Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny Is a Dud
It might as well have been titled Indiana Jones and the Quest for Cash.

Quick: Name your favorite bit from an Indiana Jones film. I mean "bit" expansively—it could be a quip, an extended action sequence, a scene of tension or tenderness, a shocking effect, a moment of playfully mischievous charm. One could say that the series, at its best, is marked by a profusion of these moments, but perhaps even more important is that the series is marked by them even at its worst.
Raiders of the Lost Ark, which kicked off the franchise in 1981, is a masterpiece of popular filmmaking, in which every single scene, shot, and line works individually, and somehow they all work even better together. Raiders created a magic movie alchemy that still maintains an outsize influence on blockbuster movies more than 40 years later.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, the second film in the series, is far worse than its practically perfect predecessor: It's both too silly and too grotesque, too mean-spirited and too enamored with its own elaborate action-movie cleverness. But it also boasts a slew of ideas and images that you can instantly recall: the antic diamond scramble in the nightclub that kicks off the movie, the gross-out meal at the palace, the mine-cart chase, the shocking, gory, ritual heart removal scene.
The same can even be said for the franchise's much-derided, late-breaking fourth entry, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which contains a handful of crackerjack, high-hijinks action sequences and a delightfully ridiculous performance from Cate Blanchett, as the Natasha-esque villain. You may not care for the movie, or remember all the specifics, but you still know what it means to "nuke the fridge."
All four of these films, of course, were directed by Steven Spielberg, whose gift for witty comic action is unrivaled in modern Hollywood. Spielberg's action sequences may not make total sense in terms of real-world physics, but they all have perfectly coherent internal logic—even if it's Looney Tunes logic.
And they were anchored on maximally charming Harrison Ford performances in his movie star prime (or, in the case of Crystal Skull, only a little past it). If you want to understand what it means to be a movie star, watch Ford in these films: Not only does he take patently ridiculous material and make it a hoot, he makes a roguish, bordering-on-unlikable jerk—Indy is selfish and buffoonish throughout the series—and turns him into one of cinema's most enduringly charming characters.
Sadly, the same can't be said for the newest installment in the franchise, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. The fifth installment is a charmless dud, with no apparent reason to exist other than the enduring appeal of the character. It might as well have been titled Indiana Jones and the Quest for Cash.
Instead of Steven Spielberg, the film is directed by James Mangold, who conspicuously lacks Spielberg's gift for antic action. The big setpieces are creaky and uncreative, with none of the cartoon logic that gave Spielberg's over-the-top setpieces such energy and life. Several sequences, including an opening fight on top of a train and a chase that has Indy riding a horse into a subway, are so riddled with awful computer-generated effects work that at times they almost look fully animated. Almost every shot in the movie looks like it was shot inside, in front of a green screen, with heavy compositing work in post-production. For a series about global adventure, it rarely looks like Indy actually goes anywhere beyond the studio backlot.
And while it brings back Ford as the lovably grumpy archaeologist of the title, it also pairs him with Phoebe Waller-Bridge, playing Indy's goddaughter, another roguish archaeologist with some self-dealing tendencies, Helena Shaw. Anyone who's seen Waller-Bridge's Fleabag knows she has a gift for making nominally unlikable characters vulnerable and charming, and you can imagine her capturing some of the young Ford's roguish appeal. Instead, she's just blandly off-putting, as if the filmmakers forgot to put the charming bits in.
The script, meanwhile, goes from boring to bizarre, with a third-act twist that feels like it came from a Roger Corman quickie.
A late-breaking sequel with an aging star need not be a disaster: Just a few years ago, Harrison Ford reprised his 1980s role as the robot-hunting detective Rick Deckard in the remarkable, haunting Blade Runner 2049.
But Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny mostly just serves as a reminder of how great even not-so-good Spielberg/Ford joints used to be. There's not a memorable bit or moment in the movie, not a scene or a line or a gag that will stick with you for the rest of your life. The franchise's 1980s installments are some of Hollywood's most prized relics; but these days, Indiana Jones just belongs in a museum.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Worse than Crystal Skull? Evocative of Roger Corman? I'm going to rush to see this!
I am making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. https://www.apprichs.com/
What Crystal Skull ?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/06/can-dial-of-destiny-undo-medieval-dumb.html
you skipped the third one. James Bond & Han Solo were pretty good together I liked it.
Yes, if you picked that movie you chose well.
That one has been my favorite of the three ever since it came out, simply because so many of the beats hit so well and even the fan service moments like the snakes and whip in the opening act are well-executed. I've gotten to like Temple of Doom a lot more as I've gotten older, but for a long time Kate Capshaw's histrionics overcame a lot of the good shit like Mola Ram being an unapologetic badass villian.
>>Temple of Doom a lot more as I’ve gotten older ...
agreed w/entire sentence. the kid irritated me too but it's been almost 40 years he probably irritates himself when he sees it
I remember when I left the theater after watching that movie I found a five dollar bill on the ground. So I turned around, bought a box of Milk Duds and a ticket, and watched it again.
We were poor as shit when I was growing up, so we usually just went to the dollar theaters to see movies. Going to a new release was a big deal and saved for special occasions or movies, or if my grandparents decided to treat us grandkids. We went to see "Empire Strikes Back" and "Superman II" the week they were released, for example. I think I actually saw "Glory" in the theater 7 or 8 times counting the dollar theater showings.
For a couple of years when I was in high school, going to a new movie was actually my birthday present, which worked out great since it's in the summer and we could see a major tentpole movie.
I can relate. I'd collect bottles and cans for spending money. Nickels actually added up back then.
Sarc still lives this way.
$0.50 doesn't go as far as it used to...
Made up story.
Hi Tulpa.
Yep anyone who criticizes sarc is tulpa, the bastard.
Of all the good Indy ‘bits’, “She talks in her sleep.” is, IMO, The. Best. Indy. Bit.
Followed closely by “No ticket.”
That first line still makes me laugh my ass off, especially with the look on Indy's face when he realizes he got his Dad's sloppy seconds.
Intrinsically funny but also schadenfreude for the fact that three decades before whatever nth-wave of feminism and #metoo social Nazism we’re on, an “actual” Nazi honeypot beguiled two of the most alpha-male protagonists in film and the general response from both/all sides was, “LOL. Those chumps.”
Indy's dad: "I'm as human as the next man!"
Indy: "I was the next man!"
>>The. Best. Indy. Bit.
absolutely.
It wasn't a cash grab, it was the delusional Kathleen Kennedy's attempt to reboot the series with Fleabag front and center. Which is why in the original cut Ford did much less and Fleabag replaced all his accomplishments throughout history after he died.
Spielberg's recent snub of her is a good indication of how furious he must be with how she's single-handedly degraded the movie business with her bullshit. Spielberg certainly has his quirks, such as inserting his estranged relationship with his dad into everything, but at least he understood moviemaking as something that needs to have universal appeal, and he certainly never talked down the audience the way Kennedy and her clique of wine aunts have done.
Spielberg’s recent snub of her is a good indication of how furious he must be
That was glorious. That and him being caught on a hot mike telling Tom Cruise "You saved Hollywood" with Top Gun: Maverick shows that at least he "gets it." He at least understands that you can't just push "The Message" while insulting the audience and expect to stay in business.
Ultimately, he seems to understand that it comes down to making money. I'm sure he's happy to have Hollywood kiss his ass over self-indulgent quasi-autobiographies like "The Fabelmans," but it's got to be irritating the shit out of him that it and "West Side Story" have bombed at the box office. He wants to entertain people, but you can't do that if they don't want to go see your movie in the first place.
West Side Story bombed because of he totally crapped on and insulted his audience with an arrogant attitude about not sub-titling the Spanish dialogue. He now hates his audience just as much as any woke loser Hollywood creepster.
It wasn’t a cash grab, it was the delusional Kathleen Kennedy’s attempt to reboot the series with Fleabag front and center.
Which is why I’m going to enjoy watching it crash and burn, which it will no matter what twisted rationalizing they come up with for calling it a “success,” which they will.
But the math doesn’t lie: their reported production was $295 million (that they’re willing to admit to – it’s probably more than that with all the reshoots they did but through clever accounting tricks they can report a lower number than the real amount). So let’s just round up to $300 million Then there’s the promotional budget, which they never publicize but it’s probably at least $100 – $150 million. So that means the studio will have to make ~$400 – $450 million dollars just to break even. Keep in mind the studio only gets ~half the box office, the theater operators get the other half. So they’ll need to gross ~$800 – $900 million just to break even.
Considering I’ve yet to hear a positive thing about it so far, except maybe from the shilliest of the shills, and true Indiana Jones fans who have seen it have universally hated it even more than Crystal Skulls, it’s not gonna happen.
Edit: Oh, and to truly be considered "successful" it will probably need to make back its production budget in profit at least, so that's $1.1 - $1.2 billion to truly be a "success." Which is where their spin and redefining of success will come in. I hope it crashes and burns so hard that there's no way for even Disney to spin it as a success.
YouTuber Valiant Renegade showed that the baseline spending for it was about $355 million, I think, just for production.
And given the number of trailers, commercials, etc. I've seen for it, it's probably safe to assume the promotional budget is closer to $150 million. So it'll probably need closer to $1 billion just to break even. Never. Gonna. Happen.
Even in the old days, the movies had shockingly thin margins even for blockbusters. I recall reading an article in the late 80s or early 90s--I think it was for Batman--that did a breakdown of where the ticket revenues went, and even after making $250 million or so up to the point of the article's publication, the movie had only made something like a $5 or $10 million profit at that point. A lot of it was tied to the stars negotiating a percentage of the gross revenues, which massively ate into the profit on the back end.
You sound like you have the same youtube feed I do.
Probably similar. I think I got the rough estimates from one of Critical Drinker's videos, so credit where credit is due.
Maybe a bit of confirmation bias, but it was good to hear him say what I've been thinking since Captain Marvel: not only are the budget numbers retarded, they're almost certainly cooked so that they can be served in a retarded fashion.
LOL, that wouldn't surprise me.
Keep in mind the studio only gets ~half the box office, the theater operators get the other half. So they’ll need to gross ~$800 – $900 million just to break even.
If I remember right, that split is just for the first four weeks. After that, the percentage starts rising in favor of the theater, to something like 80-20 for a movie that's been in the theaters longer than three months. Up through the late 90s/early 2000s, for popular movies this wasn't a big deal because movies weren't released to video for about 9 months to a year after release. Studios were willing to take the hit in order to squeeze a bit more money out of the blockbusters--which is why dollar theaters thrived during the late 20th century multiplex era--while the theaters kept the prints as long as they could fill the smallest auditoriums.
Now, the studios can pull the movies after that four-week period and just put them on streaming, because they don't see keeping them in as a great return on investment. "Top Gun: Maverick," "Mario Brothers," and "Avatar 2" have been exceptions to the rule here, but again, that's tied to the fact that audiences were still packing the theaters for them long after their release, so the studios were still making decent money off of ticket sales even at reduced percentages.
I worked at a movie theater in college, and I remember we showed "Braveheart" for a solid 12 or 13 weeks. That thing had staying power like nothing I've ever seen, other than maybe "Titanic."
I think you're right about the split between theaters and the studio. There's no way enough people will be lining up to see this dog turd after 4 weeks for them to keep it in theaters. I predict it'll be on Disney+ by early August and on Blu-ray and 4k DVD soon after.
And they'll still be desperately trying to spin it as a "success" somehow.
Warner Brothers is already getting ready to pull the plug on The Flash for that very reason.
If I remember right, that split is just for the first four weeks. After that, the percentage starts rising in favor of the theater, to something like 80-20 for a movie that’s been in the theaters longer than three months.
I don’t remember the exact times and percentages, but that’s the general idea.
Also they can pay a flat fee and then keep whatever they make on top of that. The theater I worked at did that with “A Series of Unfortunate Events.” IIRC they paid like $20K upfront, then ran that sucker for a couple months, milking every penny they could.
That was a fun job.
I'm not sure if that's a standard practice for a lot of movies, but for certain ones I can see why they'd go that route. That would have worked really well for when we showed "Clueless" or "Friday," for example.
I'm curious how that worked out for the theater because “A Series of Unfortunate Events” wasn't a bomb, but it didn't do great either - North American box office was $118.6 million in 2005 dollars, which made it the 23rd highest grossing movie of the year. (Things like, "Shark Tale" and "Chicken Little" outgrossed it.)
Location can play a role in situations like that--if you're in a suburb that sees a lot of family traffic for animated movies, for example, something like that is probably worth the gamble if you don't think the overall percentage take is going to be that high. You're probably banking on a huge first couple of weeks before the box office collapses.
ESPN is firing 20 of their broadcasters/analysts/reporters today.
Jeff van Gundy's gone, which is not being well received.
She forgot that the idea of a sequel is the search for more money. Mel Brooks (as Yogurt) got it right" "Surely we'll all meet again in Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money."
Hard Pass.
Some things end at the beginning. Speilberg's team got off to a rousing start by quarrying both the Saturday serials and Library shelves for hair-raising incidents of travel, real and imagined, and distilling thousands of man-years of Archaeological misadventure into a hundred glorious minutes of film.
Be thankful they got away with it once.
For any of you true film buffs out there, Steven Soderbergh created a black and white cut of Raiders of the Lost Ark, sans dialog and a score set by Trent Reznor.
I can take or leave the score, but again, for the true film buffs, you’ll be blown away at how well Raiders works in Black and White, and how sharp Spielberg’s directing works, even with no color.
Link here.
That aesthetic is great for the time period being portrayed. It has a legitimate "Casablanca" feel to it.
Mad Max Fury Road: Black and Chrome is likewise pretty amazing in muted colors.
Crystal skull came out in 2008 and was complete garbage, with Ford already way too old for the part. So let's wait another decade and a half to make yet another junk sequel when he is geriatric. Great plan guys.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12252265/Indiana-Jones-300m-box-office-bomb-Dial-Destiny-tracking-shaky-opening.html
Indiana Jones and the $300m box office bomb? Harrison Ford's latest installment Dial of Destiny tracking for 'shaky' opening at movie theaters - as film critics brand the film a 'DUD'
Daily Fail links to Reason. Figure that one out.
Indiana Jones and the Widget of Wokeness
"I have all the Indiana Jones movies on DVD."
"Oh, we should spend the weekend watching them."
"Why would we need a weekend to see a double feature?"
I’m just wondering how South Park can outdo their reaction to the last movie.
Indy is selfish and buffoonish throughout the series
I really don't think I agree with this claim.
It’s a really dumb claim, he always does the right thing in the end.
1 and 3 were great.
2 was bearable.
4 and now 5 should never have been made.
The most brutal take from it I've seen to date is, "Indiana Jones plays a supporting character in a film that has his own name in the title."