Directed by:
Steven SpielbergScreenplay:
David KoeppCinematography:
Janusz KaminskiComposer:
John WilliamsCast:
Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, Shia LaBeouf, Cate Blanchett, John Hurt, Ray Winstone, Jim Broadbent, Andrew Divoff, Alan Dale, Sasha Spielberg (more)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
In 1957, Indiana Jones is thrust back in action, venturing into the jungles of South America in a race against Soviet agents to find the mystical Crystal Skull. (Paramount Pictures)
Videos (15)
Reviews (14)
The trio of Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford reminds me of a bunch of pensioners who will jokingly rebuke you if you want to let them take your seat on a tram. You will rarely meet them, but you will not forget them for a long time. Or... The original plan of having a worthy ending to the series that turned into a comedy-action hit that could be envied by folks generations younger than me, made me laugh like a little kid. This film features a full-blown two hours of stylish catchphrases, a great atmosphere, and a polished feeling that perfectly reflects two things: The mindfulness of aging gentlemen and the fame of Shia LaBeouf - the kid is incredible!
()
Fourth instalment of Indiana Jones franchise gets off to a great start and the rest of the film is decent – except for the last 10 minutes, which entirely undermine the whole thing. “We seem to have reached the age where life stops giving us things and starts taking them away.” The Indiana Jones universe has never taken itself too seriously and its possibilities are great, but they are not boundless and there are certain things I simply don’t want to see there. Who will we meet next? Mulder and Scully are knocking at the door... who is going to open it? Black-haired, flat-chested she-wolf Irina from the Soviet Union? The fourth Indiana Jones is a crazy cross-over with way too many pop-cultural references and a mediocre villain (Cate Blanchett’s only memorable moment is the line “You fight like a young man” :). May it be that the visionaries that used to show others the way have taken leave of their senses? This time, Spielberg has made me about as “happy” as Jackson with his recent King Kong. These blockbusters achieve equally amazing epicness, but they can never become true film classics.
()
This isn’t the best Indy I’ve seen, nor the worst; at the beginning it’s the same Indy, toward the end a slightly different Indy but beyond all doubt this IS Indy; despite being disgustingly digital in places. My heart throb again dons his scruffy felt fedora and returns to the silver screen in an adventure spectacular that we had been sorely missing for an interminably long nineteen years. Over the years several movies tried to fill the void and every last one of them ended up falling into that void. Some did so honorably, others didn’t. The revamped Indy fills the void, although not throughout. Ford’s age doesn’t slow the movie down, but it is an undeniable snag. And Shia doesn’t do much to shoulder the burden of his role as initiator of action. But if you love Indy, you’ll forgive him anything. It has its shortcomings. But what movie doesn’t? But they’re just shortcomings. There’s more digital landscaping than desirable, and too many characters end up sidelined and almost forgotten. With the exception of the Tarzan scene, which is the lamest moment of the entire tetralogy, no serious shortcomings crop up. But those monkeys and especially their leader well deserve to meet the same fate as their colleagues from the Temple of Doom. But still, sixty-five year old Junior walks all over those fast-buck movies made for one season. Maybe it seems “just" darn good right now, but what about in five to ten years’ time when people get over the ending. And that applies to me too. I really enjoyed the finale (a lot), but if they could have done without those over-the-top Lucas-style literalness, I would have been much happier. But the magic that surrounded the original trilogy is back. It’s true that it’s not as evident as it used to be and you may have to perform some fiddly archeological digging to uncover it, but it’s there, no doubt about it. The it I’m talking about is the pure essence of “movieness" which turns adults back into kids, critics into fans and kids into movie enthusiasts. So even this less strong (but not weak) fourth Indy expedition into film in my eyes didn’t manage to topple him from his position as my favorite hero of world cinema.
()
The third sequel of the best adventure franchise set itself a difficult task: not to thematically continue, but to further develop the character of the individual stories, which always unfolded according to which genre and cultural corners of cinema the episode was referring to, while at the same time paying a nostalgic tribute to its own predecessors in a time of prevailing attractions. Both were successful. From the first scene, Spielberg both sets the story in a new phase full of new potential formulas for an adventure film (the 1950s marked by Western and Eastern hostility, the nuclear threat and a culture brimming with science fiction), and humorously winks at the viewer with an amusing iconisation of the beloved main character and formal devices that directly reference the original trilogy. And from this point of view, far from falling apart under the filmmakers' hands, as many have mentioned, the story brilliantly and systematically capitalises on all the suggested "50s" motifs, right up to the final alien interlude (similar to the way the second film, for example, played beautifully with Bollywood mythology, or Indian stories in general), while constantly entertaining with the tried and tested, but again inventively delivered "Indy" form (almost nothing is missing of the main attractions of the previous films), and the interaction of the old characters (Ford kind of moves into Connery's position). The only thing that bothered me a lot this time is the exaggeration of otherwise entertaining action scenes (the mine carts in the second one were also out of reality, but they still look like a viable tourist attraction compared to being kicked by a nuke and triple-dropping down a giant waterfall), the less elaborate villains and sometimes rather ugly sets. But it’s still highly entertaining and superbly acted (Ford pulls it off like in his youth, but he is well supported by LaBeouf and Ray Winstone, whose character of a "triple" agent is another great reference to the fifties) and packed with so many funny details (e.g. ants carrying away a stray hat after the most extensive action scene) that it is impossible not to love this Indy. When the greats like Spielberg and Lucas are no longer walking the earth, it will be difficult for our generation to be so perfectly returned to our childhood.
()
I’m reading other reviews and what the not very satisfied viewers are complaining about the most is that the new Indie is science fiction. Personally, that doesn’t bother me it all, on the contrary, I welcome and praise this shift in Jones’s adventures. What I can’t praise, however, is that it has lost all the humour, or at least the humour that I liked – I don’t consider childish jokes like a ground squirrel (curious monkey) turning around behind me to be good enough for a legend like Indie. Indiana Jones was never about realism, so I don’t mind the innumerable WTF moments in the plot, but the triple slide on huge waterfalls in a Jeep and covering from an atomic explosion in a fridge were almost too much, even for me. 65%
()
Ads