As with many films it seems impossible to have measured, balanced opinion presented and then moved along from. Instead what we get is a lot of hype, a lot of people who think it is the worst film ever and yet other people who think it is one of the best films they have ever seen. What I find is that, if you listen to the reasons behind these opinions, both camps have points to make and the most likely reason for this is that both arguments hold a certain amount of water but not 100% - because Indy IV is neither the best or worst film ever. So what is it?
Well, disappointingly, "Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is not much better than The Mummy or National Treasure or several other films that would like to be as good and as fun as Raiders or Last Crusade but are simply acceptable products in the shadow of those better films. With these films that is almost understandable, but because this is not an Indy-clone but rather a part of the series one can understand why the strength of disappointment. Some people have a problem with the "alien" plot and have used it as a chance to revive the anger over the new Star Wars films and get at Lucas. For me it was a bit strange and modern but to be honest I didn't find it too different in concept from accepting immortality and religious mythology as the basis. Problem is not with the concept of the story but with the delivery. In this regard we get a rather plodding "action/explain/action/explain" structure that stutters rather than flows. It also asks the audience to ignore the fact that every single one of us knows what a head shaped like that means and it is silly to have the influence of aliens "revealed" to us as if it hadn't been clear from the very opening scene.
Storyline aside though, what irritated me was the lack of fun. The opening scene has it in the simple pleasures of a warehouse chase but then blows it away with a moment of silliness with an atomic bomb and a fridge. This pattern continues through the film but sadly rather than having a good bit followed by silliness, silliness tends to infect and diminish a lot of the action. This is a killer because the set-pieces are there in spirit but somehow too much of the delivery has been fudged. The motorcycle chase is fun but after that not a lot works. In the run-up to the film, everyone was talking up how this is an old-fashioned action with real action and not a load of CGI; I can only assume then that Spielberg did not see the final cut and that someone has slipped in some other scenes because I was surprised by how computerised a lot of it was - and also how damaging it is. Of course the "king of the monkeys" bit is absurd and can be highlighted for easy points but to be honest the entire chase through the jungle suffers as well, Here we have a hark back to that brilliant lorry chase in Raiders but it is a poor copy. The CGI makes it daft and robs it totally of realism - well, not "realism" but it makes it less engaging and urgent for the viewer because, as it never looks real, it never really feels real either - an impression not helped, incidentally, by the extent of stunts such as falling over waterfalls etc which are just too overblown to be exciting. The CGI use understandably gets greater as the film approaches the conclusion but, as impressive as it looks, you never once think it is "real" and I cannot help but feel that just because one "can" do something with computers, doesn't always mean one should.
I'm being negative about it but I do want to stress that the film is "OK" - just that "OK" will not be what the majority of viewers are hoping for. It does have its moments of fun but they are few and far between. Crucially what I was surprised by was the lack of true suspense. Often with famous music there are moments where it all comes together and sends thrills through the viewer - that never happened here. Not once. The cast try hard but there is an inescapable feeling of "reunion" to their performances that detract from their characters. Ford does look good for his age and does sort of carry that weary cynicism of the character but nostalgia and reunions rob him of that important trait. LaBeouf is OK but he suffers from being pushed on the audience as some sort of heir-apparent without seeing if he works first - that said he is pretty good considering the weight on him. Blanchett plays it all too straight and is a dull villain without the weight to carry it. Winstone mugs around unconvincingly while Hurt is tied to a "mad" character for the majority. Allen is a nice return in terms of character but her performance is far too "happy to be here/isn't this just like old days" and she never once feels like a real character within the film. Spielberg's direction is a disappointment as the film never "looks" great; mostly due to "big" moments mostly existing within a PC but I was also surprised by how few impressive shots and moments there were.
Indy IV is not a terrible film but nor is it a really good one. It is disappointing but looking at it coldly it is just another CGI-heavy summer blockbuster sequel that can't deliver what it promises; that it is Indiana Jones makes it all the more disappointing but, like most so-so blockbusters, it has just about enough about it to be "OK" but also be a disappointment at the same time.
No comments:
Post a Comment