In Theaters May 24 2008 @ 09:18 am
REVIEW: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Directed By: Steven Spielberg
Written By: David Koepp, Jeff Nathanson, George Lucas
Starring: Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen, Shia LaBeouf
Running Time: 122 minutes
Rated PG-13 for adventure violence and scary images
Oh, to be a decade or two older. Having been born in 1985, I take far, far too many things for granted. Home videogames have always been a popular pastime. Compact discs have always been the preferred medium for recorded music (until recently, of course). The original formulation of Coke has always had the bizarrely cumbersome moniker “Coca-Cola Classic.”
Summer has always been the time for bloated, effects-filled blockbusters.
I was born a year and a half after the (relevant) Star Wars trilogy concluded (now you know where my baby boomer parents got my name), and six months after Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was released. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg’s seminal, high-priced opuses have been the background noise to my life, playing repeatedly on television, then on videocassette, and then on DVD (as Hollywood convinced people to pay repeatedly for something they had previously been getting for free). The upshot? I will never know what it was like to see Indiana Jones and Luke Skywalker on the big screen for the first time. Ever. I’ll never understand what it meant for Lucas and Spielberg to step forward and single-handedly kill off the pretentiously art-minded auteur directors of the 1960’s and 70’s with big, shiny, reels of pure, unadulterated, wide-eyed fun.
An old-timer and a young whipper-snapper. I bet that punk listens to that 'rock-and-roll' music!...
Baby boomers and Gen-Xers speak of these moments with a hushed awe—the moment they realized the magic that films could create. For Hollywood, there was an awe as well, though less of a hushed one: it was the moment they realized that thirteen year-old boys could deliver big bucks; the moment they realized there was even more money to be made in toys, t-shirts, soundtrack albums, and fast food tie-ins than in ticket sales. We even have an MPAA rating to thank these films for: PG-13 (which, in case you were wondering, roughly translates to “R-rated content, but we really want to make money on this one”).
So the real question is, how can I even presume to review a sequel to a film that literally created the Hollywood that I grew up taking for granted? The easy answer is that I don’t. To be completely artless and frank, the new Indiana Jones movie will please some people, and disappoint others—in other words, it’s exactly what everyone thought it would be. It ain’t Raiders of the Lost Ark, but there’s no way it could have been. On the other hand, it’s nowhere near as disappointing as The Temple of Doom. That puts it somewhere in the neighborhood of The Last Crusade, which I think I still prefer. But, for a belated sequel dropped into a film season where everyone in Hollywood—still, even after more than twenty years—desperately tries, repeatedly, to capture (read: rip off) the magic of its source material, it holds up pretty well.
The main source of controversy in regard to this one is likely to be the storyline. Lucas and Spielberg have moved on a bit from the 1930s adventure serials that they paid homage to in the original trilogy, in part because their actor is twenty years older now, all but forcing them to set the film in the 1950s. In some ways, though, they’ve stayed true to form, by imitating that particular era’s most pulpy films—extraterrestrial science fiction—while maintaining the globe-trotting archeological bent. This is a bit of a stretch, but they mostly pull it off.
The storyline kicks off when a mysterious young punk named Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf) drops into the life of a geriatric Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) and tells him his mother has disappeared. She was—surprise!—involved with an archeological project: an attempt to locate the lost city of gold (yeah, weirdly, they’ve chosen the same MacGuffin as the latest National Treasure movie—go figure). The only way to find it? A mysterious crystal skull—which looks suspiciously, um, alien. Oh yeah, and the Soviets want to find it, too.
Two things I love: 1. Karen Allen; 2. rocket launchers
If you’ve read any of the press on this film, you know that Mutt’s mother turns out to be Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen, looking as beautiful as ever)—Indy’s old flame from the original Raiders of the Lost Ark. This is a huge boon to the film, as Allen has more chemistry with Ford than his two previous screen interests combined. It also gives Lucas and Spielberg the opportunity to develop the Jones character even further, in much the same way that introducing Sean Connery as his father did in the previous film. Jones isn’t James Bond—he isn’t reborn every five to ten years, in the body of a beautiful new young actor, the same risk-taking womanizer he’s always been. He ages, he learns things, he changes. Lucas and Spielberg have aged him surprisingly believably, and here he gets the chance to show us what an older, wiser Indiana does with his last years on earth.
Another huge strength here is the action sequences—they are, in my humble opinion, better than anything in the three previous films. I know purists are going to argue with me on this, but there’s just a huge, whimsical sense of fun about these that previous set pieces lacked. A KGB car vs. motorcycle chase through a (pedestrian) college campus that finishes with Jones and Mutt sliding sideways through a library? This film has it. A fencing match between Shia LaBeouf and Cate Blanchett (as a surprisingly effective villain), straddling two jeeps that are speeding through a rainforest? You bet. Harrison Ford getting thrown several miles by a nuclear blast and living? Sure, why not? Clearly they’ve strained credibility a bit here (case in point: an annoyingly cute sequence featuring LaBeouf and some monkeys—who came up with this, that guy that created Jar Jar Binks?—oh wait), but it remains compelling because almost all of this is real, genuine actors doing the stuff (they were determined to make this one match the previous three, and so avoided CGI). It’s thrilling to be reminded of how awesome action movies were before computers were invented, and five minutes of this stuff is better than ten hours of battling CG Transformers.
Cate Blanchett as Bob Dyl...I mean, Irina Spalko, KGB extraordinaire
All this makes Crystal Skull an incredibly fun film to watch, and there’s nothing like seeing Indy back in business. That said, how you react to this one will probably depend on how much you’re willing to buy into the alien angle. The Jones universe is a strangely relativistic one—sure, YHWH exists! sure, evil death-cult gods exist! sure, Jesus exists! sure, weird, New-Agey, interdimensional aliens exist!—but I guess we can’t fault it for wanting to give moviegoers a new and different paranormal thrill each time. In that area, this one basically delivers—even if the villain seems to get off relatively easy (especially given the grisly fates that featured prominently in the previous trilogy). It doesn’t necessarily top the other three (how could it?), but it’s not an unworthy addition to the canon. If there’s any doubt in your mind, just pay attention to Marion’s introduction. Hearing her say Indy’s name—with the exact same mix of awe and disgust as she did 27 years ago—proves the magic’s still there. I dare you not to smile.
on May 24 2008 @ 9:59 pm 1. Rick Olson said …
Luke, I just saw the thing today, and boy is my head tired … At 55, I remember seeing Raiders in the theater, I remember seeing “Star Wars” on opening day, not knowing what it was, and not having to wait in line. I remember walking uphill through the snow both directions to school, holes in my tennis shoes … no, wait … where am I?
Oh yes … as much as I like the three original “Star Wars” (the last three, not so much) and the original “Indy” films (this one, not so much), I still lament their part in killing off of what you call “pretentious art-minded auteur directors of the 60s and 70s.” By this I presume you mean Truffaut and Fellini and Kurosawa and Godard and Ozu and Mizoguchi and Renoir and Altman and … who were pretentious only in their refusal to pander, which Lucas (always) and Spielberg (at times) seem eager to do.
I thought the latest Indy was so-so at best, with one too many chase scenes — oh, wait: ALL the action scenes were chase scenes, except that idiotic one with the snake — that rehashed what had gone before. I didn’t have a beef with the aliens, because I have no more problem believing in them than I do thugee Gods or melting Nazi faces.
Good review, as usual, though we seem to disagree, at least in degree.
on May 25 2008 @ 12:23 pm 2. Phillip Johnston said …
I saw the film opening night and really enjoyed it, although, unlike you, I thought the CGI was WAY out of hand. All the rough-and-tumble action scenes of the other ones were replaced with eye-popping computer-generated wonderlands. Fine for some things, but not what I think of when I think Indy. I also thought Kaminski’s photography was way too pretty; I can’t get that shot of Jones sitting at his desk talking to Jim Broadbent with all the soft light and multi-colored flowers in the background. It was a beautiful shot, but again, not what I think of when I think Indiana Jones. Anyone else feel this way?
Again, I liked it; something just seemed amiss in the execution.
on May 25 2008 @ 12:55 pm 3. christian said …
The film just doesn’t flow. Nor do the action scenes have the choreography that Spielberg can pull off without a beat. And the CGI is awful and distracting.
