Indiana Jones ja kristallikallon valtakunta

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% (01.10.2008)

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. (22.05.2008)

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. (20.05.2008)

In my opinion, Indy works perfectly well in the 1950s. However, the situation is much worse with the 21st century. Visually, the film seemed sterile, ironed-out and sometimes pandering. Harrison Ford still has huge balls, but unfortunately the same cannot be said about Cate Blanchett (and unfortunately not only for understandable reasons). Shia LaBeouf also played his Legolas role with honor, but this winking to a younger audience, for which an old man with a whip is no longer enough, bothers me. And so does Lucas’ infantility... So what did I like about it? Some spots have the atmosphere of the old films. Spielberg's conservatism, which is not boring and does not feel anachronistic. Nevertheless, the word I would use for this film is “disconcerted". I get the feeling that where the original trilogy didn’t require a lot of extra stuff, part four had go too far into megalomania and exaggeration... It's a well-crafted product and a clear hit in my opinion, but not a cult hit. (26.05.2008)

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! (24.05.2008)