RSS 2.0
When I was 14 years old, I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark and fell in love with Indiana Jones. As I grew up, this crush evolved into a more than passing interest in historical sites and digs, slight proficiency with a bullwhip (although Batman Returns is in part to blame for that one) and a fondness for movies. Or so I thought. Because I just saw Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and realised something: despite my growing up into a well balanced historically interested bullwhip wielding movie buff, I am still very much in love with Indiana Jones.
Indy IV (as the film will be lovingly called for the purpose of this review) has been a long time in the making. And throughout its final stages Spielberg, Lucas, et al. have been very secretive about the plot. I intend to honour their tightlippedness. So if you want to know what Indy IV is about, move on for you will not find it here. This review just offers an opinion on the film itself. Suffice it to say that Indiana Jones, with the help of new character Mutt Williams and old flame Marion Ravenwood goes to seek out a mythical crystal skull. He needs to find it before the Russians do, because they intend to abuse its supposed powers to achieve world domination.
Generally speaking, both Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas have nothing left to prove. They have made more than their share of iconic films and are in fact icons themselves. For Indy IV however, expectations were exceptionally high. It has been nineteen (!) years in the making and so had nineteen years of audience anticipation to live up to. Luckily for everybody (including the audience) it manages to come out on top.
Indy IV is, how could it not be, an extremely well made movie and it shows not just the total commitment of all the people involved but also the prodigious skills of its director and producers. The set pieces (and there are many of them) are great, the transitions between them are smooth and logical, there are many winks and nudges to the previous three movies and what is most important: Spielberg and friends have managed to achieve the magic associated with those previous three movies. Most of the action has a nice ‘low tech’-feel about it. There is a lot of bare knuckle fighting going on, not the polished wire aided kung fu we are used to seeing. Unfortunately, on those instances where Indy IV loses credibility it is at the moments where the action does become slicker. However well executed those elaborations are, they clash with the old-school tone of the rest of the film and are no match for it.
In addition, some elements of the plot are based on urban rather than historical legend and that, combined with a few rushed discoveries in the interest of exposure, makes for a few lapses in credibility. At those moments the audience may realise they are not in fact part of the movie, but are merely watching it.
This is particularly unfortunate because most of the other elements of Indy IV work so very well. Spielberg does a wonderful job at explaining (and credibly at that) how time has progressed. He shows us in a few short scenes, where Henry Jones Jr. has been, and how and why he has changed in the past nineteen years. Spielberg perfectly sets the atmosphere of the era, so from the first minute of the film on, we know precisely where and when we are. Spielberg and Ford even afford themselves a few jokes on Indiana’s inevitable aging. However, Indy IV never veers off into comedy (as its predecessor did); its feet are firmly planted in the action-adventure genre and it manages to recapture the ironic tone of voice that Raiders of the Lost Ark had. One god-awful creature gag aside, that is. Here’s hoping that is removed from the film, come the directors cut.
With a history as long and deep as the Indiana Jones-franchise, the scriptwriters had a lot to work with and work from, in terms of character development. Even with that in mind, the characters and their relationships are exceptionally well rounded. There are real histories here, and stemming from those, real stories being told. Shia Labeouf and Harrison Ford have a great chemistry together. Both the actors and the characters complement each other well. Ford has lost no credibility as an action hero because his scenes and character are so well written. Karen Allen, who was always the best Indiana Jones heroine (Kate Capshaw was too hysterical, Alison Doody was too cold) is also back in fighting form. She and Indy crackle like before, but not exactly in the same way as before. The script is respectful and thorough regarding the time that has passed and the changes this has brought for both of them. This makes any developments credible and desirable, even.
Cate Blanchett meanwhile is not going to win any Oscars for her turn as Russian superbaddy Irina Spalko (the accent is too wobbly, for one), but her performance has instant camp value. I can predict with quite a fair amount of certainty what the next Halloween costume hit will be.
So overall, and despite a few slip-ups, Indy IV comes through. It is well made, but more importantly, made with a lot of love from everybody involved in the project. The magic of our childhood films can never be recaptured or remade and it would be foolish and naïve to expect this from any sequel. However, judged on its own merits, Indy IV holds the banner high and adheres to the standards the previous three films have set.
Mariken (69 posts)Legal secretary/traveller. Omnivorous about music (Bach, Henry Rollins, Ella Fitzgerald), movies (Don't Look Now, Shawshank Redemption, Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter), books (Beckett, Palahniuk, Palmen, Pratchett) and shoes (preferably those with more than a 4 inch heel)
14 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
***WARNING***SPOILERS AHEAD***
Good review,
I saw it at a midnight premiere in NYC and the audience was wild. I was a bit disappointed by the large amount of CGI (Spielberg predicted about 30%) that kinda clashes with the movie’s previous instalments. But then again: animating giant ants and aliens with stop motion capture would be darn stupid…
I am also a bit ambivalent when it comes to the great fighting jungle chasing scene. The backgrounds were clearly CGI, it looked even goofy. Maybe it was Spielberg’s hommage to the B-movie’s feel of the franchise. The lighting was what made it look like an out of focus Youtube film, but maybe it was that same lighting that made it look so delisiously fake…
I liked the reference to the previous films that plays with the iconic expecatations the fans had but didn’t push it too far. I was extremely let down by the final scenes that makes clear way fo Shia to pick up the whip for a fifth film…
The fourth is not the best (that would still be Crusade with Raiders being second), but way better than Doom.
Comment by Arjan — Fri May 23, 2008 @ 20:29please don’t mind the typos… I am jetlagged and have no idea how to turn delisiously into deliciously…
Comment by Arjan Welles — Fri May 23, 2008 @ 20:33***WARNING***SPOILERS AHEAD***
I disagree about Cate Blanchett- while I don’t get Spalko’s mind meld skills, I think Cate was having a ball. Karen Allen was the true gem of the film, both these ladies and their scenes put a smile on my face. I really loved the car chase in the forest, and loved the ants. The man-eating ants were the closest thing to something that belongs in Indy Jones films.
I also liked the nods to the serials and films of the 50’s, be it Tarzan or Marlon Brando in The Wild One. I like the small tribute to the late Denholm Elliot as well- and replacement Jim Broadbent was just fine.
Now, time to toss the gauntlet down.
Some of the action (and the one liners that went with them) were lame in the first act of the film. The motorcycle chase through the campus…the ‘almost’ running over the Ark (yeah, that Ark) …and what is up with the dart blowing grave watchers? The tribe of the Mayans? Who were they?
While I enjoyed it far, far better than Last Crusade (Jones Sr. died first?! So much for the Holy Grail water, eh?) I still felt that the film lacked a lot of punch and less character development.
Comment by Darren Seeley — Fri May 23, 2008 @ 23:36***WARNING***SPOILERS AHEAD***
@Arjan, how can you possibly think that Crusade was better than Raiders? Crusade suffered from one fatal flaw: it wanted to be a comedy. Raiders was the perfect blend of adventure, irony and wellwritten plot. I love you, honey, but you are wrong!
Also, I felt that the end of the film almost sent the opposite message you got from it. What I saw was Mutt wanting his chance but Indy making clear to him there was no way he was handing things over (yet).
@Darren, Blanchett was obviously having fun, I just don’t think this is her best performance ever, not even if the camp was intentional. She is good fun to watch though.
Comment by mariken — Sat May 24, 2008 @ 10:53And I did not mind the way the action was executed in the first act of the film. Like I said in my review I enjoyed their ‘old school’ feel and I felt the cheesiness (for lack of a better word) was intentional. I had more of an issue with the action in the later part of the film, where I felt it was a little to ’smooth’ at times.
I agree with you on the nod’s to the fifty’s films (Labeouf does a fine “Wild One” although the Tarzan thing was a bit too much for me) but I specifically enjoyed how Spielberg manages to capture the era so well, while still managing to comment on current world affairs (weapons of mass destruction and their awful power, the blight of McCarthy-ism and the surrender of personal freedom in the name of safety, powerstrugles between countries leaving a trail of suffering innocents) without being pedantic about it.
And I loved the character development over punches approach. I felt it did not just the movie, but also the people portraid in it a lot of justice.
i’m extremely excited about seeing this film. am a bit sceptical about how harrison ford will now hold out in the action scenes though.
Comment by Helen — Sun May 25, 2008 @ 23:21***WARNING***SPOILERS AHEAD***
I didn’t really like this movie. It was disapointing and personally I liked the third one the best I think. Don’t get all on my back if you disagree with me, these are just my opinions about it. I’m extremely picky with movies, though, and I think that most people’s standards of a good movie today are rotting, so that even the most rediculously stupid movies are greatly appreciated…
Comment by Kayla — Mon May 26, 2008 @ 4:20There were some cool parts in this movie, like Jones unrealisticly surviving the atomic bomb explosion. By the way, the Russians are all pissed off about this movie… too bad. You can’t make everyone happy. How many movies are there where the Americans are the bad guys? A lot, but no one really bitches about them.
