Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

ThreeEyesOni · 05-23-2008, 04:39 PM

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

...Was that clear enough?

I jotted down a bit of a review for this movie after I saw it the other day. It's a little disjointed and far from complete, but if you really want to read a review then you can go elsewhere. This is more my own throughs and perspective aqs both a fan and semi-professional.

It was about the point that I watched Indy crawl into a refrigerator to escape the blast of a test nuclear device not even a mile away that I was forced to admit that this was not going to be a true Indiana Jones movie. I could have ignored the random CGI gopher at the start, but one of the things with India Jones movies has been that they're either solidly rational (albiet "movie word rational") or simply supernatural. The most improbably survived event in the past has been clinging onto a rope bridge as it slammed into a cliff; sure it likely would have shattered a man's bones, but this is Indiana Jones we're talking about. So when I watched him survive and explosion, heat, radiation done and a landing impact that each should be enough to kill someone 100x over I had to pause and remind myself Spielberg has long since lost his mind and I just will have to cope.

The actual character of Indiana Jones has changed a fair amount since the original movies. Then again, it's been 20 years for Ford, so that's understandable. Still, there are some lines that ring true to character and some that don't. "Some kind of rapier" (from near the start) seems very out of character; I would have pictured him saying a specific period, location, and whether or not it was a reproduction. :P Then again, that's obvious nitpicking.

One of the bits that I think is lost in this movie is that Indy was never young in the movies. In the first one he must have bee, what, in his late 30s? He's a tenured professor that has allready made a name for himself. He was no spring chicken, but he rocked. I know what he's now damn near ancient, out of the movie, but he's not that much older in the movie itself. Fifty to sixty years old.

It isn't necessary to replace the "old and worn" Indiana with a "new and young" one because being a young hipster was never part of the character appeal.

On to other matters:

I have serious issue with the soundtrack. Spielberg, I know it's the bloody 50s, but is it absolutely necessary to include a clip from each Top 10 song of the time? This isn't a movie that should be about reminiscing about th elovely 50s, and if that is the intended goal then it's a bad one because much of this movie is a direct piss on people that were actually around for the first movies, let alone the actual 50s. It was unnecessary and a detractment from the movie itself.

I do not like Shia LaBeouf very much. However, I absolutely god damn hate "Mutt Williams". If there's anything worse than an old guy who was never really hip himself trying to write a "young, hip and sexy" character, then it's trying to write a "young, hip and sexy" character placed in the specific time period where you were personally as far from that mark as possible. LaBeouf is not the best choice for this type of role, but it's not entirely his fault because the character is complete and utter garbage. It's an atempt to make a more modern and young Indy, but completely forgets the fact that people have liked Indy because he's freaking Indiana Jones. Mutt Williams would make a much more fitting heir to the "Mummy" series than this one.

From the very first moment he comes on screen I find myself thinking "don't let him be Indiana's kid" over and over. The movie seems determined to piss in my cornflakes in that regard. I don't like it; it's a plot point that I think would have been better if it wasn't true. Indy might as well go "Mutt, I am your father."

I did love many of the effcts. The bit where the truck split apart was a very nice one. I'm also terribly fond of the ants/termites (I fugre they would have to be termites in the real world, but who knows). I'm also going to have to search for some more detailed pictures/designs of the crystal ribcages.

The casting was quite good, too. I had recognized one of the Naz- er, I mean "Commies" from elsewhere and checked to see that he had been the show Torchwood. More recurring cameos would have been nice, but how exactly is one supposed to manage that, all things considered.

The plot was... odd? It's comparable to Raiders more so than the any of the other movies. The plot seems more than a little railroaded, and there isn't much development in either the story or the characters. Regardless, I liked the Indiana Jones portions of the movie, while I could have done without the "Mutt Williams and the Hope For a Series Reboot" scenes.

All around, I'll give it an 8/10.

gothicusmaximus · 05-24-2008, 05:37 PM

SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO SPOILERS ALSO

I too was originally perturbed by Indiana Jones' survival of an atomic explosion by hiding in a refrigerator, but I managed to overcome my initial failure to suspend disbelief through dogged rationalization. As you noted later, Lucas and Speilberg unabashedly indulge in lampooning the 1950's, and I feel that scene is best viewed as an instance of such humor. Americans of the era in which the film takes place actually believed that hiding behind a few layers of lead would protect them from a nearby atomic explosion, and I feel we owe the writer the benefit of the doubt in resolving that Indy's miraculous survival is a subtle gibe at this past ignorance. Moreover, Ford's character is a pulp action hero. He punches a little harder and thinks a little faster than anybody, so if the average man can survive an atomic blast in a bomb shelter, good old Indy can survive it in a fridge, and it goes without saying that his impossible luck will ensure that he's among the small but extant number of individuals who somehow emerge from brutal automobile collisions or similar trauma with little more than a few bruises.
I think you're giving the realism of prior movies a bit too much credit as well-- most of Indy's classic bullwhip stunts, such as drawing and lashing the weapon quickly enough to deprive an armed Nazi of his gun or wrapping it around a hanging beam and swinging would probably never work in reality.

On the issue of Indy aging, one imagines that he hasn't truly felt old, physically or emotionally, until this point in his life. He was, for all intents and purposes, a 'spring chicken' at 40 or however old he was in earlier installments, but now he feels less capable, and he's lost both his father and a close friend to old age. Mutt Williams was as old as he was not to represent a character equatable to Jones in, say, Raiders, but so that he could conceivably be Indy's son, and to serve as a antithesis to Jones Sr. in Last Crusade.
As far as LeBeouf and his character as a whole are concerned, I certainly went into the film expecting to be horribly aggravated by his performance. However, upon viewing it completely I found him to have a strange, subversive charm that undermined any reluctance to accept him I harbored and, indeed, endeared me to Mutt. Granted, I doubt everyone will agree with me on this, but as far as I'm concerned the film succeeded in ensuring that the character on whose hope for the series' future apparently rests is not insufferable and actually fun to watch. Do I like the character for precisely the same reasons that I like Indiana Jones? Definitely not, but if he stars in a subsequent film with the same kickass pulp atmosphere as prior Indy movies, I'll see it. His sword fight with Cate Blanchett was a highlight for me, though I could have lived without the monkey army.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not the church choir on this one. I was annoyed by Jones' apparent eagerness to cooperate with his Russian kidnappers-- I mean, if she says 'tell me everything you know', how hard is it to leave out a few key details? I know this is exposition for the audience as well, but come the fuck on. I, like you, was not a fan of the shitty CGI that popped up from time to time, which in its sleekness seemed contrary to the rugged feel of the franchise. Marion's shallow characterization as a 'tough woman who beneath her rough exterior feels tenderness for Indy' was an insult to the woman who shared Indy's spotlight in Raiders-- and as a result the characters' wedding was unsatisfying.

All in all, though our gripes are different, I basically agree with your rating, perhaps .5 higher. Superior to Temple of Doom in my opinion.

ThreeEyesOni · 05-24-2008, 07:04 PM

See, the nuclear bomb bit continues to be my main gripe, asside from my general dislike of Mutt. There's a certain hero-ish quality that comes with whipping a gun out of a Nazi's hand with an actual whip. Indy is good with a whip. Insanely good. "I have issues with my childhood so I spent every afternoon smacking scorpions out of the sand with it" good. I can understand how he can do something like that simply because it's one of his nutty skills.

I could have even dealt with it if he had kicked his way out of the rubble of a building after it collapsed on him in his fridge. However, what they chose to do was essentially have him survive a car crash into a brick wall at 250mph. It just... irks me.

I think an interesting twist they could have used is that he doesn't make it out unharmed. Make him be bashed right the fuck up and laid up in a hospital for 6 months; not only does he come out with a new limp, but he also gets to come to terms that he's more brittle than he used to be and wasn't around when Marion, Mutt et-all were being kidnapped and whatnot.

LeBeouf gives Mutt his moments, but I distinctly see that as LeBeouf (a not exactly half-assed actor, at at least one that's trying hard) improving on Mutt (which was just horrible, right down to the "in joke" of having both of them adopting names related to a dog). While it's almost a complete given that any future movies will have him as more "center stage", I quite honestly won't be going to see an Indiana Jones movie that doesn't have Harrison Ford (ie: Indiana Jones) as at least a co-star. The same goes for if they make a spin-off movie/show with Mutt as the title character or something. I'm just not interested enough to get over my distaste for it.

CptSternn · 05-28-2008, 01:17 AM

I thought it sucked as well. It's a shame too - the whole Indy series was one of my favourites up until now.

