Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

It was ok as a romp to not take seriously but it was spoilt by Phoebe Waller-Bridge's character, Helena, who seemed to be smiling incessantly. Very 1-sided character I disliked, and given the amount of screen time, spoilt the movie.

Chases were fun if not ridiculous: would three-wheeled vehicles be able to travel that fast round corners without toppling over?

I felt many of the action sequences relied too heavily on computer generation making them feel unrealistic. Some of the vehicle manoeuvres and the shooting of the characters within them didn't ring true and took my attention away from the movie.

Glad there weren't be anymore, even though I grew up with Raiders.

With a heavy heart, I think I have to concede that Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is not good. It's probably even bad, because even the parts that are sort of entertaining ultimately disappoint.

Take for example the prologue with a de-aged Harrison Ford. The technology used to do it is impressive, and only looked awkward in a couple of shots for me. It's Indy adventuring during the end of World War II, and it almost captures the adventure/action you'd want. However, it's so dimly lit that barely anything can be seen. It's probably to disguise the de-aging, but it's disappointing. The stuff you can see isn't particularly great, but it fares better than the next couple of big action scenes.

These are spaced out over the next 80 to 90 minutes. Said 80 to 90-minute stretch is honestly very boring. Harrison Ford is trying, and John Williams' score is pretty good. I usually like Phoebe Waller-Bridge, but her character didn't work for me. Barely any of the humor landed. The action is incredibly dull and quite often poorly shot. Ford himself isn't in much of the action, which is understandable, but it also begs the question of why they even bothered trying to make an action movie with an 80-year-old man.

I swear characters enter a hotel at night, and they come out the front door five minutes later and it's the middle of the day. Why did they bring John Rhys-Davies back without giving him anything to do? Why was Antonio Banderas in this for like, five minutes? Why do they think audiences will care that Banderas and Toby Jones play "friends" of Indiana Jones, even if they've never been seen or mentioned before this film? Why does Hollywood keep wasting Mads Mikkelsen?

The final half-hour is sort of fun, but it concludes very abruptly and awkwardly. Some people will hate where the movie goes regardless, but I thought it came close to giving the whole thing a pulse. The final scene itself sounds like it should work on paper, but it did nothing for me emotionally. As I walked home, I liked the movie less and less, the more I thought about it.

It's so lifeless and uninspired, and even if maybe a third of it is passable, the rest is a combination of boring and baffling. Even if you're a big fan of the series, I wouldn't bother. This is a good deal worse than the other four.

In The Monkey's Paw (spoilers for a 100 years old horror classic, I guess), the protagonists, after the death of a loved one, use a cursed artifact to bring him back, only to find a shambling undead monstrosity knocking at their door.

Being a movie nerd in these days is a similar experience: the franchises you loved as a kid keep coming back, and for a while, maybe after a decent trailer, you are happy and optimistic... but then you see them and regret their return.

In fact, Hollywood just can't let a beloved series end at the right moment. Alien should have ended with Aliens, and it got a diarrhea of terrible sequels, prequels and spin-offs; Terminator with T2, and I've lost count of the reboots; Star Wars with Return of the Jedi, and it got the awful sequels (I'm giving the prequels a pass because they at least tried to tell an interesting story)...

... and, of course, Indiana Jones should have ended with The Last Crusade. It would have been an amazing trilogy (I have my issues with Temple of Doom but oh boys, is it looking better in retrospect), and now it has not one but two pointless sequels.

So, is this one better or worse than Skull? I'd say more or less on par: not terrible and unwatchable but clunky and mediocre.

Ford was my favorite actor as a kid ("Imagine being both Indy and Han Solo!"), and he gives it all here, but the sad truth is, he was already too old in Skull, and that was 15 years ago.

Mangold is a solid director but Indy movies live and die on the strength of their set-pieces, and he isn't prime Steven Spielberg. Then again, who is? Not even Spielberg himself nowadays, since the set-pieces in Skull already sucked.

Mangold keeps the camera too close so we do not get the geography of the action; his set-pieces are all momentum and no triumphant release. See the scene with the underwater relic and the eels, a cool premise which peters out into nothing. Also, the protagonists (especially Indy) rarely if ever do anything COOL to resolve the action - a crack of the whip, a last-second dive: they are just there, ping-ponging between different obstacles.

Story construction is bloated, with pointless characters (the governative agents, the Moroccan mobster), setups without payoffs ("continental drift") and endless tedious exposition: a scene with Waller-Bridge (moderately less annoying than I was expecting, but it was a low bar) smugly decrypting a tablet with a clue feels like the longest ten hours I've ever spent in a movie theater.

Here's a hint, scriptwriters: characters dealing with treasure hunt clues is only interesting if we, the audience, can also SEE the clue and GUESS the possible answer. Otherwise, it's like watching someone on the bus mumble as he does his Sudoku, and you can't even peek over his shoulder.

Dial of Destiny takes a weird turn in the last act and I sort of wish they had embraced the sheer cheesiness of it. I enjoyed a couple of scenes (the prologue is decent enough), but, if you absolutely need a good Indy sequel, play the old adventure game The Fate of Atlantis.

5/10.

