Don't worry, the last 12 minutes will be the end credits...!AndyDursin wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 9:05 am A gut busting 154 MINUTES, just what a film like this doesn't need.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Don't worry, the last 12 minutes will be the end credits...!AndyDursin wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 9:05 am A gut busting 154 MINUTES, just what a film like this doesn't need.
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.AndyDursin wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 11:18 am 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.
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.AndyDursin wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 12:01 pm
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."
‘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.
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.
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.bbc.com/culture/article/202 ... -final-actLike 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.
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.Paul MacLean wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 5:16 pm 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.