6/10
As an Indy Fan, I am bound to be more critical...
26 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I am a die-hard Indiana Jones fan. The originals meant so much to me as I grew up. But I wasn't expecting too much from this film. Mostly because of the hype and anticipation a movie like this brings, after 19 years of absence. Also because of Star Wars Episodes I, II, and III, which proved that George Lucas was out of touch.

"Crystal Skull" could have delivered. It had all the potential to be another great film in the series, maybe not an equal to the almost perfect films, "Raiders," and "Temple of Doom," but could have been a great adventure masterpiece. It has good moments, and it is enjoyable just to see Indy and Marion and the Spielberg/Lucas crew at it again. But it never achieves greatness because of three main things.

First: The plot. I found it hard to understand the motives of the characters or what they were looking for throughout most of the film. The dialog that begins when Mutt Williams enters is clunky, and confusing. It reminded me of the heavily plot-related dialog from "Phantom Menace": weird, uninteresting and boring. We should get chills when we hear the characters talk about the magical treasures and dangers that await them. Here it never really makes sense what they are talking about. The crystal skulls of the title aren't a great macguffin, its surprising how important they were to George Lucas. I'm not crazy about the idea of Indy fighting over an alien artifact. Indiana Jones searches for lost legendary treasures and remnants of ancient civilizations. Part of our love for the character is the thought of him uncovering the sites we have always heard about, the excitement that such magic and amazing places could actually be out there in our own world, waiting to be discovered by adventurers. It's not like there's nothing left for Indy to discover, or for his villains to be after (Atlantis, the Fountain of Youth, etc). The alien plot could have worked, but Lucas failed to make the concept interesting. It's just too weird.

Second: The film is missing the thrilling (and often brutal) exciting action that characterized the original films. There were no moments in this film that really shocked or scared us, no suspense scenes that kept us on edge of our seats or made us look away, or watch through our fingers. No shock or gore. Spielberg has gone a little too soft in his older years. Perhaps he is worried about the effect his (non-serious) films might have on children, but he really doesn't need to worry--most kids ten and up could handle it fine. In "Raiders" (which I saw and loved when I was only seven) Indy thrust a Nazi's face into the dashboard of a truck, forward and back again, eventually throwing the guy through the window and driving over him! In the originals Indy's enemies got decapitated by plane propellers and smashed into dust by rock crushers. Indy also received his share of getting beat up, and we actually did fear for him (even if we knew he would survive in the end.) Not so in this movie. I kept waiting, for instance, for Indy to throw a Russian baddie into the jaws or blades of one of the jungle vehicles, but it never happened. The villains seem to be in on the joke. They aren't evil enough. I appreciate it that Indy fought a Russian heavy in a similar fashion to the way he fought the German mechanic in "Raiders," but it really just felt like a weak retread of that fight. The Russian wasn't memorable or much bigger than Indy and the fight wasn't as rough as it could have been (although the ants add a nice touch where the movie DOES grant a moment of squeamishness). I'm not crazy about the main villain being a woman. Cate Blanchett is decent as "Irina Spalko," but obviously I never wanted to see Indy land a punch on her, something he did so well against his former lead villains.

Third: The movie rushes through all of its best potential moments. Every action scene seems to be over as quickly as it started, a complaint I had about "Last Crusade." The motorcycle chase in Connecticut started off decently, but then ended abruptly. Same with the jungle chase. The bar fight in the college town could have been a great scene, but we cut away from it right after it starts. Think of all the missed opportunities--a bar fight resembling the original one in "Raiders," and maybe some satire of bar-fight clichés in general. The waterfalls our heroes later go down are really just punchlines, not adventure scenes.

"Crystal Skull" is still a decent film, and in my opinion about equal to "Last Crusade" (I know I am in the minority in my preference for "Doom" over that one.) I wouldn't be so critical of it if I didn't enjoy the originals so greatly. It is worth seeing just to see Harrison Ford play Indy again. I also appreciated the inclusion of Karen Allen as Marion, and on Spielberg's effort to film the movie in a way that made it resemble the originals (and it does.) I am a 20th century history buff, and the 1950's have always been my least favorite decade--they are just so unexciting in comparison to the decades before and after. But this movie, in its setting, gave me new appreciation for the 1950's. The styles and feel of the film gave it a good atmosphere to work with. I also liked the direction Indy takes in his relationship with Marion, and the acknowledgments of his past. I could totally see him as an OSS agent in WWII. The film left me wanting to see another Indy film. Hopefully, the next one will be done with a little less Lucas, and a little more old-fashioned Spielberg. Grade: B-
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed