. It turned into the PWB film. I don't hate her as much as some, but she's certainly not a likeable character, nor did she really have much of a arc where she redeemed herself in the end. I guess we're supposed to think she did by arranging the "reunion," but nothing make me believe she didn't leave and go back to stealing shit. For that matter, Indy didn't really have much of an arc either in the end. I guess we're supposed to think he got his mojo back or something, but I certainly didn't that by the end, nor was the afore mentioned reunion earned by any growth of the character. And while we're on the subject of the ending, the climax really wasn't one. I feel like the ending was a victim of reshoots and they really never figured out how to tie up the story.
I'll probably never watch this again, and it certainly wasn't a satisfying ending to the series like Last Crusade was. Or even Crystal Skull for that matter. They probably should have just left it alone.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Indiana Jones mega thread

278
I didn’t ask why you hadn’t seen it yet, I asked if you had seen it yet, since you seem to have opinions about it. I think if there’s one thing we movie lovers have learned by now, it’s that trailers are not a good way to judge a film. Maybe see it before you opine about quality.

Sucks to hear that, Mike. I’ll see it when it hits streaming, but your review confirms my suspicions from the trailers. Kind of a bummer. At least Ford is still putting out good work, like in Shrinking.

Re: Indiana Jones mega thread

280
darkness wrote: 21/07/23, 20:26:59 I finally saw Dial of Destiny. It wasn't totally awful, but it wasn't great either. I think maybe it's better than Crystal Skull, but I need to watch that one again to be sure. Lots of issues though. The cgi. Dear god there's too much cgi. I miss stunt people and practical effects. Just look at the train sequence at the start of this film and the start of Last Crusade and the difference is easily apparent. The underwater cgi stuff was so dark you couldn't make anything out. And someone really loved the fog effect in whatever software they used. I suspect that was to help cover up the obvious cgi. Another issue I had was that about half way through the film Indy kind of became a side character in his own film. It turned into the PWB film. I don't hate her as much as some, but she's certainly not a likeable character, nor did she really have much of a arc where she redeemed herself in the end. I guess we're supposed to think she did by arranging the "reunion," but nothing make me believe she didn't leave and go back to stealing shit. For that matter, Indy didn't really have much of an arc either in the end. I guess we're supposed to think he got his mojo back or something, but I certainly didn't that by the end, nor was the afore mentioned reunion earned by any growth of the character. And while we're on the subject of the ending, the climax really wasn't one. I feel like the ending was a victim of reshoots and they really never figured out how to tie up the story.
I'll probably never watch this again, and it certainly wasn't a satisfying ending to the series like Last Crusade was. Or even Crystal Skull for that matter. They probably should have just left it alone.
came here to type an opinion, but it matches up with yours entirely. couldn't say it better. the only thing i'll add - after watching this, i ran through all of the first season of 1923 (which i'll discuss in the appropriate thread) and have come to the conclusion that at this stage in his life, ford just isn't a great actor. i think he could be, but really just doesn't seem to care or want to be in any of the things he's been in. the only reason it works in Shrinking is because that is the character. he just seems to meander around in whatever thing he's in and phone in another thing, doing the minimum required to get the paycheck. i really don't think he cares. then i'll watch an interview (one of the ones where he actually gives answers) and he does seem to love the theory of the craft. he knows his shit and understands chops. so i do feel like saying he doesn't care probably isn't accurate. but that then leads me back to he just may not be able to execute the way he wants (or thinks he is) any more, because whatever is on screen certainly gives the impression that he is bored and couldn't give a single fuck.

so yeah, i'm in the same boat as you - i'm not sure if this is better than Crystal Skull, and i very recently watched that one. i think so? but something in me is saying that's probably not accurate. the thing this has going for it is mads. he's so fucking good, even though he's a cartoon villain in this film, that he gives weight immediately to every scene he's in.

i'll also say that the de-aging of ford in this is probably the best i've seen so far, although still a bit uncanny valley / video game-y in parts. not enough that i really minded it, but it seems to me that it's a bit of lazy writing to rely on. feels like you could have written this in a way that didn't require a younger ford. but i guess that's what the last couple films have done, so it's part of the formula and they had to do it. which is the thought process that's really the core problem with this film.