The Hollywood darling of the year, but now no one cares, and the former male god is not welcomed?

A tragedy that has long been doomed happened:

"Indiana Jones 5", a box office hit.

Almost so to speak:

This is a project that not many people will be optimistic about in advance, firstly, because the IP is too old, and secondly, because Spielberg's habitual overspending is serious, investors are cautious, always worried that their money will be lost.

But in the end.

With the efforts of Spielberg, George Lucas, and James Mangold (Douban 9.1's "Deadly ID"), the filming of this film still received an investment of 295 million US dollars (equivalent to about 2.14 billion yuan).

And the loss, I am afraid to reach the scale of hundreds of millions.

What kind of obsession is this?

Or are they just gambling on luck?

I'm afraid not.

After watching the movie, Sir has actually been in mixed moods.

The first feeling is disappointment.

To be honest, the Indiana Jones series has a certain place in Sir's heart, it is a symbol of youth, or rather, a symbol of once young.

It was a commercial feast for the younger audience of that generation of Hollywood darlings, 37-year-old George Lucas and 35-year-old Spielberg.

It's fresh enough:

The protagonist is an archaeology professor, but he is also an explorer who wits evil forces through the dangerous jungle, and his feda cowboy hat and leather whip are his signature equipment (featuring a hormonal explosion).

It's interesting enough:

For example, in the train chase scene in the third part, Jones Jones runs a carriage equivalent to opening a blind box, there are snakes dancing, one-horned rhinos, lions, and magicians' wonderful rooms, and there are many Buster Keaton-style device tricks.

It has enough wonders:

For example, the jumping plane in the second part can be called the best airborne scene in the series, and the bright yellow inflatable boat gradually stretches out in the air and becomes a "parachute", which not only saves lives, but also slides snow.

It also has Spielberg's "feeding" to young people with B-grade film flavors:

For example, Indian food shot in the overly Western curiosity, stewed eyeball soup, frozen monkey brain; For example, the starting plane turned into a meat grinder and so on.

So to speak.

Although the treasure-hunting adventure film it opened influenced many later works, the most important thing is that it is the "now" work of that era, a prosperous spectacle that exudes hormones.

But now?

"Indiana Jones 5" is actually talking about the topic that has been said countless times:

Heroes are late.

The elder Jones came up and fought with the villain, but the result was ineffective and quickly defeated.

Most of the action scenes are car chases, repeatedly watching them chase me in the car.

Even the highlight of jumping a plane is a mediocre parachute fall.

There are no details of heavy stimulation to physiologically activate the senses, and no laughter to enliven the atmosphere, and it is difficult not to feel aesthetic fatigue in the two-and-a-half-hour film.

For young people now.

It's like nibbling on a bucket of sugar-free and soft-softened popcorn with no sweetness and texture to chew.

But.

Is it really just that?

This is the main reason why Sir feels complicated: there are actually some interesting "contrasts" in the movie.

For example, an action scene.

On the way to be chased by the Nazis, Jones fled on horseback, and the other party chased him on a motorcycle, forcing him close to the subway. In this confined modern space, Jones fled in panic.

What do you mean?

Older people out of place in the contemporary world?

I'm afraid it doesn't stop there.

Remember, the movie has a very special year: 1969.

That year, when Apollo landed on the moon, people were no longer satisfied with setting their sights on the earth, but looking up at the sea of stars and chasing an infinite imaginary future.

In class.

People have no interest in old knowledge and are enthusiastic about new technologies.

In the subway.

The child is wearing a spacesuit, which almost represents the future.

That's right.

This scene is just like the boom of new technologies such as AI today.

However, Spielberg asked:

Looking forward, is it really good?

If the times mercilessly push people forward, what should those who can't run? Just like Jones, retiring sadly and spending the rest of your life down?

It is also for this reason that the film arranges a third act that looks slightly stiff:

Jones travels through time and unexpectedly returns to the time of Archimedes.

There was no high technology in that era, there were no bombers, and people in that era were still concerned about the problems around them and solving practical problems.

That era.

Old man, still useful.

Is it reasonable?

Irrationality.

But this is Jones' ideal place.

So everything is clear.

The reason why Spielberg wants to make such a film in such an unpromising situation is not to make old wine in new bottles, but more to be a rebellion against the current trend and a comfort to those who are out of touch with the times.

He used their youth idols to tell them that it was okay, so did Jones, and so would Ford.

I don't want to stay in the ever-changing times.

It's not that shameful.

But the problem is that such an idea is not destined to please young people.

In my movie, the audience was basically silent from beginning to end, except for one scene, where Jones took out the whip, and as a result, others took out the gun without speaking of martial arts, only this humorous moment, the audience will give a little reaction.

But this scene is actually a self-salute.

The tribute is to the person who shot Jones in the first part of the competition.

Why are young people so indifferent?

I'm afraid it has something to do with their memories (they don't think that risking treasure hunting is a thrilling and trendy thing, and they won't have any Harrison Ford complex), but more importantly, it has to do with the creator's choice.

From start to finish.

Spielberg doesn't seem to have thought about creating characters that meet the aesthetic preferences of the current audience.

One of the most direct examples is the villain played by Uncle Mai.

This is perfectly a figure who can be made to connect with the current environment, a well-dressed person who has made a significant contribution to society, but in fact, the hidden identity is Nazi.

The result?

The character still follows the clichéd face, and does not even touch on any new features of contemporary neo-Nazis.

He became a mere target.

Complete old-school action movie design.

So to be honest, Sir feels that although "Indiana Jones 5" does not meet expectations, it is actually not described as "bad".

The ratings of major websites seem to be telling: IMDb 6.9, Douban 7.3, Rotten Tomatoes freshness 69%, popcorn index 88%, compared to the same period of movies, better than "Transformers", comparable to "The Flash".

But it just doesn't take it well.

It's like in the movie when people travel back to Archimedes' time.

On the one hand.

Jones saw Archimedes and said categorically, "I'm going to stay."

Sincerely.

Is he craving the "now" time with his idols?

No.

He is clearly the Wang Xiang who wants to live in the past and is unwilling to pretend to actively "look forward".

But on the other hand.

The young heroine who was with him knocked him unconscious with a stick and brought him back to 1969.

There is no room for negotiation.

Yes.

No matter who you used to be.

In this day and age.

Those who do not "look forward" can only be knocked to the ground again and again, without mercy.

The picture of this article comes from the Internet

Editorial Assistant: Buster Cold Noodles