Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Hollywood needs to publish a manual on "How to bring your silver screen back in action twenty years later". When Steven Spielberg and George Lucas decided to bring back Harrison Ford along for a fourth Indiana Jones film twenty-odd years after the last film, the first and foremost question that should be aroused from movie-aware individuals everywhere could almost guaranteed come in a line similar to, "Harrison Ford? Wasn't he too old or something?" However, The Last Crusader was set in 1935 and this film was set in 1958. And as the release date of these films were "coincidentally" differs by twenty-odd years, the aging Harrison Ford shouldn't be of any issue. The real question was indeed, wether the long awaited sequel live up to its hype.
In my opinion, the revival of an old film hero, especially after twenty something years has gone by, should only need to address one thing and one thing only, flourish the film with something that our hero was best known for. In Rambo, John Rambo was back after twenty years and the film manages to do something that made us love John Rambo in the first place. Yep. Single handedly put up against an army, with a signature bandana, signature arrow and a huge knife. And of course, don't forget the soundtrack. Last night, i went to the theater to see the latest Indiana Jones with the similar attitude (and just like before Speed Racer, i was whistling the classic Indy tunes most of the time). I want to see something similar to Raiders of the Lost Ark which i remembered seeing for the first time on a New Year's Eve when i was in a 5th grade. I remembered the moment exactly. And of course, at the time, i have no idea of who Harrison Ford was, let alone Steven Spielberg or George Lucas.
So, let's see. Fedora hat? Check! Bullwhip? Check! Ancient Artifact? Check! Lovable sidekick? Check! A tongue-in-cheek villain? Check! Snakes? Check! Exotic sites? Check! Classic animated Globe-Trotting map? Check! Feuw, that's one thing for sure, Steven and George manages to put all the ingredients in check that i was confident enough to actually recommend this film to anyone who claimed to be a fan of Dr. Henry Jones, Jr. You fans, won't be disappointed. Of course, since this film created by the original creators AND starred by the first and only person to play adult (not young) Indy Jones, fans shouldn't have any reason to NOT see this film whatsoever.
But, even if the film manages to get the ingredients in check, does it also means that the juice was worth the squeeze?
A friend of mine actually asked me "Who is Indiana Jones?" Oh, youngsters nowadays! So i said to her, "Er... it's a Tomb Raider but a man Tomb Raider" which of course an overtly over simplification for the correct comparison should be Lara Croft is actually a female Indiana Jones. Unfortunately, it turns out that this film puts Indy in not so much different than Lara Croft. From the get go, Indy was already put in a captive by some Russian (led by Cate Blanchett with an accent), getting shot at, swinging from ceiling with his bullwhip, punched, kicked, and finally literally up for the fastest ride he ever rode on. From here on, it goes in a similar fashion, action sequences thrown in one after another with some obligatory puzzle guessing in between and yet another obligatory character development that put Indy with his eventual sidekick (definitely lovable Shia LeBeouf) and his old flame from the first film (Karen Allen). Credit to the chemistry between the three. It's actually fun to see them. However, my problem is that most of the time the film reminds me of Lara Croft.
The problem with any Lara Croft-related adventures, either in games or films, and unfortunately somehow palpable in this film was the fact that she is simply indestructible. Put her against anything and you won't believed at all that she was actually in a danger. That would detached any emotional relationship between me as an audience with the characters on screen which led to a feeling where me seeing the film from the outside instead of actively involved with it. As with Lara Croft, so was Indy in this film. There are no conditions depicted in the film, no matter how extreme it would seems could make me believed that he was actually in a danger. Rather different than Raiders of the Lost Ark, if you asked me. But hey, most of us went into the movies to have some fun. And if you do, you'd have some fun with this film. Good humors at times, nice chemistry between the prominent casts, numerous action sequences with yummy visuals, and numerous in-references from the previous films (the Ark from the first film was actually shown) to keep long time fans nodded in approval. Well, actually i'm just nitpicking here. If you have some three hours that are unaccounted for this weekend, go see it. It may not as entertaining as Iron Man, but certainly better than Prince Caspian.
Oh, one more thing, i hated the way this film concludes itself. But it's a hit or miss anyway, some may have no problem with it, some do. I happened to be the one that has some problem with it.
My rating: **1/2 / **** - Just being honest. Imagine it this way, you had this crush during your high-school era. She was sweet, smart, and popular. You used to looking longingly at her and your heart skipped a beat when you whisked the scent of her perfume. Now, twenty years later you met her again, and it turns out that she wasn't as attractive girl as she used to.
