Since I’m a movie buff, the summer movie season has always been my favorite time of year. Sure, it usually doesn’t yield Oscar-fare like the fall does but it’s jam-packed with so many big budget extravaganzas bent on melting my brains that I can’t help but get excited. The 2008 summer movie season kicks off with a very special movie, for which I have been waiting nearly 20 years to be released - the 4th installment in the INDIANA JONES saga, INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. Technically the season was kicked off a few weeks ago with the release of IRON MAN, but I’ve always felt like the real launch of summer movie mania is Memorial Day weekend. My reasoning for this goes back to the movies that created the blockbuster phenomenon, the original STAR WARS trilogy and two of the original Indiana Jones films, all of which were released on Memorial Day weekend.
The anticipation of seeing INDY 4 reminded me a lot of the anxiousness I experienced in 1999 when STAR WARS: EPISODE ONE was released (another movie I had been waiting decades for release). Of course we all know what an incredible let down that piece of garbage was. I even remember being in denial for months after watching it; resulting in multiple re-watches in an attempt to force myself into somehow enjoying it. Episodes 2 & 3 proved to be even worse, effectively destroying my love for the Star Wars saga entirely. Sadly, I don’t even watch the original trilogy very much any more.
Needless to say, I approached INDY 4 with both a bit of apprehension as well as excitement. For those of you who are not complete movie geeks like myself, George Lucas is the producer of both the Star Wars and Indiana Jones series. Lucas took the role of director in the new Star Wars films. My one great hope for INDY 4 was that instead of Lucas, Steven Spielberg took the helm (just as he did on the original Jones Films). A few of the elements that made Indiana Jones my favorite films of all time were the exotic locations, history-based mysteries, and elaborately choreographed action sequences; all of which really inspired my imagination and took me to a fantastic time and place that seemed so real. Unfortunately, these items seem to be missing from this chapter in the saga.
INDY 4 opens up with a CGI (computer generated image) shot of a groundhog popping back into his hole in the middle of the New Mexico desert. Not only does this set up a handful of corny groundhog jokes but it sets the tone for the rest of the movie, CGI, CGI, and a little more CGI. The opening sequence follows a caravan of Russians that soon break into the Area 51 Air Force base. A subtitle splashes 1957 on the screen to let us know that we won’t be getting Nazi’s as our baddies any longer; instead we have to settle for a bunch of dirty reds (that’s all right, commies are nasty too). Once on the base, the commies pull our iconic hero, played by Harrison Ford, out of the trunk of a car. They have kidnapped him in order to have him help find an ancient artifact he found years earlier and is now being stored on the base. Area 51 is apparently the location of the massive warehouse we were introduced to at the end of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. You remember it, the one where the two guys wheeled the Ark of the Covenant down a long warehouse filled with stacks of crates.
Dominatrix-like Irina Spalko, awkwardly played by Cate Blanchett, leads the commies. She is an expert in psychic phenomena and has been scouring the globe for paranormal weapons under orders from Stalin himself. The mysterious crate Irina desires is one containing an alien like corpse with strange magnetic qualities. Once Indiana finds the crate he cleverly makes his escape and the first major action sequence of the movie begins. It’s great to see Harrison Ford don the Fedora and get back into action again, but I just didn’t feel like I was in an Indiana Jones movie. I’m not sure if it was the corny dialogue, cartoonish color pallet of the cinematography, or the awkward nature of Cate Blanchett’s character, but it just didn’t draw me into the moment.
After escaping Indiana finds himself being questioned by the FBI who accuse him of being a communist sympathizer. This results in him being fired from his teaching position at Marshall College. Indiana decides to get on a train and move to Europe to enjoy his golden years. At this point in the narrative Mutt Williams (Shia LeBeouf) roars into the picture on a Harley Davidson in search of Indiana’s help. He brings news that a mutual friend, Oxley (John Hurt), and his mother have been kidnapped. Reluctant to help Mutt, Indiana soon finds himself forced into service when the commies pick up chase again. Mutt and Indiana jump on his Harley and the single best sequence of the movie begins. I think this is the first and last time during the film I felt like I was watching an Indiana Jones movie as they race around the Marshall campus. I know this is sad news to many of you, but enjoy it while you can. You may just want to leave the theater after this sequence. In fact, the film is not even worthy of continuing a detailed synopsis. In favor of not giving away any spoilers and to spare myself the pain of having to relive too much of the experience I will be brief.
