Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
The tangible relief of again seeing a modern action-fantasy through a master filmmaker’s eyes carries us through a few minutes of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Master shots! A sense of rhythm and pace! Punches that sound like shotgun blasts! The Wilhelm scream! I had forgotten how starved I was for a true escapist picture that feels apart from reality, that isn’t (or doesn’t fancy itself) an auteurist superhero film or a cynical commercial for toys that turn into other toys or whatever other nonsense litters our screens. The title sequence of Crystal Skull is witty and beautiful, and hints at a touch of knowing, sad humor. The object that the Paramount logo always famously fades into is, this time, a groundhog burrow, which promptly gets mowed over by a speeding roadster as Elvis Presley’s “Hound Dog” plays in place of the familiar John Williams score. It’s the 1950s, twenty years since Indy rode off into the sunset with his father and friends, things have changed, and these first few moments establish that with something resembling grace.
Or graceful, at least, when compared to the desperate, depressing, miscalculated picture that follows. I could delay the inevitable for a few more passages (and did, in the first draft) celebrating Spielberg’s past and present gifts: his peerless, musical sense of play and action and reaction; his organic, nearly supernatural instinct for pure cinema storytelling, his uncanny (see how I struggle to continually produce words for Spielberg’s craft that imply “above normal human capacity”) ability to set-up and pay-off beats in hushed seconds without the slightest hint of strain, but you know all of that already. I could celebrate and/or mourn Harrison Ford, one of the greatest movie stars of all time, a warm, funny, idealized superman Humphrey Bogart for the next generation who lost his way after The Fugitive, but you already know that too. You want to know how good the new Indy Jones movie is, or, if you’ve already seen it, you want to know if it’s okay to feel let down after pretending to like it for a few hours. I’m giving you permission, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the worst Jones movie by far, that’s easy, but this new picture is also the worst Steven Spielberg movie.
There are bits here and there that remind you of Spielberg’s brilliance, that imply a possible struggle within the filmmaker to give a shit about a genre he’s long left behind (we really, in retrospect, should have known that already, after the chilly-scary deconstruction of the genre in the more effective than its generally admitted to be nightmare picture A.I.) but they are few and far between. Crystal Skull does have one legitimately inspired moment that has Jones stumbling into a suburb that happens to be something else entirely. This brief scene conjures that fear of the breakdown of the commonplace that Spielberg can portray so well when in his groove, and it establishes the time and place of the picture effectively, but the rest is a wash. Even the title sequence becomes icky after seeing the entire picture, portraying not sadness and knowing and regret, but contempt (there’s another creepy, tasteless joke in this vein-involving a statue of Marcus Brody, who must have shit Spielberg’s bed after Raiders of the Lost Ark).
Crystal Skull is lazy and misguided and lifeless throughout, with only the occasionally vigorous action sequence (or inspired camera beat) to pull it out of the muck. I would like to be able to say that the script, by David Koepp, the mad libs of hack screenwriters, (with an obvious Lucas influence-this is dead exposition as only that man can deliver), is his usual impersonal, connect the dots mish-mash, except it lacks even his pedestrian ability to connect the dots. The exposition in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the moments that explain to us the nature of the Ark of the Covenant are giddy, moody, but, most importantly, they project not the tedium of reading cue cards (until we can get to the next bit of labored physicality) but a sense of awe.
Ford also appears to be as bored as he’s been for the last several films, having failed to “come back” here as some would have you believe, but Spielberg, like Robert Zemeckis in What Lies Beneath, is canny enough to work around the current Ford persona. Jones’ lack of heartbeat here is moving and thematically apt, he’s been beat down by one too many obscure artifacts, lost one too many important to him. Crystal Skull, aping Last Crusade, is also a family reunion picture, only with Ford now in the Sean Connery role. That is a ripe, original idea for exploration, but that would, again, interfere with Lucas’ inhuman obsession with expositional bric-a-brac.
