[Movie Review] INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL *Re-Evaluated*
I know, I know - I’m running a total risk of being exposed as an absolute hypocrite in the vein of Harry Knowles a la his infamous Godzilla double-take - but, at the end of the day, they say it takes a big man to say he’s sorry so let me be that big man:
I’m sorry!
I’m re-writing my review of Indiana Jones Part 4, the original of which you can find by clicking here, for a very simple reason. Stale Popcorn deserves a review that gives a real, true, fair reflection of this film - especially seeing as yours truly is a staff writer here and a self-proclaimed Indiana Jones obsessive. I’ve seen the film twice now at the cinema and once on a DVD screener.
I can now look at the film with a greater sense of clarity and suggest to you that, whilst Kristina’s review (which you can find here) is a little overly harsh methinks, my original review was enormously over-generous to say the least.
Second and third viewings have revealed things that the glee of seeing Indiana Jones up on the big screen for the first time in 19 years had hidden. There’s no getting around the fact that this is a nice slice of blockbuster fare, there’s too many solid action set pieces in amongst the running time to deny it that description. But outside of the stellar warehouse opening sequence, are any of them really worthy “Indiana Jones moments”? Is it fare that we have to ’settle’ for the cracking jungle-chase but try and see past some truly abysmal CGI? Should we have to have the well done motorcycle chase ruined with a bad punchline?
The thing that made the trilogy what they were was that the actions sequences were done “as real”. Say what you like about The Last Crusade - I’m a big fan - but there’s no getting around the fact that during the tank chase/face-off, that’s Harrison Ford and Vic Armstrong dusting it up for real, with nary an FX shot in sight. I’ve seen the original trilogy well into triple figures and I swear I’m not lying when I say that each and every time I watch those movies, it feels like the first time.
I got swept up in Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull first time round, but second and third viewings showed up the flaws enormously and, for those reared on Raiders, Temple and Crusade, there’s a real sense of hurt to that.
The script is nothing but exposition, and it smarts to see Jones willingly helping the “bad guys” on their quest as opposed to wrong-footing them, just like our Kristina suggested. The entire Atomic Age subplot is superflous - and repeated viewings show the “escape-from-the-atomic-blast-in-a-fridge” sequence to be one of the most stupid in recent blockbuster history - and the effects work from someone as reliable as Mr Spielberg gives this film a sense of “rushed product” that, for a film 19 years in the making, is pretty damn well unforgivable.
I’m still impressed with the work Shia La Beouf does in this movie. I like Karen Allen’s performance here too, but repeated viewings reveal the iconic character of Marion Ravenwood to be utterly wasted (although that “none of them were you, honey” moment is still a likeable one for me!). I also like Cate Blanchett’s work but, again, outside of the excitement of that first showing, you start to question what exactly has been done with her character. Then you start to realise that she’s not a character but merely a “plot device”.
The double/triple cross element of Ray Winstone’s character is pointless and the character of Oxley, as played by John Hurt, is a disaster that will hurt the film in years to come. I could go on and on also about my feelings regarding that horrendous climax involving aliens and flying saucers but you all know my thoughts on that already so I’ll leave that issue exactly where it is.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull does indeed build itself up and around the notion of taking what was most beloved about each of the first three movies and setting a movie around them, and I do stand by my original comment that this makes it very hard to dislike. The breakneck sense of pace and rollercoaster ride of set-piece upon set-piece upon set-piece of Raiders of the Lost Ark is there, as is the ‘dark’ tone of Temple of Doom, and the ‘family’ element and verbal sparring between father and son in Last Crusade too - but repeated viewings make it feel like a “Greatest Hits Compilation”… and, let’s be honest, is that REALLY what we’re entitled to after 19 years?
I concluded my original review as follows:
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal is solid, actually almost pitch perfect blockbuster entertainment. It may well be the first flawed entry in the franchise but the more I think about the film as I write this, the more I start to wonder whether – after a 19 year wait and in the cynical internet age we live in now – it was actually possible to deliver something capable of equalling the faultless glory of those first three movies. I suppose the fact that it comes as close as it does to doing so AND the fact that it won me over for the most part from my folded arms “do your best” pessimistic attitude, is more than commendable.
Well, the excitement has passed and repeated viewings have rubbed the polish off a little. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal is solid, far from pitch perfect blockbuster entertainment. I apologise for the earlier remark and whole-heartedly retract it. Lucas and company have stated they had a “poisoned chalice” with this movie as “nothing could live up to the level of expectation”. Mr Lucas, sir, I beg to differ. You suffered the same problem with Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and it has absolutely zero to do with “nothing living up to the level of expectation” and everything to do with the fact that you’ve made a solid, slightly mediocre movie when, by every right in the world, you should have been making cinematic gold.
It’s not true that fanboy “expectation” hurts the perceived quality of a movie. Look at Iron Man. That has been in development hell and in-and-out of production since the early 90s with fans positively desperate to see it. And look at how that has been received. The same will probably be the case with Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight too.
I said I loved this new Indiana Jones movie and that’s not the case. I wanted to love it more than anything. Repeated viewings and the cold light of day have shown that I only “like” it. And the question that’s nowringing in my head is, with early buzz being so strong, what’s the chances of the jokey, throwaway Indiana Jones inspired Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor revealing itself to be the stronger of the two movies? I wouldn’t discount the possibility just yet!
As I said, there’s a lot wrong with this new Indiana Jones movie and a lot right with it too (don’t you think ANY action sequence is immediately elevated slightly when John Williams’ sublime score is played over the top of it?). I was too kind first time round and I think Kristina wrote with a sense of detachment that I wish I’d had on first viewing. The sick thing is, I really kind of hope they make a fifth Indiana Jones movie, because my adoration for the first three movies is so strong that I hope beyond hope they don’t go out on the franchise with just a “likeable” flawed attempt after all that stands before it.
Honest, this is my final word on the matter - I swear!
Popcorn Ratings ExplainedRelated Posts:
- [Movie Review] INDIANA JONES & THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL
- [DVD Review (R1)] INDIANA JONES & THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL
- [Movie Review] INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL
- [Movie Review] INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL
- INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL Clips
7 Responses to “[Movie Review] INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL *Re-Evaluated*”
Been a huge fan of Indy ever since watching Raiders at the cinema when i was a kid. On balance I spose I’d agree with 3 popcorns, but let’s be honest - if it didn’t have the Indiana Jones nostalgia going for it it’d be a straight to DVD release. Sincerely hope they don’t make any more!
Drop that rating down MORE! It’ll feel GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, a 2 seems about right for this movie.
Three is still two generous. (Not a typo.)
I wish I could but repeated viewings, for me, show this as “three” and a solid “three” at that. Just look at the sublime opening (before the stupid fridge escape thing!) and the motorcycle chase and the jungle dust up before Shia goes all “Tarzan”. That, for me, is enough to warrant three.
Then again, having seen both Kristina and Wyv naked, I can testify that I am easily pleased
Trackbacks
What's Your Opinion?