It's not as bad as NSNA, but it's a classic fourth film in a franchise - recall Lethal Weapon and Die Harder - in that it's not allowed to fail. It's action all crammed in, some of it deliberately OTT and quite implausible as if to say, okay, are we done now? And there are so many characters tagging along, as Indy might say "It's not the age, it's the baggage..." For Last Crusade the tag line was 'and this time, he's bringing his Dad!' Here he brings his best mate (who we've never seen before), son, son's Mom, and work colleague. It's all too much.
Interesting about needing to see it on a digital screen. I saw it at a lovely old style cinema, the Notting Hill Coronet, but I couldn't hear the dialogue too well, I might have been better off sitting further back. But I think sometimes Spielberg does this, he makes you strain to hear the words, it was the same at the opening of Temple of Doom and parts of Jurassic Park. But you also find it in big blockbusters: the last two Bonds and the Pirates franchise, but never (in case you think I'm deaf) with bog standard fare like Forgetting Sarah Marshall.
Anyway, it was a hassle because there's a lot of verbiage in this, real long-winded exposition delivered by Ford in his trademark 'you can type this sh1t, George, but you sure can't say it' expression. The problem is, of course, that unlike the Ark of the Covenent or the Holy Grail, we need more explanation about the Chrystal Skulls like what they are, where they came from, who's been after them and their power yada yada... It's Exposition City and for 10-15 mins it seems Ford is just explaining to Shia LaBoeuf about all this, real boring stuff. Even having seen the film I'm no wiser, I couldn't care less and I get the sense Spielberg and Ford didn't either, they just went along with Lucas' hobby horse so they could get to make another Indy film before the sun sets. It all had that Phantom Menace feel; the audience shows up all eager and willing but no, George is going to go his way and give us some lecture and the feeling ebbs away.
The intro is great, all 1950s Americana like Richard Donner's Superman (but all films reference each other these days) but I struggled with Indy in this era, it felt interesting but wrong. His hat and whip getup felt right for the wartime era. Having Mutt as a biker like Marlon Brando was too obvious a cultural reference and it's jarring; you never had mention of Fred Astaire in the Raiders movie, for instance. Aside from the Marx Brothers reference in Crusade, the whole trilogy was culturally timesless, but not here. It's like Back to the Future in reverse when the 1950s set small town vibe should be more The Last Picture Show. It's the difference between movie kitsch and genuine poignancy.
As for the Russians as villains, well, they're not Nazis are they? )
The villain's ESP power (mindreading) didn't go anywhere at all. Mention of McCarthyism didn't quite fit a film where the Russians are in fact shown to be almost as diabolical as the Nazis, you can't quite have it both ways...
What did I like? Well the opener was good, though I strongly advise you read this spoiler about the warehouse, it will enhance your enjoyment...
It's nothing to do with the Arc of the Covenant stored at the end of Raiders... Indy is asked to find something else he found on an adventure we've hitherto not heard about... I expected them to open the Arc and thought, okay, will he have to close his eyes again? It confused me and it's better to not be expecting that
The action scene after that was incredible, surreal, eerie, weird, a total blast... {[] I felt like many felt at the opener of GoldenEye. That said, other scenes couldn't really top it.
Most of the action was very derivative (and Indy never rides a horse, which I later pinpointed as a drawback). Much of it borrows from the worst of the Moore Bond films, namely Moonraker and Octopussy silliness. All these characters turn up and as another poster said, it's like some family adventure. Karen Allen - SEXISM ALERT - isn't really some damsel in distress, she's a Mom, it's not the same. Didn't see have a huskier voice in Raiders? Really she should be more the wiry Kathleen Hepburn (spot the movie injoke no 1, film fans!) type, but as another poster said, she's more Diane Keaton here.
Ray Winstone's character I found annoying, I never believed he and Indy were mates. As an earlier character of his might have confided in biker LaBoef, "They treat you like a lump of sh1t don't they..." (Movie Injoke no 2, film fans)
John Hurt annoyed the hell out of me, his staring into space ruminations reminded me of Spike Milligan's luckless, unheeded prophet in Monty Python's Life of Brian.)
I'm glad Connery didn't show up for this, it's another League of Extraordinary Gentlemen in a way. You could only redeem it by casting Bob Hope and Bing Crosby in it, and having a couple of singing and dancing numbers. Ford is okay, though Lucus gives him too much to say (he's a strong silent type) and his slow-witted, baffled countenance, once pleasingly paradoxical in a virile leading man, now makes him look like the old guy too often.
I generally wish that Spielberg and Ford had gone ahead with the Indy 4 script that Lucas had vetoed. Maybe former Nazis in South America, with the Red Army on the sidelines. And a European city somewhere, like Venice in Crusade. This one felt all bunched in to a story only Lucas wanted to tell.
I agree about the McCarthyism concept, NP. IT seemed it was shoe-horned in to make some kind of current day political statement, which all backfired because the threat was all to real. That's the kind of writing I call 'ham-fisted'
I too realized after the movie was over that Indy never rode a horse. The figure of Indy on horseback for me always spoke to the character's individualism and ruggedness (maybe it's all the westerns I watch).
I will say this...
I liked the ending of the wedding, only because it dares to tread where Hollywood can never seem to get a grasp on. People get married...and STAY married...and can still live an enjoyable life. As is often the case, two will get together, and, come the sequel, the marriage is on the rocks and the couple is separated. It doesn't have to be that way in a story. Refer to the Thin Man series to see how well a married couple can perform in a story in a large entertaining fashion
Cheers darenhat. Oh, here's another thing I hated:
The scene with the quick sand, played for laughs, between Indy and Marianne. Dreadful stuff, and the getting the snake was like something out of Carry On/Road To... you can imagine Hope and Crosby confiding in each other in such a situation, then Crosby having to recant his confessed trespass when they both get out... that would have been funny...
Well, I saw it this afternoon, along with my aged father (I'm away from the home base for a little while). I didn't love the movie, but I liked it, and I think some of the comments that have been directed against it--"awful," "terrible," and the like--are extreme, right up there with the infamous "Die Another Day is the worst movie made in the entire history of the medium!" It's pretty much what I predicted: nowhere in the league of Raiders, but pretty much on the level of the other Indy films.
To my mind, the biggest problem in the film is the middle section, which really seemed to drag. There's a lot of exposition and a lot of globe-hopping, but very little action. It also seems that Indy finds the crystal skull without breaking a sweat: it couldn't have been easier if the skull dropped from the skies and landed in his lap!
That complaint aside, the movie is fun. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Shia LeBeouf's presence in the movie: he wasn't a whiner or a jerk; he was, instead, a cool kid with enough brains to help Indy through the adventure as opposed to dragging it down (Short Round, anyone?). I also got a kick out of Cate Blanchett's scenery chewing villainess and the return of Karen Allen. When Indy says that he's had other women but none of them were as good as Marion, we know that he's speaking for every Indy fan in the world. Last, it was enjoyable to count the movie genres to which Spielberg and company pay homage: yes, there are plenty of nods to earlier Spielberg movies; but many of the set pieces are loving tributes to such 1950s action epics as Land of the Pharaohs, Hammer's The Mummy, the Stewart Granger version of King Solomon's Mines, The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, and any of a number of Tarzan/African jungle flicks. Like a lot of others, I watched all this with a goofy smile on my face.
But, then again, what do I know? The Hardyfather found it wanting. Well, you can't please 'em all.
Having Mutt as a biker like Marlon Brando was too obvious a cultural reference and it's jarring; you never had mention of Fred Astaire in the Raiders movie, for instance. Aside from the Marx Brothers reference in Crusade, the whole trilogy was culturally timesless, but not here.
Good review Nape, and I agree with some of your observations, but I must correct you on one point: if Astaire was never referenced directly in Raiders, both Fred and Ginger were more than hinted at in the set piece that opens Temple of Doom. The Cole Porter song Anything Goes, sung in Chinese, was the title tune of a hit Broadway show that Astaire starred in the '30s. And Kate Capshaw was reminiscent of Ginger.
I just saw the new film this evening and I'll post a review of my own soon.
Sweepy the CatHalifax, West Yorkshire, EnglaPosts: 986MI6 Agent
edited May 2008
- - SPOILER ALERT - -
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - A Review
Well it started of a little different and felt nothing like Indiana Jones but that soon changed. Later on we see the double-crossing backstabbing best mate 'Mac' (Ray Winstone) who was fantastic. The opening action sequence wasn't fantastic but it wasn't bad. I think at times (especially towards the end) it was too predictable and silly but I think all Indiana Jones films have this problem. We soon run into fellow characters 'Mutt' (Shia Le Bouf) and previous companion/girlfriend 'Marion' (Karen Allen). We soon figure out that 'Mutt' is Indy's son and we have a mum/dad/son scenario. It sounds rubbish but is better than I thought. We also see 'Prof. Ox' (John Hurt) who's lost his mind a little from looking too much into the crystal skull. It takes a while to get really into the film like the other ones but by the bike chase/truck chase, you are firmly in your seat. It ends a bit silly with the aliens/Indy and Marion getting married, but it's still got some great action and tension (The killer ants). It's all about some crystal skull (an aliens skull) being taken back to it's original temple which is apparently a city of gold (Mac gets upset when he finds out it's not). We later find out it's an alien from another dimension and a portal to another dimension sucks in many of the led villains goons along with 'Mac'. She wants to know everything (probably stuff like the meaning of life) but it's all too much and she blows up into little pieces which are sucked up into the dimension too. It's a nice try but doesn't beat the original trilogy. 7/10.
Having Mutt as a biker like Marlon Brando was too obvious a cultural reference and it's jarring; you never had mention of Fred Astaire in the Raiders movie, for instance. Aside from the Marx Brothers reference in Crusade, the whole trilogy was culturally timesless, but not here.
Good review Nape, and I agree with some of your observations, but I must correct you on one point: if Astaire was never referenced directly in Raiders, both Fred and Ginger were more than hinted at in the set piece that opens Temple of Doom. The Cole Porter song Anything Goes, sung in Chinese, was the title tune of a hit Broadway show that Astaire starred in the '30s. And Kate Capshaw was reminiscent of Ginger.
Yes I see what you mean hh and I did think about that... better maybe an example would be Indy taking Marion or Kate Capshaw character to a b+w Fred and Ginger movie and we suddenly realise they're not us, they're our parent's generation. It's like that with Mutt the biker a bit, though I guess it has potential for some poignancy.
Oh, and catch the first pages of the imdb comments, there are some great caustic comments on it, very well written stuff. Oddly though, despite having it on 'Best' comments, none of them give over six stars hardly, yet it's got a high imdb rating... what gives? Is imdb fixed?
Ta-daaa -- here's my review. it's more my impressions than a full-blown review but it's Sunday and I'm lazy and want to go ride my motorcycle (a modern-day version of Mutt's '48 springer Panhead -- what a beautiful machine)
I enjoyed it; as I said in an earlier post, it's an Indiana Jones flick. How bad can it be? Not very. So if I focus on its weaknesses it's only because its strengths pretty much go without saying.
