I went into this film without reacquainting myself with the earlier instalments beforehand, apart from seeing a clip somewhere showing the use of AI (artificial intelligence) to make the title character, Indiana ("Indy") Jones, look younger than Harrison Ford, the actor who has played him in the franchise. It starts off at a cracking pace and is classic Saturday afternoon movie matinee material, with derring-do and mostly non-stop action. A lot of people are killed in the film but it's not depicted graphically, so it's not unsuitable for a young, teenage audience, I suppose.
Early on, we see an AI enhanced Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones once again facing Nazis (whom he hates) during the Second World War. In a nice echo of the first film of the franchise (the classic "Raiders of the Lost Ark"), we once again have an artefact (which may or may not be a McGuffin, as my understanding of the concept is slight) which both Indy and the Nazis want to gain control over because of....mumbo-jumbo magic thingy (although I'm guessing that it has some sort of basis in historical fact).
Pretty soon we see old Indy and the film flits back and forth between different time periods, which will become an understatement. I really don't want to give away too much of the plot, except to say that it's easy to follow and strange scenes can become a subsequent justification for some implausible later scene (I have in mind a scene where a young boy is engaging in unusual play). It seems to me that this film could be the kind of exhilarating experience for young children which "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was for me at a similar point in time. However, I do wonder whether it will have repeat viewing value, as perhaps the non-stop action will pall with later viewing. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" isn't a film I've revisited again, I don't think, in the way that I have with the original Star Wars film. Star Wars (i.e. Episode IV) stands the test of time, it seems to me, as does it's first sequel. Episode VI not so much. Which is all to say that a film with a good story has greater lasting value than one with mere non-stop action. Perhaps this criticism is wasted for a younger audience.
That brings another thought to my mind: who is the target audience for this latest (final?) instalment of the franchise? Young children as well as nostalgia buffs? My question is whether young children would be willing to idolise an old Indy. Perhaps that explains the presence a cast of diverse age, from a young(ish) woman who is a major character ("Helena" played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge, who I have not seen before but I have heard good things about her TV series "Fleabag") and the teenage boy who plays "Teddy", Ethann Isidore, who also has many scenes in the film and could be there, perhaps, to provide someone for young fans to identify with.
There are some returning characters from previous instalments in the franchise, it seems but I have long since forgotten about them. The last time I've seen an entry in this franchise was for "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", which I saw at the cinema when it was released, many moons ago. My review of that is here and I've just reread it. It seems that I was disappointed by it and wasn't keen to see anything new in the franchise as a result. As with other films in this boat, like the last Matrix film, it seems that time heals old wounds, allowing me to take the plunge with a new entry, seeing as my disappointment with the last one is not fresh in my memory.
Back to the use of AI: it didn't bother me at all. I think that in my review for the last Star Wars film in the 3rd trilogy that I expressed the view that I would have been okay if an artificial Princess Leia had been created, following the death of the actress who had always played her, Carrie Fisher. Earlier I mentioned that this could be the final instalment of the franchise. But AI. Maybe the studio could have more sequels featuring an entirely artificial likeness of Harrison Ford, so that we could see a young(er) Indy in all of them? Perhaps Ford or (eventually) his estate would earn 10c for every $100 million films featuring his likeness made at the box office?
Random observations:
* One character gave me Elon Musk impressions...it turns out to have been Mads Mikkelsen...no doubt also 'enhanced' by AI. That being said, what his character got up to did seem like something Elon Musk may go in for.
* I was surprised to see Antonio Banderas listed in the closing credits and couldn't think who he might have played. Looking at the Wikipedia entry for the cast, I think that I can now.
* The film is dedicated to the memory of Michael DeBeer, which IMDB has an entry for in the field of visual effects.
* Eriko Nakamura is also listed for their wisdom or some such.
* The credits show that COVID is still a thing...as are tax credit consultants!
* The Australian Government might have provided some tax credits for this or something.
