There are few living actors as universally lauded as Harrison Ford. With fairly humble beginnings in uncredited extra parts and minor roles in film and television for many years, Ford landed a small yet pivotal role in George Lucas’ 1973 coming-of-age comedy flick American Graffiti. While not his best-known performance by a long shot, Ford’s work with Lucas paved the way for his breakout, life-changing turn as the intergalactic smuggler Han Solo in the 1977 space opera film Star Wars. The rest, well, is history.
Now, as Ford approaches his 81st birthday, is returning to the silver screen by reprising the only other role of his that can compete with Han Solo as the most notable and iconic of his entire career: the treasure-hunting, daredevil archaeologist Indiana Jones. Having first played the role in Steven Spielberg’s Raiders of the Lost Ark, Ford has played Jones three times since in two different decades. This weekend, his collaboration with director James Mangold (Walk the Line, Logan, Ford v Ferrari) marks his fifth (and, supposedly, final) time in the role. Thus, to celebrate Ford’s career overall—but his portrayal of Indy specifically—I wanted to dedicate a blog to looking back at all four Indiana Jones films before seeing the newest entry in theaters. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) For a summary of the production and release of Raiders of the Lost Ark, click here. I think that the best way to tackle all of the Indiana Jones flicks is to start by dissecting their opening sequences. Not only are these a defining feature of the franchise as a whole, but they serve as important introductions to where the eponymous protagonist is at going into each story. With that, let’s discuss Indy’s iconic raid (😊) on the South American temple in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Being that it’s the first film of the series, this opening scene has a lot that it needs to accomplish. First and foremost, it must let the audience to know the kind of person that Indiana Jones is. Beyond that, it needs to establish the tone & vibe of the world in which he exists and the types of obstacles (human and boulder alike) that he faces on such globetrotting adventures. While this might be overwhelming for some directors, the incredibly talented Steven Spielberg (Jaws, Saving Private Ryan, Lincoln) handles such a task with grace and style that set the bar for what this franchise could be. In addition to the uniquely inspired design of the temple itself, the way that the story unfolds inside it with Indy and his jungle guide Satipo (Alfred Molina) tells us a lot about who this reluctant hero is. His cautious navigation of the temple to narrowly avoid the many booby traps that killed others who dared enter it before shows how experienced he is in traversing these kinds of environments and, possibly, his level of knowledge of such historical sites (thus foreshadowing his academic background that’s revealed a little later in the film). Furthermore, the chances he gives Satipo to be an honest actor exemplifies the humanity within him despite his lust for treasure and the glory that such discoveries bring. Fortunately for Indy, karma works in his favor by killing Satipo and letting him barely escape with his life…only to be cornered by rival archaeologist and the film’s villain, René Belloq (Paul Freeman). What I love about the way this scene climaxes is how it also brings karma back around to Indy: his cockiness that drove him to believe he could flee the temple with the Golden Idol unscathed only carries him so far. Thus, he must give up the treasure to save his own skin with the help of his trusty pilot Jock (Fred Sorenson) whose pet snake Reggie reveals to the audience Indy’s notorious fear of serpents in a sharp injection of comedic relief coming off the tense chase of Indy through the Peruvian jungle. While Raiders may not have the most grandiose or bombastic opening sequence, it certainly set the standard for the franchise while also excellently defining Indy’s main character traits for the remainder of the franchise. But can the movie get better? Without a doubt, Raiders is a great Spielberg movie. But, in my humble opinion, it’s not the best Indiana Jones flick due to a couple of glaring issues that hold it back from such a reputation in my eyes. Let’s dive into those as well as the good stuff, shall we? 😊 One of my personal favorite elements of the whole Indiana Jones franchise is the narrative decision by George Lucas (with the help of screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan) to have their protagonist live a double life. By day, Harrison Ford plays Dr. Jones the archaeology professor with a pretty boring life. By night, however, he transforms into the swashbuckling adventurer who whips his way through Nazis in Nepal and Egypt. Without wasting time on exposition, this choice helps the viewer fill in so much about why Indy is and what he wants. Furthermore, it helps inform his relationships with character from either part of his dual existence—his loyal friend and museum curator Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott), and his Egyptian acquaintance/excavator Sallah (John Rhys-Davies) included. Aside from just Indy himself, though, Raiders is packed with a solid supporting cast. In addition to Molina, Elliott