Harrison Ford does a stellar job being as old as he is and should be. Even in much of the action, I believe him. In general, written pretty well. Not Raiders good, ut as good as any of the sequels where they mostly make things worse by inadvertently helping the villains, but that is Indy's way so it works.
A little convoluted in too much hidden agenda, but that is the modern world. I hate it but what can you do. But overall, written well and mostly believably both an Indy movie and updated to the 60s. Mostly no dumb 2020's sensibility language either.
But the MOVIE is not that great. There's just an overall failure of the pacing, the art direction (it is all too dark and small for an old school action movie), and the editing. It's needlessly confusing and that's before you get to the bad CGI. I mean even stuff that is simple like static backgrounds of Tangiers or a parade look so, so fake. And stuff that should have been left simple like the map travel scene is overdone with a photorealistic airplane banking all the time. Why?!
Okay, I also think too much action. Very simply, too much. Think of the terrific x-marks-the-spot library scene in Last Crusade. The writers could have admitted more that he's old and smart. Hell, even let the youngsters do the action but comically have it in the background and much like the whole theme of action on multiple layers.
Speaking of other old people, the nostalgia casting like Rhys-Davies also totally worked. He's a cabbie but pleased as he can be to be doing that. But other nostalgia doesn't work. The theme pops up like it's an amusement park ride, not like a legit score. I think this points to that basic bad direction/editing thing, where there's no clear reason they couldn't score it properly and just didn't understand what they were doing, so failed at it.
Other casting of new people is surprisingly nice. Not everyone new is young, and a new old-friend (we haven't seen every one of Indy's adventures, and it's been over a decade since we saw him in action, a decade before that with no idea what he did, etc) being a fairly worn Antonio Bandaras really works, and is believable in story, believably acted by them both,
A little convoluted in too much hidden agenda, but that is the modern world. I hate it but what can you do. But overall, written well and mostly believably both an Indy movie and updated to the 60s. Mostly no dumb 2020's sensibility language either.
But the MOVIE is not that great. There's just an overall failure of the pacing, the art direction (it is all too dark and small for an old school action movie), and the editing. It's needlessly confusing and that's before you get to the bad CGI. I mean even stuff that is simple like static backgrounds of Tangiers or a parade look so, so fake. And stuff that should have been left simple like the map travel scene is overdone with a photorealistic airplane banking all the time. Why?!
Okay, I also think too much action. Very simply, too much. Think of the terrific x-marks-the-spot library scene in Last Crusade. The writers could have admitted more that he's old and smart. Hell, even let the youngsters do the action but comically have it in the background and much like the whole theme of action on multiple layers.
Speaking of other old people, the nostalgia casting like Rhys-Davies also totally worked. He's a cabbie but pleased as he can be to be doing that. But other nostalgia doesn't work. The theme pops up like it's an amusement park ride, not like a legit score. I think this points to that basic bad direction/editing thing, where there's no clear reason they couldn't score it properly and just didn't understand what they were doing, so failed at it.
Other casting of new people is surprisingly nice. Not everyone new is young, and a new old-friend (we haven't seen every one of Indy's adventures, and it's been over a decade since we saw him in action, a decade before that with no idea what he did, etc) being a fairly worn Antonio Bandaras really works, and is believable in story, believably acted by them both,