* The banter between characters often got lost in the hubbub of the frenetic action although what I did hear wasn't exactly sparkling wit.
* I wonder how truthy the US president giving a medal to a Nazi scientist for helping the US put a man on the moon is.
Early on, we see an AI enhanced Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones once again facing Nazis (whom he hates) during the Second World War. In a nice echo of the first film of the franchise (the classic "Raiders of the Lost Ark"), we once again have an artefact (which may or may not be a McGuffin, as my understanding of the concept is slight) which both Indy and the Nazis want to gain control over because of....mumbo-jumbo magic thingy (although I'm guessing that it has some sort of basis in historical fact).
Pretty soon we see old Indy and the film flits back and forth between different time periods, which will become an understatement. I really don't want to give away too much of the plot, except to say that it's easy to follow and strange scenes can become a subsequent justification for some implausible later scene (I have in mind a scene where a young boy is engaging in unusual play). It seems to me that this film could be the kind of exhilarating experience for young children which "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was for me at a similar point in time. However, I do wonder whether it will have repeat viewing value, as perhaps the non-stop action will pall with later viewing. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" isn't a film I've revisited again, I don't think, in the way that I have with the original Star Wars film. Star Wars (i.e. Episode IV) stands the test of time, it seems to me, as does it's first sequel. Episode VI not so much. Which is all to say that a film with a good story has greater lasting value than one with mere non-stop action. Perhaps this criticism is wasted for a younger audience.
That brings another thought to my mind: who is the target audience for this latest (final?) instalment of the franchise? Young children as well as nostalgia buffs? My question is whether young children would be willing to idolise an old Indy. Perhaps that explains the presence a cast of diverse age, from a young(ish) woman who is a major character ("Helena" played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge, who I have not seen before but I have heard good things about her TV series "Fleabag") and the teenage boy who plays "Teddy", Ethann Isidore, who also has many scenes in the film and could be there, perhaps, to provide someone for young fans to identify with.
There are some returning characters from previous instalments in the franchise, it seems but I have long since forgotten about them. The last time I've seen an entry in this franchise was for "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", which I saw at the cinema when it was released, many moons ago. My review of that is here and I've just reread it. It seems that I was disappointed by it and wasn't keen to see anything new in the franchise as a result. As with other films in this boat, like the last Matrix film, it seems that time heals old wounds, allowing me to take the plunge with a new entry, seeing as my disappointment with the last one is not fresh in my memory.
Back to the use of AI: it didn't bother me at all. I think that in my review for the last Star Wars film in the 3rd trilogy that I expressed the view that I would have been okay if an artificial Princess Leia had been created, following the death of the actress who had always played her, Carrie Fisher. Earlier I mentioned that this could be the final instalment of the franchise. But AI. Maybe the studio could have more sequels featuring an entirely artificial likeness of Harrison Ford, so that we could see a young(er) Indy in all of them? Perhaps Ford or (eventually) his estate would earn 10c for every $100 million films featuring his likeness made at the box office?
Random observations:
* One character gave me Elon Musk impressions...it turns out to have been Mads Mikkelsen...no doubt also 'enhanced' by AI. That being said, what his character got up to did seem like something Elon Musk may go in for.
* I was surprised to see Antonio Banderas listed in the closing credits and couldn't think who he might have played. Looking at the Wikipedia entry for the cast, I think that I can now.
* The film is dedicated to the memory of Michael DeBeer, which IMDB has an entry for in the field of visual effects.
* Eriko Nakamura is also listed for their wisdom or some such.
* The credits show that COVID is still a thing...as are tax credit consultants!
* The Australian Government might have provided some tax credits for this or something.
* The banter between characters often got lost in the hubbub of the frenetic action although what I did hear wasn't exactly sparkling wit.
* I wonder how truthy the US president giving a medal to a Nazi scientist for helping the US put a man on the moon is.