Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull is like that awkward drink you have with your ex-girlfriend years later. You smile, you laugh, you tell a few jokes and try too hard to act cool; but your heart isn’t really in it. After it’s all over, you smile through the half-hearted hug, but deep down inside you know it was a bad idea, and you’ll be happier when it’s all forgotten.
Twenty seven years ago, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Harrison Ford grabbed the audience’s imagination with the first Raiders Of The Lost Ark. It created the prototype for the big action movie in an era when big action movies weren’t a dime a dozen. The retro styling was inventive, and the protagonist model of the hero armored with irony instead of kevlar would set the standard for almost every action flick that would follow.
Every summer since, the silver screen has seen countless copies, including xeroxes of the original, flicker past with varying degrees of success. Memory is cruel that way. It’s easy to remember the golden thrill of the original – and audiences will turn out in droves trying to re-experience it – but it’s impossible to replicate. The key players might have returned, but the audience has long since moved on.
Coming nearly 20 years after the last Indiana Jones sequel, Crystal Skull wheezes across the finish line about 10 years too late; the occasional sparks of charm dying off in an airless script that talks too much and manages to explain nothing at all. The whole venture is a schizophrenic mess; a patchwork of half-ideas held together with autopsy stitching. A-list writers such as Frank Darabont, M. Night Shyamalan, and Tom Stoppard all took a pass at the script, each getting shot down by George Lucas, who used his digital wizardry to graft his favorite pieces together into an ungainly whole.
Every problem that besieges a blockbuster sequel is on ample display here. The guiding principles of “Bigger! Better! Faster! More!†feel like they were written on every page of the script. The whole thing starts off well enough; but like a wild mushroom hors d’oeuvre at a wedding promises a better meal than will be served, the opening action scene at a military base promises more fun than the film comes close to delivering.
There’s moments through the first half where Spielberg feels like he might be truly having fun, free from the onus of ‘serious’ filmmaking. There are even moments of charm – including a cutesy wink and nod to the ending of the original Raiders
The good news is that there’s very little flop sweat on display. It’s almost impossible to tell if Ford is playing it cool, or if he’s stoned. Cate Blanchette plays a Russian special agent with a snap-on dominatrix hairpiece. She smartly marches about, preening through a cartoonish accent, her eyes lit up like she can’t believe she’s being paid to talk this way. Karen Allen comes off as happy to have a job, and Shia LeBoeuf is the only cast member who feels genuinely excited to be here, even if his character is the stock-issue perky orphan, like cousin Oliver from the Brady Bunch after a stint in a halfway house.
There also isn’t any integrity at risk here. Everyone’s here for the easy paycheck, and nobody’s making any decisions that will jeopardize an infalliable summer blockbuster. Already, there’s a retconned rumor floating around that Spielberg and Lucas originally planned to make five Indy pictures, and nothing about the finale suggests that we’ve seen the last of Indiana Jones. As long as people keep googling their exes, studios will keep cranking out sequels. But like those awkward get-togethers, the memory might be nice, but once the magic is gone, no amount of CGI Aztec pyramids will bring it back.
[ed. note – As of this posting, I have not seen Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. This review is informed speculation. Based on my years of trailer editing, and all the pre-release hype, it seems so base and predictable that its possible to write an accurate review without even seeing the film. Whether this sarcasm is aimed at banal filmmaking or banal criticism is up to the reader.
My guess is that at least 75% of this review is accurate – if I’m wrong, I’ll happily eat my words, but this film looks to be a compendium of everything drab about both Spielberg and Lucas. Post your own speculations below, and post-release, I’ll write an updated review, as well as a review of my review.]
Writing a review of a movie that you haven’t seen is about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. No wait–Maybe the fact that you actually think you got about 75% right, sounds just slightly dumber. Thank God an audience only remembers the movies and never poorly written and totally pointless reviews like this one.
Oh, come now… If that’s the dumbest thing you’ve ever heard, then you don’t get out much.
If you’re expecting this movie to be a satisfying and enjoyable affair, then you’re delusional.
And, if you’d rather read a negative review from someone who’s actually seen it, there’s one posted here:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36667
@ Jeffrey Williams: I tend not to meet too many dumb people, so yeah, this sounded really dumb in my book. Glad to hear you do get out more and hear plenty more stupid stuff. Good for you!
If you find writing bogus reviews of movies you haven’t seen a good thing (since you so lovingly defend it), then who are you calling dumb ? It’s like calling you a total asshole, although I’ve never met you in person.
And about the link. Not every moviefan is as daft as you think to not have found this review on a globally known movienews website (duh!). Maybe you should get out more, afterall.
Why so hot under the collar, Amblin? Do you have a vested interest in this movie, or are you just an obsessed fanboy?
We all know that this movie will make tons of money, but we all also know that it will very likely be awful. Don’t sweat it too much.
Oh, I hear that Charlton Heston is taking over for Harrison Ford in the next installment.
@Amblin… Not a lot of dumb people in your parent’s basement? Imagine that. Anyway, you seem to have lost me with your superior logic skills:
If Amblin = not dumb
And if calling people ‘total asshole’ who you haven’t met = dumb
Then Amblin calling someone he hasn’t met a ‘total asshole’ in comment #1 above = total asshole? Maybe some of the smart people you know can solve that equation.
In any case, your reading comprehension seems to be a bit off as I didn’t call you dumb, I called you sheltered and implied you were delusional for expecting Indy IV to be tedium-free.
Friday we find out for sure.
I like gum.
I like the comments on this subject better than gum.
I don’t like peas.
