The Good, the Bad, and the Indy

I saw the new Indiana Jones flick, and discussed it some with Wander, but I still have more to say about it, thus this blog post. I don’t want to bother with sorting out what needs the patented InvisoText ® so if you haven’t seen the film, STOP READING HERE.

Overall I liked the movie, but I don’t think that I liked it as much as the other three. I don’t know if that has anything to do with age; I found that many shows I loved as a kid I think are terrible now. Go watch an episode of The A-Team to understand what I mean. One thing that was different with this film from the others – and is neither good nor bad (well, I guess I’m leaning towards bad here) – is the singular adventure. The previous movies all began with Indy embroiled in a separate adventure. In Raider’s of the Lost Ark, Indy has his iconic adventure in a Pre-Columbian temple. Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom begins with that wicked cool scene in a Hong Kong night club – it’s the escape from the gangsters that throws Indy, Short-round, and that annoying chick (Kate Capshaw?) into the movie’s main adventure in India. And Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade begins with this cool vignette of Indy as a teen and then flashes forward to an adventure on a boat tossed on a stormy sea. It gives the viewer the impression that the hero is constantly having adventures, which are only periodically interrupted by his classes. In this movie, it begins with the main adventure, with only a small road race at the beginning to set the pace. Of course, as I typed that I realized that maybe the new movie shouldn’t give that feeling of constant adventuring, as Indy is significantly older. His female students no longer swoon over him, and he hardly even goes by Indy anymore, and instead goes by his given name Henry. I wondered if this was in honor of his father, or indicative of his life transition into post-middle age. Either way, I suppose he really isn’t the same man as he was in the first three films.

Another part I’m ambivalent about is the mystery/mythology. The first three focused on known human mythology, two of which were from the Abrahamic religions (the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail) and the third was a Vedic myth (the only real part of I know of being the reference to the deity Shaak-Ti.) Anywho, this movie focuses on a non-religious mythology (well, at least traditional religion) of aliens. At first I feared I’d find it hokey, but none of the franchise is subtle in that respect (tearing out hearts, the Ark melting faces, etc.) Now I’m cool with it, and I even like how uniquely American (and 50’s) this movie was. I thought it was way cool that in the past twenty years Indy has been an agent of the OSS (the precursor to the CIA). It showed that even though he was a citizen of the world, he was also a patriot. Then there is the USA/USSR rivalry, the focus on the atomic age, and the inclusion of aliens, which were probably in every third movie made in the fifties (ironically enough as a metaphor for the red scare.) So intentional or not (but very likely intentional), the cohesiveness of theme was well done.

As for what I don’t like about the film, the first is the CGI/green screen work. It was just really noticeable, and with the technology we have I expected it to be seamless. Maybe the elements I didn’t like (the jungle chase scene) were too complex with the myriad of textures in the plants, or maybe somebody just dropped the ball. Still, the mediocre effects are a small complaint. My real complaint has to do with Karen Allen, and there’s no salve for this one.
In the first film, the only other one with Karen Allen, see plays a very strong character whose actions play a big part in the plot. In this movie she drives an amphibious jeep and swoons over Indy, who she hasn’t seen for at least twenty years. That’s it. They had a great character, one who could drink mountain men under the table, and reduced her to a soccer mom with ga-ga eyes for her (really) old boyfriend. That for me has to be the worst part of this movie. Yeah, she’s pudgy and has crows feet, but I still wanted to see her kick ass at least metaphorically. Her subservient, background role really fits in with the fifties theme, but in a bad way.

My last complaint has to do with the other female character, the Russian psychic chick. Kudos at least for mentioning Stalin’s funding research into psychic military programs, but the character wasn’t interesting enough to warrant Kate Blanchet’s talent. I think Blanchet is the most skilled actress on the screen today – I put her in with Meryl Streep, Judi Dench, and Kathy Bates, easy. She’s had small roles in movies, but she made them big (Lord of the Rings being a good example.) In this movie it seemed like there just wasn’t enough of a character for even Blanchet’s considerable talent to save.

It seems that all the character development went to Shia LeBouf and Harrison Ford (who didn’t need it, as his character is well-established.) Again, the women aren’t given much consideration, which, like I wrote above, keeps with the fifties theme whether it meant to or not.

As for what I did like about the film (other than the stuff I pointed out here and there), the overall action, adventure, and just plain fun was there, as was the humor. The joke on Indy’s phobia of snakes is hilarious.

Hmmm, that’s about it I guess. It’s definitely worth seeing, but I think it was too focused on wrapping up the series, and not focused enough on really making Karen Allen’s return as cool as it should have been.

Did anyone else think that the crystal aliens looked a lot like ET?