INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (2008)

I was due to go to a fancy dress party last weekend (anyone who knows me will know that those words stir great excitement in me), the theme was Hollywood or Bollywood. I thought long and hard about what to go as and finally went for a Ghostbuster (Robocop was narrowly beaten simply because that costume would have required me to re-mortgage my flat). So early Saturday evening I was settling down with a bottle of beer, casually inflating my blow-up Proton Pack whilst contemplating whether to play the persona or Venkman or Stantz (I could never pull off the studious vibe of Spengler), when my girlfriend emerged from the bathroom saying her flu had kicked in and she wasn’t well enough to go. This was a shame because her costume was the woman from King Kong and involved having a giant gorilla fist wrapped around her for the evening. Naturally, I played the doting boyfriend and settled her down on the sofa and went and purchased a Waitrose Oriental snack selection.

With nothing on the telly, and us yearning for the days of the Generation Game and Noel’s House Party, we scoured the movie channels and the only viable option was Terminator 2 which was swiftly rebuked by the girlfriend. So I went into the DVD archive and picked a selection of 4 from her to pick from: The Mummy, Jaws, Howard the Duck and, the eventual victor, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

It’s not the first time I’ve seen it, I saw it the day after it’s release. It was the return of one of the most iconic film characters of all time and one that will always be associated with me growing up. It was also, interestingly, the return to screen of a once great actor who had fallen by the wayside and had not had a hit in a long time. I suppose Harrison Ford must have said to himself, ‘well if I can’t manage it as Indy with Steven Spielberg behind the camera, I never will’.

The fourth film in the much loved series is set many years after the still brilliant Last Crusade (which is understandable given Ford’s advancing years) and the Nazi’s are no longer the baddies. It’s the Cold War and the Russians are providing Indy with the opposition. Led by Cate Blanchett’s general the Russkies are scaling the globe and recovering artifacts that hold psychic powers in a bid to rule the world and be victorious over the good old US of A. And they need to get their hands on the big one....and it’s on American soil.....they need Indy. Kidnapped, he gets caught up in the quest for the Crystal Skull which, in the usual way, spans continents and a variety of locations. A whole host of characters join him for the ride, some old and some new (Shia Labeouf and Ray Winstone among others).

So far, so formulaic. Did we really expect or want anything else? When you re-visit something like Indy with the same cast, directors and producers you aren’t going to go for the reboot – you want and expect more of the same. It's an exercise in nostalgia. With that in mind, I think the real question is, ‘How did it compare to the others’? In short, fairly well.

It’s not a masterpiece, not by any stretch of the imagination, and it misses the mark as often as it hits them, but it does have some positives.

The film starts fantastically with the Russians breaking into an American military facility and nuclear testing site and the ensuing action sequence is classic Spielberg, physical stunts mixed with humour, and culminates in a fantastic image of Indy with a mushroom cloud behind him. This promises great things, a darker Indy and a very different world. There is also a scene where it is suggested that Indy is a war hero and a real hero for his country. Nice touch. There are some nice Cold War moments too, with the KGB and FBI getting involved.

The main highlights of the film are what you would expect from Mr Spielberg. The action and the humour. I've already mentioned how the film kicks offs, but there are some other great moments, a motorcycle chase and a cliff top car chase with bazookas and swordplay stand out (although the latter has a strange CGI feel to it - almost as if it was rushed). These scenes have a good blend of action inter-spliced with humour. For example the motorcycle chase has a nice nod to Brody, the character from the first 3 films and also has a good gag as the pursuit goes through the school library. There is some good humour to be found in the banter between Indy and an old flame that emerges later in the story as well as lot sof jibes about Indy being a bit ancient. All of this ensures that the film fizzes along at a nice pace and never lets up.

But, and there is always a but, although these scenes are great, they do feel a bit tired. The first Indy film pioneered this sort of action but all these years later, it feels as though we've seen it all before. And a lot of times. I found myself reminded of The Mummy (the recent Brandon Fraser version) on more than one occasion. I accept that The Mummy relies heavily on the influence of the Indy films but it now feels like the roles have reversed. The amusing sword fighting was similar to that at the end of the Mummy and a scene in Indy 4 with killer red ants made me think of the scarab beatles immediately. This familiarity removed any potential 'wow' factor that there may have been.

So that, was the positives (with a bit of a negative), now for where the film misses. Firstly is the supporting cast. Blanchett aside, who really enjoys herself camping it up, there are some performances which will only be remembered for their irritation. First up is Ray Winstone. Usually dependable, in this film he plays Indy's sidekick but is reduced to simply shouting 'Jonesy' every so often and then taking a whack. Almost as annoying as Jar Jar Binks. Then is John Hurt. Shame, because he's a fine actor and he is not given nearly enough here to make use of his talents. Then there is Shia Labeouf. Although he isn't that bad in this, he's not particularly interesting and is not much of a presence when on screen. He is however in, although not responsible for, the most stupid and nonsensical moment in the film as he has a ludicrous Tarzan moment. There is also a worrying moment at the end where it suggests that he may take the famous Fedora from Indy and carry on the franchise. Please no. There are other scenes that really push the limits of believability. I know it's not a documentary but we can only suspend disbelief so far....

The ending. Every who has seen this film has a view on the ending, and most of those views are negative. I like the ending. I'm not sure why people are so irritated by it, but I have heard people say that it's too far fetched. But I refer these people back to the previous films with the Lost Arc wiping out a field full of Nazis and the Holy Grail being guarded by a centuries old knight who is still alive. Why is this any different? It's a satisfying finale with fantastic special effect laden imagery to revel in.

So, in my view it's the 3rd best Indy film, better than the Temple of Doom but a long way behind the Last Crusade and the incredible Raiders of the Lost Ark. Well worth a view, but it probably won't live up to your hopes or expectations.