Saturday, May 31, 2008

The Man in the Hat is Back!

After 19 years of waiting, the fourth Indiana Jones movie has finally been released. Being huge "Indy" fans, (well, that's mostly me) we went to see it opening weekend. Warning: there will be spoilers on the new movie towards the last few paragraphs.

I fell in love in with Indiana Jones with the first movie, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in 1981. It wasn't hard; I had a major crush on Harrison Ford at the time (even if he is old enough to be my Dad). I'd also always had a sneaking interest in archaelogy. That summer, I became good friends with the neighbour boy next door. We'd bonded over our mutual love of Star Wars and he told me that he preferred Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones over Han Solo. From that point on, I started nagging my Dad to take me.

After weeks of pestering my Dad, we went to the local theatre and saw it. Dad was expecting some "Star Wars" science fiction type movie, so he was surprised when he saw horses in the jungle. Then, of course, we were told it was "South America - 1936" and things began to make sense. In describing the movie to someone a few days later, Dad said it was basically "James Bond for kids." That's exactly what George Lucas intended when he and director Steven Spielberg envisioned it. Indiana Jones: mild-mannered professor by day, but leads a double-life as a treasure-seeking adventurer (or "expert on the occult and obtainer of rare antiquities" as they call it in the movie) who beats up bad guys (mostly Nazis). He's a handsome smooth-talking hero with a devilish twinkle in his eyes, wears a fedora hat and carries a bull whip. In the first movie, he goes after the lost Ark of the Covenant. It was part of the idea when Lucas and Spielberg were envisioning Indiana Jones that he would always go after religious artifacts.

It took my breath away; there are so many memorable scenes. No matter how many times I've seen it, I always crack up when Indy shoots the swordsman and when the monkey takes the Nazi salute. Along for the thrill ride was Jones' former flame, the feisty Marion Ravenwood, played to perfection by Karen Allen. Marion was no damsel in distress, she gave as good as she got. In fact, her body count may be almost as high as his. The chemistry between Allen and Ford was fantastic; you could almost see the sparks fly. "I see you haven't forgotten how to show a lady a good time!" she yells at him after her bar is burnt to the ground. Marion set a very high standard for Indy's girlfriends who followed in the next two movies - and no one came even close - but more on that later.

Raiders is a classic and - in many ways - the perfect action adventure movie. I just don't care for the weak ending. It's like they ran out of ideas from the point where they get on the ship. Other than that, it's perfect. It won a few Oscars, and was even nominated for Best Picture that year.

A sequel followed three years later, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". By that time, I'd outgrown my crush and wasn't interested in seeing it. I finally saw it years later; it's still the weakest of the movies. It's dark. And to make things worse, they replaced Karen Allen with the awful Kate Capshaw (Steven Spielberg's future wife) and set the movie one year before Raiders in 1935. Every time I see it, I want to bash Capshaw's character, nightclub singer Willie Scott. Heck, even Steven Spielberg doesn't like it.

Then in 1989, they released the third movie, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade". The reviews were good, and I dragged my Dad to see Indy once again. It was everything the second movie wasn't. It returned to the formula which made the first one so successful. From the opening sequence you learned a little of Indy's background: how he acquired his fear of snakes and how he learned to use a bullwhip, for example. This time they brought in Sean Connery - the original James Bond - to be Indy's father. It was a stroke of casting genius (even though Harrison Ford thought that it wasn't a good idea since Sean Connery was only thirteen years older than him). The chemistry between them was great. I remember walking out of the theatre thinking I'd been on a rollercoaster ride and I immediately wanted more of the same adrenaline rush. Becuase there is no weak ending, in some ways the third one is my favourite. The dialogue between father and son was razor sharp: "I'm as human as the next man." "I was the next man." The "girlfriend" in this movie, Dr. Elsa Schneider, though an improvement Wille Scott, turned out to be a Nazi turncout. Her greed got the better of her and she got her just desserts in the end.

Speaking of rollercoaster rides, the Indiana Jones ride at Disneyland is a blast. Dad and I went on it three times when we were there in 1996. They even had the rolling stone chase you, which was the climax of the opening sequence in the original Raiders.

So, when it was announced that finally there would be a new movie and that they were bringing back Karen Allen, I was thrilled. I loved her character, Marion Ravenwood. Rumours circulated that Natalie Portman would play Indy and Marion's daughter. My immediate reaction was 'EW!" Not because I don't like Natalie Portman; I do like her. It's the fact that she plays Queen Amidala in Star Wars - the mother of Princess Leia. In other words, she's Han Solo's (Harrison Ford's character) mother-in-law. I was disappointed to hear that Sean Connery wasn't returning. It would have been nice to have a full family reunion. But, in his own words, he was enjoying retirement "too damned much". Selfish Swine :) Eventually, it was announced that Indy and Marion had a son ("Henry") not a daughter.

So, now it comes time to critique the new film (which, of course, we took my Dad to). Set in 1957, nineteen years after the last movie, it starts off in Nevada. It was good to see Indy make some wise-cracks about his age. It was also good to see Marion back. True, she'd lost a *little* of her spunk, but she was still feisty, and she's aged gracefully. Once again, there was good banter between her and Indy. That being said, I would have liked to have seen more. It's part of what made the first movie so great.

There was action; there was adventure; there were wise-cracks; there were creepy-crawlies (this time, ants). In short, there was everything you come to expect from an Indiana Jones movie. It was very good and I really liked it but I can't honestly say that I loved it - and I just can't put my finger on why. I was waiting for that adrenaline rush that I had while watching the third one - and it just didn't happen. There were too many special effects, which the first movies didn't have. Mind you, the sword fight between the young Henry and the villianess, Irina Spalko, (played by Cate Blanchett) was pretty cool. I would also have liked to have seen a catfight between Marion and Irina. Speaking of Cate Blanchett, it was good to see her playing a bad girl. She's best known for playing royalty - real (Queen Elizabeth I) and Hollywood (she won an Oscar for playing Katherine Hepburn in 'The Aviator'). DH didn't even recognize her.

It was good to see Indy and Marion finally reunited. If you knew the characters, you know that Marion is Indy's one true love. I just hope they don't plan to carry on the series with the son. I hope Indy picking up his hat at the end is a sign he's not ready to pass the torch just yet.

Long live Indiana Jones!