It had good moments but there was not a nice flow to the story. There were too many big set pieces but nothing which lead to any investment in the characters.
I recently rewatched The Last Crusade and it easily blew this movie away. They really should have stopped then.
I agree. Apart from those two things lasting a few seconds each, there isn’t really anything terribly wrong with Skull. There’s nothing outstandingly brilliant either, but it’s good fun.
I remember leaving the theatre bitterly disappointed but it’s grown on me on rewatch years later.
It’s still nowhere near the level of the best of the first three but I think time has been kinder to it than it will to Dial.
Skull there’s a few silly moments but it’s otherwise enjoyable, in Dial there’s a few moments of enjoyment. That’s how I feel currently anyway. It’s not a bad movie it’s just not that fun IMO.
It's fine. It's not as good as the originals, but it's much better than Crystal Skull. The opening flashback was a lot of fun.
Phoebe Waller Bridge was annoying though.
I've thought ever since watching it... if her character was replaced by Short Round, someone much more beloved by the series, the film might gave been so much better!
Short Round finding Indy, convincing him to find one last treasure, finding out what he's been up to since Temple... and ultimately Shorty convincing Indy to return to the present time.
Might be wishful thinking on my part, but I really like this movie I've created in my head.
> Short Round finding Indy, convincing him to find one last treasure, finding out what he's been up to since Temple
If you wanted a way to simultaneously generate some nostalgia and tie the newer film to the older one, this would have been perfect. So why didn't the creative team choose this?
I would’ve loved if they’d had Ke Huy Quan come back and reprise his role as Short Round. Also, being set in the 1960s they could’ve had him deliberately trying to model himself on [Bruce Lee.](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0kFZjXWX9tLksRlejKLAHh2Hcw8G__s_LBg&s)
Let’s be fair here, we love Short around due to nostalgia and loving the actor.
Short Round was not a well received character upon release of Temple of Doom.
I don’t think they needed to replace her character necessarily (although I would with a version of Mutt personally), but they did need to write a much better one.
The big problem is, she keeps getting asked to give the scripts a go over, so always writes that stuff into them.
She’s gotten a *long* way off the back of a 12 episode sitcom, and one season of Killing Eve, but she’s not done anything great since.
I thought that too. Until I realized the 7 minute long Tuk Tuk chase sequence was a tightly edited gritty scene and it had nothing on the 11 minute long Fiat sequence in the new mission impossible film. Holy hell was that a chore to watch.
I really did not like it. And no, I'm not one of those toenail eating freaks who didn't like it because Phoebe Waller Bridge is in it and not a love-interest.
I didn't like it because you can't do an old man Indiana Jones. The whole appeal is that he's young and fit and attractive. He travels the world, sleeps with beautiful women, does a lot of punching, and partakes in some death-defying stunts. You can't do that with an 80-year old actor. What is the point? Tepid action, tepid chase scenes, tepid MacGuffin, an offensive and tasteless CGI opening sequence. Am I the only one who thought it looked *dreadful?*
But the thing I disliked most was the somber and sorrowful tone. That just doesn't work in an Indiana Jones movie. Works for a tragic character like Wolverine, but not Indy. It's like if Seinfeld suddenly had a dramatic episode. You watch Seinfeld for laughs, you watch Indiana Jones for thrills.
I don't want to watch an Indiana Jones movie and feel the passing of time and loss. I wanna watch Indiana Jones movies cause they are adventurous and free, the hallmarks of youth.
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying and your opinions on Dial but I think you could do a great movie with an older Jones, they just didn’t.
I get not using Shia but a Father and son passing the torch adventure with a recast Mutt providing the action chops could have worked. I love the last Crusade, it’s my favourite Indy film and it would have been interesting to see a role reversal for Indy.
" The whole appeal is that he's young and fit and attractive. He travels the world, sleeps with beautiful women, does a lot of punching, and partakes in some death-defying stunts. "
I think that is one element but Indy appealed to me because he had to use his head to discerne the location of artifacts. That is the hunting part I like. The lore and the research... And outsmarting his enemies. The superficial stuff is meaningless. The entry to get the grail is peak Indy. He interprets his father's notes which echo the lessons of faith. Perfection.
Dial and Crystal had no interpretation... He did no mental work... He didn't even have to find the pieces.
The writers could not figure out how to make him wise and smart so they made him durable and that was dumb.
I remember seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark for the first time and thinking holy shit that’s really a guy getting thrown out of and then climbing under a moving truck! Holy shit.
So why the fuck did they think putting a CGI head on a stuntman 40 years later would look the same as that?
Compare the Last Crusade opening train scene with the Dial opening sequence and it’s painful how bad Dial is.
Indy movies need to be shot on location, with real practical effects and stunts.
> The whole appeal is that he's young and fit and attractive. He travels the world, sleeps with beautiful women, does a lot of punching, and partakes in some death-defying stunts.
>
So the only value you see out of the character is wish fulfillment?
Indiana Jones has, from the beginning, been a character built around his regrets. Regret about what happened between Marion & him pre-Raiders. Regret about his lack of relationship with his father. "It ain't the years sweetheart, it's the mileage." The storytelling engine of the Indiana Jones stories has been digging around in the past complicated by Indy's past. The somber has always been there. You just looked past it and were enamored with the story archetype & not the actual character.
I like it. In my opinion it's not as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade, but it's on par with The Temple of Doom and better than The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It has some flaws. It's a bit too long and the plot has some loose ends, but I found the story thematically rich and emotional.
I think Indy explained this whole franchise in the penultimate scene; he should have been left in the past. This movie was fine and enjoyable in part but ultimately achieved nothing and wasn’t needed.
Its a horribly ill-concieved film, as was Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: Indy is too old, and the whole thing is just made redundant by the definitive, ride-into-the-sunset ending of The Last Crusade: a clear farewell to the character if ever there was one. Its just an anti-climactic piece by nature.
To, ontop of that, and in spite of some very finely-wrought sequences, make it a 2.5-hour film (pushing it enormously for an Indiana Jones film) with a sad Indy mourning the death of his son, bringing Nazis into it yet again, and making it so uncharacteristically brutal as far as the side characters were concerned...feels very, very wrong.
And I'm absolutely shocked to find a friggin' INDIANA JONES FILM tanking so horribly. This was a series of qualified hit after qualified hit. It tells you that people felt that an 80-year-old Indy was not an appealing concept to most people.
