Director: James Mangold
Cast: Harrison Ford, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Mads Mikkelsen, John Rhys-Davies
Have I Seen it Before: No.
Did I Like It: As much as I might have been anticipating <The Flash (2023)>, I was equally dreading this film. There are a lot of complicated feelings going into it before the film even begins. The early reviews out of Cannes were harsh in their apathy, but it isn’t like that crowd has gotten every call right. We all had our feelings about <Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)>, so much so that the nineteen years we spent clamoring for a fourth film guaranteed that collectively no one spent the last fifteen asking for a fifth. Pretty much everyone had a certain amount of doubt about Steven Spielberg not helming the fifth entry, but after <Logan (2017)>, I at least was comforted that the right man for “one last ride with a beloved character” had been hired. As much as we may have judged George Lucas harshly for his various excesses in the 2000s, I felt like everyone—including Lucas—was a lot happier with him having moved on.
So, what’s the verdict. There is a convoluted time travel plot (yes, you read that right) at the core, and if we remember from my review of <Terminator Genysis (2015)>, I’m willing to forgive quite a bit in the service of convoluted time travel.
The most refreshing element of the film, though, is its restraint. One of Crystal Skull’s less talked about flaws is that it is largely built on a foundation of leftover parts from <Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)>, but aside from some obligatory beats calling back to the original film in this picture’s final minutes, there is a surprisingly low amount of fan service on display. A few photographs in Indy’s (Ford) apartment. Some legitimately earned mediations on grief, which also will shut up the dunderheads in 2008 who said the franchise was going to be handed down to Shia LaBeouf. One throwaway line referring to his father’s watch and another to the blood of Kali. That’s all. I really expected to needing my re-watch of the series this week.
Are there flaws? Sure. There are special effects that—while not ruining the whole affair—do distract. Several shots during a massive parade set piece don’t pass the smell test now, and will only get worse as the film ages. A WWII-set prologue uses a de-aged Ford almost works, although young(er) Indy can’t quite escape the uncanny valley when any sort of light (simulated or otherwise) passes over his face.
All in all, this is a perfectly serviceable Indy adventure? Is it the perfection of Raiders? Is it the breathless insanity of <Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)>? Not quite, but it may be unreasonable to expect any movie to reach to those levels. Is it the fine-tuned crowd pleaser that is <Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)>? Probably pretty close, and that is far more than I expected as I went in to the theater.