Harrison Ford is a legend, and his enormous talent is called upon to carry this reboot of the character he single handedly made iconic. Once again, he dawns the patented hat and whip with charisma and force. But even our hero Indy can't rescue this coffee house script, that may have not gone through a rewrite. The female lead is unwatchable, and I found myself wishing she'd go away, and take her unnecessary side kick with her. She looks like a WNBA star drafted to play a character in a movie. Her character is arrogant, and self absorbed. For some reason, she seems to have animosity towards Indy, but it's unexplainable why. There are a lot of classic chases, and different adventures, that are nostalgic for the original films. I saw Raiders of the lost Ark when I was 5, and I can still remember where I was when I saw it, it was that good and memorable. Harrison Ford recaptures the magic of young Indy. This film is not memorable or even very good, otherwise. The end plays like a sequel to Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. Hello Ancient dudes! I left the theater realizing that the years of monumental film making are over, and these plastic, lifeless imitations are all we will get. Harrison Ford you're one of the greats, thank you for all of the incredible memories. But this one I'm going to try to forget.

It is 1944 and adventuring archaeologist Indiana Jones is in a familiar predicament: the Nazis have caught him attempting to scupper their nefarious plans. After breaking free of their vile clutches, Jones and his accomplice Basil Shaw discover the fascists have found the Antikythera mechanism, a device created by Archimedes that supposedly reveals time fissures. Jones escapes, foils the enemy's schemes and steals the mechanism- seemingly putting the matter to bed. Some 25 years later, however, Jones is thrust back into action when his goddaughter Helena comes looking for the Antikythera; with an underground group of die-hard Nazis on her tail. Will Jones and Helena manage to save the day before time runs out?

Directed by James Mangold and written alongside Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth and David Koepp, 'Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny' is an uneven sendoff to one of the greatest characters in film history, that all too often feels like it came from the 'paint by numbers' school of filmmaking. Mangold tries throughout to recapture the magic of the original trilogy of Jones pictures, and occasionally succeeds; such as in the thrilling opening set in 1944, or a touching reunion between Indy and his estranged love at the end of the film. Furthermore, it is consistently enjoyable watching Harrison Ford on screen as Indy once more, even if he is a more downcast fellow this time; and the odd reference to adventures past is sure to make fans of the series grin from ear to ear.

However, the narrative is weak, the characterization of secondary characters is scant at best and- weirdly- at times it seems as if Indy is the sidekick in his own film. Helena Shaw, from the moment she comes on screen, is treated as the real star of the show, despite her being a decidedly unlikable lady. A spoiled and arrogant heiress, she is constantly rude and dismissive of Indy, when she isn't being reckless and impulsive, putting herself and others in danger for her own selfish motives. As written, the character has little to no respect for history or culture, seeing everything as a means to an end. She contrasts starkly with Indy, whose humble respect for his profession and legacy endears him to audiences. Helena, on the other hand, is a self-centered cad, who tries to upstage our hero at every turn. Why Mangold thought she should be made the (arguable) central character when this is Indy's last outing is beyond comprehension, not to mention being irritating and disrespectful to a cinematic legend.

Alas, Mangold's poor characterization isn't confined to her alone. 'Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny' not only provides us with a discount Short Round in the form of Helena's associate Teddy- a kid more irritating than mischievous- but a discount Major Toht too, in the form of Professor Voller- a Nazi scientist so generic even the incomparable Mads Mikkelsen can't make him interesting. Neither of these new iterations of old characters are very compelling, nor well rounded; and their inclusion in the film feels like a desperate attempt to out-do and re-create times gone by. Furthermore, the few familiar faces that occasionally pop up feel shoehorned into the plot, and Voller's troupe of henchmen are bland and forgettable.

Unfortunately, 'Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny' contains underwhelming visuals as well, which look cheap compared to the likes of 'Raiders' or 'The Last Crusade.' Much like with the previous 'The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull', there is a phony digital sheen to everything on screen that takes one out of the movie completely, and the questionable CGI is jarring throughout. Comparing the first three movies with the last two, it seems digital processes don't fit an Indiana Jones vehicle, they are the kind of epics that demand to be shot on film with practical effects. Moreover, the exaggerated effects and artificiality of proceedings hamper whatever realism Mangold was trying to foster with his downbeat narrative and allusions to real world history.

The main problem with 'Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,' though, is its lack of originality or charm, which the previous films- well, the first three, anyway- had in spades. Mangold seems content to rely on recycled tropes and clichés to forward the story, making this adventure feel like familiar ground instead of fresh fun. The film uses the similar formula of Nazis, ancient artifacts, exotic locations and supernatural elements that we have seen before, but without the wit, creativity and excitement that made them memorable; meaning this iteration of Indy comes as more of a whimper than a bang.

Are there some elements deserving of praise in the film? Of course. Harrison Ford is consistently excellent and engaging as Indy, carrying the adventure squarely on his shoulders with his usual ease and charm. Furthermore, John Williams' epic score is stirring and- though her character is unlikable- Phoebe Waller-Bridge brings a nice blend of snark and enthusiasm to proceedings, sharing a good chemistry with Ford. Had they a better script to work with- and if Mangold's characterization wasn't so one-dimensional- they might have made a memorable duo. Additionally, the action is generally well realized- though tends towards the overblown- and there are moments and batches of dialogue that'll have fans of the series entertained, even if they are a bit few and far between.

However, 'Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny' just isn't great. As an adventure movie, it is too downbeat, and as a final entry in a fantastic series, it is too weak narratively to make much impact. Though it makes for a better overall package than 'The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,' it's not by much. The character of Helena Shaw is hard to warm to, the villains are forgettable and the visuals are underwhelming. In short, Indy, Ford and the fans deserved a better movie than 'The Dial of Destiny,' a muddled misadventure proving that time waits for no man; not even Indiana Jones.