What bothers me most about this film is that it doesn’t feel like an Indiana Jones movie. It doesn’t have that spark and flair that the other three had, even though the team behind this goes a long way to try and accommodate the tons of people out there looking for a bit of nostalgia. First and foremost, Harrison Ford is back as Indy and if nothing else, that’s a reason to see the film in and of itself. Despite its failed attempts to feel like part of the series, there was just something wonderful about seeing the archaeologist back in action along with his hat and whip. And at 66 years old, Ford isn’t it bad shape at all; he still convinced me that he is able to do what Indy does.
Any supporting characters who aren’t here (either because the actors are no longer alive or didn’t want to be in the film) are made up for; Sallah (played in Raiders and Last Crusade by John Rhys-Davies) is replaced by Ray Winstone as another sidekick, and Denholm Elliott as Marcus is replaced by Jim Broadbent. There are also some new characters: Shia LaBeouf plays Mutt (kudos to him for playing his part without becoming annoying), Cate Blanchett is the first Indy female villain Irina Spalko, and even John Hurt turns up to add to a very impressive cast. But the most exciting character is not a replacement or a completely new one but the return of one the series’ best — Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood. Although she wasn’t as much use as she could have been, it was still great to see her back after all these years.
Every one of the Indiana Jones movies had one stand-out action sequence memorable even to this day – in Raiders it was the sequence where Indy is hijacking the vehicle which contains the Ark, in Temple of Doom it was the escape in the mine cart, and the in Last Crusade it was the tank sequence. In Crystal Skull it’s a multiple vehicle chase through the jungle involving millions of flesh-eating red ants and a waterfall. It’s in those scenes that the film really had me; they sure know how to make scenes like this really exciting. While the action sequences are not quite up to scratch compared to the previous movies - partly because I was distracted by the unnecessary special effects - they're invigorating nonetheless.
Article comments
1 - G W
You sir, are a complete idiot. To actually notion the fact that Indy 20 years later (in real life and also in the fiction) should be what he once was, is an absolute disgrace to anyone in your community that has gotten older. I cannot wait until a child tells you are you are completely inept at your position as a writer because your left or right hand does not work so well.....That is a pity I will truly enjoy.
2 - Ross Miller
First off - did you not READ the warning above the place where you type your name when you comment? Take a look and then mull over if you should have typed what you did.
I'm going to address your point none the less though - did you actualy READ my review? Or did you simply glance over, read a sentence out of context and then took it the wrong way? I didn't say Indy should be the same after 20 years, I understand that times move on, stories and characters move on. But that doesn't mean you have to make everything with special effects to be in with the crowd of blockbuster films nowadays. A continuation of a series like this needed to FEEL like the other films, like I said at the end of my review - why touch a franchise again if you're not going to do it justice?
I hope "G W" that in the future you think before you comment and don't insult the writer of the particular article.
Thanks.