Cast:
Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones), Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Helena Shaw), Mads Mikkelsen (Jürgen Voller), Antonio Banderas (Renaldo), John Rhys-Davies (Sallah), Toby Jones (Basil Shaw), Boyd Holbrook (Klaber), Ethann Isidore (Teddy Kumar), Shaunette Renée Wilson (Mason), Thomas Kretschmann (Colonel Weber), Karen Allen (Marion Ravenwood), and Olivier Richters (Hauke) Directed by James Mangold (#912 - Logan and #1302 - Ford v. Ferrari)
Review:
“I am interested in making something that works from beginning to end — to curtain. Otherwise, I’m working on the world’s most expensive television show.”
Before one gets to the inevitable, why don't I address the easiest question out of the way? Just which sequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark is the best one? (If you just want to get right down to the film, skip the paragraph or enjoy a rundown). Let me look at the three sequels that followed up the classic 1981 feature film in a brief rundown while stating the obvious: Raiders of the Lost Ark, in the tradition of many franchises, is by default the most original of the films, which is saying something as a film that is a tribute to the old adventure serials that George Lucas had enjoyed in his younger days. He worked with Philip Kaufman on the original script before years of waiting eventually led to collaborating with Steven Spielberg, who used his rejection of not being allowed to do a James Bond film to influence his directing (complete with Lawrence Kasdan writing the screenplay). Needless to say, the resulting film is one of the best of its time, probably even the best film of its year (no human being seriously believes Chariots of Fire is a memorable Best Picture winner unless they happen to be born in England- think about it). The sequel film, as directed by Spielberg in 1984 as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is thought of as the lesser of the 80s films, and that may be true, but I enjoyed the hell out of it the second time around. Honestly, the complaint of it being too dark is a lazy one, because what the hell is wrong with that? Adventure serials were not chipper and friendly features, you know, and the last film had people's faces being melted off because they looked at the Ark, so don't tell me that one suddenly decided to get squeamish just because they saw a heart ripped out. I enjoyed it far more than I expected to when seeing it the night before seeing Destiny, to the point where I would argue that a 9/10 rating is more appropriate than the 8 I originally gave it. It was a film with all of the fun you could hope from trying to spook your friends on a thrill ride to counter the original in spectacle, and I will go to my grave saying that. Last Crusade (1989) is undeniably just as good as the first film, one that shows the power of adventure goes hand in hand with family and its touches of faith beyond being just an adventure for another artifact. The ending with father and son on horseback with friends into the sunset is probably the highest point of the whole series, and one would be forgiven for thinking that the series could have just ended right there. Lucas felt that the series was finished and thus focused his time on The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which ran from 1992 to 1993 that detailed a handful of young adventures, and it was shooting Ford for a guest spot in one episode that had got him to think of ideas for a possible fourth film that theoretically would be set in the 1950s (his "saucer men from mars" script isn't exactly a treat to hear about, but I digress). Eventually, he got Spielberg into doing something that would involve "interdimensional beings" (so no, not really just aliens) within a sci-fi B-movie tribute, albeit one with a bit of computer-generated imagery (such as in the jungle or with the alien). Fifteen years later, screw it, I actually think it is a fine movie, so spare me the complaints about "nuking the fridge, or space aliens or CGI monkeys" (okay the last one is corny). It is a nitpicker's dream movie, to put it mildly, but sometimes, even folks like me just let loose and take stock at the fact that a movie can sometimes be "fine" anyway. It captures some of what one might call a "lizard brain" energy required to make a tribute to older films with ridiculous execution, and as long as one respects the intelligence or patience of the viewer, you can get through with a number of things (Doom, if you recall, had a stunt where folks survived a freefall on an inflatable raft). Really, it only seems to flounder when a certain individual next to Ford is on screen that results in a 7/10 experience that was better than I remembered. But we are here to talk about a film from 2023, not just ones from 1984, 1989, or 2008.
Perhaps it is not surprising that four writers are credited here: Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth, David Koepp, and James Mangold (you may remember Koepp as a co-writer on Crystal Skull and the Butterworths for their work on Edge of Tomorrow). Plans for a fifth film technically started in 2016 with pre-production that had a target of 2019, which originally had Koepp write for Spielberg as intended director before both left (the latter is instead executive producer), which is where the Butterworths and Mangold come in. The first and immediate thought that came out after seeing the credits end was one of laughter. It is just as average as the film from fifteen years ago, with the only difference being that Ford is now 80 rather than 65 years old. Think about it: both films feature a secondary lead that takes up a good chunk of action stunts (for evident reasons) that have some relation to Ford that was just established in this film (secret son, goddaughter, whatever) while dealing with some sort of mystical/magical allure that mines the well a bit for nostalgia. Mangold may claim that the last film didn't really know what it was about when it came to an older Indy, but, respectfully, what the hell has he really done to improve on that? At 154 minutes, it is the longest of the five films, and I honestly don't know how they got to that point aside from the lengthy opening sequence involving a de-aged Ford in the 1940s. You know, sometimes, the old trick of using a lookalike or just a brief recasting (you know, like the opening to Last Crusade?) really is better than the alleged best new trick. Roughly 25 minutes spent with a CG face morph and action spent mostly in the dark (with some decent dialogue, but alas) is such a baffling way to get things going in establishing things to come back in play for the real ideal setting: the summer of 1969, right after man has walked on the Moon...and a nearly divorced and retiring Indiana Jones that seems ready to fade away with his joys and regrets. This is single-handily the most uneven film of the series, one that is technically fun when it comes to the overall entertainment level but as a whole is just a reminder that sometimes, you just have to let it go. People who think Temple of Doom is the "dark" one of the series will now get to eat a heap of humble pie with a film in Dial of Destiny that seems to want to top it in being the bleakest of the five in its initial trappings, where only the climax can provide a respite to what you damn well know is going to happen. I suppose if you never should see your heroes grow old, you surely don't want to see them end up the same place as everything else: vanished from the line of sight.