–Mutt and Indiana fly to Peru and travel to mysterious ruins.
–Mutt and Indiana find the Crystal Skull.
–Commies take them prisoner.
–Indiana finds out Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) from RAIDERS is Mutt’s mother
– Pointless quicksand sequence in which Indiana finds out Mutt is his son.
– The commie caravan takes Indiana and company to find the lost city of gold.
– Indiana and company escape and a stupid car chase shot obviously shot against a green screen ensues.
– Mutt has a sword fight in which he receives multiple hits to the crotch. Soooo funny, just what an Indiana Jones movie needs. This sequence
contains some of the worst special effects I have seen in a while.
– Mutt swings around in the trees like Tarzan with a bunch of CGI monkeys. I’m not kidding.
– Giant CGI ants attack. Very scary… OK, not really.
– Indiana and company find the Crystal Skull temple and then the film turns in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND.
– CGI
– More CGI.
– The final climactic CGI plot resolution.
– Marion and Indiana get married. I really wish they could have used more CGI in this scene.
Well, that pretty much sums things up. Did you catch the CGI trend at the end of the movie? Of course you did. Like I said before, Indiana Jones films were always great because they took me to a different time and place. I just didn’t get that from Crystal Skull. The overwhelming presence of it being shot on a sound stage, the glossy cinematography, the sci-fi based storyline, and the ridiculously absurd action scenes all made me feel like I was watching a video game instead of a movie. CGI is fine and it has its place, but not in Indiana Jones. I would expect more of it from any current summer flick, but Indiana Jones is a different kind of movie.
It is entirely possible that I had my expectations too high, but I don’t think it’s too much to ask of Lucas and company to put forth the same amount of effort they did 20 years ago. Maybe Lucas and Spielberg preferred the air-conditioned comfort of a sound stage, or maybe they used up their frequent flyer mileage on vacation, but if they can’t do the job maybe they should have hired some younger more energetic filmmakers who still care.
George Lucas quit destroying my childhood and retire already.
1½ out of 4 stars.
May 30th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Colin: While I didn’t like this movie as much as the first or the third installments I still found it wildly interesting and entertaining. I think its important to remember that never were these movie supposed to be taken seriously. I do wish the CGI had been toned down a little but at least it was done in a way that conjured up the images and tone of the old films. I think it’s intended to be a throw back in tone and story to the old action films: the fridge scene and the a-bomb, etc. I actually thought the swinging in trees was hilarious. anyway, it is what it is - clearly its not meant to be taken seriously.
May 30th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Don’t worry David, I never took Indiana too seriously. I have always had a clear understanding of the nature of the Indiana Jones movies and their b-serial heritage, that is not where my complaint lies. While the movie may carry ’some’ of the tone of the originals, it leaves behind a great deal of the techniques and classical smoke and mirrors used to create the originals and therefore in my eyes no longer resembles those great b-serials. Using more location shooting and some good old fashioned set development could have gone a long way in my eyes. Visually this movie doesn’t look anything like the originals, it’s obvious that they didn’t even use the same photochemical process to develop their film stock. It’s too bad Douglas Slocombe is retired because his DP skills were sorely needed in this chapter. I find conjuring up images from the originals difficult when the image itself is a failure. I could have even accepted the swinging through the trees provided they rigged Shia up in some real trees with live monkeys instead of that extremely obvious green-screen work stuffed with animated disney monkeys. Getting back to tone, the originals had an amazing way of salting in humor and even slapstick without undermining the constant cliffhanger tension of the movie. Not the case in this movie, I think the tension and wit were pushed aside in favor of more ‘modern’ crotch shot humor. Oh wait am I taking it ‘too seriously’ again? oops.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Yeah, i see what you’re saying. Compelling argument. I wasn’t trying to say that visually or tonally the film was the same as before, but i enjoyed the way it paid homage to some of the old parts of the series - oh, and im with you on the motorcycle chase, loved it. I DO wholeheartedly agree that the monkey/trees/Shia part would have been better without the CGI.
