Cannes Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Filed under: Action, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Cannes, Theatrical Reviews, Festival Reports, Steven Spielberg, Remakes and Sequels

After a 19-year sabbatical, the Doctor will see you now. Or, rather, you will see the doctor; after Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade put Harrison Ford's fedora-wearing rogue academic into the pop culture pantheon of greats, expectations are at a fever pitch for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Today's Cannes press screening feels like a courtesy at best; no critic's negative review will keep people from seeing this film -- and yet, at the same time, no amount of enthusiasm or expectation or nostalgia can make up for the things that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull gets wrong in its strained effort to throw Indiana Jones back up on the big screen.
Crystal Skull begins in 1957, as the Cold War is getting warmer; we're plunged into the thick of things, with Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) dragooned into helping a group of Soviet interlopers ransack the secret storage depot at Area 51 for a lost artifact of great power. The Commie bad guys are lead by the raven-haired razor-banged Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), whose early declaration " ... three times have I received the Order of Lenin ..." tells you a lot of what you need to know about her, and also serves as about all you're going to get. Spalko's hunting for the storyline-starting MacGuffin; Dr. Jones gets away, but the Soviets get the thingamabob; the chase is on.
Or, rather, it isn't; instead of plunging into the thick of things, we have to spend some time with Indy back on campus, where concerns about his patriotism see him dismissed from his position; on his way to the airport, he's found by the young Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf), who claims his missing mother said Jones was the only man who could help her in her last desperate message from somewhere in South America. Indiana and Mutt soon head to Peru, on the trail of missing archaeologist professor Oxley (John Hurt) and Mutt's mom Mary, who we know by another name. ...
Loaded with moments referencing the earlier films and full of action sequences that don't measure up to past highlights of the series, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crustal Skull feels simultaneously self-conscious and self-satisfied, as if a little warm glow of past glory will soothe our bumps and blows from the clumsiness of the script. David Koepp wrote the screenplay from a story by Jeff Nathanson and George Lucas, and if Koepp's contributed lines and jokes fall flat, they're just small tarnished bits of brass on a ship that goes drastically off-course with Lucas at the helm. The plotline owes much to Lucas's tastes and enthusiasms, and while Lucas's tastes and enthusiasms may have given us such pleasures as the original idea for Indiana Jones, Chewbacca and Boba Fett, it must be noted that Lucas's tastes and enthusiasms have also given us Jar Jar Binks, the on-screen version of Howard the Duck and Michael Jackson as Captain Eo; Crystal Skull's loopy, rambling, convoluted plot and weirdly out-of-place tone put it much closer to the latter than the former. You can argue that science fiction and the super-natural are not that different, and therefore can go together relatively well, but taking Indiana Jones out of the eldritch and mystical and into the futuristic and technical feels a little clumsy here, as if the film's plot hook were a burden Lucas swore he could carry but which the whole cast has to struggle with.
The action sequences are nothing to write home about, either; there's nothing here with the inspired delight of the mine chase in Temple of Doom, or the sheer, guts-and-glory greatness of the truck chase in Raiders. Spileberg and Lucas have stated that there's a minimal amount of digital trickery in Crystal Skull, but it's like hearing someone in the throes of labor testifying to their virginity between contractions; many action sequences have the hollow, plastic brittle sheen of CGI, and the pixilated, expensive, overdone finale is presented with the expectation that we're supposed to be awed by it, as if it were some gaudy present the giver "accidentally" left the price tag on. And as for director Steven Spielberg, he may have done the impossible here; out of all his films, good and bad, Crystal Skull feels like the first one without a single shred of his personality in it, as if it were just another big, bland, expensive action movie.
Ford handles the role with no trace of weariness or of real enthusiasm, and the film gets a few jabs in about the passage of time at his expense. (One sight gag has khaki-clad, dirty Indy scrambling into a bright, clean vision of '50s suburbia; that's clever enough, but it then goes somewhere even funnier.) Cate Blanchett and Karen Allen both get let down by the script -- Spalko stays at one level throughout the film, while Marion's return is written with the expectation that we'll be glad of it, not necessarily in a way that it makes us glad. LaBeouf's supposed to be a '50s style rebel with his costume, accessories and attitude, but he mostly looks like a kid dressed up for a Happy Days theme party. He's also saddled with the film's single worst action beat -- a tribute to the '30s serials that birthed the look and feel of the Indiana Jones films which is more insipid than inspired -- and while he cannot pull it off, it's hard to imagine an actor who could.
It's rumored the French Department of Sanitation makes the gutters on the Croisette in front of the Palais du Cinema extra deep specifically to catch the spilled blood when the long knives come out for certain big-budget films that debut there; but, as Movie City News's David Poland points out, a host of big-budget films have premiered at Cannes out of competition since 2001, and every one has gone on to be among the top four moneymakers that summer. And I think most of us want Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull to be good, which it, sadly, is not. If we love the first three Indiana Jones films, it's because they had great action, mythic objects of wonder and great comedy touches within big, well-shaped stories; Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull feels like it was reverse-engineered from that blueprint, as if enough action and props and comedy would then make a story. Crystal Skull may bring back the faces and themes we remember, but it's curiously bloated and malnourished, too much and not enough. It'll make a bunch of money, sure, but even after 19 years of waiting, I can't imagine it truly satisfying anyone's jones for Jones.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
5-18-2008 @ 11:25AM
Andy said...
It's as I feared. I am truly gutted to read this review - all I can do now is hope that my reaction to the film is different.
Damn you Lucas, why must you sully my fondest celluloid memories...
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 11:27AM
Tobsterius said...
Seriously, there has to be a way to ban Lucas from making movies...
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 11:50AM
Ryan Kelly said...
This negative review would concern me more if three things were not the case:
A.) Spielberg's films, no matter how much money they make, are almost constantly misunderstood/unappreciated. Especially this decade, where even his 'serious' (usually people that don't like him can at least appreciate him when he takes on a historical subject matter) movie, Munich, remains grossly underrated
B.) I am not the biggest fan of Indy as a series, if I have an Indiana Jones 'thing' it arises more out of my Spielberg thing than anything. I doubt very much I could like any of these movies less than I like Last Crusade.
C,) Most of this staff has made it clear, as George Lucas predicted, that they hated the movie months ago. I fear that seeing the film will be merely going through the motions' for most of these pre-emptive detractors. Not accusing this critic of being one of them, but this certainly isn't enough to make me even worry about the films quality.
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 11:50AM
Dan said...
Cannes CHEERED for the movie. And there are a hell of a lot more positive reviews than negative. Please stop the Lucas bashing.
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 11:54AM
Jeff said...
This isn't a review!!! It's just an attack on George Lucas. You should be ashamed of yourself as a critic.
And yes, Dan is right. Cannes reviewers loved the movie. The movie has gotten extremely positive reviews from both the UK Times and the BBC. Don't believe this drivel.
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 11:56AM
Erik Davis said...
Ryan, not sure what you're talking about, but everyone here has been dying to see this movie for awhile now. I'm still dying to see it -- and hoping it rocks -- despite James' review.
Also, Kim actually really liked it. Read her mini-review below. As I've said before in defending our writers: we don't have an agenda, we're not out to attack a big movie (see positive reviews for both Iron Man and Speed Racer), so if one of our writers does not like a movie, it doesn't mean that a) you won't like it, or b) he/she actually does like it, but wants to be "cool" and say he/she doesn't.
But please don't piss on James and allude to him having some sort of agenda. He's giving his honest opinion, as we all do when we review a film, and, trust me, I was just as bummed as you were when I read it ...
...but I'll still go see it and cheer when I hear that music, because, well, how can you not?
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 3:48PM
Ryan Kelly said...
Erik: Was not implying an agenda, just stating an honest perception I
know full well there are members of the staff that were both looking
forward to it, and those who made it clear they weren't going into it
with in an open mind ("Boo, the title sucks" "Shia LaBeouf is awful"
"He's too old" "Spielberg is crass" were the tone of many of the
posts here back in fall/winter. Fair enough, as that expresses how
many of the fans of the series feel about this new installment. I
don't come here because I like poo-pooing on you or any of the fine
writers here, I come her because you guys provide sufficient
entertainment and write in a friendly, interpersonal way. But it's
clear that this reviewer didn't go into this film with an open mind,
and allowed his expectations to dictate his reaction to it. Just
because I don't agree with a review (I don't even know if I don't
agree as I obviously haven't seen it yet) doesn't mean it isn't
enjoyable to read.
"But please don't piss on James and allude to him having some sort of
agenda."
I did no such thing. And accusations like that are really
unwarranted, wouldntjasay? I never used the word 'agenda' anywhere, I
just said it strikes me that some people were pre-emptively writing it
off before, as they say, the facts were in. This doesn't even
particularly bother me, as at least James here objects to it in a
more sophisticated manner than the average crawler than the internet
fanboys, whose bile I've been fending off in my own small way since
this project officially commenced (it may add to it that I was an
extra in this film last summer, so even before seeing it the film has
a special place in my heart). I think we'll agree than some 'fans' are
just plain strange in the head.
5-18-2008 @ 12:04PM
James Rocchi said...
Saying a movie got cheers at Cannes is like saying a sporting team wore uniforms to the championship game; factually true, yes, but it doesn't have any bearing on performance.
I'd be more than willing to predict that as reviews file in, the overall appraisal of Indy IV will be more negative (or begrudgingly positive) than positive; let's watch the Tomatometer at Rotten Tomatoes together and see what happens.
Finally, how can you review this film without talking about Lucas's tastes, judgments and work?
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 6:29PM
Kim Voynar said...
I'm here at Cannes with James, and I can attest that he certainly didn't go into this film looking to hate it. If anything he, like most of us here, really wanted to like it. And while I enjoyed Indy more than James did, he makes some valid points about the films flaws.
There is some truly wretched dialog in the film -- I'm talking "Star Wars" bad here, and the flow and feel overall is not as strong as the first two films. But I had fun. That said, it doesn't really matter what the say about it, the film will do well at the box office regardless. My husband is taking the kid tonight, I'm curious what they will think of it.
5-18-2008 @ 6:57PM
Ryan Kelly said...
"I fear that seeing the film will be merely going through the motions' for most of these pre-emptive detractors. Not accusing this critic of being one of them, but this certainly isn't enough to make me even worry about the films quality."
So, Kim, I did not accuse that of being the case, as I truly couldn't name the editors that wrote the negative slanted piece. I apologize for the use of the word 'most' in that case, t'was rash of me. This is a non-issue, I wasn't trying to bring Cinematical under fire and I'm surprised that you guys can't handle perceived criticism better. You should see the dung Jim Emerson gets thrown at him over at scanners if you that that I'm bad!
I was just trying to incite an interesting conversation, not put Cinematical on the defense or aggravate a pseudo internet troll. Apparently, I've done both!
5-18-2008 @ 12:32PM
Ron said...
I'm fond of saying that, if Lucas had really wanted to be a director, he would spent his life directing, not luxuriating in the wealth he accumulated via a couple of early successes. The directors of Hollywoods golden era worked at their craft and honed their skills for many year, something Lucas has assiduously avoided, as if he was too much of a wunderkind to bother. And as if the next thrilling CGI breakthrough would bail out his infantile stories and characters....
That said, I'm not surprised his imprint is apparently all over this film, and to its detriment.
Ron
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 1:07PM
Jon said...
I had the pleasure of meeting and interviewing Lucas back in '96, before the prequels came out. What I came away with was the feeling that deep inside layers of protection might have existed the tremendous vision and creativity that gave us Star Wars and Indy, but that that spark had been extinguished much the way a banker kills his inner child to deal with the "grown-up" world of finance. I got the sense that he was eternally bored, that he really didn't care what the audience thought, but mostly that he was a technician first and an artist second, if at all any more. It was odd, since he'd been my boyhood hero since '77, to have my illusions shattered, but such is the price of growing up. While I feel like there were a few redeeming moments in the latest Star Wars trilogy, there were so many let-downs that I have no desire to see Indy 4 anytime soon.
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 1:07PM
Alex said...
Reviews are opinions, but yours doesn't seem to be very open-minded. It seems from the outset that you were ready to condemn this film based on the fact that George Lucas was involved. Many of your complaints are the very assets and virtues of the Indiana Jones franchise...the characters are sketches, the effects are obviously fake (whether you can tell it's cgi or a plastic model is IRRELEVANT), and the story has always teetered on the line between cheesy-dramatic and silly.
Chill out.
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 1:27PM
Rich said...
I swear, if Lucas ruined this movie like he did the Star Wars I-III then I will never sit through one of his movies again. I fear he's channeling his inner Uwe Bole...
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 1:28PM
brian said...
Jon: Great comment, and awesome extra insight into the man who is LUCAS.
ALEX: The faults you point out are what makes the franchise good? CGI and plastic effects are irrelevant? Your comment took the great one before it and ruined any thoughtful discussion was put forth about this review.
He wasn't set to bash it from the beginning and you're taking it so personally that you'd think you were Lucas's fifth cousin twice removed....and telling a reviewer to chill out because you don't like his review? Tell him you don't agree and move on. Stop being childish.
Great review, James...no one is not going to see this...but why do we all have to like it like Alex feels we should.
He's the one in front of the theater telling people what's happened and that they'll like it anyway, even though he just spoiled it.
Thanks for the great review.
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 1:45PM
Terry Daniel said...
Two things;
1. If it's better than those pathetic new Star Wars movies, I'll be satisfied.
2. I'll await reviews from sources that matter like the NY Times, Chicago Tribune, Ebert and Roeper, Rolling Stone, etc.
5-18-2008 @ 4:54PM
cough said...
My god Terry. Rolling Stone? NY Times? Drop the hate, why are you here reading this if you don't give a crap about this site's reviews?
Reviews don't matter, they're there if want some insight, in the end it comes down to personal taste. More often than not BAD taste.
Indiana Jones was amazing the first time around. 2 and 3 i didn't enjoy (just some classic scenes, mind you). This time around, with a project that no one gave a shit about, a very old Ford, this new kid (wich I can't NOT hate) and surelly, really uncomfortable and momento braking jokes (wich were found all over the recent star wars; curse you Lucas) there's nothing I can do but to spit the very idea of the movie until it proves me wrong.
This review intensifies my fears but I really have to see for myself. Just like you.
5-18-2008 @ 1:43PM
brian said...
Oh, and there are many who would disagree that the series has always teetered on the edge of cheesy-dramatic and silly...have you even seen Raiders?
While not completely realistic...it was far from cheesy and silly...it was an accomplished and erudite take on the '50's serials that Lucas and Spielberg grew up with.
Sure, the series got sillier as it went along, but I think we can all agree Lucas had at least something to do with that...(my opinion he had a LOT to do with that.)
So...why don't you go watch the other three and if you can give logical explanations of what scenery looks plastic in any of those, and how it fails to matter, let us know.
It isn't too much to ask that the two most powerful men in Hollywood make a decent movie out of a much-loved franchise.
I'm just sayin'....
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 2:27PM
totoro said...
"Spielberg's films, no matter how much money they make, are almost constantly misunderstood/unappreciated."
By whom? Let me guess, an elite few who really can understand/appreciate his work? :rolleyes:
Reply
5-18-2008 @ 2:43PM
Jordan said...
clearly you just dont understand the deep, deep level jurassic park works on, pal! and don't even get me started on jurassic park 2!