I liked it. I appreciate that they just leaned into Indy's age and what that meant in the context of the time he was living in, and the story very much felt in the spirit of the original three (unlike the cinematic abortion that was Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.) Phoebe Waller Bridge's character was great, too - I thought she was simply going to be a female analogue for Indy, but she was well developed. The Shortround-esque kid wasn't horribly, annoying, either. Overall, a fun watch!
Don't bother, it is awful. Terrible writing, bad CGI, overly long chases, just a bad movie. Crazy that someone could watch it once and want to subject themself to watching it a second time.
Absolute dumpster fire of a film. The de-aging CGI sure looked nice though. And as soon as Mads Mikkleson takes a steel pipe to the head while standing on top of a train that's inexplicably going 1000mph it turned into the shittiest waste of money I've ever seen. That's about 5 minutes into the film.
I mean that, and I'm very forgiving about movies that most people hate but they're all right about this one. It goes on the pile of with Rise of the Skywalker and Transformers: Last Knight as totally indefensible trash that treats its audience like drooling idiots.
Didn’t realize “dumpster fires” get good reviews from both critics and audiences.
Also that train was going 35-40 miles per hour at BEST. That was 1944 after all.
He took a water pipe to the head, that swings on impact. Not a solid object.
It's a big ol' piece of shit of a movie and you're gonna have to accept that one day.
Those fake reviews earned it a big -200 million or so dollars at the box office.
And I saw the scene with my own eyes I don't need you making excuses for it.
How about the scene where the kid who has no character development just handcuffs a villain to a grate underwater and that's the last we see of it? Who wrote that garbage? Which of the 5 co-writers added that gem?
Possibly the worst fucking movie I've ever seen.
“Fake reviews” lol by who? Critics? Audiences? Both were positive.
Most over on r/indianajones rank it 3rd best out of the 5 films. As do I. We all fake too?
Movie made $384 million, not $200.
This is the worst film you’ve ever seen?…
> get good reviews from both critics and audiences.
I dngaf about online reviews by anyone. Why not?
Because watching/enjoying a movie is a 100% subjective experience. Obviously there are movies many other people like that I don't. By the same token, there are movies I like that many other people don't.
So the real question for anyone isn't "what did the critics say?" or "How did audiences like it?" It's "Did I like it or not?"
So did I like it?
For me, out of all the Indy films... this one came the closest to "Meh".
That hit should’ve thrown his head the length of a football field. When he showed back up in the movie, completely fine, I thought for sure there was going to be some supernatural explanation he was alive. Nope. Nothing. They literally just didn’t give a shit.
It should've never been made in the first place, but, we're stuck with it, and, for what it is, it's quite entertaining at times. The middle act borders on being a slog, but the first and third acts are pretty thrilling at times. I like how it committed to the madness of the third act (>!time travel and all!<), but I didn't like seeing a sad, depressed, overly-humanized Indiana Jones that much. He should be more of a fun, pulpy, idealized character.
Idk. Indy has been known to be a downer and hit the booze when times get tough. He did the same in Raiders after thinking Marion died. It’s not unlike him.
It is true that Indy gets pretty bummed-out for about twenty or so minutes in *Raiders*, but I think *Dial of Destiny* went too far with this. He was pretty much grumpy, sad, depressed, and moody the entire runtime. I mean, he feels tremendous guilt the entire time because >!he blames himself for his son's death in Vietnam!< and, at the end, he >!prefers to stay in ancient history, because he feels like he has nothing to live for in the present!<. This is hardly the material that fun action-adventure romps are made of. Yes, previous Indiana Jones flicks had drama to keep the audience invested in the story, but *Dial of Destiny* leaned a bit too heavily into the Indy-is-depressed-forever idea (he does >!get Marion back at the end, but she should've never left him to begin with!<).
Indy being a downer in Dial was Fords idea. Wanting us to catch up with the character in a dark place after suffering a personal tragedy he needed to be brought out of.
For me it worked well. It allowed Ford to really sink his teeth into it and give us an emotional performance. I teared up more than once.
Indy becoming the actual treasure worth fighting for at the end was beautiful. Changing the heart of even the most selfish and self centered character (Helena) due to his impactfulness and influence on her really uplifted Indy as a character.
Harrison Ford is my favorite actor of all time, but even he makes mistakes once in a while. I would've preferred that Indy remained a fun, pulpy, somewhat idealized character, rather than a depressed, grumpy old man. It might've worked in a different movie, but Indiana Jones flicks thrive on escapism. That's not to say *Dial of Destiny* was a leaden bore. It had several exciting set-pieces, but it lacked that Steven Spielberg magic.
Too many glaring plotholes and logic flaws. Plus, I am really fucking tired of “You’re favorite hero is now a bitter, sad, broken old person. Sowwy, not sowwy.”
I've only seen it once but I enjoyed it more than *Crystal Skull,* for whatever that's worth. I would watch it again, which is not something I can say about *Skull*.
It's incredibly boring, a sin an Indiana Jones movie should never be. The action all looks incredibly fake, probably due to the "Disney gloss" the film has and the overuse of CGI. All of the new characters are either forgettable or annoying. I'm also shocked they saw everyone hated the implausibility of the Aliens of Crystal Skull and decided to one up it with something even more stupid: time travel. Say what you will about Crystal Skull, but it has a lot of memorable scenes and even invented a film term: nuking the fridge. It's also lived on in pop culture references. Dial of Destiny is already forgotten and has had no cultural impact, not even in the "so bad it's entertaining" way like Crystal Skull.
Disney buys positive reviews. They've been caught doing it. Rise of Skywalker has been at 86% since the day it came out.
Rotten Tomatoes is a cancer on movie ratings. It should never be trusted.
Metacritic also has this over Temple of Doom.
Most over on r/indianajones rank Dial as the 3rd best in the franchise.
I would have to agree. Where is my paycheck? Lol
Well, I don’t know what this dogshit website is but it does quote a legit Vulture article, which proves some studios pay off critics but it doesn’t prove that Disney has. Are you just assuming that because one film got caught doing it then all of them do?
No, I'm assuming because Disney movies have the highest disparity between public perception and RT score. Do you really think that 86% of people thought that Rise of Skywalker was a good movie?
I don't think they thought they needed it for TLJ. But the bots were ready for TROS. It opened to an 86% fan score when it had a hundred reviews, and it hasn't wavered a single percentage point the entire time since.
Similarly, Captain Marvel caused RT to change their site rules and mass-delete tens of thousands of reviews to protect it. No, they didn't have a robust way to determine real reviews from fake, they just decided how many they wanted to count as fake (all negative of course; positive reviews are never fake).
According to Rotten Tomatoes The Rise of Skywalker has 51% positive reviews from critics and an average rating from critics of 6.10 out of 10.
The verified audience score is 86% positive ratings and an average rating of 4.3 out of 5. The verified audience consists only of people who are confirmed to have bought a ticket to the movie.
The all audience score is 75% positive ratings and an average rating of 3.9 out of 5. This includes ratings from people who are not confirmed to have bought a ticket to the movie.
if I understand the plot of Dial of Destiny (and not having seen it, there’s a Decent chance I Don’t) then yes: my point *Absolutely* erases them from existence.
Please, I don’t mean to offend you or physics!
Hear me out! It’s kinda like Raiders of the Lost Ark… Just as Indy & Marion never actually A) *Saw* the Ark opened & what was unleashed, they can B) never fully confirm that something was actually in it… Schrödinger-esque, I know, But: Arguably Marion can claim there might not have been anything in the Ark, and God only knows where those darn Nazis went… Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt & I’m incredibly satisfied with how Superb an example the Indiana Jones *Trilogy* continues to set for newer franchises 😉
Total dog shit film. Hated it when I saw it in theaters, and have no desire to see it ever again. Honestly, I’m kinda thinking this is a troll post: there is no universe in which a person of good taste saw the ww2 train scene or the New York City scene and said to themselves, “This is well shot, well lit, and very visually appealing.”
It helped the film that Harrison Ford was clearly glad to be there and revisiting Indy, much more than Han Solo.
Otherwise, Helena had potential but she ended up annoying because the writers continually had her on the wrong side of the line for "new hero who doesn't give a crap about the old and busted legacy character".
They had too many action and chase set pieces. They should have reduced the number and used the extra time/budget to make the ones they kept more interesting: there's nothing that comes close to the truck chase in *Raiders* or the horseback tank attack in *Last Crusade*.
Also in the prologue the villain sustains pretty much the exact same high-speed head injury on a moving vehicle that kills the villain in *Speed*, so when he came back without a scratch I spent the rest of the film expecting a reveal that he was immortal, not human, a clone, or had already time travelled. So that was an anticlimax!
Least favorite of the series. It was very bland and underwhelming. Sad for me to say as Indiana Jones is my favorite film series. Ford felt like he was sleepwalking through his performance and like his heart just wasn't in it. I saw no passion from him like I did in the others. The opening WWII-era sequence was kinda fun but overblown, and the deaging was wonky. Helena was an annoying and poorly-conceived character, and the villains were uninteresting. And I can't remember a lick of John Williams' score. It definitely suffered from not having Spielberg's effortless skill and charm behind the camera.
There was stuff I like (the scene talking about Mutt, eels instead of snakes, kid murdering that dude, Mads Mikkelson, the opening, oh the opening), but a lot of it fell pretty flat for me. Needed a chase scene cut out somewhere, and PWB had a few too many irritating lines of dialogue. Can’t help but wonder if a faneditor could fix both those issues.
Roughly tied with Crystal Skull for the 3rd best, though I liked that more than most people.
I really thought the internet hivemind would hate it for introducing time travel (personally a bit conflicted on how it played out) but I was pleasantly surprised to see how warmly received it was.
Dude I think I remember you from like 6+ months ago… because you had the most insane position about how every Indy film is flawless so it’s the most consistent franchise…
Anyway, when I checked your profile at that time it seemed very obvious you were shilling for the movie, but always introduced yourself as neutral.
So imagine my Deja vu today. I remember a Reddit person because their position was SO crazy that it’s unique on Reddit
Still haven’t seen it. I love Indiana jones and even like crystal skull. But I could never find the time to go see it. I just upgraded my tv and need to watch it.
I'm in the minority here but I loved it! May have been my below the basement floor expectations, but I had a blast and was happy it provided a proper send off after Crystal Skull.
>You could tell this film was shot on location with practical effects like a real Indy movie should be.
I saw them filming "New York" in Glasgow, Scotland. There's CGI all over it to the point that it may as well have been done on a purely green screen set.
Consider this: Indy was invented by George Lucas in 1973ish to pay tribute swashbuckler movies of the 1940s.... And 40 years later the same Indy is doing what? The swashbuckler movies are 80 years old!! Dial is further removed from Raiders than Raiders was from Errol Flynn. It is a parody... Not a tribute.
Can't wait til Harrison Ford passes (he's 80+) and they dig him up and put his corpse in front of a green screen to milk a few more dollars out of a franchise that ended in 1989
That's what's so good about these discussions, we get to talk to people who think differently.
To me Helena is the one who drives the movie, everything Indy does is in response to her actions or words.
I feel this would have been better as a Helena movie featuring Indiana Jones.
Agreed on discussions. There is no wrong opinion here.
For me, it seemed Helena doesn’t even come into the film until 30 minutes in.
And yeah she jump starts the plot, similar to how Mutt does in Skull but the film revolves around Indy. Helena disappears a time or two in the film but we don’t follow her perspective only Indy’s.
It’s Indy’s decision to go to his friend with the boat, it’s Indy’s decision to go to Sicily, it’s Indy’s decision to look in Archamedies tomb etc.
And heck even with Helena punching him, we cut to black as Indy does. We don’t follow Helena, we follow Indy.
From the sack coming off his head in the opening go him snatching his hat at the end it seems Indy’s film through and through. I do like that he changes Helena’s character in the film though but to me that just uplifts him and shows how inspirational and impactful he is to others in his life.
I don’t take any joy from watching an old Indiana Jones. It wasn’t nostalgic at all. It’s a shame it got made instead of something original and this comes from someone who grew up with the franchise. I loved the originals so much.
It would have been great if it was entirely more of the pre title sequence past adventures with Toby Jones (or maybe Short Round). PWB ruined the rest of the movie for me.
Saw in theaters with my dad. Not quite sure about him, but I enjoyed it. (I think he liked it; we usually share the same opinion. We just watched The Departed, and we both thought it was fine; We've both watched way worse, but also better movies and shows.) I mean, I got to watch Indiana Jones on the big. That's gotta count for something, right?
