Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull | Pajiba

It’s the Years and the Mileage

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | May 23, 2008 | Comments (177)

The greatest disappointment of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull — and in a movie where (among other things) a young hero swings among vines like Tarzan, there are several disappointments — is that the filmmakers lacked the confidence to wholeheartedly embrace the character they’d created and instead resorted to riffing on his age and that of the entire series. Director Steven Spielberg and producer/story man George Lucas hauled something magical out of thin air when they gave life to Indiana Jones more than 25 years ago, but rather than return to that parallel fictional universe, they’ve tried to drag Indy into our own, and they wind up getting stuck halfway between worlds. The first half of the film is stronger, but also more weirdly apologetic about the fact that Indy has returned at all, as if screenwriter David Koepp were given instructions to act mildly embarrassed about the project for the first 50 pages. Much of the film is a meta-nod to the others, eschewing character-based humor or revelation for knowing winks at the audience. I can’t believe this is the script that convinced the principles to make another film. Spielberg is a smart and gifted filmmaker, and though he always maintained a certain intellectual distance from the material even while putting his heart into it, not until now has that distance become tinged with irony or, horrifyingly, the aroma of parody.

Spielberg’s intent to trade on the memories of the earlier films — specifically on the first one, Raiders of the Lost Ark — is evident from the first frame. The Paramount logo is the same faded one that preceded Raiders, and it dissolves into a matching silhouette of an anthill, as opposed to the actual mountains of the old film. Even the typeface of the credits is the same. As a convoy of Army trucks blasts down a desert highway, a title card reveals the setting to be Nevada, 1957. The caravan stops at the entrance to a secret government testing ground that will turn out to be Area 51, where soldiers hop out and kill the guards on duty. Once the trucks enter the facility, the bad guys open up the trunk and extract two rumpled older men who are clearly hostages: George “Mac” McHale (Ray Winstone) and Indiana Jones himself (Harrison Ford). Indy’s introduction here isn’t quite the menacing and anti-heroic reveal it was in Raiders, when he stepped from the shadows after whipping a cowardly jungle guide, but it still plays into one of the better ideas of the series in the way there’s always a certain amount of ceremony when Indy first appears. But Spielberg crosses from celebrating his hero to skewering his age when Mac tells Indy that escaping won’t be easy, to which Indy replies, “Not as easy as it used to be.” The bad guys, it turns out, are Russians, led by Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), and they’ve kidnapped Indy and his cohort to help them find some kind of mummy the Russians really want to get their hands on. Spielberg gets some more use out the series’ mythology when Indy and the rest enter a giant warehouse packed with rows of wooden crates: This is clearly the resting place of the Ark of the Covenant, rescued by Indy a lifetime ago. Maybe Spielberg hopes that starting the new adventure here will give it some of the energy and verve of the old film, but it doesn’t quite work.

In a series of plot turns too ludicrous to describe except to say that death fridges and prairie dogs come into play, Indy escapes and returns to his old life as a college professor of archaeology, only to be let go once the FBI begins kicking up dirt about his rumored run-in with the KGB. He’s about to leave town when he runs into Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf), a teenager who knew an old colleague of Indy’s and who’s been given a message to deliver to Indy. The letter promises to reveal the location of the crystal skull, an ancient artifact from El Dorado that could control the world, give its owner cosmic power, etc. Pursued by more Russians, Indy and Mutt escape on Mutt’s motorcycle in one of the film’s high-octane but largely suspenseless chase scenes. Koepp’s dialogue alternates between flat and jokey, and the script is nothing more than a series of loosely joined scenes without the connective benefit of a goal. Indy and Mutt set off for the Amazon to find the crystal skull, where they run right into Irina, who’s got several of Indy’s friends in tow, including Mac; Professor Oxley (John Hurt), who sent the letter with Mutt; and Marion (Karen Allen), Indy’s former love from Raiders who hasn’t been seen or mentioned since the first film. Irina has the crystal skull, but she wants Indy’s help to find the lost city from whence it came.

With nothing more to drive the film than a sketchy objective and a dull ancient artifact, Spielberg just kills time, having the Russians chase the good guys around the jungle in an increasingly numbing series of action set pieces. There’s never any doubt that the good guys will make it, but what’s worse, there’s never any reason to hope they will. Spielberg avoids even the most rudimentary, action-movie-level characterizations, and the resulting story is slack. He can’t even jump-start the Indy-Marion relationship, which has had 27 years to build up. Ford does his damnedest to bring the character back to life, but there’s only so much he can do with lackluster material. His chemistry with Allen could’ve saved their story and provided some emotional weight to the rest of the film, but it never materializes, or rather, it materializes almost nonsensically. Indy and Marion manage to fall back in love without really speaking to each other.

To go into the rest of the plot would be to relive it, and at this point I’d much rather keep my memories of what the series used to be instead of acknowledging what it’s become. Suffice it to say that this is the coldest Indiana Jones film yet, thanks in no small part to the advent of CGI in the gap between this film and 1989’s Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Many of the action sequences rely on an increasingly blurry presentation of what looks like the good guy fighting what might be the bad guy in the middle of what’s definitely a fake jungle. It’s in one of these scenes that Mutt, tangled in a vine, begins swinging from branch to branch before landing in a Russian jeep and beating up the villains, aided by the monkeys who’d been swinging right alongside him. The sequence is an unfortunate parallel to the rest of the film: It’s not particularly exciting, and it’s not particularly funny; it’s just a bad idea.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.

← Pajiba Love 05/23/08 | Nuked the Fridge →

Comments

WAAHAAHAAAA. (sniff) WAAHAAHAAA.

Ahh...who the fuck am I kidding? I'll see it anyway. I've been Harrison Ford's bitch since I was 12.

Posted by: wsapnin at May 23, 2008 6:53 PM

You summed up my feelings perfectly. I was so thoroughly disappointed after yesterday's viewing.

How many times can we hit Shia LaBouf in the crotch with ferns at high speed?

Posted by: Skeggjold at May 23, 2008 6:57 PM

Yep, as a whole, it wasn't very good but there are a few fairly amusing scenes that sort of make it worth the effort.

Posted by: bosco at May 23, 2008 6:59 PM

Actually it's spell-check and an empty bladder(that might've helped your review... in your haste to piss all over the film).

Posted by: T at May 23, 2008 6:59 PM

Damn you Lucas! [/shakes fist at sky] This sounds just like the stupid Star Wars sequels.

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at May 23, 2008 7:03 PM

every word in this review is true, but I still enjoyed it thoroughly. Of course it isn't as good as the old ones, no one expected it to be, but if you love the first three then I bet you will at least have fun at the new one. At the worst it's still better than the Starwars reboot. We can all be thankful for that.

Posted by: the_wakeful at May 23, 2008 7:05 PM

Meh, there will always be 'Last Crusade' and that's all I need.

Posted by: twig at May 23, 2008 7:06 PM

It's not good, it's not bad, it is totally and thoroughly meh.

Posted by: jeremiah at May 23, 2008 7:10 PM

thank you to the_wakeful - your comments are my sentiments exactly. Despite its flaws, I can't wait to see it again!

Posted by: SCG at May 23, 2008 7:20 PM

thank you to the_wakeful - your comments are my sentiments exactly. Despite its flaws, I look forward to seeing it again!

Posted by: SCG at May 23, 2008 7:22 PM

All we need now is for Arnie to quit politics, camouflage the Zimmer frame and "GET TO DA CHOPPAAAAAAHHH!!!". Of the recent crop of should-be-past-it action icons, Bruce Willis is the only one that has gotten away with it with a maybe-mention to Stallone/Rambo. To be fair it sounds like Ford is hampered by the material here, but it's also worth remembering that it's his nth go-round with George Lucas so you'd reckon he would have a strategy by now. I'll probably go see it, but with lowered expectations.

Posted by: Dave Shepherd at May 23, 2008 7:27 PM

I love Pajiba reviews on most posting but PLEASE give it a rest. (for all you critics). We go to the movie to escape our daily grind for a brief moment not to finding the meaning of life. If any CRITICS can make a better movie or do a better job than S.S, they would be a director instead of a critic. Saw the movie today and loved every minutes. Do not listen to others and judge for yourself. You will not be disappointed by starting the summer with your family and an old friend we come to love and glad to see once again - Indiana. AKA Junior.

Posted by: lighten-up-it's-a-movie at May 23, 2008 7:28 PM

I am reasonably confident that, given a budget half the size of any of the blockbusters Pajiba has panned, any Pajiba critic could produce a superior film. Anyone who knows anything about movies knows that a lot of the most talented people labor in obscurity, if at all; some even have to eschew filmmaking and become critics. The talent/success disconnect is gigantic--just look at Michael Bay or the Star Wars prequels.

Posted by: Pen Dragon at May 23, 2008 7:38 PM

It's fun and funny. My main worry was that Indy wouldn't quite be Indy any more, but Harrison was up to the task, and clearly enjoys what he's doing. So, I'm happy.

Posted by: Ginger at May 23, 2008 7:48 PM

on the whole, i always love daniel carlson's reviews. but i must respectfully disagree with everything in this review. i saw this last night and was transported back to when i was five years old, watching raiders in the attic with my dad.

the action was just as awesome as the earlier movies, just different. this movie suffers mainly by not being the first.

and on the "ridiculous" plot points, it's a fantasy movie. how many reviewers thought the ark of the covenant was ridiculous? i bet more than a few (but i was negative 8 when the first movie came out, so i don't remember).

indiana jones and his world just adapted. the atomic bomb made the world a smaller, colder place. the movie reflects that and mystical stuff in this movie reflects the superstitions that existed in that point in our country. gone were the adventure serials about ancient mummies, to be replaced with ufo sightings. this movie tried to move forward and still retain some of the ideas in the first three. it does that, not perfectly, but well.

(sorry about how long this is.....and that i just perpetuated it with an apology......)

Posted by: maggie at May 23, 2008 7:53 PM

You summed up many of my feelings perfectly. This movie was awful. I am mystified by the many passes and some raves it has received. To say that it was the most traumatic cinematic experience of my life is no understatement; this thing completely undermines the spirit of the first three films, all of which I loved.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at May 23, 2008 7:56 PM

And - keeping in tune with discussion I've heard on other websites - I don't understand why I must "give it a rest."

Are the fans of this movie so insecure that they can't stand to hear that other people disliked it? Am I not allowed to give negative feedback that might constructively affect future movies?

I'm not a "hater." I'm just a guy who loved three movies in a series and was utterly devastated by their sequel for sound reasons. It's wonderful that you can escape the daily grind by seeing ridiculous images of - among other things - *SPOILERS* Shia swinging with the monkeys *END SPOILERS*, but I expect a little bit more. Raiders, Doom, and Crusade did not offer me the meaning of life, but they did offer me a little more resonance and weight to balance the madcap action.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at May 23, 2008 8:03 PM

To lighten-up-it's-a-movie:

Honey, you are looking at the wrong site. Check your brain wave before entering.

And also, have you heard of Jean-Luc Godard? he was one of the young critic who was challenged by a director and proved himself to be a superior director. So, who knows, we might see something like that happening from Pajiba given another decade or so.