and Rhys-Davies, the young and tough heroine Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) is very reminiscent of George Lucas’ aim with the writing of the character Princess Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) in the original Star Wars. A fierce woman who presents a tough exterior to the world and rarely (if ever) lets herself be dominated by the men in her life (including Indy himself). While I’m not the biggest fan of the more overtly romantic elements of her relationship with Indy, I find Allen’s chemistry with Ford to work very well as arguably the best pairing of the entire Indiana Jones franchise. But arguably the best chemistry shared between two actors in Raiders is that of Ford and Freeman. In many ways, Belloq serves as the dark foil to Indy. Both of them claim to long for the discovery of knowledge via their hunting down of artifacts. However, the former’s transparency about his desire for glory and fame serves to highlight the latter’s internal conflict with his own reasons for hunting treasure. Simply put, this makes for some of the only genuine character development for our eponymous hero in any of the films. For now, at least, I’ll take it. Of course, I can’t celebrate the best of what Indiana Jones offers without devoting at least some of this blog to the action sequences. While some of the writing doesn’t hold up, virtually all of the action does which is quite impressive. Especially considering two vital facts: the movies being made three decades ago, and their lack of reliance on computer-generated visuals in deference to practical filmmaking. Even if you don’t think you’ll be a fan of these movies, give them a shot. If nothing else, you’ll be thoroughly entertained thanks to Spielberg’s tact with directing compelling, clever, and fun action sequences. All that being said, I don’t count myself amongst the crowd of cinephiles who feel in their heart of hearts that Raiders is a perfect movie. There are a couple of notable flaws. First and foremost, the absolutely unoriginal idea that Indy has no major impact on the plot of the movie itself. Simply put, Belloq and the Nazis would have eventually found the Ark of the Covenant at their dig site, opened it, and the outcome would’ve been the same. To be honest, though, I don’t care as much about this as some people. I find the ride enjoyable enough to excuse this anticlimax. What I cannot excuse, however, is how overrated Indy’s romance with Marion is. While I understand the stylistic reasoning behind having them hook up and get together in the third act, I personally find it sappy and unnecessary. Both actors have great chemistry together via teasing the sexual tension between them before they ever consecrate their feelings for each other. Furthermore, both characters are better than pigeonholing them into a corny love story that just is not needed for Raiders to be memorable. But the character that is arguably the most underutilized is Sallah. Now, was it appropriate even in the 1980s (let alone nowadays) for a white man from Wales to don “brownface” by playing an ethnically Middle Eastern man? Certainly not. That being said, Rhys-Davies is one of my favorite supporting characters in the entire Indiana Jones franchise but always felt secondary to Harrison Ford’s roguish presence and Karen Allen’s charm. I wish I could say that this was corrected in the third film, but if you ask me Rhys-Davies’ portrayal of this character should get much more screen time than he’s ever actually been given (fingers crossed James Mangold does Sallah justice in Dial of Destiny). When it comes to Raiders of the Lost Ark, I mostly feel affection for it. It’s not my favorite Spielberg movie but it’s a damn good one. It’s not my favorite Indiana Jones movie but it’s certainly one of the best. And, despite its flaws, it has earned its place in cinematic history as one of the greatest action-adventure flicks of the 1980s (if not of all time). So, where did the franchise go from here? Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) Three years after Raiders of the Lost Ark, Lucas and Spielberg put out a sequel that went darker and scarier than its predecessor. Is it The Empire Strikes Back of the Indiana Jones franchise? ☹ Not exactly. But it’s still a pretty decent movie. In some ways, Temple of Doom has a more fun opening than Raiders. For one thing, I greatly appreciate the decision to make the second film a prequel; it works to put Indy in a very different environment than the Peruvian jungle or the Egyptian desert. Instead, we see Ford’s whip-wielding hero immersed in the criminal underworld of mid-1930s Shanghai. Amidst the glitz and glamor of “Club Obi Wan,” (a fun Easter Egg that I never noticed until the umpteenth time I watched this movie) Indy is put into a tense & death-defying situation when his client, Lao Che (Roy Chiao), has Indy poisoned during their transaction. Despite Indy’s efforts to persuade Lao Che to save his life, he instead must embrace the chaos that quickly takes over the club in order to snag the antidote and flee Shanghai with his life. During this opening scene, Spielberg effectively utilizes Indy trying to grab the antidote as an editing device to ramp up the tension. Since it serves as a ticking time bomb for Indy’s longevity, it helps to justify the insane