Fool me three times (Dial of Destiny), shame on everyone
Despite the poem, I'm afraid I'll be seeing this, as the goodwill that has accrued through four-plus (!) decades is too much to overcome my better senses...
I can sense a similar, almost unavoidable nostalgic pull of this movie from Keith's review here. We're all gonna watch this, aren't we? And afterwards, like a slight hangover, we may feel tired and ashamed, too.
But damn it...the whip. The fedora. The Nazi punching. Sign me up.
There lesson to be learned in Indy's origin story, and it one Hollywood seem hellbent on ignoring.
Spielberg wanted to direct James Bond movie, and Eon not would hire American director. Lucas wanted to make Flash Gordon movie, but he not could get rights to character. So they made their own thing. They used basic framework of globetrotting adventurer who always in over his head and always comes out on top; and space adventurer involved in some sort of war among stars, and made something new.
And more times dead horse of franchise is dragged out for one more beating, more me wish someone would learn lesson of original Indy, which is, MAKE NEW THING. Take thing that we loved, and make own version of it. (That what Stranger Things is, and that why we love it.) Maybe Helena Shaw and MacGuffin of Death will be that thing. But me would rather someone look at why we love Indy — charming, indefatigable hero, clever script, relentless pacing, grounding in real history — and use that to tell story about someone who not necessarily professor of archaeology.
Me guess me not can begrudge Mangold wanting to take shot at franchise and Ford wanting to play character (which he seem to enjoy much more than Han Solo) one more time. But me not can bring myself to be that interested. Me might just go fire up Last Crusade one more time.
I'd say Tomb Raider and Uncharted have had great success riffing on the Indy formula. Of course, both of them have made mostly lousy movies while Indiana Jones has had mostly lousy games (Fate of Atlantis excepted, of course).
The problem here is of course the massive budget expected of modern blockbusters which requires a massive brand, either from a franchise or director... so basically only Christopher Nolan or James Cameron could decide to make something original in this space.
That fair point, but me would counter with this — only Spielberg could have gotten Raiders made, and it had budget of $20m. On Golden Pond, made same year, had budget of $15m. Pennies From Heaven was $22m. It not was big-budget film.
So that real problem. We need to be able to make mid-budget action movies again, although me suspect those would just go straight to streaming.
Those budget numbers are fascinating to me. I'm assuming On Golden Pond spent $5 million apiece on each of its three actors and then $0 on anything else.
I'd say there are two more contenders for the same treasure-hunting adventure space, a little less like Indy on the surface, but scratching some of the same itch. Dan Brown's "The Davinci Code" and its various sequels seem to have a similar "let's solve puzzles of the ancient world" vibe, and the National Treasure movies seem like someone said, "Is there a way we can remake The DaVinci Code without making the Pope mad?"
This whole thing seems like a losing proposition for Mangold. He’s a talented and capable guy, but if I were him I think I’d rather spend 300 million dollars for people to never, ever compare me to Spielberg.
Somehow, amazingly, there isn’t even consensus that Last Crusade is worthy of the trilogy. How was Mangold ever going to fit in?
I think there's been a pendulum swing recently, with more people coming to bat for Doom and dismissing Crusade as a fluffy Raiders retread. I'm not one of those people, but they're out there.
Pure lunacy! I read whatever Slate think piece about how Temple of Doom *really holds up, man* and rewatched it for the first time since I was a kid. It really, really doesn't.
It's not even dumb and fun- it's just dumb. And however racist you remember it being, it is 10x more racist than that. Watch the opening number and then turn it off!
Oh, I misrepresented myself here--I actually prefer Doom to Crusade, I just don’t think Crusade is worthy of dismissal. But yeah, the troubling parts of Doom are very troubling, and I don’t fault anyone for rushing to the exits.
But if you’re willing to wade through all of its, er...issues, I think there’s some thrilling invention on display, and some of the best action filmmaking in Spielberg’s career.
See, as an Indy fan since childhood, my dad didn't own TOD on VHS because of how dark it was; I rewatched it earlier this year to celebrate Ke Huy Quan's Oscar win, and while it is dark and racist, that opening sequence and everything from the human sacrifice afterwards are some of the best setpieces in the series
God help me, I agree with them. Tom Stoppard wrote the damn thing! The dialogue sparkles. Ford and Connery have off the charts chemistry, passing the ball back and forth, taking turns being the clown.
I've listened to a few interviews with Mangold and can't begrudge him this. Like a lot of people in that age range, he wanted to make movies because those early Spielbergs and Lucases gave him the spark. He's finally gotten to where he can take on one of the actual franchises, if only for one trip. And he's proven himself for having a way with IP that's been around the block a few times. It still tickles me to no end remembering seeing HEAVY in the mid-90s and being pretty sure he made it for an audience of me and now he's taken on some of the biggest franchises around. I'm happy for him, though yes I would love to see him take on other things too.
