The Indiana Jones Disenchantment Thread!

[rough cut 1,714]

Such a weird thing to put in the movie. He should have straight up died there.
 

Not only was DoD a bad Indy movie, it was also a bad movie. It is beyond me how that movie has an appreciation thread here on the forum. Denial much?

 

If this hadn’t been an Indiana Jones adventure, people would’ve hated this. Now it “kind of” gets a pass (but not really).

 

Even die hard Indy fans confess that it’s mediocre at best. And that’s ok. The movie is a product of many hands, countless meetings and business decisions, and the franchise is not an infallible man, but just that: a product made to be consumed and for whatever reason the creators messed up the recepie.

 

Also, a bad entry to the franchise doesn’t take away any of the magic from the previous films.

 

 

[JTN 2,053]

9 minutes ago, rough cut said:

Even die hard Indy fans confess that it’s mediocre at best.

What I don’t get is how a die hard Indy fan can say that they like this film. They are the ones who should hate it the most, since it’s nothing like an Indiana Jones movie. If you take out HF and JW’s score, what remains is a generic, boring, depressing mess of a film. Alas, with HF and JW it still is.
That’s why the score should be enjoyed on its own and we should forget this film ever existed.

[Schilkeman 964]

I've only seen the parade chase on the horse. I feel like I could teach a college class on cause and effect in action filmmaking by comparing it to, I don't know, any chase scene from the previous films. It's like they had the idea, "let's put Indy on a horse in the middle of New York," and that's it. They had the image of the horse in the subway and went from there. The action tells no story.

 

I've read On Writing. I know you need two ideas smushed together to make something interesting. A horse in the subway, and then... I don't have an answer, but I also don't get paid millions of dollars to write and make films. 

[rough cut 1,714]

My take is that the movie's faults are at a much more granular level.

 

I've only seen the movie the one time in the cinema (premiere showing, of course, I'm still a fan!), but what bugged me during the movie and coming out of the theatre was the follwing:

 

- Dr. Voller shouldn't have survived that hit to the head

- Running on top of the train was clearly CGI and it looked as if Indy was made out of rubber

- Sad Indy feeling out of touch with the times

- Helena Shaw leaving Indy to die during the encounter with the mob (great way to build sympathy for your new female character - NOT!)

- The whole CIA plot is pointless

- The CIA woman’s death seems unnecessary cruel and pointless 

- Helena Shaw's ex showing up is pointless

- Annoying dialouge from Helena Shaw's charater during Tuk Tuk race, "I am strong and independent" (show don't tell, remember?)

- Sallah showing up is pointless

- Antonio Banderas’ character dying seems unnecessary cruel and pointless 

- Archimedes doesn't do anything - pointless. Why even go to ancient Greece at all?

- Indy is gracelessly knocked out at the end

- The relationship problems with Marion is solved magically and feels unnatural.

- Repeat dialogue "where does it hurt" is annoying.

 

Edit: I didn’t mind the horse scene in particular. But I do remember thinking there was a rather odd cut when the horse jumped out of the train’s way. Something about the angle of the jump and the speed of the train made it seem unnatural.

[JTN 2,053]

It's like Disney said: Let's make another Indiana Jones film, 'cause we paid a ton of money for the rights. Spielberg and Lucas don't want to do it, but at least we have old man Ford and if we pay John Williams enough money, he'll be back "one last time". We can get Jim Mangold who is a fan and has an ego the size of Texas, he'll do it. Let's put enough nostalgia bait to lure back die hard fans, and put in our social messages and new trends that will make young and female audiences go see it. We'll make it up as we go, paint by numbers, just like JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson did Star Wars. Heck, we have Kathy Kennedy, she was pouring coffee to Spielberg and Lucas on all the Indy sets, she knows how to produce an Indiana Jones film, it will work out great, right? 

 

What the guy says at 10:46 and onwards is especially strong and sadly true. 

[Mr. Hooper 1,810]

5 hours ago, rough cut said:

Not only was DoD a bad Indy movie, it was also a bad movie. It is beyond me how that movie has an appreciation thread here on the forum. Denial much?

If for some reason the movie got generally high praise, I feel like the same people who are giving it a pass now would be saying "Did we see the same movie?". But because many are down on it, they're instead inclined to say "Hey, it's not so bad!". But any way you cut it, even the "positive" responses are tepid.