antics he resorts to—such as kidnapping American nightclub singer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw)—in order to escape Lao Che’s clutches. Furthermore, Spielberg introduces the two principal supporting characters of the film: the aforementioned Willie Scott (who I’ll talk more about later), and the utterly lovable Short Round (Ke Huy Quan), a young orphan who Indy takes under his wing. While one of these characters is easily one of the best in the entire franchise, the other is undeniably one of the worst (I’ll let you deduce who I’m referring to as which one 😊). But the escape from Shanghai comes with consequences for Indy and company as their getaway pilots work for Lao Che and end up abandoning them in the Himalayas. After a ridiculous but fun skydiving sequence involving the most indestructible raft ever made, the trio winds up in the company of rural villagers led by a shaman (D.R. Nanayakkara). In the village is where Indy is given the quest of the film: he reluctantly agrees to infiltrate Pankot Palace to retrieve sacred stones & rescue dozens of the village’s children from Thuggee cultists and slavers. All of this is to say that the first act of Temple of Doom, from the time they flee Shanghai to Indy’s discovery of the Thuggee’s underground lair, can be rather boring at their best and not-so-subtly racist at their worst. There are some shining moments like Indy and Short Round’s chemistry which remains the heart of the film right up to the end. But there are some glaring pacing problems that are made obvious by the conception & portrayal of the Willie Scott character. Not unlike Hayden Christensen in the Star Wars prequels, I chalk it up not to Capshaw’s performance but the writing & direction of the character. Lucas and Spielberg wanted the female lead of Temple of Doom to be the polar opposite to Marion Ravenwood in Raiders. Well, for better and worse, they succeeded at that. Because Willie Scott’s incessant screaming and personality fully embraces the stereotypes of the “damsel in distress” that remained all-too common in Western cinema for decades (and, unfortunately, still appears too much even today). That being said, what is arguably the least forgivable part of Temple of Doom aside from Capshaw’s character is the overtly insensitive depiction of Indian culture. This is most apparent in the banquet scene at Pankot Palace where Spielberg’s attempt at subtle humor backfires in how the native Indians are portrayed as cartoonish eaters with hyper-exotic diets that feel straight out of something of a neo-Asian minstrel show. Ultimately, the first half of the movie lacks the goodhearted fun of Raiders and replaces it with ignorant buffoonery & obnoxious characters. If not for the third act, Temple of Doom may have turned out as bad as a later entry in the franchise. Or worse…The Lost World. 😊 While the second act of the film is somewhat bogged down by needlessly dark scenes of human sacrifice, Indy and Short Round saving Willie & the village kids before escaping from Pankot remains some of the best action sequences in all of Spielberg’s filmography. Of course, you have the iconic minecart chase scene involving some great interplay between Indy and Short Round. But then that leads to an absolutely insane (but fittingly so) climax where Indy bests the Thuggee leader Mola Ram (Amrish Puri) by cutting a bridge in half. Admittedly, the plot contrivances make both Indy and the British military captain Philip Blumburtt (Philip Stone) out to be “white saviors” of the Indian villagers. This was more excusable in the 1980s, but lacks much justification nowadays. Still, the incredibly fun action of the third act keeps Temple of Doom from being a total miss. In my estimation, it’s not as good of a film as Raiders of the Lost Ark but it does not completely tarnish the reputation of the Indiana Jones franchise (unlike a future sequel 😊). But, with the exception of Short Round’s charm & lovable relationship with Indy, this film lacks any significant character development. Two films in, this franchise certainly needs it. So, will we get it with the next movie? Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) For a summary of the production and release of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, click here. Somewhat disappointed with how dark Temple of Doom turned out, Steven Spielberg wanted to recapture some of the fun-loving magic of Raiders if he returned to direct a third entry in the Indiana Jones franchise. In doing so, he and George Lucas decided to keep many of the best elements of the second film while reverting back to much of the heart of the first film. And, in my humble opinion, they deliver the best movie of the series to date. What do I mean about keeping the best parts of Temple of Doom? Well, instead of making the entire movie a prequel, Spielberg and Lucas smartly put the opening action sequence back in time to flesh out the origin story of our titular hero. This works wonders for me because it fully embraces the pulpy fun that the Indiana Jones franchise revived in its creation. As such, we get to see a teenage Indy (River Phoenix) break off from a Boy Scout trip in the Utah desert to sabotage a robbery. This initiates a really enjoyable action sequence that works for several reasons. First of all, the set piece of the traveling circus train makes for some great interactions between young Indy and a variety of exotic animals (which also helps justify his deep-seated fear of snakes). On top of this, we get another really fun moment fending off a lion that organically explains Indy’s fascination with & attachment to the whip as his signature weapon. But, overall, this introduction works really well in my mind because it finds a very creative means of giving the hero a meaningful obstacle to success: his youth. Sure, he’s physically up to the chase with the robbers. However, his inexperience and naïveté help him losing by the end of the sequence feel justified as character development that demonstrates how much Indy has (or, maybe, has not) come into his own in the last twenty-plus years. Without question, this opening scene doesn’t work as well as it does without Phoenix’s understated but incredibly performance. H seamlessly nails Harrison Ford’s mannerisms as Indy but, more importantly, his excessive cockiness and passion for archaeology. Combined with the solid writing of a young Indy, this is easily my favorite opening of any of the Indiana Jones movies up to this point (if only George Lucas could nail prequel stories as much as Spielberg can ☹). And Last Crusade only gets (mostly) better after the opening scene. Remember that need for character development that I mentioned? Well, in my humble opinion, we get it in this film thanks to the inclusion of Henry Jones, Sr. (Sean Connery). No disrespect to Ke Huy Quan as Short Round, but I absolutely love Ford’s chemistry with Connery and think that Indy’s dynamic with his bookish and emotionally distant father makes for the best chemistry between two actors in the entire franchise. Beyond that, though, Indy being forced to bring Henry along with him on this adventure from Central Europe to Turkey allows for their strained relationship to be put front and center. And this makes the film, and the series as a whole, better. Last Crusade demythologizes Indy and makes him feel like an actual character by giving him unresolved issues with his dad in the midst of fending off Nazis and their allies like femme fatale Elsa Schneider (Alison Doody) and conniving businessman Walter Donovan (Julian Glover). Whereas the previous films contained a primary conflict involving Indy fending off an antagonist like Belloq or Mola Ram, I appreciate that Spielberg and Lucas decided to inject character-driven conflict to help humanize Indy via him confronting his childhood & his mixed feelings about how Henry raised him. If it was just that alone, I still think Last Crusade would be my favorite film of the franchise. Luckily, there’s a lot more to enjoy as well. Regarding another new character, I think that the approach in this movie to differentiate the female lead from Marion Ravenwood in Raiders works better here than it did in Temple of Doom. Unlike Willie Scott who remains a largely empty-headed damsel for much of that movie, I appreciated that Elsa has complex & interesting motivations as well as agency in the narrative as someone who screws Indy over but also feels remorse for her actions yet deems them necessary to achieve her goal of finding the Holy Grail. Ultimately, she comes off as a more subdued “femme fatale” character (somewhat reminding me of Zoë Kravitz’s portrayal of Selina Kyle/Catwoman in Matt Reeves’ The Batman). And I think that just makes for more entertaining interplay with Indy compared to what Capshaw was given for Willie Scott in Temple of Doom. Of course, any good Indiana Jones movie needs to brings its A-game when it comes to the action. And Last Crusade doesn’t disappoint one iota. While some of the set pieces feel reminiscent of Raiders (mostly due to the involvement of Nazis and military vehicles), I think Spielberg excels at making each action sequence exhilarating and feel fresh in the moment (if not retrospectively). From the boat chase through the canals of Venice and the dogfight over Berlin to Indy rescuing Marcus Brody and his father from the desert tank while getting away within an inch of his life, the action in this film is at least on par with its two predecessors but, quite possibly, is the best in the entire franchise. All that being said, however, Last Crusade still has some glaring issues that hold it back from near-perfection. I think that, of the original Indiana Jones trilogy, this movie struggles the most with how it handles humor. Whereas Raiders deftly relies on situational jokes (famously the scene of Indy shooting the swordsman in Egypt) and Temple of Doom largely does away with humor for the sake of a darker story, Last Crusade has a hit-or-miss track record when it comes to referencing its own plot and tone for the sake of comedy. Much of this humor comes from Connery’s “fish-out-of-water” presence amidst the deadly adventures that his son is used to. While this works a fair amount of the time, like when Indy throws SS Colonel Ernst Vogel (Michael Byrne) off the zeppelin, it feels rather forced in moments where Henry incompetently blows off the tail of the biplane that he and Indy are escaping in or when he coincidentally activates a secret staircase in the Austrian castle which Indy subsequently tumbles down. No disrespect to Connery’s acting chops; in fact, his charisma is the main reason