Toward the end of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, as things are starting to go pretty haywire, Indiana Jones says, "I've got a bad feeling about this." There's a bit of action, then the next line is spoken by the villainess: She want to know more, she wants to know everything.Spoiler alert: Indy lives, and the villainess meets the same face-imploding fate as most of Indy's nemeses do.
The lesson here, kids, is to pay attention to how you feel, and not ask too many questions. That may be a dubious life lesson, but it's a perfect primer on how to enjoy Indy 4--and, really, any of Steven Spielberg's movies. Indy 4 delivers the chills, thrills, and spills, and if you were looking for anything else, well, you were at the wrong movie.
Right off the bat, Indy 4 tests our suspension of disbelief as a psychic, dominatrix-esque KGB agent (Cate Blanchett, who almost maintains a Ukrainian accent) forces Indy to show her where an alien is buried in Area 51. If you can go along with this, you'll enjoy the movie just fine.
Really, though, Indy 4 is no more or less ridiculous than any of its predecessors; it's just less steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition. But if you can accept an ark that makes an army invincible, or a chalice that grants eternal life, you should be able to accept this.
In addition to eschewing traditional religious iconography, this installment of the Indiana Jones saga also finds itself in 1957, several years after the original 3 (hence KGB as the token baddies, rather than Nazis). A significantly older Dr. Jones gets roped back into the action when a young greaser named Mutt (Shia LaBeouf) tells Indy that his old archeology buddy, Professor "Ox" Oxley (John Hurt), and Mutt's mom are in trouble down in South America. There's a map, there's eluding some KGB agents, there's a few flights, there's a tomb raiding (featuring ninja aborigines), there's more eluding KGB agents, and so on.
Actually, the best bits of the film are these early scenes between Indy and Mutt: Mutt's growing appreciation of Indy's prodigious abilities remind us how impressive even the very basic of Indy's skills are--skills such as not quivering in fear while spelunking in a very creepy grave.
And, really, it's myth of Indiana Jones the man--more than the contrivances of plot that he finds himself in--that keep audiences coming back. The wide-ranging knowledge of all sorts of arcane information, the resourcefulness, the fighting skills, the ability to tolerate an absurd amount of pain, the strong moral compass, the unflappability in any situation--like James Bond, he's a projection of an idealized male. And that, for some reason, is something audiences want to see.
And that's why we don't get too upset when he does things that no human should be able to do (like surviving a nuclear blast, as he does in this film). This isn't about what life is like; this is about what life could be like, if you're willing to dream just a little bit. That's what the Indiana Jones saga has always been about, and--unless you have an allergic reaction to CGI--this installment delivers on that promise just as well as any of the others have. It won't change your life, it won't teach you much about history, it won't speak any deep intellectual truths, but it will give you two hours of healthy hero worship and a good shot of adrenaline. In my book, that's worth a 10.
24 comments:
Thanks for an interesting review that didn't spoil the anticipation I will be holding till the DVD's out.
Just one question concerning CGI: I thought Spielberg & Co were saying Indy will not use CGI but rather old fashioned special effects. Or am I wrong and they were only talking about stunts?
I will admit to have developed mild to severe CGI allergic reactions...
There's CGI in the film, but it's not too overt. Blame Lucas.
Moshe, you're waiting til DVD? This isn't really a film that lends itself to the small screen, unless you've got a killer system at home...
I'll put it this way:
If you'll babysit, I will gladly go to the cinema!
...and there's the sudden rush of insight, that puts everything into perspective.
It's called "the disadvantage of migrating away from your family to the other side of the world".
I was hoping the review would say the film s*cks, but sadly it's too positive for me to easily dismiss for the next six months. And after six months of anticipation, the film is bound to s*ck.
Excellent review DW! You put what I was thinking into better sense than I could. I also gave Indy a 10.
nice review.
For all those people out there who say the new movie sucks, they need to remember what Indiana Jones is all about: Having fun! A plain old-fashioned good time at the movies.
Thanks for the kind words, y'all. I'll reward your kindness by posing a question that's been on my mind since I saw this:
Fundamentally, what's the difference between the Indiana Jones movies and The Mummy movies?
I think it may have something to do with the fact that Raiders of the lost ark was made in a time when suspension of disbelief was a much more attainable goal in hollywood.
Not to mention that Harrison Ford and George Lucas were hot off the successes of the first two Star Wars films.
Ford, Lucas, and Speilberg were all in their primes.
so, I guess the answer to your question in a word is, timing.
1. Originality.
2. Just the correct amount of stretching the limits of disbelief, usually at the very end of the film (whereas till then there's nothing that is theoretically impossible).