 

4 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

It's like they had the idea, "let's put Indy on a horse in the middle of New York," and that's it. They had the image of the horse in the subway and went from there.

Aside from being a callback to young, horse-riding Indy, I guess they just thought it would be an interesting means of escape from the baddies. Especially since, you know, old man Indy couldn't exactly outrun them on foot.

 

3 hours ago, rough cut said:

- The CIA woman’s death seems unnecessary cruel and pointless

- Antonio Banderas’ character dying seems unnecessary cruel and pointless

Speaking of cruelty that left a bad taste in your mouth, how about Indy's colleagues that were shot and killed... But oh yeah, somehow the police would think it was his fault, and the writers thought it was necessary to make him a murder suspect to spur him into action. 

[JTN 2,053]

22 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

If for some reason the movie got generally high praise, I feel like the same people who are giving it a pass now would be saying "Did we see the same movie?". But because many are down on it, they're instead inclined to say "Hey, it's not so bad!". But any way you cut it, even the "positive" responses are tepid

I guess it’s just denial and the fact that they’ve gone up the hill and now can’t get down without losing face, so they choose to die on it. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,725]

23 hours ago, JTW said:

It's like Disney said: Let's make another Indiana Jones film, 'cause we paid a ton of money for the rights.

 

Disney didn't pay a ton of money for the Indy rights, they paid a ton of money for Star Wars. The Indy rights are the free floor mats the Lamborghini dealer throws in when you pop down $3 million for your Sián.

[Mr. Hooper 1,810]

25 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

The Indy rights are the free floor mats the Lamborghini dealer throws in when you pop down $3 million for your Sián.

They sure treated them like floor mats!

[A. A. Ron 1,744]

On 28/12/2023 at 7:54 PM, Mr. Hooper said:

And for those who cite the fridge in KOTCS as being ridiculous, I have yet to hear them explain how Voller could have survived that train fall that should've killed him...

 

Voller surviving without a scratch is ridiculous.

 

Indy, Willie and Short Round jumping out of an airplane in an inflatable life raft is worse.

 

Nuking the fridge is on a whole other level from even those.

 

19 hours ago, rough cut said:

Not only was DoD a bad Indy movie, it was also a bad movie. It is beyond me how that movie has an appreciation thread here on the forum. Denial much?

 

It's an aggressively ok movie. I consider TLJ, TROS and all three Hobbit movies far worse even while admitting that most of those have at least a few good scenes in them. Still, people defend all of these, even TROS sometimes. Guess we all just have different definitions of "bad."

[rough cut 1,714]

6 hours ago, A. A. Ron said:

It's an aggressively ok movie. I consider TLJ, TROS and all three Hobbit movies far worse

They’re all bad.

I think the defenders of these movies give them a pass due to the franchise or brand they belong to. They have too much invested in them to accept any flaws. It becomes a self image problem (but of course that is the wrong conclusion). “If this thing that I grew up with, identify with, have formed my identity around, have publicly defended, spent time and money on - is suddenly bad, I refuse to accept this ‘new’ reality and will blindly defend it” - even though it’s painfully obvious for everybody around.

 

It’s the same reason (to some extent) that women in an abusive relationship don’t leave their men.

 

6 hours ago, A. A. Ron said:

Guess we all just have different definitions of "bad."

Like all “bad” movies they are bound to have have some redeeming features. The music. The set design. The props. A certain actor. A groundbreaking special effect. But one swallow does not a summer make.

 

I think it’s easy to look back at a bad movie and confuse one or more of these redeeming features with the movie actually being ok/good and think, “since it had X, it was not bad”. But this is a false logic. It’s self justification with a bias because we also want to like these movies.

 

But sure, we all have different definitions of good/bad, no one can deny that. And we can endlessly discuss the nuances of how bad it was by comparing a bad movie with other bad movies - which one was slightly worse or which one was slightly better - but it’s not enough that a movie is “relatively ok”. A movie is a sum of all its parts - and a bad movie with some redeeming features is still a bad movie.

