![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jennariaINDIANA JONES AND THE DIAL OF DESTINY (2023) - PG-13
Official description: Daredevil archaeologist Indiana Jones races against time to retrieve a legendary dial that can change the course of history. Accompanied by his goddaughter, he soon finds himself squaring off against Jürgen Voller, a former Nazi who works for NASA.
Character death: Our main characters make it through alive! Most of the other characters do not. Granted, they're one-off characters we've never met before, but still, high body count.
Sex: Nope!
Violence: Lots. Like, arguably pushing it for PG-13. See previous note about the number of deaths, most of which occur on-screen.
Sexual violence: Minimal! A couple implications in Casablanca.
Snakes: Technically no! There are eels, and bugs (millipedes, centipedes, beetles, and a couple spiders).
Second-hand embarrassment: Also thankfully minimal.
Parent issues: Indiana's god-daughter spends most of the film treating him as a father figure, a mark, or a mentor alternately, so sorta? More in the intent than the execution, I feel.
So I've seen this debate before, about a variety of movies and TV shows: how much of what makes them work is due to the writing? How much the acting? How much the audience? Or, contrary-wise, if they don't work, why?
Indiana Jones is a safe property, as they say - RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is still a glorious fun-house ride of a movie, and INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE pulled actual character depth and resonance. (...we do not speak of the other two movies, thank you.) The movie theater actually ran a three-minute behind-the-scenes/trailer mash-up thing, where Harrison Ford talked about how comfortable he was stepping back into the character.
And there are bits of the movie that do remind me of happy nostalgia! There's a chase around Casablanca that's a delight (even if I did find myself thinking idle theme-park ride design thoughts), for example, and the chase for the MacGuffin builds through a lovely set of puzzles, and Mads Mikkelson knows his properly loathsome villains.
But the emotional heart of the film is supposed to be Helena Shaw, Indy's god-daughter, and that didn't...entirely...work for me. Is it the writing? The acting? The audience? I saw at least one review on Tumblr that absolutely loved the character and what the movie did with her. I didn't. :helpless shrug: Maybe if I was the sort of person who saw and loved FLEABAG, I'd have clicked more with the character of Helena. Or if I was hungry for female anti-heros. Or loved Phoebe Waller-Bridge in general. I didn't hate her, but I'd hoped to like her, to enjoy her, to feel for her. Instead, there was just something missing, and I don't know what.
Overall: notwithstanding my crankiness about the female lead, the movie's enjoyably nostalgic, and a good escape from the heat for two and a half hours. It's no RAIDERS, but it's no CRYSTAL SKULL either. I'll take it.
Official description: Daredevil archaeologist Indiana Jones races against time to retrieve a legendary dial that can change the course of history. Accompanied by his goddaughter, he soon finds himself squaring off against Jürgen Voller, a former Nazi who works for NASA.
Character death: Our main characters make it through alive! Most of the other characters do not. Granted, they're one-off characters we've never met before, but still, high body count.
Sex: Nope!
Violence: Lots. Like, arguably pushing it for PG-13. See previous note about the number of deaths, most of which occur on-screen.
Sexual violence: Minimal! A couple implications in Casablanca.
Snakes: Technically no! There are eels, and bugs (millipedes, centipedes, beetles, and a couple spiders).
Second-hand embarrassment: Also thankfully minimal.
Parent issues: Indiana's god-daughter spends most of the film treating him as a father figure, a mark, or a mentor alternately, so sorta? More in the intent than the execution, I feel.
So I've seen this debate before, about a variety of movies and TV shows: how much of what makes them work is due to the writing? How much the acting? How much the audience? Or, contrary-wise, if they don't work, why?
Indiana Jones is a safe property, as they say - RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is still a glorious fun-house ride of a movie, and INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE pulled actual character depth and resonance. (...we do not speak of the other two movies, thank you.) The movie theater actually ran a three-minute behind-the-scenes/trailer mash-up thing, where Harrison Ford talked about how comfortable he was stepping back into the character.
And there are bits of the movie that do remind me of happy nostalgia! There's a chase around Casablanca that's a delight (even if I did find myself thinking idle theme-park ride design thoughts), for example, and the chase for the MacGuffin builds through a lovely set of puzzles, and Mads Mikkelson knows his properly loathsome villains.
But the emotional heart of the film is supposed to be Helena Shaw, Indy's god-daughter, and that didn't...entirely...work for me. Is it the writing? The acting? The audience? I saw at least one review on Tumblr that absolutely loved the character and what the movie did with her. I didn't. :helpless shrug: Maybe if I was the sort of person who saw and loved FLEABAG, I'd have clicked more with the character of Helena. Or if I was hungry for female anti-heros. Or loved Phoebe Waller-Bridge in general. I didn't hate her, but I'd hoped to like her, to enjoy her, to feel for her. Instead, there was just something missing, and I don't know what.
Overall: notwithstanding my crankiness about the female lead, the movie's enjoyably nostalgic, and a good escape from the heat for two and a half hours. It's no RAIDERS, but it's no CRYSTAL SKULL either. I'll take it.