Review of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Get ready for a looooong review.

First off... the title is too long.  Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull would've sufficed, especially considering that it’s not really about the Kingdom at all.  It’s about the Crystal Skull.  Secondly, this movie isn't nearly scary enough.  Or at least, it doesn't have enough weight to counterbalance the ridiculousness.  I watched the opening of Indy 4 again the other day, and I realized yet again what I think is missing from it.  It's MacGuffin doesn't have much gravity.  Let me put it this way... after watching the first half hour of Raiders again, I realized why I think some of the less credible elements in all the films except number 4 work pretty well.  With Raiders and Last Crusade, you have a strong foundation in the Judeo-Christian tradition, at least in the US.  Even people less inclined to believe in the religion can probably admit that the "Power of God" aspect of both the Ark and the Grail adds a certain gravitas to the stories.  You can respect that this is an awesome force not to be trifled with, and it holds that weight because of thousands of years of tradition.  The Shankara Stones in Temple of Doom are a slightly different story.  They probably aren't as well known in the West, and so, I'd posit, don't hold the same respect, or at least the same type of respect, as the Ark or Grail to Western audiences.  I'd also argue that prior to Crystal Skull, Temple of Doom was the most outlandish story in the series, which doesn't help when it comes to grounding it on the near side of believability.  That being said, though, it's a much darker, scarier story than either of its bookends, which in my opinion, gives it the weight that's needed to keep from dismissing it as totally frivolous.  If it weren't as dark, I for one would probably be more inclined to nitpick about how silly it gets.  Crystal Skull, on the other hand, is silly all the way through with nothing to ground it to the semi-believable.  Crystal skulls may indeed exist and have followers who believe in them, but I'd never really heard of them before the film's marketing campaign.  To me, then, they're more like the Shankara Stones - interesting MacGuffins but bearing little respect as a powerful relic.  When you add the sci-fi element on top of everything, I think the tone gets a little muddled.  I've always liked that the Indy movies are about historical, semi-religious adventures.  And while I can appreciate the new turn Spielberg and Lucas were trying to take, given that the movie is set in the 50s this time around, I don't really like it.  It's just not the same.  That all being said, I think if Indy 4 had been darker and scarier, I would've liked it in a similar way that I like Temple of Doom.  Maybe not, but you never know.  Another grievance I have with Crystal Skull is its appearance.  Despite Spielberg's assurance that he and Janusz Kaminski would approximate the look of the first three Indy films... they just didn't.  I'm sorry to say it, but this movie doesn't look anything like the originals.  Firstly, it's too bright.  The other Indy's are high-key, but in a more organic way.  I think part of the problem is how soft the light is in Indy 4.  It's WAAAAAY too soft and artificial-looking.  Douglas Slocombe shot the first three films, and his lighting always cast a lot of hard edges and shadows.  It was moody and fitting, whereas Kaminski's efforts are distracting.  The writing of Indy 4 could definitely have been punched up as well.  David Koepp is a decent writer, but he seems to have a tendency to go overboard on jokes that are too self-aware.  That is to say… I think a movie like this can have good gags and jokes as long as they don’t break the tone of the film.  Example – when Toht enters the tent with Marion and Belloq in Raiders and folds up a nefarious looking object into a hanger, that’s a successful gag.  It builds tension already associated with Toht’s character and never breaks your attention from the story.  But when Indy is asked if he’d like to say any last words and replies, “I like Ike,” it seemed kind of like a curveball.  Maybe it’s meant to illustrate some of the years we’ve missed with Indy.  Or maybe Spielberg just wanted to make an obviously jokier film.  Either way, I don’t think it works as well as it could.  My final major complaint about Crystal Skull is the whole Indy/Mutt story.  Yes, I realize it’s most of the movie.  However, I just don’t think it was developed very well.  It feels a little forced, especially, again, when it comes to the jokes associated with it.  And it doesn’t help that Shia LaBeouf was cast as Mutt.  He just keeps proving how irritating he can be, even if he’s not “No-ing” it up like he does in other movies.  Overall, I can’t say that the film rises above all the complaints I have with it.  It is an entertaining movie, and it has a lot of good ideas.  I just don’t think everything cohered the way it did on the other films.  2.5 stars.

Number rating: 65