1) Too many characters. Indy has always had a sidekick or even two -- this time he has four, even if one of them keeps switching sides.
2) Too much CGI. Compare the car chases in Raiders and Crystal Skull. Yes, the latter effort is exciting and far more complicated visually -- but nowhere near as breathtaking as in the first film, when Jones falls off the truck only to slip beneath the undercarriage and climb back on the other end to continue the fight. That scene is memorable because it fell into the "possible, but highly unlikely" world where Fleming placed Bond. The Crystal Skull scene was clearly impossible. It's a result of the filmmakers trying to outdo themselves by giving us something ever more spectacular that we've never seen before but losing sight of reality in the process. That's the danger of CGI in action films. They can do anything. Unfortunately, we intuitively know that human beings have limits and we know it when we see them obviously exceeded.
3) Too many references to the earlier films. OK -- this is the final chapter -- we get it. It's time for a nod to the past. A reference or two is OK, and it was a great idea in the original last chapter, Last Crusade. In that film, Elsa asks Indy about the subject of a picture on the wall of the Venitian catacombs.
"What is it?" she asks
"Ark of the Covenant," he responds.
"Are you sure?"
"Pretty sure," Indy says, and of course, we smile because we know that Indy knows what he's talking about. It's a wonderful reference to the movie that started it all. But that movie left well enough alone and did its own thing from then on.
The new film can't stop making these kinds of references. I found myself thinking "Oh yeah, that's like in ..." every five minutes. All right, already. Leave well enough alone, please. It felt too much like the "final chapter."
Anyway, those are my big quibbles. I really liked Cate. Everytime she came onscreen I felt like jumping her bones ("No Cate -- don't take off the wig"). I was kind of hoping she'd use her feminine charms on Indy rather than a sword, but what the heck.
I watched The Lost World the other day; Claude Reins unrecognisable as the old professor, plus was that Jill St John (?) and David Hedison (Tiffany and Leiter respectively) those Bond connections mount up, plus the guy who plays Max, the wily Simon Cowell wannabe in The Sound Of Music.
I realised that the expedition type thing was what they were going for in Indy 4, with all these different characters. Here it worked however, because
1) It was sold as an expedition from the start, not with people just adding themselves along the way accidentally.
2) No Nazis or Commies on their tale, complicating the peril, having it go back and forth. This crowd were mainly just dealing with the World's horrors (plus unfriendly natives).
3) Some of them died, aiding the realism whereas almost all the Indy gang are loveable and we know they won't be allowed to snuff it come what may.
4) Actually the special effects, shamefully , were more visceral and real than in the Indy stuff (though not the dinosaurs really). All the molten lava looked real enough.
I saw the film on friday and I thought it was fun if nothing incredibly remarkable. It has the mucky pawprints of George Lucas over it but it wasn't a repeat of the Star Wars prequels. Once it got going it felt like an Indy film, although obviously it's never going to be quite the same after such a long gap. I thought the plot device was clumsy and a tad dull and actors like John Hurt and Ray Winstone were a bit wasted with underwritten roles. Shia was fine and Ford with his deadpan charisma slipped back into the Indy role as well as could be expected. Once he was thrown into the action you completely forgot that he was 65. The opening scenes are really good and the bike chase through the campus a highlight. Once it moved to the jungle it became perhaps a bit too familiar with a few moments (Indy and Mutt in the cave) where you felt like shouting "Get on with it" but I liked the chase scene and the fight between Indy and the Russian soldier surrounded by ants. Sure it becomes a bit goofy in places but anyone up in arms over this has obviously never seen the other Indy films. Indy was always supposed to be an affectionate update of b-pictures. Like others I sometimes found the jungle setting a bit synthetic with the whiff of a soundstage but maybe this was deliberate for the look of the film. I have no idea. It'll be interesting to watch it a few times on DVD to see if it holds up to repeat viewings like the other films in the series. All in all it was an entertaining if somewhat flawed film with some nice jokes (I loved the look on Ford's face when he was being 'scrubbed down' in that chamber thing) and two or three really good action sequences. The final scene was fine IMO and a nice way to wrap up. Not perfect by any means but more fun than the last James Bond film I watched in a cinema. It's just a shame that Spielberg very rarely tries to make this type of picture anymore.
Nice summation, Arthur. I agree completely. IMO John Hurt could have been excised from the cast entirely. His only real purpose was to give Jones some impetus to embark on the quest (since he didn't know who Mutt's mother was at the time).
Better than I thought it was going to be, certainly. I agree with a lot of the posts on here regarding an over use of CGI (it's single most grievous fault) and also the fact of too many characters (however, they did a fair job of developing the characters that they added...spare for Mac, he bugged me). The Economist had a neat little article about how the Indy movies had touched on relics of Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity and now American UFOism. Thought that was pretty good. I also was amazed at how well Blanchett did with the Ukrainian accent, well done! {[] Overall, an enjoyable movie...it was an Indy flick, I couldn't be disappointed however it would probably rank 3rd or 4th overall on my Indy movie list.
I certainly want/need to see it again. In retrospect I'm a bit confused as to the machinations of the plot. What was gained at the Roswell warehouse? At first, the Russians needed Jones, but later they're after Oxley. Admittedly, I stepped out of the theater during some of the exposition before Indy and Mutt flitted off to South America, so perhaps I missed a crucial element.
About 40-50 minutes into Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and I was wondering what was wrong with the people who didn't like this film. The first section of the film was brilliant, and so much more than I expected. Indy' introduction was suitably stylish, with the iconic hat falling out of the car, then we see Indy's shadow as picks it up and puts it on. I liked the sequence where Indy persuades the Russians to put their guns down, then they raise them again a moment later. The stand-off in the diner, where the customers seperate into their respective gangs was wittily done, and the motorcycle chase ending in the library was as good as anything Spielberg has done before.
