Eric D. Snider
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Movie Review
"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B+
Rating: PG-13
Released: Thursday, May 22, 2008
Directed by:
Cast:
It's been 19 years since we last saw Indiana Jones, the famed ark-finding, sacred-stone-returning, Hitler's-autograph-collecting archeologist played by Harrison Ford in three 1980s films. A commensurate amount of time has passed in the new adventure, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," but Indy hasn't lost his touch. Nor, it would seem, has Steven Spielberg, who directs "Crystal Skull" with the same boyish enthusiasm and love of a good story that he brought to the previous trilogy.
"Crystal Skull" follows the same beloved pattern as "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Last Crusade" (and, to a lesser extent, "Temple of Doom"). There are several spectacular action sequences, including a three-car chase through a jungle. Indy swings from ropes, gets punched a lot, and remains insouciant in the face of peril. The story revolves around an old mentor going missing while searching for an artifact, and it ends with bad guys being destroyed by their own greed and their insistence on meddling with powers they do not understand. There are snakes. There are also millions of something else creepy. This is every inch an Indiana Jones Movie.
The temptation would have been to cobble together a story full of weak imitations of the previous films and call it a day, but almost every familiar element here feels like it belongs, not like it was forced in out of obligation. Were it not for the 19-year gap and the noticeably grayer and craggier Dr. Jones, you'd assume "Crystal Skull" was made a few years after the last one, right on schedule, the next logical chapter in the saga.
But time has passed, of course. It's 1957 now, and Cold War paranoia is at its peak. Indy's enemies now are the Communists, for whom he holds nearly as much contempt as he did the Nazis. And the Soviets, for their part, are as interested in obtaining priceless artifacts for their own evil purposes as the Third Reich was.
The items in question this time are a collection of crystal skulls with unusual magnetic properties, believed to hold the key to yada-yada if you something-something. (I don't want to spoil anything, and it doesn't matter anyway.) The Russians want them, and whatever they plan to do with them, it can't be good for America or Decency or Justice. The Soviets' efforts are led by top Commie scientist Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), a severe-looking villainess whose dominatrix demeanor and over-the-top Russian accent practically guarantee her status as a new kitsch icon.
Indy gets involved thanks to Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf), a motorcycle-riding greaser punk whose father figure and actual mother have been kidnapped by the Commies and are being forced to help find the skulls. This surrogate father is Professor Oxley (John Hurt), a former mentor of Indy's; Mutt's mother is named Marion, and Mutt says she used to know Indy. Indy says he knew a lot of Marions. I suspect he's not thinking very hard. His surprise upon discovering that it's Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), from "Raiders of the Lost Ark," is his alone. The rest of us figured it out the minute Mutt said "Marion" (or, for that matter, the minute we saw Karen Allen's name in the opening credits).
And so it's off to the Amazonian jungles for Indy and Mutt. The interaction between Ford and LaBeouf is breezy and comical and nicely played; Ford doesn't seem outpaced by the kid 42 years his junior, and LaBeouf doesn't freeze in the presence of a legendary actor the way some newbies would. Over the course of the film, Indy's relationship with Mutt goes from wary adult supervisor to older brother to friendly uncle to father figure -- and that's a lot more progression than we've ever seen with any of Indy's other relationships.
Later, when Marion Ravenwood appears, the interpersonal dynamics become even more fiery. I admire the way the screenplay -- credited to David Koepp ("Jurassic Park," "Spider-Man"), with elements from prior drafts by Jeff Nathanson and input from George Lucas -- mixes the relationship bickering with the mechanics of the plot, so that the action never needs to stop just so people can talk about their feelings. In the world of Indiana Jones, ex-lovers can argue over who wronged whom 20 years ago even as both are sinking in quicksand.
Indy seems to have been born around the turn of the last century (he was about 14 in the 1912-set prologue in "Last Crusade"), which means he's pushing 60 in "Crystal Skull." The film wisely addresses his advancing age, deploys some humor to the situation -- and then gleefully quits worrying about it. Indiana's bones may be getting a little creakier, and he is slowly turning into his father (even using the elder Jones' favorite exclamation -- "Intolerable!" -- to describe a predicament that Mutt has gotten them into), but he's still the same Indy. He can perform impossible feats of derring-do one minute, then wince over his injuries the next. He's always been that way, even when he was young. It's part of what makes us like him so much: His adventures are the stuff of fantasy, his smart-aleck one-liners are clever, but his human fallibility makes him seem like a Regular Guy. And as a wise man once said, it's not the years, honey, it's the mileage.
I re-watched the other three Indy films a few days before seeing this one, and having them fresh in my mind helped me notice subtle elements of "Crystal Skull" that make it feel like part of the same collection. Some have to do with the story structure, as when we see a bow-tied Dr. Jones teaching at his university, just as we did in "Raiders" and "Last Crusade." Other familiar elements are in the dialogue: Indy urging a group of archeology students to get out of the library can only be a response to his line in "Last Crusade" about how "70 percent of archeology is done in the library."
More important, though, are the film's intangibles. The look, the feel, the attitude, the mix of humor and adventure, it all lines up with the "Indiana Jones" aesthetic. George Lucas' philosophy has been to move forward with technology -- hence, his "Star Wars" prequels were mostly CGI and looked vastly different from the first trilogy. Steven Spielberg has embraced technology too (his "Jurassic Park" dinosaurs represented a giant leap forward), but he doesn't do it just for the sake of doing it. He remembers that these films were conceived as a tribute to the cliffhanger serials of the 1940s, and that a slick, digitized film would be stylistically inappropriate. So CGI is kept to a minimum (less than you'd expect for a movie made in 2008, anyway) in favor of good old-fashioned rear-projection, stuntmen, and enormously constructed sets, just as in the other three films.
Going in, I was prepared to defend the finale's supernatural elements by pointing out that the finales of this series have always ultimately relied on the paranormal (God melting the Nazis' faces; rocks that light up when you collect them; the Holy Grail's healing powers). And then I saw this film's finale and thought: Yeah, that's too much.
Another minor complaint: Things get a little crowded at times, what with Indy, Mutt, Marion, Oxley, and Indy's old pal Mac (Ray Winstone) all dashing through the Peruvian jungles together. It feels more natural for Indy to have one or two companions on these excursions, not four, and the film can't always find something useful for all of them to do.
Oh, but everything else makes me forgive the film's slight defects. Those who say Spielberg is sleep-walking through this one are taking for granted how good a director he is. Even a halfhearted Spielberg effort will have more complicated shots, more mirthful sight gags, and more elaborate stunts than the best effort from nearly any other director currently working. And I don't think this is a halfhearted effort anyway. To me, it feels as lively and buoyant, as effortlessly entertaining, as you could realistically want in an Indiana Jones flick.
Movie geeks who worship the original Indy films and are demanding that this one be a life-changing, soul-magnifying movie to surpass all other cinematic experiences will, of course, be disappointed, as they generally are in these situations. The rest of us can just sit back and enjoy.
Grade: B+
Rated PG-13, a little mild profanity, a lot of fistfights and general action violence
2 hrs., 4 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 61 comments
May 22, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I believe Mutt says his mother's name is "Mary" (Mary Williams to be exact, her married name) and that's why Indy doesn't know it's Marian Ravenwood right off.. I saw it last night at the midnight showing and really enjoyed it. I do agree that the ending was a little out-there, though.
May 22, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I am so pumped for this movie. I'm seeing it at 7:15 tonight.
May 22, 2008 at 2:38 pm
*Spoiler Alert* I am going to be talking about scenes from the movie in this comment...
I was honestly really let down by Crystal Skull. I don't know if it's because all the hype gave me unrealistic expectations, or if it was just the ludicrous plot filled with a generous dose of unnecessary CGI and over-the-top-even-for-Indiana-Jones scenes... I mean, come on, LaBouf is not Tarzan, and I don't care who you are, plummeting from one 100 ft. waterfall is barely out-livable, let alone 3.
I felt like the plot was a stretch as well. The feelings of disgust probably could have been squelched had the ending not featured alien life forms sucking up an entire city, disintegrating a woman with pure knowledge and a flying saucer that entered the 4th dimension. By the end, I just wanted to stand up and curse Lucas' name for trying to outdo himself in every sequel or prequel made within the last decade or so. It seems to me that this movie, in large part, was made just to see how much George could make the nation pay to see his new movie... and to introduce a crappy new set of movies starring Mutt Jones as the new Indiana, which will probably be as good as Disney's "The Return of Jafar."
But, then maybe I'm the only one who thinks that the discovery of a crystal skull that leads us to meet a rotating room full of crystallized, knowledge filled aliens who fly away in a literal flying saucer is too far fetched...
May 22, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Mutt actually tells Indy that his mother is named "Mary" Williams. To which Indy replies that he's known a lot of "Marys." Much more plausible than if he'd said "Marion."
May 22, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Saw the 12:01am showing and as a fan of the Indy franchise I can say that this was the biggest disappointment I’ve ever experienced as a moviegoer. As an action-movie junkie and a Harrison Ford fan, I am not one to criticize heavily, but this movie was AWFUL. The story was ridiculous, the writing was hackneyed and contrived, the special effects made James Bond’s stunts look completely believable, and Indy was just a tad too old to be believable. This was a waste of almost two hours (I walked out before it was over and I’ve only done that for one other movie–The Chase with Charlie Sheen). This movie ranks right up there with Beverly Hills Cop 3 as the biggest sequel busts of all time. It was like watching Michael Jordan make his comeback with the Wizards–just plain sad. Indy fans—prepare to be supremely disappointed, this is Indy’s WORST adventure. Save your money and hang on to the good old days…
May 22, 2008 at 6:38 pm
On the whole, I really liked the movie. All of the iconic Indyisms were present. They'd be hard pressed to fit any additional fedora hat references into the film -- and I'm not complaining, either.
I have to admit, however, that I probably wouldn't have liked this film as much if I weren't already a fan of its predecessors. I think "Raiders" and "Last Crusade" could easily stand on their own if they had to. "Temple of Doom" was always kind of out there on its own anyway. (Sorry. That one was never really in the same category as the others for me.) I'm afraid much of "Crystal Skull" would be lost on anyone who hasn't seen the others (I suppose these people exist somewhere…).
I agree with Eric that the finale took the religious-supernatural element that we are used to seeing in the franchise a little too far.
Random side note: Did anyone else happen to flash on Cap'n Geech and the Shrimp Shack Shooters when the Russians were pantomiming a campfire dance in the background while the main characters discussed things of vital importance? Probably just me.
May 22, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Going into this movie, the only hope I had was that it would be better than Temple of Doom. That's all I've ever wanted. I wasn't disappointed. Shia was even more likable than Short Round. I don't care if it's blasphemous to say it. For the record, I've never really been a Shia fan before, so I'm completely unbiased.
Jake, you're not the only one. I'm glad that someone else on the planet actually knows who Cap'n Geech and the Shrimp Shack Shooters are.
I'm now wondering if I would have liked this movie as much as I did if I hadn't been in a first row balcony seat in a theater full of insane college students that cheered at every little thing. The first time we saw Indy's shadow, Indy's face, Marion, a picture of Sean Connery, even Shia LaBeouf. That definitely increased the fun level about 70%.
May 22, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Despite some negative feedback, I'm very excited to see Indy 4 this weekend.
I read something (an interview maybe?) in the last week or two about how George Lucas wanted the movie to involve more "supernatural" elements than it does. Spielberg and Ford both said they weren't willing to do an Indy movie in line with Lucas's "vision" so a compromise of sorts was made. Now take the ending, which seems to be universally disliked, and imagine the whole movie being like that.