that such jokes don’t completely fall flat at the end of the day. While many of the new & returning characters are great, a couple of them leave something to be desired. I appreciated Denholm Elliott’s return as Marcus Brody after not appearing in Temple of Doom. However, I wish he wasn’t used as much in the main adventure because his hyper-bookishness in lieu of virtually any “street smarts” often comes off as way too unrealistic…even for this franchise. But I could excuse Brody’s cartoonish presence due to his supporting nature. The bigger problematic character of Last Crusade is Donovan as the main villain opposing Indy and company. Again, I don’t blame the actor in this specific instance. The fault of Donovan’s lack of sufficient development beyond wanting eternal life lies very much with the writing. Needless to say, all of these flaws are relatively minor in my estimation. Last Crusade is not only my favorite Indiana Jones flick of the four ones directed by Spielberg thanks to its action and character work, but it cements that reputation in my mind for its pitch-perfect ending. I mean, the final moments of Indy, Henry, Sallah and Brody riding off into the sunset to the tune of John Williams’ iconic titular theme is easily ONE OF THE BEST ENDINGS TO ANY MOVIE EVER!! 😊 I mean…how can you possibly top that?!? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) It turns out you can’t, and George Lucas (who significantly pressured Steven Spielberg to make another Indiana Jones movie) shouldn’t have tried. Nearly twenty tears after Last Crusade, Indy returned to the big screen with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. A movie that doesn’t deserve one-fifth of this blog because it commits a sin worse than many bad movies: it’s boring. From the outset, Crystal Skull lets the audience know that it’s not going to be good. The opening scene, traditionally a thrilling action sequence that helps reintroduce the viewer to the titular hero, is dull and uninspired by comparison to the first three Indiana Jones flicks. Which is saying something considering that the scene involves Indy at Area 51 escaping from the clutches of Soviet troops under the command of Russian agent Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) with a nod of nostalgia to Raiders when the camera pans over the enclosed Ark of the Covenant. That set up should be an effective approach of reintroducing Indy to a new generation of filmgoers. Alas, the idea goes sour from the start and doesn’t ever really get better. This is true for the entirety of Crystal Skull. No disrespect to Harrison Ford, but the conception of an Indiana Jones following the protagonist in his mid-60s while still doing crazy stunts is maybe just a bad idea to begin with. As such, I mostly blame George Lucas for this movie. Nevertheless, it doesn’t make watching an aged Harrison Ford well past his prime running around and killing people any less sad. That being said, I did appreciate that Indy largely retained the charisma from the previous films (much to Ford’s credit as an actor). Despite some piss-poor writing, he shines through for the most part as the same roguish adventurer from before. But that doesn’t mean the characters around him do much to elevate his performance. There are two glaring weak spots in this cast, which I hate to say because they’re both great actors in other movies. First, we have the greaser that is revealed to be Indy’s son Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf). Despite being evidently talented in films like Honey Boy and The Peanut Butter Falcon, LaBeouf does little to endear the audience to Mutt in this movie. I wish I could blame his performance on the writing, but I think it’s mostly just due to the fact that LaBeouf was not in a good place in his career at this point in his life and failed to live up to the spirit & legacy of this franchise in his melodramatic & buffoonish take on a child of Indiana Jones. The other, even more unfortunate element of the cast of Crystal Skull is Cate Blanchett’s performance as the villain. Simply put, it’s one of her worst roles that I’ve ever seen. By putting on a fake-sounding Russian accent and playing this over-the-top spy obsessed with mind control, Blanchett just feels like she doesn’t fit in the broader gallery of the villains in this franchise. Clearly, (like LaBeouf) her acting chops undermine the fact that such a performance is possible. But, unlike other talented actors hamming up their villainous performances (lookin’ at you, Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator!), Blanchett simply doesn’t work in this movie. There are some characters other than Indy that work here. Namely, the return of Marion Ravenwood from Raiders. While the speed at which her romance with Indy rekindles in the second and third acts is a bit much to be believed, Karen Allen’s chemistry with Harrison Ford holds up in Crystal Skull. I specifically enjoyed their dynamic once Marion reveals to Indy that Mutt is their child because it helps bring out a different side of our hero & changes his relationship with Mutt going forward. In a third act bogged down by awful CG-infused action set pieces & meandering plot contrivances, the small moments of family drama between these three characters acted as brief sighs of relief. Which brings me to my other big criticisms of this movie: the action & the plot. Regarding the former, Spielberg seemingly gave in to Lucas’ filmmaking tendencies by turning away from practical stunts and location shooting in favor of sound stages & green screens. And this greatly detracts from the overall quality of the film, not only by dating it to a time when filmmakers were struggling to balance practical effects with CGI effects. However, it also utterly rejects the lineage of the Indiana Jones franchise that prided itself on making the action sequences as believable as possible thanks to practical filmmaking. The only CG-heavy set piece that, in my humble opinion, works is seeing Spalko’s right-hand man Antonin Dovchenko (Igor Jijikine) get eaten alive by carnivorous ants. Is it as frightening or nervewracking as the “creeper crawler” scenes in the prior three movies? No, but I personally enjoyed the concept played out to a point. Otherwise, the action in this film is bad (I don’t even want to talk about the “swinging monkeys” scene). Perhaps if the story were better I could forgive Spielberg dropping the ball with the action, but the screenplay of Crystal Skull is beyond mediocre. It’s BORING. The manhunt for Indy’s friend and Mutt’s surrogate father Harold “Ox” Oxley (John Hurt) before a jungle chase leading to “Akator,” the ancient city in the Amazon, differentiates itself by taking the franchise away from Judeo-Christian history. In doing so, however, the film loses any genuine spirit of fun & adventure by making the treasure…knowledge?!? Or aliens, but from another dimension rather than from outer space?!? … This movie’s just bad. It’s a cash-grab attempt to exploit the nostalgia that moviegoers have for Indy which, to their “credit,” worked (as of today, it remains the highest-grossing movie of the entire franchise). But Crystal Skull is undeniably the worst Indiana Jones flick. So, when James Mangold was announced as the director of a fifth and (supposedly) final entry in the series I became cautiously optimistic: “At least it can’t be worse than Crystal Skull? Right?” RIGHT?!? Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.” You have been warned.] In 2016, three years after acquiring Lucasfilm, Walt Disney Studios announced a fifth and final Indiana Jones movie to be released in July of 2019. Initially, Steven Spielberg was attached to direct this swan song for Harrison Ford’s titular hero. However, after four years of various writers’ takes on the material & disagreements between Spielberg, Ford, and the studio about the screenplay, Spielberg stepped down as the director in February of 2020 (but stayed on as a producer). Three months later, Lucasfilm announced that James Mangold would direct Ford’s final outing as the character. And more than three years later, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is now in theaters. So, was it worth the wait? In my humble opinion…no. But, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a decent movie. With that, let’s dive into comparing its opening with that of the rest of the franchise. Whereas all the other Indiana Jones films’ openings start in the concurrent timeline that the rest of the narrative takes place, Mangold decides to kick off Dial of Destiny with a flashback to the end of World War II. By showing Indy in his prime as an adventurer, the film gives the audience a snippet of classic action that this series has become synonymous with. At least in spirit. Aside from just the obvious reminder by having Indy punch & kill Nazis, this opening flashback on a plunder train does what it can visually, auditorily, & aesthetically to pay homage to Spielberg’s original trilogy from the 1980s. And I think that it mostly works. To state the obvious, seeing a de-aged Harrison Ford can be a little off-putting at moments in isolation. That being said, what Mangold has Indy doing in this sequence was to enough to help suspend my disbelief regarding the character’s age in relation to the actor playing him (besides, I think more should’ve been done to de-age Ford’s voice like what was done to Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker on various Star Wars series on Disney+). But the other glaring issue with this action set piece is how heavy it relies on computer-generated filmmaking to pull off the various stunts being performed on screen. Unlike Spielberg’s deference to more practical stunt work in the original films, I think Mangold should’ve taken more of a firm stance (at least in this scene) to do the same. Especially considering the thematic & meta purpose that the train heist serves for the film, I think it would’ve benefitted from a cleverer approach to the action. All that being said, this opening scene is solid. It’s certainly better than the Area 51 stuff in Crystal Skull, but I do think that it pales in comparison to the intro action sequences in the first three Indiana Jones flicks. Which, in many ways, sums up both the good and bad about Dial of Destiny. Without a question, it supersedes its immediate predecessor in virtually every way. However, it gives off the impression that it only exists because Harrison Ford was displeased with how his journey as Indy ended in Crystal Skull and wanted to correct that (and, of course, Disney wanted to milk the franchise further). So, what works