SCI FI PI

Released May 22
Starring Harrison Ford, Shia LeBeouf, Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen, John Hurt, Ray Winstone
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Rated M



Dun den nah naah, dun den naaaah!


Should you go and see this movie?

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is set in 1957 - that's almost twenty years since the action of the last one - and a hell of a lot has happened since then. A hell of a lot. This is where fans of the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles will be handsomely rewarded by just a few lines, because the young Indy and the older Indy have a lot in common. Whilst we haven't seen him for a while, he has continued to live life to the full, which includes adventures during World War II, and an odd little incident in 1947...

Dun de dun dun daaaaaaah!

The less said about this the better - but don't worry, it does all work out. The 'alien' plotline that seems so out of place before seeing the film is well woven into the story, and when compared to Indy's previous adventures (including, do we need be reminded, 'the Wrath of God') it's perfectly in tone with the fantastical nature of some of his most noteworthy exploits.

The plot sets off from the opening frames, and takes us on an adventure to find not only a mysterious (and oddly shaped) pre-Mayan crystal skull, but to find the legendary lost city of gold, Akatar. For Indy, he's not after the gold - but out to help an old friend. Unfortunately, a new evil, in the form of 'The Redder the Better' Communists are after the skull and the power it promises for their seemingly unquenchable plans for world domination. No wonder Indy 'likes Ike'.

So what, in general, can you expect?

Action. Action in his home-town, action in the 'box room' at the end of Raiders where 'top men' keep the US secrets (and yes, you may see an item or two that you remember) action in the jungles of South America, action in graveyards and action in collapsible ancient temples. Indy's fear of snakes is in there, and the creepie crawlie danger (snakes, bugs, rats) for this movie can hold it's head up high. A vicious carnivorous jungle-dweller it is. Done well. Monch monch monch.

The Russians have two baddies - the brutal efficient punching kind of guy who is the 'no mucking about one' and the rapier-wielding even smarter one, played by Cate Blanchett.

Indy has a new sidekick, Mac, picked up during his adventures during the war.

Of course, with the inclusion of Karen Allen in the cast, the character of Marion Ravenswood is back, and there's a sense of the young woman grown up - indeed, a great deal of the film's interplay is about the process of aging and life's passage. Mutt Williams (a dog's name, of course - hint hint hint) is played by a Shia LeBeouf, who's character is doing his best to be Marlon Brando in The Wild One - at first hilarious, and then understandable as rebellion. He's not a young Indy, but he does have plenty of zing, and as an uppercrust-educated but lowercrust-favouring chap, has learned fencing and switchblade moves, which is quite the combo for a Harley riding 'greaser' to have. A unique combination, to be sure, but hey, it's only a movie. LeBeouf does have a presence, and does well with the tough job of sharing the screen with 'an old man' that is the reason we're all here.

So how old exactly is Indiana Jones?

The right age. It's done right. He's fit and healthy - but he's sixty five. He's a man whose body has been hardened by adventure, but he still wears silly bow ties (although now they really seem to fit). He's not as fast as he once was, but he can still wield a whip and 'make it up as he goes along'. He doesn't belong in real life, but neither do we. We've come to the movies for a reason.

That point there is the key to all of this. It's only a movie.



Amazonian swordfights? Check!


So much has been written and speculated in the build up to the film's release that it's hard not to go in ready to find fault in any number of parts of the film; but let's stop and think this through. Just a bit.

The first Indy film, Raiders of the Lost Ark, is probably the greatest 'movie' of all time. The second and third films were not without their critics at time of release, and over the years have gained respectability that age bestows upon all things - ugly buildings, whores and politicians especially.

Does the film live up to the hype?

All the films were standalone adventures, with a distinct flavour. Crystal Skull is no different. Nazis and Thugees are replaced by Commies, the setting is mainly jungle and the mystery is mixed up in pre-Mayan lore and searches for lost cities of gold. No movie in the world is going to really shine when compared to the expectation of twenty years, as shown by Episode 1. Luckily, this film has no Jar Jarring miscalculations. The quality creative team behind it know what they're doing. The only quibbles may be ones of taste, not of error. Let the movie be a movie, and try to enjoy it as such. It's fun, plain and simple.

The film's crescendo is well foreshadowed within the film, which is a great idea - because, out of context, it seems like a bit of a stretch. In the film, the familiar pattern of 'what is it?', 'let's find it', 'oh wow, it's actually real' is repeated from the earlier films - with a twist. There's a bit more to Indy 4 than 'Saucer Men from Mars' as the erstwhile Dr Jones puts it.

Is the casting spot-on?

The casting is stellar. John Hurt is in there, adding a touch of class to a befuddled Professor Oxley, Cate Blanchett is lit like she's Grace Kelly, but the surreal glamour is yet another nod to the audience. Her Irina Spalka is a delicious chocolate, laced with arsenic. The tone of her evil is part Major Dietrich from Raiders and part Elsa Schneider from Last Crusade, with something new as well. Ray Winstone, however, doesn't get much of a chance with more of a 'Short Round' experience and Karen Allen's moments are too few.

It's only a movie!

Oddly enough though, amongst all this action, it is the moments of character, of Jones family history, that do have genuine emotional payoffs. But some may feel they're too few of number and too short of duration. But hey - this isn't Atonement. it's not a 'film' - it's only a movie.

The bad guys' bullets are still rather ineffectual, (they really should just chuck rocks) the level of survivability for the Jones clan is still rather remarkable and Dr Jones' choice of archaeological companions still allows for the odd misjudgment of character. As a director, Spielberg still favours the cheesy if it favours a laugh, and avoids blood wherever possible. Seems a bit rough then that the film was rated M in Australia.

It's easy to forget that these very same crowd-pleasing (and kid-pleasing) instincts made him reviled for his 'saccharine' style, despite (and perhaps because of) his early monumental success, and it wasn't until decades after being a major Hollywood player that Steven Spielberg became truly accepted by the film making fraternity. When it appears again - well, it shouldn't really come as a shock. There's a dependability to it all, which for some, may be seen as predictability, but what can you do? - the familiar is comforting, the original confronting and in a franchise like this, out of place. What did you come to Indy 4 for? A gritty expose on the human condition, or a fun ride? Exactly.

By now it seem odd that you would still ask if you should go and see it. Of course you should! Only the most nitpicking grouches will find that the film's faults and quibbles outweigh its lavish production values and action sequences. Sure it may not be perfection, but it's filled with action, adventure, romance, danger and mystery - and a few laughs, between filmmaker and audience, and a few more for those who really know their cinema and Indy history.

Which is not bad for 'only a movie'.



As I said before, Mr Lucas was pretty strict about people who ruin the movie by revealing the ending...