|
 I grew up in a home that could be
fairly characterized as conservative. One of the first PG-13 movies I
was permitted to see was Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It fast
became a favorite, and my dad and I must have watched it thirty or more
times in the years since. When rumors of a sequel began floating around
in the late 90’s I had every reason to be excited, but for one small
catch: make that six or seven. Six screenwriters penned potential
sequels all to be shot down for one reason or another, making the
future hopes of an Indy sequel seem less and less likely. Finally, in
2007 Spielberg, Lucas and Ford settled on a screenplay by David Koepp,
and now we have what is almost assuredly the last hurrah for the
Indiana Jones we have all come to know and love. So with all the
anticipation and years of prerelease buzz, does the film meet
expectations?
Well it did meet my expectations, but
unfortunately that is only because they were not all that high. I
feared Lucas’ involvement would sap the sequel of the magic that made
the originals fun, just as I feel he sapped the life out of his very
own Star Wars sequels with his tangential concern for digital wizardry
and a sterile political plot that robbed the films of the campy wonder
of a space opera set in a galaxy far far away.
As in the Star Wars sequels (and Lucas’
retouched originals) the Crystal Skull’s use of CG and green screen
technology ends up playing a role that is often more noticeable than
the heavy hitting actors and actresses onscreen. Some of the fight
scenes look more like cartoons than live action shots, especially
moments in the jungle car chase, which at times is comically
cartoonish. After seeing Zoe Bell actually perform the fantastically
death-defying Ship’s Mast stunt in Death Proof, green-screened
impossibilities like those in this particular jungle chase are not
particularly convincing or exciting. And while it is not responsible or
safe to actually shoot a scene in which Shia Lebeouf straddles two
military vehicles at speed while sword-fighting and unsuccessfully
dodging trees that assault his crotch, it just isn’t the same when it
looks like a video game (and not even one from the current generation).
My point is: if you don’t have the guts to make it look real, then
write something else.
And here again we come to the real
culprit: the writing. The film begins with a sequence that has promise:
we are treated to a stunning view of the western countryside as a hot
rod hurtles along kicking up dust. It overtakes a military convoy, and
the driver and passengers challenge the lead car to a race. It is the
kind of scene that builds tension because you expect something bad to
happen: one of the cars will wreck, or someone will pull out a gun, or
a truck will explode, but no, the rowdy teenagers drive off and out of
the movie never to be seen again. Other than establishing the date and
giving us a few bits of cinematic eye candy, the scene is utterly
pointless. This opening scene pretty well encapsulates the problem with
the film: the mysteries, the conflicts, and the plot itself all have
promise, but the film rarely makes good on all the promises, and
becomes a chronically anticlimactic film.
In addition the film chooses the most
implausible solutions to impending doom and expects a pat on the back
when the protagonist wins. It is almost like watching two kids of
differing ages play pretend together. The younger kid plays by the
rules that have been established, but then the older kid makes up a new
rule every time he’s losing to give himself the advantage. In life we
call that cheating, and the name works well for some of the fantastical
solutions offered here. I supposed some will consider such a criticism
unfair for a film series about an old archaeology professor who
repeatedly saves the world, and it is true that the other films had
their share of unbelievable escapes and exploits. Nonetheless, there
are a few moments in this film that are unnecessarily outlandish, and
in one case the films strains credulity by rehashing the same
uninspired waterfall ploy three times. I almost wonder if Spielberg,
Lucas and Koepp had been watching the Mummy Returns in the
pre-production of this film because these moments are that bad.
Another irking factor is the amount of
self-congratulation the filmmakers laud on their previous work.
Referencing one's earlier work or other's work is a tradition in any
art form, and it can be done well. A good example of self-referencing
gone right is the moment in Last Crusade when Elsa asks Indy if he’s
sure that a particular cave drawing is the Ark of the Covenant. His
sardonic “Pretty sure” is witty and references the first film in a
plausible fashion. This film has its share of those moments, but it
also has Harrison Ford deliver the line, “I’ve got a bad feeling about
this.” Lucas-really?
The performances are standard for this
type of film. Harrison Ford seems to be going through the motions most
of the time, but every now and again you’ll catch a twinkle in his eye
that brings back the good old days. Labeouf is once again just about
the most interesting part of the film, managing to keep his big hair
dry when everyone else is doing their best not to sink into Koepp’s
boggy mess. Unfortunately Cate Blanchett and Ray Winstone cannot do
anything with the little they are given, and end up wasted in throw
away roles.
The best parts of the film are those
spent with Harrison Ford, Shia Lebeouf and Karen Allen. They all play
off each other well, and you can tell they are enjoying themselves. If
the filmmakers had crafted more of the film in the fashion of the
quicksand scene, my review would be a lot different, because that scene
and the parental argument that instigates the jungle car chase/fight
are the stuff of good Indy films. Shia Lebeouf: the next Tarzan? Not so
much.
So while it’s good to see Indy on the
big screen again, my dad and I won’t be watching this installment on
the little screen two more times, let alone thirty.
Rated PG-13 for adventure violence and scary images.
|
