Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Review

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Review
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Written by: David Koepp (screenplay), George Lucas, Jeff Nathanson (story)
Starring: Harrison Ford, Shia LaBeouf, Cate Blanchett, John Hurt, Ray Winstone, Karen Allen

indy4_1.jpg

Over the last few years we’ve seen quite a few iconic movie heroes come out of retirement to deliver one final kick at the can, and although these belated sequels have typically yielded mixed results, they have succeeded in proving one important thing: nostalgia is a very valuable commodity within the realm of Hollywood these days. Once enough time has passed, people will turn out in droves to reconnect with their favourite characters again, regardless of how good the movie might be.

And so, given that George Lucas and his Star Wars prequels have probably been the single biggest influence in this regard, it doesn’t seem that surprising to find ourselves ready to sit down and watch a fourth Indiana Jones movie almost 20 years after the release of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. There has been plenty of talk about whether or not Harrison Ford might be too old now, or if the new age of computer-generated special effects might contradict the feel of the first three, but I think what’s really important is whether or not there is another story worth telling here. In the end, I really don’t think there was, but I still can’t deny the thrill of seeing Indy back on screen again.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull opens with Dr. Jones and his friend Mac kidnapped by the KGB, who are looking for a mysterious crate in a military compound. The first 10 or 15 minutes of the movie delivers a decent adrenaline rush, but it takes Harrison Ford some time to shake the cobwebs off and fall into a rhythm with the character again.

As you may have heard, there is a part of the movie’s plot that includes some paranormal elements, and while I won’t reveal where exactly this goes, I will say that I was a bit thrown off by the idea of immediately linking Indiana Jones with things like Area 51 and Roswell. It reeked of something that had first been written 10 years ago, back when The X-Files was at the height of its popularity, in an attempt to cash in on a similar concept.

Luckily, soon after that, Shia LaBeouf enters the picture, and things immediately pick up. I know some people have been worried about his involvement in the film, and are against the idea of him taking over the franchise one day. I haven’t been the biggest supporter of LaBeouf either, but I’m definitely growing to appreciate his charm and comedic talent. One thing about Indiana Jones is that he needs a good sidekick to play off of, and LaBeouf has great chemistry with Ford. He plays a 50’s greaser who rides a motorcycle, and although it initially seems a bit goofy, he really made the movie work for me. In fact, the motorcycle chase scene that occurs shortly after his introduction is probably the high point of the film.

indy4_2.jpg

Before long we meet up with the KGB again, and things start to get clunky. Cate Blanchett is enjoyable in her role as the Russian Irina Spalko, but as the movie’s main villain she isn’t particularly memorable, and wasn’t given much to work with. Despite a few more spectacular action sequences along the way, the movie builds to a somewhat sloppy, if not completely ridiculous, ending that is sure to leave a lot of people disappointed. Is it just me, or does every summer blockbuster suddenly throw common sense and logic out the window three-quarters of the way through? It’s a little too far out there, and while I might have embraced it more in another movie, it seems to go against the spirit of the Indiana Jones series.

Harrison Ford is at his best when he’s doling out sage advice to Shia or bickering with Karen Allen (yes, in case you haven’t heard, Marion Ravenwood makes her return in this flick). He can still handle a whip well and holds his own in a fist fight, but there’s no doubt that he looks old and sometimes a little bit awkward on screen. They do have some fun with his age, but for the most part they don’t draw too much attention to it. I don’t know if it’s just me, but I found it hard to pin down the time period of the movie. Even though it’s obviously supposed to be the early 50’s what with the whole “I like Ike” thing, I kept getting confused and thinking it was closer to modern day. They don’t do much with the film as a period piece, at any rate.

Despite all of Spielberg’s reassurances that the movie would not be overly reliant on CGI, and that he and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski had studied the original films and tried to find ways the replicate their look, there’s no getting around the fact that the movie does feel digital and artificial at times. It’s not a huge drawback, and in many ways it’s unavoidable, but be prepared for plenty of composited backgrounds and some CGI creatures. The one scene where they really did go overboard, however, was the “Shia LaBeouf: Lord of the Monkeys” interlude. Can we blame Lucas for that one?

For me, Crystal Skull is definitely the weakest of the Indy films, and somewhat comparable to Temple of Doom with its uneven pacing and arbitrary plot progression. It’s kind of hard to believe that this is the screenplay that they all finally settled on after years of being unsatisfied. Still, throughout the movie, there were some amazing set pieces that had me completely in awe, and more than enough adventure and intrigue to capture that classic Indy feel. I just have a sneaking suspicion that there are also a lot of things in the movie that, once the excitement dies away, are likely to become a wee bit embarrassing in hindsight. — Sean

SCORE: 2.5 stars



Recommended If You Like: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Live Free or Die Hard, Stargate



  • 2.5! SERIOUSLY!! I don’t care i’m going in with an open mind. I haven’t actually read the review i just looked at the score, any spoilers?

  • Hey Drew, I did my best to keep it spoiler-free.

  • Primal

    I enjoyed the film. All I am going to say about the spoiler is that if your not on board with it, then your really not on board with all the other wacky stuff that went on in the movie, especially the Lord of the Monkeys scene. Just like in previous Indy movies where people’s hearts are being ripped open, holy grails giving life, invisible bridges, etc. the movie is wanting to suspend your disbelief.

    I do agree though that the ending was kinda lame, but not a major enough flaw to not recommend other people to see the movie.

  • Ryan

    I really don’t care to see this film. I don’t want to support the tyrannical proliferation of franchise reboots. Plus, I have heard that Spielberg failed with all the CG and the ending from other sources as well.

  • swarez

    The CGI is fine in the film, it’s just that all the action scenes have now been turned up to 11 and that it what ruined the whole thing for me. Monkey king, Fridge and the big jungle chase.

    And even though the previous films basically said that all religions are real, God, Jesus and Hindu the central plot for this one for some reason seems far fetched and unbelievable. Don’t know why.

  • theDia

    Watched it and liked it a lot. If you are able to click your brain in OFF-mode shortly after the fridge-scene you´re in for a great ride. For us old fans they are enough references to the old movies, the chemistry between Shia, Harrison and Karen works well and the chase that leads to the finale is just great fun.

    Of course it was impossible to achieve the feeling one had when watching the original trilogy back then but skull is lightyears ahead of all the cgi-loaded adventurestuff wich was thrown at us in the last few years. Its the worst Indy-movie so far, but at least its a Indy-movie.

  • joe

    Thanks for the early review Sean.. I was debating whether I would see this one or not.

  • When did my Indy become National Treasure or The Mummy or Stargate?

    It seems like Spielberg and Lucas have actually become imitators to their own greatness.

    It’s a given that the Indy Sequels have been diminishing returns from the get-go. Nothing achieves the sublime pulp-action of Raiders. But Doom has heart-ripping and Crusade has Europe and Connery. Crystal Skull flirts with 50s nostalgia (which is awesome) and Red-Scare McCarthyism which promises what the film cannot deliver when it flops into the Amazon Jungle and its reliance on referencing the other films becomes more important than doing something new or interesting. This was a borderline problem with The Last Crusade in terms of another Christian artefact, but in Skull, its is too painful and embarassing to watch things devolve into inside jokes CGI crutches.

  • And I never understood the the double “I like Ike” reference. The movie is indicated to take place in 1957, but wasn’t Ike elected in 1952. Were people still using campaign slogans 5 years on? Why not just set the film in 52?

    Not a biggie, but why reference it twice? Just writing it on the bomb would have been fine, rather than actually having Indy utter it.

  • Matt

    The US does have term limits on the amount of time a president is suposed to serve, Kurt. It’s 4 years, I believe. ;) So he had to have been re-elected in 1956 and began serving his second term in January of 1957.

  • Ahh, so second term election. OK, I can buy that.

  • “When did my Indy become National Treasure or The Mummy or Stargate?”

    Everyone seems to forget that there was a man in Last Crusade who was guarding the grail that was… what… seven hundred years old? Or the fact that ghosts killed a bunch of Nazis in the first movie? Yeah, if you can handle that, aliens and what not aren’t that big of a leap.

  • “When did my Indy become National Treasure or The Mummy or Stargate?”

    It’s not the filmmaking that has changed Kurt.

  • I probably won’t go see the film, since I haven’t really liked Indiana Jones when I have rewatched the films (I did like them very much as a youngster) but I will say that I really like the first 20 minutes of Raiders still, and a major problem for me when I saw Tomb Raider was that everything was a crazy cgi-monster type of obstacle. It’s cool when you have to replace the weight of something etc. Physicality is great in movies (for better physics, check out battle scenes from Bessons flawed Jeanne D’Arc) but abundance of CGI and crazy outlandish monsters take the excitement out of it. In National Treasure 2 (which Kurt, David Bordwell who should be an idol of yours, passionately defends) the only enjoyable part involved physics (enhanced by CGI sadly) where people had to balance a huge square on the tip of a mountain of sorts. That stuff is good. CGImonsters or armies or flying ghostmen or whatever get tiresome.