3. A male lead that is second to none.
Good question. The Mummy movies are just a touch sillier, and have a poorer track record than the IJ movies at this point (Great and Meh, vs Great, Ok, Pretty Good, Good). I'll agree with Moshe about Harrison Ford (not sure if Indy's THE best of all time, but he's easily in the Top 5). That said, Rick O'Connell is a pretty awesome character. Better planner than Indy, though he's a lot dumber. More cautious, too. The threats in the Mummy movies are more overt, and ominpotent, whereas Indiana Jones seems to be able to avoid waking angry demigods in the first place. Indiana Jones's pulp roots are a lot more prominent than in The Mummy movies. I'm cautiously optimistic for the new one (with Jet Li as the villain!), but I'm not holding my breath.
Good comments all, and I can't really disagree with any of them. Since The Mummy came out after Indy, it definitely loses points for originality. And it's probably true that Indy came out in a time that was more receptive to it...
But I can't help but feel that the biggest difference is that Harrison Ford > Brendan Fraser.
And that leads me to this tantalizing question: What if Harrison Ford were Rick O'Connell and Brendan Fraser were Indiana Jones? Would the Mummy movies suddenly be better? Would they even out? Would it make no difference? What do you think?
i tend to think a Fraser/Ford switch would hurt both franchises. Ford is really a man's man, and so is Indy. Rick is a lot more sardonic and jaded, which Fraser can do pretty well. granted, Ford could do a pretty bang-up job with the role of Rick O'Connell, but i sorta don't think Fraser would do nearly as good a job with Indy. the alpha male can-do-anything personality doesn't seem to suit Fraser quite as much. that leads into what i think made Indy so different from The Mummy. their leading men were so different from each other, and did different things for the audience. you really don't cheer for Rick when he succeeds and cringe when he fails like you do for Indy. also, Indy has a background in pulp adventure stories, a background that The Mummy, coming out 10+ years later, just doesn't have. The Mummy's background is, in fact, Indy. it's second generation, and some things just get lost.
yes, I agree pretty much all of that.
now, this is slightly off topic, but, they were discussing this question on the radio this morning and I wanted to see what everyone's answer would be:
Who would win in a fight, Indy or Han Solo?
Why fight? They'll be best friends.
Rick O'Connell is more the Lantern Jawed Matinee Idol. He has the attitude of a darker Superman, or Ash
Williams (Evil Dead movies). Indiana Jones is more of a thinking man's action hero, like The Man With No Name, or practically every character Humphrey Bogart ever played. That is the main difference between the two.
If it's no holds barred, and Han Solo has his blaster, he wins. Otherwise, Indy is just too damn tough, and is capable of taking a LOT of punishment from people much stronger than Han Solo.
yeah, those were my feelings about it. =)
While I still think pacifism is the way, I would like to argue My Racist Friend's argument. Namely, in what way is a blaster better than a six shooter? Indeed, one of the things that always puzzled me about the Star Wars world is that they have spaceships and hyperdrive but they don't have fully automatic weapons. They never heard of the hand grenade nor the machine gun. Given that blasters are portrayed to even have some recoil, they are similar to six shooters in more than their looks.
I would say a contest would probably comes down to who shoots first and asks questions later. Solo has been known to do that (at least until Lucas dropped by and tweaked Star Wars).
Good point, but I feel that even in a
"completely even" contest, Solo is a quicker draw and a WAY better shot than Indiana.
I would say the more important question is not which of the two will beat the other up but rather which of the two we would prefer to have on our side and which would be the better role model.
Whenever I need to do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs (?) or whenever I need to get in and out of an asteroid field I will make sure I have Solo with me. That doesn't happen a lot.
On the other hand, a figure of an educator who is also a man of action that stands for what is obviously good is an obvious role model, someone we can all learn something from. I would say this is the main reason why Indy is so much better than the guy from Mummy.
Moshe Reuveni,
yes, Han Solo is a much better shot than Indiana Jones. and there are fully automated blasters and hand grenades. On Hoth in Empire, some of the snow troopers set up an fully automatic blaster that fires at the millenium falcon as it takes off. Check Return of the Jedi in Jabba's palace when the bounty hunter brings in Chewbacca and you will see a Thermal Detonator (grenade).
There are also other types of weapons in the star wars universe that most people don't see or aren't aware of. Many blasters have rapid fire settings, but they aren't used very often for lack of accuracy. classic types of "guns" using bullets also exist, they just aren't used in places other than remote uncivilized areas. They are considered relics.
(I am aware at how much of a geek all this info makes me sound, but I am who I am =)
Don't worry about the geek factor, I'm sure I can outgeek you on a good day.
The analogy I was trying to work at with my blaster/six shooter comparison is that the Star Wars world has been greatly shaped to be a futurestic Western. Sure, they have automatic weapons on display, but they would have probably lost World War 1's trench warfare with them being so rare/useless.
as a geek, CmdLuke, you are in very good company, all members of TMBC included. :-)
Post a Comment