Kaminski’s lighting really hurt the film for me. Watch what Slocombe doees with that light and there’s no comparison. Of course, they filmed most of the movie in Los Angeles, killing off any sense of place.
on May 25 2008 @ 1:10 pm 4. Phillip Johnston said …
I think Kaminski is brilliant (Diving Bell has some of the most wondrous cinematography I’ve seen) and have always loved his collaborations with Spielberg, but if he was going for the Slocombe look in this film he totally missed the mark.
I think Slocombe is still alive. He’d probably have a few choice words for Kaminski after seeing this one.
on May 25 2008 @ 2:59 pm 5. Daniel said …
I agree with Philip and Christian re: special effects and lighting, but I agree with Luke that the action was pretty fun to watch. The warehouse scene and the jungle chase, to be specific.
on May 26 2008 @ 11:03 am 6. Evan Derrick said …
After I got out of this last night, I thought to myself, “Gosh, I’m sure glad I don’t have to write the review for that one.” I enjoyed it, but really, what do you write? Excellent piece here on a nigh unreviewable film, Luke.
I find it interesting how many complaints there are on this one. I was thinking how Indiana Jones, by it’s very nature, discourages innovation. The first one set up all of the things we’ve come to expect, which is why everyone thinks it is the best. Whenever they deviate from that formula, people get pissed (Temple of Doom). Whenever they adhere to it too closely, people get bored (Last Crusade). So really, its an uphill battle, anyway you cut it, since no new Indiana film can ever be the original one, which is what everyone seems to want.
I thought this one was a great blend of the things we’ve come to expect as well as new introductions to the Jones canon. You’re right, a lot of people will be turned off by the aliens, but it felt like a natural extension of the series. The film didn’t blow me away, but I enjoyed it, and honestly, I think that is as much as I could expect.
on May 26 2008 @ 12:58 pm 7. Ryan Dunlap said …
I just saw this last night. I enjoyed it, but it felt like it went by waaaaaay too quickly (perhaps because it was mostly a series of chase scenes) to the point that I was ready for the turn into Act 3 when the final scene came up…
I think my biggest beef was that it seemed like it all flowed into one without a lot of scenery changes (I admit, Crusade is my favorite, followed by Raiders). The aliens didn’t quite float my boat, but what I think miffed me the most about the aliens was that Lucas had said that there was only one more MacGuffin that he could have imagined for the Indy series.
Oh well, I still smiled when the theme played, when the silhouette of the hat showed, when he got his fedora back, and most other hallmark moment of the series (and the split second broken crate reveal toward the beginning had me clapping when I was slightly expecting it ever since they went in the hangar).
Good review.
on May 27 2008 @ 8:57 am 8. Luke Harrington said …
Evan, believe it or not, I actually wrote a paragraph for this review almost identical to the second one in your comment (then deleted it, primarily for length reasons). I think you’re absolutely right, though - the first Indy was really a case of lightning striking, with characters, script, score, attitude, etc. all hitting a cultural nerve at the exact right moment. You’re not going to repeat that, no matter how hard you try.
It’s still my opinion that, examined side-by-side on their own merits, Crusade holds up better than Raiders. It’ll never get the same degree of respect, though - simply because it was nowhere near as innovative. It simply rehashed the original formula and refined it (in other words, it was a better movie because they were able to build on their past accomplishments). I can’t help but wonder, though, whether the franchise would have been different had Temple been a better film. It wasn’t a bad premise, necessarily; it was just clumsy in exectuion (pretty much everyone involved phoned it in - particularly John Williams, who tends to make or break every Spielberg and Lucas picture).
Rick, I actually agree with most of what you say here…although you seem to have missed a shade or two of the irony I intended with the phrase “pretentious art-minded auteur directors” (not that anyone’s blaming you - like most of my generation, even I rarely know when I’m being sarcastic). Truth be told, you’ve mentioned several of my favorite directors here; I was really referring to a more specific swath of filmmakers: the “young blood” that appeared in Hollywood around the time of the end of studio system: Scorsese, Kubrick, Cimino, etc. - who, collectively, were resposible for a number of artistic triumphs and a number of debacles. Every artistic moevement has its advantages and its drawbacks (and, of course, the Spielberg/Lucas school is no exception to this).
on May 27 2008 @ 7:34 pm 9. Anil Usumezbas said …
I think it was Jaws rather than Indy that started the whole blockbuster thing, but Indiana Jones definitely contributed to it. It’s interesting to see, for once, art-house films being degraded in favor of blockbusters. Not sure if I support the shift as much as you do though
Good article, very good points. As a matter of fact, I have placed a link to this article as a recommendation for further reading under my own review of The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (well, I’m about to anyway)
on May 28 2008 @ 12:29 am 10. K. Bowen said …
You know, everytime that I think, man, I dislike this film, I read a comments section and see the ways in which other people are really letting loose on it. Then I feel kind.
on May 28 2008 @ 8:18 pm 11. Mike Phelps said …
I saw Indy 4 this weekend and I enjoyed the show. Though its not a great movie, it’s far from a bad one. For me, it’s a solid “good” movie.
