"Indiana Jones
I always knew some day you'd come walking back through my door."
I went into this with mixed feelings. Raiders of the Lost Ark is my #1 favorite film of all time. I enjoy the Indiana Jones trilogy even more than the original Star Wars films. While I was glad to have another Indy movie, I was worried it just wouldn't work anymore. I ended up on opening night finding myself hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst.
Indy is definitely older. He's still full of wit and action, but he's definitely lost a bit of the spring his step and the spark in his eye. Harrison still feels like Indy, but the film doesn't always feel like an Indiana Jones film. But why? Several factors - The cinematography feels too clean and modern, and doesn't have the same look as the original three films. Plus, contrary to Spielberg's claims that they were using practical effects rather CGI as much as possible, there is still an awful lot of bluescreen work and CG elements - a sharp contrast to the style of the other films. It also doesn't help that Indy almost never uses his whip, draws his gun only once before it's taken away for the rest of the film, and more than half of the characters in this film never even call him Indy or Indiana "Henry," "Jonesy," "Gramps," "Professor," "Old Man," etc
but rarely "Indy."
But the primary reason it doesn't feel like an Indiana Jones film is the complete shift in genre. Lucas has repeatedly emphasized that while the first three films took place in the 1930's and 40's and were modeled on the serials of that time, this one is set in the 1950's, and so is modeled after the films of that time - UFO's, atomic age, sci-fi B-movies, etc. The problem is, Indiana Jones is NOT a character from those films - he is a Saturday Morning Serial character. That's like taking Flash Gordon and putting him in a western. THAT is why it didn't "feel" like an Indiana Jones movie... it wasn't. The passage of time was necessary, but the change of genre was quite jarring.
Okay, so it feels different. But is it any good? If I were to have answered that question after my first viewing, I probably would have said no. There were fun moments glimpses of the movie we wanted to see but they were few and far between. It wasn't a horrible film, just a hugely disappointing one and not just as a result of high expectations. Too many parts just didn't work: Indy surviving the atomic test by hiding in a lead-lined refrigerator (even if he survived the blast, that crashing and bouncing would have crushed every bone in his body), Mutt's Tarzan-style jaunt through the jungle, Marion's drive off the cliff onto the tree that perfectly lowers them into the river
Then there's the aliens. OH, the aliens.
While the very idea of an alien-based plot in an Indy movie is bizarre, I could go along with it
to a point. The crystal skulls, the temple, the idea that aliens had come to Earth long ago
even the discovery of the skeletons in the temple. I could MAYBE even live with the skeletons coming to life and the temple portal activating. But once we saw the aliens in (obviously CG) restored form and the actual flying saucer, it ceased being an Indiana Jones sequel and became a Close Encounters sequel. I was extremely frustrated by the bait-and-switch of a sci-fi flick masquerading as an Indiana Jones movie.
I was worried this alien theme tarnished my view of the rest of the film. I had spent much of the movie thinking, "oh frak is this going where I think it's going?" and as a result was unable to just sit back and enjoy the ride. So I went back for a second viewing. This time, I knew what to expect. The minute it began, I just had to accept the fact that, yes, this is gonna end with aliens and a flying saucer. I just prepared myself to ignore the sillier and more out-of-place aspects I knew were coming, and enjoy the film. Once I was able to do that, I found myself appreciating the film much more. The little things, like the fridge and Mutt's vine-swinging, didn't bother me anymore. I had re-watched the other films and realized there are plenty of silly, over-the-top things in all of them, if maybe not to the same degree.
So the final verdict: It's fun, but flawed. I'd easily rank it the lowest of the four films, but I'd say there was more to it that I liked than things that I didn't. It's just a movie with an identity crisis. There are times when it feels more like a National Treasure or The Mummy movie (themselves knock-offs of Indiana Jones), complete with moments and scenes that seem copied straight out of both. In fact, most of the last ¼ of the movie feels more like a National Treasure movie than Indy. These kinds of things, as well as the entire ending, still bother me, but overall it's a satisfying popcorn flick just not a classic like its predecessors.
I blame George Lucas. Most everything that doesn't work it seems can be traced directly to him.
p.s. - The Shia LaBeouf Question: I actually thought he was one of the better parts of the film, to the point where I actually found myself enjoying him more than Ford at some points. I don't know that I'd want him to carry on this particular series as the lead, but as a supporting character and as an actor he did just fine.
and oh yeah, Harrison Ford loses even more respect from me for pronouncing it "nu-CU-lar." Ugh.
5 out of 9 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends