Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

"What are you, like 80?"

Probably a wise decision for scriptwriter David Koepp to address the notion that Harrison Ford is can still trying to cut the mustard as an action star a good 20 years after he last turned out as Indy (and he wasn't exactly a spring chicken then either). Wise for two reasons: first, it's the best line in the film and Ford's reaction is spot on; second, it makes the absurd notion of a 60-something playing the action hero slightly less absurd if you add a dose of self-deprecation and humour.

Ford has been in need of a sizable hit after a string of not particularly successful releases and this, as much as anything, probably made this movie happen after years of dithering. George Lucas had approached some fine screenwriters and summarily proceeded to reject every effort: most notably those of Tom Stoppard (Shakespeare in Love) and Frank Darabont (The Shawshank Redemption). Why then settle on David Koepp's version?

Well the element of the fantastical is obviously something that appeals to Lucas and it plays a strong part in this. Whilst the entire series has had undercurrents of mystique, this movie, more than the previous three, pushes it more to the foreground. There's also a large dose of silliness that the franchise has not really seen before - certainly not to this degree. Indy's new sidekick Mutt (Shia Lebouef) actually swings from tree to tree in unabashed Tarzan style absurdity (and what's more manages to catch up to a speeding truck). This comes seconds after we have to endure Spielberg treat us to some tree-hitting-crotch style "humour" as Mutt straddles two trucks speeding through the forest. Such nonsense hasn't been seen since the Ewoks with twigs and stones battled and defeated the Imperial force armed with real weapons.

So the real question is (to borrow a line from that other recent franchise reload) "is Ford too old for this shit?" Well things do play a little bit slowly at times. Perhaps in 20 years since Last Crusade, we've become too accustomed to the films like the Bourne trilogy or the rebranded Bond and anything that is played at normal speed seems pedestrian by comparison. Indeed in the run up to this film's release it was exactly the Paul Greengrass quick cutting style that Spielberg said he had deliberately avoided. Whilst it might not have been completely successful, I certainly like the sentiment since hyperactive editing totally ruins any action sequence for me - credit to Spielberg for not going down this route. Ironically though, it may have been more suited here than in Bourne since it may have better hidden the fact that Ford is getting on a bit and was doing his own stunts. That isn't to say it doesn't play well as it does - it's just not a home run, instead just a pretty solid base hit. Indiana Jones never has performed the hyperkinetic action sequences of the likes of Jason Bourne so if any character could continue to be played in his 60s it would be he, but at times you do feel it is a bit like action-lite.

What's never in doubt though is Ford's presence on screen and he again delivers in a role that he made his own. Ably supported by Cate Blanchett deliberately hamming it up as the Russian baddie, and a trio of Brits (Winstone, Hurt and Broadbent - in descending order of the importance) this is always engaging without ever setting your world on fire. Lebouef too is fine in his biggest role to date. After getting notices for Disturbia and Transformers last summer, he returns this year with his supporting turn here, and later on in Eagle Eye - a film that looks silly enough, but may increase Lebouef's star power if marketed correctly.

What made Indy IV a little more special for me was that the very day I saw this I saw Steven Spielberg in the flesh, completely at random, on Hollywood Blvd. If I'd seen him after the film rather than before I'd have congratulated him on a decent effort. Perhaps if I had summoned up the courage I'd have also told him to ditch George Lucas, since his influence on this franchise doesn't seem to be particularly noteworthy. Then again the Stoppard and Darabont screenplays may have been complete trash?! One final word - I'd much prefer to see these sort of summer blockbusters than anything in which the hero wears a cape, turns green or shoots webbing out of his wrists.

B-

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Here's the trailer....



Comments please....

Some encouraging signs here I reckon.

Munich

Charting (briefly) the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics at the hands of Black September and (much more fully) the Israeli government's response to it (in the form of sending out Eric Bana's hit squad to kill supposedly legitimate 'terrorist' targets), this was the first film I've seen in a good while and, unfortunately, something of a disappointment. Despite some interesting moments, the story doesn't sustain itself and the film ends up dragging. Its biggest flaw, however, is its complete lack of characterisation. The characters are very two-dimensional and the acting is largely unimpressive although, to be fair, there is very little in the way of an acting challenge on offer here. Even the dependable Eric Bana (so good in Chopper) ambles through this in perfect harmony with the dozy, disjointed, nature of the film.

Further, it's a movie that can't really seem to decide where it's going or what it's trying to be and it ends up playing like a simple action movie. Given the choice of subject material and the (badly mishandled) more thoughtful moments I can't believe this was what Spielberg was aiming for. It's a film that simply doesn't know (or possibly hasn't even thought about) its own morality and it goes quite badly off-kilter as a result. The characters just flit from one revenge killing to another without so much of a thought as to whether they are doing the right thing or not. Is someone who has spent the past two years (or whatever it was) translating the Arabian Nights into Italian really a legitimate target for a counter-strike? It was very hard to see who the bad guys were though I didn't honestly get the sense that was what Spielberg and co were going for, at least the direction was just not subtle or nuanced enough to even suggest that. And the editing was, as with Minority Report and parts of AI, simply atrocious meaning the development of narrative and story becomes desperately unbalanced. This has been a sad theme of Spielberg's more recent efforts.

And yet, a little bizarrely, the film had something about it which I can genuinely not put my finger on that kept my attention held until the end. Perhaps it was the odd spirituality which, at times, I did find interesting. I can't honestly put my finger on what it was but something held me in my seat for the 2 and a half hours or so and I'm not sure the treatment of the material (though, it must be said, not the material itself) really deserved that. Still, I'll never be able to repay the debt I owe to Spielberg (no matter how many of his ropier films I sit through) for giving the film-watching public the sublimely perfect Jaws.

A generous C-