The interesting thing is that there are no real bad performances in an Indiana Jones movie, with this one being no different. Ford obviously enjoyed the idea of doing this role one more time to wrap things in peace, one that seems him at odds with just where he should be in his life, and I enjoy it. He is still most of the measured force of dignity in the face of harrowing adventure, regardless of how many stunts he gets involved in. Waller-Bridge makes a quality presence to go along with Ford when it comes to generating amusement as basically a lingering grifter, one who matters to the story when it comes to asserting what matters most when interacting with people beyond cash. That involves a degree of humor, because Isidore is present as essentially the third part of a trio that comes there in the middle of the film to go with the two, which results in a mildly compelling rogues gallery that hit and miss at times. Mikkelsen (speaking of irony relating to Bond and Indy, he's now played a villain in both franchises just like Julian Glover) is a semi-compelling threat in the idea that being the flipside of the coin with Ford in the art of trying to re-write what made them who they were, which is inspired by Operation Paperclip in the actual relocation of German scientists, engineers, and technicians from the former Nazi Germany to America after World War II. As such, he calmly waltzes his way to what he feels is something he earned, something where cold and calculated victory is all that matters at his age with strength behind him to try to rewrite the lost cause. Honestly, I think it is the final fate that I wish was handled better, because think about it, do you remember the villains in the series for who they are, or in how they are vanquished? Food for thought. Rhys-Davies turned down a cameo in the fourth film because he stated that "the character of Sallah is worth more to the audience than that." This seems ironic now, because he is in a grand total of two scenes (one that is basically right in the trailer anyways, but at least it is beneficial to the plot, so "eh"), so the cynic wiseass in me thinks "worth more" means "more money". But hey, he is just fine here in that aged warm presence. Banderas is basically a gloried cameo, but hell, that was the case with Rhys-Davies in those previous movies, but you still see him make a chuckle anyway. Jones closes it out with mild obsessive paranoia that is, well, one that comes and goes fine. When the film at last gets to its climax involving one particular revelation, I think that is where the film handles things at its best in not taking the complete easy out in paradoxical clumps that made me chuckle, right down to the meaning of "stacked deck".
There are various sources that make up the "MacGuffin" of the five films, whether that involves the Book of Exodus in an Ark, an off-shoot of Hinduism in stones, Arthurian legend about Christ and a Grail, alleged pre-Columbian Mesoamerican skull artifacts, or an ancient Greek discovery (which is actually referred to as an Antikythera mechanism). I would like to give credit for the big device of the film for reminding me of an egg timer. If one finds pieces of the egg timer and fixes it up, they could use it to help them figure out how much time is needed to cook (or go through time), and boom, you have made a plot device that amuses me to where I think, well, one will never top the search for the Holy Grail, but a search to maybe loop back to somewhere with an eggtimer-sorry, dial of destiny, is fine. The action is handled just fine in the kinetic sense, making for a modern ride through the past work in a way that will at least make you think Mangold wanted to make something that was not just a faux Spielberg hack. So yes, there is the basic thrill required within the inevitability that comes in the adventure. The world has outgrown Indy in 1969, but that doesn't mean his end is going to be a futile oblivion without some sort of fight. As a whole, the enjoyment of the film will depend on how you view your expectations when it comes to what you saw before in the last couple of films. If you desire one more return of the grand adventure with some of what you have seen before, you will do just fine here. The one thing that can be said about the Indiana Jones series is that five films are fine enough for anyone to view for themselves in curiosity without desiring a glut of more (anyone who tries a spinoff will probably be mocked into oblivion, please note). This is a movie that will surely inspire a barrage of discussion over just what modern Indy film was the more interesting adventure to try and forge their way of destiny that reminds me of a tired runner trying to make one more push for the finish line. It might wheeze and make an offbeat move, but I liked it enough to see it cross without waiting to tear them to shreds. With a franchise that inspires so much discussion over what it means to the viewer, you can take that for what it is worth and decide for yourself.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment