Yeah, I'm starting a new thread. (Sue me, haters)
Okay, so after the third viewing I have pretty much coalesced my thoughts and settled on a cohesive opinion. Instead of rushing to judgement (in either direction) and let hype or disappointment breed hyperbole into my how I feel about the movie I decided (beforehand, mind you) that I would give myself some time to fully digest it, think about it, and see it a few times. (Note: As of this writing, I have seen “Kingdom of The Crystal Skull” three times).
First off, I like this movie. I don’t quite love it (yet anyway). But I do like it and enjoy it already. The closest equivolent Indy movie to me would be “The Last Crusade”… a movie which I actually detested upon my initial viewing at age 17 in 1989, but quickly warmed up to on subsequent viewings. This leads me to my first observation regarding how this movie will ultimately be received by the core Indy fanbase:
I’ve said it in other threads, but it bears repeating here: This is the “Anti-Prequel”. And by that I mean that unlike the SW prequels, which wear on on many of us over time and upon multiple viewings, this movie grows on you… much like “The Last Crusade”. At least for me. When I came out of “The Phantom Menace” the first time I was euphoric, on Cloud 9. I was so excited the first couple of times I saw that movie that I was absolutely blind to its problems and flaws. Later, that hit me like a ton of bricks. The same happened with “Attack of the Clones” and “Revenge of the Sith”, but to a much lesser extent. I was very leary of this happening again with INDY IV, so I braced myself mentally. The result is that I came out of the movie the first showing numb. It almost seemed like it was all a haze. Things about it really bothered me (some have already been discussed ad naseum, others I haven’t really seen mentioned at all – but we’ll get to all that in a bit) and I was really on the fence about the movie, even leaning toward the side of disappointed. Because, I will freely admit that it was not exactly what I would have expected even as an “informed” fan of the production.
So I stewed on it. I even refused to go online and gather the initial reactions of others (because, let’s face it… the internet is the land of the irrational and melodramatic). Instead, I replayed the movie in my head and started to dissect it. I started reflecting on its flaws as well as the things I really liked the first time. I took it all apart and tried to reverse-engineer what it was I believe Spielberg, Lucas and Co. set out to create with this movie and its purpose. And a lot of it started to make sense already, even before the second viewing…
Having known of Lucas’ main idea (and “Indiana Jones and The Saucermen From Mars”) since the early 90s I was well-prepared to expect a 1950s sci-fi Cold War B-movie starring Indy. And that’s exactly what they delivered.
To clear the air, there are several elements of the movie that bug me. So I’ll get those out of the way:
- The Indy character himself was done quite well (even the subtle and not-so-subtle changes they made for his age and the time period which I will get to in a bit). But there are a couple of things I think were completely amiss: Aside from the opening sequence he hardly uses his whip at all. This was surprising and disappointing. But even worse, imho, is that he only uses his gun once… and he doesn’t even fire it! WTF is that all about? Indy shooting his gun at folks was a staple of all of the original movies (save for TOD, because he lost it in the beginning) and is a huge part of the character. Well, in KOTCS the only people who actually fire guns at all are the bad guys. Why? This isn’t Indy Spielberg at work… it’s “The Lost World”/E.T. Special Edition Spielberg. And it’s annoying. Other than these aspects and an awkward line here or there, I think they nailed the Indy character.
- There was also a glaring lack of booby traps in the movie. Whenever they were in an area looking for something they were mostly figuring out riddles and solving puzzles. Fine, but where were the flying darts, spikes, etc., things that can crush you, etc.? Very odd.
- I’m also trying to figure out why they decided to make Hangar 51 (Area 51) the same warehouse from the end of RAIDERS simply for amounts to a glorified 3-second cameo for the Ark. Honestly, I was expecting it to have a larger role in the film (and apparentlty it did in “Indiana Jones and The City of Gods”, which was the Frank Darabont draft). It’s fine that they didn’t really use the Ark like I thought they would, but to set the scene in the same warehouse was a cheap parlor trick. It’s also pretty silly, because that means either the final shots of RAIDERS are a flash-forward or it isn’t actually the very same warehouse… because there is no way that hangar existed in 1936. It would have been mid-late 40s at the earliest.
- I just don’t dig the Jungle Chase sequence. I’m all for hokey and over-the-top Indy action… but there was just too much of it all at once here. The sequence also seems too long, protracted and laborious and really adds nothing to the plot whatsoever. I can really live without anything that happens in between the quicksand scene and when they finally enter Akator.