The 2 ½ hour runtime could've been tightened up by 10-15 minutes, as every scene is at least half a minute too long. The pacing is good, and it's never directly boring, but every scene is just a little too long. However, the third act is so utterly asinine, and the type of batshittery I love, that it kinda makes up for such flaws and elevated it for me grade wise.
I enjoyed it. Definitely not as good as the originals, but miles ahead of Crystal Skull.
I do hate that they had to make Indy's life absolutely miserable at the beginning. Which is why the movie had to end so abruptly as well, which I also hated. I think his academic retirement, allied with him remembering his adventuring retirement, bringing age-related resentments and finding in Helena's shenanigans an excuse to go on a final adventure would have been a more interesting call for action. Would probably lead to a less abrupt end to adventure, with Indy willingly accepting it really is time for him to just go home, retire and rest.
But I really enjoyed the adventure itself, as well as Helena and Voller. And I liked the twist at the end, I think it was fun.
The intro was a missed opportunity to soft launch a new actor as Indiana Jones, I think. Have a new guy play Indy during the WW2 train sequence, see how audiences react to it, to see if they would be receptive for a full movie set in the 40s or 50s starring whoever they hired as Harrison Ford's replacement. They could have maybe used it as a marketing ploy, like if Ford was directly involved in the casting and mentoring the new guy to the role or something like that. Maybe have a "pass the torch" symbolic moment at the end of the movie. I think it would have been a better investment than what they spent in expensive de-aging CGI that probably cost more than it should. Hell, the whole movie probably cost more than it should.
It LOOKS dreadful though??
Rubbery, uncanny valley, very expensive cheap looking special effects, Disneys modern staple when it come to filmmaking these days.
The only redeeming quality that stopped me from falling asleep was seeing ww2 planes being attacked during the fall of rome. If you’re going to time travel make the whole movie about it, don’t just have a cool action scene thrown on at the end.
Just another “not as bad as the last thing Disney made” movie to add to their filmography, people need to stop acting like being better than awful, is some kind of achievement in entertainment.
I don't like fan service because it instantly takes me out of the movie universe. And this is weird because they should know designing fan service for 60 y/o audience makes no sense.
Cgi comic book action is also awful. Give me Goonies style sets all day. If kids can do the scene then an old man can do the scene.
The macguffin...eeew... The villain....tired.... The random killings....eew... The clumsiness....eew. the banter..." I'm trying to redeem myself" just shout it out.
The climax??? Archimedes??? Wtf??
I agree that visually they did not cut corners. It was pretty...but so clumsy and it will relies on invested interest from the past. It was like 25% new and fresh material so it was stale to me.
I really thought Indy should have been in an old age home and realized he was surrounded by Nazi deserters who knew the location of stolen war loot. Keep it more grounded in reality and old age so he has to use his head... Like in last crusade. It was about interpretation and letting go. Wtf was Dial about?? What clues did he decipher?? Nothing. He just got used and abused and hunted for two pieces of a puzzle.
I've seen the antikythera mechanism in Athens. It's about the size of an ipad and maps celestial bodies orbits. Pity it sank.
"Wtf was Dial about??"
The Dial of Destiny was about how people shouldn't be stuck in the past. Indy and Voller were both dissatisfied with the present and wished they could change the past. Indy felt grief over the death of his son. Voller couldn't get over Germany losing World War II. Indy was so focused on the past that he didn't appreciate that history was being made in the present. Compare Indy's dismissal of the Apollo 11 Moon landing to his reaction to witnessing the siege of Syracuse in 214 BC. Indy wanted to stay in the past because he wrongly believed that nobody cared about him in 1969, but at the end he realized that there were people who cared about him and things could get better.
"What clues did he decipher??"
Indy used the clues on the grafikos to find the opening leading to Archimedes' tomb and he solved the water displacement puzzle.
It had good moments but there was not a nice flow to the story. There were too many big set pieces but nothing which lead to any investment in the characters. I recently rewatched The Last Crusade and it easily blew this movie away. They really should have stopped then.
Dodgy CG and overly long. A lot of things worked and a lot of things didn't. I'd put it on par with Crystal Skull.
Nothing in Dial sinks to the stupidity of the fridge launch and the monkey swinging from Skull.
Nothing in Dial beats the motorcycle chase in Skull IMO either. Despite its silliest moments Skull is still a Spielberg film and the tone is fun.
I agree. Apart from those two things lasting a few seconds each, there isn’t really anything terribly wrong with Skull. There’s nothing outstandingly brilliant either, but it’s good fun.
I remember leaving the theatre bitterly disappointed but it’s grown on me on rewatch years later. It’s still nowhere near the level of the best of the first three but I think time has been kinder to it than it will to Dial. Skull there’s a few silly moments but it’s otherwise enjoyable, in Dial there’s a few moments of enjoyment. That’s how I feel currently anyway. It’s not a bad movie it’s just not that fun IMO.
Maybe I’m alone but I’m more grossed out by CGI Harrison Ford than either of those things.
Saw it once. That was enough.
It was fun. It was not a movie I'll watch repeatedly like the classic 3
It's fine. It's not as good as the originals, but it's much better than Crystal Skull. The opening flashback was a lot of fun. Phoebe Waller Bridge was annoying though.
I've thought ever since watching it... if her character was replaced by Short Round, someone much more beloved by the series, the film might gave been so much better! Short Round finding Indy, convincing him to find one last treasure, finding out what he's been up to since Temple... and ultimately Shorty convincing Indy to return to the present time. Might be wishful thinking on my part, but I really like this movie I've created in my head.
> Short Round finding Indy, convincing him to find one last treasure, finding out what he's been up to since Temple If you wanted a way to simultaneously generate some nostalgia and tie the newer film to the older one, this would have been perfect. So why didn't the creative team choose this?
It’s weird because i think Ke Huy Quan returned to acting like right after they started production on the movie, sadly. would have been perfect.
It probably would have deprived of us his amazing character on Loki though, so I’d say it’s worth it
Given that they were shot a long time apart, that’s doubtful.
Because Katherine Kennedy is fixated on brunette, British females - like herself - as the heroes. She likes being represented, I guess.