Well, either way, I'll probably see this, but I am thankful of Pajiba for not inflating hope.

Posted by: yocean14 at May 23, 2008 8:07 PM

I've never even seen the rest of the Indiana Jones movies, I only went to see Shia The Beef- on whom I've had an inappropriate crush since Even Stevens- and I have to say, regardless of the quality of the movie, Harrison Ford is one hot pepaw.

Posted by: Marra at May 23, 2008 8:25 PM

I knew this would suck. There must be some sort of publisist cabal that is forcing all the top critics to give it good press. Like almost every other string of sequels, the first is the best. Just leave it alone. The South Park episode dealing with the Lucas/Spielberg plot to rape our childhood was dead on.

Posted by: ganesh at May 23, 2008 8:30 PM

The movie was meh. Part of the problem was "Last Crusade" - if "Crystal Skull" had come out after "Temple of Doom" it might have been okay. It was as good as the second, but not nearly as good as "Raiders" or "Crusade."

Posted by: La Femme Nikita at May 23, 2008 9:08 PM

T - Thank you. I could not have said it better.

Lighten the fuck up, people.

Posted by: Lori at May 23, 2008 9:27 PM

I can't see this, I refuse to take the chance of ruining the love I have for the franchise. I just wanted to ask if what Mr. Kolby told me the other day was true - that Temple of Doom was actually a prequel to Raiders.

Posted by: Kolby at May 23, 2008 9:30 PM

Just saw the film and quite honestly I wasn't expecting much more than to find an old friend and hum a familiar tune. I basically got what I paid for and was happy for the experience. I never really warmed up to Temple of Doom either, but if it's on late at night I usually end up watching it. It'll probably be the same with this.

Posted by: Duane at May 23, 2008 9:31 PM

Spot on review.

After a couple days of thinking about why I was underwhelmed - I came to the exact same conclusion as Carlson. Ultimately the film doesn't work - and the reason it doesn't work is because it spends too much time scavenging scenes from the previous pictures and winking at the audience right after they do it.

I'm not saying I didn't enjoy it,- there were a few part - very few -that had some of that old Indiana Jones magic - but in the end it was a forgettable experience.

And this argument that you have to check your brain to enjoy a picture is bullshit. No wonder Hollywood keeps making crap pictures - it's because we check our brains and go to the shit movies anyway.

Posted by: kennbenj at May 23, 2008 9:34 PM

As with Transformers, Shia LeBeouf's inability to move beyond his Even Stevens character ruins this movie. He had help though, Cate Blanchett was ham-handed in her role as the villian. Furthermore, there was very little in this movie that wasn't predictable. Once Marion arrives on screen you know how the paternity test is going to go. As soon as Shia reveals that he trained with rapiers, you knew he was going to have a blade-to-blade date with Blanchett...*snore*.

The groundhog stuff was painfully annoying and harkens to Lucas' obsession with personifying anything not human that appears on screen (see: every superfluous line delivered by a "military" droid in the Star Wars prequels). For a second during the groundhog crap, I thought I was transported to a screening of a new IceAge movie.

Harrison Ford was good, but was forced into the trite "I'm too old for this..." role. I went to see Indiana Jones doing his thing, not lamenting about how hard it is now that he's picked up a few wrinkles. If you're "too old for this", then don't do it.

Posted by: Brandon at May 23, 2008 9:38 PM

when the LUCASFILM logo came up... i knew something was going to go bad.... last 3 times the LUCASFILM logo came up, i died a little inside...

Posted by: maltinej at May 23, 2008 9:38 PM

Cry more please. I dont think they could have done anything that would please some people. Everyone was expecting another Raiders or Crusade, and cant handle getting something different. It was an awesome movie that fit what it was supposed to be. Expect Shia , i hate so much the things he choses to be.

Posted by: Sean at May 23, 2008 9:45 PM

I have to go see this on Sunday with the boyfriend and his boss. I'm seriously considering ditching them and sneaking into Iron Man.

Posted by: jM at May 23, 2008 10:01 PM

I'd have to say I disagree with most of the review. I feel that much of the movie was tongue-in-cheek, and it worked well. Furthermore, the action sequences were a return to the time when movies took themselves less seriously with banter and physical humor being a part of the action itself, and not merely a distraction. There were plenty of old-school Indy "gross out" moments, which I think were the films strongest points as one rarely sees these in today's popcorn fare.

However, the ending of the movie was a catastrophe. I almost walked out once I realized where it was headed. (Worse than anything Shyamalan has ever imagined.)

So on that note: F*ck You George, and F*ck You Steven. In nineteen minutes you ruined nineteen years of buildup, and broke my heart.

Posted by: FourKings at May 23, 2008 10:04 PM

I'll likely regret getting into the middle of this loved it/hated it debate but for what it's worth, my two cents...

I had a good time watching this movie. It was a lot of fun. It was ridiculous. It was Indy. I like to use the phrase "absurd but awesome" when attempting to describe it. My boyfriend kept nudging me and saying "That could NEVER happen!" but as I pointed out to him (and will to you too), I don't recall Spielberg being overly fussed about plausibility in the first three Indy films either. I'm fairly certain the point has always been to make a rip-snorting good fantasy adventure film, not to pain-stakingly recreate a blow-by-blow of an actual archaeological dig and/or thwarted terrorist attack.

This isn't the best of the four films but it's not the abomination some people want it to be either. It's roughly on a par with 'Temple of Doom'. It suffers a bit by coming after 'The Last Crusade' which featured the amazing Sean Connery and that's a hard act to follow. Even after (or perhaps especially after) nineteen years. But it is what it is - a worthy installment in a fun series.

And Indiana Jones is still his whip-cracking put-upon self for the most part. Harrison Ford does Indy as proud as he can and I, for one, quite enjoyed the romp.

Posted by: VampireNomad at May 23, 2008 10:13 PM

I actually enjoyed the film, but I do admit the vine-swinging scene was definitely the Jar-Jar Binks moment of the movie.

Posted by: shake at May 23, 2008 10:14 PM

Not to nitpick, but why did it take you that long to figure out the ending FourKings?

MINOR SPOILER:

Considering that it was almost called "Indiana Jones and the little green men from mars" or some shit like that, and that they steal an alien corpse in the first 5 minutes, I would think that the ending wouldn't be a twist at all.

END SPOILER

Posted by: the_wakeful at May 23, 2008 10:15 PM

Haven't seen it yet, but have definitely talked about it already:

"Oh my GOSH, what are they thinking putting that kid from 'Even Stevens' in as an action hero? He's a little kid!"

"Like, dude...his name is Mutt. You can't not be an action hero with a name like Mutt. Even if you look like freaking Tommy from Rugrats, if your name is Mutt...you're pretty much predestined to be in a movie with lots of car chases and explosions."

"Oh crap...you have a point. But the casting! Jesus Harold Fisher-Price Christ, the casting is ALL wrong!"

Posted by: nutcase at May 23, 2008 10:31 PM

I just got home from seeing this about an hour ago and have to say I enjoyed the whole thing, even if it's forgettable instantly and blatantly silly in places. Indy has always been about escapism...nothing that happens here could or would happen in real life, the character are all over the top and the villains are recognizable because of their Russian accents, but it's still a fun 2 hours. Maybe because I'm very close to Mr. Ford's age, the old age jokes carried more humor for me. And the end of it is silly, but still what you might expect from Spielberg. And I remember specifically when the first one came out that no one thought a hero named Indy could be any good--I am sure that within 4-5 years, we will see the first installment of the new series, starring Shia La LeBeouf as the new Indiana Jones. I said to someone earlier today, people take movies too seriously. Did it entertain you? Then it did what it was supposed to.

Posted by: memikeyounot at May 23, 2008 10:41 PM

Saw this at a midnight premier on Wednesday in DC. I knew I'd be disappointed, but when did Indy become a paranormal investigator. I know all of the other movies have a touch of the supernatural, but this was beyond supernatural...it ended at super-sucky.

The thought that this is probably Ford's last incarnation of Indy makes me want to cry.

Posted by: JO at May 23, 2008 10:46 PM

I can't believe this is the script that convinced the principles to make another film.

ITYM principals. Ain't no principles at all in this farrago.

Posted by: rocky at May 23, 2008 10:52 PM

This movie was a good parody of an Indiana Jones movie, but that's about it. Couldn't agree more with the review.

By far the worst of the four movies.

Posted by: Rob at May 23, 2008 10:52 PM

To go into the rest of the plot...

What did you leave out? Jesus. Still, what would really sadden me is someone reading this and thinking "that must mean it sucks after all! I'd better not go!" without at least getting a second opinion.

I had fun, fun, fun, lots of fun (and it's pretty relentless), and I simply adore Irina Spalko. She can't scare me, she's just too cute.

Posted by: Jay at May 23, 2008 10:59 PM

"I just wanted to ask if what Mr. Kolby told me the other day was true - that Temple of Doom was actually a prequel to Raiders."

I don't know if someone's answered this for you yet, Kolby, but yes, "Temple" is a prequel in the sense that its events take place before "Raiders" within the chronology of the series, even though "Raiders" was the first movie made. When I found that out, it made me feel a little better about the lack of Marion in the other two films.

Posted by: Geetch at May 23, 2008 11:38 PM

Indiana Jones and Crystal Skull -- Sounds like the paparrazis' nickname for Harrison Ford and Calista Flockhart.

Posted by: JP at May 23, 2008 11:43 PM

I saw it yesterday, and man, I was so disappointed. I wanted so badly to see that Indy spunk and charisma and it just wasn't there. The beginning was so anti-climactic, I couldn't believe that was it. Indy's face should have landed on the screen is a huge ballyhoo. Not bad lines. Wah.

Posted by: Celesteab at May 24, 2008 12:05 AM

JP, nice one :)

Saw this last night with a couple of friends and the "meh" verdict was passed by all. It wasn't good, it wasn't particularly bad, it was just... meh.

I thought it had that trademark Lucas scent all over it - the smell of an old guy trying to bottle and sell what he used to just sweat out of his pores for free (See also: Stephen King)

Posted by: Ed at May 24, 2008 12:10 AM

Just came back out of a packed theater. So to those who had fun, just know that the movie will be a blockbuster and will be in theaters for a good while to be enjoyed.

Now...to my thoughts. And they could be all tied up into one: This is a fun, but dumb movie -- and Indy was never dumb.

I guess part of the problem is that Irina "Get that Squirrel!" Spalko and her Commie buddies just don't muster the same amount of evil that the Nazis from Raiders and Crusade could conjure up just by bringing out their logo and evil boots. Keeping the crystal skull and its power away from the Reds just doesn't have the same cache as keeping the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail from the most evil jackoffs in modern history.

And yes, there's the constant nods to old age. But Indy was always a thinker. He'd fight through Nazis, but it was because he needed to do it. He'd also disguise himself and figure escape routes and potential traps in advance. This Indy is more like the Da Vinci Code's Dr. Langston -- someone who follows 1 clue to the next and doesn't stop to consider if his hypotheses are any closer to the truth.

What's worse is that you feel the presence of post-prequel George Lucas in the aforementioned Tarzan swing scene or in the chase through the college (is anyone more stuck in the 1950s more than George?) The man hasn't seen a green screen he doesn't love. While that works in Star Wars, we have the whole of the southwest US to film a simple scene, George.