But somehow i managed to enjoy it. I didnt have a hard time accepting the sci-fi premises and storyline. How much more crazy is it to suggest that there was a living being(s) here thousands of years ago that want to be released than that the Ark would be treated the way it was in #1 or that it would just melt someones face that way, or that Indy could walk on a bridge in the air.
Anyway, i think we have the same issues. I just managed to enjoy the film anyway. good review.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Ok yous guys, first let me say that I haven’t seen this movie. But honesly I like to read about movies before I go to sea them, and this one i’ve read about a lot and I dont’ see any particular reason to go see it. Why? you ask. Well I’ll tell you. As I think Colin illuded to above, and as I’ve read elsewhere, the movie fails to have a good time. I think thats the jist of what Colin was saying. Its like the movie takes it’self so seriously that it can’t actually display a sense of humor at all, and instead makes up with it with lots of CG.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:51 pm
John, for what its worth, I DID have a good time with the movie. I thought it DIDNT take itself too seriously and thats what made it fun. I mean, no movie that is trying to be serious or that takes itself seriously will have someone survive an atomic blast like Indy does in this film (one of my favorites parts of the movie btw, totally rediculous but awesome all the same).
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:51 am
I, too, thought the film didn’t take itself seriously. The crotch, monkey, and I’m your father/engagement scenes were the worst; but the motorcycle and cemetery scenes were great, and the fridge scene ending the opening scene with the groundhog WAS hilariously kitch as the swordfight/gunshot in the market of the older film.
It’s worth a see JO-hn, you silly cynic (i loved your latest review by the way). By the way did you hear that Mary’s sister said that thing about Sally’s brother. It’s totally true, I just know it; he IS a werewolf. That’s why I don’t even THINK of going out on full moons, cuz he totally, like, makes eyes at me and I wouldn’t want to be, like, killed in a puddle of dog slobber before prom. yuckO-hn.
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I have to agree that Lucas & Company weren’t taking this movie too seriously, quite the opposite. I still maintain that the originals aren’t “serious” films, but there comes a point where one crosses the line and moves into the realm of the ridiculous and absurd. It’s one thing for our hero to take 10 punches to the face and get up with merely a bloody lip, it’s another to have him fly 2 miles through the air and just be a little dizzy. The “line of absurdity” is a tough thing to point out and very subjective. I think the point where it is crossed and the viewer is pulled out of his suspension of disbelief is going to be different for everyone. For this movie I think it’s not a matter of crossing the line but doing it over and over again. I would have been fine with them falling over the waterfall once, but three times?! The car they were in is destroyed, but it’s passengers merely needed a stack of towels!
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I agree on the waterfall scene: though i guess they may have all fallen out of the car when they were falling. I agree with you Colin, I suppose i chose to just not care. Maybe i should see it again and see how i like it.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Colin convinced me to see Snakes on a Plane. He can’t be trusted!
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Ha! Mr. Hoy’s comment prevails.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Dang it! I’ve been outed! Everyone should see SNAKES ON A PLANE!
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Basically I dont think I might have quite made myself clear with what I wrote. Though I still haven’t seen this movie I will take your suggestion Riley and go see it with a grain of salt, although I don’t get the thing about wherewolves. At the same time I feel like I’ve already seen it because of all that I’ve read about it.
What I mean is that its patiently obvious that the movie tries so hard not to be campy that it has to switch between 47 genres at nearly the same time to keep the audience interested. I have heard the motorcycle chase scene is probably the best action scene in the movie, but past that its just a lot of ridiculous things all thrown at you at once.
