INDIANA JONES & THE DIAL OF DESTINY To Rival "John Carter" As Disney's Biggest Bomb

[Monterey Jack]

A gut busting 154 MINUTES, just what a film like this doesn't need.

Don't worry, the last 12 minutes will be the end credits...!

[AndyDursin]

They need to credit the 5000 VFX artists who contributed to this film.

It's kind of like GHOSTBUSTERS AFTERLIFE running 130 minutes. There's just no need. This isn't a "deep franchise with heavy lore" invested in it even like STAR WARS. A 2.5 hour INDIANA JONES movie doesn't need to exist.

[Monterey Jack]

It's kind of like GHOSTBUSTERS AFTERLIFE running 130 minutes. There's just no need. This isn't a "deep franchise with heavy lore" invested in it even like STAR WARS. A 2.5 hour INDIANA JONES movie doesn't need to exist.

Half the reason why Raiders had a sub-two hour running time was that Spielberg was coming off the bloated, runaway production of 1941, and he had to prove (to Hollywood in general and to himself in particular) that he could bring a movie in on time and under budget and cut it to the bone while still deliver a satisfying adventure. Even the longest of his Indy films, Last Crusade, came in at a relatively brisk 126 minutes. Crystal Skull was four minutes shorter than that. These days, when a studio's sunk $250 million into a movie (not counting marketing costs!), they feel they "need to get their money's worth", and since most contemporary franchise movies have a surplus of action and a minimum of connective tissue (you know, disposable things like characterization and plot), they don't want to have blown millions on an action sequence that has to be excised (let alone trimmed to a reasonable length), so they keep every scrap of footage in. Oftentimes, even the theatrical versions of current movies feel like those overlong, ramshackle "director's cuts" that studios assembled for DVD in the early 2000s. The first four Fast & Furious movies ran under 110 minutes, Fast X will have a 141-minute runtime (all the better to fit in every member of Vin's "Faaaaaaaaaaaaaam'ly", of course! ). It's numbing, like a buffet table where you're forced to go back for seconds, thirds, fourths, even if you're completely full.

[AndyDursin]

At this point, and I was watching Doomcock's Wednesday night live show for a few minutes, I'd again expect this movie to be "presentable" in a way it wasn't before. My guess is they changed the ending, and I mean, they've spent SO MUCH on it and delayed it so long, I can't imagine it will be as horrific as it was in the early test screenings. They've felt the pressure and seen the bad scores, so clearly adjustments were made. And at the same time, you know it will still suck in a way most modern corporate studio movies do.

Doomcock was mentioning the process of this movie's production, which was not at all like Spielberg -- it was shot in fragments with "open story components" that could be massaged in post-production. This is how Fiege's Marvel movies are all made, so they can be adjusted editorially and "constructed" by a team to suit "whatever works."

That's a far cry from the usual process of a writer or director sitting down and hammering out a vision. There's none of that at play here, or in most Marvel/Disney films for that matter. It's a committee of people -- a committee of writers, and presumably the director, producer, Kathleen Kennedy, and other executives -- all making value judgments, which is why so much of what we see today is so bland, anonymous, and interchangeable.

This one will be yet another log to toss onto the fire, sadly, and it will very likely make CRYSTAL SKULL look good -- even if we may well celebrate a win by not having Fleabag take over the franchise at the end after all.

[Monterey Jack]

Doomcock was mentioning the process of this movie's production, which was not at all like Spielberg -- it was shot in fragments with "open story components" that could be massaged in post-production. This is how Fiege's Marvel movies are all made, so they can be adjusted editorially and "constructed" by a team to suit "whatever works."

This is also half the reason why movies like this are so expensive these days...wasting money shooting virtually every scene with optional "branching points", like an old Choose Your Own Adventure book. If they just committed to one well-thought-out screenplay, they wouldn't have to constantly "massage" them in post. It's like when Bryan SInger shot an entire opening sequence for Superman Returns, with Superman visiting the remains of the planet Krypton. Whole sequence was thrown out after all the F/X had been completed. Total cost? ELEVEN MILLION, down the drain.

[AndyDursin]

Cannes reactions are out -- mostly mixed/positive, no raves (obviously), all mentioning how "absurd" the "final reel" is in terms of story (time travel moved to the end?).

Other reports are...less than enthusiastic.

‘Indiana Jones 5’ Gets Lukewarm Five-Minute Cannes Ovation as Harrison Ford Says an Emotional Goodbye

The film’s elaborate action scenes and witty one-liners delivered by Phoebe Waller-Bridge mostly received a muted response inside the theater. During parts of the 142-minute film, audience members could be heard whispering out of boredom in French.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/indi ... 235615678/

[AndyDursin]

All out pan from Indiewire...

Not only is “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” an almost complete waste of time, it’s also a belabored reminder that some relics are better left where and when they belong. If only any previous entries in this series had taken great pains to point that out.

"Yesterday belongs to us,” someone says at one point, and when it comes to Indiana Jones, yesterday always will. The problem is that it already did, and today feels like a complete waste of time.

[AndyDursin]

Thumbs down from Owen Gleiberman in Variety.

[Monterey Jack]

It's becoming more and more obvious as we come up to the release date that the only good thing that came out of the plot leaks that forced Disney to delay the movie by a year and recut it so zealously will (hopefully) be that Indy at least doesn't die at the end and get erased from existence so Fleabag can steal his hat.

