Worse is the George Lucas-inspired reliance on digital effects that robs the film of that tactile sense of place. The first Raiders was covered in sweat and grime and felt infinitely more real than the too-pretty digital sheen of Crystal Skull.
Every problem that besieges a blockbuster sequel is on ample display here. The guiding principles of “Bigger! Better! Faster! More!” feel like they were written on every page of the script. The whole thing starts off well enough, but like a wild mushroom hors d’oeuvre at a wedding, it promises a better meal than will be served. The opening action scene at a military base promises more fun than the film comes close to delivering.I’d amend a sentence in the middle of that. The film doesn’t start off well at all. The opening warehouse scene is stiff and awkward. The chase through the Yale campus shows signs of life — Shia LeBoeuf’s best contribution — and then the film nosedives into incoherence.
There are moments through the first half where Spielberg feels like he might be truly having fun, free from the onus of ‘serious’ filmmaking. There are even moments of charm - including a cutesy wink and nod to the ending of the original Raiders. By the halfway mark, though, the erratically swerving screenplay throws Spielberg and the cast off, and they’re content to let the venture crash to a pointlessly noisy conclusion. The jeep chase through the jungle plays like the Nazi truck chase in the original Raiders, only this time the self-conscious corniness gets in the way. The wisecracks fly too freely and the clever camerawork can’t hide the tedium. The danger is too forced – especially with the Lucas-approved digital cliffs that Indy perilously hovers over, and everyone looks a little tired, as if they know they’ve all done this better before.Also largely true. Indy doesn’t hover over a cliff, and the digital ants make for a nice bit of gruesome fun, but most of the first half is fun-free. The reveal of the city of gold plays like a 20-minute lift from the climax of National Treasure.
The good news is that there’s very little flop sweat on display. It’s almost impossible to tell if Ford is playing it cool, or if he’s stoned. Cate Blanchett plays a Russian special agent with a snap-on dominatrix hairpiece. She smartly marches about, preening through a cartoonish accent, her eyes lit up like she can’t believe she’s being paid to talk this way. Karen Allen comes off as happy to have a job, and Shia LeBoeuf is the only cast member who feels genuinely excited to be here, even if his character is the stock-issue perky orphan, like cousin Oliver from the Brady Bunch after a stint in a halfway house.The only thing I’d correct here is the bit about Cate Blanchett’s eyes. She seems half-asleep. At the climax, instead of getting a memorable Toht-melting, we get to see a well-feigned green-screen panic in her eyes.
There isn’t any integrity at risk here. Everyone’s here for the easy paycheck, and nobody’s making any decisions that will jeopardize an infallible summer blockbuster. Already, there’s a retconned rumor floating around that Spielberg and Lucas originally planned to make five Indy pictures, and nothing about the finale suggests we’ve seen the last of Indiana Jones.Couldn’t be truer, especially those rumors about making another. Overall, I was too modest in my original estimate of being 75% correct; it’s closer to 90%.
Article comments
1 - Brad Schader
Great and original review. I like the approach of writing a review based on what you think going into a movie and comparing it to what you think after. I would love to read more like this actually. I smell a feature =D
2 - Paisley and Plaid
I agree. But my shallow reaction has to do with age: Jones, Marion -- three decades of "experience" makes for interesting people, but not necessarily the appeal a film requires. Sorry.
3 - El Bicho
Very good and funny review, JW.