Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

[Psab keel]

There aren't enough tomatoes in the world....

In all seriousness though, I fundamentally reject the notion of apathy, inaction, or cynicism masquerading as bravery. There is no heroism without sacrifice. Whether you surrender your needs or your life, a hero dies to self for the good of others.

 

[teecrooz]

Don’t all throw your tomatoes at once guys…

I watched it this weekend, I enjoyed it. Did the movie have its issues, hell yeah..

But after watching all the YouTube reviews I was expecting much worse..

My biggest problem, why too many chase scenes…

Love that dial prop and the whole idea of von Braun going back in time to try and take over

Exactly! Re-watched it at home, this time with my wife and son. My wife didn’t go to the theatre with us and wanted to see it, but always would rather wait until it’s on streaming. My son wanted to re-watch it!

I too thought the chase scenes were longer than necessary.

Just looked at these tomato scores everyone goes on about. Goes to show that the critic’s reviews are still not fully in line with the majority of the audience. 88% is pretty good, last I checked.

 

[teecrooz]

The Indy documentary that also came to Disney plus was excellent.

 

[Halliwax]

The Indy documentary that also came to Disney plus was excellent.

I forgot about that, I have to watch it tonight

… after 90 day fiancé

 

[Riceball]

My wife and watched it last night and we both enjoyed it. I was expecting a total train wreck of a movie on all of the criticism here but I thought that it was pretty good and much better than Crystal Skull, not that LotCS was all that great of a movie, I didn't see any signs of them trying to place the focus of the movie on the female character, she was as much of sidekick as Mutt, Shortround, and Marion were and I didn't get any sense that they were trying to set her up to be the new Indy. They could potentially be setting her up for her own franchise, which I don't have any real opposition to other than the time period just doesn't really work well for the globe trotting adventures into unknown parts of the world that the '30s of the original Indy movies does.

My only real criticism in the movie were some dumb moves by the villains that were not particularly realistic or believable but were clearly done for plot convenience. That and they seemed to be following the long standing Indy tradition of bad compositing work, something that's been a part of of the franchise since at least number 3. But the comp work was better than in the previous 2 movies, but still obvious to me.

 

[Kylash]

Yeah not many people gave this a chance because of all the noise online, i think in a decade or so people will start to like this like theyve started to like Crystal Skull.

 

[NakedMoleRat]

I’m not mad at myself for not seeing it in the theatre. I thought that it was a fun enough action flick.

It wasn’t nearly as bad as some folks were making it out to be. Either that, or it was, and having heard from them I didn’t have high expectations.

I enjoyed it. It’s worth a few more views over time.

 

[The Goon]

Wow. I didn't think it would have been possible to make an Indiana Jones movie worse than Temple of Dumb, but Dial of Density proved me wrong. There's 2 hours and 34 minutes of my life that I'll never get back.

 

[Solo4114]

There's a lot to cover because the movie is such a mess. It's the best researched video on the subject, both in terms of the adventure genre on film, the historical aspects of the movie, as well as the Indy franchise itself and its history. Michael also has a film degree, a journalism background, and a forensic attention to detail.

Like you said blewis17 even if you disagree with Michael's take, he breaks down his observations with careful consideration and dedicated research, like an investigative journalist would approach a story. This is film analysis at its absolute best.

Man, I don't care how many problems a film has. I'm still not watching a review that's almost 2x the length of the movie itself. If someone wants me to listen to them kvetch about a movie for 4 hours, they can open a tab at a bar and start buying for me.

Fair warning: I'm ordering single-malt Scotches.

In seriousness, though, this tendency to "over-review" a film by picking it apart for as-long-as-or-longer-than-the-film-itself lengths of time seems to be an online phenomenon that I suspect is driven in no small part by the ad revenue that a longer video (with forced ad breaks in between) will generate, rather than the content itself warranting such subatomic analysis. At a certain point, you can just say "This film has a bunch of problems. Here are 5 examples of the most common problems -- but bear in mind this stuff shows up all throughout the film." For that matter, at a certain point, these "long-form analyses" end up falling apart because they often lose coherency and devolve into stream-of-consciousness nitpicking.

 

[Psab keel]

There are no mid roll ad breaks in Retroblasting videos.

 

[Lightning]

The Indy documentary that also came to Disney plus was excellent.

Yes, and it revealed the existence of a shoulder holster Indy is wearing in the Raven Bar fight. Which has all the gear people super excited.