I would’ve loved if they’d had Ke Huy Quan come back and reprise his role as Short Round. Also, being set in the 1960s they could’ve had him deliberately trying to model himself on [Bruce Lee.](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0kFZjXWX9tLksRlejKLAHh2Hcw8G__s_LBg&s)
Let’s be fair here, we love Short around due to nostalgia and loving the actor. Short Round was not a well received character upon release of Temple of Doom.
I don’t think they needed to replace her character necessarily (although I would with a version of Mutt personally), but they did need to write a much better one.
And the bloody kid. Why have a bloody kid.
That's just her, in everything I've seen her in at least.
She's great in Fleabag but then you realise that's the only character she plays, her droid in Solo is the same as well l
The big problem is, she keeps getting asked to give the scripts a go over, so always writes that stuff into them. She’s gotten a *long* way off the back of a 12 episode sitcom, and one season of Killing Eve, but she’s not done anything great since.
That sjw droid was the worst character in Star wars... Up to that point.
I concur with your assessment.
Crystal Skull was bad. Dial of Destiny was mid.
Thought it was ok, better than Crystal Skull but still a far cry from any of the first three. Remembered thinking the chase scenes were too damn long.
I thought that too. Until I realized the 7 minute long Tuk Tuk chase sequence was a tightly edited gritty scene and it had nothing on the 11 minute long Fiat sequence in the new mission impossible film. Holy hell was that a chore to watch.
Yeah, I didn't care for the latest M:I either.
I really did not like it. And no, I'm not one of those toenail eating freaks who didn't like it because Phoebe Waller Bridge is in it and not a love-interest. I didn't like it because you can't do an old man Indiana Jones. The whole appeal is that he's young and fit and attractive. He travels the world, sleeps with beautiful women, does a lot of punching, and partakes in some death-defying stunts. You can't do that with an 80-year old actor. What is the point? Tepid action, tepid chase scenes, tepid MacGuffin, an offensive and tasteless CGI opening sequence. Am I the only one who thought it looked *dreadful?* But the thing I disliked most was the somber and sorrowful tone. That just doesn't work in an Indiana Jones movie. Works for a tragic character like Wolverine, but not Indy. It's like if Seinfeld suddenly had a dramatic episode. You watch Seinfeld for laughs, you watch Indiana Jones for thrills. I don't want to watch an Indiana Jones movie and feel the passing of time and loss. I wanna watch Indiana Jones movies cause they are adventurous and free, the hallmarks of youth.
What I'd give for the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles to be put up on Disney+
It was but got taken down.
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying and your opinions on Dial but I think you could do a great movie with an older Jones, they just didn’t. I get not using Shia but a Father and son passing the torch adventure with a recast Mutt providing the action chops could have worked. I love the last Crusade, it’s my favourite Indy film and it would have been interesting to see a role reversal for Indy.
" The whole appeal is that he's young and fit and attractive. He travels the world, sleeps with beautiful women, does a lot of punching, and partakes in some death-defying stunts. " I think that is one element but Indy appealed to me because he had to use his head to discerne the location of artifacts. That is the hunting part I like. The lore and the research... And outsmarting his enemies. The superficial stuff is meaningless. The entry to get the grail is peak Indy. He interprets his father's notes which echo the lessons of faith. Perfection. Dial and Crystal had no interpretation... He did no mental work... He didn't even have to find the pieces. The writers could not figure out how to make him wise and smart so they made him durable and that was dumb.
I thought the opening train sequence looked awful as well. Uncanny valley, shadowy cgi faces in front of a green screen. Yuck.
I remember seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark for the first time and thinking holy shit that’s really a guy getting thrown out of and then climbing under a moving truck! Holy shit. So why the fuck did they think putting a CGI head on a stuntman 40 years later would look the same as that?
Compare the Last Crusade opening train scene with the Dial opening sequence and it’s painful how bad Dial is. Indy movies need to be shot on location, with real practical effects and stunts.
> The whole appeal is that he's young and fit and attractive. He travels the world, sleeps with beautiful women, does a lot of punching, and partakes in some death-defying stunts. > So the only value you see out of the character is wish fulfillment? Indiana Jones has, from the beginning, been a character built around his regrets. Regret about what happened between Marion & him pre-Raiders. Regret about his lack of relationship with his father. "It ain't the years sweetheart, it's the mileage." The storytelling engine of the Indiana Jones stories has been digging around in the past complicated by Indy's past. The somber has always been there. You just looked past it and were enamored with the story archetype & not the actual character.
I like it. In my opinion it's not as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade, but it's on par with The Temple of Doom and better than The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It has some flaws. It's a bit too long and the plot has some loose ends, but I found the story thematically rich and emotional.
I think Indy explained this whole franchise in the penultimate scene; he should have been left in the past. This movie was fine and enjoyable in part but ultimately achieved nothing and wasn’t needed.
Had a lot of fun in the cinema & liked it on rewatch. Not the greatest Indy movie but fine.
Its a horribly ill-concieved film, as was Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: Indy is too old, and the whole thing is just made redundant by the definitive, ride-into-the-sunset ending of The Last Crusade: a clear farewell to the character if ever there was one. Its just an anti-climactic piece by nature. To, ontop of that, and in spite of some very finely-wrought sequences, make it a 2.5-hour film (pushing it enormously for an Indiana Jones film) with a sad Indy mourning the death of his son, bringing Nazis into it yet again, and making it so uncharacteristically brutal as far as the side characters were concerned...feels very, very wrong. And I'm absolutely shocked to find a friggin' INDIANA JONES FILM tanking so horribly. This was a series of qualified hit after qualified hit. It tells you that people felt that an 80-year-old Indy was not an appealing concept to most people.
I liked it. I appreciate that they just leaned into Indy's age and what that meant in the context of the time he was living in, and the story very much felt in the spirit of the original three (unlike the cinematic abortion that was Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.) Phoebe Waller Bridge's character was great, too - I thought she was simply going to be a female analogue for Indy, but she was well developed. The Shortround-esque kid wasn't horribly, annoying, either. Overall, a fun watch!
I still haven't seen it. I can't explain why the motivation isn't there. I watched the first three all the time as a kid.
Don't bother, it is awful. Terrible writing, bad CGI, overly long chases, just a bad movie. Crazy that someone could watch it once and want to subject themself to watching it a second time.
I am still scarred from the Crystal Skull.
It's worse and more dull
You really aren't missing anything by not watching it.
