Indy cracks his whip again two decades after his cinematic conception in a sequel that was as anxiously awaited as it was feared. Dave and Cal jointly discuss why the movie disappoints.

In 1957 the Nazis may have been defeated, but with the Cold War raging Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is now pitted against the equally imposing Soviet Army. Forced to get to the bottom of an ancient mystery, Indy races Ukrainian Agent Spalko (Cate Blanchett) to a lost city in the Amazone, accompanied by a young biker named Mutt (Shia LaBeouf). A distressed old colleague of Indy (John Hurt) seems to hold the key to the secret power of the fabled crystal skulls - a power Spalko is willing to harness to enslave the world.

The continuity: how does Indy 4 hold up with its classic predecessors?

Dave: Continuity was seamless. The gap in years was explained with expository dialogue - Indy & Mac served in WWII, Marcus & Henry Jones Sr. have passed away. Nineteen years have aged everyone appropriately.

Cal: It holds up badly - read on.

The directing & the plot

Cal: It’s been quite a while since Spielberg forayed into the action/adventure genre. His last film of a similar ilk is The Lost World which is perhaps all that needs to be said! The most succesful director of all time he may be but with a gap of 19 years since Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade he was always going to be up against it. However he still has the character, Indy, which is the cornerstone of the movies and so all that should be needed is a tight script, occasional witty/ sharp dialogue and to keep the character cool. Unfortunately Spielberg’s film falls apart here. The film jumps from one action scene to the next with very little explanation and so it is hard to care as to relevancy of the characters actions. The time gap has been Kingdom and Last Crusade is seamless in that the key characters have aged appropriately however it is hard not to feel like like the history of the 19 year old gap is a little forced and awkward via the dialogue. Perhaps it would have been more effective to have a short sequence surmising Indy and Ray Winstone’s character ‘Mac’ during WW II instead of explaining what should be a key relationship in one sentence and consequentlly this makes the dynamic of Indy and mac’s relationship very difficult to care about.
Finally perhaps the most serious crime committed by Spielberg here is that he has almost re-interpreted the Indy movies it would seem. Obviously Indy is well known as a fallible hero who very often needed two tries to get the job done however he has never been slapstick or farcical which happens frequently throughout this movie.

Dave: The directing felt a little low-energy at times. The plot was fine; single-minded, not a whole lot of twists & turns apart from Mac’s side-switching.

The pacing & editing

Dave: My daughter remarked it felt like a short two hours, I thought it dragged in the middle a bit. Editing was decent. Could’ve been a little snappier.

Cal: It’s not very often that this combination occurs but very often during the film I was slightly bored and yet the movie still seemed to go quite quickly. This is probably the result of two factors. One- it was just seeing the characters again, as Spielberg had noted it was a bit like a family reunion and two- it was a case of being bored by action. A huge portion of the movie is just action scenes with little set-up or pay-off and as such they become quickly tiresome.

The set pieces & special effects

Cal: They seemed to go strangely downhill. The opening in Area 51 was quite well down and then the Greaser fight/ motorbike chase seemed to work quite well but as the film raised its own stakes it seemed to falter under the weight of expectation. There seemed very self-aware decisions in the movie to make action sequences bigger and more unbelievable as the film moved closer towards the end and as a consequence they remove the viewer further and further from the experience.

Dave: Doom Town & the jungle chase were my favorite set pieces - very well-done. The special effects were mostly unobtrusive up to the spinning room at the end which looked intentionally vague, like the Art Director wasn’t sure how to show it.

Miscellaneous issues

Dave: Music: again, just good. The new theme for the Russians and the Crystal Skull are memorable, Spalko’s & Mutt’s themes are forgettable.
Cinematography: this is far and away my biggest gripe with Indy IV. Janusz Kaminski is no Doug Slocombe. That stupid glowy haze he puts on everything in post looks like crap. I kept wanting to rub my eyes or clean my glasses, thinking I wasn’t seeing it right. The cinematography constantly took me out of the story; like I was looking at the surface of a window, not through it. Awful and totally inconsistent with the other three films.
Art direction: It is what it is. Nice costume designs & set designs. Everything felt natural.

Cal: Music: Terrible! Just kidding, its John Williams, he doesn’t do bad soundtracks.
Cinematography: many many including Dave have a big problem with the look Janusz Kaminski has given the movie and many feel it is totally inconsistent with the other movies but in many ways it actually captures the time period quite well. Certainly it was quite effective in depicting a changed world during scenes such as Marshall College which have an obvious time period due to fashion, cars etc. However when removed from scenarios with an obvious time period and placed in scenarios such as the jungle Kaminski’s style does become ill at ease and actually draws focus from the film itself as it becomes particularly unnatural which is a shame.
Art direction: Costumes were five, the internal sets were pretty immaculate too, the outdoor sets occasionally looked very set-up.
Actors: They all do a very good job, fitting in perfectly with the characters which have gone before them and it was a shame that they aren’t given more time to develop their characters in particular LaBeouf and Winstone. Karen Allen does look a little like she can’t believe her luck at being asked back during some points!

The verdict

Cal: Unfortunately very disappointing on all levels. Expecting this film to be anywhere close to the height of Raiders of the Lost Ark would have be unrealistic but another Last Crusade should have been more than feasible and yet it doesn’t come close. The real shame is that the very movies which have copied the Indy template have done it a lot more successfully in films such as The Mummy and whether this film judged as part of the Indy saga or on it’s own entity it is weak nonetheless.

Dave: Just so-so. Not a blight on the memory of the first film which is one of a handful of perfect films in existence, but not a thrill-ride movie I’m dying to see again anytime soon.

Posted by Tai in Movies, Reviews • Add to del.icio.us Add to Digg