 

[Psab keel]

Yes, and it revealed the existence of a shoulder holster Indy is wearing in the Raven Bar fight. Which has all the gear people super excited.

That was a cool reveal! Being a gear collector myself I enjoyed the archival footage (the only reason I watched it) and there was a lot of cool footage from the days of the trilogy. Has anyone started a thread about the Hi-Power holster yet?

 

[batguy]

What does a 4-hour "review" mean?

If it's just a Siskel & Ebert session, then yeah, that's a 15-minute job. Usually less.

But telling the movie's whole detailed history . . . that could legitimately eat a few hours without being full of pointless filler or ranting. Just depends on how much you wanna know.


20 years ago when DVD/Blu-Ray "making of" documentaries were booming, I always wished they had been released in variable lengths. Give us a menu choice between a shorter or longer version.

 

[Riceball]

One thing that I found interesting in the movie was during the flashback portion of the movie. One of the Waffen SS goons was kind of a serious badass, but you wouldn't know it if you aren't a WWII history buff. On his (I think) his right sleeve he had 3 tank destruction badges, this means that he single handedly took out 3 tanks using a handheld weapon, as opposed to being in a tank or using an anti-tank gun, I don't recall if the use of a Panzerfaust counted or not. I just thought that it was an interesting touch since it's not something you typically see in movies, everybody always has Iron Crosses 1st and 2nd classes, officers will almost always have a Knight's Cross, but you generally don't see the lesser known decorations like this tank destruction badge.

 

[NakedMoleRat]

There are no mid roll ad breaks in Retroblasting videos.

I unsubscribed from Retroblasting when he showed a clip of a guy masterbating to express how he felt about a studio choice.

 

[Psab keel]

I unsubscribed from Retroblasting when he showed a clip of a guy masterbating to express how he felt about a studio choice.

I have no idea what video you're referring to. I've followed his channel for years and don't recall seeing anything like that.

 

[Halliwax]

I’m not mad at myself for not seeing it in the theatre. I thought that it was a fun enough action flick.

It wasn’t nearly as bad as some folks were making it out to be. Either that, or it was, and having heard from them I didn’t have high expectations.

I enjoyed it. It’s worth a few more views over time.

I bought a movie ticket, but with my short term memory loss forgot I even bought it and didn’t go…

Had to wait all this time for it to come out on stream

 

[Psab keel]

I didn't realize you were still struggling with that.

 

[Solo4114]

There are no mid roll ad breaks in Retroblasting videos.

>shrug< Ok. I'm talking in generalities here, not Retroblasting specifically. I don't know from Retroblasting.

What does a 4-hour "review" mean?

If it's just a Siskel & Ebert session, then yeah, that's a 15-minute job. Usually less.

But telling the movie's whole detailed history . . . that could legitimately eat a few hours without being full of pointless filler or ranting. Just depends on how much you wanna know.


20 years ago when DVD/Blu-Ray "making of" documentaries were booming, I always wished they had been released in variable lengths. Give us a menu choice between a shorter or longer version.

I tried skimming thru a couple. One was a Mauler video that most quickly comes to mind. Without getting sidetracked on the specific views of that reviewer, what it broke down to was "Here's a 4-hour long nitpick of every individual detail I didn't like about [movie] which proves I'm objectively right and this film is objectively bad."

If it were, say, an actual in-depth study of the film's background, production process, etc., that'd actually be interesting, but...that's not what these videos were. They were just "ALLOW ME TO READ YOU MY LITANY OF COMPLAINTS!!" like a Festivus airing of grievances. (There were no feats of strength.)

I think a lot of reviewers, meaning the guys who've made a cottage industry out of criticizing/nitpicking a whole range of films, are mostly oriented around just picking apart perceived flaws, without any real coherence or organization. Like, the point of the film is not "I think the main problem with the film is X and here are 5-8 things that all illustrate that problem in various ways." Unless, of course "X" is some variation of "It sucks." But instead, it's just a 4-hour list of "This doesn't work here" and "That doesn't work there," and if you're lucky they're grouped into some rough category, but the categories themselves don't seem to support any larger conclusion other than "And that's why this film is bad."

 

[CB2001]

Just looked at these tomato scores everyone goes on about. Goes to show that the critic’s reviews are still not fully in line with the majority of the audience. 88% is pretty good, last I checked.

View attachment 1767168

You do realize that critics have been confirmed to lie about their reviews in order to be able to keep access to new films and that studios also use bots to bump up audience scores, don't you? RT shouldn't be trusted for anything.