Been waiting for the movie since 2003. I freaked out when I heard they started filming over a year ago. When nuts when I saw that first picture everyone has seen of Harrison Ford sitting in a chair in the Indy costume. Lost my mind when I saw the release date. Was extremely giddy heading into the theater last night.
So there I was. Finally happening. And my thoughts of it now?!?!?!…………
I LOVED IT!
How could I not?! It was awesome. It was magnificent. It had everything that makes Indiana Jones great. Now if you haven’t seen it, want to, and want nothing ruined, this is your once chance to look away. Go on. I’ll wait……….la la la la…..
Ho hum……
De daaaa…..
Dot de doooo….
OK ready? Good!
It is set in 1957. For those who don’t know, Raiders was set in 1936. Which is an important fact, but I’ll get to the why in a moment.
I liked the story. Of Indiana going after an artifact that ended up being the skull of an alien being. And the adventure ends with a flying saucer taking off. Different? Yes. But I like that. Does Indiana Jones only go after religious artifacts? Do they all have to be related to God? I mean if you really want to get technical, this was just like that. The aliens were worshiped as gods. They just were also from another planet is all. So it really is very much the same concept, but the execution of that concept turned out to be very different. And I got no issue with that whatsoever.
Plus you have to figure that the story fit in perfectly with the time period in which it was set. It revolved around fear of Russia as well as space aliens. For those who don’t know much about US history, that was everyone’s obsession back then. So for it to center around those two themes: well done.
I also thought they handled Indiana Jones the character beautifully. It’s not easy to pick up a character nearly 20 years later. Not easy as a writer or on Harrison Ford. Think about. You perfect this style, this attitude, this way about you. Then you stop altogether. Now nearly two decades later you have to pick it back up again. So like I said, they did it beautifully.
And it wasn’t just the fact that it’s been near 20 years. It’s also the fact that you have to make that character that much older. A person changes over that period of time, and I got that sense very much. He hasn’t as fast, it took him longer to knock a guy out, but he had other ways to make up for it.
Rather than start a fight with the KGB agents himself in the diner, he has a fight break out around them. Instead of get pissed off at the accusations of being a Russian spy, he sits there with a smirk on his face. He’s matured a bit. Thinks things through when he has the time. This version of Indy still has much of his old self in him, but there are also shades of his father as well. I liked that.
Then there is the introduction of his son. Part of me would rather have them not related at all. Let them be two adventurers together rather than that feeling of forced obligation, but it does work out well. And remember when I said it was important to know the time difference between Raiders and this movie? Well its because it fits perfectly with his son’s age: 20. I didn’t know this, but Shia Lebeouf really is that young. Dude looks older to me, but I’ll credit Hollywood for that.
And I couldn’t help but notice that character’s nickname: Mutt. What is a mutt? It’s a dog. Where did Indiana Jones gets his nickname from? It was the name of the family dog. Who knows if that was intentional, but I thought it was clever nonetheless.
Finally, the legacy. Already there are rumors of Indiana Jones continuing and/or Mutt getting his own series. Honestly? I don’t care. It doesn’t bother me. I mean, James Bond is up to what? Movie number 21? So why is a fifth Indy movie so bad? Or a handing off of the family tradition? Doesn’t bother me.
So yeah. I loved the movie. Felt it worked in nicely with such a long time between pictures. Way to go guys.