We should also acknowledge that Spielberg probably hasn’t totally, fearlessly, dived into his own head since Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (maybe A.I. too, for both better and worse). The recent Spielberg pictures have much to recommend them, particularly Munich (one of the best films of 2005), War of the Worlds and Minority Report, but they are also uneven and self-conscious, too eager to please, and feed into Spielberg’s desire to be an “important” as well as successful filmmaker. What else could Steven Spielberg possibly have left to prove? In an interview for Minority Report Spielberg said he felt he’d earned the right to make a picture for himself, and I agree, but he appears to say that without actually knowing it. How long can Temple of Doom’s myopic reception be permitted to punish Spielberg, and us? Temple of Doom is imperfect, with an especially mean, juvenile sense of humor (though Crystal Skull makes that humor look positively Lubitschian by comparison) but it’s an exciting, original action picture, one of the most visually assured ever made, with an emotional transition in its hero that subtly holds together (and comments on) the physical beats that run through the picture like a locomotive, but that’s often unacknowledged.
So, lest anyone get offended, we got Last Crusade, which is dull but saved by Sean Connery and Ford’s byplay, and now Crystal Skull, which is dull but saved by nothing. Shia LaBeouf, more watchable than anyone could possibly expect in Transformers last year, again gives his part as much as anyone could given what he’s been handed to work with. LeBeouf and Ford have authentic chemistry, and it could have possibly salvaged a bit of Crystal Skull, but the script continues to strangle them, perhaps like one of those snakes Indy fears so much (and that gets a tip of the cap here that’s embarrassing).
The reunion with Marion (Karen Allen) is the film’s low point though: a crushing, dispiriting letdown that’s about nothing more than cynically “giving the fans what they want.” Allen and Ford look desperate and uncomfortable, two vaudevillians determined to appease the drunken fans so they can shuffle out the side-stage exit. The heat between Allen and Ford has gone, and once again, that, in itself, could have been something had it been acknowledged, but Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is in the business of self-delusion and unoriginality.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a failure, but it’s an undeniably interesting failure that’s poignant unintentionally and, sometimes, in spite of itself. The character of Indiana Jones is too rich, despite the filmmakers’ indifference, for the film not to occasionally carry a whiff of something greater and older. The sight of Indiana Jones, now grandfatherly in appearance, teaching classes in a building where he was once the subject of feverish underage admiration, is unavoidably moving. The sight of Jones snatching his hat, that beloved symbol of irrepressible adventure, from the younger generation is too loaded with movie love, no matter how hard the fanatical Lucas may try to deny us conventional emotional satisfaction. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is an embarrassment, but it is, in a strange way, also life affirming. It will take more than the biggest disappointment of the year to tarnish a character that has given us years of pleasure and has very undeniably earned his rest. Spielberg, probably the greatest living pure filmmaker, has certainly earned the legacy he’s apparently terrified of pissing away. Here’s hoping Spielberg one day discovers the inner peace he half-heartedly blesses his hero with here, and again becomes the filmmaker he always has been and can always be.
★★
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:21 am
Saw this movie last night too. Wasn’t a huge fan of it, but was entertained. With the ridiculous storyline, it geared me up for the much anticipated X-Files movie whenever that comes out!
And how about Shia LaBeouf getting up to about 80mph on those vines while befriending a gaggle of monkeys in the process? Simply amazing.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:14 am
Good call about that monkey scene, jeff. It’s too bad that more Lucas comes through than Speilberg here. This one really feels like it belongs with the three new Star Wars films than with the Indy series.
I also need another answer: why exactly did that double/triple/whatever agent keep changing sides? Can that be explained in any way other than to confuse the audience. I can just here the filmmaker’s now:
“So, why does this guy keep changing sides again?”
“Hm. Good question.”
“Well, fuck it. It’s not like these idiots watching the movie are going to notice anyway.”
That monkey scene is a perfect example: how could anyone write, shoot, or edit that scene and not feel like a ludicrious sellout?
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:18 am
One last comment: this movie shows how underrated The Last Crusade is, in my opinion. I know Chuck isn’t a fan, but that movie is light and frothy. It’s derivative, but totally enjoyable. And it adds a little something with the father subplot. It’s a good Macguffin and not over-explained.
I guess what I’m saying is I don’t think Spielberg’s issue started with Temple of Doom. I think it started with Schindler’s List. That makes Jurassic Park his last great, unpretentious popcorn picture.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Harsh.
*Paradoxically harsh* because in some ways it reads like a long love letter to Spielberg, and I appreciate that being a huge fan of his. You’re approaching it like a guy who’s found out his best friend has really let him down but you think he can turn it around.
Honest reaction.
Yet I have to say I did like it, in spite of the many flaws that have already been picked to death by innumerable “fanboys” on the Internet. Ray Winstone’s character is a joke. An amusing one early on. He probably should have been killed off shortly after the nose-breaking gag, which got a huge laugh. His return to being good, then rejoining the Dark Side, and… It just went on and served no definable purpose. John Hurt’s wasted, but at least his character is somehow important to the narrative.
I also thought Ford really “brought it.” Maybe I’m misreading his performance but I thought Spielberg, if nothing else, got out the first great Harrison Ford performance since The Fugitive. Or, at least, the first fully engaged one.
It’s kind of sad to see so many people so disappointed with it. I don’t hold the previous sequels in particularly high regard, so this didn’t feel like the steep drop that many interpret it as. To me, it felt a bit like more of the same, but undeniably different.
It’ll be interesting to see how it ages. I suspect even that will happen wildly differently depending on who you are.
I’m not going to defend Minority Report and War of the Worlds, as they can be vaguely positioned in the realm of commercial filmmaking for Spielberg, but I do think Munich is Spielberg at his absolute bravest, and uncompromising, and aside from making a stellar thriller that thrills I don’t think it ever cowed to audiences. In fact, if anything, it seemed designed to taunt and/or completely disregard their expectations. I hope Spielberg goes there again, and I suspect he will, but not for a while.
Interesting review, Chuck. Harsh, but again I liked reading your take. So many people writing reviews, and I’m responding to them, I’ve got to get around to writing mine…
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Jeff, nice to hear from you again.
Travis, as I did with Speed Racer, I overstated my frustration with Last Crusade. I do like it, and I love Ford and Connery together, but I just don’t like the way it retreats from Temple of Doom, which I love.
Alexander-I’m not sure how comfortable I am with my approach to this movie, as I told someone else as I was writing it, I decided to allow the fanboy side of me more say than (I hope) I normally do. Like many people my age, Steven Spielberg is the first director I noticed, and he’s had a brilliant, interesting career. The listlessness of INDY 4 broke my heart a little, and I detected a cynicism and detachment that bothered me, and I decided, with many dissecting it as you say, to just go with that.
I think Ford is effective in this picture. But I’m not sure how much of that is accidental, purposeful, or relying on the past movies. Ford is a moving presence in this picture, but his Jones doesn’t have that electricity that he used to, maybe the point, but with a script that’s a total embarrassment, it’s hard to tell.
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I have to admit, it is hard to tell what was on purpose and what was not with that script. As I said over at LiC, the fact that Lucas spent so much time micro-managing the Adventurous Search for the Perfect Indy Script and this is the final product… That is disappointing.
I think when Spielberg’s instincts were on display, the film was kind of magical. The motorcycle chase and some of the gags, and one or two tender moments. I smiled, I laughed… When what I have to think were the Lucas touches appeared, the movie seemed to downshift and Spielberg let his foot off the accelerator. I liked Marion’s return, but it wasn’t too long after that, at the beginning of that jungle chase where I felt like Spielberg, in terms of the narrative, started to not care so much anymore. He just sort of let the film complete itself.
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I enjoyed the chase through college too, and there is a stop and start magic, but those things almost taunt you with the film that could’ve been. I didn’t care much for Marion here (again, the script) but her smile a few times is quite endearing. I will see it again fairly soon (the fanboy coming out again) and maybe I’ll come around a bit.
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
I thought I disliked it. We’ve got to teach you how to give one star.
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Stargate and pirates train wreck. I am highly disappointed.
May 24th, 2008 at 7:27 am
I gave Indy 2 stars because there were, as a few others have pointed out, bits of magic amongst the clutter. But your general point is valid K, I can get a little star happy from time to time.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Well, we spoke right after i saw it. we obviously had different opinions. I went in w/ VERY low expectations. So low, that this film actually exceeded them.
I have cooled on it slightly, but i still thought it was a fun ride and was entertained. I will admit it definitely had an “Indiana Jones and the Phantom Menace” vibe. Part of that obviously goes on Lucas..(he has obviously lost his mind), but the movie didn’t even look or feel like an Indiana Jones movie…hell it didn’t even look like a Spielberg movie (most of the Jungle shit reminded me of Peter Jackson’s King Kong…down to the crazy insects, I was half waiting for Dinosaurs to jump out) The movie actually played like someone else had acquired the rights to the property and made their own movie.
I plan on seeing it again on Monday and I think I will actually enjoy it more on the second viewing now that I know what I am in for.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:21 am
I see what you mean Chuck, and I can’t totally disagree. But I still say HOOK is Spielberg’s worst.
Hell, THE MUMMY actually had better action scenes. And bugs.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:58 am
The worst Spielberg film, for me, would be a photo-finish between this and HOOK. A strong paper could probably be written on the pictures’ similar failures, particularly in tone.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:57 am
I still don’t understand the universal hatred of HOOK. It’s not a great flick, and there are some gauling moments, but I think it has its got some magic to it. It’s a pretty gaudy movie, but it ages pretty well otherwise.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:53 am
Also, I never saw “The Terminal,” but it looked terrible. Worse, it looked horribly boring. At least HOOK isn’t that.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Hook is Spielberg’s messiest and most lifeless film; once it shifts to Neverland it’s visually inert… Shockingly so. It’s also bloated. That said, I agree with you, Travis, it isn’t as bad as its reputation. As bad as Robin Williams is, and he’s plenty bad, even he isn’t as bad as his reputation in it.
The Terminal is a film that I was disappointed in when I left the theatre on opening day four years ago. Seeing it again, though, I realized it was much better and less minor than I believed it to be. The fact that Steven Spielberg made that film in the first place is kind of a miracle. By this past Thanksgiving when I saw it with two extended families in a living room… Everybody was laughing and enjoying themselves. I realized that not only was it a pretty darned good film but it’s actually deceptive. It looks and behaves like a minor film from a master but it really isn’t. It’s Spielberg’s Donovan’s Reef.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am
When you have Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman, there should be a little magic.
HOOK lost me at the roller-skating lost boys.
Stupid beyond belief.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Alexander, I know I’d have to bring my lunch and do my homework to spar with you on all things Spielberg, but I didn’t much care for The Terminal. It seemed, as weaker Spielberg sauce has a habit of seeming, like a picture straining too hard to convince me of its innocuous cuteness. And the various relationships, even on fairy tale terms, didn’t work for me, particularly the marriage of those two airport employees (a little, just a little grit, or realistic acknowledgement of how things work would have gone a long way). Interesting comparison on Donovan’s Reef. You may have just inspired a double bill….
May 27th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I believe THE TERMINAL was completely paid for in product placement. Seriously. And it’s one of the reasons I can’t sit still for it.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I read the “product placement” as a sly critique; The Terminal may, as Ebert noted, play like a sunny Kafta tale, but inherent in its visual construction is the concept of America as a consumerist prison. A bit like Minority Report, actually, where statist “security measures” and capitalist shilling meet one another in lockstep (both films could be called “hypocritical,” since they were both deeply tied to real-world product placement deals, but if you’re going to involve so many real-world companies, you might as well make those deals, eh?). I mean, it is set in an airport–whatcha gonna do?