May 22, 2008 at 11:55 pm
I didn't like it much. It's probably worth renting, and somewhat worth watching, but most of it was silly. It felt like a full hour of the movie was car chasing - which would have been more fun had we not all spent 200 hours of our lives watching similar car chases. Perhaps these chases were somewhat cooler, but I got bored. If you rent it, fast forward all the chases and you'll have a more interesting movie.
(SPOILERS)
Also, I didn't much like that they didn't have a single person on the set who passed 7th grade science class. He survives a ground zero nuclear blast by hiding in a refridgerator. ??? If the blast didn't kill him (the fridge must have been thrown miles away or he would have been cooked/radiated afterwards), then his gasping relief breaths would have (radioactive air - one breath means death). But no, he was fine. Magnetic lead bullets? Magnetic gold? Throwing gunpowder into the air to find a magnetic item? Since when did gunpowder contain metal? He then used shotgun powder, which is generally made of treated cotton. No metal there. Aparently everything is magnetic, and from 50 meters away (but not from 2 meters away, when only some items fly at it, but other metal items stay put.) Giant killer ants that devour people immediately? Ok, enough about that.
Then some of the humor was a bit lame. Let's throw Indy a snake to pull him out of quicksand. (He said it was a "rat snake", but it was easily 15 feet long and thicker than a boa.) Why were they on quicksand anyway? Perhaps the movie needed more danger? Or perhaps they could be surrounded for the 10th time by the Russians and we could see another long car chase.
And since when was swinging on vines faster than speeding vehicles? I liked the first movies, but this one was lame. It was a lot like National Treasure, but I found less problems with National Treasure. I'm surprised to not see a D rating on this.
May 23, 2008 at 12:05 am
"I'm surprised to not see a D rating on this."
Oh, really? You thought you wrote it?
May 23, 2008 at 2:23 am
I loved it. Not as good as Raiders or Last Crusade, but a lot of fun. A great popcorn movie.
Having seen it I don't find the negative comments here all that convincing. There are elements that stretch credulity, but Indy has always been a sort of fantasy adventure. Most of this is just bellyaching.
May 23, 2008 at 2:24 am
"THE MAGIC IS GONE!" Growing up seeing all the Indiana Jones movies, I was hoping the adventure and fun would continue. It does not. The acting was horrible, the story was silly, the action was cheap slapstick and the special effects were really fake, looking as though the whole movie was filmed in a backlot of Walt Disney World. Harrison Ford looked like he was forced into this. Speilberg and Lucas should retire now or go into more television making. This Indiana Jones movie felt rushed and as usual probably for the big paycheck. A big disappointment indeed.
May 23, 2008 at 5:04 am
I saw it at a midnight showing last night (this morning?) and wasn't terribly impressed. I would give it a B-. Spielberg relied too much on special effects, which in my opinion isn't in keeping with the spirit of the previous films. And some of the supernatural elements were just too much.
All things considered, it's still an above-average film (even if it's just barely so). And I think we can all agree it's better than "Temple of Doom," and has much less annoying women.
May 23, 2008 at 5:25 am
COMMENT #9
Your comments were exactly how I felt. I also can't get over the fact that the acting was so terrible. No chemistry between any of the actors at all. What's with the PG-13 rating? Should have been rated PG. I gotta add this...I couldn't help thinking about the 3 Stooges slapstick comedy with Moe, Larry and Curly while watchin the fight scenes in this flick. Maybe it was meant to be that way, but it just didn't work for me. I think this week I'll see IRONMAN again to make up. Now that was entertainment along with great acting.
May 23, 2008 at 5:39 am
It's funny--I watched "Raiders" the other night on TV and remember thinking for the first time that it was kind of outlandish in places.
So with that in mind, I thought "Crystal Skull" was ridiculous good fun. Yeah, the laws of physics suffered a lot of abuse and that ending was WAY out there, but I enjoyed it overall.
And #8, I like to imagine George Lucas begging Spielberg for some science fiction elements in the script meetings.
"Come on, Steven! I'm really good at that space stuff! Pleeeeease?"
May 23, 2008 at 6:01 am
For some reason, I had never seen the first three Indiana Jones movies until this past week. I had seen parts of all of them, but never actually sat down and watched them. So now I have seen all four of them in the past five days, and I thought this new one fit in very nicely with the others. All the complaints that I am hearing about this film -- plot problems, lack of realism, etc. -- are things that I saw just as much in the first three as in this one. I don't see that as a bad thing, either. It's part of what makes Indy Indy.
Someone complained about the lack of realism with the group surviving three waterfalls. Umm, remember that time when Indy, Shorty, and Screechy jumped out of an airplane in a raft, and then the raft turned into a sled when they landed safely just before the plane crashed and blew up, and then the raft turned back into a raft after they sledded all the way down the snowy mountain and into a river, and even though they were just up in the snow, the water in the river wasn't so cold that anyone thought to mention the coldness of the water?
My point is, you suspend your disbelief for these movies, and I didn't see much in this movie that required any more stretch than the others.
May 23, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Well said, Jeff J Snider.
May 23, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Hi Eric, I came to your website from a link to another article that you wrote at film.com http://www.film.com/movies/story/good-news-new-indiana-jones/20191514
The title was "Good News! The new Indiana Jones will NOT be nonstop CGI". Well, unfortunately, i think George Lucas got his way and Steven Spielberg took a back seat on this one because it sure feels like all the major action scenes were CGI-driven. It was so sad to see this version of Indiana Jones when one remembers the original 3. This one feels so fake... like a copy of a copy of a copy... anyone (re)watching Raiders of the Lost Ark will see how far that suspenseful quality is missing from this new movie. I have to admit that I was pretty disappointed. I really wanted to like the film but Lucas got his way and basically neutered the movie.... George Lucas is a pimp. He'll pimp all his ideas with merchandising. I am disappointed that Spielberg let him get his way with the CGI stuff. And the plot was terrible.... i really think Frank Darabont's script (which Spielberg had originally planned to go with) would have been a better story. Too bad, Lucas always gets his way with his proprietary characters. So now that he has desecrated the memory of his original Star Wars and also the original Indiana Jones with his fixation with digital effects being used for everything, I hope he just crawls back into his hole.
May 23, 2008 at 4:21 pm
i saw it yesterday afternoon and think it was OK. i def wont see it in the theatre again and probably wont even rent it, but it was good once. i didnt mind the plot, the ending WAS a little much, but you would think they could make crystal skulls that didnt look like plastic with foil in them.
May 23, 2008 at 4:54 pm
For me, the Marion part was exactly the way Eric described it. When I heard him say his mom was Marion, I knew the rest of the story.
May 23, 2008 at 7:19 pm
In the Young Indiana Jones TV series, old Indy (who I hear was excised from the DVDs) states in the first episode that he was born in 1899.
May 23, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Wow, bitter much, Kelvin?
I was very excited to see this movie, but you all have me getting nervous!
Maybe it'll be an improvement, because the only Indy movie I've seen all the way through was Temple of Doom, and nobody seems to like that one. But I did! (if you don't count that blonde)
May 23, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Good god, people! Lighten up! It's a MOVIE, not real life. The point is to spend two hours being transported to another time and place. Did that happen for you? If not, the movie failed. If if did, mission accomplished.
Spielberg and Lucas owe you nothing... they are moviemakers and storytellers. That's it. And if they want to use CGI because those are the tools of the trade in 2008 so be it. There are no absolutes in make believe.
Nothing will ever compare to Raiders so let it go. I loved this film for all the same reasons I loved Raiders when I was 10 years old. It's not all believable... it's not supposed to be. It's an action adventure movie made by 60 year old men, who have created the movie lexicon we all speak today. If you can't appreciate this movie for all those reasons, you have only yourself to blame.
May 24, 2008 at 12:19 am
Take me out to the Movies
Take me out with the Crowd
Let's go see Indy and the Crystal Skull
Man, it makes my Life look really Dull
Now Let's root-root-root for old Indy
He's got more Trouble than Snakes
Cuz it's One-Two-Three Punches & more
Indy's Got What it Takes!!!
(everybody)
Take me out to the Movies
Take me out with the Crowd....
May 24, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Pshaw. Take that to the Sean Hannity forums.
May 25, 2008 at 1:41 am
For once I have to disagree with Eric. I too rewatched the first three movies this week before seeing this one and it just doesn't compare. I'm not putting those movies on a pedestal. They were what they were, popcorn movies. But this one they just got carried away by CGI. It was ridiculous. Don't even get me started on the ending.
May 25, 2008 at 2:06 am
I am a big Indy fan, so I guess I'm biased. I really liked this film and the Roswell and Area 51 association. I found it great that 19 years have elapsed in Indy's life and now we find him in the 1950s facing commies, greasers, FBI agents, rock n' roll, nuclear explosions, and hot rods, but yet the movie doesn't lose the feel on the original trilogy.Indy is a hero that exists in his own realm which is obviously outside of our reality. I think these movies are meant to be enjoyed instead of picked apart by those who want to compare Indy's world to our own. I was a little disappointed that George Lucas went back on his promise to keep CGI to a minimum to preserve the look of the 1980's era films, but then he is not the only filmmaker addicted to CGI. In the end, the movie is a good follow up to the original three. I give it a thumbs up!!!!!
May 25, 2008 at 4:11 am
Press Junket Whore anyone?
May 25, 2008 at 8:34 pm
SPOILER
It was ridiculous! I enjoyed it anyway. I just had to reach down a bit deeper into my suspension of disbelief reserve. One can almost never expect a sequel to have all the elements for which he'd hoped, but this one came pretty close. And I'm always a sucker for a hero-weds-true-love wrap-up.
May 26, 2008 at 4:00 am
I grew up watching the Indiana Jones movies, and I enjoyed this one as well. If you're going to this movie for any other reason than to be entertained and "get away" for awhile, you're probably going to be disappointed. You're not going to take away any history or science lessons or have any thought-provoking discussions on the drive home from the theater, but you will be entertained. It is what it is.
As far as the magnetism complaint above goes, they acknowledged in the movie that gold and some other materials are not magnetic. Hence their "what is this thing?" comment when those things are attracted to the item.
May 26, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I Have to say that the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is not as good as Raiders or the Last Cusade but come's in better then the Temple of Doom as a stand alone.
Like all Indy movie there are some great monents like seeing the Ark from Raiders, a Big GCI nuclear blast and a reaily great bit with a snake which I will not forget for a long time.
4 out of 5 for Indys big screen return, going out get this on blue ray when it comes out.
May 26, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I whole heartedly agree with # 23 CMG.
My new husband is a hard sell on getting to watch this series.This afternoon we are going to see the 4th one.We have watched the 3 previous movies, back to back over the 3 day Memoral Day weekend, as well as War movies and news clips about our AWSOME Soldiers over in Iraq and various other places, all fighting for the love of their (OUR) country. For those who forgot what patriotism is.
My husband is saying: I do not like those kind ( INDY ) of movies (hubby is a marine). He's taking me because I watch what he likes- and ditto.Well, I remember my family hipe to see each Indiana Jomes movie,and Star Wars for that matter-- when I was raising my 4 boys 19 years ago.(ages 6,8,10,12). For me- going to see this 4th movie- without my sons; (grown now and living all over the country) is bitter sweet. These movies were classic's for a time when famlies looked forward to going to the movies and seeing clean, action packed movies with a hero. The rating system was WAY different. This was not a cartoon,or disney movie.Parents loved being there as well. We watched the kids faces, their body movements, etc.
Forget watching with college kids--- TAKE A KID OR TWO OR THREE.DON"T HAVE ANY --GO TAKE SOMEONE YOU KNOWS KID TO THIS. THE MORE YOU TAKE THE MORE FUN TO BE HAD. I DARE YOU.
Sitting at the movies seeing my sons lined up in the seats, eyes as big a half dollars - Grinning ear to ear. Then them playing out side, climbing trees, and various other objects, calling dibs on who was INDY and who was the other characthers. Kids do not play any more. Eletronics have a lot to do with it.......
THIS SERIES IS FUN TO SHARE. DON'T BE SO CRITICAL- HAVE THE EYES AND HEART OF A CHILD. YOU WILL HAVE SOME FUN.
Today, I will remember seeing my children- and the blast they had and the comments they said leaving the movie, 19 years ago. I can hardly wait.
Maybe my new husband will convert. Probably not.......
May 27, 2008 at 6:38 am
Oh, mother of freaking crap, calm DOWN people. I am so tired of people whining about how CGI RUINS EVERYTHING!!! George Lucas CGI'D the movie until it was horrible! He CGI'd it to death with an axe! An axe made of CGI and hate!!!
So CGI is the worst thing to happen to movies ever. Ok, ya sure?
Ya sure you want to go back to the days of non-moving camera shots, glass painted set extensions, and RUBBER ALIENS? You want to see Indy going fistycuffs with an extra from burbank who's wearing a suit made of goodyear?
I don't think half of you have any idea what you're looking at when you watch a movie. More than half of the stuff you are seeing in a "CGI sequence" is real footage, shot by ILM just like in the old days. It is combined with better tools now, so it integrates better. But it's the same basic process as the "old days." Except better. This film in particular was done with more practical elements than your typical blockbuster. And it looks extremely good.
Go back and watch ghostbusters. Watch anything from back in the day. Great films, no question. But pretty horrible special effects. Things have only gotten better for the advent of CGI. Visual effects is what I do for a living, so I should know.
I think what you're complaining about is overload- some directors know how to use VFX realistically and with moderation to enhance their story's progression. SoMe, I Care tHis dAy to mEntion Lightly, Bear not this hAppY gift, and jam their films with too many explosions, action cuts and other things that half-wit teenage males are distracted by. This causes overload, and no one likes overload.
But quit blaming CGI. And if you are going to blame it, give a specific example and please know something about it first.
May 27, 2008 at 8:33 am
Bravo, 27, I totally agree... As big as the whole space theme was in those days, I found the plot line totally in line with previous Indy installations. And most of the CGI didn't bother me.
However. Prairie dogs?! PRAIRIE DOGS?!!! Why CGI Prairie dogs? It was a cheesey bit to begin with, but totally overcome with awfulness by the addition of CGI. I get that they can't nearly run over a live prairie dog in the opening sequence, but the overly animated dogs in endless repetition made my eyes bleed.
And Mutt as Tarzan made it feel like a badly done Disney sequel, yes.
But take those elements out and it's a rollicking good time for all. Shia seems a little stiff at first, but I think maybe it's just because I am so used to see him playing the adorable nerdy everyman, and the tough guy routine didn't really gel with me. Once he got into the "wow, a TEACHER can do all this?!" phase, I liked him a lot better.
May 27, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Spoilers
I'm with #34 on the CGI prarie dogs. There was definitely some eye rolling there. Re: the CGI complaints, I just read an article on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/26/film.indyeffects.ap/index.html) about the use of CGI in Indy. The jungle jeep chase used CGI. (They filmed it in a sparser Hawaiian jungle, and then added in more trees and foliage.) The Area 51 warehouse was also CGI. I had no idea either of those were CGI, and I bet I'm not the only one. They were pretty seamless. My point: CGI isn't always bad.
May 27, 2008 at 4:19 pm
(SPOILERS)
This movie was weird. There was plenty to enjoy, like seeing the Ark wasn't just in some nameless government warehouse, but AREA 51! And I was glad to see they kept with the Paramount opening (the mountain fades into whatever object - in this case a molehill), and regular Indy hijinks. I thought it mostly fit in with the originals and was lots of fun.
On the other hand, as mentioned above, there were the CGI prairie dogs and monkeys. All the weird alien stuff didn't bother me half as much as those smaller elements. They made it harder to suspend my disbelief. (Funny reaction: when the refrigerator, which survived a nuclear blast and didn't expel Indy or pummel him to death with its bouncing several miles, landed door-up, I thought, "He's sure lucky it didn't land on the door! Wait...") The Tarzan routine was a bit much. And I was very disappointed to see ancient contraptions ripped from National Treasure Book of Secrets. National Treasure should be ripping off Indiana Jones, not the other way around! Oh! And those guys in the lost city -- how long were they hiding in the walls waiting to surprise attack someone? If Oxley had already been there, how did they have enough time to repair all the walls for the next onslaught? How come Oxley didn't see that coming when they'd prevented him returning the skull before? He was kind of kookoo, but seemed generally aware. The thought of those guys hiding in the walls for months waiting for someone to happen upon their lost city made me chuckle.
May 27, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Just for the record, the "endless repetition" of those prairie dogs adds up to maybe -- MAYBE -- 15 seconds of screen time.
May 27, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Yeah, but those 15 seconds are right in the opening sequence. Kind of started the movie on a sour note for me. (But the rest of the movie made up for it. I liked the movie a lot.)
May 27, 2008 at 9:47 pm
The movie was pretty good. I'd like to watch it again to see how it holds up to a second viewing. There were some hokey parts (the vines, the prairie dogs) and the ending didn't quite seem to fit Indiana Jones. All-in-all, it was a lot better than everything else in the theaters. But if I had to pick out the best part of my viewing experience, it might just be the trailer for Dark Knight.