I think it was sort of contradicting how the first and third Indiana Jones movies had to do with religious artifacts, but in this fourth movie they just decided to throw in some psychic aliens…wtf? I also disliked how it seemed like Jones was more following the crazy guy who had been mentally screwed up by the skull, than actually doing his own thinking.
Believe it or not (I didn’t think this was possible), they overkilled it with the action. There was hardly any wait-a-second-let’s-actually-use-our-brains time, so the movie seemed to go by really fast.
And yes, in a pathetic attempt for the movie businesses to scrounge for more money, this was one of those “raising-a-future-Indiana-Jones-movies”. It ended with the gist that Shiloh Buff (sp?) is going to carry on his (apparent) father’s name.
And why did they decide to throw Meriam back in? Jones didn’t seem too attached to her still in the his following movies…
I thought everything was loosly connected and it left you with a lot of “wait, what about that guy?” sort of feelings. The Russian chick and the triple agent guy both went out in extremely unoriginal ways…they could have done a little better.
Anyway, those are my opinions. I butchered it, yes, but that’s what I think. I was disapointed, like I said, and I don’t think they did a very good job with making it as good as the older ones, like I expected. Now they’re probably going to stretch the movies out into a long series of “let’s go find some treasure, guys!” sort of movies…Well, there you have it from my point of view…
Geez I really killed it…sorry everyone.
Comment by Kayla — Mon May 26, 2008 @ 4:22***WARNING***POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD***
Thinking back of it, I was really disappointed.
A lot of things have already been mentioned, and although the movie started quite good and promising with some old skool action scenes, it went downwards from there. In some of scenes Ford seemed lost and was not carrying ther movie and the plot holes were too large to be covered up with the love we all feel for this francise. The Russians were one-dimensional and Blanchet was dull, the CIA guys just as quickly disappeared as they appeared. The triple agent story was stupid and unclear and the story around Oxley was badly written, etc etc.
Next to that there was an overkill of bad CGI and Jones turned into a Looney Tune, surviving the worst punishment -like a nuclear blast- without a scratch. Even for a movie that has supernatural elements in it, that is too much. I’m more than willing to suspend my disbelief, but they should not rape the “inherent logic” of the story. I could go on and on about things that bothered me, but that would mean I would spend more time on it than the script writers obviously did. This was even worse than Temple of Doom.
Comment by Paco — Mon May 26, 2008 @ 14:11***WARNING***POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD***
Hmmm.. did anyone else really dislike the ending? As a Star wars fan, I’m willing to suspend my disbelief, but this was too much. I was hoping for a more down to earth kind of story, but instead they had to top the other installments in this respect as well…
And since when does a simple cloth stop magnetism?
Comment by Roy — Tue May 27, 2008 @ 13:40***WARNING***POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD***
Yes, I really disliked the ending too. It sucked. Particularly in light of al the Mayan and Inca history at the plotwriters disposal. I mean, this is what they come up with? Come on!
Comment by Mariken — Sun June 1, 2008 @ 20:33***WARNING***POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD***
Comment by marisa — Wed June 11, 2008 @ 15:31I loved loved loved it … except for the already mentioned tarzan scene and the ending. I think it’s hard to step back in time though. Action movies have changed so much since Raiders that you can’t recapture that feeling and step it up a bit all at the same time. So, in a way they had to go over the top (nuclear blast, aliens, etc.) I think the whole thing was meant to be a little camp (not just Cate) and when you look at it with that in mind the movie works quite well.
this movie is really good!!! and the best part is shiloh buffs going to be the next indiana jones!!!
Comment by Megan — Mon July 7, 2008 @ 2:03I didn’t get a chance to catch this movie, but am really looking forward to seeing it. After seeing Dark Knight, this movie’s got a lot to compete with.
Comment by Tim — Wed August 27, 2008 @ 4:36This movie is garbage. Spielberg is one of my favorite directors. But to see him reach back to try and recapture something he did 20 years ago, is like watching a 50 year-old woman audition at a strip club.
And if I’m being harsh, well I’m about to get harsher. Michael Bay, who is not even in the same league as Spielberg, would have done a better job here.
Comment by Jose — Sat October 18, 2008 @ 14:05