I see your point regarding the all-too-perfect relationships, Chuck, and perhaps particularly the insta-marriage between the airport employees (the film’s biggest leap and where it doubtless loses some). But I saw it, even the first go around, as a big nod to Lubitsch. A couple of scenes involving the Indian janitor had a touch of that melancholy of the old man lonely at Christmastime in Shop Around the Corner.
I’d love to see a Donovan’s Reef-Terminal double bill. Both are fundamentally about acceptance.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I haven’t read enough reviews of Skull yet, but your thoughts on the character of Jones are intriguing. In all the hype about the script and Karen Allen and Ford and the action, it’s true that Spielberg strayed from the heart of one of Hollywood’s greatest action characters.
That being said, I had about the same expectations as Ben, so anything that was positive actually carried me all the way through - almost. Let’s forget the last 20 minutes.
Did I find it familiar? Yes, despite your correct observations of the CGI world. Does it belong in the same conversation as the originals? Just barely.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:15 am
I’m with Alexander on THE TERMINAL and MINORITY REPORT’s product placement-these are both stories that comment on such things-it belongs, even though I’m not high on Terminal. I am pretty high on Minority Report though, silly plotting be damned (that lame happy ending is what I mean by the self-conscious lets not hurt anyone Spielberg, the man of Duel would’ve done things differently). Report is pure, uneven, blissfully fucked up cinema-particularly for a blockbuster and its some of Spielberg’s most visually assured work recently.
And Daniel, I think that’s why I was so hard on this new picture-the lack of that Spielberg, one thing after another told breathlessly through action flow. This picture was labored and herky-jerky, painful at times to watch. I will look at it again though.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Just look at the opening minutes of TEMPLE OF DOOM to see how assured and expert the action choreography is. And it has a look that Kaminski can’t duplicate on his best day.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Kaminski can, he just doesn’t want to. He’s certainly a better cinematographer than Slocombe ever was.
The Terminal is, like all of Spielberg’s recent movies, much more subtle and complicated than it looks at first glance.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Slocombe is a fabulous cameraman. Look at the crisp beautiful widescreen of Polanki’s FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS. He has a sense of grandeur, which I don’t find in Kaminski. Watch the scene with Indy and Marion in the quicksand, it literally looks like a fancy Gilligan’s island set. Maybe Kaminski couldn’t save that, but none of the lighting in KOTCH comes near the first two Indy’s.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
We’re really arguing apples and oranges here. I’m not saying Slocombe is bad, just that his style is somewhat anonymous and Kaminski’s is very distinctive and possibly (not in my opinion) overpowering. His resume is plenty strong - Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan or The Diving Bell and the Butterfly are all cinematographic masterpieces - but perhaps his insistence on his particular way of doing things doesn’t sit well with everybody.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I think Kaminski is like any other cinematographer — they have styles that fit or not. His work in AI is perfect. In CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, it was wrong for the 60’s pop vibe that Spielberg was going for. I wouldn’t get Gordon Willis to shoot LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, but I would get him for THE CONVERSATION.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Maybe Spielberg wasn’t going for a 60s pop vibe, then.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
I say this is better than “Lost World: JP2″, that movie was a mess.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:20 am
Christian and jeffmcm-I agree with both of you. I think Slocombe and Kaminski are both wonderful cinematographers, but Slocombe does fit the Indy way of doing things (I miss the painterly beauty of Raiders and Doom) better than Kaminski. But Spielberg’s sensibility has changed too, and that has affected the look as well (of course). Love Kaminski’s work in A.I., Minority Report and Diving Bell, but do find it a bit not quite right in Catch Me if You Can. And I think Spielberg was going for a 60s pop vibe in Catch, the Saul Bass-ish credits indicates as much among other things.
You guys have inspired me to rewatch The Terminal sometime in the near future.
Adam-Lost World isn’t one of the better Spielberg movies either, but it has sharper action sequences and an overall better idea of pace (though its been years since I’ve seen it.)
May 29th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Ahhhh…the Kaminski debate continues to rage all over the internet.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Like Chuck says, the opening titles alone signify 60’s pop movie along with DeCaprio in the theater watching GOLDFINGER.