May 28, 2008 at 5:21 am
I just got back from seeing"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," and I loved it! I agree with #27 Doug, (a lot of my same thoughts) that 'the movie doesn't lose the feel on the original trilogy". And #23 CMG, was right on when she basically told everyone to chill out, "It's a MOVIE, not real life". I was "entertained for two hours and transported to another time and place" -- one place for me was the old days at the Saturday afternoon matinee to see the newest adventure film.
I am a big fan and have loved the Raiders movies including and especially this one.
It was great to see the kind of conclusion that I always hoped -- to see Indy & Marion finding each other again and holding onto each other this time by acknowledging their true feelings and getting married, to finally start to live their relationship adventure together, this brought a finality and concluded the series for me -- I found it very satisfying. It was a great climax to a wonderful set of movies where I fell in love with the character of Indiana Jones. Marion was always my favorite "love interest" in all the movies. Obviously they COULDN'T get Elsa, that nasty, Nazi villainess because we hated her anyway and she died. They WOULDN'T get Willie, the shrieking, ditsy, blonde bombshell in the Temple of Doom because nobody could stand her except Steven Spielberg himself. They couldn't give us a new character to fall in love with Indy because some young chick just would have felt wrong and what other "attractively mature" woman would be a better fit than our spitfire Marion? I missed that character and always wondered what happened to her. So I'm very glad they brought the old flame love interest back for romantic fans of Indiana Jones like myself. The fact that Indy finds himself actually the father to the kid he's mentoring on one of his adventures is just the reason I loved this somewhat predictable ending. I really liked it.
May 28, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Three things wrong for me; Indy seemed no longer to be 'Indy' - everone seemed to be calling him Dr Jones or Henry. He was surrounded by 'family' instead of hacking it alone. And the action - utterly relentless! I was growing really sick of the Russian soldiers after the first 120 minutes. I enjoyed the film, - but where was the intrigue, the golden moments, the puzzle solving of the first three?
May 29, 2008 at 8:02 am
It is difficult, given the passage of time, to remember how outrageous the first film was. I remember, in the cinema, showing a preview of the 1981 film, Raiders of the Lost Ark, two older men laughing and ridiculing at the sheer silliness of it, mentioning that this was such rubbish and that it would just disappear without a trace. How wrong! That has to be up there with the once popular notion that men will never travel more that fifteen miles per hour because the air would be sucked out of the vehicle!
However....(and I love CGI) I do feel as if there were too much of it if we are expected to believe in any sort of continuity between this and the last three films. I did not think this looked or sounded like a 'B' movie at all. But it was a first rate, twenty-first century piece of filming, let us be sure of that. And no more fantastic than any other fantasy.
The film had a heart, had a history and had a dream. It did work for me...as long as I forgot about those other three wonderful and ground-breaking films.
May 30, 2008 at 1:54 pm
My husband and I attended Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Pirates of the Carib-I mean--Crystal Skull--this week. It was entertaining and silly at the same time. The contrived "spookiness" kept reminding me of "Pirates," and not just the movie, but the Disneyland ride. The prairie dogs--what can I say? lame...lame
Still, it was fun and not a total waste of time. I'd give it a B-.
June 1, 2008 at 4:24 am
This movie was no Last Crusade (one of my all time favorite movies) and the alien thing was unexpected, but the Crystal Skull will happily sit on the shelf next to the other three once it comes out on DVD. I'd say Eric's review is a little generous, but maybe he gave extra points for the guts to revive a nearly 20 year old, well loved, franchise with many of the same actors and to not besmirch Indy's good name.
On another note, I polled some fellow movie-goers and they all heard Mutt say his Mom was Mary, not Marion.
June 1, 2008 at 5:45 pm
There is no way you can top Raiders for 99% of the population, and expecting Crystal Skull to do so is too much.
I enjoyed it overall though, TBH I didn't care about the prairie dogs at all, the main thing was the "US" soldiers in the opening scene.
Last scene.... yea w/e a little cheesy. But so are Nazi's getting their faces melted but not the people nearby tied to a post with their eyes closed!!!!!
The worst for me was the rope swinging thing. I thought "Oh god they aren't gonna do THAT....." and then they did.
Killer ants, humvee chases, falling down waterfalls, strange burial grounds, these are all things that are STAPLES of an indiana jones flick.
Russians are comparable enough to Nazis as the bad guys. And no makeup or CGI in the world was gonna make Ford look young enough for them to keep doing Nazis in Crystal Skull. So you have to be satisfied with Russians.
Overall, STOP NITPICKING. It was better than Temple of Doom at least.
June 2, 2008 at 4:23 am
Because of Eric's generous review, I went into IJ and the KotCS really wanting to like, really hoping that I could someday place this DVD proudly next to its brethern on my shelf.
Alas, this was not to be. Three things ruined this movie for me: Bland characters, plot lines that went no where, and an utterly confused geography.
Bland characters: Not only did we get a completely useless character like Mac, but the Marion Ravenwood of Crystal Skull was not the Marion Ravenwood of Lost Arc. The latter was a hard-drinking, hard-hitting, resourceful character and the former was a bland Lucas-ian love interest.
Plot Lines: How many plot lines went absolutley nowhere? How many plot elements went without any explanation or attempt at explanation? Beginning of the movie, we get Indy being accused of treason. What happened with that plot? Indy is attacked at the graveyard by zombies(?) or natives(?) or perhaps the Brotherhood of the Cruciform Sword wearing skull masks. It's never explained who these people are and as soon as Indy pulls a gun they run away. Indy and Mutt don't even seem curious to find out who these freaky martial artists are. And while the movie mentions that gold is not metallic, it never mentions why the gold coins were behaving this way. I had noticed the odd behavior, and then perked up when the characters mentioned it, and was then grossly disappointed that the line of inquiry was dropped.