about Dial of Destiny in spite of this self-evident fact? The most obvious strength of the film is Ford’s performance. But unlike previous movies in the franchise (including the “good ones”), the portrayal of Indy as a character feels the most grounded & believable here. While I understand that some people will have a problem with how Mangold and the screenwriters tackle Indy’s age (given their nostalgic attachment to the mythic hero portrayed in the first three Spielberg flicks), I greatly appreciated that Ford was given the chance to play out a meaningful & substantive character arc. Sure, Indy learned not to be all about “fortune and glory” in Temple of Doom. And he came to terms with his upbringing & his relationship with his father in Last Crusade. But here, Ford fully seizes upon the opportunity to humanize Indy & treat him like a person rather than a folk legend. He starts the movie as a lonely, alcoholic curmudgeon that lacks purpose in life as he confronts his mortality and then resurges as the idealistic hero that people know Indy to be. In my humble opinion, this added an emotional heft to the entire franchise that, by the final scene that sends Indy off to reconcile his relationship with Marion, really felt earned & important for such an iconic character that’s been so deftly played by such a one-of-a-kind actor. That being said, do the supporting characters in Dial of Destiny elevate Ford’s swan song as Indy? I’d say the one that matter works. And that is the co-lead of the film, Indy’s goddaughter Helena Shaw (Phoebe Waller-Bridge). The daughter of Indy’s old British friend and Oxford professor Basil Shaw (Toby Jones), she grows up to be a selfish, fortune-seeking treasure hunter and auctioneer of stolen artifacts. Much like Indy was in Temple of Doom, Helena makes it clear early in the film that she only cares about getting these historical trinkets to pay off debts and have some cash left over. To do so, she’s initially frustrating in how she lies to & uses Indy for her own personal gain. While I understand that the character didn’t work for some viewers, I think that the writing of Waller-Bridge’s character is certainly better than Kate Capshaw’s Willie Scott. Largely because her chemistry with Ford is enough to make the character interesting in the first act, but then she cements her status as more memorable than Alison Doody’s Elsa Schneider by coming to empathize with Indy’s personal tragedies enough to care for his well-being by the third act (and save him from choosing a terrible fate for himself). The writing alone would make Helena a better female lead for this franchise than at least two of them, but Waller-Bridge’s screen presence & dynamic with Ford easily places her right alongside Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood in Raiders. Despite the differences in romantic versus familial/plutonic chemistry, I appreciated Mangold and the writers’ highlighting a different kind of dynamic for Indy in this movie (not unlike the father-son relationship in Last Crusade). That being said, not all of the new characters work here. While I think that the two lead villains, former Nazi scientist Jürgen Voller (Mads Mikkelsen) and his lackey Klaber (Boyd Holbrook), have two very capable actors behind them I don’t think the writing did them any favors. Not only are neither one of them given much of an interesting personality or compelling dynamic with Indy beyond him being the obstacle in their way, but Voller’s motivation to use Archimedes’ Dial is rather underdeveloped. Specifically, I don’t exactly know what his plan is after he goes back in time to kill Hitler. How is he going to avoid being imprisoned by the Nazi leadership for assassinating the Führer (let alone take over Germany)? Furthermore, what will he do to compensate for his country’s inherent disadvantages against the Allied Powers in order to change history & claim victory in World War II? Questions that the film has no interest in answering which, in my humble opinion, does nothing to make me invested in Indy’s fight to stop their evil plot because I don’t really understand what it is beyond the first step. On the heroes’ side, I have nothing against the actor who played Helena’s kid sidekick Teddy Kumar (Ethann Isidore). But the character comes off as just a vain attempt by the writers to do their own version of Short Round. The problem with that route, though, is that you’re not only shooting yourself in the foot by attempting to one-up a fan-favorite character. But, you’re also giving Isidore no real chance to succeed by not devoting enough screentime in Dial of Destiny to properly developing his relationship with Helena or Indy to make the audience emotionally invested enough in it. Simply put, Spielberg struck lightning in a bottle with Ke Huy Quan in Temple of Doom & I personally would’ve advised this team against adding a third wheel to Indy and Helena in this movie because it just could never live up to that. Two other characters whose presence is small, yet impactful, in the film are Sallah and Marion. While their actual screentime is limited, I thought that Mangold and the writers handled both of them very well. While part of me deep down would’ve loved Sallah to play a more active role in Indy’s globetrotting adventure this time around, I appreciated when he