Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of my all time favorite films. It was a singularly unique creation in its day and its held up well, still a fine ride. The sequel was edgy (one of the causes of the PG-13 rating back in the day), tuning most people off with imagery of human sacrifice and child abuse. I dug it, the edgier elements elevated it above the ordinary summer action shlock of the day, you may not have loved it but it wasn't what you thought it was gonna be. The photography was gorgeous, the Rube Goldberg action scenes were inventive and well shot and the plot was engaging. The next sequel was a jolly crowd-pleaser that did nothing interesting at all and as far as I was concerned I didn't need any more Indiana Jones tales. Leave them to the crappy pulp novels and comic book crowd.

So with years of build-up how was the new one? Thumbs down. Its all action scenes. With the digitalization that's taken over the mainstream film scene, these action scenes make the inventive stunts and camerawork of the original films seem all the more long gone. The opening scene defies credulity over and over again beyond all necessity and drags at that. I can dig that they needed to hit the ground running but the atomic bomb test pushes this whole affair into a Cold War realm that the rest of the film just doesn't have the balls to deal with (the ridiculous scene later on of dancing Cossack soldiers in the Amazon jungle should remind us that Stalin at the height of the Cold War didn't have half the logistical powers or a tenth of the budget of Lucas Films). And it's not funny. The overall structure is quickly paced but the individual scenes often bog down in clunky dialogue that hints at more than it explains and isn't funny. It doesn't get any worse than that. Everything is rushed and busy and yet doesn't evolve or amuse.

Bringing back Karen Allen was nice (she still looks pretty good) and might have been sweet. But it just doesn't carry. Frankly Harrison Ford isn't much of an actor and when he's prime action hero mode he doesn't really make much of an effort to give to his co-stars. And since the screenplay doesn't either, Allen is basically a wasted prop (akin to Bergman's Sarabande: he brings back the couple from Scenes from a Marriage then does nothing with them, they didn't need to be there and effectively treating this like a sequel is unnecessary and disappointing). Cate Blanchett's character is a non-starter as well. She's half Suzanna Vega and half Boris-less Natasha, a by-gone stereotype that seems even phonier now than it did back in the day. Jim Broadbent is given absolutely nothing to do and besides collecting a nice paycheck, I don't know why he's even in here. Ray Winstone isn't funny, intriguing or likable and his motives flip and flop to the point that even to the end you can't tell if he's friend or foe. Shia Lebouf just doesn't have it. I've liked him in other things and perhaps this material is too lightweight for him. Here his youthful intensity is overblown and the '50s greaser backdrop can't even be called stylized, you're just supposed to know that chocolate malted plus switchblade equals tough guy.

Main problem: this is a Lucas film not a Spielberg film. Most snooty film snobs automatically recoil at anything Spielberg touches but I'm not of that stripe. He's made some turds and he's made some classics but mostly he's just another filmmaker. (In my own mind I always group him with Tim Burton and Terry Gilliam: don't you think Spielberg has been more consistently good than those two? Be honest) George Lucas, on the other hand, is a hack and he always was. In America if you've got money you're considered a genius. From Bill Gates to Eminem to Rachel Ray to the guy who invented the pet rock, if you've been lucky enough to momentarily touch the zeitgeist and get financially rewarded, you are a 'genius'. That's fine but let's not confuse making money with being smart or even talented. Making money off the American public is 99% luck and 1% perseverance: the work you put it in is to get you in the right place at the right time. You may work your whole life and not hit that point, you may hit it your first day on the job. Making money is a steady discipline, making the ridiculous huge money is luck. You might be smart, you might be talented but if you ain't lucky, it ain't happening! George Lucas, my friends, is more lucky than smart and if you think he's a genius it is for his business acumen, not his artistic abilities. Good for him but I've never been terribly eager to sit through a Lucas film.

Also, can I get just a hint of realism please? I don't expect anyone to survive 3 successive massive waterfalls but I'm willing to look the other way for Indiana Jones. But think back on the one funny moment of the film: Jones swears to Mac that as soon as he's able he's going to break Mac's nose; a few minutes later his hands are freed and he does just as he said he would. It was funny but wouldn't you know, ten minutes later Mac's nose is no longer broken. I know this is comic book entertainment but there's no action if there's no danger. The Indiana Jones of the first film was a real guy with real ingenuity and suffered real bruises; this Indiana Jones is a cartoon character. Oh well. In a summer where Iron Man can avoid all bodily injury simply by affixing a thin layer of titanium to his torso, then perhaps Indiana Jones is a man of his time.

Here's what Metacritic has to say
I think I'm mostly in line with Gregory Christie of Premiere