 

20 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Speaking of cruelty that left a bad taste in your mouth, how about Indy's colleagues that were shot and killed... But oh yeah, somehow the police would think it was his fault, and the writers thought it was necessary to make him a murder suspect to spur him into action. 

Right! I’d forgotten about that. Such an unnecessarily cruel movie! And you’re absolutely right, the logic that the characters use around these events, so unnatural.

 

I think the reason I dislike this movie boils down to two things: most things happening in this movie feels either pointless or unnatural, and one can only suspend one’s disbelief for so many things.

[Chen G. 3,954]

7 hours ago, rough cut said:

I think it’s easy to look back at a bad movie and confuse one or more of these redeeming features with the movie actually being ok/good and think, “since it had X, it was not bad”. But this is a false logic. It’s self justification with a bias because we also want to like these movies.

 

See, to me, I go to a movie to feel like I got something out of it. To me, art appreciation is not calculus: its not about a movie being consistently good, its about a movie having enough high-points that gave me something that I feel was worthwhile sitting through the movie for.

 

[rough cut 1,714]

Yes, sure.

 

And if it has too many low points… ?

[Chen G. 3,954]

Its obviously a balance, but I think to reduce it to a level of calculus and boil it down to a question of consistenty is aggressively anti-poetic.

[Nick1Ø66 4,725]

 

25 minutes ago, rough cut said:

And if it has too many low points… ?

 

Everything has a tipping point, and what will "ruin" a film for some people isn't that important to others.

 

For example, of all my problems with Dial of Destiny, the occasional dodgy de-ageing is not among them. I just accept that there are limitations to the technology and get over it. Others complain about bad CGI (or CGI at all) ceaselessly in this film, or film in general, and it ruins the experience for them. Fair enough, to each their own, it really doesn't bother me. Story and in particular character is what matters most to me, and can make or break a film.

 

As @Chen G. said, what matters most to me is how the film made me feel when I finish watching it, and not whether I had a nitpick with some of its parts. One bad bit generally won't ruin a film I otherwise like (though obviously enough of them certainly can.)

 

7 hours ago, rough cut said:

I think the defenders of these movies give them a pass due to the franchise or brand they belong to. They have too much invested in them to accept any flaws. It becomes a self image problem (but of course that is the wrong conclusion). “If this thing that I grew up with, identify with, have formed my identity around, have publicly defended, spent time and money on - is suddenly bad, I refuse to accept this ‘new’ reality and will blindly defend it” - even though it’s painfully obvious for everybody around.

 

I get your point, but for me it's the opposite.  I'm less likely to give a new instalment in a franchise I grew up loving a pass, precisely because I grew up loving it. I know what good Star Wars and Indiana Jones looks like, and I'm not going to pretend I'm being fed filet mignon when I know they're trying to give me dog food.

 

At the same time, I don't let bad Star Wars or Indiana Jones "ruin my childhood". I just ignore the stuff I don't like and that's that. I don't build my identity around the movies I watch.

[Chen G. 3,954]

If I wanted to, I could take each of my favourite movies and pick it full of holes: Apocalypse Now? Episodic - you could cut the Do-Lung bridge episode and not miss a thing. The Fellowship of the Ring - the fuck is up with the continuity in the prologue? So Isildur jumps into the water in armour (?!), but then the Orc arrows pierce it like butter, and then in the shots from the back there's no armour? WTF!? Don't even get me started on Gladiator! etc...etc..etc... 

 

I could not think of a more mirthless way to look at movies than the above. What matters in watching a movie are those moments that stick in your mind afterwards, the overall sweep of the thing.

 

And to cite an example from a concurrent discussion we're making elsewhere - and lets not put too fine a point on this as to not derail the conversation - The Battle of the Five Armies, as a movie, is building up to Thorin's death. If I wept during that scene, than its a good movie. Because clearly enough of it had been working towards that scene and the desired effect and evidentally did its job. The bumps along the way, therefore, matter little.

 

And, it also pays to have a reality check. Lets look at the movies in discussion: Dial of Destinty, and "TLJ, TROS and all three Hobbit movies." On Rotten Tomatoes they score 70%, 91% (!), 51%, 64%, 75% (!) and 59%. This is not to invalidate anyone's opinion of these films - I personally can't stand The Rise of Skywalker, and I don't think much of Dial of Destiny - but to show that we can get a little carried away in our critiques. Heck, many of the these movies made tons of money: some, like The Hobbit entries, repeatedly so, so enough people liked them at least on the level of the spectacle of it all, and that's something too. If anything, the most damning critique of Dial of Destiny is that people voted with their purses...

