Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

[psylockolussus]

The only good things I can say about this are, its not terrible (other movie franchises have been through worse) and that Indy finally got some closure. The fourth movie didn't feel like the final movie but this felt like the final movie, despite how downbeat it was.

 

[Arnold Rimmer]

I just found the character unlikable. It just wasn't fun watching her **** on Indy for most of the movie and be unapologetic about throwing him to the wolves to save herself (even throwing it in his face at the auction, "HE'S THE ONE WANTED FOR MURDER!" HAR HAR HAR). And Indy just takes it, which I found even more annoying. I think Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning handled Hayley Atwell's character (a similar British thief with her own agenda) much better. Maybe because that movie doesn't go out of its way to sideline the main character just to prop her up, but instead does a fun cat and mouse dynamic between them before teaming them up, and in general she is a more fun and likable character while still keeping her agency in the story. That is the difference between good writing and bad writing.



The movie has story and logic and writing problems out the wazoo. Indy gets framed for murder but he is never cleared and that plot is never resolved and is just forgotten about. Indy wants to stay behind in the past, similar to how he was mesmerized by the Holy Grail in Last Crusade, but instead of being allowed his own character agency he is punched out by Helena and is conveniently knocked out until he is back in NY. Its like the script never came together and they just filmed a rushed, half-finished draft because they were running out of time.

I think The Flash actually did this "I am a cranky old man and want to die" arc much better with Keaton's Batman, because he makes the decision to get out of that funk and put the suit back on and dies fighting ("I can't bring you back can I?" "You already did."). I wonder if this movie was going to go down a similar road with Indy but maybe they got cold feet?

You're overthinking things.

First off, Helena's clearly meant to be a Han Solo/Sawyer from "Lost" type; someone who starts off unlikable (I'd say more Sawyer than Han in this case) and in it for the fame and especially money, but comes to understand though the journey that their world-view is wrong and become a more noble person for the experience by the end. Simple as that. That kind of comparison is clearly meant to be an homage to Ford's earlier other famous role and a way to be a mirror for Indy to look at a bit: that this is who he could have become years earlier if not for the discipline of his father, or, alternatively, who he MAY have come off to outsiders as in his earlier days. Look at how he's portrayed in Raiders for instance: he's not EXACTLY a goody two-shoes in that entirely and was more in it for the glory and not just keeping the Arc away from the Nazis.

Indy's name was probably cleared due to his connections with the government (we KNOW from Crystal Skull he still had those). Plus, it gives the CIA a way to scrub Voller's name from their records after they clearly disowned him following the phone call on the plane. As for wanting to stay in the past, he was dying and didn't know how much longer he had to live. Honestly, I'm happy the movie didn't kill him off like so many people falsely rumored and gave him a much happier ending where he got to reconcile with Marion at the end.

I think the problem you have from this movie, that can be said for a lot of people who whined about it, is that this movie is less about the treasure hunt this time around and more focused on Indy's character; on how he feels like an artifact in a time that has passed him by and him going on this adventure as a way of him slowly dealing with it though his experience with Helena. It's very much like Logan in that it's reflective on the character's legacy and where he is now in time. It's a great movie, but the issue is people expected this to be more like the first and third movies when it's a mix of the third movie and what Mangold did with Logan. It's a great movie, but not in the way people were expecting. The trailers trying to be more 100% Spielberg in tone while not explaining things didn't help (Disney's marketing this year for everything has been terrible; all their bad trailer practices coming home to roost).

 

[AndrewGilkison]

You're overthinking things.

First off, Helena's clearly meant to be a Han Solo/Sawyer from "Lost" type; someone who starts off unlikable (I'd say more Sawyer than Han in this case) and in it for the fame and especially money, but comes to understand though the journey that their world-view is wrong and become a more noble person for the experience by the end. Simple as that. That kind of comparison is clearly meant to be an homage to Ford's earlier other famous role and a way to be a mirror for Indy to look at a bit: that this is who he could have become years earlier if not for the discipline of his father, or, alternatively, who he MAY have come off to outsiders as in his earlier days. Look at how he's portrayed in Raiders for instance: he's not EXACTLY a goody two-shoes in that entirely and was more in it for the glory and not just keeping the Arc away from the Nazis.

Dude, I am not a ****ing idiot. I know what the movie is TRYING to do with her character. I just don't think they pulled it off.

Indy's name was probably cleared due to his connections with the government (we KNOW from Crystal Skull he still had those). Plus, it gives the CIA a way to scrub Voller's name from their records after they clearly disowned him following the phone call on the plane. As for wanting to stay in the past, he was dying and didn't know how much longer he had to live. Honestly, I'm happy the movie didn't kill him off like so many people falsely rumored and gave him a much happier ending where he got to reconcile with Marion at the end.

None of that is shown in the movie so it doesn't count. The movie itself never takes the time to resolve that plot point, leaving people like you to have to head-cannon the resolution for yourself.

Which begs the question of why the movie even needed the "Indy is framed for murder" plot in the first place. We could have cut that plot point out entirely and the movie would have more or less been the same. Its not like the movie thought it was an important story beat or else it would have been resolved. We could have just used Helena stealing the artifact or the bad guys stealing it as motivation for Indy getting on an airplane and into the adventure and the movie probably would have been better off for it.

I think the problem you have from this movie, that can be said for a lot of people who whined about it, is that this movie is less about the treasure hunt this time around and more focused on Indy's character; on how he feels like an artifact in a time that has passed him by and him going on this adventure as a way of him slowly dealing with it though his experience with Helena. It's very much like Logan in that it's reflective on the character's legacy and where he is now in time. It's a great movie, but the issue is people expected this to be more like the first and third movies when it's a mix of the third movie and what Mangold did with Logan. It's a great movie, but not in the way people were expecting. The trailers trying to be more 100% Spielberg in tone while not explaining things didn't help (Disney's marketing this year for everything has been terrible; all their bad trailer practices coming home to roost).

I watched it a couple of days ago on Disney Plus long after it had come out in theaters, so I was trying to judge it on its own merits. The hype has long died down, so I didn't have any expectations.

I think if anything, trying to middle ground this thing and trying to make it an old school Indy movie combined with Logan is why this movie ultimately doesn't work. It never commits to being one or the other, so what we get in the end is a toothless film. I don't see the great film in this that you saw.

Comparing this to Logan doesn't work, because Logan is able to fully commit to being a deconstruction of Wolverine and The X-Men and just goes for it, with the R rating and the bloodshed and the stakes and never undermines itself or tones itself down. Whereas this movie doesn't have the balls to allow Indiana Jones to carry a gun and use it (hell, he only uses his whip twice!), but is perfectly fine having the bad guys gun down Indy's university co-workers for shock value. So which is it?

The trailers didn't do much to sell the movie clearly, but the movie itself didn't give them much to work with at the end of the day. Hard to sell a movie that just isn't very good.

 

[flickchick85]

I’ve got a ton of issues with this film, but Helena ain’t one of ‘em.

 

[Agent Orange]

I liked it. There's a quiet dignity to the film that Crystal Skull sorely lacks -- amongst other things. That film is bollocks.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

I dunno, I actually rewatched KOTCS after this and I suddenly had a greater appreciation for KOTCS.

Mutt and Indy's relationship felt more real and better developed, with the two generational different characters learning from one another and growing in their relationship more organically, constrasted with the undeveloped Helena relationship where she is condescending and talks down to Indy for most of the film. We get more character development with Mutt then we do with Helena, which seems to rely on PWB and her comedic timing to try and make seem likable when the script does her no favors.

Marion has a real part and isn't just a last five minutes cameo.

The scope and scale of the movie felt more like the OG trilogy then DOD does. The CGI looks better.

It has more classic Indy elements then DOD does. More tomb raiding/exploring, and more action. Indy is also a better character who is much smarter and the movie doesn't constantly have him act like a sad sack who wants to die.

Yes, we have goofy crap like surviving a nuclear explosion by hiding in a refrigerator, and Cate Blanchett is a cartoon character (but the movie deserves props for having a female lead villain when most movies were afraid to do that... Marvel I am looking at you), but were they any worse then some of the nonsense in DOD?

Other problems with DOD:

Helena knocks Indy out, robbing him of his agency, and robbing the audience of a potentially thrilling sequence (getting a mortally wounded Indy back before the time fisher closes), but her reasons make no sense. Would Indy being left behind really change the timeline anymore then the watch or that the bad guys shot up a bunch of Romans from the plane before it crashed? She even said history got mucked up, but why would Jones being left behind there change things any worse?

Indy has the dial at the end, so what is to stop him from going back? He never made the decision to stay in the present because Helena robbed him of that agency by punching him in the face.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

I thought Mutt and Fleabag were both terrible. Pick your poison.

 

[MadVillainy]

I kinda get @AndrewGilkison. A lot of Helena's dialogue especially in the beginning was just to bag on Indy and bring the character down. That wasn't exactly the most fun.
I didn't have a problem with it, but I get why some wouldn't

That being said, I didn't really mind the performance for Helena. Thought she was pretty cool. The issue for me is and it's not the first time, but they really need to stop introducing new characters in these "final" installments and having them take up so much story and screentime. I call in John Blake syndrome.

Remember in The Dark Knight Rises, they introduced this brand new character, Robin "John" Blake played by Joseph Gordon Levitt, who took up so much story and screentime when that time should've gone to Bruce, Alfred, Lucious, Gordon...pretty much anyone we've been following for the past 2 movies? I feel the same about Helena. She's this character who has no ties to the previous movies or characters who shows up in a final installment and does take a lot from the Indy character. The worst example in a recent movie was Corey in Halloween Ends. John Blake and Helena weren't nearly as bad as him.

People shouldn't be surprised that people are lukewarm on a movie where Indy feel like a bystander and there's a character who spends a decent amount of time just bringing down the hero we all love.
I will say though and I said this back in June I don't get how she or the movie deconstructed Indy at all. I feel like that "deconstruction" is becoming another one of those terms that people use without actually knowing the meaning like satire.

EDIT: And they really need to let go of the The Dark Knight Returns, the hero is depressed after a long hard life of violence and loss schtick. It works really well for some heroes, but not everyone needs it. It's fine just to let characters retire in peace. Even those with a violent history

 

[MasterBoss]

I thought Mutt and Fleabag were both terrible. Pick your poison.

I thought both were fine and got a lot of underserved hate.

The only actual bad characters in this franchise is Mac, and Willie (Willie's fun in small doses, but they overdid it with her).

I didn't realize world-class thieves were supposed to be nice and respectful. lol

Harrison is so charismatic people forget in the first two Indiana Jones movies, Indy is a literal thief (who sells artifacts for the fame and money), is a killer, uses child labor, treats woman as disposable, and is a sex offender.

It's only in Last Crusade onward where Indy gets turned into a more traditional hero and is all about preserving artifacts.

Belloq is 100% correct in Raiders when he tells Indy is a "shadowy reflection" of him.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

What makes Mac worst than Helena? At least KOTCS doesn't expect me to like him, and he gets his comeuppance (he gets punched in the nose by Indy, and ultimately dies at the end because of his obsession). Whereas DOD asks me to like and root for and sympathize with Helena and enjoy her chemistry with Indy, but they have no chemistry, and her character gets no real meaningful development, so her changes of heart in the film are not convincing, and she never earns what the movie wants me to feel about her.

So what makes her a better character than Mac?

 

[TheVileOne]

I mean I get it. It's an awkward, clunky movie. It just doesn't have that magical flow of the 1980s trilogy. The best pure sequence in the movie is the prologue, but even that is marred by the uncanny valley of the digital CG mixing with Ford's 80-year-old voice.

While I don't dislike Helena, I don't think the story does her a lot of favors.

 

[MasterBoss]

What makes Mac worst than Helena? At least KOTCS doesn't expect me to like him, and he gets his comeuppance (he gets punched in the nose by Indy, and ultimately dies at the end because of his obsession). Whereas DOD asks me to like and root for and sympathize with Helena and enjoy her chemistry with Indy, but they have no chemistry, and her character gets no real meaningful development, so her changes of heart in the film are not convincing, and she never earns what the movie wants me to feel about her.