But then it all goes a bit mad. John Hurt turns up giving a performance that is every bit as bad as his turn in The Proposition. The jungle chase goes on forever. Given that it's Steven Spielberg and he has a fondness for spacemen, I wasn't that surprised that aliens make an appearance. But at least we can be thankful that Hayley Joel Osment wasn't with them. As for that portal to another dimension, well it looked like a giant waste-disposal unit. And never end a film with a wedding. It's an adventure movie. Not a f***ing Jane Austen novel.
I havent read all 28 pages of replies in this thread so forgive me if I say something that others have already said.
My review is basically negative so dont read on if you dont want to see the film attacked.
A lot of time has passed since Last Crusade and in that period other films have been made that are in direct competition with the Indiana Jones francise. Like it or not I found myself comparing Crystal Skull with the Mummy films because of the seen-it-before whirlwind special effects used at the end of Crystal Skull.
However the major problem with Crystal Skull is not the sophistication of the special effects but the pacing of the action. Crystal Skull is busy and breathless and the viewer gets no chance to stop and just be in the film with the characters. Unless the pace develops there can be no crescendo and no climax. The film begins with a car chase and hardly ever slows down. If the pace is fast then this becomes normal for the viewer and therefore ceases to be exciting. Despite this Indiana Jones looks tired (perhaps because hes never allowed to rest?) and not enough attention is given to the development of the relationships between him and his son and Marianne. Both characters pop up very abruptly and we have no time to start caring about them which is what makes all the difference. The sequence of clues is too complex and the overall effect of the whole film is like the whirlwind at the end - the viewer gets spun around like theyre on a cheap ride at Disneyland and ends up dizzy, breathless and confused. The film was well executed visually but good writing is the key to a good film and Crystal Skull does not measure up to the previous 3 films, even allowing for the passage of time and its many competitors.
P.S. They should have reired the character in this film and the film should have been INDIANA JONES AND THE LOST CITY OF ATLANTIS. Indiana would die heroically as the Lost City sank beneath the waves after an earthquake was triggered. Atlantis is the ultimate archaeologist's goal and it would be a fitting final discovery for Indi.
P.S. They should have reired the character in this film and the film should have been INDIANA JONES AND THE LOST CITY OF ATLANTIS. Indiana would die heroically as the Lost City sank beneath the waves after an earthquake was triggered. Atlantis is the ultimate archaeologist's goal and it would be a fitting final discovery for Indi.
But how would you explain the presence in modern times of the nonogenarian one-eyed Indy who used to set up the stories of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles?
While the one-eyed George Hall Indy exists in the minds of so many Young Indy veiwers, his existence has been excised from the actual series. I think that George Lucas believes he longer exists, much like the belief that in Star Wars, Greedo shoots first - not Han Solo.
I watched the movie again for the second time. I actually enjoyed it more this time. I think the first time I saw it, I didn't want to Indy to share screen time with any other characters. The second time didn't seem to bother me so much.
If I was allowed to change only one thing in the film, it would be the visual of the flesh and blood alien staring into Spalko's eyes at the end. I would have much preferred the physicality of the 'inter-dimensional' beings to be a mystery.
P.S. They should have reired the character in this film and the film should have been INDIANA JONES AND THE LOST CITY OF ATLANTIS. Indiana would die heroically as the Lost City sank beneath the waves after an earthquake was triggered. Atlantis is the ultimate archaeologist's goal and it would be a fitting final discovery for Indi.
But how would you explain the presence in modern times of the nonogenarian one-eyed Indy who used to set up the stories of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles?
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited June 2008
Had my second viewing today, with my sons. The film holds up well for a second time...the laughs are all still funny. What a blast to be seeing a new Indy film in 2008
I seriously disagree that the film is poorly paced. Whatever other issues this picture has (and there are plenty), pacing isn't one of them, IMRO. The exposition scenes break up the action nicely.
I'm maintaining my contention that this one holds up with the three follow-ups to the original (Classic!) Lost Ark. There's the great one...and the three follow-ups. Perhaps my own experience with this one is buoyed by my reduced expectations---I don't know how I could have reasonably expected what is essentially a third sequel to be the Ultimate Cinematic Triumph.
Wish the McGuffin had been better...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
My brother and I saw Indy IV again today and we also enjoyed our second viewing every bit as much as the first. Even though I knew everything that would happen, I still never once looked at my wristwatch for the duration of the movie.
I found it to be a nostalgic, feel-good reunion with a beloved character; one where you find out that he hasn't changed all that much and is still as cool as ever. The good guys win and nice things happen to them; and the bad guys get their comeuppance. What could possibly be wrong with that?
I also think this is a more pleasing and rewarding last look at Indiana Jones than that decrepit old one-eyed geezer from the TV show (glad to read that he's been retconned into oblivion). Classic movie heroes like Indy should never die, or even grow too old before our eyes. They should entertain us, give us one last final thrilling adventure, and then walk off into the sunset, with their girl under their arm. Our last memories of them should be of how, despite their years, they are still vibrant and strong and full of life. I'm glad Crystal Skull gave us that and I find myself sincerely hoping it will be the last word on Henry Jones II.
Occurred to me that maybe in the first draft, Prof Oxley was Sir Sean's role before he passed on it.