Yeah, the whole fridge nuke survival was lame. Then it got even worse. What really pissed me off is they changed the character so much. I mean, Indy was cool because he was a teacher who hunted down artifacts. Turns out that was all a lie and he is really a top level CIA officer masquerading as a teacher/archaeologist. What the fuck? Who decided this was a good thing to work into the plot?

It was cool when you though he was just an average guy who thanks to a zrazor sharp mind and good build was able to get out of many larger than life situations, much like Ash in the Evil Dead series. But to now find out that was all a front so Indy could travel the world as a CIA spy really makes his character a lot less likable as well as makes the storyline very weak.

It really wrecked the whole series for me.

gothicusmaximus · 05-28-2008, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Turns out that was all a lie and he is really a top level CIA officer masquerading as a teacher/archaeologist. What the fuck? Who decided this was a good thing to work into the plot?

It was cool when you though he was just an average guy who thanks to a zrazor sharp mind and good build was able to get out of many larger than life situations, much like Ash in the Evil Dead series. But to now find out that was all a front so Indy could travel the world as a CIA spy really makes his character a lot less likable as well as makes the storyline very weak.

It really wrecked the whole series for me.

He wasn't an OSS officer during the first three films, only for the period between Last Crusade and this installment. Of course the character served in WWII, and, given his extraordinary mental and physical attributes, that he excelled in the military is no shock.
I don't know from where you got the idea that he wasn't really a teacher or an archaeologist.

CptSternn · 05-30-2008, 01:13 AM

When they started going into his history with Roswell and the CIA had called him up when all that happened. The fact he was familiar with Area 51 and knew where to find what. Also that he has worked with MI5 before, many times on many missions as he said.

Then he later says hes just a 'part time' teacher, and is well known to the security services people who all show up throughout the movie.

If he was just supposed to be a man who served in WW2, the question is WHEN? The Americans were only in the war for a few years. In fact, the whole war was only a few years in the 30-40's. During those times he was teaching, because he ran into the nazis in his previous films, so how exactly could he have been serving in WW2?

gothicusmaximus · 05-30-2008, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

When they started going into his history with Roswell and the CIA had called him up when all that happened. The fact he was familiar with Area 51 and knew where to find what. Also that he has worked with MI5 before, many times on many missions as he said.

None of this effects our understanding of earlier films. All of that history took place during the interim period.

Quote:

Then he later says hes just a 'part time' teacher, and is well known to the security services people who all show up throughout the movie.

Again, interim period.

Quote:

If he was just supposed to be a man who served in WW2, the question is WHEN? The Americans were only in the war for a few years. In fact, the whole war was only a few years in the 30-40's. During those times he was teaching, because he ran into the nazis in his previous films, so how exactly could he have been serving in WW2?

The Nazi party existed and was active before World War II. Last Crusade, the most recent film excepting this one, took place in 1938, prior to the true beginning of the war in Europe.

Wednesday Friday Addams · 05-30-2008, 05:09 AM

Thats true. I wasn't sure exactly when the 3rd film takes place but I do know for certain it would have to be pre war. Last time I checked in war time you couldn't casually visit Italy.

CptSternn · 05-31-2008, 01:00 AM

This movie takes place in the 50's. If the previous film takes place in the 40's, then when exactly is this 'interim period'?

Your saying he quit being a teacher to go into the army for 2 years, then came back and thats where they are getting all this new crap? Thats harder to believe than the surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge.

They never say that, and to assume thats what they are implying is quite a stretch.

The fact he talks about 'all the missions' and makes various references to 'other missions' when talking with his CIA/MI5 buddies in the film leads me to believe your wrong on this.

Wednesday Friday Addams · 05-31-2008, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

This movie takes place in the 50's. If the previous film takes place in the 40's, then when exactly is this 'interim period'?

Your saying he quit being a teacher to go into the army for 2 years, then came back and thats where they are getting all this new crap? Thats harder to believe than the surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge.

They never say that, and to assume thats what they are implying is quite a stretch.

The fact he talks about 'all the missions' and makes various references to 'other missions' when talking with his CIA/MI5 buddies in the film leads me to believe your wrong on this.

The others take place in the 30's.

