characters: which were strong and weak to you?

B

blueoakleyz

New member
Positive or neutral characters in my opinion:

Indy, of course.. didn't do enough whip action or shooting though. Seemed kinda old and cranky.. moreso than usual.

Irina Spalko.. well played and enjoyable villain

Mac.. he's probably the standout for me.. great character if a bit confusing and evil.

Dovchenko.. I liked him

Jim Broadbent: nothing much to say about him
negative/weak characters

Oxley: what an old coot and unenjoyable character. I didn't even know who john hurt was (apparently he played the wand maker in Harry Potter) but everyone else was like "oooh it's john hurt" I'm like who??

Smith/Neil Flynn: blah such a bad actor. Watching the janitor from scrubs..ick

Mutt: I like Shia but this character was way over the top and just corny and cartoonish. And he so so overdid it with the anger at the drop of a pin kind of thing/rebel thing. Give me a break.

Marion: Just seemed over the top and cartoony compared to the gritty Marion in the first one. Seeing her old... was just unflattering. Seeing her old and Indy old together was also sort of cringe worthy.

the writer: blech!

john williams: other than the stuff from the first 3 movies he really dropped a
ball here. mutt's theme was so annoying too and nothing else stood out.

Henry Jones Sr and Sallah: they weren't in it! They would have given SOME continuity to the last 3 films and my favorite LC.
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
blueoakleyz said:
Positive or neutral characters in my opinion:

Indy, of course.. didn't do enough whip action or shooting though. Seemed kinda old and cranky.. moreso than usual.
Click to expand...

I wonder why Indy seemed older??? It’s only been circa 20 years since the last movie…. If only we knew why…

blueoakleyz said:
Irina Spalko.. well played and enjoyable villain

Mac.. he's probably the standout for me.. great character if a bit confusing and evil.

Dovchenko.. I liked him

Jim Broadbent: nothing much to say about him
negative/weak characters

Oxley: what an old coot and unenjoyable character. I didn't even know who john hurt was (apparently he played the wand maker in Harry Potter) but everyone else was like "oooh it's john hurt" I'm like who??

Smith/Neil Flynn: blah such a bad actor. Watching the janitor from scrubs..ick

Mutt: I like Shia but this character was way over the top and just corny and cartoonish. And he so so overdid it with the anger at the drop of a pin kind of thing/rebel thing. Give me a break.

Marion: Just seemed over the top and cartoony compared to the gritty Marion in the first one. Seeing her old... was just unflattering. Seeing her old and Indy old together was also sort of cringe worthy.
Click to expand...

The only character where a little more would have paid off… is Mac. I found his death scene to be nondescript and quite meaningless. Mac is a good character for the movie, but never reaches his potential because of his underwritten death scene. As already discussed in multiple threads, if Mac had sacrificed himself to save Indy, it would have paid dividends to his overall character arc.

blueoakleyz said:
the writer: blech!

john williams: other than the stuff from the first 3 movies he really dropped a
ball here. mutt's theme was so annoying too and nothing else stood out.
Click to expand...

I've not repsonded to this, as these were not fictional characters in the movie (which I'm assuming was the aim of the topic).
 
-Jones-

-Jones-

Member
blueoakleyz said:
I didn't even know who john hurt was (apparently he played the wand maker in Harry Potter) but everyone else was like "oooh it's john hurt" I'm like who??
Click to expand...

He's one of the greatest actors in the contemporary cinema. Let me just write about his magnificent performance in "The Elephant Man"...

Younger people can associate him with Hellboy series or Alien.

His role in KotCS was very limited...
 
B

blueoakleyz

New member
"I wonder why Indy seemed older??? It?s only been circa 20 years since the last movie?. If only we knew why?"

Maybe if I had worded it in a question this would have been funny. I'm just stating the obvious. Just because it IS obvious doesn't mean it's a nonissue.
 
B

blueoakleyz

New member
Darth Vile said:
I wonder why Indy seemed older??? It?s only been circa 20 years since the last movie?. If only we knew why?



I've not repsonded to this, as these were not fictional characters in the movie (which I'm assuming was the aim of the topic).
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't say that. They are (especially the music and thus John Williams) a very big character in each film.
 
B

blueoakleyz

New member
-Jones- said:
He's one of the greatest actors in the contemporary cinema. Let me just write about his magnificent performance in "The Elephant Man"...

Younger people can associate him with Hellboy series or Alien.

His role in KotCS was very limited...
Click to expand...

Doesn't "turn me on" (not sexually) very much either way. He's a noname as far as everyone I know is concerned. Doesn't mean he isn't a good actor.. but the character stunk and him being in it meant nothing to me.
 
Niteshade007

Niteshade007

New member
Weakest characters, the ones that stand out to me, were Marion and Mac. Marion, not because she had aged, but because she did nothing but drive a car. She had a strong opening dialogue wise, but weak acting and then...driving. Also, part of her costume wasn't very flattering. The jacket just did not fit right. The way she held her arms in it...it just made her look old. Once the jacket was off, she looked a lot better. Unfortunately, she didn't have anything to do at that point.

What is there to say about Mac that hasn't been said a thousand times already? His characterization is weak, and I wish they had done more with him.
 
J

James

Well-known member
Broadbent did a solid job as Dean Stanforth, but it was largely a thankless task. It would've obviously been the Marcus Brody role, had Denholm still been with us. This exchange in particular would've really taken on an added weight and poignancy, if it had been Marcus Brody saying the words:

Indy: And what did you have to go through, old friend?
Dean: Indy...I resigned.

I think Mac was an attempt to make an Indiana Jones character more complex than necessary. And also more than the series really warrants.

On the dvd, Ray Winstone says he played the character as if Mac was always thinking of himself as a double agent. So when he's with the good guys, he thinks he's working for the bad guys. And when he's with the bad guys, he thinks he's really a good guy.

I had always assumed the opposite- that Mac just went along with whoever was winning. But I like Winstone's explanation, and can see how that plays out in the film.
 
TheMutt92

TheMutt92

New member
I actually enjoyed Mac a lot more the second time around. I think it really is his scene that kills the character in most people's minds.

Overall, sad to say, I thought Marion was weaker. She was different, but not in a well explained way. This is different w/ Indy in the fact that we have three films to see him progress. W/ Marion, its Raiders then Skull for her. She quieter, dosn't do much, and smiles a hell of a lot more than in Raiders.
 
B

blueoakleyz

New member
Here's the difference
In raiders he leaves her as a kid for like what, 10 years?
She slaps him, berates him, acts totally mean and tells him she's his god damn partner.

In Crystal Skull he leaves her WITH a kid, as an adult, for like 20 years... and she's all like whatever flirty flirt flirt
 
C

caats

New member
Spalko annoys me. i like blanchett. but something about the way she speaks is really annoying. her accent and the cadence.
 
J

James

Well-known member
blueoakleyz said:
Here's the difference
In raiders he leaves her as a kid for like what, 10 years?
She slaps him, berates him, acts totally mean and tells him she's his god damn partner.

In Crystal Skull he leaves her WITH a kid, as an adult, for like 20 years... and she's all like whatever flirty flirt flirt
Click to expand...

It is the difference.

When we first see Marion in Raiders, she has nothing. She's stuck in Nepal, and has spent the last ten years blaming Indiana Jones for that fact.

In KOTCS, Indy has previously left her with a kid. You seem to imply that this is a bad thing, and yet Marion has obviously come to regard Mutt as her whole life. This would explain why she appears overprotective of him- a fact that likely helped to fuel his need to rebel.
 
StoneTriple

StoneTriple

New member
James said:
...Marion has obviously come to regard Mutt as her whole life. This would explain why she appears overprotective of him- a fact that likely helped to fuel his need to rebel.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. I love the depth and layering of the characters. Kingdom characters are much more than bumbling Marcus, comic-relief Sallah, screaming Willie, and sidekick Shortie.

Those characters were fine for those two films, but Kingdom gives the characters some emotional depth & background so we care about what happens to them in the future.

Because we already knew where Raiders started, at the end of Temple there was nowhere else to go other than the silly elephant-sprays-water-on-the-group hug.
 
Last edited:
QBComics

QBComics

Active member
blueoakleyz said:
Here's the difference
In raiders he leaves her as a kid for like what, 10 years?
She slaps him, berates him, acts totally mean and tells him she's his god damn partner.

In Crystal Skull he leaves her WITH a kid, as an adult, for like 20 years... and she's all like whatever flirty flirt flirt
Click to expand...

I actually think because Marion had nothing, she's trying to make sure the same doesn't happen to him.
 
Dewy9

Dewy9

New member
James said:
I had always assumed the opposite- that Mac just went along with whoever was winning. But I like Winstone's explanation, and can see how that plays out in the film.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I always thought of him as the Lando Calrissian of the Indy series.

Maybe a bit too cartoony, but I view the Indy movies like they're based on old comic books. A little over the top perhaps, but that's part of the fun.
 
Lance Quazar

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Mac and Oxley are the two most poorly-conceived, badly written and pointless characters in the entire franchise.

Worse than Willie.

Worse than LC Marcus.

Worse than the guy who belches while eating a beetle.

Just awful.
 
D

deckard24

New member
  • Marion and Oxley were the weakest in my opinion!
  • Spalko was so-so, she was just a little too Rocky and Bullwinkle-ish to me!
  • Dean Charlie Stanforth and Mac were okay for what they had to work with.
  • Dovchenko was good, but putting him in the back of the truck with Indy, Marion, and Mutt was a dumb idea! In my opinion it made him less threatening! He worked great when he didn't really talk, and just came after Indy again and again like the Terminator!
  • Indy and Mutt were the highlights!
 
L

Lynx

New member
Indy, of course, was fine. I felt he was worn out and more crotchety then usual. . .but he is supposed to be 58 years old in the film. It made sense. He was an older, wiser, more jaded Indiana Jones.

Mutt, also, was fine and a good addition to the franchise, in my opinion. I wish that he had a bit less action then he did (Which would have gone to Indy, of course), but overall, he felt like a natural addition.

Spalko was probably the most memorable villain of the series next to Mola Ram (Which is saying something, since I view Temple and Kingdom as inferior to both Raiders and Crusade). She was interesting, over-the-top, and sexy.

Mac. . .I'm conflicted about. On one hand, I thought he was an interesting character and I felt Ray Winstone's performance was very well done. However, I felt his second betrayal was a bit ridiculous, and his death was completely meaningless.

Marion was wasted, in my opinion. When she was fiery, she felt like the Marion from Raiders. But, after the "They weren't you, honey" line from Indy, she was totally wasted as she went doe-eyed for the rest of the movie. And I thought her "coaching" Mutt during the fight was pointless and annoying.

Oxley was irritating and completely and utterly pointless. He acted as a plot device and gave Indy's party one character too many. And I don't blame Hurt. It was completely the script's fault. All of his hints and explanations could have been done in a more interesting way if he hadn't been there. Think about it: We didn't need Abner to explain where to find the Ark or to explain what was up with the Ark in Raiders. Why did we need Oxley here?

As for Dovchenko and Stanforth. . .there's really not much to say. Dovchenko made a fine brute villain, but that's not exactly hard to pull off. And Stanforth was a fine replacement to Marcus (And by Marcus, I mean Marcus from Raiders. Marcus in Crusade was a completely different character.)

So, overall, I think Indy should have gotten a little more action (Both in fights and in figuring out clues Oxley would have left behind), Mutt should have gotten a little less action, Oxley should have been cut completely, Mac should have had his redemption, and Marion should have stayed a fire pistol until the very end. All of these would have made Kingdom a much more enjoyable experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top