I certainly didn’t want to disparage Mangold, I like him and thought he was an interesting choice, as far as it goes. The reviews have been respectful enough and if it hadn’t cost 300 million dollars it might have been somewhat of a box office winner too. All in all, hardly a black eye and quite a display of chutzpah.
And I don’t mean to disparage you for anything. I have a ton of respect for Mangold and look forward to what he does next. I think maybe his approach was less “I’m gonna get compared to Spielberg” and more “I can surely do better than Crystal Skull” (which, honestly, if CS had been Darabont’s script directed by either of them DIAL probably wouldn’t exist). And since we’re at it: the titles of these things have been a lesson in diminishing returns. If I controlled the universe there wouldn’t be anything beyond the first three (maybe nothing beyond the first one so y’all should never give me control of the universe). But since we’re in one I don’t control and Harrison Ford is still mostly mobile, a fifth was probably inevitable and if I’m being honest I’d rather have Mangold directing than Steve at this stage in the timeline.
I actually hadn’t considered that. Our man Steve won’t be around forever, and if Indy 5 was going to get made I’m glad he participated in a strictly advisory capacity. Mangold cleared the Crystal Skull bar and who knows, maybe he’ll combine the novelistic auteur he started off as with his mega budget studio profile and give us something absolutely brilliant and new the next time out.
I was planning to see this in the theater regardless of reviews, but this eases me into it with the right expectations. I never thought it would be a disaster. Mangold has chops. Though one of the greatest filmmakers ever made Crystal Skull, so there's never any promises. This one probably hits me at the right point to make it appointment viewing. The original trilogy took me from the start of high school to the end of college. I wasn't the biggest fan of Crusade so was happy to see a fourth one. (I didn't stay happy.) This one comes as those days recede further and further and as my aging self recedes as well. For good and bad, this final date is mandatory.
"Though the John Williams score is as good as his past Indy work." High praise indeed.
A globe-trotting adventure franchise starring Waller-Bridge is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
Before Crystal Skull, Temple of Doom was the red-headed stepchild of the franchise. I think almost everyone considers Crystal to be the worst now. At least it sounds like this one will not replace Crystal in the basement, for which I'm grateful. And if the ending is divisive, that actually means the filmmaker attempted to do something somewhat daring...maybe?
I enjoyed DOOM at the time while recognizing that it wasn’t on par with the original. With CRUSADE, I was annoyed with Jeffery Boam’s edict that the third entry in a series has to be a parody. I hated Marcus being such a dolt. (I was even more pedantic in my younger years.) I would now certainly swap their positions on the list. I haven’t had the urge to revisit SKULL, though I know it has its defenders. In any case, the new one is on par to be higher on the list than lower, sight unseen. Though if you could merge the opening of DOOM with the Connery of CRUSADE it would be tops. Well, second at least.
It's funny what time does to one's assessment of a movie. As much as I love the first one, it's the third one I think about the most, and the one I enjoy the most on a re-watch. Maybe it's all the religious/crusade-era stuff that I find so attractive...or maybe it's Sean Connery. Certainly the third one is the funniest.
Are those first three movies, put together, maybe the strongest trio of a franchise? Better than Star Wars IV/V/VI for sure in my book, and Star Trek I-III.
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, the new PLANET OF THE APES, and TOY STORY all have solid trios in them. TERMINATOR has a solid 2 out of three. But it’s hard to top the fun and energy of those first Indys.
The greatest trio in any franchise are the three acts of JAWS. :)
Just got back after seeing it with the fam. Drags a bit, but they enjoyed it. Keith hit it; it’s a greatest hits tour, for sure. Not terrible, but still can’t believe that cost $295M to make
Just saw it and was pleasantly surprised by it. The last act is probably the most entertaingly batshit of the entire series, and it ends on a nice note. Still, really could've used Steve's direction
Just came back from watching and agree mostly with Keith’s take... thought Waller-Bridge brought a fresh spirit and the action sequences were fun with whiffs of the old Indy. That said, watching a senior Indy in these sequences only made me long for the original trilogy movies. I do hope Disney and Lucasfilm put Indiana Jones away for good.
I’ll go out on a batshit limb and say I loved this film. So what if it plays like the greatest hits? So what if Spielberg could have directed the action better? So what if it’s only the fourth-best film in the series? Harrison Ford is clearly having a great time, and so did I. I even teared up a few times. I’ll probably go see it again.
"Harrison Ford’s last time out"
Fool me once (Last Crusade), shame on you
Fool me twice (Crystal Skull), shame on me
Fool me three times (Dial of Destiny), shame on everyone
Despite the poem, I'm afraid I'll be seeing this, as the goodwill that has accrued through four-plus (!) decades is too much to overcome my better senses...