 

There are plenty of TRULY bad movies, without even going to gutters of The Room.  Even The Rise of Skywalker - by far my least favourite of those films listed above - is not one of those.

[Jurassic Shark 12,098]

24 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

we can get a little carried away in our critiques.

 

[GerateWohl 4,385]

50 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

If I wanted to, I could take each of my favourite movies and pick it full of holes: Apocalypse Now? Episodic - you could cut the Do-Lung bridge episode and not miss a thing. The Fellowship of the Ring - the fuck is up with the continuity in the prologue? So Isildur jumps into the water in armour (?!), but then the Orc arrows pierce it like butter, and then in the shots from the back there's no armour? WTF!? Don't even get me started on Gladiator! etc...etc..etc... 

 

I could not think of a more mirthless way to look at movies than the above. What matters in watching a movie are those moments that stick in your mind afterwards, the overall sweep of the thing.

 

And to cite an example from a concurrent discussion we're making elsewhere - and lets not put too fine a point on this as to not derail the conversation - The Battle of the Five Armies, as a movie, is building up to Thorin's death. If I wept during that scene, than its a good movie. Because clearly enough of it had been working towards that scene and the desired effect and evidentally did its job. The bumps along the way, therefore, matter little.

 

And, it also pays to have a reality check. Lets look at the movies in discussion: Dial of Destinty, and "TLJ, TROS and all three Hobbit movies." On Rotten Tomatoes they score 70%, 91% (!), 51%, 64%, 75% (!) and 59%. This is not to invalidate anyone's opinion of these films - I personally can't stand The Rise of Skywalker, and I don't think much of Dial of Destiny - but to show that we can get a little carried away in our critiques. Heck, many of the these movies made tons of money: some, like The Hobbit entries, repeatedly so, so enough people liked them at least on the level of the spectacle of it all, and that's something too. If anything, the most damning critique of Dial of Destiny is that people voted with their purses...

 

There are plenty of TRULY bad movies, without even going to gutters of The Room.  Even The Rise of Skywalker - by far my least favourite of those films listed above - is not one of those.

All of that is true. But after all, watching a movie and me being bored (Dial of Destiny) or even feeling painfully embarassed (Rise of Skywalker) my picking on these little flaws is just trying to put my experience and my feelings into words. Sure, tastes are different. For example I rarely like a movie where fans of it describe their experience like "I could perfectly switch off my brain and then enjoy the movie". 

Nobody said that about Dial. But I remember such statements about Rise.

[rough cut 1,714]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Its obviously a balance, but I think to reduce it to a level of calculus and boil it down to a question of consistenty is aggressively anti-poetic.

I think that you have put too much thought into my statement. I don’t sit with an excel sheet while watching movies. It’s a gut feeling.

 

But if my gut constantly tells me, “that’s unnatural - that’s illogical - that’s weird”, and then at the end my brain points out unresolved events abd starts going “but what happened to x - and what happened to y”, then It’s a bad movie.

 

There’s no calculus.

 

Of course, the “gut feeling” all depends on the movie. I can watch Sharknado and it’s obviously bad, but I don’t give Indiana Jones the same leeway.

[Mr. Hooper 1,810]

10 hours ago, rough cut said:

I think the defenders of these movies give them a pass due to the franchise or brand they belong to. They have too much invested in them to accept any flaws.

 

Like how I championed 'Jaws: The Revenge' as a 12-year-old cuz I loved 'Jaws'. lol

 

2 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

I get your point, but for me it's the opposite.  I'm less likely to give a new instalment in a franchise I grew up loving a pass, precisely because I grew up loving it.

It sets our expectations higher, which is why we might be unduly critical... But even if I put that aside, it's as another member here said: It's not just a bad 'Indiana Jones' movie, it's a bad movie, period.

 

And aside from the scene-by-scene criticisms, the overwhelming problem I had was with the depressing tone of the film. It wasn't what I expected or wanted out of an 'Indiana Jones' movie.

