Review of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) by Tiberio S — 14 Jul 2018

Indiana Jones is one of the last characters to represent the most sought after initial intent of the cinematic medium: pure escapism. Even with such great films released as 'Dark Knight' and 'Iron Man,' we are constantly reminded of the times we live in and the fantasies we dream of to cure such times. But the latest Spielberg/Lucas popcorn-seller hangs on to that dying thread of escapist majesty, of fun and adventure, of wonder and imagination. And while I appreciate all of that, and will always dip back for more doses of mindless fun, there's an awfully big problem: none of it works.

It's plain awkward to present a movie like this in 2008, and it feels very removed from the audience. Jones in '81-'89 was reflective of a more proud nation that was patting itself on the back -- the Reagan years proved statistically to be one of the most civilly content eras in American history. A common attitude was one which accepted heroes warding off long-past enemies - these days, watching a guy like this kick Soviet-ass just doesn't make sense. It wasn't satisfying fans of the original films, who now remembered Indy differently as impressionable children, and in trying to use cheap gags that merely nostalgically harkened back to an old-idea for a style of moviemaking, it did nothing for newer, younger audiences. They were trying to please everyone, and it pleased no-one.

Of course I would've killed to see the attitude of 'Raiders' restored -- it really did feel rough and unpolished back then. 'Crystal Skull' looked like it had CGI-gloss pissed on what hardly felt like a 35mm print. While shot on 35mm, the amount of digital transfers, animation, and corrections that are done before the print makes it to theaters kills any chance of us living in the glory of an '81-cinemascape.

Through all the turbulence, 'Crystal Skull' has decent character development, but without much dimension; there was no point in making Indy's son a surprise (we all fucking knew it was coming!) and robbed the audience an opportunity to see a relationship with a backdrop, instead of it just turning midway. Better yet, Mutt should NEVER have been Indy's biological son; why not consider adopting him in a kind of unofficial buddy/dad way? What made the history between Marion and Indy in 'Raiders' work, and better yet the father/son story of 'Last Crusade,' was the presence of dimension that carried in the narrative flow from beginning to end, where they had history and resolved their history by the end. 'Crystal Skull' felt like Lucas wrote a new story in the middle of the film.

There's also some great action and suspense in the first act. I loved the chase through New Haven, Ford with some great stunts climbing through the car, leaping onto the motorcycle, Spielberg moving the camera across the action between exterior and car. But after that, the things that used to make us curious and leave us in wonderment along the mysteries of the original films - that we thought act 1 set us up for - are dead from act 2 forward. This crystal skull (not the Mitchell-Hedges) artifact, that they find early in act 2, does everything for them... and that's about it.

It's a dull effort altogether and felt as though nobody cared about making it. A lot of crap came out of the PR work from Spielberg and Lucas -- "he looks like he stepped right out of Last Crusade" or "we swallowed our pride (Janusz Kaminski and Spielberg) to light the film like Douglas Slocombe" - stop right there... are you fucking kidding me? How he thought that statement would get by is beyond me, but no! the film does not look like it was shot anywhere near Slocombe's minimalistic geurilla flavor, and instead is blandly overlit without any purpose besides looking up to modern professionalism. Bullshit Bearded One!

Last statement, and this above all needs to be clear: pointing the story towards the sky, and intertwining our astronomical mythology with Earth-bound archaelogical history, WAS NOT THE PROBLEM... no matter how much it seemed that way. Unfortunately the only way to prove that is to make a script like this the first movie and play it in 1981 before 'Raiders.' If you have the same attitude of 'Raiders,' it works just fine, and is actually really interesting to think about on some philosophical levels, interdimensional beings that is.