Confused Geography: Perhaps I nit-pick too much here, having a Bachelor's Degree in Geography. But this was terrible. Indiana mentions that the legends of the Crystal Skulls come from Mesoamerica, and then proceeds to South America, which is nowhere near Mesoamerica. And then we have crazy dude in the jungle speaking a Mayan language thousands of miles away from the Mayan cultural area. And the note Indy got in an ancient South American language, when in fact, no cultures in South America ever had a literate tradition. Finally, archeology in the New World is a different creature than in the Old World because the humid jungles destroy so much of the archeolgical record. It is ludicrous to think that a full-color mural could exist in this humid climate for five thousand years--hiding behind a FREAKING waterfall.
Long story short, I was greatly disappointed by Crystal Skull. The reason why Raiders and Last Crusade were so successful is because they built upon real world legends and myths. A movie that makes up its own mythology, and a campy one at that, cannot hope to be taken as seriously as one that does not.
June 2, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I had fun but I didn't love the movie. I did enjoy it though.
Most of my complaints aren't even about story or plot or whatever.
I had issues with the overall too polished look of the film. I see a lot of action movies and I know it is still possible, CGI use or not, to make the real world look like the real world and fake locations look like the real world in a movie. It's the use of lighting, sets, costumes, make-up, etc. that sells it. The original movies had a grittiness to them that this one lacked. The movie had a few scenes that looked good (most of the outdoor stuff) but most of the time, it just looked too sterile. Again, I know it's possible to make a film look like reality even when you are using sound stages and CGI. So why didn't this one? I don't think the look of the film lands on Lucas either.
The performances had no real urgency to them, not a lot of heart (Shia the exception). Almost everyone looked bored, especially Indy. Compare the life-threatening scenes in previous (or any) movies with the ones in this one and you can actually tell a difference in the acting. Previously I felt like the characters (Indy, esp.) believed they were in danger. In this one, I felt like we were seeing people acting like they had to believe there was danger but didn't really believe it. And they should have checked with Marion before writing/shooting to make sure she could still act. Or at least directed her performance a little. Yikes.
Spoilers:
And I can take prairie dogs, flying refrigerators, aliens, obviously visible secret cities, and most everything else in stride with my love for the originals. I could NOT handle using a snake to get out of quicksand OR catching up with cars using vines. Way too much. Way way way too much.
Did I mention how much I wanted to love the inclusion of Marion but then how disappointed I was when any words actually came out of her mouth?
Again, I enjoyed myself but it wasn't what I had hoped. My childhood nostalgia remains intact, though, because nothing can take away how I felt when I first saw the man with the fedora appear on screen in 1981.
June 3, 2008 at 3:22 am
I thought the movie was fun, but not great. I was actually bugged by the ant scene... it reminded me too much of "The Mummy". I know people generally dis "The Temple of Doom" but the bugs in that movie made me squirm in my seat a lot more than these over-the-top, obviously-fake ants. But overall I loved seeing Indy again!
June 3, 2008 at 3:35 am
I went & saw this today (yeah, I know I'm a little late!), & I really enjoyed myself. I found myself laughing at things that no one else in the audience did, but I liked it. Sure, there are all the little nitpicky things that some apparently anal rententive people here are all about, But if that's all you get out of a movie is it's flaws, then stop going to the movies. Unless a movie is a documentary, you're gonna get something full of someone's imagination. That's what makes them fun! Besides, name me an Indy movie that isn't full of disbelief. My favorite was always the whole part in "Temple of Doom" where they'd pull the guy's heart out, & he was still alive.....until he hit that lava stuff, of course! Hello? Like that can happen in medical science? And am I the only one who cheered everytime Billie got closer to it, & then was disappointed when she got pulled back up? So I'll just keep suspending reality for the two hours I'm in an Indy film, everytime!
June 4, 2008 at 9:51 pm
The movie was not terrible, but it was very half-baked and sloppy. Most of all, it was disappointing. It was not an Indiana Jones film, but rather one of the clone-Indiana Jones films that have flooded theaters over the last 20 years.
I feel bad to see so many people defend this movie. Guys, just because Indiana Jones was in it doesn't mean it was a well-made film! Sure, it had its moments, but how many of you really loved enough it to watch it again? I predict Crystal Skull will do okay in the box office, and then will be forgotten by the majority of the population--much like those ill-conceived Star Wars prequels. However, like the prequels, Lucas undoubtedly is rationalizing, "Well, it did good box office! Time to crank out a few more of these babies! All I have to do is slap my name on it and people will lap it up!"
I still get chills and thrills watching Raiders, even 30 years (almost) since it was made. I can almost guarantee that nobody will be talking about Crystal Skull 30 years later--it's just not that memorable. And that's sad, considering the talent involved in making it.
No offense Eric, usually you are my most-trusted critic, but you drank the Kool-Aid with this one. I predict critic's remorse for your positive review 2-3 years down the road.
June 6, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Willing suspension of disbelief? I thought Indiana Jones movies were reasonably accurate re-enactments of actual historical events ;)
I was twelve or thirteen when Raiders came out. I loved it. The ending scared me witless. Still does, even though all that supernatural stuff is ridiculous. It's a classic fun action movie.
I'm 39 now and have developed more sophisticated tastes. I wasn't at all bothered about seeing this film, but having just heard the theme tune on the film's website I have to say I CANNOT WAIT and am going straight to my local fleapit after work!
As regards the 'realism', even in my early-to-mid teens I thought that the minecart scene in Temple Of Doom was absolutely preoposterous... but then realised that it didn't matter, because that's the whole point.
I think everyone should bear that in mind as they tuck into their popcorn during the opening credits.
Da-da-da-daaah, da-da-daaaah!
June 6, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I went and saw the first 2/3rds of the movie on Tuesday. If you're wondering why only the first 2/3rds, the theater's projectors all had some issue and broke and they gave us passes and we had to come back the next day, which was horrible because we were enjoying the movie so much. Never have I been so tempted to download a bootleg copy of a movie. And to answer #50's question, yes, I quite literally did love it enough to go see it again.
Anyways, Mutt definitely first refers to his mother as "Mary, Mary Williams." There could be a slightly different cut playing around the country where he does say "Marion," I've heard of things like that happening with movies.
There was definitely a lot of fake science in it and a lot of stuff that went against reality (the other Indy films had that too, especially Temple of Doom), but the fighting and chase scenes were fun and well-choreographed and the dialogue was great. And the ending... sigh, so dull and unimaginative for such a creative movie. Lucas, Spielberg, we've seen all your weird special effects with aliens. They're boring now. This movie deserved something better and instead those two just did something comfortable. But oh well, still a nice installment to the series.
June 9, 2008 at 1:57 pm
The ants... totally creepy and only slightly far-fetched. I watched a discovery channel special that had ants from all over the world and these ants looked similar to some ants from Africa (I think, but it could have been South America). In any case, the IJ ants took all the scariest traits from other ants - size, swarming, and sheer numbers.
June 11, 2008 at 8:42 pm
this was the worst movie i have ever seen. the plot was horrible. i think they shouldn't put this movie on the shelf for dvd's.
June 20, 2008 at 2:04 am
I went to see this movie fully prepared for the over-the top plot and I looked forward to see Harrison Ford and Cate Blanchett and I was not disappointed - especially the first half was crazily entertaining, with the on-campus bike chase, Blanchett as a frightening russian sword-wielding mind-control expert was a pure delight. It depends what one expects: I had a miserable Monday fighting with my boss and then talking to the HR - and this movie made me feel normal again.
But if you crave a serious plot or a fine character development then don't go to see Indiana Jones.
June 24, 2008 at 8:18 am
Indiana Jones and the kindom of the crystal skull was brilliant movie please make another one I LOVE his movies
June 30, 2008 at 1:10 pm
One small thing that has come to mind is this: How come Henry Jones Senior (Sean Connery) has died? In the last crusade, indy poured water from the cup of life into his mouth and on his gunshot wound.
Can someone explain how his dad has died, as he should obviously live for eternity.
July 2, 2008 at 3:52 pm
His dad died because he didn't stay inside that tomb. The knight said that the grail and its powers couldn't pass beyond the Seal on the floor.
July 8, 2008 at 4:23 am
Just saw this and wanted to add my 2cents. I expected to be disappointed by this film. Instead, it was rather good. It was by no means perfect or great. The worst part was the fridge scene. Sorry, not believing that one at all. Other than that, it was a well-done film. Enjoyable, not great. Forgettable in some ways. I think I'd compare it to the most recent Rocky move "Rocky Balboa"; it's not as good as the original movies, but it's got heart and it's enjoyable enough.
July 15, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I'll have to agree with those who were disappointed. I thought the first 1/3 of the film was great, but there was too much exposition and not nearly enough character and coolness to the rest of it to distinguish it from the myriad of Indy-esque films that have come out since (Mummy, National Treasure, etc.). I also disagree with those who disliked Temple of Doom... I would rate it 3rd best of the first three, but it definitely had a lot more going for it than Crystal Skull and was much more entertaining overall. Not that Crystal Skull wasn't entertaining, ultimately, just not nearly as much as the first three.
August 6, 2008 at 12:37 am
I'm surprised at the lack of understanding in terms of this film. This movie is every bit as good as Temple of Doom or Last Crusade and it has the same style and feel as Raiders did. In fact, I'd say this is the closest to Raiders out of all of them. Things people complained about that exsist wholly, partially, or similarly in other Indiana Jones films:
1 - Monkeys: The complaint here is that the monkeys consiously help Mutt take the skull from Irvina. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, the monkey helps the humans by spying on Marion Crane. He also Heils Hitler.
2 - Stunts of no logical physics or mortal consequences. The complaint being that Indy survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a refridgerator. In Temple of Doom, Indy and the gang ride a mine cart with no brakes over gaps and curves and lava. Indy brakes the cart with his foot. They are pursued by raging waters which they outrun, end up on a cliff face which Indy climbs with his bare hands.
3 - Overly set up Booby Traps: The complaint being that the Myans have waited for thousands of years in little crevaces in the walls, or that the opening of the Temple is overtly strategic and far too complex in design. In Last Crusade, in the search for the holy grail, Indy must "kneal before God" in order to avoid getting his head sliced off by saws. He must spell the word Jesus in Hebrew. He must also take a "leap of faith" which has a bridge impossibly camoflaged from view.
4 - Goofy comedy: The complaint being that there are far too many jokes while in deathly situations. Remember in Last Crusade when the Nazi's have Indy and his dad at gun point and Indy's dad says, "I should have sent it to the Marx Brothers." Or when he and Marcus start singing inside the tank, stalling their escape. Short round says, "Not very funny" when almost falling to his doom, and Salla in Raiders constantly uses quick jibs like, "You go first."
5 - Supernatural artifacts: The complaint is that the magic of the Skulls is too over the top for Indy. Raiders: The Ark of the Covenant opens, allows Jewish souls to float about the Nazis, zapping them with lightning, and melting their faces off. Temple of Doom: A man has his heart pulled from his chest by another man's bare fist. Still alive, they lower the victim into a firy pit which causes the heart, still in the hands of the villian, to burst into flames. Last Crusade: Indy finds the lair of the Holy Grail gaurding by a 2000 year old Knight. When the Nazi chooses the wrong cup, he groes incredibly old and his body decomposes itself within seconds.
6 - Aliens: It doesn't make sense for them NOT to do aliens! All the Indy films take pop culture story notions from the times they're set in. This one is set in the 50s. It's about the Cold War. They're battled the Russians. The Cold War was a war about knowledge and technology and space exploration. The 50s was a time of sci-fi paranoia. OF COURSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ALIENS!
That's all!