I can sense a similar, almost unavoidable nostalgic pull of this movie from Keith's review here. We're all gonna watch this, aren't we? And afterwards, like a slight hangover, we may feel tired and ashamed, too.
But damn it...the whip. The fedora. The Nazi punching. Sign me up.
There lesson to be learned in Indy's origin story, and it one Hollywood seem hellbent on ignoring.
Spielberg wanted to direct James Bond movie, and Eon not would hire American director. Lucas wanted to make Flash Gordon movie, but he not could get rights to character. So they made their own thing. They used basic framework of globetrotting adventurer who always in over his head and always comes out on top; and space adventurer involved in some sort of war among stars, and made something new.
And more times dead horse of franchise is dragged out for one more beating, more me wish someone would learn lesson of original Indy, which is, MAKE NEW THING. Take thing that we loved, and make own version of it. (That what Stranger Things is, and that why we love it.) Maybe Helena Shaw and MacGuffin of Death will be that thing. But me would rather someone look at why we love Indy — charming, indefatigable hero, clever script, relentless pacing, grounding in real history — and use that to tell story about someone who not necessarily professor of archaeology.
Me guess me not can begrudge Mangold wanting to take shot at franchise and Ford wanting to play character (which he seem to enjoy much more than Han Solo) one more time. But me not can bring myself to be that interested. Me might just go fire up Last Crusade one more time.
I'd say Tomb Raider and Uncharted have had great success riffing on the Indy formula. Of course, both of them have made mostly lousy movies while Indiana Jones has had mostly lousy games (Fate of Atlantis excepted, of course).
The problem here is of course the massive budget expected of modern blockbusters which requires a massive brand, either from a franchise or director... so basically only Christopher Nolan or James Cameron could decide to make something original in this space.
That fair point, but me would counter with this — only Spielberg could have gotten Raiders made, and it had budget of $20m. On Golden Pond, made same year, had budget of $15m. Pennies From Heaven was $22m. It not was big-budget film.
So that real problem. We need to be able to make mid-budget action movies again, although me suspect those would just go straight to streaming.
Yep, that's it! Maybe A24 or Neon can take a crack at it?
Those budget numbers are fascinating to me. I'm assuming On Golden Pond spent $5 million apiece on each of its three actors and then $0 on anything else.
I'd say there are two more contenders for the same treasure-hunting adventure space, a little less like Indy on the surface, but scratching some of the same itch. Dan Brown's "The Davinci Code" and its various sequels seem to have a similar "let's solve puzzles of the ancient world" vibe, and the National Treasure movies seem like someone said, "Is there a way we can remake The DaVinci Code without making the Pope mad?"
This whole thing seems like a losing proposition for Mangold. He’s a talented and capable guy, but if I were him I think I’d rather spend 300 million dollars for people to never, ever compare me to Spielberg.
Somehow, amazingly, there isn’t even consensus that Last Crusade is worthy of the trilogy. How was Mangold ever going to fit in?
Me thought consensus was that Last Crusade was second only to Raiders and Temple was weak link!
But me agree that it thankless task. Although me suppose bar not was set at Raiders, bar was set at Crystal Skull, which pretty low bar.
I think there's been a pendulum swing recently, with more people coming to bat for Doom and dismissing Crusade as a fluffy Raiders retread. I'm not one of those people, but they're out there.
Pure lunacy! I read whatever Slate think piece about how Temple of Doom *really holds up, man* and rewatched it for the first time since I was a kid. It really, really doesn't.
It's not even dumb and fun- it's just dumb. And however racist you remember it being, it is 10x more racist than that. Watch the opening number and then turn it off!
Oh, I misrepresented myself here--I actually prefer Doom to Crusade, I just don’t think Crusade is worthy of dismissal. But yeah, the troubling parts of Doom are very troubling, and I don’t fault anyone for rushing to the exits.
But if you’re willing to wade through all of its, er...issues, I think there’s some thrilling invention on display, and some of the best action filmmaking in Spielberg’s career.
See, as an Indy fan since childhood, my dad didn't own TOD on VHS because of how dark it was; I rewatched it earlier this year to celebrate Ke Huy Quan's Oscar win, and while it is dark and racist, that opening sequence and everything from the human sacrifice afterwards are some of the best setpieces in the series
I actually like “Last Crusade” best of all. #Philistine
The kids on Twitter are waxing that CRUSADE is the best one ...
God help me, I agree with them. Tom Stoppard wrote the damn thing! The dialogue sparkles. Ford and Connery have off the charts chemistry, passing the ball back and forth, taking turns being the clown.
