Originally Posted by :
Plot and character details have still been kept tightly under wraps, until now. The Illuminerdi can exclusively reveal the roles of Mads Mikkelsen and Shaunette Renée Wilson. And on top of that, when the next installment of the Indiana Jones franchise will take place.
According to our sources, Mads Mikkelsen will be playing the villain in this new installment of Indiana Jones. His character is described to us as a Nazi scientist enlisted into NASA by the United States government to work on the space agency’s moon landing initiative.
Shaunette Renee Wilson will be playing Mads Mikkelsen’s villain’s CIA handler responsible for “babysitting” the Nazi scientist turned NASA recruit. There will also be a female villain, “an evil and brutal killer” who will work with Mads Mikkelsen’s character. According to our sources, Scarlett Johansson actually passed on this role previously.
Mads Mikkelsen’s character’s description not only reveals that he will be the villain of Indiana Jones 5, but when the franchise’s next installment will be taking place.
The next Indiana Jones adventure would logically be set during the 1960s space race. NASA’s Apollo 11 landed on the moon in 1969, so it wouldn’t be a shock for the film to be set later in the 1960s, especially since the fourth Indiana Jones film was set in 1957. And in classic Indiana Jones fashion it looks like our hat wearing, whip wielding, archeologist will have another chance to punch some Nazis, with Mikkelsen’s villain being a former scientist for Hitler’s Reich.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
"New and exciting heights!!!"
I can't actually click on Twitter accounts at work (going to the website is blocked) but I'd give you even money that this person has pronouns in his bio.
I bet that raving review also dropped a little money into his pocket. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chief Ten Beers:
Everything I'm seeing says this things a bona fide, blue ribbon stinker
Right there with you. I have no desire to see this. I'd have to hear remarkable things about it from people I actually know and trust to even consider dropping theater money on it.
Fairly sure the only movie I'll see in the theater this year is Dune Part 2. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chief Ten Beers:
Everything I'm seeing says this things a bona fide, blue ribbon stinker
I was pretty skeptical about seeing it, but I actually thought it was pretty good. But I may be easily entertained, because I liked the Flash and Quantumania and those movies didn’t get the best reviews either. [Reply]
It might've been CinemaBlend, but not exactly sure where I read this... its hard to imagine looking this bad with a 300 million budget
Originally Posted by Frazod:
Right there with you. I have no desire to see this. I'd have to hear remarkable things about it from people I actually know and trust to even consider dropping theater money on it.
Fairly sure the only movie I'll see in the theater this year is Dune Part 2.
I'll waste my time but not money on it, when it shows up on TBS, TNT or whatever 6 months from now
Originally Posted by Spott:
I was pretty skeptical about seeing it, but I actually thought it was pretty good. But I may be easily entertained, because I liked the Flash and Quantumania and those movies didn’t get the best reviews either.
Hey I might even agree with you and other positive reviewers one of these days, we'll see [Reply]
Saw it today. It's not as bad as you guys are hearing. It's not the best Indy film, but it's better than Crystal Skull. I doubt I would watch it again, but I left the theater thinking I was glad I didn't let the bad reviews scare me away. [Reply]
Dial of Destiny doesn't embarrass itself in key moments like Skull does, but it's not as entertaining as the best moments of Skull are. The climax for Skull is a lot more satisfying, too.
I just find DoD really...not necessary? It doesn't add anything to the character, other than a "oh, that's neat" 20-minute intro that was quite badass, if we're being frank.
The rest of the movie builds on the mcguffin in a way I liked, but none of the action is particularly interesting or unique. It's entertaining enough, just because...it's Indiana Jones.
I needed the climax of the film to be something different than it was. It was a big letdown for me. Note that the third ACT itself, the setpiece, I really liked. But the climax of the film wasn't what I wanted. The film ended in a whimper, not a crescendo.
But I can appreciate the fact it didn't embarrass itself and was a fun distraction for a couple of hours.
I left lukewarm, and preferring the way we left the character in Skull.
Also most of the jokes in the film don't land for me, and the dialogue doesn't have that Spielberg crispness or sharpness.
It's made $152 million worldwide in 5 days, which isn't bad I suppose. I do hope it fails financially, because I do NOT want to see the square peg of PWB being jammed into a round hole for future projects that have anything to do with the IP. Lucasfilm needs to ditch Kathleen or at the very least be very discouraged from giving her control over anything that smells like this.
This smelt a lot like diet The Force Awakens. I'd still give it three stars. This wasn't Mummy 3. As a character study of an aging Indiana Jones, it was well put together. But, did we really need that? Meh. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mr. Plow:
Props for coming back with this take. And it's exactly why I am very picky about what movies I spend $100 to see in theaters.
