- - -

Review by David DiMichele

- - -

If Babe Ruth, arguably the best baseball player of all time, was alive today, would he plunge head-first into the steroid/human growth hormone fiasco that has led to the decay of the game? He was a great player in an era where these enhancements, not to mention the fancy equipment that players of today now swear by, were non-existent…so what need would he have for them? This is what has happened to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the latest installment in what is arguably the greatest series of action films of all time.

The grey-haired duo of director Steven Spielberg and writer/producer George Lucas find themselves traveling the route so many baseball players (and directors, ahem, Michael Bay) find themselves on today: injecting superhuman strength into their bodies to produce outrageous results. Nowadays it’s so easy to hit a homerun that it’s not even special anymore. The expression ‘chicks dig the long-ball’ is long gone. In cinema, it isn’t special anymore to see extravagant action sequences. Most of them look as though they’ve been filmed in front of a giant green screen, never giving the viewer a sense of reality. Just because you can do practically anything with this technique doesn’t mean it’s a treat to watch. The simple, stylistic sequences that Spielberg did so effortlessly in the previous films are gone, replaced by huge, freakish-looking stunts that look nothing less than fake.

The nostalgia that captivated us in the three previous Indiana Jones films is nowhere to be found in this one, much like a treasure that Indy (Harrison Ford) is always digging for in the depths of the earth. This is one treasure that Spielberg, Lucas, or script writer David Koepp can’t conjure up. Wiped clean away from the screen are the action scenes that not only glorified the trilogy, but glorified the entire action genre. The saying ‘they sure don’t make them like they used to’ has never felt more true. The only consistent things here are the opening vintage Paramount logo and the inspirational theme music by John Williams--which suffers because we can’t muster up anything to cheer for.

The use of computer-generated effects might work well with modern-day action films such as Iron Man, Transformers and Spider-Man, but the Indiana Jones movies created their thrills with action sequences that had a gritty ‘reality’ factor to them. The opening sequence of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) is spotless, and Temple of Doom (1984) offers up one of the greatest chase scenes in movie history. None of that stuff looks stale. In sharp contrast, everything about The Kingdom of Crystal Skull feels generic and cheap; from the characters to the locale to the computer animated monkeys, ants and moles. The movie has no soul whatsoever. Not once do we feel any sense of tension towards Dr. Jones' life. Dialogue that seems to be forced slapstick and, most of the times, dialogue that begs to be taken seriously plagues the whole movie. After a thrilling opening sequence in a U.S. Army warehouse (where we catch a clever glimpse of the Ark of the Covenant), the movie quickly goes south, no pun intended.

The possibility of screwing up an Indiana Jones film is pretty slim. The only two goals that one should have in mind when making one are: having a reasonable object of desire (Holy Grail, magic rocks that give a village hope, the Ark of the Covenant) and real-looking, pulse racing action sequences.

How is this for a reasonable plot: Indy joins forces with a Marlon Brando/James Dean look-alike named Mutt (Shia LaBeouf) and his mother Marion (Karen Allen)--who was left behind by Indy after the first film--to find a crystal skull, located in Peru. The skull has magical, mythical powers and--this being 1957--has to be kept away from the Russians instead of the Nazis. The skull possibly holds evidence to the existence of aliens and to the golden city of El Dorado. It’s a plot that meshes National Treasure like stunts with X-files like aliens. The movie eventually chokes on its many plots, while viewers begin to grasp for dear life. With twenty years between films, this is what two masterminds come up with? Puh-lease. Other than the opening shot of Indiana getting out of a car, set against a gorgeous, desert background, there isn’t a single scene that is worth remembering.

The leader of the Russians is Irina (Cate Blanchett), who suffers in contrast with the previous films’ villains. We remember the weird Nazi man who donned an uncanny pair of specs, the bloodthirsty savage who was out for the hearts of his victims--literally--and the blonde femme fatale Nazi who would do anything to obtain the Cup of Life. While Blanchett shows no signs of breaking out of her hypnotic state of dullness, Ford knows what his limitations are in the title role, and does what he can with what he’s given. He is less a whip-cracking, globetrotting archeologist than an instructor to Mutt. A door is left open to LaBeouf, who would probably love nothing more than to take the new role as Indiana Jones.

That scares me.

Film Rating: * 1/2 out of ****

x

Official [ Movie Site ]

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email This

Hits: 737

Comments (9)

...

God, I hope this isn't true. Say it ain't so, David... say it ain't so.

Jeremy , May 22, 2008

Recurring modern blandism.

Having been to Peru, I will either love or hate the Peru aspect of the film. I saw the trailer in the theater which looked so-so. Like me, most people will probably pay to see this movie out of nostalgia, but it sure is a mega-disappointment if and when we are let down, as seems to be the common sentiment about this movie. I will have to report back later. The more people wipe the butts of famous filmmakers, the more they stink.

Really well written article! Nice tie in to baseball to make a clear point.

ScreenwritingforHollywood , May 22, 2008 | url

...

I'm not surprised. It's the same problem that plagued Lucas's Star Wars prequels...too much time and energy spent on CGI, not enough on plot and character development. (Padme loses the will to live? Barf!) But I digress...

RJ Keller , May 22, 2008 | url

I loved the original Movie....

It's unfortunate that they rely so much on computer generated graphics. I couldn't believe how bad the Star Wars prequels were. Actors cannot perform in front of green screens. Period. They do not feel their surroundings and always seem stiff. I agree with the comment above. When there is an excess of CGI - the dialogue, plot and feel of the movie suffers.

Offgrid , May 23, 2008 | url

...

I didn't rate it as bad as you did, but I did think it was lackluster compared to the others in the franchise. I ranked this film 3 out of 4 ahead of only Temple of Doom.

trench , May 25, 2008 | url

unfortunately, you're so right!

i was disappointed too. and i loved all George's Lucas movie so far. Including the PT Star Wars. I have nothing against CGI, but it can't make up for an actual plot. Indy 4 had no plot, no tension, no charm. And poor Irina/ Cate Blanchet, they made a mockery out of her, with that stupid fake accent and that poor motivation to pursue the crystal skull.

Lucas was spinning old tricks. Like the beginning, it was an "American Graffiti" tribute, and, I don't know if you noticed, but he made Han Solo Harison Ford actually say "I have a bad feeling about this"!!!! This is a Star Wars iconic phrase.

anyway, how disappointed i am!

marmelade , May 26, 2008 | url

Nice one

Wow, it seems like you really hated the film. Great article and accurate points though; and granted - it really doesn't have the same feel of the older 3 because of the CGI but did we really expect it to have that? And are we a bunch of purist bigots when we expect the good old-fashioned imagery for this one? This is the question I've been asking to myself for some time now.

I have listed a link to this article as a recommendation for further reading, below my own review for the movie.

Oh, and I love your baseball allusion.

Usumezbas , May 27, 2008 | url

Thumbs up.

Just saw it. To my surprise, I liked it! Will write a full commentary about it on my site soon.

ScreenwritingforHollywood , June 02, 2008 | url

...

judging by the "hat hint" at the end of the most recent Indiana Jones, it seems pretty obvious that Shia LaBeouf will be the next Indy

patrick , June 18, 2008 | url

Write comment

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Add Comment