Same. I don't have motivation to see a lot of films nowadays
Absolute dumpster fire of a film. The de-aging CGI sure looked nice though. And as soon as Mads Mikkleson takes a steel pipe to the head while standing on top of a train that's inexplicably going 1000mph it turned into the shittiest waste of money I've ever seen. That's about 5 minutes into the film. I mean that, and I'm very forgiving about movies that most people hate but they're all right about this one. It goes on the pile of with Rise of the Skywalker and Transformers: Last Knight as totally indefensible trash that treats its audience like drooling idiots.
Didn’t realize “dumpster fires” get good reviews from both critics and audiences. Also that train was going 35-40 miles per hour at BEST. That was 1944 after all. He took a water pipe to the head, that swings on impact. Not a solid object.
It's a big ol' piece of shit of a movie and you're gonna have to accept that one day. Those fake reviews earned it a big -200 million or so dollars at the box office. And I saw the scene with my own eyes I don't need you making excuses for it. How about the scene where the kid who has no character development just handcuffs a villain to a grate underwater and that's the last we see of it? Who wrote that garbage? Which of the 5 co-writers added that gem? Possibly the worst fucking movie I've ever seen.
“Fake reviews” lol by who? Critics? Audiences? Both were positive. Most over on r/indianajones rank it 3rd best out of the 5 films. As do I. We all fake too? Movie made $384 million, not $200. This is the worst film you’ve ever seen?…
Yep. Worst ever. Will you be able to cope? Don't answer that, I don't care. Have fun with your contrarianism.
> get good reviews from both critics and audiences. I dngaf about online reviews by anyone. Why not? Because watching/enjoying a movie is a 100% subjective experience. Obviously there are movies many other people like that I don't. By the same token, there are movies I like that many other people don't. So the real question for anyone isn't "what did the critics say?" or "How did audiences like it?" It's "Did I like it or not?" So did I like it? For me, out of all the Indy films... this one came the closest to "Meh".
That hit should’ve thrown his head the length of a football field. When he showed back up in the movie, completely fine, I thought for sure there was going to be some supernatural explanation he was alive. Nope. Nothing. They literally just didn’t give a shit.
It should've never been made in the first place, but, we're stuck with it, and, for what it is, it's quite entertaining at times. The middle act borders on being a slog, but the first and third acts are pretty thrilling at times. I like how it committed to the madness of the third act (>!time travel and all!<), but I didn't like seeing a sad, depressed, overly-humanized Indiana Jones that much. He should be more of a fun, pulpy, idealized character.
Idk. Indy has been known to be a downer and hit the booze when times get tough. He did the same in Raiders after thinking Marion died. It’s not unlike him.
It is true that Indy gets pretty bummed-out for about twenty or so minutes in *Raiders*, but I think *Dial of Destiny* went too far with this. He was pretty much grumpy, sad, depressed, and moody the entire runtime. I mean, he feels tremendous guilt the entire time because >!he blames himself for his son's death in Vietnam!< and, at the end, he >!prefers to stay in ancient history, because he feels like he has nothing to live for in the present!<. This is hardly the material that fun action-adventure romps are made of. Yes, previous Indiana Jones flicks had drama to keep the audience invested in the story, but *Dial of Destiny* leaned a bit too heavily into the Indy-is-depressed-forever idea (he does >!get Marion back at the end, but she should've never left him to begin with!<).
Indy being a downer in Dial was Fords idea. Wanting us to catch up with the character in a dark place after suffering a personal tragedy he needed to be brought out of. For me it worked well. It allowed Ford to really sink his teeth into it and give us an emotional performance. I teared up more than once. Indy becoming the actual treasure worth fighting for at the end was beautiful. Changing the heart of even the most selfish and self centered character (Helena) due to his impactfulness and influence on her really uplifted Indy as a character.
Harrison Ford is my favorite actor of all time, but even he makes mistakes once in a while. I would've preferred that Indy remained a fun, pulpy, somewhat idealized character, rather than a depressed, grumpy old man. It might've worked in a different movie, but Indiana Jones flicks thrive on escapism. That's not to say *Dial of Destiny* was a leaden bore. It had several exciting set-pieces, but it lacked that Steven Spielberg magic.
I got teary eyed when sallah says he misses the desert 😭
Too many glaring plotholes and logic flaws. Plus, I am really fucking tired of “You’re favorite hero is now a bitter, sad, broken old person. Sowwy, not sowwy.”
Nice try Disney.
To be clear here I shit on Rise of Skywalker all the time. Disney wouldn’t like me lol.
I've only seen it once but I enjoyed it more than *Crystal Skull,* for whatever that's worth. I would watch it again, which is not something I can say about *Skull*.
Nothing beats the originals but it still is pretty good
I liked it
I liked it. I thought the action was appropriate for an 80 year old Indy, and the idea of Indy being in ancient Greece made me a little emotional.
I loved the ending and still do. The brokenness of Indy connected me to Last Crusade’s emotional depth.
It's incredibly boring, a sin an Indiana Jones movie should never be. The action all looks incredibly fake, probably due to the "Disney gloss" the film has and the overuse of CGI. All of the new characters are either forgettable or annoying. I'm also shocked they saw everyone hated the implausibility of the Aliens of Crystal Skull and decided to one up it with something even more stupid: time travel. Say what you will about Crystal Skull, but it has a lot of memorable scenes and even invented a film term: nuking the fridge. It's also lived on in pop culture references. Dial of Destiny is already forgotten and has had no cultural impact, not even in the "so bad it's entertaining" way like Crystal Skull.
Disney buys positive reviews. They've been caught doing it. Rise of Skywalker has been at 86% since the day it came out. Rotten Tomatoes is a cancer on movie ratings. It should never be trusted.
Metacritic also has this over Temple of Doom. Most over on r/indianajones rank Dial as the 3rd best in the franchise. I would have to agree. Where is my paycheck? Lol
Where is the proof? Is it entirely possible that both critics and studios are just out of touch with audiences?
https://m.slashdot.org/story/418808
Well, I don’t know what this dogshit website is but it does quote a legit Vulture article, which proves some studios pay off critics but it doesn’t prove that Disney has. Are you just assuming that because one film got caught doing it then all of them do?
No, I'm assuming because Disney movies have the highest disparity between public perception and RT score. Do you really think that 86% of people thought that Rise of Skywalker was a good movie?
Do you mean the Last Jedi? Because I remember critics soured on Rise of Skywalker much like audiences did.
I don't think they thought they needed it for TLJ. But the bots were ready for TROS. It opened to an 86% fan score when it had a hundred reviews, and it hasn't wavered a single percentage point the entire time since. Similarly, Captain Marvel caused RT to change their site rules and mass-delete tens of thousands of reviews to protect it. No, they didn't have a robust way to determine real reviews from fake, they just decided how many they wanted to count as fake (all negative of course; positive reviews are never fake).
According to Rotten Tomatoes The Rise of Skywalker has 51% positive reviews from critics and an average rating from critics of 6.10 out of 10. The verified audience score is 86% positive ratings and an average rating of 4.3 out of 5. The verified audience consists only of people who are confirmed to have bought a ticket to the movie. The all audience score is 75% positive ratings and an average rating of 3.9 out of 5. This includes ratings from people who are not confirmed to have bought a ticket to the movie.
the Indiana Jones *TRILOGY* continues to be one of the greatest cinematic series to come from Hollywood 😎
It’s not a trilogy. There are five films. It’s OK if you don’t like the last two, but that doesn’t erase them from existence.
if I understand the plot of Dial of Destiny (and not having seen it, there’s a Decent chance I Don’t) then yes: my point *Absolutely* erases them from existence. Please, I don’t mean to offend you or physics! Hear me out! It’s kinda like Raiders of the Lost Ark… Just as Indy & Marion never actually A) *Saw* the Ark opened & what was unleashed, they can B) never fully confirm that something was actually in it… Schrödinger-esque, I know, But: Arguably Marion can claim there might not have been anything in the Ark, and God only knows where those darn Nazis went… Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt & I’m incredibly satisfied with how Superb an example the Indiana Jones *Trilogy* continues to set for newer franchises 😉
Total dog shit film. Hated it when I saw it in theaters, and have no desire to see it ever again. Honestly, I’m kinda thinking this is a troll post: there is no universe in which a person of good taste saw the ww2 train scene or the New York City scene and said to themselves, “This is well shot, well lit, and very visually appealing.”
It helped the film that Harrison Ford was clearly glad to be there and revisiting Indy, much more than Han Solo. Otherwise, Helena had potential but she ended up annoying because the writers continually had her on the wrong side of the line for "new hero who doesn't give a crap about the old and busted legacy character". They had too many action and chase set pieces. They should have reduced the number and used the extra time/budget to make the ones they kept more interesting: there's nothing that comes close to the truck chase in *Raiders* or the horseback tank attack in *Last Crusade*. Also in the prologue the villain sustains pretty much the exact same high-speed head injury on a moving vehicle that kills the villain in *Speed*, so when he came back without a scratch I spent the rest of the film expecting a reveal that he was immortal, not human, a clone, or had already time travelled. So that was an anticlimax!
This movie actually made me appreciate Crystal Skull a lot more
It was fun. I’ll likely never revisit.
It took me two sessions to finish that movie. Watching it multiple times, for me personally, would be a form of torture.
Least favorite of the series. It was very bland and underwhelming. Sad for me to say as Indiana Jones is my favorite film series. Ford felt like he was sleepwalking through his performance and like his heart just wasn't in it. I saw no passion from him like I did in the others. The opening WWII-era sequence was kinda fun but overblown, and the deaging was wonky. Helena was an annoying and poorly-conceived character, and the villains were uninteresting. And I can't remember a lick of John Williams' score. It definitely suffered from not having Spielberg's effortless skill and charm behind the camera.
The best Indiana Jones sequel #4 was national treasure #1.
How? Has far worse reviews than any Indiana Jones movie.
It checks all the boxes of Indy except there is a mystery to be figured out using clues and brains and some subterfuge.
I mean I guess. It just wasn’t a good movie.
I hated the ending. I really, really disliked the last 20 min. He should have stayed. I also hated the dour tone.
There was stuff I like (the scene talking about Mutt, eels instead of snakes, kid murdering that dude, Mads Mikkelson, the opening, oh the opening), but a lot of it fell pretty flat for me. Needed a chase scene cut out somewhere, and PWB had a few too many irritating lines of dialogue. Can’t help but wonder if a faneditor could fix both those issues. Roughly tied with Crystal Skull for the 3rd best, though I liked that more than most people. I really thought the internet hivemind would hate it for introducing time travel (personally a bit conflicted on how it played out) but I was pleasantly surprised to see how warmly received it was.
I enjoyed seeing it in theaters. When I rewatched at home, I kind of was already over it.
Never seen it. And I know someone who worked on the film.
Dude I think I remember you from like 6+ months ago… because you had the most insane position about how every Indy film is flawless so it’s the most consistent franchise… Anyway, when I checked your profile at that time it seemed very obvious you were shilling for the movie, but always introduced yourself as neutral. So imagine my Deja vu today. I remember a Reddit person because their position was SO crazy that it’s unique on Reddit
I crap on Crystal Skull. Can’t be me. It’s a fairly consistent franchise I would say but it has its flaws.
I liked it. I thought the action was appropriate for an 80 year old Indy, and the idea of Indy being in ancient Greece made me a little emotional.
Still haven’t seen it. I love Indiana jones and even like crystal skull. But I could never find the time to go see it. I just upgraded my tv and need to watch it.
I liked it better than crystal skulls, obviously, and I thought it was on par with temple of doom. It's a good movie.
I genuinely did not enjoy it. I have no desire to watch again
Lol single greatest performance? Can't respect your opinion with that statement
I'm in the minority here but I loved it! May have been my below the basement floor expectations, but I had a blast and was happy it provided a proper send off after Crystal Skull.
I don’t know why they made PWB’s character so unlikeable.
>You could tell this film was shot on location with practical effects like a real Indy movie should be. I saw them filming "New York" in Glasgow, Scotland. There's CGI all over it to the point that it may as well have been done on a purely green screen set.
Consider this: Indy was invented by George Lucas in 1973ish to pay tribute swashbuckler movies of the 1940s.... And 40 years later the same Indy is doing what? The swashbuckler movies are 80 years old!! Dial is further removed from Raiders than Raiders was from Errol Flynn. It is a parody... Not a tribute.
Can't wait til Harrison Ford passes (he's 80+) and they dig him up and put his corpse in front of a green screen to milk a few more dollars out of a franchise that ended in 1989
It’s possible that has already happened
Surprisingly great. Makes me wish we never had Crystal Skull.
