Indiana Jones and the Highly Successful Quest to Uphold His Own Legacy

WARNING: Some spoilers may occur. Also, it is long.

I love Indiana Jones. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is my favorite movie that isn't one of the original Star Wars flicks (and even then, if I'm honest, I might like it better than some of those). It contains the best opening scene I have ever seen (again, competing with the original Star Wars' massive Star Destroyer shot), Harrison Ford's perfect portrayal of the ultimate old-school action hero, a memorable supporting cast, villains like Belloq and that creepy dude with the coat hanger, breakneck--yet not streamlined--action sequences and so much more. And that's only in the first movie.

The second movie didn't really do it for me. Granted, I've only seen it once (the next time I watch it I'll probably enjoy it a bit more), but aside from the looks-like-it-was-pulled-from-a-better-movie opening nightclub shootout scene, much of the movie was lackluster (not a very compelling plot, fakey--even for this series--action and Kate Capshaw playing one of the most annoying human beings in history). Nevertheless, you still have to love Ford's character.

The third film got back to the best parts of Raiders: fighting Nazis and locating biblical artifacts. While not as adventuresome--or as overall fun--as Raiders, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade's" addition of Sean Connery, combined with increased screen time for John Rhys-Davies and Denholm Elliot, still made for an excellent film that was more than a worthy successor to the brilliant original. It too resides in my top 10 list of movies.

I say this to illustrate my high anticipation for--and slight anxiety about--the new Harrison Ford/Steven Spielberg/George Lucas adventure, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." I wanted another movie that would live up to Indy 1 and 3. Jones is one of the best characters in the movies, a reboot of his franchise should do him justice.

While keeping myself mostly in the dark about the plot, I followed the development of the movie with great interest. I cringed a little when it was announced that Rhys-Davies and Connery weren't returning (Elliot is dead, although there is a prominent statue of his character in the new film), smiled when I found that Karen Allen (who played Jones' love in Raiders) was returning and died a little inside when I found out that Shia Labeouf was joining the new movie. Nevertheless, I remained optimistic, but all the while a little voice in the back of my mind was saying "I hope they don't screw it up."

After seeing the film at a midnight showing (and wearing a fedora-type hat), I can happily report that, not only does the film not "screw it up," it rightfully takes its place as another great movie in the Indiana Jones canon. I loved this movie. I absolutely loved it.

(OK BEGIN SPOILER ALERT: This next part is plot exposition. While I try to keep it mildly vague, I can make no promises. If you scroll down, I will have an end spoiler alert where you can keep reading)

It starts by establishing the time period for the film: 1957. Indy has aged 19 years since his last crusade, and the times have changed accordingly. As an American army convoy drives along a lonely New Mexican road, a carload of spunky youths in a hot rod race the car in the front of the convoy. It really does put you in the 50s mindset, as do the Cold War Russian villains, a nuclear test site (one of my favorite parts of the film) and a brief scene attesting to the ignorance of McCarthyism.

Anyway, the convoy is in for a bit of action at the military warehouse that they're traveling to, courtesy of a battered and greying Dr. Henry Jones Jr. He may be old, but that doesn't prevent him from being able to take out the baddies with an odd kind of reckless precision all his own. In fact, one scene where he and LaBeouf's character are in a Peruvian grave site contains one of the best villain deaths of the entire series (you'll know when you see it).

After a circuitous-but-still-loads-of-fun opening (which I will not ruin for you here), Jones meets LaBeouf's unfortunately-named character, Mutt. Let me stop here for a moment and say that LaBeouf does an excellent job in this movie. He's generally not trying to act annoying funny, that slippery slope that worked well in "Even Stevens" but failed miserably in "Transformers." Rather, he skillfully adapts to the humor of Ford and the series. He's a welcome addition.

Mutt and Jones read a letter sent by one of Jones' old professor buddies (he "happens" to be like a father to Mutt) that discusses a mythological crystal skull that he's found which holds some sort of unspecified power. The problem: some wonderfully stereotypical (no, I'm not being sarcastic) Communist Russians are after the skull too, and they've kidnapped the old professor. Thus, Jones and Mutt go to Peru to figure out what the fuss is about the skull and, hopefully, save the professor and Mutt's mom. They do this by flying in small planes that travel in red lines to labeled locales on old maps, one of the great trademarks of the entire series.

Once Jones and Mutt arrive in Peru, they decode some old riddles the professor had given them to track down the downright eerie crystal skull. Sadly, however, not only has the skull driven the poor professor insane, his captors find Jones and Mutt shortly after they find the skull. After they are taken to the Russian camp, they meet Mutt's mom, who is--SURPRISE--Marion Ravenwood, the Indy chick from the first movie (if you can feel a plot point coming on, you're not the only one).

The Russians need the old professor (whose name is Oxley), to show them where the city of gold is--oh, wait, I didn't mention the city of gold that used to house the skulls and promises the returner of the last skull unbelievable psychic power? Silly me. Anyway, old Oxley is loopy from too much time trying to figure out said skull, and the Russians enlist Indy to stare into the skull's eyes for a while so he can halfway communicate with Oxley.

After this, there are about four fight/escape scenes placed within short amounts of time of each other, but it doesn't feel frenetic or forced. Spielberg aptly places the fights at just the right intervals, and each action scene is completely different, and, in some cases, brilliantly inventive.

Once Jones and company escape from the baddies, they find the temple and go to return the skull, but then OH NO THEY ARE STOPPED BY THE BAD GUYS WHO WOULD HAVE IMAGINED SUCH A THING! Actually, most people, because this is what happens in Raiders and Last Crusade, but that's exactly why we want them to be stopped. The villainess then decides to give the skull back so that she can take the power for herself, and of course something mildly yucky happens to her (although it, rather unfortunately, isn't as severe as in Raiders or as inventive as in Last Crusade. Think more like the death of General Grievous from Star Wars III). Actually, this part of the movie was probably the weakest part for me. It was still entertaining, but it wasn't as awe-inspiring/creepy as Raiders or as action-packed as Crusade.

After this, a couple of other fun things happen, but I'll let you watch those yourself. Oh, and if you think I just revealed everything about the plot to you, I didn't. While the Indy movies always appear to have pretty straightforward plots, they are always laden with qualifiers, modifiers and OH WOW I WASN'T EXPECTING THIS moments.

(END SPOILER WARNING: read on for further commentary)

There were several points in the movie that caught me with a big silly 12-year-old-kid smile on my face. Spielberg and Lucas developed another story that brought Indy to life as a death-defying, wise (but not too wise)-cracking action adventure serial hero. They, much more so than Lucas with his Star Wars prequels, respected the original fans of Indiana Jones, and this movie plays just like another great installment of a great movie character. The plot is different from the other movies, but it borrows from them and homages them and generally sticks to their happy-go-lucky, "let's have a fistfight" spirit (adhering particularly close to Last Crusade).

There are two types of sequels: sequels that continue an ongoing story and sequels to a stand-alone story that tell a completely different one. The latter is a lot harder to do well (see Pirates 2 and 3). Indy 4, however, gets the formula right: pay homage to your predecessor, but don't ape it. Recognize and appreciate your roots (even give them a ribbing), but create your own story. Lucas and Spielberg have done that well.

Their story is all new. But who can forget the classic "panicked Indy look" from movies past as new Indy runs scared from his latest would-be killer? It's still there on his face. Who can forget his father and his friend Marcus? No one, and the movie pays tribute to them in fun, unobtrusive ways.

However, possibly the best thing about the movie is that, while you're having fun, you know that Lucas and especially Spielberg were having tons of fun and wanting to share that with their audiences. Not only are the action scenes wonderfully far-fetched and full of daring-do, but even the dialogue is laced with the wit and brazen outrageousness that matches the tone of all four films. Seriously, Indy's one-liners are about as good as ever in this film. At one point, I almost wished he would have been shot simply so that his "last words," as requested by the villainess, really could have been "I like Ike." I mean really, is there any better way to defiantly get mowed down by the Reds?

Anyhow, I've spent more than enough time ranting. Just go see the movie. It is truly a joy to behold.

P.S. I have been seeing many ads for "Kung-Fu Panda" as of late. It looks kind of dumb to me, but today I found out that Dustin Hoffman is in it. This means that I will probably end up watching it sometime.

P.P.S. I almost forgot. In the Indy canon, I rate this one well above Temple of Doom and just a couple of notches lower than Last Crusade. This one, while still containing high action and adventure, wasn't quite as epic as the the first and third installments. I think the reason is because the "thing" that Indy is after isn't biblical. The two films set in the Middle East do have a bit more gravity to them because you sense that the object they are after is more tangibly important. Still, a couple of notches below my fifth-favorite movie is a great place to be.