"Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny" opens in theaters tomorrow. Actor Harrison Ford claims this will mark his final screen appearance as the iconic character he first portrayed 42 years ago in Steven Spielberg's "Raiders of the Lost Ark."
This new Indiana Jones adventure is like "The Force Awakens." It’s the healing film fans needed to get us past the dark times of franchise entries that we wish had never been made. No one wanted "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" to mark our beloved Indy’s final screen appearance. But now the Nazi-fighting archaeologist-professor is back for one more adventure ... reluctantly.
"Dial of Destiny" cheats by slipping in a prefacing opening adventure set back in Indy's heyday. Indy (Harrison Ford) is once again in a battle with the Nazis to gain possession of an ancient and powerful relic. This time it's the infamous Archimedes Dial, a device that supposedly can locate fissures in time.
In the 25-minute opening segment, Ford gets digital assistance to make him appear younger (the technology looks pretty good this time around) to play Indy in his prime. He's chasing Nazi Jürgen Voller (Mads Mikkelsen) and getting "help" from his colleague Basil Shaw (Toby Jones). The encounter sets the backdrop for the main story and shows a vigorous Indy to contrast with the one we find in 1969.
Jump to the 1960s. We find a grumpy old Indy yelling at his hippie neighbors and living alone in a badly kept apartment in New York. He is on the cusp of retirement, and I'm not sure if that's something he dreads or welcomes since his students seem to have no interest in archaeology.
But Indy doesn't have time to ponder this because into his life bursts his estranged goddaughter Helena Shaw (Phoebe Waller-Bridge), who is seeking the Archimedes Dial that her father Basil entrusted to Indy years ago. Helena has no interest in the artifact's historical value but rather wants to sell it to get herself out of gambling debts. But of course the reemergence of the Dial draws out Indy’s old nemesis, Jürgen, who is now working with the U.S. government as a physicist in the space program. But he obviously has nefarious plans of his own for the Dial because he's still a Nazi at heart.
The film has some fun visiting Indy in his senior years. In one scene we get a brief glimpse of his passion for archaeology as he tries to excite his class of disinterested students. It's a funny contrast to the classroom full of infatuated girls in "Raiders of the Lost Ark." But the new scene also made me wonder, why couldn't Indy's passions inspire a new generation of archaeologists? I felt sad that Indy had not become a beloved teacher and angry at the gang of screenwriters (Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth, David Koepp, and director James Mangold). For turning him into a stereotyped, curmudgeonly old professor, who can't connect with his students and counterculture kids.
While I think it's fitting for Indy to be something of an old relic, I think he would feel a kinship for the rebelliousness of 60s youth and find a way to make his students care about a subject he loves. If Indy cares so much about preserving history through archaeology, it's sad that he never found a way to inspire that love in others. I think that is a failure on the part of the writers.
The script is also lazy in how it brings back familiar characters. Take John Rhys-Davies as Sallah. Why does he have to be made a New York cab driver, which feels like such a stereotype. Why couldn't he be working at a museum even if only as a guard? At least that would be less of a racial stereotype. It is as if the filmmakers have locked characters into roles, in Sallah's case that of a subservient sidekick, and can't see beyond those boundaries.
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" got away with some stereotypes because it was presented almost like a cinematic artifact unearthed from the 1940s to show a modern audience what a Saturday morning serial was like. But now, audiences are not only in a very different place, but Indy himself is also in a different era — the 1960s — so "Dial of Destiny" should display more awareness.
From a creative standpoint, why can't the writers just think outside the box more? Why does everything feel like it is recycled from a past Indy film? The character of Teddy (Ethann Isidore), is just a new version of Short Round. He's still the smart-alecky street kid there for comic relief and the occasional assist. That also made me wonder, why not bring back Ke Huy Quan as Short Round and allow that character to mature? When a film is not firing on all cylinders, it is not fully engaging me. Then I have time to ponder all the things that might have made it better.
And finally, Marion (Karen Allen) (which is NOT a spoiler, since she was on the red carpet talking about her role). Her character could have also been better written. Instead she appears as an afterthought, denying her character a chance to be more than an appendage to the franchise. Allen's Marion was such a fiery addition to "Raiders" and then disappeared! Only to be given a thankless role in the sequel that shall not be named. She deserves better.
Of course making the Nazis the bad guys still works since they remain the only villain everyone seems comfortable hating. Sadly, Mikkelsen is given a bland villain to play and he never gets a chance to sink his teeth into anything meaty.
Composer John Williams might be the true hero of the film, though, as he delivers a score full of robust energy and desperately tries to invest a sense of rip-roaring adventure into Indy’s last outing. Much of the music relies on old cues from previous films and each time I heard a familiar strain it just made me want to run out and watch "Raiders" again.
Despite Williams' score, "Dial of Destiny" feels almost as tired as Indy himself. Director Mangold pulls sentiment out of the story, however his action scenes feel technically competent, yet uninspired. He globe trots appealingly but never endows the film with the vigor that Steven Spielberg did in that first "Raiders" film.
I admit, "Dial of Destiny" is still fun in places and does wrap up Indy's tale in a sweetly satisfying manner, but there’s just nothing clever in the storyline and the action feels formulaic as if it is just repurposing stunts from earlier films. I see the script as the key culprit in the film's shortcomings. Although I do applaud the writers for disposing of the most reviled character in the Indy franchise, Shia LaBeouf's Mutt Williams. That's my opinion and I am sticking to it.
But I am grateful for this movie even if I am also disappointed by it. It is nice to see Ford return to the role one last time to say goodbye in a dignified manner. He picks up the fedora with such ease and slides into the character as if he never left it. In Han Solo and Indy, Ford has given us two of the most beloved characters in pop culture, and both originated in the mind of George Lucas. In interviews Ford has expressed his desire to have the film show Indy as an old man who can't quite do everything he used to be able to do and who maybe has even gained a little wisdom in his old age. Although the script fails to develop this as well as it could have been, Ford delivers on all those points with his performance.
Waller-Bridge (of "Fleabag" fame) offers a nice energetic contrast to Ford. But the character of Helena functions more as a plot device than a person. Helena is the catalyst to propel the story forward and sometimes she has to act in ways that don't really make sense just to keep the story moving forward.
I enjoyed "Dial of Destiny" as the film to give the franchise closure. But I doubt I will revisit it in the joyous, enthusiastic way I do "Raiders" and "The Last Crusade." I wish "Dial of Destiny" had been better so I could embrace it more fully. Indy is a character I have loved for almost a half century so I just wanted the script to revisit him and other characters with more inspired playfulness. But at least I can now pretend there are only four films in the Indiana Jones franchise and that is a wonderful feeling.