 

So if I'm just judging by how it made me feel as I exited the theatre, like @Chen G. asks, well I was left feeling dejected, and with regret at having bought a ticket for a second viewing in advance.

 

I suppose @Jurassic Shark will tell me to "lighten up". 
 

2 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

"I could perfectly switch off my brain and then enjoy the movie". 

Nobody said that about Dial. But I remember such statements about Rise.

'Rise of Skywalker' is a guilty pleasure, I'll admit. It did nothing for 'Star Wars', but I can think of more painful ways to spend 2 hours. (You guessed it! 'Dial of Destiny'!)

 

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

There are plenty of TRULY bad movies, without even going to gutters of The Room.

[Jurassic Shark 12,098]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

I suppose @Jurassic Shark will tell me to "lighten up". 

 

There's no hope for you.

[Mr. Hooper 1,810]

4 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

There's no hope for you.

I started an Indiana Jones disenchantment thread. There's no going back...

[Jurassic Shark 12,098]

Soon, it will be taken over by @Mattris and it will be doomed (as if it's not already).

[Naïve Old Fart 9,556]

Don't you EVER say that name!

[Mr. Hooper 1,810]

[crocodile 8,020]

36 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Soon, it will be taken over by @Mattris and it will be doomed (as if it's not already).

Wait, are they already shooting Indy 6 through 8?

 

Karol

[Jurassic Shark 12,098]

4 minutes ago, crocodile said:

Wait, are they already shooting Indy 6 through 8?

 

Karol

 

Let's hope!

[Mr. Hooper 1,810]

31 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Let's hope!

This is a disenchantment thread.

 

 

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,725]

5 hours ago, crocodile said:

Wait, are they already shooting Indy 6 through 8?

 

Karol

 

Don't be silly. They already have.

 

Nick

[Chen G. 3,954]

What is this drink everyone in this thread been having?

 

I want some of it, too!

[Nick1Ø66 4,725]

35 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

What is this drink everyone in this thread been having?

 

You must...choose wisely. 

[Mr. Hooper 1,810]

6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

What is this drink everyone in this thread been having?

Whatever it is, they're drinking a lot more over on the appreciation thread. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,725]

At the appreciation thread they're drinking the blood of Kali. Known to cause delusions and irrational behaviour. 

 

[rough cut 1,714]

Whatever it is, make sure to drink it from a bathroom glass! 🤣🤣🤣

[Mr. Hooper 1,810]

7 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

You must...choose wisely.

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,098]

34 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

What is this drink everyone in this thread been having?

 

I want some of it, too!

 

Trust me, you don't. 

[Chen G. 3,954]

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

That's...nowhere near enough booze!

 

This! This is...moving towards the general direction of starting to be a nearly-adequate amount of booze: 

 

[Mr. Hooper 1,810]

21 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Trust me, you don't.

 

Here, have some of this...

 

Fixed. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,098]

1 hour ago, Mr. Hooper said:

This is a disenchantment thread.

 

 

 

 

Let's hope miserably?

[JTN 2,053]

2 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

I started an Indiana Jones disenchantment thread. There's no going back...

Looks like this thread is a much better place because Jurassic Shark spends way more time here than in his DoD enchantment thread. He must feel very lonely there...

 

[Mr. Hooper 1,810]

10 minutes ago, JTW said:

Looks like this thread is a much better place because Jurassic Shark spends way more time here than in his DoD enchantment thread.

 

I think we're winning him over.

 

26 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Let's hope miserably?

Let's hope they don't make another!

[Jurassic Shark 12,098]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

 

I think we're winning him over.

 

I'm trying to save you guys from disillusioned, depressing lives.

[Nick1Ø66 4,725]

3 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

I'm trying to save you guys from disillusioned, depressing lives.

 

 

[Mr. Hooper 1,810]

5 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

I'm trying to save you guys from disillusioned, depressing lives.

Then let us stay in Syracuse and don't drag us back to 1969!
 

[Jurassic Shark 12,098]

 

(The closest I could find to a punch emoji.)

[Nick1Ø66 4,725]

9 hours ago, Chen G. said:

And, it also pays to have a reality check. Lets look at the movies in discussion: Dial of Destinty, and "TLJ, TROS and all three Hobbit movies." On Rotten Tomatoes they score 70%, 91% (!), 51%, 64%, 75% (!) and 59%.