[mkaroly]

I will say it makes at least $600 million...just shooting in the dark there.

[AndyDursin]

I have to confess this entire approach to premiering this film -- given its troubled history -- doesn't seem to make a lot of obvious sense.

Why the Cannes premiere? Why let all the bad reviews seep out when the movie doesn't open for another 6 weeks? And if Indy DOES die, why do they want that to leak ahead of the film?

But whether he lives or dies, the movie clearly isn't any good, so you have to ask: does Iger really want to get rid of Kennedy, and is doing this, and kind of going, "here you go, let's let everyone see the dud that you've made" part of his plan?

The traditional business approach to a piece of cinematic trash is to HIDE IT. Dont let the critics at it. Build up the hype so at least you get the fans out on opening weekend and generate that revenue -- before it dies and word of mouth gets to it.

That's not what they're doing...and it doesn't make a lot of sense...unless there's some other reason why they've premiered the movie in this manner.

Here's another OUTRIGHT pan -- this one from the Hollywood Reporter. So many bad reviews from Disney-friendly critics who usually vote YAY on every Marvel movie released is a bad, bad sign...

Part of what dims the enjoyment of this concluding chapter is just how glaringly fake so much of it looks...any adrenaline rush that extended set-piece might have generated is killed by the ugly distraction of some truly terrible CG backgrounds. The foundations of this series are in Spielberg’s overgrown-kid playfulness with practical effects. The more the films have come to rely on a digital paintbrush, the less hair-raising their adventures have become.

This is a big, bombastic movie that goes through the motions but never finds much joy in the process, despite John Williams’ hard-working score continuously pushing our nostalgia buttons and trying to convince us we’re on a wild ride. Indy ignores the inevitable jokes about his age and proves he can still handle himself in a tight spot. But Ford often seems disengaged, as if he’s weighing up whether this will restore the tarnished luster to his iconic action hero or reveal that he’s past his expiration date. Both the actor and the audience get a raw deal with this empty exercise in brand redemption.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 235495914/

[AndyDursin]

Here's another scathing (2/5) review, this one from the BBC, talking about how "depressing" the final act is.

Like another of Ford's so-called "legacy sequels", Star Wars: The Force Awakens, this one brings back old characters (John Rhys-Davies's Sallah has a pointless cameo), introduces new ones who are strangely similar to the old characters (Ethann Isidore plays a substandard copy of Short Round from Temple of Doom), and has the air of a film passing the torch (or whip) to the next generation. But it does all this in an even gloomier fashion than The Force Awakens did. I'm not sure how many fans want to see Indiana Jones as a broken, helpless old man who cowers in the corner while his patronising goddaughter takes the lead, but that's what we're given, and it's as bleak as it sounds.

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/202 ... -final-act

[Paul MacLean]

1975 to around 1991 was the golden age of "popcorn" movies.

Spielberg and Lucas touched it off, and people like Scott, Meyer, Dante, Zemeckis, Cameron, et al soon followed suit.

Their movies were influenced by classic movie serials, TV shows and old-fashioned Hollywood tropes -- but they repurposed them in a new way. And while these were mostly "escapist movies" -- they usually had a moral, and they had heart, and something to say about courage, loyalty and heroism. They featured characters we all wanted to be like.

Today we're getting glorified fan fiction -- with nothing fresh or original (much less inspiring). Instead we get to watch Han Solo, Luke Skywalker and James Bond die, and Indiana Jones grow feeble -- all while being scolded by young (and homely) female characters who call out the "heroes" for their sexism, racism, apathy, ignorance, etc.

[Monterey Jack]

Today we're getting endless remakes and sequels to those classics -- but there is nothing fresh or original (much less inspiring) about them. Instead we get to watch Han Solo and Luke Skywalker die, and Indiana Jones grow feeble -- all while being scolded by young (and homely) female characters who call them out for their sexism, racism, apathy, etc.

This is why I don't understand the appeal of "legacy sequels"...who wants to see their childhood heroes (or crushes) as doddering old men and women? Especially when they're paired with younger replacements who spend all their time chastising them for the (perceived) evils of the past and pointing out how old they are? It's a shocking lack of respect for the past, which studios keep strip-mining for cheap profits while totally misunderstanding why we liked these characters in the first place. Who want to see James Bond have a thousand bombs dropped on his head as he gives up his life because he can't be with the daughter he's known has existed for...two days? Who wants to see Luke Skywalker as an embittered old hermit who turned his back on his friends and responsibilities? Who wants to see Indiana Jones as a feeble old man berated by his progressive goddaughter? It's like going to an old age home, pointing at your grandparents, and giving them hell. It's depressing.

[Eric Paddon]

Honestly, I'm reaching a point where I'd like to revisit "Star Wars" and pretend that there were no sequels afterwards. No "I am your Father!". No, "Leia is my sister!" I miss the innocence of the original story when everything afterwards was a blank canvas.

These "legacy sequels" are nothing more than big budget versions of "Jaws: The Revenge" when you get down to it. Remember they wanted to get Scheider to do a cameo where he'd be eaten by the shark in the opening minutes and think of how THAT would have sullied our memories of the first film.