If it sounds like I hated the movie, I didn't. But this movie isn't on the level of the previous 3. This is a post-Stargate, post-Mummy, post-National Treasure Indiana Jones who borrows from those aforementioned films.

So you will have fun. But it'll only last till the credits come up.

Posted by: BFFredo at May 24, 2008 12:13 AM

The day a Pajiba critic, or any critic aside from the aforementioned Godard (though to say he is a superior filmmaker is a matter of opinion, as he has quite the uneven resume), proves themselves capable of anything other than criticizing is the day the internet cracks in half. Those who can do (or even can't but have the guts and nuts to try) do, while those who can't, become critics.

Face facts, even the shoddiest of Woods and Bays are better than the snarkiest of Carlsons or Stevens. Why? Because they don't talk about it. They do it. I will have infinite more respect to the most insipid, cliche-ridden film student masturbatory exercise in "why I can't get laid/no one recognized my genius/the working world is dehumanizing" than the most brilliant review eviscerating it. Because lil Devin Smith or Clinton Tarantino actually went out and tried to create something, to bring something to life. Much harder than sitting in front of the MacBook trying to come up with some elaborate metaphor/insult in order to please sycophants than more than likely would slobber on your knob anyway.

Just my opinion.

Posted by: I Laugh At You at May 24, 2008 12:14 AM

Crap. This was absolute crap. I just....yeah. Crap. This film made me long for the old days. Now I FEEL old. And depressed. And sad. And I'm only 31. What the hell?

Posted by: Megan at May 24, 2008 12:25 AM

Awful. Just awful. When they revealed the "secret" meaning at the end I started giggling and almost had to leave the theatre.

I survived entirely due to the cute friend of a friend sitting next to me and his pretty, pretty New Orleans accent.

Posted by: Alice at May 24, 2008 12:28 AM

This review is so dead on, sadly. After 19 years ... this is what we get from two of the greatest film makers of our time? Horrible one-liners and anti-chemistry from Marion and Indy? I didn't want to take this film too seriously, since it is a serial adventure, but after 19 years of foreplay for a fourth film ... you can't help but want a fulfilling payoff. It's "Indiana Jones" for eff's sake. How can they follow "Crusade" with this? And dear lord, why the gopher sequences? Why?

Posted by: BombScribe at May 24, 2008 12:37 AM

He'd also disguise himself and figure escape routes and potential traps in advance.

No, that's Batman. Indy's just a really good improviser, but he's constantly in trouble.

Posted by: Jay at May 24, 2008 12:38 AM

Oh and I'm not worried about it not doing business, but thanks for the pat on the head.

Posted by: Jay at May 24, 2008 12:49 AM

I don't see how criticizing a reviewer's capability of creating art is relevant. If you come to a review expecting it to be what you want, then why read the review in the first place.

Posted by: Rob at May 24, 2008 12:52 AM

This movie was an Indiana Jones film trying to be an Indiana Jones film and it just came off as fake and forced. The old Indiana Jones wasn't awesome because he was trying to be awesome, he just [i]was[/i].

And unfortunately in picking apart the formula of Indy which resulted in this movie, that part was clearly missing from the equation. I don't understand why they didn't make a movie tailored to an older Indy instead of just pretending he's old (he's old on man so why make a farce in having him do all those crazy fights like he did when he was younger?) and giving him a son.

Posted by: daeyeth at May 24, 2008 12:54 AM

I Laugh At You is right. We Pajibans need to get started making our own films. The general public will reject them but the snark will shine through. The Pajiba New Wave will revolutionize the business. We may need to put TK's zombies to work to get the funds needed to finance this thing but Frumplefox has that screenplay she's working on. It'll be a heretofore unseen style of filmmaking, communal. It'll have to be good with 25 Eloquents working on it.

Posted by: TyranThesaurus Rex at May 24, 2008 1:04 AM

No, that's Batman. Indy's just a really good improviser, but he's constantly in trouble.

Well, this is the most comic-booky Indy has ever been. So a comparison to Batman (who in the hands of Nolan is going towards a more "realistic" edge) is not that off. Honestly, surviving a nuclear blast by hiding in a lead-lined refrigerator that gets launched from the blast at tremendous speed and lands miles away and nothing's broken?

Oh and I'm not worried about it not doing business, but thanks for the pat on the head.

Wasn't patting anyone on anything. What's with all the damn hurt feelings in this place?

Posted by: BFFredo at May 24, 2008 1:12 AM

Good review. I agree that it seems like Spielberg journeyed into parody. The first shot says it all.

Still I think that some things in the movie worked. Mutt and Indy meeting and running from the soviets. Indy and Marion reuniting. But the twist at the end was unsatisfying to say the least. I would guess that fault lies withn"producer beard" and the script . Makes me wonder what the film would have looked like as penned by Frank Darabont.

Posted by: Mr. West at May 24, 2008 1:15 AM

My husband and I just returned from watching the movie in a packed theatre and half way through I leaned over and whispered in his ear "This is the dumbest movie I've ever seen." He just nodded sadly while I wept silent tears into my popcorn.

I can't explain how much it hurt me inside to watch this movie people. Hurt. Me. Inside. I grew up idolizing and loving Indiana Jones and to see him reduced to this.... it was incredibly painful and frustrating and just plain horrible.

I agree with Daniel, Harrison Ford gave it his best but there wasn't much he could do with the material. In fact, I had no issues with any of the cast and really thought they did their best but oh man... the story. It was so heartbreakingly far fetched and so un-Indiana like.

I'm pretty easy going when it comes to movies and in fact, many of the movies loathed here on Pajiba I usually think "Eh, it wasn't THAT bad." and I understand going to the movies for escapism and that it doesn't have to be entirely realistic but this was just too much. The other Indiana Jones movies weren't all that realistic either, but they were "realistic" enough to be believable ya know?

I died a little inside while watching this movie.

Posted by: Kelly at May 24, 2008 1:21 AM

Can anyone explain Lucas' obsession with greenscreens? I mean, if that much if the movie was digitized (and if you've seen it, you probably recognized it) how in the world did they wind up spending 185 million dollars? What did they spend it on?

This feels like Godfather III without the handy-dandy plot development.

Posted by: Alphawhiskey at May 24, 2008 1:27 AM

Well, saying "this is a dumb movie, but if you liked it you can see it again and again!" is slightly patronizing. But what I meant is that Indiana Jones is never two steps ahead of his danger, but he can think on his feet pretty well.

Anyway, no, I shouldn't be surprised this got a tepid review here, nor should my feelings be hurt, when I'm having a better summer than a lot of people already, having a great time watching this and "Speed Racer" (which does deserve more money, poor exuberant imaginative little thing) as well as "Iron Man". June's lookin pretty thin, with "Wall-E" about all I'm looking forward too. But "Golden Army"'s on the way! Maybe Dustin can be bribed to write it up. He is pretty funny when he brings bitchy back.

Posted by: Jay at May 24, 2008 1:28 AM

Does this feel like the last Will Ferrell movie to anyone else?

Posted by: FlyingHellfish at May 24, 2008 1:38 AM

I did kind-of enjoy Speed Racer. At least, there were no doubts as to the creators' intentions in that movie.

As for June, yes there's Wall-E. But there's also Mongol (which should kick ass) and, amazingly enough, The Incredible Hulk, which just keeps getting better with every preview that comes out.

I don't hate this movie. I just don't love it.

Posted by: BFFredo at May 24, 2008 1:45 AM

Why is it when someone doesn't like something others say "you're taking it too seriously"? That's the laziest way in the world to reply to an opinion. It has nothing to do with taking aynthing too seriously it has to do with having an opinion.

I went into this movie with literally no expectaions and it managed to disappoint me. Parts of it were fun, most of it wasn't interesting. Anyone that enjoyed it, more power to you, my friends loved it. I really wasn't that into it. I wasn't watching characters, I was watching caricatures. It's the same reason that I can't stand musicals.

Posted by: Brandon at May 24, 2008 2:00 AM

I saw them on "S e e k i n g R i c h . c o m",too.Maybe they want to make more new friends.You can contact them on that site.

Posted by: Lucy at May 24, 2008 2:07 AM

Damn, I did a too/to. Well, I am drinking, but that's no excuse.

Point. The "Mongol" trailer did show promise. I just can't feel any excitement over the "Hulk" trailers though, and I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised if I see it. Again, I think it's the CG having nothing to be compared to, or as Neil Gaiman said about something else, " not just suspension of one's disbelief but the surgical extraction of said disbelief before dangling it over a vat of bubbling acid in the hopes that it would shut up." But I'd be more than happy to end up liking it. I'll just save the AMC gift card for that one.

And again: Cate Goddamn Blanchett

Oh yeah, I'm watching the Blu-Ray "Superman Returns" that I rented right now. Ha Ha! Come and get me!!

Posted by: Jay at May 24, 2008 2:17 AM

Hi. My name is Brian Prisco, and I am one of the lazy hack sloppy do-nothing think I'm so better than everyone reviewers here on Pajiba. I went to film school, so naturally I have my head firmly up my ass and refuse to believe my own shit stinks. I didn't get into this line of work because I wanted fame, fortune, or hot ladies. I got into it because I love movies. I love fighting with people about movies. Talking about movies gives me endless pleasure. It's even better when battling it out with people with dissenting opinions. It's like having the ability to have a holy war, to fight a motherfucking jihad, without shedding a single drop of blood. It unifies people, it defines people, it tells you everything you need to know about a person.

I have been a storyteller since the days when my brother and I crafted epic battles with empty cardboard tubes in our backyard. A bazooka becomes a lightsaber becomes a samurai sword and we're every hero you can remember, and few we made up ourselves. I've worked as a playwright, a poet, a novelist, and most recently a filmmaker. Every motherfucking cent I make on this website has gone towards funding my own production company. Last month I bought a digital camcorder, with the express intent of working with my future wife to make movies. Next month, I plan on funding my website, so I can screen these movies online, once I've managed to shoot them with the actors from the theatre group that I pay dues to with the first two reviews I write every fucking month. While I'm not sweating my pores out trying to sharpen my wit with the reviews I bust my ass to create, I squat over my Macbook working on screenplays and short film synopses.

I guaran-damn-tee that tons of people will find my work amateurish. I can promise you that loads of people will tell me to quit, to fucking pack it in, because I'm a hack and I'm immature, and I couldn't tell a story if the Muse sat on my face and farted it into my blessed fucking ears. I guarantee people will say I suck. Just like I've done to plenty of others. I'm going to take some of those opinions and ponder them and try to do better next time. The rest I'm going to file under GO FUCK YOURSELF in the old brown hole.

One day, I might be a fucking famous filmmaker, who got his big break because a couple of people thought his dick and fart jokes were funny and let him write cranky reviews on a bitchy little website. Or maybe I'll be managing a fucking Arby's and rueing the day I ever crossed swords with Dustin and Daniel and the other people I call friends and colleagues.

So I don't know where I fall on your respect-o-meter, since I'm both a critic and one of the filmmakers you so admire for giving it a go. But here's my balls. They're big, brass, and here for your amusement.

Have a lovely day.

Posted by: insertclevernamehere at May 24, 2008 2:46 AM

BFFredo-- totally spot on in what the movie borrowed from. At one point I half-heartedly predicted that the movie would go all out Stargate...and it did. It was enjoyable, but too ridiculous.

Posted by: kelsy at May 24, 2008 4:21 AM

Insert, right the fuck on. About time somebody brought the thunder to these annoying fools.

And to you who wish to use the word "critic" as some form of insult: do you even know what a critic is? It is someone simply giving their opinion on something. That is it. Doesn't mater if they are paid or not. Doesn't matter what the criticize either.

Guess what? By bitching and moaning about the reviews, you are giving an opinion for free. That means YOU ARE A FUCKING CRITIC.

Go on, get all huffy, I'll wait.

Done? Alright then. Also, I have never seen such blatant hypocrisy in all my life. Especially from the jackass who said that critics can't make good films. And exactly what blockbusters have you put out? Unless one of you is actually Steven Spielberg, you can't say shit about who can make a decent movie or not.

Just grow up and deal with the fact that not everyone is in love with this goddamn film. If you enjoyed it, fine. But maybe that is just YOU. Maybe some folks expected a bit more out of the two cinematic juggernauts than swinging monkeys.

P.S. To the people so disappointed by the movie and claim their childhood is ruined: shut the fuck up. Nobody can ruin your childhood unless you let them. Watching this film doesn't strip away the magic of the first three. In fact, if I read this right, it heightens it. Please quit it with the rape metaphors and realize that shit happens.

Posted by: Vermillion at May 24, 2008 7:38 AM

Vermillion, I don't know how you managed to summon up that kind of vitriol at that ungodly hour, but well done and wholeheartedly seconded. No matter how hard he tries, lucas can't kill the magic of the first three Indys (or Star Wars) with his CGI-clusterfucks. But I really did almost lose it at the monkey scene.

And really, Daniel's review sums up my "Wha..?" moments through out the films..like "Wha...Yes dear? Where did that come from? How did they fall back in love after exchanging less that ten words?" and "Wha..? How many times are they gonna hit that kid in the crotch?" and so on... I was thoroughly unimpressed with the whole green men plot and the sad old Grandpa Jones jokes. People are saying it was fun for what it was, but I didn't feel that way at all. For me, it was 2 hours of meh and struggling with suspension of disbelief, which is hard when you go in expecting some semblance of an Indiana Jones movie.

Posted by: MG at May 24, 2008 8:54 AM

Wait! So Mutt is Indy's son? Big surprise there. And I haven't even seen the movie. And I doubt I will. I had serious doubts about the whole idea all the way, and the trailers didn't make me want to watch it.

The way I read it, Indy 4 is a transitional movie like Terminator 3. But T4 has Christian Bale, while "Mutt Jones and..." will have this kid from the Bay movie.

Posted by: FabMax at May 24, 2008 9:16 AM

Damn HTML tags...

Posted by: FabMax at May 24, 2008 9:17 AM

Wow, now that's a shame. One of the most anticipated movies this summer, a movie 19 years in the making and it sucks. Hm, perhaps the next artifact Harrison Ford should go out looking for is what made Raiders of the Lost Ark so good and try to successfully revive the series if it is possible.

Posted by: Kamikaze Feminist at May 24, 2008 9:23 AM

I saw this opening night in Australia two days ago, and I have never walked out of a theatre more disappointed. I think the best way to sum up the entire movie is that at the climax of the movie, Indy looks around and says, loud and clear, "I've got a bad feeling about this". As if making an Indiana Jones movie about aliens wasn't self-referential enough, George Lucas felt it necessary to rip a line straight out of Star Wars, and have the guy who first said it say it in this movie. It's obvious that they never even tried to make it worth watching, it was just a cash in for two guys who already have far too much money.

Posted by: James at May 24, 2008 10:06 AM

Lucus and to a greater extent Spielberg's attempt to skull fuck a tired franchise of it's last shekel.

Posted by: Pookie at May 24, 2008 10:23 AM

I've never been a real big Indiana Jones fan, but the wife was excited to see it, so I went (after being assured that that hump Sean Connery would be nowhere to be found).
I ended up really liking the movie. I'm not going to argue with any of the criticisms of the movie; but the movie sets out to be an entertaining two hours in the theater, and it is. High art? Fuck no, but I didn't want it to be.
It reminds me of everybody freaking out over the Star Wars prequels a few years ago - as if the original movies were anything other than junky sci-fi movies. If you re-watch the middle two Indy movies, those kind of blow. Short Round? Kate Capshaw? The entire third film? C'mon, admit it, those aren't even entertaining. Their clunky and flims, and barely redeemable. You let the amazement of youth cloud your vision.
I don't know if it lives up to expectations, because I didn't have any. I just didn't want to be bored. Or have a cell phone figure into the plot. Check and check.
Cate Blanchett and Ray Winstone? Best cast of any Indiana Jones movie, a tightish script, looks great (I always appreciated the "shot on a back-lot" charm of the series).
Stop complaining and eat your popcorn.

Posted by: Lonnie at May 24, 2008 10:30 AM

Well, this is the most comic-booky Indy has ever been. So a comparison to Batman (who in the hands of Nolan is going towards a more "realistic" edge) is not that off. Honestly, surviving a nuclear blast by hiding in a lead-lined refrigerator that gets launched from the blast at tremendous speed and lands miles away and nothing's broken?

Sort of like in Raiders when he jumps off the boat and swims to the Nazi submarine and then miraculously ends up inside it?

Posted by: Mehmita at May 24, 2008 10:53 AM

Dear Brian Pisco,

You see, the day you film one of your masterpieces (hopefully not containing something overly hipsterish like zombie armies or MurderTanks or ninjas or pirates or ninja-pirates that will make our kids look at our culture and wonder "what the fuck?"?), the day that happens, I will have more respect for you than almost every other critic from the hipster-haven over here to all but Ebert. Ebert, as you know, wrote "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", so he knows what it's like being out there on the firing squad.

Apparently I've offended TysonT-Rex and Vermillion or whoever by deigning to critique criticism. Does that make me a meta-hypocrite? Who knows?

The great thing about criticism is that there are no credentials. Any one of the Lisa Loeb or Jim Halpert-lookin' mofos that probably hang around here like greasy-skinned porkies on AICN can make a little Geocity and invite everyone to come. And because they learned how to write with that English degree, they might even get some rabid fans and defenders, too. "You're too dumb for this site." "Duh... this is a bitchy review site. If it's not about a sensitive artistic high-schooler who listens to the Moldy Peaches and Ben Folds and pines for a skinny indie girl then it's Hollywood drivel."

I have not seen "Indy 4" yet. I have no connection with the character, as I barely remember anything from the earlier films save what everyone familiar with pop culture knows, i.e. rolling boulders, melting faces, Sean Connery, etc.

All I am is someone who occasionally reads a review and/or a comment and gets set off, for seemingly no apparent reason, and feels the need to defend the filmmaker. The creator. From the majestic highs of Favreau and Mann to the lowliest of lows of the Boll and Bay variety. All of these people walked into a studio with knotted stomach and brow be-sweated and tried to create something from nothing. And I think in our lust to write the most elaborate diss in order to garner the highest LOLs, it's easy to forget that.

So call me an asshole, coffee-drinking, sweater wearing, iPod having cubicle monkeys!

Posted by: I Laugh At You at May 24, 2008 10:55 AM

I Laugh At You The argument that you need to experience what it's like to create (insert art form here) before you can critique it is bollocks. Example, if you go to a restaurant, and you get a meal, you can't help but judge how it is? You don't need to have made soup to know when it's too salty.

movies are made for the general public, not other directors, so the general public are free to bloody comment, they paid for the damn tickets

Posted by: cockroach at May 24, 2008 11:18 AM

I Laugh, I get your point. I do think you're using your sympathy on someone who really doesn't need it.

These aren't small-time filmmakers, desperately making a movie that's near and dear to their hearts. These are Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, two of the biggest directors/creators in Hollywood history. They can tell any story they wish and get it done without the approval of anyone else in the world.

As for critiquing the critics, well, the old saying goes "everyone's a critic" and it's true because we all have our own points of view. We can suspend disbelief differently and accept things differently. That doesn't negate the creators' right to determine how to mold his work. But every choice can be questioned by the audience the creator is seeking to entertain. It's their right.

My problems with the movie lie in the various choices Spielberg and Lucas made. Now will they care if I voice them? No. And they don't have to. Lucas preemptively came out and said that the fans in the Internet wouldn't like it. So he obviously knew that his choices for this film were not going to be popular. That's fine. I'm just wondering if they were necessary at all.

Posted by: BFFredo at May 24, 2008 11:37 AM

this review was weak in my mind and missed the whole point. not that there has ever been a realistic canvas for this story, but how is it a "bad" thing that Indy for instance mentioned his age? If he didn't, i guarantee that every critic like this one would whine that an old man could never kick ass. It was a fun, escapist time, just like the others. Marian and Indy were very cute and Ford inhabits that character. I guess the casting of Shia was weak, but otherwise, it was a fine, action flick.

Posted by: coleman at May 24, 2008 12:00 PM

I Laugh At You, you embody what I've always wanted to say to the cool kids around here for a long time. They walk around here with noses in air like they know some shit, and when the common man like me comes around here with my pearls of wisdom I'm dismissed as a crackpot, a charlatan if you will. If you cut me will I not bleed? I'm smart! Not like everybody says....like dumb....I'm smart and I want respect!

Posted by: Pookie at May 24, 2008 12:05 PM

I'm a HUGE Indiana Jones fan. I saw Raiders in the theater when I was 8 years old 4 times. It was the primary reason I became a movie geek, and I say that with pride. Better than Star Wars or any other franchise of my childhood, Indy has always been the best.

I've seen the movies countless times, and watched them all again over the last week with my 8 year old and 11 year old. They love them and couldn't wait for Crystal Skull. That said, a lot of you are viewing The Last Crusade through rose tinted glasses. That movie is a mess, takes forever to get going and besides the outstanding last 30 minutes does nothing but rely on the chemistry between Harrison Ford and Sean Connery to carry the film.

Crystal Skull is better than Crusade. It has the same light tone of that film, but the breakneck speed of Raiders. It's fun, goofy, funny, and fantastic to see Harrison Ford back on screen looking like he's having a good time. My kids went nuts for it and after some time to digest it I can't wait to see it again.

This isn't Raiders of the Lost Ark, but none of the sequels are. Raiders is a perfect action movie. It is easily Spielberg's best directed film. The sequels have always tried to match it and failed because Lucas and Spielberg were trying too hard. Crystal Skull is another sequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark and in that respect it stands with the other 2 sequels. Go into it without that mind frame and you should enjoy yourself just fine.

Posted by: Rob at May 24, 2008 12:07 PM

Sorry, I meant "with that mind frame."

Posted by: Rob at May 24, 2008 12:09 PM

Crystal Skull is better than Crusade. It has the same light tone of that film, but the breakneck speed of Raiders.

That's kinda how I feel actually, which I don't say to be contrary. "Last Crusade" has also been the weaker finish for me, given how much I love how they just went for it in "Temple of Doom" even though everyone involved seems to say "ehhh, it went too far". I was surprised when I realized what a good reputation "Last Crusade" had developed while "Temple of Doom", unlike "The Empire Strikes Back", was the misfire rather than the big evil middle.

If you can't have Lawrence Kasdan writing the script you can at least have a movie that just does not let up, and in a good way, I thought. It might not feel as desperate as invincible Nazis or imprisoned children, but I think it's fine that it's the mystery of the ultimate Red Scare and there was plenty of "Boo!" and "Ack!" for my tastes, along with a lot of giggle-inducing gags that felt like the Thuggee mine chase.

But that's me.

Posted by: Jay at May 24, 2008 12:56 PM

Bottom line, if you're over 12 and under 35, you'll probably hate this film. It's a great action movie, bottom line. If there's any problem with it, it's that it feels more like a B picture than the others. The first three films are a bit epic in scale and this one is not as big.

Everyone in the cast was great and the film never let up in the action department. That's all anyone could expect.

For all those saying it's the worst in the series with too much parody, I direct you to revisit Temple of Doom.

Falling over three waterfalls in a boat-car = yes

Falling out of an airplane in a raft and hitting water = no

Great movie, lower your expectations.

Posted by: Yupgiboy at May 24, 2008 1:00 PM

And to tangent over to another series with the Monarch of the Sea himself, has anyone else always thought John Rhys-Davies is going to say "through the mines...of Minolta!"?

No?

And it's too bad Kingsley Katanga couldn't show up again. "Hey, you guys need a ride somewhere?" Oh well.

Posted by: Jay at May 24, 2008 2:12 PM

I laugh at the fact that "I Laugh At You" can't even get Quentin Tarantino's first name right.

Perhaps this is why he's only whining at the reviews and not writing a few of his own.

Posted by: nutcase at May 24, 2008 2:35 PM

Those who can't, critique. Those who can't critique, leave comments. -- Sophocles.

Posted by: Great Mango at May 24, 2008 2:47 PM

Cute nutcase, you figured that out all by yourself, did you? That was a brilliant display of your many talents. What's next, you're going to tell us that the sun is going to rise in the morning?

Posted by: Pookie at May 24, 2008 2:57 PM

Are you guys in a funk lately? It just seems like there is a lot more effort in the "bitchy" department and a bit less "reviews." Dunno, I just feel like there is alot more HATEHATEHATE then usual.

It was a fun movie. Of course it isn't Raiders, but what is?

Posted by: Ken Hart at May 24, 2008 3:45 PM

What a tremendous disappointment.

They waited twenty years for THIS SCRIPT?!

This movie was less fun than National Treasure(s.) The fact that Indy ripoffs are more fun than an Indy sequel is blasphemy, yet true.

Posted by: Drew at May 24, 2008 4:05 PM

I totally disagree with calling this movie a disappointment. The Star Wars prequels, Spiderman 3, the Pirates sequels and the Matrix sequels - those were disappointments. I'm in the 18-35 age group, and I loved watching this movie!

Obviously, this movie is not perfect, but I THOROUGHLY ENJOYED watching it in the theater and gasping at all the car chases and close calls. It's not as well-written as "Iron Man" (which I also liked), but I had more fun watching "Indiana Jones" than "Iron Man". I was about 10-12 when I first saw the Indy movies, and this brought me right back to that sense of wonder and adventure - pretentious bitchiness be damned.

Posted by: LB at May 24, 2008 6:22 PM

From the majestic highs of Favreau and Mann to the lowliest of lows of the Boll and Bay variety. All of these people walked into a studio with knotted stomach and brow be-sweated and tried to create something from nothing.

*reads it again*

*dies laughing*

Posted by: general rhubarb at May 24, 2008 6:42 PM

Even though this person is clearly making fun of us, I kind of relish the comparison to Lisa Loeb and Jim Halpert while AICN gets "greasy-skinned porkies." Hey, we may be a bunch of stuck up geeks -- but at least we're pretty.

Posted by: Stacey at May 24, 2008 7:25 PM

Thought so.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at May 24, 2008 7:52 PM

Someone made an excellent jab at Cate Blanchett doing her "Moose and squirrrrl" Natasha impersonation. (It's up there somewhere, but there's so maaany comments... sorry, but clever you, whoever said it)
That is exactly how I feel about her performance, and I've only seen previews so far. But I've never sworn so much or lost so much tooth enamel from grinding during a preview.
So from what I've read and seen, Blanchett is responsible for any "steaming pile"ness that this movie might possess.
I'd like to slap that stupid wig off her, too.

Posted by: Loob at May 24, 2008 7:58 PM

Favreau and Mann? Really? Sweet Christ.

btw, Godard wasn't the only Cahiers critic that went into filmmaking. Let's not forget Truffaut, Chabrol and Rohmer. But they all intellectualized film way beyond Pajiba's critics. Not that that's a bad thing, or Pajiba is made up of lazy folks. It was just a different time. And they all worked together in Paris for a PRINT magazine. I don't know if any of Pajiba's critics even live in the same state(?).

Regardless, people shouldn't be praised just because they go out and "do," most people that go out and "do" art should have stayed home.

Posted by: markus at May 24, 2008 8:02 PM

Ooh, I skipped out early on work yesterday to go to a matinee and had a great time. Does this make me a philistine? Probably not, but this will:

I have never seen any of the other Indiana Jones movies.

This movie entertained me, made me squee with the snakes and ants, and motivated me to go get the other ones to see what this stuff is really all about. This movie would have been wonderful if they had just plain gotten rid of Shia LeBouf. Thus, no duel on the cars, no Tarzan scene, we're all ok now. But I would be sad to give up the motorcycle ride through campus. And the library scene.

I didn't know Indy was a smartass. I like him now and I want to see more of him. So I will consider this film as a good thing in my life. For Shia though, I'm glad I didn't have to pay full price. But having at least one Indiana Jones in-theater experience now is something I am glad about.

Also, points for setting a chunk of it in Nevada. Represent!

Posted by: Anne (in Reno) at May 24, 2008 8:03 PM

We just came from seeing the movie, and while I do have mixed feelings, it was enjoyable entertainment (even if it dragged in parts), and I loved seeing Harrison Ford pull it together for another go at Indy. I did not find it at all implausible (not as implausible, say, as Anthony Hopkins playing a black man) to see him reprising his role. Cate Blanchett was typically great, campy and over-the-top, and I love the idea of Shia La Beouf as a potential to the Indy legacy.

Posted by: Terita at May 24, 2008 8:21 PM

I don't mind all the references to Indy's age, but what's with all the soft focus shots? In the scene in Indy's office with Jim Broadbent, they show Broadbent fairly realistically, and then turn to Indy at his desk and he's all soft, faded and glowy. It was very strange to go from one clear shot to the other kind.

After all if there's someone who needs a soft focus lens, it's Jim Broadbent, not Harrison Ford.

Posted by: mswas at May 24, 2008 8:41 PM

Let's just come right out & say what everyone already knows - George Lucas is a hack & Spielberg is about as subtle as a hand grenade in a barrel of oatmeal. They should have called it, "Indiana Jones & The Totally Unnecessary & Unwanted Sequel That Dropped 20 Years Too Late".

Posted by: Mt. Misery at May 24, 2008 8:59 PM

Boooooooooooooooring. Liked the fireants, tho. And happy to see Karen Allen with a real face not so Botoxed up she can't move her lips. But other than that...snoooooooooze. Sorry, kidz.

Posted by: devildoggie at May 24, 2008 10:07 PM

Le Beouf wasn't the problem in this movie. It was the script.

I am glad that somebody called out "Last Crusade." Wasn't a bad movie. But too "safe." Raider's re-tread in my mind. "Temple of Doom" offered much more thrills in my estimation. Lucas and Spielberg actually took risks with that one.

Question: Is anyone old enough to remember if "Raiders" was rated R when it was first released? Had an old Hulk B&W magazine, which If remember correctly had an ad for "Raiders" with an R rating on it.

Posted by: Mr. West at May 24, 2008 10:33 PM

re: cockroach-

Of course everyone has an opinion on everything. I have an opinion on how the Cherry Limeade at Winstead's is superior to the one at Sonic to whether the collected work of Ford and Hawks is better than Hitchcock or not. We all have opinions, that much I get. I think a lot goes towards how you express said opinion, and whether it's in a respectful intent. And by God I hope you're actually British or Irish, and not an American who thinks it's cool to say "bollocks" and "bloody" and "sodding" and "Please sir, can I have some more?"

re: BFFredo-

Yeah, I realize that the legacies of Lucas and Spielberg are assured, and that no one expects them to cry in their $500 bills that Joe and Jane Anonymous from www.anysite.com doesn't like their movie. It's just an overall thing, where this site with so much potential threatens to overwhelm me with smarm. I don't know if that's just me, as I've read comments that could be taken as sympathetic to my beliefs, though they are few and far between.

re: nutcase-

The name changes were intentional "Clinton Tarantino" as a variation of "Quentin Tarantino" and "Devin Smith" as a variation of "Kevin Smith". You, sir, are an idiot. Though with a moniker of nutcase, perhaps I'm the idiot to expect any sort of logic from you.

re: general rhubarb:

*reads your response to me*

*wonders how anyone without a modicum of cutting creativity found this site as they clearly belong on a review board dedicated to Joel Siegel*

*lives free and dies laughing*

Posted by: I Laugh At You at May 25, 2008 12:19 AM

1. I am thoroughly enjoying this comment thread, even more than most.

2. I saw this movie with my mom and my aunt last night, and the three of us had an absolute fucking blast. We were laughing hysterically at the stupidest things, and just plain having a good time. Yes, the vine-swinging scene was WAY too much. Yes, they made too many jokes about his age. Yes, fighting the communists is less awesome than fighting the nazis. Yes, I started humming the five note theme from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" when they got into the room with the alien skeletons. Does that make this a bad movie? It's Indiana fucking Jones! He's an archaeology professor-slash-treasure hunting badass! With a whip!

I don't think that you need to necessarily "check your brain at the door," so to speak, but you do have to be able to roll with the punches. Regardless of what happens in the movie, in the end, all we really care about is the hat, the whip, and that trumpet fanfare blaring. All the rest is just awesomesauce on the great ice-cream sundae of badassery.

Posted by: That Girl at May 25, 2008 12:38 AM

LOL, damn! I Laugh At You, yo shit is the bomb. I've seen motherfuckers get they shit split before, but damn son! I was thinking that exact same thing, what ass wipe walks around saying bollocks? Unless that motherfucker is a faggoty ass Brit. This is the first time in my life that I've witnessed a reverse gangbang. I can't stop laughing. While I was reading your retort I was screaming eject, so them motherfuckers wouldn't crash.

Posted by: Pookie at May 25, 2008 12:51 AM

ARE YOU SERIOUS?!? A FUCKING SPACESHIP?!?

Posted by: Victor at May 25, 2008 2:06 AM

ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?

No.

A FUCKING SPACESHIP?!?

Yes. Well, yes and no, as it's explained.

But after all, it's a 50s movie.

Posted by: Jay at May 25, 2008 2:52 AM

If I disregard the awful portrayal of my country (Peru; seriously, how can you relate Pancho Villa, mexican, to Quechua, native peruvian language; that's just one of the many inaccuracies) in the film, I can say that, despite not being as good as the original three, it was entertaining.

Posted by: Radlum at May 25, 2008 9:33 AM

Let's face it. Nothing was as good as the first Indy film. The novelty of not knowing what was going to happen, the opening climax when you thought it couldn't get better than that, and the joy of having those old serials done right, just could not be recaptured by any of the sequels.

That said, I'm going to go see IRON MAN again, instead.

Posted by: BWeaves at May 25, 2008 10:49 AM

Lucas has always had a weird habit of stealing the dignity of his repeat characters. Look what he did to the characters of Sallah and Marcus--who were cool in Raiders--in last Crusade; he made them buffoons. Look at Han Solo in ROTJ... look at C3PO in Empire... the guy creates, then destroys. He's pygmalion.

Posted by: Ned at May 25, 2008 12:16 PM

As a convoy of Army trucks blasts down a desert highway, a title card reveals the setting..Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ah.. *cough* cough*Once the trucks enter the facility, the bad guys open up the trunk and extract two rumpled olde...ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Posted by: Old Iguana at May 25, 2008 1:05 PM

Radlum, I agree totally. Peru has a very rich and complex history with great individual stories, that when woven together create a bold tapestry that can rival any countries' history on the face of the earth. Unbeknownst to many, Peru has execellent exports, not like that bullshit that comes out of Colombia. Moreover, Peru has some of the sexiest mules I've ever seen.

Posted by: Pookie at May 25, 2008 1:10 PM

Sorry to rain on the Peruvian love but any nose that knows recognizes Bolivian exports to be supreme, foos.

Posted by: Old Iguana at May 25, 2008 1:15 PM

I am not alone.

While my 8 year old son found it "okay," I cannot say the same. And frankly, the filmmakers don't deserve the amount of time it would take me to enumerate the myriad reasons this film disappoints.

So, like a good child of the 70s, I will leave it at this:

Suck factor of 10.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at May 25, 2008 1:33 PM

Old Iguana, pure gibberish. Peru has constantly out preformed even the king of kings that is Bolivia. Now with the economy being in a tailspin and our financial markets under performing, a lesser quality like Bolivia can indeed make headway.

Posted by: Pookie at May 25, 2008 1:35 PM

Goddamnit -- having just ploughed through the entire comments section, I now realise that I HAVE to say something, because, astonishingly, the usually reliable Pajiba set has not yet said it:

Did anyone else notice the FATAL FLAW in this film? And no, I'm not talking about the lack of plot in general...

The bad guys.

Did no one else notice that the filmmakers dipped a toe into the "I don't recognise this country anymore, they're seeing Reds around every corner" possibilities... and not 15 minutes later reverted to demonising the Commies -- and weakly, at that?

The script actually turns into an apologia for McCarthyism! Jones calls Mac "Komrade," for chrissakes.

Okay, so we all know the Commies turned out to be toothless and were likely hapless stooges for the American military industrial complex... But fine, if you want the Russkies to be the bad guys, okay -- but you have to make them truly fucking EVIL, for the love of god. Simpering Russians who shoot a few people do NOT compare to Nazis and cannibalistic greedheads.

***SPOILER***

The moment when the Big Baddie gets what's deserved is ESSENTIAL in this genre. Beloch and the snickering Nazi got their faces melted off, and we LIKED it. Why? They were fuckign NAZIS.

Irina's only crime, on the other hand, appears to be her status as a true believer of the Kremlin. She kills a bunch of people, sure -- but her character is utterly bereft of True Evil. So when she finally gets her face fried and explodes into a trillion grains of sand, there is NO catharsis. In fact, I felt fucking SORRY for her; in the end, her "crime" appears to have been the oldest goddamned sin in the Book: Seeking knowledge to which she was not entitled.

***END SPOILER***

So I repeat: Suck Factor of 10.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at May 25, 2008 1:50 PM

I think you nailed it Maryscott, Spielberg Ivanovich and Comrade Lucas' TRUE agenda was to promote sympathy for commies.

I beg you, do NOT fall prey to their propaganda by feeling sorry for them. Otherwise they WIN, and you know what that means, don't you?

Yeah: low quality toilet paper and crappy two cycle engined cars.

Posted by: Old Iguana at May 25, 2008 2:01 PM

Please do not turn on Lucas and Spielberg. In today's political climate the true genius is run by harlots with hidden messages. When the arch was opened evil was made to bow down or melt. Poison dates killed even the smallest soul that danced for the music man. The desert floor moved at night, although it was because of snakes, people hate snakes. The big man was felled by a airplane blade. I beg of you, do not let the government hide the boxes.

Posted by: Pookie at May 25, 2008 2:25 PM

Well, no one was supposed to look inside the Ark either. Belloq wasn't any more evil than Irina, he didn't give a shit about the Nazis and just used their resources. He was taken out for looking where he oughtn't as well. Walter Donovan just didn't want to be an old man, and died for his greed and vanity, the Nazis were more like "der Fuhrer wants it and this Jones guy knows where it is, so we'll threaten him and his son" but there wasn't nearly as much global peril as the Army of the Ark.

I agree that the antagonists weren't as ominous as Nazis and child slavers, but I part in that I don't find it to be a flaw, it's just different. For me, they married the earlier mysticism to atomic age science fiction using the Nazca Lines and "Chariots of the Gods". Perfectly fine, it couldn't bother me less that Indiana Jones had to help solve an X-file in the 50s rather than save the world from Hitler in the 30s. Sure, you have to have some urgency, so communist indoctrination, infiltration and flouridation fits right in (and are the hardliners in Russia pissed about it!) but for all her threats, as we saw, she had selfish motives. And I didn't feel disappointed that I didn't feel "that's what you GET, bitch!!" at the end (plus, as I already said, I find her so darn crushable), but I enjoy the spooky discovery in these stories much more than the vanquishing of foes. I like the oogedy-boogedy Ark music more than the "Ah ha! Victory!" fanfares (with "Parade of the Slave Children", of course, being the second best melody in the series).

Anyway, I just don't understand the fury going around. I know it's cool to hate George Lucas (and certainly not just here, HEAVENS no) and this seems to already be the latest "it is gospel that it sucks" movie (and certainly not just here) that people will derisively name drop for years and make me roll my eyes (Of course people can be genuinely as unimpressed as they want to be with anything, I just get bored on the occasions when it sounds like self-congratulatory street cred, going back to "The Phantom Menace"). But...all I can do is enjoy this and feel really well-adjusted and cheerful, and for a depressive like me that's a real treat! Wheeee! I hope the angry people find something else that does work for them.

Posted by: Jay at May 25, 2008 2:46 PM

Lucas RAPED my childhood DAMMIT!! with Boba Fett's rocket pack while Speilberg held me down.

NEVER AGAIN!

Posted by: Old Iguana at May 25, 2008 3:04 PM

Maryscott O' Connor just didn't like it because communists were the bad guys. Had the film been about noble Russians taking on the fat capitalists Indiana and Mutt, then it would have gotten a thumbs up, comrades.

Posted by: Jorge Busho at May 25, 2008 3:07 PM

And while we are at it, I just don't see how anything, and I mean ANYTHING, with Shia (I always play the SAME dweeb in EVERY. FUCKING. FILM.) Le Duush can POSSIBLY be any good.

Sorry, nope, as impossible as any Kennedy not being some kind of sexual deviant...including Ethel.

Posted by: Old Iguana at May 25, 2008 3:12 PM

Jay, your argument is weak, it needs to be fleshed out more. The Ark is and was a symbol of mans' greed and later his downfall. Your musings are just off center a bit. Jones is a romantic and a adventurer, his love of his craft was a means to cleans the hunger that drove his quest. You are getting confused by the bells and whistles that the Nazis bring. I think if you were to dig deeper into your analysis, your premise would stand on it's on. Jay, don't be intellectually lazy, the answer you seek is crystal clear.

Posted by: Pookie at May 25, 2008 3:17 PM

Old Iguana, how dare you come on here and impugn and Kennedy name on this of all days? Just because a person likes to tap some hot ass on occasion, doesn't make them sexual deviants. I had this young Mexican bitch who liked for me to dress up like a Immigration Officer and chase her around our apartment while she was naked, demanding that she show me her green card. That's not being a sexual deviant, that's just how we got down. Be careful about labeling people, Old Iguana.

Posted by: Pookie at May 25, 2008 3:32 PM

This, people. Is Eloquence. And if I do not see it again next week, I will know that the terrorists have won.

I am bowing to you right now, sir, and I am bowing low.

Posted by: Jerce at May 25, 2008 3:58 PM

Really, Jerce? Personally, my favourite so far has been this:

"Moreover, Peru has some of the sexiest mules I've ever seen."

You've been very on today, Pooks. I like it.

Posted by: Sarina at May 25, 2008 4:12 PM

Sarina you can not tempt me with your womanly charms, I have sworn off such desires. Figs, sweetbreads, and milk, feed my hunger.

Posted by: Pookie at May 25, 2008 4:53 PM

Pfffft figs? sweetbreads? milk? Enriched flower, refined sugar, and the bodily fuids of disgusting bovines?

Keep digging that grave, friend.

Posted by: Old Iguana at May 25, 2008 5:16 PM

I'd heard that the movie was bad or just not so great and read a not so great review of it in Time. But I loved it. I've seen all the other Indy Movies, but not very seriously (I thought they were set in the 1980s! Imagine my confusion with 1950-something pops up on the screen and Shia's there). But yeah, I thought it was great. It'd have been better without the aliens (It could have been a cool Mayan god or something!) but I can deal with that. I can accept its faults, whatever, you know. It's not supposed to be Nobody Knows or anything like that. It's supposed to be Indy. It's supposed to be camp. And it was.

Posted by: Camille at May 25, 2008 7:01 PM

Next up: Indiana Jones Presents: The Fast and The Hoveround Ark Raiding Boogaloo!

I hate you so much Lucas, I wish I could squeeze the life out of your fat neck with my bare hands...or a chain conveniently placed near your hover throne.

Posted by: Old Iguana at May 25, 2008 7:11 PM

What's even worse, now that I've seen it, is how great it could've been. There was some magic there, just not nearly enough.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at May 25, 2008 8:30 PM

I went and saw this movie last night...I can't say for sure, but I turned to my friends and commented that the film was probably made simply so that Disney Land can change the ride. Because we can't have a ride without a movie to go along with it, you know, and every ride must now make some kind of "sense."

Oh god! What if they make a film about Mr. Toad and his wild ride? *cowers*

Don't curse Lucas or even the alien loving (why, for the love of god, WHY?!) Spielberg. Curse Disney and its incessant movie-making, ride-sharing machine.

Posted by: zambonigirl at May 25, 2008 11:45 PM

lulz Old Iguana

Posted by: markus at May 26, 2008 2:40 AM

Guys guys guys! We should not be bickering over pointless things. The movie is made now, and whether you are sad or happy because of it does not matter, because either way we have been given a great gift from the Lucasberg. They have sacrificed their dignity all so that we, mere mortals that we are, can have a replacement term for "Jumping the Shark".

They have given us..."Nuke the Fridge"

Examples may include:

When James Bond used an invisible car in Die Another Day... James Bond has nuked the fridge.

When Peter Parker went emo and started dancing in a bar... Spider-Man has nuked the fridge.

When Jean Gray psychically destroyed Wolverine's shirt and skin but somehow not his pants...X-Men nuked the fridge.

Use it wisely, my friends, and use it well.

Posted by: Cookie at May 26, 2008 5:05 AM

Mmmmm "nuked the fridge" ....I don't know, sounds like another "fetch," I don't think it's ever gonna happen.

Posted by: Old Iguana at May 26, 2008 8:52 AM

That's no attitude to have! If we try hard enough, surely we can start a collequial revolution!

Posted by: Cookie at May 26, 2008 9:15 AM

I haven't seen the movie, but from the descriptions, I believe Cookie is a genius, and I'm on board with "nuked the fridge"!

Posted by: Jerce at May 26, 2008 10:42 AM

Saw this movie yesterday and while i didn't think it was bad. I was disappointed. I agree with some of the review. The first half of the Crystal Skull is much better than the second half.

Overall I felt that the movie was too long and that action scenes at the end dragged on for too long as well. There were also too many minor characters. Not a bad film but one i would recommend watching on DVD.

**SLIGHT SPOILERS**

Why have Ray Winestone, Karen Allen and John Hurt all searching for the skull (on top of Shia LaBeouf and Indy)?

Also some of the action scenes were quite frankly (embarrasing to watch). Why have Shia LaBeouf swinging from tree to tree like tarzan? Also i absolutely hated the waterfall drop scenes.

Posted by: Neena at May 26, 2008 11:26 AM

I... I don't know. I guess I liked it, but then again I didn't. I'm gonna go consult with my Pastor.

Posted by: Skittimus Maximus at May 26, 2008 12:26 PM

Wow, I hope everyone is this critical when they look at their own face in the morning.
If this movie came out 2 years after "Last Crusade" people would still be talking about how good it was today. This movie follows the Indy genre through & through. Its over the top action & fantasy plot are right in line with the rest. The fact that Spielberg & co. came back with this 19 years later is the only reason people are tearing it apart. All of the Indy movies had flaws or were over exaggerated, that was all part of the appeal. Cryatal Skull was entertaining & will continue to be in the years to come. Everyone take a deep breath & relax, its only a movie. If your feeling negative still, go write a review of "Postal".

Posted by: wookie1001 at May 26, 2008 1:00 PM

My 10 year old son and I took in the latest Indy offerening on Friday and we both really enjoyed it. With the exuberance of youth and innocence he gave it a solid 10 out of 10. With the exuberance of nostalgia I give it a 7.5.
With all of that said I really want to say that I think that every one of the "cringe worthy" moments in this film can be placed squarely in the lap of Lucas. You can smell his fucked up sense of humor a mile away. I don't know whether he has dirt on Spelberg or if Spielberg just figures he owes him but if you remove the "obvious" Lucas moments from this film (ie..Monkey Shia, Sword fighting Shia, Snake Rope, Nuclear Fridge...whole nuclear blast village) you lose nothing but you gain a hell of a lot in terms of credibility.
In the future if Lucas has anything to do with Indy he should drop off his story and then be banished to Hawaii until the box office returns come in...
All that said, my son and I are going to see it again tonight...;-)

Posted by: Shane at May 26, 2008 1:08 PM

Alright, I feel like a bit of a twat posting something on a day I shouldn't be at work, but I'm waiting for some stuff to download so I can spend a beautiful day... working.

I dug it. It by no means met expectations, but given the friggin media blitz... anyhow. The thing that rubbed me the wrong way was the anti... uh, anti anything I guess. There just wasn't any real nail biting moments, no jump outta my seat moments. And while I'm a fan of sci-fi, I just can't get into the whole sci-fi twist in this one. It just didn't fit my "Indiana Jones" stereotype... I wouldn't pay to see it again in the theaters, but I'd definitely watch it again on DVD or television.

Posted by: Skittimus Maximus at May 26, 2008 1:33 PM

Why do we prefer our face-melters to be ghosts instead of aliens? I don't get it. I watched Raiders last night for the first time and it is clearly superior, but Karen Allen look 10x better in the new one (she has aged DAMN well) and there was definitely a lot of cheese in Raiders - they just amped it up for the new one. I'm glad I finally saw Raiders though. I'd watch it again for Cate Blanchett/Natasha Fatale.

Posted by: Anne (in Reno) at May 26, 2008 1:55 PM

After reading all the comments, I still haven't a clue as to if it's worth going to see or not. I'm a big fan of all things Lucas, and I hope this movie is worthy of the hype. for me it has gotten to the point where I look more forward to the review than the actual movie.

Posted by: Pookie at May 26, 2008 3:10 PM

Pookie: After reading all the comments, I still haven't a clue as to if it's worth going to see or not

well, it's doing quite well on rotten tomatoes, and Ebert bigged it up, but given some of the other stuff he's bigged up recently...

Posted by: cockroach at May 26, 2008 4:56 PM

Oh COME ON! Thhere's enough bile floating around this board to supply a full season of CSI's. IJ4 wasn't meant to win any fucking Oscars, it was meant to entertain, and it did so grandly. In fact, it was probably the freshest and most exciting Indy pic since the unbeatable Raiders of the Lost Ark.

All the hallmarks of the series were here and they were done well: Thrilling action scenes, amazing effects shots, creepy catacombs searches, sarcastic humor, gross-out bits (the flesh-eating ants and blowdart reversal were two for the books) and old-fashioned macho adventure. Marion and Indy's scenes (especially at the end) were a happy reward for this Jones fan. She's definately the girl for Dr. Jones (let's hope Spielberg and Lucas never forget that again).
Plus, Shia LeBouf's character was a hoot as a Brando-esque greaser, and for once we retired those overused villains the Nazi's for the ridiculously underused and equally vicious Soviet communists- still a gutsy move in echo-chamber leftist Hollywood. Cate Blanchett manages to be menacing while chewing the scenery in a swell "Ninotchka" accent- No mean feat. Must be in those (never blinking; deep blue) eyes.

Ford is back, Spielberg is back, Lucas is back, John Williams is back (what a soul-stirring score) and Indy is back IN STYLE.

***1/2 out of ****.

Posted by: Troy at May 27, 2008 12:49 AM

"Oh god! What if they make a film about Mr. Toad and his wild ride? *cowers*" -Zambonigirl

Am I missing sarcasm here?

Posted by: Ken Hart at May 27, 2008 1:10 AM

Okay, I saw it on Friday night... and hated it. I shouldn't say that I hated the movie itself-- I hated the disappointment and the feeling that I was less than fulfilled, less than happy with the way in which they made this movie. I wrote to a friend that this was one movie that should not have been made. Ever.

And then I got suckered into taking my 8-year-old niece to see it on Sunday. I have to say that on second viewing, and viewing it with a child, no less, the movie was a little more fun. By no means does it measure up to the first three-- I've even gained a deeper respect for Temple of Doom as a result of this-- but in all fairness, it is better through a child's eyes.

Of course the problem is that Indiana Jones was never intended to be a children's movie.

I am not one of those "Lucas Raped My Childhood" people-- I simply take movies as they come, and I definitely prefer popcorn movies to anything that can be construed as deep and meaningful. We get enough deep and meaningful bullshit every waking hour of the day, so I welcome as much escapism as I can get. I did not mind the aliens. I didn't even mind nuking the fridge. I listen to enough alternative radio to understand the mythos behind crystal skulls and alien intelligence, so I was completely on board with that (not to say I'm a believer... just that I get it). What I did mind was the execution of the story itself. No one behind the scenes brought their A-game to this, and quite frankly, both George Lucas and David Koepp need to be run out of town with torches and pitchforks. But it is great to see Harrison Ford with the hat and the bullwhip again. If only time would have stopped in 1981...

I would encourage all Indy fans to go and see the film-- it is worth the ticket price and a night out, if only to escape reality for a while. But definitely lower your expectations. Try to see it through the eyes of a kid who doesn't know any better.

Posted by: PMD1124 at May 27, 2008 6:36 AM

Next up, Indy and Mulder, trekking through Vancouver in pursuit of government conspiracy.

Posted by: caro at May 27, 2008 9:37 AM

Completely off topic:

I was always confused as to why the South Park guys made George Lucas the 'good guy' in that one episode where Steven Spielberg tries to get him to re-master Raiders of the Lost Ark. It was obvious then and now that Lucas is the driving force in ruining these nostalgia movies.

Posted by: mark at May 27, 2008 10:20 AM

Am I missing sarcasm here?

I don't know, it's popular to bash them too, it's just a punch in the gut for me being reminded that it's not in Disney World anymore (although the Pooh ride that replaced it is oddly psychedelic and they kept the same jerky track) and that I haven't been to Disney World in over five years.

Thanks a lot!

Posted by: Jay at May 27, 2008 10:27 AM

Maryscott O'Connor: you've almost hit on the biggest moment of fail for me, in this movie:

**SPOIL-IO!**

Indy opines that the treasure wasn't gold, it was knowledge. YET! Irina ("Moose and Squirrel" for sure, yo!) is MELTED by TOO MUCH knowledge. She wants to know, begs the aliens to tell her everything they know...but then is brulee'd when she's given the knowledge she seeks.

So, is knowledge the treasure or the blowtorch? I'M SO CONFUSED! IF ONLY I'D CHECKED MY BRAIN AT THE DOOR WHEN I WENT TO SEE THIS SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER! IF ONLY MY STANDARDS WERE LOWER!

Ahem.

**end spoilers.**

Posted by: Nora Rocket at May 27, 2008 11:23 AM

"Nuked the fridge" stirred more genuine laughter in me than I have had in a while. Still however p!$$poor the solution to the situation Indy was in at the testing site appeared nevertheless the scene worked on me. It was the only instance in "Crystal Skull" where I felt the hero was in mortal danger. To see Indiana Jones stranded in a postwar Levittown with only seconds to escape domesticity and death bordered on the profound. My regret is that Messrs. Lucas and Spielberg decided not continue on that tack.

Posted by: Mr. West at May 27, 2008 11:26 AM

I miss the ride too Jay, but actually I was asking if Zambonigirl was serious about "a film about Mr. Toad and his wild ride?"

I wasn't sure if she knew that the ride was based on "The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad."

Posted by: Ken Hart at May 27, 2008 2:25 PM

No, I know. I was just also being blinded by my eternal sorrow.

I also remain unsatisfied with this "Ariel's Grotto" business. But then I am a sentimental stick in the mud.

Posted by: Jay at May 27, 2008 2:48 PM

The hell is Ariel's Grotto? Does it in any way resemble the Playboy Mansion Grotto? Cuz that would be funny. Well, maybe not so much with the funny if you're a parent and your tiny tot wants to have an underwater orgy with an octagenarian, but otherwise...definitely funny.

Posted by: Sarina at May 27, 2008 3:03 PM

Oh HEAVENS no. No, it's just this little character meet and greet spot at the lagoon where once sat the mighty 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea ride.

It's not a suitable replacement. But, to borrow a phrase, what the little girls don't know the creepy old men understand*.

(*originally used long ago to explain why Sporty is the greatest Spice girl. And she obviously is)

Posted by: Jay at May 27, 2008 3:12 PM

This was the first movie that I have ever walked out of and I saw "Beautician and the Beast."

Ruiners..

Posted by: kell at May 27, 2008 3:38 PM

I'm a little late to the party, but here's my two cents. Potential Spoilers

I dug it. It's no Raiders, which I adore and watch anytime it's on, and it's no Crusade, which I adore and cannot believe how many people here think it's the weakest installment, but GOD it is so much better than Doom. I HATE DOOM. I hated it when it came out, and every time I try to give it another chance, I hate it more. Annoying, flighty, totally unredeemable leading lady? CHECK. Vaguely racist/colonialist view of the Indian subcontinent? Check. Every moment of that movie is "teh suck" for me - so Crystal Skull seems quite rosy in comparison, to me.

I'm not really sure what all the folks, including Mr. Carlson, who are irritated by the "age" humor were expecting. Indy is in his sixties - how do you make a movie that takes place 19 years after the last one and NOT comment on the age. Wasn't that the point? After an illustrious war career and other adventures, Indy finally settles into academia, embraces his inner professor, then gets pulled back into the fray - rusty, unsure, and trying to figure out how he fits into the post-war world? And, as for the villain-confusion, I think we can all agree that BOTH the McCarthy-ists and the KGB were bad guys at that point - no?

My biggest regret was that they spent too much time in action set-pieces that could have been trimmed, and dropped the great plotline of Indy being witch-hunted - I wanted to see more of Janitor on Indy's tail! (Love me some Neil Flynn). That, and the monkeys - that shit WAS weak.

Posted by: Tammy at May 27, 2008 7:04 PM

Huh. I just can't bring myself to care about Indiana Jones and the Movie About a Guy That's Older Than You Want to Remember, By Guys Who Don't Care About You or Your Memories at All, With the Guy Who Has No Disconcernable Personality, and a Cool Lady.

Also known as: WOO! Green screen!

Posted by: TWoP Fan at May 27, 2008 10:04 PM

I really wish they would've brought Short Round back for this... Anyone who didn't like Shorty can burn in hell...

"Dr. Jones! No Mo' Parachutes!"
"You call him Dr. Jones... doll."

And best of all... quoted in Clerks by Randall:

"No time for love Dr. Jones..."

God Short Round is the epitome of the comedic side -kick...

Posted by: Gaz at May 28, 2008 12:10 AM

Yeah Gaz I agree, ain't nothing like breaking child labor laws to help whitey find hidden treasures. Because we all know that Dr. Jones is all about helping an indigenous people keep what rightfully belongs to them. Fuck Indiana Jones!

Posted by: Pookie at May 28, 2008 1:01 AM

I was reasonably entertained. I liked the age-related humor and the Indy & Marion reunion. Thought the vine swinging was a little too precious, but forgivable. Even thought the prairie dogs were kinda cute.

However, the basic premise of the movie irritated me tremendously. I suspected trouble the moment I saw the number 51 on the warehouse doors. Sure enough it was the damn aliens again. Getting all the credit for building an ancient civilization. Even bringing them agriculture. Cause you know, them ignorant savages were just too dumb to build all that cool stuff on their own.

Dr. Jones you have betrayed archaeology with this alien crap. You deserve to be bull-whipped.

Yeah, I'm aware it was just a movie, but having that old stereotype re-inforced ruined it for me.

Posted by: lyra at May 28, 2008 1:37 AM

All I can say is: "I've got a bad feeling about this."

Posted by: Vicki at May 28, 2008 6:49 AM

Bollocks to all that. I saw it this afternoon and I'm still grinning. Alright, there were a couple of bits of silliness I'd have toned down but it was wonderful, escapist fun and no sourpuss is spoiling it for me.

Posted by: squiggle at May 28, 2008 12:12 PM

Since when is "sweater-wearing" an insult?

Posted by: AM at May 28, 2008 1:31 PM

Tammy - "Vaguely racist/colonialist view of the Indian subcontinent?"

I thought it was a more than "vaguely" racist.

Posted by: g3 at May 28, 2008 3:35 PM

Mr. West>> In answer to your question, Raiders of the Lost Ark received a PG rating. In order to keep the MPAA from slapping an R on it, they superimposed flames in front of Belloq's exploding head.

In other rating trivia, Temple Of Doom - also rated PG - was one of the primary motivators for the creation of the PG-13 rating.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at May 28, 2008 3:59 PM

"Since when is "sweater-wearing" an insult?
Posted by: AM at May 28, 2008 1:31 PM"

Hmm. Not sure. But I do know that if I see someone with a sweater tied around their shoulders, I always assume they also have their socks tied around their ankles.

(Some comedian said that. I likes it.)

Posted by: Loob at May 28, 2008 6:53 PM

It was bad, but I'm not butthurt about it.

Posted by: Dee at May 28, 2008 7:59 PM

I saw the movie Monday. I have to say I agree with every word of this review...

Lucas and Spielberg have become so obsessed with CGI that they are forgetting what makes a good movie. Things like solid plot, character development, and in the case of a gritty action-adventure like Indiana Jones, real stunts with real people in a real environment. There is NO CGI substitute for that. The jungle chase scene was just plain bad. And falling over three CGI waterfalls? I've heard of the comedy "rule of three", but that was just stupid. And where the hell did the nuclear frig idea come from? It seemed like there were a number of orphan scenes that may have survived early script drafts and were just shoe-horned into the final version.

This was easily the worst of the Jones movies, and that's saying a lot, because I thought Crystal Skull would be much better than Temple of Doom, I was wrong.

Posted by: Damn you Lucas at May 29, 2008 3:27 AM

Thank you DarthCorleone.

Posted by: Mr.West at May 29, 2008 8:31 AM

I was put off right off the bat with the opening scene. The previous three scenes all open with Indy setting out on some adventure in an exotic, picturesque locale, evading the bad guys, usually losing some idol in the process. That doesn't happen here. Right off the bat, Indy is a prisoner, and whether because he's been holed up in a trunk, or because of the actor's age, he just seems tired when they yank him out of it. Instead of being pro-active, he's reacting to having been captured and held captive, and as a result, this sets the wrong tone from the get-go, regardless of the subsequent action sequence in the warehouse. Instead of a voluptuously detailed location, we get a dustbowl nuclear testing ground in a ghost town of a military facility. Instead of journeying into a booby trap-filled cave, escaping bad guys from an Asian nightclub and jumping out of a plane in an inflatable raft down a snowy mountain and onto an Indian river, or a young scamp snatching an artifact from a bunch of treasure-seekers, we get an old man yanked out of a trunk, lamenting how old he is. Add in a couple of unnecessary CGI prairie dogs that had to be Lucas' idea (this despite what I heard about the production attempting to recreate the pre-CGI look of the previous films), and you have a tired addendum to a great trilogy that, rather than defy the expired nature of its actor and star, whines in conceding it.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at May 30, 2008 12:48 PM

Wow Daniel, I'm actually speechless after reading your review. You actually took the words out of my mouth! Specially that scene in the Jungle... 'the whole CGI car chase in a fake jungle scene'. I was hoping for a moment that Spielberg will give us all a favor and surprise us by killing LeBeouf's character while he's swinging on that vine! And take those monkeys with him.

I mean, what were they thinking?! Actually, the majority of the movie was: "what were they thinking?!"

Ok, maybe the movie as a whole was not that bad, but as an Indy movie (and 20 year in the waiting), this is a BIG DISAPPOINTMENT!

Too much CGI, (some) corny dialogs, and a mediocre story ruined this flick.

Posted by: fil at May 30, 2008 3:24 PM

The first time in a long time that I did not read one of your reviews before I went to a movie and I paid for that mistake both in the cost of the ticket and the price of the previous Indy flicks DVD costs. In order to forget the disappointment of this latest film I went immediately to the store and purchased the previous films so that I could end the night with good memories of what the film could have been. Thanks for the spot on review...wish I would have read it sooner.

Posted by: Lindsey at May 31, 2008 2:37 PM

I finally saw this today.
It was aweful. They should have spent the same time and money making Goonies II.

Posted by: EricD at June 2, 2008 2:02 AM

Easily the most "Indiana Jones" scene in that entire disappointment of a movie was the interrogation scene with the FBI. There was real anger in his voicee and in those few minutes he made me believe that Indy was back...

...Then Shia/Mutt swung on some vines with monkeys...

...and interdimensional archeologists took off in a craft cleverly designed to look like an ancient Mayan temple...

...motherfucking Lucas...

Posted by: Colombo at June 3, 2008 8:17 AM

It's funny, it was like two hours of leaning out the window waving to my childhood as the train pulled away from the station.

It wasn't an utterly wretched I've-got-bills-to-pay-and-the-IRS-on-my-tail exercise. It simply wasn't as good as the earlier films. Even Temple of Doom- that one has time on its side, sandwiched between the original Raiders and the- to me- even better Last Crusade. No matter how much it might have disappointed or come out of left field with its charming ripping-out-a-beating-heart and child slavery moments, it was Indy in the beginning, when Indy was still forming, still becoming iconic; it could've featured a fucking musical interlude with high kicks and Indy in spangles and today it would still hold up because it was from then, that slippery sucker of a time period that renders most everything as better, in some way, simply because it's tied to a part of your life to which you can't return. Maybe it wasn't even that fabulous a time of your life- maybe you ate paste and were tethered to a post in the yard- but the fact that you can't experience it again makes it desirable, gives it a patina of fondness in your mind.

19 years have passed since the first Indy film and that character is now a legend, an icon, set in stone, cast in bronze and plated in the fancies of youth. And regardless of how good the new film might've been, it was always going to butt up against that status.

They should've made this fourth installment years ago. Three or four years after Last Crusade- that would've done just fine. The legend would be there, but not completely petrified, it would still be fluid enough to add new things without it seeming like a hypodermic of vine-swinging long lost sons, aliens and old flames had to be stabbed in its chest to revive the damn thing. Frankly, I think Indy would've gotten along fucking fine and dandy without 'em.

Too much time passing is like seeing an old friend again after a long time apart- you notice how much they've changed, how damn old they look, or perhaps how good they look...for their age. There's always a caveat. Whereas the best buddy, the guy you've hung out with every day all that time, why, he still looks the same as he did when you were both 18. You don't notice the years on his face as long as you stay out of harsh light.

With a movie series like this, you either keep the friend close- make 'em every few years until it's time to quit- so the audience changes with them, or you don't pay them a visit years down the track. Or you do, and face up to your mortality. Stick your head out the window, blink your eyes quickly a few times- some dirt, it's nothing- and feel the corner of your mouth crook up despite that twist in your gut as you look back on yourself, that kid, standing there on the platform. Probably giving you the middle-finger salute with a shit-eating grin. Give it back. That's what I wish this Indy film had been- a whipcracking flip of the bird in return. Instead, it was more like just a wave.

Posted by: designated hitter at June 3, 2008 6:21 PM

Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.