Indiana Jones 4 Review: A Sequel Too Far?

May 24th, 2008 in Action, Actors, Adventure, Directors, Movies, Reviews, Sequels

It’s a monumental thing to do, reviving a long gone and successful franchise. And while if anyone could do it, it was Spielberg, the initial opinion of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was wary. What do you expect when the producer announces that people should have low expectations for the film? Indeed, when the first “amateur” review came out blasting the film, things weren’t looking good. And yet, the film received a standing ovation at Cannes. There is without doubt a split over the film, but is it nostalgia that is making people love it more than they should, or hate it as if it’s blasphemy.

Well, Indiana Jones 4 is by no means an awful film. There are some exciting action sequences (especially the car chase through Indy’s campus), and a few visual gags. Harrison Ford starts off a little uncomfortable but settles back into the role nicely. But, to those of you who regard the other films as some of the best ever made (and they are), there’s going to be some level of disappointment. Disregarding the plot, which may put some people off, there’s some scripting issues that really stand out, plus an excessive use of CGI, that will certainly spoil the experience for die-hard fans. If you’re interested in a more in-depth analysis (involving a plot spoiler or two), read on.

The one problem I’ve seen people react to is the plot. The first three Indy Jones films were set against a backdrop of human myth, either Orientalist magic or Christian legend. In keeping with the era of the 50’s, Lucas and Spielberg decided to introduce a new mythology… that of aliens. We see Indy in Area 51, and he was around at the time of Roswell. Now, the film sees Indy racing to find an extra-terrestrial crystal skull before it’s powers are abused by a Commie antagonist (hammed up by Cate Blanchett). It was probably an error for Lucas and Spielberg to keep this plotline quiet, as audiences will be shocked. And admittedly, I was surprised by such a silly story. But, is it any more ridiculous than the ark of the covenant, Indian stones of power, or the cup of Christ? It all depends on your beliefs of course, but as a devout agnostic, I eventually swallowed the new story.

The one element I didn’t buy was the use of CGI. Spielberg had boasted several months ago that the film was relatively free of CGI when doing stunts, but his claim was misleading. The film is infested with a pointless use of digital locations and figures, from the very start of the film (which tries to set-up a running gag involving gophers). At other stages we see CGI monkeys, killer ants, swinging vines etc. The problem is that while CGI is fairly acceptable in most modern blockbusters, its attention-drawing inclusion in this film only highlights its difference from the original trilogy. And even still this would be acceptable if they weren’t used in the worst ways possible, which leads to the flaws in direction. The best way to judge an Indiana Jones film is by its action and entertainment. Most people remember the films by their elaborate set pieces. Admittedly, Indy 4 starts off rather well, with two very strong sequences: the fight in Area 51, and the chase through Marshall College. Both are thrilling, explosive, and the latter is particularly amusing. It’s the latter sequences in the jungle that jar the most. Mutt Williams’s sword fight across two racing jeeps turns into a scene from Weekend at Bernie’s, and it ends with a scene not just bad, but insulting, as Mutt swings through the vines, like a Rockin’ Tarzan, to catch up. Both scenes push our belief far beyond what was expected of us in the original trilogy, and it’s about then most people will stop being involved in the film.

Character-wise there was a suspicion that there’s no particular story of Indy himself, but the film can almost allay those fears. While Indy dealt with father issues in The Last Crusade, the tables have now turned. Along the way Indy encounters the young Mutt Williams, whose mother and friend Professor Oxley are being held by the Russians, and enlists his help on the journey. As admirable as the idea is, the parental role of Indy is pretty much neglected throughout the film, with Mutt becoming increasingly unrelated to the story as the end nears. I also wasn’t convinced by Shia LaBeouf’s performance. It’s not that he was bad, but he reminds me of a young Tom Hanks, who could never play the intelligent but aggressive youth. And when he’s introduced by minicking Marlon Brando’s iconic attire in The Wild One, his inadequacy is only emphasised.

Marion Ravenwood makes an appearance. She was by far the best of the Indy Girls, being a feisty fighter instead of a hopeless screamer. But her presence is pretty much reduced to a grinning love interest. In fact, the problem with all of the supporting characters is that there’s too many to create anything beyond a single dimension. John Hurt plays a mindless fool who spouts clues. If you look at his bumbling as a sort of replacement to Marcus Brody, it pales in comparison. And Ray Winstone plays another greasy sidekick with an obvious and dull twist. Their presence is so limited as to highlight their existence as plot points more than people.

With all of these negative points, is Indy 4 such a disaster? Well, it depends on how you look at it. In comparison to the original trilogy, which are three of the most entertaining and rewatchable films of all time, the film finishes at a distant fourth. Yet I find it difficult to loathe the film, possibly due to my sense of nostalgia. But there are worthwhile moments, and in terms of recent blockbusters (with the exception of Iron Man), Indy 4 stands up to them. It’s not the film we’ve been waiting for, but it’s not the disaster some expected.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Stumble it! / Bookmark: