Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

The most biting issue regarding this film is it is Indiana Jones and with this comes expectations. Indy 4 is a give and take film. In any other context, Harrison Ford would not pass as an action hero any more, at least to the extent he is portrayed here. This is the only 'give' aspect its predecessors offer, the chance to see a much loved screen icon around again. However, the 'take' is far more substantial, and like many reviews the negatives are easier to list but unlike many reviews that remain firmly subjective, cutting slack plainly because it is Indy, i will attempt to be more objective. I have recently watched the originals so don't think my memories will be merely reminiscing either

If the film wasn't set in the established world if Indy and with a different hero, it probably would have been a fine movie but the dichotomy of context or content undermines the film at almost every step. The opening shot is CGI, now i know it's nearly unavoidable nowadays for a Hollywood film not to use it but here it seems to be done for the sake of it, or for sheer spectacle. The two main examples are the nuclear explosions and the finale. The latter i'll save spoiling, as for the former at a basic level you can argue it sets the era but considering the installation testing it had been wiped out, i'm not sure how they even went ahead with it. Apart from the odd extravagant setting, where does this happen in the originals? It seemed like a Roland Emmerich set piece. Next, what i loved about the originals was their ability to immerse the viewer into the location, blue-screens are completely alienating.

I'm surprised there aren't more critics of the action. Most comments are on the plausibility, bar the one silliness in Temple of Doom (and i figured the three waterfalls were an allusion to this), in most of the originals action pieces, it could be believed that someone could do that. And in most of them someone does do them, the tightly choreographed action and stunt scenes were far more enthralling in the originals then "let's do it all in CGI". Thus Indy 4 lacks the skilled directing craft to create enthralling moments were there is actual tension and realism about the character and the beating they're taking. I do not want to see a computer animated Shia Lebouf rope swing through the jungle with an army of CGI monkeys. Not only is that not Indiana Jones, it's the polar opposite. A lot of it belonged in a cartoon.

Possibly the biggest gripe i've noticed is the alien plotline. For clarity, i've no problem with aliens or skepticism about them appearing in films. Their inclusion goes back to earlier, give and take. We are given a Crystal Skull which is explicitly flaunted visually through out the story, removing any enigma about the artifacts plus it is a bit ridiculous, i couldn't get AvP out my head where she uses the alien skull as a shield. Anyway, we're given the narrative marker of the skull and then it takes us completely out the diegetic world created around Indiana Jones. There's not one hint towards extra-terrestrial life in any of the films. Making a firmly established genre of traditional adventure into a science-fiction yarn is pretty cheeky. But like i said earlier, it would have been fine in any other film but with Indy it doesn't belong. I know most people counteract this criticism with The Ark being supernatural thus also a strain on believability but 'The Ark' was kept as an enigma through the film and in the climax when it was opened it, there had to be something decent as the pay-off. But furthermore, Indy's eyes are closed so it doesn't necessarily have to happened like that. The odd ghost and religious artifacts are what we are told is natural in Indy's world. I wouldn't have minded exploring the mythos they took, but if they'd left it ambiguous and more on suggestion, it would have been far more successful and less like Close Encounters.

Maybe this is the standard starting point for reviews but it seemed so irrelevant i didn't think it worth addressing the story first. The whole script is heavy handed, from explaining Brody and Connery to recycling plot devices from the Last Crusade and then failing to expand them. The clues and actual 'adventure' where far too easy, more over they were excuses for set pieces. Take finding the the clue under the waterfall, there's no indication how they get all the way up there or the final clue in the temple Ox couldn't get being a pretty dull answer. I never once felt any sense of discovery, as a viewer or on Indy's behalf. I would rather call the characters under-written opposed to un-developed. Winstone, for example, i thought was fine but the way characters reacted around him wasn't natural nor was his fate. Blanchett's villain was tame and failed to make a worth adversary for Indy when she should have been either ruthless or a reflection of a different Indy. It was by the time Mutt and Indy had the chase around the city i'd settled with the older Indy being action orientated, however couldn't help noticing how slack his trousers were, looked like proper Grandad style.

The film was thoroughly flawed but that's from a subjective viewpoint of what Indy was and what Spielberg and Lucas have done now. Except for the lovingly created 50s and the admittedly brilliant Mutt (i've liked Shia since Even Stevens) i fail to see this as a continuation of the series. Personally, it seemed like Lucas using CGI wherever possible and Spielberg getting bogged down in his penchant for extra-terrestrial. It's not an inherently 'bad' film but it is flawed in a lot of respects and considering what it could, and should have been- a classic stunt orientating adventure, it fails to deliver.

One thing I will say, and I hope Yoda doesn't neg rep me for this

I find the idea that Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford did this "for the money" a little dubious. They're all filthy rich. That is not to say that filthy rich people wanting to be richer still is unheard of, but to such people their reputation is infinitely more valuable than any proceeds they might reap from this, as it pays dividends more often and over a longer period of time. So, you might say they did a poor job, or have lost passion, etc...but the idea that it was a cash grab is just flat-out silly.

Right, and it seems in some of these instances it becomes more of a "us vs. the machine" type of mentality. I ran into a guy on another board that hated Spielberg... hated him! And when I asked him why he told me it (Spielberg) wasn't about making "good" movies all he wanted to do was "sell out" and make money. After I got done laughing I went on to list several of his excellent films and asked again. So what's the matter with someone who not only makes pretty damn good movies but also makes truck loads of cash?

Answer: "Yeah, well I just think he's over rated." So, what do you say to something like that?

Why would I neg rep you for that?

Thanks for the review Pyro, I disagree with a lot of what you just wrote though. In reading your review I think you fell prey to your own logic a bit.



And then you went on not 2 sentences later and began to list your expectations of the movie, you may disagree and certainly that is your right but that's just how you came across to me.

That's unfair. I like Spielberg. I consider him one of the best directors probably ever. However, that doesn't change the fact this movie stunk and felt like an excuse to have a bajillion dollars in box office receipts (not to major 800 bajillion dollars in merchandising). I do feel you are cutting Spielberg and Indy a break for the many good times you have had with them.

when your first post in a thread like this is mostly just shots at the director and producer's character then what did you expect?

Indiana Jones and The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull (Steven Spielberg)



"Crystal Skull Suffers From The Star Wars Syndrome."

When Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade came to theaters in 1989 I was only 2 years old. That is the same age as newcomer Shia LaBeouf and had never seen Indiana Jones up on the big screen. In fact, as a kid my favourite one out of the three was Temple of Doom. As I grew older and appreciated the art of film-making more, I found myself leaning more towards Raiders of the Lost Ark, with Last Crusade in a close second. Flash forward to 2008 and Indiana Jones is back, only much older. I re-watched the original three, as I'm sure almost everyone did, to get myself in the mood for the old whip slinger. The main problem with Crystal Skull is it had to please fans after 19 years of build up. So it was bound to fail (in one way or another). In that light, it suffers from the "Star Wars Syndrome." Upon watching Crystal Skull you have to immediately compare it to the other films. In doing that, even before seeing the movie you knew it wasn't going to be better then Raiders and those who though it would be would leave disappointed. Well, I didn't think it would be better and yet I can't help but feel disappointed in the final product of the film. While it does have the essentials to make an Indiana Jones film, there are too many things that they seem to have skipped in order to make an actual great film. Thus we have to settle for something that is simply good, which is fine, but not when you are Indiana Jones.

Indiana Jones has crossed his way into the new age of film and George Lucas seems to have brought the heavy duty CGI with him. This has many pros and cons. While the CGI can create elaborate and exciting action sequences, it can't help but feel fake. The car chase through the jungle is exhilarating and ranks up with the some of the best action sequences in the series, but it is ruined with ridiculous scenes of sword play and Tarzan swinging, both from the same character. A character who seems to only have been added to draw a younger crowd and possibly pass the torch on.