So what makes her a better character than Mac?

Literally nothing about Mac makes sense in Crystal Skull. He's constant double crossing, the movie wants you buy into his comradery with Indy when we don't see any of that, all the while forcing himself into the narrative throughout to remind the audience he exists. The cherry on top is his death scene is maybe the most nonsensical and most laughable scene in Crystal Skull.

I still get PTSD when I think of Mac screaming "JONESY"! (which weirdly enough, I think Dial actually subtly calls back to when Indy gets aggravated at Helena in the black-market scene after she calls him Jonesy).

So what makes her a better character than Mac?

Helena is intended to be like Indiana Jones in the first two movies. Selfish, all about fortune and glory, stealing/selling artifacts, she even has her own short round.

Even if you didn't like the character, it's easy to see what they were going for. Judging by the BTS footage for Crystal Skull, I'm not even sure Ray Winstone knows how to describe his character.

 

[Filmfan93]

I dunno, I actually rewatched KOTCS after this and I suddenly had a greater appreciation for KOTCS.

Mutt and Indy's relationship felt more real and better developed, with the two generational different characters learning from one another and growing in their relationship more organically, constrasted with the undeveloped Helena relationship where she is condescending and talks down to Indy for most of the film. We get more character development with Mutt then we do with Helena, which seems to rely on PWB and her comedic timing to try and make seem likable when the script does her no favors.

Marion has a real part and isn't just a last five minutes cameo.

The scope and scale of the movie felt more like the OG trilogy then DOD does. The CGI looks better.

It has more classic Indy elements then DOD does. More tomb raiding/exploring, and more action. Indy is also a better character who is much smarter and the movie doesn't constantly have him act like a sad sack who wants to die.

Yes, we have goofy crap like surviving a nuclear explosion by hiding in a refrigerator, and Cate Blanchett is a cartoon character (but the movie deserves props for having a female lead villain when most movies were afraid to do that... Marvel I am looking at you), but were they any worse then some of the nonsense in DOD?

Other problems with DOD:

Helena knocks Indy out, robbing him of his agency, and robbing the audience of a potentially thrilling sequence (getting a mortally wounded Indy back before the time fisher closes), but her reasons make no sense. Would Indy being left behind really change the timeline anymore then the watch or that the bad guys shot up a bunch of Romans from the plane before it crashed? She even said history got mucked up, but why would Jones being left behind there change things any worse?

Indy has the dial at the end, so what is to stop him from going back? He never made the decision to stay in the present because Helena robbed him of that agency by punching him in the face.

Basically the exact same thing TLJ did with Luke.

Now what is the common denominator in both these 2 films

 

[Gothamsknight]

My 4k UHD is arriving today. Looking forward to a rewatch.

 

[TheVileOne]

The writing of Mac was one of my biggest problems in Crystal Skull.

Interestingly enough, in the Frank Darabont draft of the film, my recollection is that the Mac character was Russian, and he also ends up living at the end, just to showcase how that character evolved over time.

 

[Arachnerd]

I liked the idea of Mac being a double agent for the CIA and wish they didn't keep it as him just flipping sides on a dime without reason because greedy. At least then he wouldn't be such a messy character and would have been a nice role reversal from Elsa Schneider.

 

[TheVileOne]

I liked the idea of Mac being a double agent for the CIA and wish they didn't keep it as him just flipping sides on a dime without reason because greedy. At least then he wouldn't be such a messy character and would have been a nice role reversal from Elsa Schneider.

I agree. Him being a double (or is that triple?) would've been a nice twist, but his immediately turning right after that was also annoying.

 

[BoredGuy]

Finally watched it on D+, and yeah, it was pretty underwhelming
And I went in hoping for the best because Mangold is a great director and LaBeef was nowehere to be found (and killed offscreen which he deserved). But yeah, Helena was weak, New Shortround was not as good as original flavor, the CG de-aging in the intro was highly distracting, Boyd Holbrook's character seemed to be all over the place... just a lot to dislike here.

I don't even remember much of KOTCS at this point, but outside of Mutt and CG Monkeys, I might give it the edge over this movie, which is not something I ever thought I'd say

Cate Blanchett is a cartoon character (but the movie deserves props for having a female lead villain when most movies were afraid to do that... Marvel I am looking at you)

Interesting to mention Blanchett, and then forgetting about Hela...?

 

[Drizzle]

This is out on Blu-ray/4K today. I'm going to add it to the collection since I have the other four but I don't think I'm gonna bite at full price.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Finally watched it on D+, and yeah, it was pretty underwhelming
And I went in hoping for the best because Mangold is a great director and LaBeef was nowehere to be found (and killed offscreen which he deserved). But yeah, Helena was weak, New Shortround was not as good as original flavor, the CG de-aging in the intro was highly distracting, Boyd Holbrook's character seemed to be all over the place... just a lot to dislike here.

I don't even remember much of KOTCS at this point, but outside of Mutt and CG Monkeys, I might give it the edge over this movie, which is not something I ever thought I'd say



Interesting to mention Blanchett, and then forgetting about Hela...?

I was referring to early Marvel/MCU, before phase 3 when we still had Perlmutter and the creative committee didn't want Iron Man 3 to have a female main villain or a Black Widow movie because "female lead movies don't sell action figures". Female lead villains in massive summer blockbusters certainly wasn't common place in 2008.

 

[Albright]

There was a lot to hate about this movie…but I had a good time watching it.

 

[Sithborg]

Watching this, I was just reminded of how much my interest in Indiana Jones was dependent on my father.

I didn't hate the movie, I largely enjoyed it. But it was just too long. The intro was way too long, especially with how the de-aging cannot do anything with Ford's voice. I actually really liked Helena and her kid partner. Kind of shocked they right out killed Mutt off.

I also kind of objected to Indy moving to NYC, but upon checking, turns out there was where Old Indy was in the Young Indiana Jones Adventures, so checks out. Still waiting for him to lose an eye, though.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Kind of shocked they right out killed Mutt off.

I'm not big on casually killing characters off between films, but with it being the Vietnam Era I thought it fit. I feared going in that they were going to do the same to Marion as a reason to get Indy to go on another adventure, and thankfully they didn't go that cliche route.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

The biggest missed opportunity to make this better: The black female CIA agent with the 70s afro was a complete idiot (the only black character with speaking lines in the entire movie is an idiot... not a good look), so.... what they actually made her competent and have her take action when the villain's henchmen start killing Indy's co-workers, thus roping her on the adventure with Indy and basically replace Helena's Short Round 2.0 kid sidekick and give his action scenes (flying the plane, handcuffing the big henchmen under water) to her. She would make Helena's presence tolerable for me by not putting up with any of her crap, leading to some banter that is actually fun to watch.

Also, I don't think I've pointed this out, but the logical reasons for why Helena is the way she is (maybe she resents Indy and her father for her father being obsessed with the dial, maybe they fell on hard times and she had to become a thief to survive and feels entitled to what she is doing, etc) are NEVER nailed down specifically. Her character never gets any meaningful development. Its like they thought PWB's personality alone would carry what is a filmsy and underwritten role. If anything, PWB is miscast and out of place and isn't credible in the action scenes at all. Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning really did do this better, including the casting.

 

[chintai80]

finally watched this.

i like all the indy films, even KOTCS and this one as well.

i thought this was decent and gave closure to indiana jones, even though this was less "fun" than the previous films.

this might be the better movie than KOTCS, but it was missing that sense of pulpy fun that even KOTCS had.

and that's what we as an audience are accustomed to for these films.

but i get this was meant to be a more somber and bittersweet goodbye to the character and the franchise as a whole.

and i wish we got to see more marion ravenwood, instead of just that ending 5 minute cameo, but i also get why they did things that way.

if i had to rank the series, it would be:

1) The Last Crusade - A++
2) Raiders of the Lost Ark - A+
3) Temple of Doom - B
4) Dial of Destiny - B-
5) Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - C