Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Filed under: Action, Paramount, Theatrical Reviews, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels

Everyone's favorite whip-cracking archaeologist is back, and I found myself trying to keep a very even keel as the lights went down for Indiana Jones' latest series of exploits: On one hand I didn't want to be "too nice" to the movie (nostalgia power does strange things to people), but I was more than willing to fall in love with the flick, too. Sometimes it's tough be a hardcore fan and an objective analyst at the same time. Fortunately, all that preparation was a waste of time, because while it's hardly the best of the series (not that we were expecting it to be), Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull delivers an irresistible infusion of matinee-style mayhem that, really, we don't get enough of these days. If the movie suffers from a few slow spots, some action bits that really strain credibility, and a semi-clunky plot that simply goes from A to B to C, those gripes can be forgiven in the face of a total package that's this exciting, amusing, and just plain old welcome.
For those who choose to remain spoiler-free, I'll keep the synopsis sketchy: Basically, it's 1957 and good ol' Indiana Jones has fallen on rough times. He's been exploited by the KGB, berated by the U.S. government, fired from his university job, and left with little recourse but to head into the wild and get lost. But just as Dr. Jones is about to vanish, up pops a teenager who needs his help: An old ally of Jones' has been abducted while searching for a secret Incan temple -- and this assignment is all our hero needs to feel a bit better. There's a LOT more to the plot, but it's more fun to discover the secrets along with the characters. Suffice to say that most of Crystal Skull consists of Jones and his new sidekick Mutt (Shia LaBeouf) getting into all sorts of crazy scrapes with a tacky treasure hunter (Ray Winstone), a raving lunatic (John Hurt), a psychic villain (Cate Blanchett), and old girlfriend Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen). Oh, and a giant crystal skull that just about everyone wants for themselves.
The movie feels like a comfortable pair of jeans that you thought were gone forever. With all the key people (namely: Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Harrison Ford) in position, Crystal Skull is single-mindedly intent on giving you a whole bunch of entertainment for your $9.50. But it's the presence and performance of Shia LaBeouf that proves to be one of the film's best surprises. When I heard that Indy would be dealing with a late-'50s "greaser kid" as a sidekick, I pictured either a swaggering bully or an "odd couple" bickering partner -- but the kid turns out to be an effortlessly likable character: Capable and brave (but obviously lacking "adventure experience"), quick-witted and smart ... basically, a dryly amusing foil for Indiana Jones to deal with. And once Marion Ravenwood (the very welcome but slightly underutilized Karen Allen) gets involved, our three heroes have a lot of fun dealing with a much more "domestic" dynamic. (In other words, the actors are clearly having fun, and they strike a great chemistry together.)
As far as the new characters are concerned, the casting director excels while the screenwriter (or the editor) gets only a B-plus. Cate Blanchett has a ball as the evil Ukranian known as Irina Spalko. The actress brings a pulpy, tongue-in-cheek swagger to her over-the-top baddie that's just fun to watch. Too bad she's given little to do besides chase our hero around the jungle. Jim Broadbent pops in for a few scenes, replacing the late Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott) as Indy's academic ally, and the always-great John Hurt is on hand as an adventurer gone loony -- but neither performer is asked to do much besides deliver plot points and lug a skull around. (John Hurt is essentially playing a human treasure map.) Ray Winstone contributes a few cool moments as a two-faced treasure-seeker, but his character (and his impact on our hero) is one of the flick's most confused components. One wonders why the character is even necessary when all is said and done.
To those who spent the last several years offering lame jokes about Indiana Jones and the Retirement Home, be prepared to eat some crow. Yes, Indy does look quite a bit older than the last time we saw him, and fine, it's kind of absurd to expect a 60-year-old man to do what Dr. Jones does. In the real world. In a series that offers vengeful gods, mine cart roller coasters, and immortal knights ... are we really going to whine about an actor with a few new wrinkles on his face? Ford does many of his own stunts here, plus he's aided by several stuntmen, a few CG tricks, and some masterful editing. Not once does this guy seem too old to be doing his thing. As far as Mr. Ford's actual performance is concerned, he slips back into the character with no effort whatsoever. Wiser and more weathered, but absolutely the same old Indy.
At this point you'd probably like a simple answer to a simple question: "Is it as good as the other ones?" To which I would answer "Yes, absolutely ... aside from the first one." To me (and many others), Raiders of the Lost Ark is right up there on a level with Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, and The Godfather. In comparison, I consider Temple of Doom to be a stellar collection of action scenes that are punctuated by sub-par dialog and a horribly annoying damsel, while Last Crusade is a warm-hearted and creative adventure movie that suffered just a little bit from downright familiarity. So while I really enjoy Temple and Crusade, they don't hold a candle to their big brother. And Crystal Skull follows that arc to a tee: It's definitely got some over-clunky dialog, a touch of over-ripe "expositionzing," and at least one action beat that feels patently ridiculous, but complaining about those things (in the face of so much colorful fun) seems a bit greedy -- like opening your Christmas presents and then saying "That's it?!?!"
Ultimately, you certainly don't need this review like you'd maybe need a review of something small, indie, or festival-bound, since you already know full well if you want to see a movie called Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. If you've made it this far, you probably just want to know what an old-school fan (who also happens to be a movie critic) thinks of the movie. Yes, I saw all three Indy flicks during their theatrical run, and more times than I care to mention. So with both sides of my brain (the geeky nostalgia side and the semi-smart analytical side) in working order, I can most assuredly recommend Indiana Jones Part 4 as one of the most comfortably entertaining adventure movies of the past several years. To expect any movie to live up to the Raiders standard is simply unfair, but Crystal Skull fits very excellently next to both Temple of Doom and Last Crusade.
For more on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, see James' review from Cannes.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-20-2008 @ 1:12AM
mike green said...
I never posted a comment on your article, but I just wanted to say that this review confirms something I believe for a while: you're my favorite movie critic
Reply
5-20-2008 @ 4:13AM
cinemascopian said...
Nice one. I enjoyed KOTCS more than you, and I also have a theory to explain the things that sucked vs. the things that rocked:
http://cinemascopian.com/2008/05/19/review-indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull/
Reply
5-20-2008 @ 8:14AM
Andrew said...
Great review. I haven't seen the movie yet but I've read countless reviews. Yours seems to be the most balanced and 'realistic'.
Thanks - you've allowed me to look forward to seeing Indy's latest adventure without going in there with ludicrously high hopes.
Reply
5-20-2008 @ 10:46AM
chasecombs said...
Great review. I think this is a fine example of how movie critics can be critical, yet realistic, and still enjoy films. So far, many of the not so favorable reviews I've read seem to expect this new Indy to be Raiders 2, and that just isn't going to happen. That doesn't mean that it's going to be horrible. If this movie is on the same level as the two sequels, which I love, then I think it's more than done it's job. Thanks again, and I still can't wait to see it.
Reply
5-20-2008 @ 1:30PM
juicerino said...
Real nice review man.
Gotta say, you made me 'need' to go see it.
Reply
5-22-2008 @ 10:18AM
kevjohn said...
Spot on review. You've convinced me to go see this. heh, just kidding. You could have told us that the entire movie consisted of Ford and LaBeouf riding in a truck discussing the 1957 World Series and I would've been the first in line. Well, the 27th in line actually. Damned early bird movie line squatters!
There were definitely some weak spots in this film, but all-around it was a great ride. I'm glad you are pointing that out to counteract the 'negative' reviews from disappointed souls who are upset this isn't the second coming (of Raiders). I think I'd put this one slightly ahead of the other two Indy films in terms of overall quality and entertainment. I'll see if I can narrow down how much better I think this is than Temple or Crusade after my second viewing later today. :) There's nothing groundbreaking here but it's a really nice way to continue the summer movie euphoria that began with Iron Man.
Reply
5-23-2008 @ 9:05AM
Dereck said...
IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE SKIP THIS COMMENT
Why doesn't anyone have a problem with the whole ending of the movie?!!! WHY?!! The previous three movies had story lines that were plausible (and I am not discrediting the "they are out there" people) but, come on. Indiana Jones does not go toe to toe with Aliens. I was so offended by this that I almost walked out of the movie theater. Indiana Jones is a relic hunter of terrestrial things. While I am sure that his occult interests have led him exploring UFO's and Aliens, I don't think that it's what he really does. I mean, never has he mentioned aliens in any of the first three and Indy himself questioned it in the movie and when it happened, he just shirked it off like it was expected. (I suppose the brain washing scene allowed for that) Seriously people, please if you have any love for the original three movies, you will see my point. Is it really too much to ask for a good story that has feasibly objectives to go along with the Hype of something so big? I ask because this movie is not as good as the previous three and I really didn't like Temple of Doom. This movie doesn't even come close to Temple. Open your eyes and call it for what it is....crap!!!
Reply
5-23-2008 @ 8:03PM
IndyFan said...
How are aliens any less plausible than the Ark of the Covenant or Holy Grail? All are objects of fantasy and make-believe. Heck, the Crystal Skulls are actually real and have been discovered by archaeologists...no one's ever actually discovered the Ark of the Grail. All the Peruvian stuff is real, too, and there are theories that they had made contact with what are considered "ancient astronauts". To me, that's not any crazier the other movies. Furthermore, in Indy's novel and comic book adventures, this kinda of thing has been established. It's pulp fiction, folks -- fantasy! Seriously, some of you people are sounding like complete idiots by complaining about this stuff.
Reply
5-24-2008 @ 3:39AM
Dave said...
How much did Spielberg and Lucas pay you for this kind review. I depend on guys like you to be honest and you were not. This movie is terrible.
Reply
5-26-2008 @ 12:26PM
Eric said...
This movie is definitely the worst of the bunch. The other films are way more entertaining. Once again Lucas has managed to destroy another franchise. I say Lucas should have his hand in writing the sequels to High School Musical and try writing for TV shows like Grey's Anatomy and the Hills. At least Lucas would be using his writing skills for good and not for evil.
Reply
5-26-2008 @ 5:43PM
Chad said...
This film is a joke. There is no archaeological story. The movie winds up being about aliens. The action is ridiculous. The lines are delivered the way medicine is swallowed. You can see that Ford hates what he is doing. I can't believe Spielberg followed Lucas's lead on this. It's the movie you prayed to God they wouldn't make. I feel sick.
Reply
5-27-2008 @ 9:17PM
manoj said...
i love all the movies of harrison ford, and specially all the the series of indiana jones, cant afford to miss it
Reply
5-27-2008 @ 9:19PM
manoj said...
Great review. I think this is a fine example of how movie critics can be critical, yet realistic, and still enjoy films. So far, many of the not so favorable reviews I've read seem to expect this new Indy to be Raiders 2, and that just isn't going to happen
Reply
6-22-2008 @ 2:27PM
manoj said...
true said manoj!
Reply
6-09-2008 @ 3:27PM
Jeffrey M. Anderson said...
I don't care what anyone says! The movie made me very happy and I'm thinking of seeing it again (time permitting). Great review, Scott!
Reply