Indy's Tuckered Out

I have no nostalgic attachment to the Indiana Jones franchise. I only watched the movies in their entirety as an adult, and while I enjoyed them, they were also way too schlocky. This ignores the racism of the second entry and the outlandishness of the fourth, because those are dissertations on their own. I like the movies, but they’re not my favourites from Steven Spielberg. Make what you will.

Despite that, I’ve been looking forward to this latest entry. Not only is James Mangold the director here, he even got Spielberg’s seal of approval. Additionally, considering how Spielberg felt his heart wasn’t in the last movie, having someone new seemed like a good idea. Besides, it’s James Mangold! What could derail his track-record-

-Oh…

It looks like this movie, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, isn’t faring so well. I initially thought it was only Cannes, as they tend to be much harsher. But as reviews started trickling in, the situation became dire. For the first time, an entry’s been panned. Yeah…

I guess it was inevitable. The Indiana Jones movies are the gold standard in pulp action after Star Wars, so the bar’s set high. For a new movie to work, it’d not only have to retain the spirit of the franchise, it’d also have to offer something fresh and exciting. Plus, Harrison Ford’s in his 80’s. He might still be enthusiastic about playing Indy, but he’s not getting younger. And no de-aging technology will hide that.

Okay, so the 5th entry hitting rock bottom is disappointing. But what’s more disappointing are the general responses. They’ve been all-over, with some being smug, and others bewilderment and denial. People are having a rough time processing this, and that’s rubbing off on me. So while I shouldn’t be concerned, I feel obligated to share my thoughts. Here goes.

Let’s start with the smug camp. There’s a tendency to write off entries beyond Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade as having “not happened”. Everything post-1989’s labelled “fan-fiction” that can’t top the originals. This is a bad case of revisionist history. Because not only is that insulting to fan-fiction, it implies that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull wasn’t made by the same creative team.

Pretending something you don’t like never happened isn’t healthy anyway. I wasn’t a huge fan of every Matrix movie after the first, but they existed. They also had interesting ideas and concepts, like expanding Zion and making Agent Smith an Antichrist figure. Even The Matrix: Resurrections touched on corporate cynicism and the dangers of de-transitioning, something that fits beautifully into the pro-trans theming. Why would I pretend that doesn’t exist?

By ignoring everything beyond 1989, you ignore the flaws of the original movies too. Yes, Indy climbing into a fridge to survive an atomic bomb’s absurd, but is it more-absurd than falling from a downed plane, onto a slope and into a river on a lifeboat? Yes, an enemy being dragged into an ant colony’s silly, but is it sillier than a death cult ripping out people’s hearts and burning them? And yeah, Mutt Williams is dumb, but is he dumber than the overt-racism in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?

It doesn’t end there! The original movie has Marion Ravenwood largely as a damsel in distress, something the 4th entry improved upon with her return. Even Indy’s father downing a Nazi plane with an umbrella and seagulls is dumb. Post-1989 Indiana Jones is ridiculous, but so is pre-1989 Indiana Jones! I can’t help thinking this is less about quality and more about disappointment, which I get, but don’t sympathize with.

Then there’s the opposite camp. The arguments here are more reactionary. “Critics are being snobs!” “I doubt the movie’s that bad!” “I’m seeing it anyway!” I get the frustrations here too, but people need to step back and collect themselves.

Firstly, critics have always been “snobs”. But that’s their job. They see more movies than most, and they’re more guarded because they recognize patterns. They’re also much harder to impress, hence the snobbery. Sometimes they’re overly-unfair or harsh, but that’s why opinions exist. If the reviews bother you, see it for yourself!

Secondly, “bad” and “good” are subjective. Yes, there are standards, but even within those standards there’s nuance. Besides, pulp films are silly by design, and there’s room to appreciate trashy entries. If this one’s really that bad, guess what? Welcome to being a Star Wars Prequel fan! How do you think I’ve managed?

And thirdly, go see it! No one’s stopping you from watching a panned movie, nor are they stopping you from avoiding a praised movie. I’ve avoided the new Mission Impossible movies because I think they’re hollow and vapid, but they’ve been praised since the 4th entry. I also saw Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania despite its reception, and I enjoyed it! Never let other people decide your tastes in movies.

I know this is a disappointing for an Indiana Jones movie. I never like when movies are bad, because they waste my time. And even with this film, ignoring the disappointing reviews, I like how it isn’t afraid to tackle more unsavoury aspects, including stealing from Indigenous nations, in its teaser clips. Considering how Nazis have been acknowledged as bad, but robbing other cultures hasn’t, that’s already an interesting angle. But it doesn’t guarantee that the movie’s going to be a masterpiece, it’s simply a fun tidbit.

If that fails, we have the franchise’s many copycats, like Castle in the Sky and Dora and the Lost City of Gold, to be thankful for. That’s worth something, right?