I've listened to a few interviews with Mangold and can't begrudge him this. Like a lot of people in that age range, he wanted to make movies because those early Spielbergs and Lucases gave him the spark. He's finally gotten to where he can take on one of the actual franchises, if only for one trip. And he's proven himself for having a way with IP that's been around the block a few times. It still tickles me to no end remembering seeing HEAVY in the mid-90s and being pretty sure he made it for an audience of me and now he's taken on some of the biggest franchises around. I'm happy for him, though yes I would love to see him take on other things too.
I certainly didn’t want to disparage Mangold, I like him and thought he was an interesting choice, as far as it goes. The reviews have been respectful enough and if it hadn’t cost 300 million dollars it might have been somewhat of a box office winner too. All in all, hardly a black eye and quite a display of chutzpah.
And I don’t mean to disparage you for anything. I have a ton of respect for Mangold and look forward to what he does next. I think maybe his approach was less “I’m gonna get compared to Spielberg” and more “I can surely do better than Crystal Skull” (which, honestly, if CS had been Darabont’s script directed by either of them DIAL probably wouldn’t exist). And since we’re at it: the titles of these things have been a lesson in diminishing returns. If I controlled the universe there wouldn’t be anything beyond the first three (maybe nothing beyond the first one so y’all should never give me control of the universe). But since we’re in one I don’t control and Harrison Ford is still mostly mobile, a fifth was probably inevitable and if I’m being honest I’d rather have Mangold directing than Steve at this stage in the timeline.
I actually hadn’t considered that. Our man Steve won’t be around forever, and if Indy 5 was going to get made I’m glad he participated in a strictly advisory capacity. Mangold cleared the Crystal Skull bar and who knows, maybe he’ll combine the novelistic auteur he started off as with his mega budget studio profile and give us something absolutely brilliant and new the next time out.
I was planning to see this in the theater regardless of reviews, but this eases me into it with the right expectations. I never thought it would be a disaster. Mangold has chops. Though one of the greatest filmmakers ever made Crystal Skull, so there's never any promises. This one probably hits me at the right point to make it appointment viewing. The original trilogy took me from the start of high school to the end of college. I wasn't the biggest fan of Crusade so was happy to see a fourth one. (I didn't stay happy.) This one comes as those days recede further and further and as my aging self recedes as well. For good and bad, this final date is mandatory.
"Though the John Williams score is as good as his past Indy work." High praise indeed.
A globe-trotting adventure franchise starring Waller-Bridge is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
Before Crystal Skull, Temple of Doom was the red-headed stepchild of the franchise. I think almost everyone considers Crystal to be the worst now. At least it sounds like this one will not replace Crystal in the basement, for which I'm grateful. And if the ending is divisive, that actually means the filmmaker attempted to do something somewhat daring...maybe?
I enjoyed DOOM at the time while recognizing that it wasn’t on par with the original. With CRUSADE, I was annoyed with Jeffery Boam’s edict that the third entry in a series has to be a parody. I hated Marcus being such a dolt. (I was even more pedantic in my younger years.) I would now certainly swap their positions on the list. I haven’t had the urge to revisit SKULL, though I know it has its defenders. In any case, the new one is on par to be higher on the list than lower, sight unseen. Though if you could merge the opening of DOOM with the Connery of CRUSADE it would be tops. Well, second at least.
It's funny what time does to one's assessment of a movie. As much as I love the first one, it's the third one I think about the most, and the one I enjoy the most on a re-watch. Maybe it's all the religious/crusade-era stuff that I find so attractive...or maybe it's Sean Connery. Certainly the third one is the funniest.
Are those first three movies, put together, maybe the strongest trio of a franchise? Better than Star Wars IV/V/VI for sure in my book, and Star Trek I-III.
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, the new PLANET OF THE APES, and TOY STORY all have solid trios in them. TERMINATOR has a solid 2 out of three. But it’s hard to top the fun and energy of those first Indys.
The greatest trio in any franchise are the three acts of JAWS. :)
The score legit good. Plenty of nostalgic bits while also rolling with the action well
Just got back after seeing it with the fam. Drags a bit, but they enjoyed it. Keith hit it; it’s a greatest hits tour, for sure. Not terrible, but still can’t believe that cost $295M to make
Just saw it and was pleasantly surprised by it. The last act is probably the most entertaingly batshit of the entire series, and it ends on a nice note. Still, really could've used Steve's direction
Just came back from watching and agree mostly with Keith’s take... thought Waller-Bridge brought a fresh spirit and the action sequences were fun with whiffs of the old Indy. That said, watching a senior Indy in these sequences only made me long for the original trilogy movies. I do hope Disney and Lucasfilm put Indiana Jones away for good.
I’ll go out on a batshit limb and say I loved this film. So what if it plays like the greatest hits? So what if Spielberg could have directed the action better? So what if it’s only the fourth-best film in the series? Harrison Ford is clearly having a great time, and so did I. I even teared up a few times. I’ll probably go see it again.