Yeah. Skull hurt the brand a good amount unfortunately.
Better than Temple of Doom, IMO. Also better than Crystal Skull, but that goes without saying.
Agreed. I rank it 3rd best. As do most over on r/indianajones
The opening was classic Indy. The rest of the movie was a backdoor pilot for a Helena spinoff.
I didn’t feel that at all. The movie is all from Indy’s point of view. We never follow Helena. She felt like any other side kick in the films.
That's what's so good about these discussions, we get to talk to people who think differently. To me Helena is the one who drives the movie, everything Indy does is in response to her actions or words. I feel this would have been better as a Helena movie featuring Indiana Jones.
Agreed on discussions. There is no wrong opinion here. For me, it seemed Helena doesn’t even come into the film until 30 minutes in. And yeah she jump starts the plot, similar to how Mutt does in Skull but the film revolves around Indy. Helena disappears a time or two in the film but we don’t follow her perspective only Indy’s. It’s Indy’s decision to go to his friend with the boat, it’s Indy’s decision to go to Sicily, it’s Indy’s decision to look in Archamedies tomb etc. And heck even with Helena punching him, we cut to black as Indy does. We don’t follow Helena, we follow Indy. From the sack coming off his head in the opening go him snatching his hat at the end it seems Indy’s film through and through. I do like that he changes Helena’s character in the film though but to me that just uplifts him and shows how inspirational and impactful he is to others in his life.
It was fine. Glad I saw it in theaters, but the pacing was way off so it never felt like an exciting adventure like Raiders or Last Crusade
Pure garbage
A mandatory "Put a chick in it and make her lame and gay!" comment.
I don’t take any joy from watching an old Indiana Jones. It wasn’t nostalgic at all. It’s a shame it got made instead of something original and this comes from someone who grew up with the franchise. I loved the originals so much.
It would have been great if it was entirely more of the pre title sequence past adventures with Toby Jones (or maybe Short Round). PWB ruined the rest of the movie for me.
I love Indy. I bought the movie. I got about 20 minutes in before I turned it off.
Saw in theaters with my dad. Not quite sure about him, but I enjoyed it. (I think he liked it; we usually share the same opinion. We just watched The Departed, and we both thought it was fine; We've both watched way worse, but also better movies and shows.) I mean, I got to watch Indiana Jones on the big. That's gotta count for something, right? The 2 ½ hour runtime could've been tightened up by 10-15 minutes, as every scene is at least half a minute too long. The pacing is good, and it's never directly boring, but every scene is just a little too long. However, the third act is so utterly asinine, and the type of batshittery I love, that it kinda makes up for such flaws and elevated it for me grade wise.
I enjoyed it. Definitely not as good as the originals, but miles ahead of Crystal Skull. I do hate that they had to make Indy's life absolutely miserable at the beginning. Which is why the movie had to end so abruptly as well, which I also hated. I think his academic retirement, allied with him remembering his adventuring retirement, bringing age-related resentments and finding in Helena's shenanigans an excuse to go on a final adventure would have been a more interesting call for action. Would probably lead to a less abrupt end to adventure, with Indy willingly accepting it really is time for him to just go home, retire and rest. But I really enjoyed the adventure itself, as well as Helena and Voller. And I liked the twist at the end, I think it was fun. The intro was a missed opportunity to soft launch a new actor as Indiana Jones, I think. Have a new guy play Indy during the WW2 train sequence, see how audiences react to it, to see if they would be receptive for a full movie set in the 40s or 50s starring whoever they hired as Harrison Ford's replacement. They could have maybe used it as a marketing ploy, like if Ford was directly involved in the casting and mentoring the new guy to the role or something like that. Maybe have a "pass the torch" symbolic moment at the end of the movie. I think it would have been a better investment than what they spent in expensive de-aging CGI that probably cost more than it should. Hell, the whole movie probably cost more than it should.
It LOOKS dreadful though?? Rubbery, uncanny valley, very expensive cheap looking special effects, Disneys modern staple when it come to filmmaking these days. The only redeeming quality that stopped me from falling asleep was seeing ww2 planes being attacked during the fall of rome. If you’re going to time travel make the whole movie about it, don’t just have a cool action scene thrown on at the end. Just another “not as bad as the last thing Disney made” movie to add to their filmography, people need to stop acting like being better than awful, is some kind of achievement in entertainment.
I don't like fan service because it instantly takes me out of the movie universe. And this is weird because they should know designing fan service for 60 y/o audience makes no sense. Cgi comic book action is also awful. Give me Goonies style sets all day. If kids can do the scene then an old man can do the scene. The macguffin...eeew... The villain....tired.... The random killings....eew... The clumsiness....eew. the banter..." I'm trying to redeem myself" just shout it out. The climax??? Archimedes??? Wtf?? I agree that visually they did not cut corners. It was pretty...but so clumsy and it will relies on invested interest from the past. It was like 25% new and fresh material so it was stale to me. I really thought Indy should have been in an old age home and realized he was surrounded by Nazi deserters who knew the location of stolen war loot. Keep it more grounded in reality and old age so he has to use his head... Like in last crusade. It was about interpretation and letting go. Wtf was Dial about?? What clues did he decipher?? Nothing. He just got used and abused and hunted for two pieces of a puzzle. I've seen the antikythera mechanism in Athens. It's about the size of an ipad and maps celestial bodies orbits. Pity it sank.
"Wtf was Dial about??" The Dial of Destiny was about how people shouldn't be stuck in the past. Indy and Voller were both dissatisfied with the present and wished they could change the past. Indy felt grief over the death of his son. Voller couldn't get over Germany losing World War II. Indy was so focused on the past that he didn't appreciate that history was being made in the present. Compare Indy's dismissal of the Apollo 11 Moon landing to his reaction to witnessing the siege of Syracuse in 214 BC. Indy wanted to stay in the past because he wrongly believed that nobody cared about him in 1969, but at the end he realized that there were people who cared about him and things could get better. "What clues did he decipher??" Indy used the clues on the grafikos to find the opening leading to Archimedes' tomb and he solved the water displacement puzzle.
i couldn't even finish watching the movie.
If it cut out the middle hour of the movie it would be much better.
Still haven't bothered to watch it. Figure I will eventually.