That might make more sense, it would be rather moving to see the old boy out of his mind, rambling and senile, only to have him return to his senses for the final scene. It might have brought gravitas to the thing, explain Jone's motivation to follow him (imagining him to be some silly old buffer whose got into trouble) though of course at 80 Sir Sean's character would be really too old to go galivanting around the jungle.
Occurred to me that maybe in the first draft, Prof Oxley was Sir Sean's role before he passed on it.
Based on what Lucas said in interviews, my understanding was that Connery would have had one or two very brief scenes. My guess is that he would have shown up during the wedding, and probably deliver a few choice lines to his son and grandson. It could have been a nice little moment; really a shame Connery chose to sit this one out.
Occurred to me that maybe in the first draft, Prof Oxley was Sir Sean's role before he passed on it.
Based on what Lucas said in interviews, my understanding was that Connery would have had one or two very brief scenes. My guess is that he would have shown up during the wedding, and probably deliver a few choice lines to his son and grandson. It could have been a nice little moment; really a shame Connery chose to sit this one out.
It'd be a bit like Robin Hood Prince of Thieves with a surprise Connery Cameo/wedding juxtaposition in the last scene!
After musing on the 'McGuffin' (I really loathe how much this term is being bandied about now), a particular realization occurred to me. Crystal Skull does something that other Indy movies never did. Where as the first three films centered on quests for relics that are based on historical legend, Crystal Skull focuses more on historical mystery. Essentially, the original films never tried to portray the Ark of the Covenant, the Shiva Linga stones, or the Holy Grail other than what 'history' or 'legend' espoused them as being. The ark was, according to the Old Testament, a powerful and mystical item for the Hebrews. The Shiva Linga stones were said to cause great travesty if they were removed from their locations (thus containing some mystical power). And the Holy Grail, in medieval folklore, was the cup of Christ that was fabled to bring eternal life to whoever drank from it.
Crystal Skull is different in that it actually creates its own mythos based on peculiar mysteries of the past: The Nasca Lines, the human-shaped crystal skull carvings, and the bizaare practice of elongating one's head through head-binding at birth. Skull attempts to unite these factual mysteries under a fictional umbrella of 'inter-dimensional' beings.
I have no problem with this - in fact, I think it is rather fun to try to 'unearth' these ancient mysteries - but I can see why for some, the story rings hollow, and that some viewers may feel the story goes 'too far'. Essentially, the plot dangerously toes the line of the suspension of disbelief because we are asked to accept concepts that have no previous historical foundations.
In another sense, though, the script acknowledges this in a very subtle way. First, there is the atom bomb sequence, which gives the haunting visual that Indy is stepping into a whole new world. This sentiment is supplemented when Cate Blanchett's character quotes the atomic bomb creator Oppenheimer's words "I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds" and Jones retorts that Oppenheimer is quoting Hindu theology. Hence it could be inferred that man is now dethroning historical foundations and is establishing his own, newer, mythology. Oddly enough, the wailing sirens during the atom bomb sequence are mimicked in the finale when the mysterious crystal skull temple's portal is opened. It is these subtle undercurrents in the movie, I believe, that keep the story from veering completely into unbelief. The facets are so subtle, though, that I can see why many audience members didn't by into the new world mythos they created.
Crystal Skull is different in that it actually creates its own mythos based on peculiar mysteries of the past: The Nasca Lines, the human-shaped crystal skull carvings, and the bizaare practice of elongating one's head through head-binding at birth. Skull attempts to unite these factual mysteries under a fictional umbrella of 'inter-dimensional' beings.
Actually Darenhat, there were a few books which I'm pretty sure tried to tie all those elements together before. Erich von Daniken (who Arthur C. Clarke once famously labeled a "creep") of Chariots of the Gods fame springs to mind, as do the more recent ravings of conspiracy theorist and acknowledged quack Richard Hoagland, although the interdimensional (as opposed to merely alien) angle is I think original.
As somebody who grew up on science fiction and ate this stuff up as a child, I didn't mind these extrapolations at all and actually found them, and the way they were worked into the film, quite amusing and even nostalgic. I must confess to actually preferring this type of a plot as opposed to yet another Nazi story (I once read one of the unused alternate stories involved Indy squaring off against Nazis who had fled to South America after WWII).
I just hope George Lucas doesn't buy into these theories of ancient aliens - I could almost picture him secretly funding their off the wall theories and expeditions.
I have no doubt that others have tried to 'connect the dots' of all these concepts and tie them to aliens before. How many times have we heard stories about aliens building the Egyptian or Mayan pyramids? The concepts tend to feel 'incestuous', because we are using modern mythology to explain historical legend...both of which oftentimes need a small leap of faith to follow in the first place.
Comments
It's not as bad as NSNA, but it's a classic fourth film in a franchise - recall Lethal Weapon and Die Harder - in that it's not allowed to fail. It's action all crammed in, some of it deliberately OTT and quite implausible as if to say, okay, are we done now? And there are so many characters tagging along, as Indy might say "It's not the age, it's the baggage..." For Last Crusade the tag line was 'and this time, he's bringing his Dad!' Here he brings his best mate (who we've never seen before), son, son's Mom, and work colleague. It's all too much.
Interesting about needing to see it on a digital screen. I saw it at a lovely old style cinema, the Notting Hill Coronet, but I couldn't hear the dialogue too well, I might have been better off sitting further back. But I think sometimes Spielberg does this, he makes you strain to hear the words, it was the same at the opening of Temple of Doom and parts of Jurassic Park. But you also find it in big blockbusters: the last two Bonds and the Pirates franchise, but never (in case you think I'm deaf) with bog standard fare like Forgetting Sarah Marshall.
