Rapid Review: Indiana Jones and the fourth film controversy
All right, so "controversy" may be a bit much. We're talking about a summer popcorn film.
But there's certainly a lot of Indy disagreement out there in the wake of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the fourth installment in the George Lucas-Steven Spielberg action/adventure franchise.
Roger Ebert loved it, giving it 3 1/2 stars and saying: "I can say that if you liked the other Indiana Jones movies, you will like this one, and that if you did not, there is no talking to you."
Rolling Stone's Peter Travers wasn't as impressed, giving it just 2 1/2 stars and saying:"By midpoint, the movie starts to play like National Treasure meets The X-Files, with a touch of The Goonies, and I don't mean any of these comparisons as a compliment.
Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly went with a B-, saying: "everything is new and nothing is new. The movie's legacy may simply be the melee that ensues when Spielberg cracks the whip and moviegoers scurry for tickets."
What did I think? Well, after seeing the film twice this weekend, I think I agree with everything these three reviewers say -- and loved the film anyway.
(More after the cut -- with a few spoilers)
There is, to be sure, a completely nonobjective emotional reason I loved this movie.
Indiana Jones was the first film character I vividly remember seeing on the big screen -- in 1989's The Last Crusade. I almost certainly saw movies in the theater before this one -- probably Honey, I Shrunk the Kids -- but Indy seems to have bull-whipped those flicks from my memory.
I devoured the other two Jones films on VHS as a kid, watched The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles on Television and was lead through the series to other great adventure books and movies.
So, when it was announced there would be a fourth movie, I knew there was a good chance it wouldn't stand up to the trilogy and the affection I felt for it -- but I didn't care. I wanted more.
And more was what I got --- more chases, explosions, villains. More pathos, puzzles and plot twists. More adventures into the unknown.
All of that was good. I could have done without more digital effects -- but that's largely because this franchise has so prided itself on doing things the old-fashioned way that DVDs of the films are packed with "how we did it old school" featurettes. The effects didn't ruin it for me -- but they did take me out of the film here and there.
To those people who said of the stunts and fantastic goings-on "That's not believeable!" --- Go home. Go home now. It's an Indiana Jones movie. He's jumped out of planes to slide down mountains using only an inflatable boat. He's crash landed planes without getting a scratch and killed fighter pilots by scaring seagulls. He's survived snakes and spiders, black magic and Nazis, giant rolling boulders and poison darts, fought off whole Nazi battalions with his wits, his whip and a revolver. If you're just now realizing these are pulp films that play fast and loose with the laws of physics and probability you really shouldn't leave the house and certainly shouldn't come to the movies.
One thing I've heard a lot that I think is worth addressing: people have been saying (and writing) that this Indiana Jones startled or disappointed them by being a science fiction film (there are aliens!) while the others were fantasy films (there is magic!).
I couldn't disagree with this criticism more. First -- I can't understand why someone's enjoyment of a film would be ruined because of concerns about its genre purity. Second -- I don't think the Indiana Jones films are fantasy films. They're adventure films. And adventure stories going back to well before the advent of film have always included both fantastic magical and fantastic scientific elements. The Doc Savage character that was one major inspiration for Indiana Jones was constantly coming up against magical menaces and then mad scientists, aliens and then fantastical mythic creatures. It's very much in line with the note of these films.
That said -- go see it for yourself. I'd love to hear what the rest of you thought.
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I couldn't agree with you more. When I first saw it, I had a hard time dealing with some of the "fanciful stuff". But now, I think I love it even more than I did before. Its pure escapist fun and does Indy proud.
Posted on May 27, 2008 2:17 PM
If I was on the star system, and I'm glad that I'm not, I would have rated Indy IV 2.5 stars, a rating that isn't bad for a Mummy sequel. I will never buy Indy IV on DVD, or probably even watch it again should it come on TV, and on the Indy curve is tantamount to failure. I don't want a 'good enough' Indy film. I want a good one.
In Roger Moore's review, he said that Crystal Skull gave him closure, which is strange to me because Last Crusade accomplished that nicely.
Also, I think the reason a lot of people, including myself, had a beef with the sci-fi elements is because the other three films were wholly supernatural adventures. Heck, there wasn't even an ounce of sci-fi in The Young Indy Chronicles. If they were going to go the whole sci-fi route, they should have introduced it no later than film two. The failure to do so creates a tonal inconsistency.
Speaking of inconsistencies, you had mentioned people's complaints regarding the 'fanciful' action sequences. I would assume that you are referring to the 'monkey' sequence. I am aware that Indy has survived all kinds of ridiculous scrapes and falls in the previous, but my problem with the monkeys was a question of tone. When Indy dropped out of a plane with nothing but an inflatable raft to break his fall, he did it without blinking. It wasn't silly nor a joke - it was just the kind of thing that always happens inside Indy's world. On the other hand, when Mutt swings with the monkeys, it's played for cute laughs.
I think the biggest problem with the series is George Lucas' desire to craft his movies for his children. This would be okay if he had the guts to get out there and make an original movie for a change, but when he takes OUR movies and goofs them up with poop and groin-punch humor that thankfully didn't exist in the previous installments, any loyal fan with discerning taste cannot help it but to cry shenanigans.
Posted on May 27, 2008 4:56 PM
In other news, here's a quickie radio report I made, where I found out the moviegoers at the Regal Grande had to say about the film. Seems a lot of people's opinions are as varied as the critic's.
Posted on May 27, 2008 5:43 PM
so... how to start...
ABSOLUTE DISSAPOINTMENT.. seriously... Spielberg should have investigated A LOT before doing the film...
who told him Nazca is located in Cuzco? Why put mexican music as they are walking through Nazca Peru? How come there are russians in the Amazon? Pancho Villa has nothing to do with Peru...he is part of Mexican history... I mean how could he have taught Quechua to Jones...
Who said Francisco de Orellana was a conquistador ?
Francisco Pizarro was a conquistador and Francisco de Orellana was NOT.. he was just an explorer and adventurer and nothing else...
Its not that hard to look in wikipedia.. its all there...
I invite all of you to come and see Nazca and the Amazonas for yourselves and THEN watch the movie... you'll laugh llike we peruvians did..
... lack of culture Spielberg...as much as I like how he directs and like his movies and think he is a wonderful director.. he dissapointed me by his lack of culture.. With this we can see how some people can be really ignorant and couldnt give a damn about other country that is not their own..
apart from the complete nonsense and mixture between mexican and peruvian culture which i think was really absurd...the special effects and movie was not bad at all...it was plain good.
Posted on June 2, 2008 5:18 AM