- What is up with this Oxley character and his overall relationship with Marion and Mutt? It seems pretty clear to me that they seriously toyed with the notion of revealing him as Abner Ravenwood himself but decided not to. Yes, I know Abner was said to be dead in RAIDERS, but they very easily could have explained that away by saying that he faked his death to try and protect the Ark from being found by the Nazis. Anyway Oxley just doesn’t completely connect with me, because they don’t touch on what his relationship with Abner was. They barely even explain why Mutt cares about him so much. In fact, the first time I saw the movie I completely missed Mutt telling Indy how Oxley helped raise him because his “father” was dead. There is so much exposition in that diner scene that it completely went over my head the first couple of times. I think they could have afforded to spend just a little more time on this aspect to give it all more weight.
- Marion. Ugh. How did this turn out so bad? Not only did she seem like a much different character from RAIDERS she was just completely out of place here, smiling and having a good time no matter what the circumstances. And as much as I love Karen Allen, this was a very diasppointing performance (and one of the few things that hasn’t gotten any better upon repeat viewings). Her “Yes, dear” line after Indy says “Never do that again” is beyond cringe-worthy. What a wasted opportunity to have Marion back only to do this.
These are my main gripes with the film. Some of them I’ll likely soften up on over time, but a few I will probably always scratch my head over.
Now, to the things that I really like:
- The whole McGuffin angle and how it ties into UFO folklore, Area 51, Roswell, Chariots of the Gods, etc. It was one of the elements of the movie that actually turned out exactly the way I hoped it would, inclusion of actual “alien” beings and saucers and all. They definitely did their homework on the mytology behind this, and there are details in the movie that most would not appreciate. For example, when they go to “Hangar 51” in Nevada the gate area is an almost exact duplicate of the“Back Gate that exists today at the actual Area 51. I know, because I’ve been there. The Guard Shack is cut off in the closer pic, but you’ll get the idea:
https://www.dreamlandresort.com/trip_reports/trip_023-7.jpg
https://www.dreamlandresort.com/trip_reports/trip_023-6.jpg
I’ve also been to Belize several times and visited some Mayan ruins, including Altun Ha and Lubaantun… the site where the Mitchell-Hedges skull was claimed to be found (which is probably a lie). Anyway, for this Roswell, Area 51, UFO, et al. buff it is an absolute thrill to see Indiana Jone dabble in the mythology. From the first moment he refers to “…that Air Force fiasco in ’47.” It all completely clicked for me.
- I also dig the whole 50s Sci-Fi B-movie approach, which is apparent from the first shot in the movie (a prairie dog mound) and then quickly thrusting the era at you with “Hound Dog” and car racing teens. Then we get the Doom Town sequence, which might be best interpretation of that era I’ve seen in a movie. But at its heart, the flick is about Cold War paranoia and the fear of not only saucermen from Mars, but communism. And John Williams hammers this home with the Crystal Skull theme… which is right out of a 1950’s saucer movie. They utterly nailed this aspect, imho. But it’s a double-edged sword. Those who don’t like it are almost automatically inclined to dislike the movie… because this is what it is and what it was always designed to be. They also infused some 1950’s filmmaking aesthetics as well. A good example of this is the ADR in the beginning. Indy’s dialogue in particular (“You’re not from around here, are you?”) is not only written right out of that time period, it also sounds like it because of the way the ADR was recorded and mixed. Clever and brilliant, imho.
- Another thing I really like is the Indy character himself. He’s not the same as he was in previous films. And nor should he be. This is 20 years later. The man has been through a war, he’s older… of course he’s changed some. He’s become more of a patriot (due to his service in WWII and the red scare) and also seems more comfortable in his role of professor/teacher than he did in his younger days. To whit, he’s become a bit more like Henry Jones, Sr… which is also apparently by design.
- The Mutt character was also done well and turned about about as good as I could have expected. There can be no doubt that he’s more than Indy’s foil and sidekick in this film… he’s meant to reflect the youthful Indy himself. Their relationship mirrors that of Indy and Henry Sr. in “Last Crusade”. There are certain moments in the film where it appears Indy is sinking to older, Professor Henry Jones only to be sprung out of it by the more naïve, youthful Mutt who is at times more like the younger Indy than Indy himself. This dynamic works so strongly that I for one would not at all mind seeing further films that focuses solely on this aspect.
Aside from a lot of the stuff that happens in between the quicksand scene and when they finally enter Akator (about 20 minutes of wasted movie, imho) this is every bit of a classic INDY movie. Yes, even the beginning and the motorcycle chase around campus. It's more "Last Crusade" than the others, but the beats are all there... and they're identical.
Like Harrison Ford himself, this film will age quite gracefully.
In all, I would give this movie a 7.0 out of 10 and probably rank it just ahead of “The Last Crusade” for #3 on my list of INDY flicks. This of course can change over time, for worse of better. But one thing is for certain: I will not allow myself to get caught up in what I call Toxic Cynicism fueled by hyperbole. This movie is what it is: It’s an “Indy” flick. And a darn good one. Different? Yes. Flawed? Yes. Worthy of its place in the franchise? Hell, yes.
Flame away...
Okay, so after the third viewing I have pretty much coalesced my thoughts and settled on a cohesive opinion. Instead of rushing to judgement (in either direction) and let hype or disappointment breed hyperbole into my how I feel about the movie I decided (beforehand, mind you) that I would give myself some time to fully digest it, think about it, and see it a few times. (Note: As of this writing, I have seen “Kingdom of The Crystal Skull” three times).
First off, I like this movie. I don’t quite love it (yet anyway). But I do like it and enjoy it already. The closest equivolent Indy movie to me would be “The Last Crusade”… a movie which I actually detested upon my initial viewing at age 17 in 1989, but quickly warmed up to on subsequent viewings. This leads me to my first observation regarding how this movie will ultimately be received by the core Indy fanbase:
I’ve said it in other threads, but it bears repeating here: This is the “Anti-Prequel”. And by that I mean that unlike the SW prequels, which wear on on many of us over time and upon multiple viewings, this movie grows on you… much like “The Last Crusade”. At least for me. When I came out of “The Phantom Menace” the first time I was euphoric, on Cloud 9. I was so excited the first couple of times I saw that movie that I was absolutely blind to its problems and flaws. Later, that hit me like a ton of bricks. The same happened with “Attack of the Clones” and “Revenge of the Sith”, but to a much lesser extent. I was very leary of this happening again with INDY IV, so I braced myself mentally. The result is that I came out of the movie the first showing numb. It almost seemed like it was all a haze. Things about it really bothered me (some have already been discussed ad naseum, others I haven’t really seen mentioned at all – but we’ll get to all that in a bit) and I was really on the fence about the movie, even leaning toward the side of disappointed. Because, I will freely admit that it was not exactly what I would have expected even as an “informed” fan of the production.
So I stewed on it. I even refused to go online and gather the initial reactions of others (because, let’s face it… the internet is the land of the irrational and melodramatic). Instead, I replayed the movie in my head and started to dissect it. I started reflecting on its flaws as well as the things I really liked the first time. I took it all apart and tried to reverse-engineer what it was I believe Spielberg, Lucas and Co. set out to create with this movie and its purpose. And a lot of it started to make sense already, even before the second viewing…
Having known of Lucas’ main idea (and “Indiana Jones and The Saucermen From Mars”) since the early 90s I was well-prepared to expect a 1950s sci-fi Cold War B-movie starring Indy. And that’s exactly what they delivered.
To clear the air, there are several elements of the movie that bug me. So I’ll get those out of the way:
- The Indy character himself was done quite well (even the subtle and not-so-subtle changes they made for his age and the time period which I will get to in a bit). But there are a couple of things I think were completely amiss: Aside from the opening sequence he hardly uses his whip at all. This was surprising and disappointing. But even worse, imho, is that he only uses his gun once… and he doesn’t even fire it! WTF is that all about? Indy shooting his gun at folks was a staple of all of the original movies (save for TOD, because he lost it in the beginning) and is a huge part of the character. Well, in KOTCS the only people who actually fire guns at all are the bad guys. Why? This isn’t Indy Spielberg at work… it’s “The Lost World”/E.T. Special Edition Spielberg. And it’s annoying. Other than these aspects and an awkward line here or there, I think they nailed the Indy character.
- There was also a glaring lack of booby traps in the movie. Whenever they were in an area looking for something they were mostly figuring out riddles and solving puzzles. Fine, but where were the flying darts, spikes, etc., things that can crush you, etc.? Very odd.
- I’m also trying to figure out why they decided to make Hangar 51 (Area 51) the same warehouse from the end of RAIDERS simply for amounts to a glorified 3-second cameo for the Ark. Honestly, I was expecting it to have a larger role in the film (and apparentlty it did in “Indiana Jones and The City of Gods”, which was the Frank Darabont draft). It’s fine that they didn’t really use the Ark like I thought they would, but to set the scene in the same warehouse was a cheap parlor trick. It’s also pretty silly, because that means either the final shots of RAIDERS are a flash-forward or it isn’t actually the very same warehouse… because there is no way that hangar existed in 1936. It would have been mid-late 40s at the earliest.
- I just don’t dig the Jungle Chase sequence. I’m all for hokey and over-the-top Indy action… but there was just too much of it all at once here. The sequence also seems too long, protracted and laborious and really adds nothing to the plot whatsoever. I can really live without anything that happens in between the quicksand scene and when they finally enter Akator.
- What is up with this Oxley character and his overall relationship with Marion and Mutt? It seems pretty clear to me that they seriously toyed with the notion of revealing him as Abner Ravenwood himself but decided not to. Yes, I know Abner was said to be dead in RAIDERS, but they very easily could have explained that away by saying that he faked his death to try and protect the Ark from being found by the Nazis. Anyway Oxley just doesn’t completely connect with me, because they don’t touch on what his relationship with Abner was. They barely even explain why Mutt cares about him so much. In fact, the first time I saw the movie I completely missed Mutt telling Indy how Oxley helped raise him because his “father” was dead. There is so much exposition in that diner scene that it completely went over my head the first couple of times. I think they could have afforded to spend just a little more time on this aspect to give it all more weight.
- Marion. Ugh. How did this turn out so bad? Not only did she seem like a much different character from RAIDERS she was just completely out of place here, smiling and having a good time no matter what the circumstances. And as much as I love Karen Allen, this was a very diasppointing performance (and one of the few things that hasn’t gotten any better upon repeat viewings). Her “Yes, dear” line after Indy says “Never do that again” is beyond cringe-worthy. What a wasted opportunity to have Marion back only to do this.
These are my main gripes with the film. Some of them I’ll likely soften up on over time, but a few I will probably always scratch my head over.
Now, to the things that I really like:
- The whole McGuffin angle and how it ties into UFO folklore, Area 51, Roswell, Chariots of the Gods, etc. It was one of the elements of the movie that actually turned out exactly the way I hoped it would, inclusion of actual “alien” beings and saucers and all. They definitely did their homework on the mytology behind this, and there are details in the movie that most would not appreciate. For example, when they go to “Hangar 51” in Nevada the gate area is an almost exact duplicate of the“Back Gate that exists today at the actual Area 51. I know, because I’ve been there. The Guard Shack is cut off in the closer pic, but you’ll get the idea:
https://www.dreamlandresort.com/trip_reports/trip_023-7.jpg
https://www.dreamlandresort.com/trip_reports/trip_023-6.jpg
I’ve also been to Belize several times and visited some Mayan ruins, including Altun Ha and Lubaantun… the site where the Mitchell-Hedges skull was claimed to be found (which is probably a lie). Anyway, for this Roswell, Area 51, UFO, et al. buff it is an absolute thrill to see Indiana Jone dabble in the mythology. From the first moment he refers to “…that Air Force fiasco in ’47.” It all completely clicked for me.
- I also dig the whole 50s Sci-Fi B-movie approach, which is apparent from the first shot in the movie (a prairie dog mound) and then quickly thrusting the era at you with “Hound Dog” and car racing teens. Then we get the Doom Town sequence, which might be best interpretation of that era I’ve seen in a movie. But at its heart, the flick is about Cold War paranoia and the fear of not only saucermen from Mars, but communism. And John Williams hammers this home with the Crystal Skull theme… which is right out of a 1950’s saucer movie. They utterly nailed this aspect, imho. But it’s a double-edged sword. Those who don’t like it are almost automatically inclined to dislike the movie… because this is what it is and what it was always designed to be. They also infused some 1950’s filmmaking aesthetics as well. A good example of this is the ADR in the beginning. Indy’s dialogue in particular (“You’re not from around here, are you?”) is not only written right out of that time period, it also sounds like it because of the way the ADR was recorded and mixed. Clever and brilliant, imho.
- Another thing I really like is the Indy character himself. He’s not the same as he was in previous films. And nor should he be. This is 20 years later. The man has been through a war, he’s older… of course he’s changed some. He’s become more of a patriot (due to his service in WWII and the red scare) and also seems more comfortable in his role of professor/teacher than he did in his younger days. To whit, he’s become a bit more like Henry Jones, Sr… which is also apparently by design.
- The Mutt character was also done well and turned about about as good as I could have expected. There can be no doubt that he’s more than Indy’s foil and sidekick in this film… he’s meant to reflect the youthful Indy himself. Their relationship mirrors that of Indy and Henry Sr. in “Last Crusade”. There are certain moments in the film where it appears Indy is sinking to older, Professor Henry Jones only to be sprung out of it by the more naïve, youthful Mutt who is at times more like the younger Indy than Indy himself. This dynamic works so strongly that I for one would not at all mind seeing further films that focuses solely on this aspect.
Aside from a lot of the stuff that happens in between the quicksand scene and when they finally enter Akator (about 20 minutes of wasted movie, imho) this is every bit of a classic INDY movie. Yes, even the beginning and the motorcycle chase around campus. It's more "Last Crusade" than the others, but the beats are all there... and they're identical.
Like Harrison Ford himself, this film will age quite gracefully.
In all, I would give this movie a 7.0 out of 10 and probably rank it just ahead of “The Last Crusade” for #3 on my list of INDY flicks. This of course can change over time, for worse of better. But one thing is for certain: I will not allow myself to get caught up in what I call Toxic Cynicism fueled by hyperbole. This movie is what it is: It’s an “Indy” flick. And a darn good one. Different? Yes. Flawed? Yes. Worthy of its place in the franchise? Hell, yes.
Flame away...
)