Anyway, it was a hassle because there's a lot of verbiage in this, real long-winded exposition delivered by Ford in his trademark 'you can type this sh1t, George, but you sure can't say it' expression. The problem is, of course, that unlike the Ark of the Covenent or the Holy Grail, we need more explanation about the Chrystal Skulls like what they are, where they came from, who's been after them and their power yada yada... It's Exposition City and for 10-15 mins it seems Ford is just explaining to Shia LaBoeuf about all this, real boring stuff. Even having seen the film I'm no wiser, I couldn't care less and I get the sense Spielberg and Ford didn't either, they just went along with Lucas' hobby horse so they could get to make another Indy film before the sun sets.
The intro is great, all 1950s Americana like Richard Donner's Superman (but all films reference each other these days) but I struggled with Indy in this era, it felt interesting but wrong. His hat and whip getup felt right for the wartime era. Having Mutt as a biker like Marlon Brando was too obvious a cultural reference and it's jarring; you never had mention of Fred Astaire in the Raiders movie, for instance. Aside from the Marx Brothers reference in Crusade, the whole trilogy was culturally timesless, but not here. It's like Back to the Future in reverse
As for the Russians as villains, well, they're not Nazis are they?
What did I like? Well the opener was good, though I strongly advise you read this spoiler about the warehouse, it will enhance your enjoyment...
The action scene after that was incredible, surreal, eerie, weird, a total blast... {[] I felt like many felt at the opener of GoldenEye. That said, other scenes couldn't really top it.
Most of the action was very derivative (and Indy never rides a horse, which I later pinpointed as a drawback). Much of it borrows from the worst of the Moore Bond films, namely Moonraker and Octopussy silliness. All these characters turn up and as another poster said, it's like some family adventure. Karen Allen - SEXISM ALERT - isn't really some damsel in distress, she's a Mom, it's not the same. Didn't see have a huskier voice in Raiders? Really she should be more the wiry Kathleen Hepburn (spot the movie injoke no 1, film fans!) type, but as another poster said, she's more Diane Keaton here.
Ray Winstone's character I found annoying, I never believed he and Indy were mates. As an earlier character of his might have confided in biker LaBoef, "They treat you like a lump of sh1t don't they..." (Movie Injoke no 2, film fans)
John Hurt annoyed the hell out of me, his staring into space ruminations reminded me of Spike Milligan's luckless, unheeded prophet in Monty Python's Life of Brian.
I'm glad Connery didn't show up for this, it's another League of Extraordinary Gentlemen in a way. You could only redeem it by casting Bob Hope and Bing Crosby in it, and having a couple of singing and dancing numbers. Ford is okay, though Lucus gives him too much to say (he's a strong silent type) and his slow-witted, baffled countenance, once pleasingly paradoxical in a virile leading man, now makes him look like the old guy too often.
I generally wish that Spielberg and Ford had gone ahead with the Indy 4 script that Lucas had vetoed. Maybe former Nazis in South America, with the Red Army on the sidelines. And a European city somewhere, like Venice in Crusade. This one felt all bunched in to a story only Lucas wanted to tell.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I too realized after the movie was over that Indy never rode a horse. The figure of Indy on horseback for me always spoke to the character's individualism and ruggedness (maybe it's all the westerns I watch).
I will say this...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
To my mind, the biggest problem in the film is the middle section, which really seemed to drag. There's a lot of exposition and a lot of globe-hopping, but very little action. It also seems that Indy finds the crystal skull without breaking a sweat: it couldn't have been easier if the skull dropped from the skies and landed in his lap!
That complaint aside, the movie is fun. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Shia LeBeouf's presence in the movie: he wasn't a whiner or a jerk; he was, instead, a cool kid with enough brains to help Indy through the adventure as opposed to dragging it down (Short Round, anyone?). I also got a kick out of Cate Blanchett's scenery chewing villainess and the return of Karen Allen. When Indy says that he's had other women but none of them were as good as Marion, we know that he's speaking for every Indy fan in the world. Last, it was enjoyable to count the movie genres to which Spielberg and company pay homage: yes, there are plenty of nods to earlier Spielberg movies; but many of the set pieces are loving tributes to such 1950s action epics as Land of the Pharaohs, Hammer's The Mummy, the Stewart Granger version of King Solomon's Mines, The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, and any of a number of Tarzan/African jungle flicks. Like a lot of others, I watched all this with a goofy smile on my face.
But, then again, what do I know? The Hardyfather found it wanting. Well, you can't please 'em all.
Good review Nape, and I agree with some of your observations, but I must correct you on one point: if Astaire was never referenced directly in Raiders, both Fred and Ginger were more than hinted at in the set piece that opens Temple of Doom. The Cole Porter song Anything Goes, sung in Chinese, was the title tune of a hit Broadway show that Astaire starred in the '30s. And Kate Capshaw was reminiscent of Ginger.
I just saw the new film this evening and I'll post a review of my own soon.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - A Review
Well it started of a little different and felt nothing like Indiana Jones but that soon changed. Later on we see the double-crossing backstabbing best mate 'Mac' (Ray Winstone) who was fantastic. The opening action sequence wasn't fantastic but it wasn't bad. I think at times (especially towards the end) it was too predictable and silly but I think all Indiana Jones films have this problem. We soon run into fellow characters 'Mutt' (Shia Le Bouf) and previous companion/girlfriend 'Marion' (Karen Allen). We soon figure out that 'Mutt' is Indy's son and we have a mum/dad/son scenario. It sounds rubbish but is better than I thought. We also see 'Prof. Ox' (John Hurt) who's lost his mind a little from looking too much into the crystal skull. It takes a while to get really into the film like the other ones but by the bike chase/truck chase, you are firmly in your seat. It ends a bit silly with the aliens/Indy and Marion getting married, but it's still got some great action and tension (The killer ants). It's all about some crystal skull (an aliens skull) being taken back to it's original temple which is apparently a city of gold (Mac gets upset when he finds out it's not). We later find out it's an alien from another dimension and a portal to another dimension sucks in many of the led villains goons along with 'Mac'. She wants to know everything (probably stuff like the meaning of life) but it's all too much and she blows up into little pieces which are sucked up into the dimension too. It's a nice try but doesn't beat the original trilogy. 7/10.