    Time for Spielberg to get his act together and direct Jurrasic Park 4 if he wants to do some CGI monsters. His previous Jurassic Parks are both awesome, and have some of the best CGI monsters I can remember having seen.

  • shortround would kick mutt williams sorry useless ass…TEMPLE OF DOOM for life!!!

    peace!!!

  • elton

    very entertaining film. go see it and dont be persuaded by reviews.

  • @Henrik – “It’s not the filmmaking that has changed Kurt.”

    You’re right, it is the awful story telling. This was the first Jones movie with less-than-thin characters (even by pulp standards) and Spielberg & co (including writer David Koepp) do not pay the same attention to geography and sense when setting up the action sequences. The CGI certainly doesn’t help. And what was up with the lack of the rousing musical score in the film? They played music during the subdued parts of the film, but no big moments had the memorable score.

  • @bob-the-slob -I’m with your Dudue, I fully acknowledge as Raiders being the best crafted, but I must admit, for pure adrenaline and craziness Temple is my favourite of the Jones fimls. I’ve probably watched it twice as many times as the rest of the films combined.

  • Ooops, bad keyboard. Meant to say simply “I’m with you Dude.”

  • If Spielberg has lost his geography in this movie, there is nothing in his films to look for. The one thing I have always been impressed by and acknowledged him for in lectures, was that he always had his geography right, and his action sequences were perfectly crafted. I find it hard to believe that he has lost that ability, I’m going to attribute Kurts pissy attitude to him having grown both physically and mentally.

  • Kurt, I wasnt trying to dis raiders (or Last Crusade)…they are three of my all time favorite films ever, one of the reasons I fell in love with cinema and wanted to devote my life to it ever since I was a kid…I only liked about 50% of GEORGE LUCAS’ MUTT WILLIAMS AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CGI MUMMY MOVIE…which is beyond painful for me, A RAPID INDY FAN OF THE HIGHEST ORDER to say…the first half was great, but soon as they get on that plane Indy is a secondary character, mutt gets the biggest action scene, and really no one (especially indy) is integral to the ending that stunk of george lucas beyond belief.

    The way Spielberg talked about this movie I thought i was going to be sitting down to watch an OLD SCHOOL adventure movie with INDIANA JONES GETTING PUT THROUGH THE RINGER and being the main character in the action scenes…instead I got about 25% that…him fighting the russian was the only time I felt like it belonged with the original movies. God dammit…no one wanted to love this more then me. fuck.

    Here’s how I’m going to approach it…Indy’s adventures ended when he rides off into the sunset in LAST CRUSADE…and he still goes on to have a life filled with many adventures, some amazing, some mediocre…and 20 years later we get to see one of the mediocre ones…the cameras were just turned on at the wrong time…sad, but I have to cope with it somehow…the Indy OT might be my favorite films of all time.

    And where the fuck was the music? the spielbergian close ups? and what was with all the bad editing?

    at least we got to hear the great punch sound effects again.

  • Having re-watched Raiders and Doom recently, you realize that all the nice shadows and dark cinematography was lost in Crusade and really, really, gone by Crystal Skull.

    Part of the spine-tingling (even in the smaller indy moments – “Bad Dates”, the swastika charring off the crate, Ford-in-Pervian Jungle in the opening shot of Raiders, the flayed skins in TOD, etc.) was due to this dark and mysterious cinematography in the minor moments of the films. Skull (for me doesn’t have a single moment of that which I can recall).

    And Bob’s right, there aren’t many action sequences with Ford outside of a few fist fights. What the fuck is with Indy not using his gun or whip this time around…

    Half the time the characters felt like passengers to the story rather than participants. Shameful.

    And @Henrik. I’ve grown as a film-viewer since watching Raiders of the Lost ark in the Cinema when I was 6, but that doesn’t in any way diminish how I view the craft of the original 2 films and the overall effect (even through more jaded, grown-up eyes) remains the same. Not in a nostalgic way. It’s impressive how well all three of the original films have aged from a filmmaking stand point. They look fresh and vibrant even by todays movie making standards.

  • Dave V

    This is the worst movie in history!.. ANYONE AGREE??

  • “The way Spielberg talked about this movie I thought i was going to be sitting down to watch an OLD SCHOOL adventure movie with INDIANA JONES GETTING PUT THROUGH THE RINGER and being the main character in the action scenes…instead I got about 25% that…him fighting the russian was the only time I felt like it belonged with the original movies. God dammit…no one wanted to love this more then me. fuck.”