JCC · 05-31-2008, 04:56 AM

Yeah, I've never really liked Indiana Jones films too much, this one wasn't great either. The nationalist rubbish permeating every piece of dialogue, the awful acting from everyone involved that wasn't Shia LaBeouf (yes, I did just say that

) and the CGI that was prevalent when Spielberg was rambling on about this Indiana Jones film being CGI-free.

It was okay for some LIGHT entertainment. But I'd give it about a 6/10.

ThreeEyesOni · 05-31-2008, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

The others take place in the 30's.

Exactly. The movies are all in the 30s, with Ark taking place in what I'd say is the mid- to late-30s; before the US was even close to involved (in an official sense) and also before Germany was too terrible of a blip. Holy Grail would have been more about 1940.

Indy was allready approached by the US government in two of the previous movies for aid, so it's not nuts to think that they'd want to bring him on as a "Contractor" when things started gearing up. It certainly has historical precedant.

Wednesday Friday Addams · 05-31-2008, 05:43 AM

I don't see how the grail could be in the 40's when he was casually walking around Italy.
The SS waffen parade also leads me to think that it was set late 30's.
Late 30's Germany was a very big blip the radar.

Renatus · 05-31-2008, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

I don't see how the grail could be in the 40's when he was casually walking around Italy.
The SS waffen parade also leads me to think that it was set late 30's.
Late 30's Germany was a very big blip the radar.

Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark took place in 1936, Temple of Doom took place in 1935 (yes 1 year before raiders), and Last Crusade during 1938.

L'Oiseau Noir · 06-01-2008, 12:21 AM

I've got legs on both sides of the wall, regarding this film.

It wasn't bad, but definitely didn't measure up to the general awesomeness of the earlier installments. The plot was one of my main gripes. It was even more far-fetched than the first films. Aliens land on Earth and teach primitive humans agriculture and other at-the-time unheard of technologies and skills? Why? And why could their skeletons imbibe psychic properties in humans? There was no sense to it.

On the characters, I also had a few complaints. Irina Spalko I found incredibly silly. A psychic Russian woman who could read minds? And fought with a sword? Please! I think Spielberg just wanted the excuse of having a sword-waving hottie on-screen. She hardly even served a purpose in the overall story, too, as she was absent for a great portion of the film (during the middle [though she did have a few scenes here and there, like the camp], more than the latter parts). I also had a great dislike for Mutt. He seemed to have been tossed from the left field. There was no mention--or even indication from what I remember--of Marion ever having been pregnant. In fact, she didn't seem to even be an important character after Raiders, as she was promptly replaced by a slew of other women who became the objects of Indy's affections. And lastly, I had a bit of a problem with Indy himself. Simply, I think he's just too old for this role now. His dialog just didn't seem to have as much enthusiasm as it used to; and his wisecracks weren't even as funny as before, which really ruined it for me since I always found Indy's crude humor hilarious. Even his action sequences suffered. He can't move like he did when he was younger, but that's what comes with old age, I suppose.

Anyway, to cease my rants on the characters, I'll get to my final verdict. I'd say the film was, at least, a 7/10, and only worth one watch. But it was funny, and it was decent; it just wasn't as great as its predecessors.

Splintered · 06-01-2008, 01:40 AM

SPOILERS TOO.

SPOILERS TOO.

The entire movie pissed me off.

I think I can speak for most fans when I say that what they needed to make was not a reinvented version of Indiana Jones, but the Indiana Jones we know and love, with the polish of modern filming. Reinventing Indiana Jones could do nothing more then piss the fans off.

And guess what the director did.

First of all, the two best Indiana Jones movies, in my opinion, had one thing in common. Biblical artifacts (Raider of the Lost Ark's Ark, and The Last Crusade's Holy Grail). Temple of Doom was a good movie, but the first and second stood out as shining gems. This movie transitions from the awe-inspiring biblical artifact too... Space Aliens.

Oh. Excuse me.

Interdimensional Space Aliens.

Indiana Jones had a clear character. He was a weak, fallible man, who made mistakes. He screwed up. He majorily screwed up. In this movie, we have Indiana Jones as the "I can't be killed no matter how many deus ex machinas we have to throw in the plot". The Fridge is an easy example. Surviving being choked, and then pinned to a jet engine is another.

Indiana Jones the movie, had a clear plot. You knew who the bad guy was, you knew what they were after, and you knew the jist of the storyline. However, you still watched it because a.) It was damn fun, and b.) It still managed to amaze us and keep us entertained.