The movie felt like a great 70’s rock band getting together for one last hurrah. Most of the original members are there - still rocking, but noticeably older. Some new faces are there too (due to overdoses they had to fill spots).
The concert would be great and several would reminisce of younger times. BUT, the concert wouldn’t match the concerts played when they were the newest hip band.
on May 29 2008 @ 9:15 am 12. CC said …
The action was entertaining, but as Luke stated, the film was all about making money. The spirit of the IJ films was lost with special effects and trying to outdo the previous films and each prior scene in the movie.
Anyone else think that Shia’s character was awful close to a Marlon Brando one? Or the the movie’s ending was a mirror image of the X-Files movie ending?
on May 29 2008 @ 9:31 am 13. Phillip Johnston said …
“The film was all about making money…”
In an interview with U.S.A. Today, George Lucas said this: “We came back to do (Indy) because we wanted to have fun,” he says. “It’s not going to make much money for us in the end. We all have some money. … It would make a lot of money if you weren’t rich. But we’re not doing it for the money.”
on May 29 2008 @ 12:35 pm 14. christian said …
I think TEMPLE OF DOOM is one of William’s most perfect scores, and it trumps the bland LAST CRUSADE and the non-score of KOTC. I mean, has a Williams score ever been so uninteresting for such a film? That was one of the biggest disappointments about it. Not even a cool little guitar lick theme for Mutt? Williams wrote some of the coolest grooviest 60’s tv and movie music and he coulda pulled out the Gibson here…
on May 29 2008 @ 12:45 pm 15. Phillip Johnston said …
I count The Last Crusade score as one of Williams top five best scores. It’s perfect as well, IMO. Why do you say its bland?
on May 29 2008 @ 7:20 pm 16. christian said …
I just don’t find it that filled with memorable music, outside the motorcycle chase. But it’s certainly better than KOTC.
on May 29 2008 @ 7:28 pm 17. Luke Harrington said …
I don’t know how the soundtrack to The Temple of Doom holds up on its own (I’ve never listened to the album), but in the context of the film, it seemed like it was there solely to tell you how to feel about every single thing that happened. It’s like clockwork: every time something good happens, we get a heroic “dunt-da-DUNH!”, and every time something bad happens, we get a sinister “dunh-dunh-DUNH!!!” It’s just annoying and uninspired.
(But I’m glad you like it, christian.
)
on May 29 2008 @ 9:20 pm 18. Evan Derrick said …
I think they call that ‘melodrama,’ Luke.
on Jun 04 2008 @ 7:11 pm 19. Seth Harrington said …
I have to take issue with Luke’s praise of an “older, wiser Indianna Jones.” That wasn’t what made this francise great, and I just don’t want an old, sentitive, fatherly Indiana! I want the same hard-bitten, risk-taking two-dimensional tough guy I saw in Raiders.
Indiana drank from the Holy Grail in the last movie — that should extend his youth quite a bit. Ford’s not so lucky, of course, so I say replace him with Hughe Jackman and keep the francise going.
Don’t get me wrong, I really liked the film over all. I thought the ending was a bit heavy-handed, but in had a good mix of actoin and original concepts.
Mutt’s footwork in that fencing scene was all wrong.
on Jun 04 2008 @ 8:03 pm 20. Luke Harrington said …
Yeah…what’s even weirder than Indy’s aging, though, is Henry Jones Sr.’s death…being that he drank from the Holy Grail as well. There must be some rule we don’t know about, like maybe you have to drink from it regularly.
(As a side note, that Knight Templar seemed to have aged quite a bit in 800 years, despite constant Grail access.)
on Jun 04 2008 @ 9:54 pm 21. Jeff McM said …
You get to live forever as long as you don’t cross the big seal on the floor.