showed up in the film & the purpose he served. It perfectly teed up Marion’s return in the very last scene of the movie to bring the main theme about family full circle. Much in the same way that Sallah has his grandchildren to ground him & remind him what’s important about getting older, Marion coming back to tend to Indy brings his arc to its logical & satisfying conclusion. In other words, both of these “legacy characters” of this franchise were given the respect they deserve by a new filmmaker & writers stepping in to take over from Spielberg and company. They were used sparingly but effectively, and I commend that restraint. Of course, the unsung hero of this entire franchise is composer John Williams. Not only is his theme for the titular hero one of the most iconic pieces of film music in cinematic history, but Williams always knows the assignment for how to use his particular talents to recapture the magic of Indiana Jones. And that trend continues in Dial of Destiny, as the classic theme is used when it’s needed to and no more. Beyond that, Williams elevates the action of this film with his score which very much plays into Mangold’s creative vision to capitalize on the audience’s nostalgic love for the character and the vibe of Spielberg’s original trilogy. In that sense, Williams unsurprisingly remains the secret ingredient that makes the Indiana Jones franchise what it is (much in the same way he does for Star Wars). Then again, there are some important flaws of Dial of Destiny that hold it back from being on par with the original Indiana Jones trilogy. I briefly addressed one of them earlier, but the action in this film lacks the same overall impact & kinetic energy. Part of this can be chalked up to how shooting action set pieces has changed due to the advent of big-budget franchise filmmaking & CG technology. However, there are clearly series & filmmakers out there that buck this trend to effectively in order to differentiate themselves (lookin’ at you, Chad Stahelski and John Wick!). While there were some creative choices made in crafting the set pieces, like the chase through the New York City streets/subway & the diving expedition with Renaldo (Antonio Banderas), I do wish that Mangold had done everything he possibly could to utilize practical effects & stunt workers to uphold the legacy of Spielberg’s magic touch inherent to Indy and his world. But the biggest problem with Dial of Destiny, in my humble opinion, is its runtime. While the opening train sequence is fun & the last twenty minutes are crazy yet emotional, there’s a fair amount of scenes in the middle of this film that could’ve been trimmed down so that the final length of the overall movie went down by 20 minutes. This would’ve greatly helped the pacing by adding some more urgency & suspense to some of the more critical sequences in the second and third act. Personally, I don’t know what it is about the last five years but I don’t understand so many filmmakers’ seeming obsession with making movies longer than they need to be. Granted, at under two-and-a-half hours, it could’ve been worse. Still, it also could’ve been much better. Overall, I think that Dial of Destiny has enough competent filmmaking on display to be considered a fitting sendoff for Indy that makes up for the mediocrity of Crystal Skull. That being said, it ranks on the lower end of Mangold’s filmography (which just speaks to how great of a director that he is) & will almost certainly not have the lasting cultural/artistic impact that the original Indiana Jones trilogy have had. Nor will this movie be as fondly remembered among diehard fans of the franchise. That, combined with its lukewarm opening weekend box-office numbers, should send one very important message to Disney and Lucasfilm: let this franchise DIE. 😊 At the end of the day, how will I remember Indiana Jones? While I grew up watching the first three films of the series, I lack any strongly nostalgia for them like I have for Star Wars. Because of that, I’ll revisit them every 5-10 years when I’m in the mood for a fun time. In that time, I might rewatch Dial of Destiny to see if it holds up or will check it out again in the wake of the inevitable day that Harrison Ford is no longer with us. And I’ll probably never watch Crystal Skull again; sorry George Lucas (not sorry! 😊). In many ways, I think that the character of Indiana Jones will stand the test of time longer than any of the individual films in this franchise. By the same token, I feel that other action heroes of cinema (like John Wick) have supplanted the pulpy tone of those movies due to filmgoers’ changing sensibilities when it comes to action flicks. Ultimately, though, Indy (and Ford’s portrayal of him) deserves his status as one of the most iconic characters in all of cinema. With all that said, here is my official ranking of all five films in the Indiana Jones series: 1. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 2. Raiders of the Lost Ark 3. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom 4. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny 5. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull What is your favorite Indiana Jones movie? How do you think the franchise will be remembered after its most recent addition? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|