@ Joanne: I wrote my opinion like Jeffrey did his (AND I actually read his review before writing mine, go figure) but you don’t seem to appreciate that. That’s more your problem than it is mine. So you don’t find writing a piece on something you haven’t even seen just remotely odd ?
@ Jeffrey: You actually go to the movies you review(ed) ? Seems like I do have a good effect on you. But don’t kid yourself, you seem to hate this film from the get-go, which is ok, but don’t bash people that find writing poor reviews of movies you haven’t seen just plain stupid, because it only reflects bad on you. At least be like a real critic: see the movie BEFORE writing the review. If you cannot comprehend that, you either never finished high school or you got issues. I’m guessing both.
And about your logical skills: read the comment again before you make another ass of yourself. Or maybe it was your intention of doing some half-arsed internet trolling. In that case, congratulations.
Come on, you can really say that when you saw the trailer for this movie that you didn’t think any or most of what Jeffrey said in his review? You didn’t roll your eyes? You didn’t think, for one moment, “oh, you’ve got to be kidding me?”
What I did find odd was how heated your response was to Jeffrey’s review. He said that he had not seen the movie yet. What he did was ask people to speculate. Do you mean to suggest that you do not form opinions of any movies before you see them? How then do you decide what movies to see and what not to see? (Or, do you see every single movie that is released?) That is what the trailer is for, no? Would you have been so annoyed if he speculated that this was going to be the greatest movie in the history of moving pictures? I’m going to guess that you would not.
So, back to my original question…Do you have a vested interest, or are you just an obsessed fanboy?
@Amblin… Of course I hated this film from the get-go. Aside from my general contempt for Spielberg, the trailers have been silly,and there’s been an avalanche of pre-release hype working overtime to convince the audience that they’re getting something more significant than National Treasure 3.
Plus, it’s a script developed and personally approved by George Lucas, which is never a good sign. So since I’m using reason, research, and personal experience for my speculations, no, there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with writing a negative piece in advance.
And I’m not bashing people in general – just you, and mostly because your reasoning is weak and your ‘criticisms’ are asinine.
Do you seriously think that a filmmaker past his prime, an Ewok who’s written legendarily bad screenplays, and a 65 year old Harrison Ford are going to turn $185 million dollars into something other than a middle-of-the-road theme-park ride? If you can make a pre-emptive case for greatness, I’ll be happy to publish it. But until I see differently, the judgement stands.
Whoa, Jeffrey, you need to get a grip man. What you accuse this movie and Spielberg and Lucas off, happens with just every movie out of Hollywood or USA for that matter: overhyping is a sad marketingtrick for quite some time now. I think you assume too many people out there are too dumb to see through that. But by posting reviews of something you didn’t see, is not exactly right on the money either and reeks of the same use of hype tricks. A good reviewer doen’t need tricks, he just reviews the movie in a genuine way.
And when you accuse Amblin of being delusional, you really should look up the word, man, writing about something you didn’t see kinda IS delusional as well.
@ Joanne: You’re being prejudice of how my response was intended, you weren’t sitting next to me when I wrote it. I actually laughed out loud when I read this poor attempt at movie criticism and even harder at your defence that it should in some way urge people to think about the subject.
Above right on this website you can read: “to think any reviewer can tell you how to feel about a film is absurd.†Yet this website posts reviews of movies that the writer hasn’t even seen. You complain about how people should think for themselves, form their own opinions but I find your disregard of other people (and your assumption that they can’t think for themselves) just plain silly. You and people like Jeffrey sit in your little hidden corners on the internet whining about, well, everything really, while even the smallest attempt at filmmaking, good or bad, is still ten times more valuable than what your do here.
You have ever right to demand highest standards from filmmakers, I suggest you do at least the same in your criticism. And no, that doesn’t include writing a review of something you haven’t seen, despite what your motivations are.
Am I a fanboy? Hardly. There’s a good chance I won’t like Indy 4 either. Fact is, I don’t know till I’ve actually seen the film. Since I have a love for cinema, I tend to go to a film hoping to be surprised by the craftmanship of the filmmaker. Do you want to call that delusional ? Fine. I call that having an open mind and giving every filmmaker a fair chance. Having made films myself, I know a tiny little how hard the filmmakingprocess can be. And in the case of Steven Spielberg, who made good and bad films in the past, there’s a good chance he can woo us once more. If he doens’t, so be it, but don’t make an arse of yourself writing a fake review and brag about it on other websites.
Any reviewer who clearly says he hates this film from the get-go, cannot be taken serious. Sure, you do it for this movie cause you hate Spielberg, but who says you won’t do that for other movies as well? You kinda blew your own credibility there. Maybe you should change the concept of your website: moviereviews before the movie is made. Oh, wait, that’s the internet.
for some reason i keep thinking Cate Blanchett is going to speak English with a German accent in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull though she’s supposed to be Russian
I think Jeffrey made it quite clear in his editor’s note at the end of his review that he had not seen the film yet and this was pure conjecture (educated maybe, but conjecture none the less). He’s perfectly entitled to his opinion. And the purpose of trailers is to entice the audience into seeing their film. EVERYONE after watching a trailer makes assumption about the end product — “wow, that looks great, I can’t wait to see that!” to “wow, that looks like monkey taint, so no way.” I look at this initial post — review — as an interesting test to write a review for an as-yet-unseen film and then hold that review up to examination after the viewing the movie. I, for one, enjoy writing reviews for trailers because they can be more than just advertising, but a creative art form in themselves. If anyone else enjoys talking about trailers, check out my site http://www.trailertrash.biz. And Jeffrey, keep up the great writing!