I will go see the movie. But I submit to you that this movie will do little to really destroy your childhood, if your a fan of the old Indie movies because this is so far out, compared to say, Raiders of the Lost Ark, that I’ll be wondering as I watch it if its from the same series/director.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
O and I did see snakes on a PLANE. I liked that. Think about the differences between that and Indie 4 and maybe you will understand what I’m saying better. As far as its general philosophy. Indie 4 wants you to take it seriously and yet has 500 unbelievable things in it, while SNAKES would never even kid itself about being taken seriously.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
John,
Again, I don’t think that Indy 4 wants to be taken seriously, or takes itself seriously at all. In fact, i think that, at least in part, it is a comic jab at the series. I think it intends very purposefully to be campy and ridiculous. What was meaningful about the RAIDERS was atypical adventure story line. It took the archetypes of the action film and altered them. The hero became a scholar with a fear of snakes and a note book of clues. Indy was no James Bond, he had fears. He didn’t drink martinis the same way. And it dealt with supernatural ideas and realms: The ark and the chalice, for example. And all the while it was entirely campy! He ran from a rolling giant stone ball, he held on while being dragged beneath a jeep. He had a fight next to a renegade airplane propellor. All very campy. What made Indiana Jones Trilogy the Indiana Jones trilogy was libraries and caves and the whip and supernatural occurrences. And those patented one liners. This movie’s failings seem to have been primarily in going slightly overboard with the CGI campiness. But I do believe that Speilberg and Co. were having a little fun with the movie and even making fun of the older ones - you see it in a way when Indy’s old friend’s (i wont give away which one) on-campus statue is crashed into by a car and the head falls off.
June 7th, 2008 at 11:46 am
[...] If you didn’t see it already, check out Colin’s review or the new Indiana Jones film over at the Hill. It sums up my thoughts precisely. It reminded me of [...]
June 8th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I’d agree with most of your main points in the article, Colin. For me, though, the biggest problem for me was what you said in the comments here about asking the audience to suspend disbelief just a bit too much. Stopping a mine cart with your feet? Crazy, but remotely believable. Almost any action sequence from this one? Just crazy.
The script just didn’t have the same tone to it that the old ones did. Too bad they couldn’t have gotten someone like, say, Frank Darabont to write it. Wait… I would have loved to have seen THAT movie.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
i just noticed all these comments, and I have to chime in.
I literally had nightmares about this movie the night I saw it. It was honestly that bad.
Not only is it not an Indiana Jones movie, it’s not even a good movie.
If I wanted a crappy Indiana Jones knockoff, I would rent any of the Tomb Raider or Mummy movies.
Here were my feelings:
-first twenty five minutes: painful, painful garbage.
-middle hour and 15 min: Indy’s back! Just enjoy yourself Tyler! Have fun! w00t!
-Ending: Aliens. Need I say more?
I hate this movie. I am so passionate about it I actually get upset and can’t even carry on meaningful dialogue about it.
I am going to bed.
June 11th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Wow. Ty. Ease up.
The more i think about it, the more i like the “alien” plot line. It makes so much sense in light of the spirit and nature of the other films.
First twenty five minutes, garbage? how so?
June 11th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
haha. wow. I really did sound upset. haha. I hate the movie, but yeah. Looks like I really took it too seriously.
I don’t think the alien plot line makes any sense in light of the spirit and nature of the other movies. I love science fiction, but not in an Indiana Jones movie. Raiders of the Lost Ark had to do with a religious artifact. Temple of Doom: religious artifact. Last Crusade: religious artifact. I am not suggesting that all of these movies need to follow that formula, but its the artifact in question that sets the tone for the film.
There are supernatural things in all of the movies. Really, Indiana Jones is a supernatural adventure series. Aliens are the stuff of science fiction. I think that is why it felt so out of place to me. One of the great things about Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade is that they concern artifacts that exist. There are legends surrounding their origins that have to do with religion. In the movies, it is revealed that these objects really do have the power the religious traditions attributed to them.
I realize there really is the legend of El Dorado. I actually think there is even a legend of “Crystal Skulls” ( i think I saw something on the history channel about it). But I think this movie falls short in making the skulls actual alien skulls. There is nothing supernatural about an alien if aliens actually exist. They are just advanced people like me and you. It’s SCIENCE fiction, not supernatural fiction. I just think it feels out of place, and was a huge gamble they did NOT need to take. Frank Darabount hands them a script and they turn it down. (The guys wrote one of the best screenplays of all time, “The Shawshank Redemption”!) Then they remake Close Encounters of the Third Kind?
I just was very disapointed. There were a few minutes in there that made me very happy. I felt like Indy was back in the saddle. That, I suppose, was worth the eight bucks.
But then came the nightmares (literally). So maybe not.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Ty,
one quick thing. As far as I can tell, that whole Darabont offer never was “Fact.” it was rumor, from what i understand. If im wrong about that I apologize.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
pcjm8cromlqnowow