 

Honestly, I don't know what these numbers are supposed to mean. RT's scoring system is so opaque as to render it pretty much worthless, IMO. The only thing useful about RT to me is that it's a one-stop place for finding the few film critics I respect.

[Chen G. 3,954]

Oh, I agree! I'm just saying, fandom can sometimes go a wee overboard in its criticisms, making fiascos out of what most percieve as reasonably well-made, enjoyable movies.

[Jurassic Shark 12,098]

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

Oh, I agree! I'm just saying, fandom can sometimes go a wee overboard in its criticisms, making fiascos out of what most percieve as reasonably well-made, enjoyable movies.

 

Well said.

[Nick1Ø66 4,725]

On 30/12/2023 at 10:07 PM, Chen G. said:

Oh, I agree! I'm just saying, fandom can sometimes go a wee overboard in its criticisms, making fiascos out of what most percieve as reasonably well-made, enjoyable movies.

 

Sure. I'd say that pretty much every film we debate on here is better than 99.9%+ of all the films ever made. That goes without saying. In the grand scheme of things, most movies, in fact almost all of them, are terrible. Most of the ones we discuss just aren't that bad.

 

But we nitpick certain films because we care about them, or at least their franchise family. Or because we went in with great expectations. And I daresay, even among critics who RT's decide has given a positive rating to a particular film (thus ultimately contributing to a "Fresh" score), those critics would find many of the same flaws we do. So what RT decides is a positive review for a film doesn't mean that a critic, for example, didn't have a problem with DoD's de-ageing, or its ending, or Helena, or the tone of the film, or any of the other issues people are complaining about here.

 

For example, just doing a quick glance, here are some excerpts from a handful of reviews of DoD I picked randomly by "Top Critics" RT's consider to be "fresh":

 

Quote

“Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” is somehow both never boring and never really entertaining.

 

It’s an alternating series of frustrating choices, promising beats, and general goodwill for a legendary actor donning one of the most famous hats in movie history yet again. It should be better. 

 

It’s also an Indiana Jones movie that's difficult to truly love, which makes this massive fan of the original trilogy a little sad.

 

The unsettling mix of good and bad starts in the first sequence, a flashback to the final days of World War II that features Indy (Harrison Ford) and a colleague named Basil Shaw (Toby Jones) trying to reclaim some of the historical artifacts being stolen by the fleeing Nazis. Jones looks normal, of course, but Ford here is an uncanny valley occupant, a figure of de-aged CGI that never looks quite human. He doesn't move or even sound quite right. It’s the first but not the last time in “The Dial of Destiny” in which it feels like you can’t really get your hands on what you’re watching. It sets up a standard of over-used effects that are the film’s greatest flaw. We’re watching Indiana Jones at the end of World War II, but the effects are distracting instead of enhancing.

 

Quote

 

Indiana Jones And The Dial of Destiny review: Saga ends with a whimper.

Great performances from Harrison Ford and Phoebe Waller-Bridge can't rescue a film that runs out of steam

 

Quote

 

But overall, Indy lovers will be disappointed by the final chapter of the franchise. It fails to recapture the great fun and adventure of the series’ heyday, the thrill of its earlier instalments. And it is also let down by a decidedly sub-par storyline.

 

In fact, far from recalling the Spielbergian sense of adventure we have come to expect from the series, the film runs out of steam just as we get into the nuts and bolts of the second act. 

 

Conclusion? While this is, for the most part, very watchable, it is sad to see this much-loved film series end with a whimper rather than the bang we were all expecting.

 

 

Quote

So many times thereafter when the mood should be giddy, it feels laboured, weighed down by the movies that came before... Mangold would like simply to be making a daffy picture about an unknown ageing archaeologist, not a prize intellectual property.

 

And, again, those are reviews RT's deemed "Fresh".

 

So I actually think the critiques of the film in these parts have been for the most part pretty well reasoned, and most people have been good about saying why they don't like the film. That is to say, I don't think the criticism has been unfair. 

[Mr. Hooper 1,810]

C'mon guys, more disenchantment! 

 

This was posted in another thread, but also has a home here...