Yes I see what you mean hh and I did think about that... better maybe an example would be Indy taking Marion or Kate Capshaw character to a b+w Fred and Ginger movie and we suddenly realise they're not us, they're our parent's generation. It's like that with Mutt the biker a bit, though I guess it has potential for some poignancy.
I look forward to your review, hh.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I enjoyed it; as I said in an earlier post, it's an Indiana Jones flick. How bad can it be? Not very. So if I focus on its weaknesses it's only because its strengths pretty much go without saying.
1) Too many characters. Indy has always had a sidekick or even two -- this time he has four, even if one of them keeps switching sides.
2) Too much CGI. Compare the car chases in Raiders and Crystal Skull. Yes, the latter effort is exciting and far more complicated visually -- but nowhere near as breathtaking as in the first film, when Jones falls off the truck only to slip beneath the undercarriage and climb back on the other end to continue the fight. That scene is memorable because it fell into the "possible, but highly unlikely" world where Fleming placed Bond. The Crystal Skull scene was clearly impossible. It's a result of the filmmakers trying to outdo themselves by giving us something ever more spectacular that we've never seen before but losing sight of reality in the process. That's the danger of CGI in action films. They can do anything. Unfortunately, we intuitively know that human beings have limits and we know it when we see them obviously exceeded.
3) Too many references to the earlier films. OK -- this is the final chapter -- we get it. It's time for a nod to the past. A reference or two is OK, and it was a great idea in the original last chapter, Last Crusade. In that film, Elsa asks Indy about the subject of a picture on the wall of the Venitian catacombs.
"What is it?" she asks
"Ark of the Covenant," he responds.
"Are you sure?"
"Pretty sure," Indy says, and of course, we smile because we know that Indy knows what he's talking about. It's a wonderful reference to the movie that started it all. But that movie left well enough alone and did its own thing from then on.
The new film can't stop making these kinds of references. I found myself thinking "Oh yeah, that's like in ..." every five minutes. All right, already. Leave well enough alone, please. It felt too much like the "final chapter."
Anyway, those are my big quibbles. I really liked Cate. Everytime she came onscreen I felt like jumping her bones ("No Cate -- don't take off the wig"). I was kind of hoping she'd use her feminine charms on Indy rather than a sword, but what the heck.
I watched The Lost World the other day; Claude Reins unrecognisable as the old professor, plus was that Jill St John (?) and David Hedison (Tiffany and Leiter respectively) those Bond connections mount up, plus the guy who plays Max, the wily Simon Cowell wannabe in The Sound Of Music.
I realised that the expedition type thing was what they were going for in Indy 4, with all these different characters. Here it worked however, because
1) It was sold as an expedition from the start, not with people just adding themselves along the way accidentally.
2) No Nazis or Commies on their tale, complicating the peril, having it go back and forth. This crowd were mainly just dealing with the World's horrors (plus unfriendly natives).
3) Some of them died, aiding the realism whereas almost all the Indy gang are loveable and we know they won't be allowed to snuff it come what may.
4) Actually the special effects, shamefully , were more visceral and real than in the Indy stuff (though not the dinosaurs really). All the molten lava looked real enough.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
But then it all goes a bit mad. John Hurt turns up giving a performance that is every bit as bad as his turn in The Proposition. The jungle chase goes on forever. Given that it's Steven Spielberg and he has a fondness for spacemen, I wasn't that surprised that aliens make an appearance. But at least we can be thankful that Hayley Joel Osment wasn't with them. As for that portal to another dimension, well it looked like a giant waste-disposal unit. And never end a film with a wedding. It's an adventure movie. Not a f***ing Jane Austen novel.
I havent read all 28 pages of replies in this thread so forgive me if I say something that others have already said.
My review is basically negative so dont read on if you dont want to see the film attacked.
A lot of time has passed since Last Crusade and in that period other films have been made that are in direct competition with the Indiana Jones francise. Like it or not I found myself comparing Crystal Skull with the Mummy films because of the seen-it-before whirlwind special effects used at the end of Crystal Skull.
However the major problem with Crystal Skull is not the sophistication of the special effects but the pacing of the action. Crystal Skull is busy and breathless and the viewer gets no chance to stop and just be in the film with the characters. Unless the pace develops there can be no crescendo and no climax. The film begins with a car chase and hardly ever slows down. If the pace is fast then this becomes normal for the viewer and therefore ceases to be exciting. Despite this Indiana Jones looks tired (perhaps because hes never allowed to rest?) and not enough attention is given to the development of the relationships between him and his son and Marianne. Both characters pop up very abruptly and we have no time to start caring about them which is what makes all the difference. The sequence of clues is too complex and the overall effect of the whole film is like the whirlwind at the end - the viewer gets spun around like theyre on a cheap ride at Disneyland and ends up dizzy, breathless and confused. The film was well executed visually but good writing is the key to a good film and Crystal Skull does not measure up to the previous 3 films, even allowing for the passage of time and its many competitors.
P.S. They should have reired the character in this film and the film should have been INDIANA JONES AND THE LOST CITY OF ATLANTIS. Indiana would die heroically as the Lost City sank beneath the waves after an earthquake was triggered. Atlantis is the ultimate archaeologist's goal and it would be a fitting final discovery for Indi.
But how would you explain the presence in modern times of the nonogenarian one-eyed Indy who used to set up the stories of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles?
I watched the movie again for the second time. I actually enjoyed it more this time. I think the first time I saw it, I didn't want to Indy to share screen time with any other characters. The second time didn't seem to bother me so much.
If I was allowed to change only one thing in the film, it would be the visual of the flesh and blood alien staring into Spalko's eyes at the end. I would have much preferred the physicality of the 'inter-dimensional' beings to be a mystery.
I seriously disagree that the film is poorly paced. Whatever other issues this picture has (and there are plenty), pacing isn't one of them, IMRO. The exposition scenes break up the action nicely.
I'm maintaining my contention that this one holds up with the three follow-ups to the original (Classic!) Lost Ark. There's the great one...and the three follow-ups. Perhaps my own experience with this one is buoyed by my reduced expectations---I don't know how I could have reasonably expected what is essentially a third sequel to be the Ultimate Cinematic Triumph.
Wish the McGuffin had been better...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I found it to be a nostalgic, feel-good reunion with a beloved character; one where you find out that he hasn't changed all that much and is still as cool as ever. The good guys win and nice things happen to them; and the bad guys get their comeuppance. What could possibly be wrong with that?
I also think this is a more pleasing and rewarding last look at Indiana Jones than that decrepit old one-eyed geezer from the TV show (glad to read that he's been retconned into oblivion). Classic movie heroes like Indy should never die, or even grow too old before our eyes. They should entertain us, give us one last final thrilling adventure, and then walk off into the sunset, with their girl under their arm. Our last memories of them should be of how, despite their years, they are still vibrant and strong and full of life. I'm glad Crystal Skull gave us that and I find myself sincerely hoping it will be the last word on Henry Jones II.
That might make more sense, it would be rather moving to see the old boy out of his mind, rambling and senile, only to have him return to his senses for the final scene. It might have brought gravitas to the thing, explain Jone's motivation to follow him (imagining him to be some silly old buffer whose got into trouble) though of course at 80 Sir Sean's character would be really too old to go galivanting around the jungle.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Based on what Lucas said in interviews, my understanding was that Connery would have had one or two very brief scenes. My guess is that he would have shown up during the wedding, and probably deliver a few choice lines to his son and grandson. It could have been a nice little moment; really a shame Connery chose to sit this one out.
It'd be a bit like Robin Hood Prince of Thieves with a surprise Connery Cameo/wedding juxtaposition in the last scene!
After musing on the 'McGuffin' (I really loathe how much this term is being bandied about now), a particular realization occurred to me. Crystal Skull does something that other Indy movies never did. Where as the first three films centered on quests for relics that are based on historical legend, Crystal Skull focuses more on historical mystery. Essentially, the original films never tried to portray the Ark of the Covenant, the Shiva Linga stones, or the Holy Grail other than what 'history' or 'legend' espoused them as being. The ark was, according to the Old Testament, a powerful and mystical item for the Hebrews. The Shiva Linga stones were said to cause great travesty if they were removed from their locations (thus containing some mystical power). And the Holy Grail, in medieval folklore, was the cup of Christ that was fabled to bring eternal life to whoever drank from it.
Crystal Skull is different in that it actually creates its own mythos based on peculiar mysteries of the past: The Nasca Lines, the human-shaped crystal skull carvings, and the bizaare practice of elongating one's head through head-binding at birth. Skull attempts to unite these factual mysteries under a fictional umbrella of 'inter-dimensional' beings.
I have no problem with this - in fact, I think it is rather fun to try to 'unearth' these ancient mysteries - but I can see why for some, the story rings hollow, and that some viewers may feel the story goes 'too far'. Essentially, the plot dangerously toes the line of the suspension of disbelief because we are asked to accept concepts that have no previous historical foundations.
In another sense, though, the script acknowledges this in a very subtle way. First, there is the atom bomb sequence, which gives the haunting visual that Indy is stepping into a whole new world. This sentiment is supplemented when Cate Blanchett's character quotes the atomic bomb creator Oppenheimer's words "I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds" and Jones retorts that Oppenheimer is quoting Hindu theology. Hence it could be inferred that man is now dethroning historical foundations and is establishing his own, newer, mythology. Oddly enough, the wailing sirens during the atom bomb sequence are mimicked in the finale when the mysterious crystal skull temple's portal is opened. It is these subtle undercurrents in the movie, I believe, that keep the story from veering completely into unbelief. The facets are so subtle, though, that I can see why many audience members didn't by into the new world mythos they created.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Actually Darenhat, there were a few books which I'm pretty sure tried to tie all those elements together before. Erich von Daniken (who Arthur C. Clarke once famously labeled a "creep") of Chariots of the Gods fame springs to mind, as do the more recent ravings of conspiracy theorist and acknowledged quack Richard Hoagland, although the interdimensional (as opposed to merely alien) angle is I think original.
As somebody who grew up on science fiction and ate this stuff up as a child, I didn't mind these extrapolations at all and actually found them, and the way they were worked into the film, quite amusing and even nostalgic. I must confess to actually preferring this type of a plot as opposed to yet another Nazi story (I once read one of the unused alternate stories involved Indy squaring off against Nazis who had fled to South America after WWII).
I just hope George Lucas doesn't buy into these theories of ancient aliens - I could almost picture him secretly funding their off the wall theories and expeditions.