Therein lies a problem with the script, it's characters. Allen is given absolutely nothing to do but bat her eyes at Ford. In Raiders she was a tough broad, here she has nothing. Winstone plays Mac, a good/bad guy who adds nothing to the plot whatsoever. Cate Blanchett seems to be having some fun in her role, yet her character is no where as evil or memorable as previous 'villains' in the series. It is mentioned she has psychic powers, yet that aspect is never explored. LaBeouf, I have always been a fan of. He has comedic talent, from his Disney days and can handle action films, as evident with Last years "Transformers". Ford of course still has his Indy chops, he actually looks like he is having fun again. It seemed that age got the best of Ford in the recent years, but here he engages more. Then we have hurt we seems to be there as an excuse to get characters to where they need to go.

In the Indy series there has always been a suspension of disbelief. The Holy Grail, Ark of the Covenant and Sacred Stones don't really seem plausible. Yet we took it at face value and since all of those artifacts were based on our history it had a certain bit of grounded reality to them. Crystal Skull throws all of that out the window and deals with aliens. Sacrificial cults and ancient religion people can understand, but once aliens from the, and I'm quoting a line in the film, "the spaces between spaces" nothing seems plausible. This is the bit of the film where it seems to falls of the horse. Seeing Indy find treasures of the past is what the series was all about, with this film he seems to find things from the future. It doesn't jive very well with me. Spielberg needs to get off his alien fix in his films.

It also seems like Spielberg is slacking off, as the was very evident ADR with Ford's lines. This type of stuff could easily be fixed, with cutaways, yet Spielberg for some reasons focuses on the character when this is used and it stands out like a sore thumb. The overuse of CGI doesn't feel like an Indy film either, more along the lines of a National Treasure or Laura Croft. Speaking of National Treasure, it seems like Indy is taking notes from Ben Gates. There are clues left for him throughout the film, but none of them reach the level of National Treasure or even The DaVinci Code. Now code breaking wasn't a really big thing for Indy, he dabbles a bit, but here it seems more important. Yet it is treated as a mere side road. Which is essentially fine with me, but the make it seem bigger then it is, and instead of breaking the codes later on they just listen to the old crazy guy who tells them exactly what they need to know.

Indy is indeed back and the adventure and fun is there. That is what it is really all about. The fun and magic of the movies, right? If you can believe that three people can jump out of an airplane on a yellow raft and survive the fall into some rapids, then I guess you can believe a car driving over a cliff falling safely on top a tree top. Which safely places them into the water, then swings back and hits the bad guys. Convenient right? I guess the thrill and adventure of Indiana isn't the same, since so many films since the original three have ripped it off left right and centre. It seems that this films is doing the same, which is odd.

And Yoda, just because someone is filthy rich does not mean they wouldn't do something just for the money.

I find the idea that Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford did this "for the money" a little dubious. They're all filthy rich. That is not to say that filthy rich people wanting to be richer still is unheard of, but to such people their reputation is infinitely more valuable than any proceeds they might reap from this, as it pays dividends more often and over a longer period of time. So, you might say they did a poor job, or have lost passion, etc...but the idea that it was a cash grab is just flat-out silly.

I dunno. A lot of people have mentioned the inflatable-raft fall which comes relatively early in Temple of Doom as an example of an implausability, and I'd certainly agree. But in a general sense, I'd agree with you, as well, in that the supernatural comes earlier and more often in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

The think the far simpler, more elegant explanation is that they thought it would be fun to make, and that audiences would like it. And so far, both appear to be true. The fact that it's a step down from previous installments was probably a given. I don't think that means it shouldn't exist, however, or that their motives are in any way suspect.

Allen is given absolutely nothing to do but bat her eyes at Ford. In Raiders she was a tough broad, here she has nothing. Winstone plays Mac, a good/bad guy who adds nothing to the plot whatsoever. Cate Blanchett seems to be having some fun in her role, yet her character is no where as evil or memorable as previous 'villains' in the series.

I suppose, technically speaking, you could theorize that they calculated the money would be worthwhile even if it adversely effected their reputations. At that point, though, we'd be in engaging in rampant speculation, which isn't enough to make that kind of accusation.