    I could give a fuck what Spielberg said in advance of the movie. Anyone who actually thinks 20 years after Last Crusade Spielberg is the same person and could force himself into a style he no longer naturally works, has only themselves to blame. People should know better, and frankly if Speilberg had forced himself to work a style he can’t naturally do anymore, I’d have been much more upset. That’d be “pandering”.

  • Nods to other movies? Other thoughts…

    Was it me or did anyone else notice similarities to classic Spielberg and Lucas movie shots?

    The angle of the area 51 hanger doort shot – Empire Strikes Back hanger.

    The jungle sword play and monkeys with vines – Return of the Jedi Ewoks and Speeder bikes.

    Falling into the chamber full of waist deep water – the trash compactor in Star Wars New Hope.

    And if the visitors were collectors/archeologist, why would they let their collection be smashed to bits?

    What was with Marion acting like she was in “cartoon shock”, holding the steering wheel after the three drops. I was suprised she didn’t have CGI stars of birds swirling around her head.

    Anyone remember the ending of Predator? nuff said.

    I love this franchise, I hope they make another one that is more organic, utilyzes no CG and doesn’t insult our intelligence.

    Let’s go with collective stories of world culture/legends.

    The existing crystal skulls are not elongated for example. They are quite homo-sapien, nor are they magnetic, hypnotic or bio-luminecent.

    Why were there no soviet flags? Just a small hammer and sickle on the back of lame psychic chick.

    I can’t stop… sorry…

    Who here wanted to see the ants eat the bad guys? A swarm of ants moves in – a clean bone-white sheleton left in its place? That would have been satisfying. Seeing the russian up ended into the mound didn’t work for me.

  • Matt

    Ugh, I feel terrible after watchiong this movie. This was a terrible, horrible movie. I cringed at the parts that were supposed to be funny, and laughed when scenes were supposed to be serious. So the message is that if people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had more refrigirators they would have been fine and dandy. Ford looked awkward and uncomfortable throughout.
    Blanchett was absolutely laughable in the worst performance of her life. It’s one thing to be a terrible actor and do a bad performance like that huge commie from the movie. But to actually be a good actor like Cate Blanchett and perform this terribly is unexcusable. She couldn’t even decide whether she had a British or terrible eastern european accent. Phoned in and sloppy.
    Oh poor John Hurt. From the Elephant Man to a laughable lunatic in this dreck. I feel sorry for him.
    That skull has got to be the worst prop in the Indy series. It looked as if they bought it at a Roswell gift shop.
    I guess my biggest gripe with the film is how stupid Spielberg and Lucas think we are. As if we’re just going to fawn over anything with the Indiana Jones Logo. As if we won’t notice the plot holes that are big enough to fly a soucer through. It took them literally 19 years to get to this poing in the fanchise and it is not in the least bit worth it. I’d take The Mummy recent movies over this hokey crap any day.
    2.5 out of 4 stars is way to generous sean. You should no better.

  • I get the impression that people’s feelings on this movie are going to be very fluid. People who hated it may rewatch it and get something more out of it the second time, meanwhile people who liked it the first time may see it again and suddenly wonder what the hell they were thinking.

    But in truth, it will probably be more like the Star Wars prequels… when all is said and done, after all the arguing and complaining and bickering, very few people will be interested in going back to revisit it anytime soon because the nostalgia just isn’t there.

    As for my rating, I got enough enjoyment out of the film to give it what I would consider a borderline thumbs up. Much less than that, in my opinion, is an overreaction, not unlike the whole Spider-Man 3 debacle (although I enjoyed Spider-Man 3 a lot more than this).

  • I’ve finally got around to watching this film. (I bought a Borders Exclusive DVD box set that included an Indiana Jones wool felt fedora!)

    Despite the relatively long time span between now and when the movie first came out in theatres, I was really looking forward to seeing this film. And I was disappointed.

    Like Kurt and Bob the Slob, I too had a problem with the music. As well, the sound mix was lacking.

    I, too, felt the humour was forced. I thought Short-Round had more chemistry with Indiana than Mutt did.

    I was fine with all the wacky aspects.

    If you haven’t seen this film, yet, then wait until it gets played on network television. It’s not worth renting. Ha ha.

  • Tommy

    I finally actually watched this past week and enjoyed it! Yes, even MAD Magazine did a great parody on it and pointed out the obvious short comings, but don’t forget this movie was about the adventure with Dr. Jones. A little tidbit….I wanted to be Indiana Jones when I grew up….I watched “Raiders of the Lost Ark” at the theater when I was 7 years old.