The new movie... Meh. The plot is full of holes, leaves a lot unexplained, contains a ton of deus ex machinas, and then tries to wrap it up in a sentimental story. In this movie Indiana Jones seems neither smart nor badass, and that was the quintessential selling point of the original.

The fight scenes were the only thing I liked.. Mainly because they were Indiana Jones fight scenes. I don't want Jason Bourne shit in this movie, that's a Jason Bourne fight scene. I don't want a Batman and Robin "Pow" fight scene, that's Batman and Robin. I want to see two, untrained actors duking it out. The sole reason they were that amazing, is because Harrison Ford usually does his own stunts. Harrison Ford FTW.

The CGI pissed me off. Mainly because I could tell it was CGI. When Raiders of the Lost Ark came out, they didn't have anything better. They got a free pass because they did the best with what they had. That was another hallmark of an Indiana movie: Good quality on the screen. When I can tell your Gopher is CGI from the first screen, I won't be impressed.

The entire movie looks like it has a forced atmosphere. When I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark or Last Crusade, I felt like I was in two places at once. I felt like it was the 1930s and I was in the 1930s, but I also felt like that could easily have been now. The main point was: I was comfortable regardless of what time period I was in.

The new Indy? Not really. The first scene with Spalko shows herself with that sun in the background makes me want to puke with how poorly done it is. She looks like a poster for cosmetic surgery, not a real woman.

I thought it was subpar.

Really subpar.

As a movie by itself, it's decent. It's just another fair action movie, and it's not really that good, but not really that bad.

But as a successor to The Last Crusade or Raiders of the Lost Ark? It fails horribly to meet any standard I could set. It didn't look good, it wasn't fun, it didn't feel right, and all of my old favorite characters are gone.

Moni-que · 06-14-2008, 08:18 AM

It was alright. It was like an Indiana Jones Light.

and yeah the atomic thing was pretty dumb, and I actually didn't think anything of the kid being his son til it came up unlike most people.

at least Lucas didn't go too wild, it was sort of canned and formula.

LiUsAiDh · 06-23-2008, 07:23 AM

I didn't understand why the CIA suddenly stopped chasing him after he had gone back to the States. Where'd they go :s.

Indy was old + very un-smexy. Also his whip hardly made an appearance.

I think the cliche of 'knowledge' being the treasure did it for me... I wanted to see GOLD!!!! Not to mention the aliens and the UFO at the end. A little more imagination is just what the doctor ordered there.

And near the beginning why did only select metal object attract to the corpse. The lights didn't lean to it when it was in place, but miraculously when it was moves, they moved with it. Also why didn't the soldier's guns fly to it?

Tristanna · 06-23-2008, 09:56 AM

It was cringey!

The refrigerator bit was ..unebelievable doesnt even cover it!!

Toy Killer · 06-23-2008, 10:43 AM

I'm kinda curious as to why the aliens had a crap-load of artifacts from all over the world sitting outside of their door. For people who value knowledge, you would have thought they would have been more inclined to say 'no thanks, we really don't want your stone and gold crap'

Clockwork · 06-23-2008, 06:57 PM

I have to say, I am proud of my ability to suspend disbelief and cast my adherence to reality aside while I watch a movie.

I don't care that he survived a nuclear blast in a fucking refridgerator. It was awesome.

Wednesday Friday Addams · 06-23-2008, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Killer

I'm kinda curious as to why the aliens had a crap-load of artifacts from all over the world sitting outside of their door. For people who value knowledge, you would have thought they would have been more inclined to say 'no thanks, we really don't want your stone and gold crap'

They were archeologists.

LiUsAiDh · 06-24-2008, 03:07 AM

But why did they only collect gold things. Archeologists would collect all kinds of things wouldn't they...

Like a kitchen unit, a cooking pot, or a toilet....

Not gold statuey things...

Wednesday Friday Addams · 06-24-2008, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

But why did they only collect gold things. Archeologists would collect all kinds of things wouldn't they...

Like a kitchen unit, a cooking pot, or a toilet....

Not gold statuey things...

They didn't collect only gold things. for example there was a stone statue in the room.

Toy Killer · 06-24-2008, 07:26 AM

It's still a valuable, it's still someone's treasure, and all things considered, this was well before they themselves were ancient civilizations.