Harrison Ford In Charisma Shocker!

I've just watched Indiana Jones & The Crystal Skull for the first time in a while. Since my opinion hasn't changed since it's 2008 release, I'd thought I'd repost my first reaction again, here...

Seeing a movie twice, especially on the first day is reserved for but a few movies…mainly those which have a near obsession geek factor for me (Revenge Of The Sith being the last, 3 years ago). I also anticipated needing two views just to get my head round a returning franchise where my expectations were extremely high. Many reviews have included the phrase, “what the hell have I just watched!?” and I wanted to be sure when friends/colleagues/relatives started asking me about my Indy experience. It might also help to put the film in context with the other Indy movies, as well Spielberg’s other movies.

Raiders is one of my all-time favourite movies. All creative parties are on the top of their game. Spielberg, Lucas, Ford, Williams, Slocombe and Kasdan have not produced work, before or after, that has been bettered. Temple Of Doom is an amazing experience for different reasons; both sillier and darker it’s a rollercoaster ride with a wonderfully structured screenplay and memorable comic, dramatic and action sequences. The weak point in the trilogy is Last Crusade with its feather-light tone and unevenly paced screenplay. Most importantly, it feels like the creative opposite of Raiders; virtually no one’s trying (well, apart from the magnificent Connery). The direction rarely feels like Spielberg with action sequences coming across as disappointingly workmanlike, the cinematography over-lit and a blandly designed production. As far as Spielberg is concerned, I’ve really liked his work in recent years. After a series of ‘not as good as they could have been’ movies in the late 80’s / early 90’s from Empire of the Sun to Hook, the Man found his grove again with Jurassic Park and hasn’t dropped the ball since. I’m particularly fond of his dark ‘entertainment’ movies Lost World and War of the Worlds, since they’re sleek, edgy action movies with Spielberg delivering trademark action scenes (the T-Rex cliff-top attack/the first Tripod emerges) that serve to demonstrate why Mr S is still at the peak of his game. Granted he plays a different game in his post-Jurassic career, being more experimental in his approach, buts it’s a damn good game!

So the two questions, for me, approaching Indy 4 was can Spielberg produce a more entertaining adventure than the disappointing Last Crusade. And, how will a modern Spielberg tackle a ‘light’ adventure movie again. The answer, I found out, was rather well actually! I’ll break the movie down to better address criticisms and other remarks:-

1/ Direction. This is Spielberg at the top of his game. Iconic, memorable shots appear fluidly throughout each scene. Indy’s reintroduction shot, as expected, was the shadow of him putting the fedora on (as seen in the trailer). But the shot doesn’t stop there… whirling around…introducing the location characters and locations, before Ford heroically turns into camera. The blandness of Last Crusade is eclipsed by a director once again bristling with inventiveness. Great!

2/ Tone. The general tone of Crystal Skulls lies somewhere between Temple Of Doom and Last Crusade. The way Spielberg directed he could have got away with the adult thriller tone of Raiders, but the script requires a lighter touch due to the silliness (not a criticism) of many scenes. While many of the jokes are childish (the prairie dogs are chucklesom) it rarely descends into the Roger Moore Bond territory of Last Crusade. Anybody out to deride the indestructibility of Indy in this instalment (surviving a nuclear blast, 3 waterfalls, treetop fallout) should be reminded of Mr Jones’s robustness in the earlier movies. Jumping from a plane on an inflatable raft down a mountain, the mine cart roller coaster, the submarine journey… all go to show that this level of suspension of disbelief has been required from the start.

3/ Script. Firstly the structure is great. Davis Koepp has a talent of condensing plot, character and thematic materials into concise, entertaining segments. So we have Nevada and Marshall College setting up the movie, The Sanatorium, Grave robbing and the Russian Camp as the expositional midsection, with the Jungle Action and Skull Temple serving as the finale. However, the entertainment value of the film diminishes with each act. The first has the most originality and most energy. The second has the majority of the inevitable exposition, but is balanced out by for action sequences on the trot. The third is scripting by numbers and offers very little in the way of originality (either story revelations, character arcs or action) to pay off the movie in a way to make this a 'great' Indy adventure.

By structuring the plot into these neat, contained sequences the movie flows at a pace that feels faster than the 2 hours plus running time. Naysayers have complained that characters are not fleshed out. But to be blunt neither was Sallah, Brodey or Belloq in Raiders. Apart from a little back-story, these characters define themselves by their actions. It always felt odd that Indy was given a family back-story in Last Crusade. Indy’s like Bond…an iconic man of action who reveals his attitude towards life by how he acts and reacts.

4/ Actors. Ford is the most alive onscreen that he’s been in years. He’s engaged, charismatic, charming, funny and totally convincing as an aging adventurer. Karen Allen isn’t at the forefront of the action as much as I was anticipating but it’s great to have the feisty foil for Indy back. Forget comments that she’s a bad actress now, or that her character is treated as badly as Brodeys was in Last Crusade; she’s not. Shia is great as the new character Mutt Williams. I don’t get where the Shia hate comes from. He’s a naturally gifted actor with an everyman charm and looks and his success is well deserved. John Hurt and Ray Winstone do what they’re there to do. If it was directed by anybody else their roles would be filled by unknowns, and therefore wouldn’t have fuelled criticism that they don’t have much to do. They do what they are needed to…and do it well. Finally Cate Blanchet makes a memorable villain as Spalko. I was expecting some serious ham from Blanchett, judging by pre-release comments. But her performance could be summed up as quietly intense (which is better than Last Crusade’s Donovan…quietly dull…)

5/ Cinematography. Many have commented that this looks like an Indy film, to some extent, but does not always replicate the look of the previous 3 movies. Well, the previous 3 movies, although photographed by the same man, were distinctively different from each other. Raiders is the closest parallel to the look of Crystal Skull with a realistic feel to exteriors and the U.S. set interiors. Granted some shots have excessive flaring of light sources (much more like Spielberg’s more recent movies) but this serves to differentiate itself from its predecessors. It has to be said the film looks gorgeous; very sumptuous and rich in contrast and texture.

What didn’t work you ask?
Well, a criticism that was levelled at the most recent Rambo movie stated Rambo felt like a secondary character in his own movie. During the big Jungle Chase, this certainly feels true with Mutt proactively pursuing the prize while Indy gets to drive a bit. The effects, while obviously CGI in some places, are well done and mostly convincing. Accusing the effects of being CGI is like accusing the original trilogy of using Blue Screen or chemical compositing or model shot. In both cases they get the job done…and done well. Where they fall down is Mutt’s Tarzan swing. Not enough time was spent making the environment convincing or the swinging motion realistic enough to convince.

The ending was original, yet totally in keeping with the original movies. The macguffin is discarded of and the villain is dispatched by the object of desire, due to their greed for what it processes; in this case knowledge of Everything. However the principals do just stand around and look what’s going on rather than move events forward. Still this isn’t too different from a tied up Indy at the climax of Raiders. It’s difficult, but if you can leave your preconceptions of the Indy film you want to watch, as opposed to the Indy film you actually get, you’re in for one hell of enjoyable film. I feel it fits in snugly between Temple of Doom and Last Crusade in terms of quality; and considering how high that quality is…that’s not bad at all!