Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: The AMG Review
May 22nd, 2008 | 3:07 pm est |
It’s not easy for one of the most beloved film series of its time to return after a nineteen-year absence, though Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull manages to do a serviceable job of recapturing what audiences come to equate with their favorite fearless archeologist. Indeed - Harrison Ford is back again, this time a tad wiser and a lot more grey, yet still packing that familiar quick wit, trusty whip and mean punch to get him out of tough spots. Along for the ride are a slew of new cohorts, including Shia LaBeouf, Ray Winstone and John Hurt, with a few new delicious baddies (Cate Blanchett, Igor Jijikine) to add to his roster of villains. Of course, it’s the inclusion of Karen Allen as Marion that truly makes this outing special, but what of the excitement, the humor and the old Steven Spielberg fun that people of all ages have come to love from this fabled franchise? Inklings of them are there, even if the sands of time have eroded the filmmaker’s potency for delivering the magic of yesteryear.
Just as Harrison had much to prove, so did it’s helmer, whose recent efforts had given pause to the idea that a sweet slice of cinema pie was once again in his recipe book. Resoundingly, he shows that his classic camera chops have gone nowhere, although his work with actors leaves a bit to be desired. In fact, Kingdom’s stumbling blocks aren’t in its presentation but in its execution. Much of the blame has been thrown screenwriter David Koepp’s way - somewhat deservedly so - yet the fact is that the production is plagued by an underlying awkwardness that goes beyond his wordy approach and half-cooked character work. Performance-wise, viewers are delivered a hodge-podge of misses and knockouts, lending credence to the growing mistrust that is co-creator George Lucas‘ touch - especially given his fondness for stiff acting. The modern age can also be seen rearing its head in, thanks to the overall lack of stunts and overuse of computer effects, creating a great lack of tension in much of the overly spectacular proceedings.
That said, there’s still some stuff to love with this fourth outing. For instance, the action scenes are still superbly staged, with an early motorcycle chase standing out as a highlight. Also, as if it wasn’t good enough to be able to see Indy doing his thing again, there are moments of brilliance between him and Marion, even if they leave one yearning for more. The same goes for the musical maestro behind the series - John Williams - who laces in the Raiders theme with ample glee, transporting his audience into a familiar and welcome place throughout the movie, yet there is a desire to hear something beyond the subtle b-movie sci-fi throwback score he delivers. If anything, the film might have the power to shine if viewed merely as escapism entertainment - however, it seems evident that the mileage has not only taken a toll on the character, but the people making it as well.
Good review, but if the star rating of this doesn’t balence up with your over-rated star entries on last years blockblusters that flopped to me like Golden Compass and Transformers, I’m going to lose some faith with you Allmovie!!!
It is really bad to expect a sequel like this and be dissapointed. As some friends said, the movie lacks of any depth (if any in general as far as the Indiana Jones movies are conserned), in the previous instalments you were “absorbed” by the movies, you were in the shoes of the heroes. Now, what we saw, was simply another blockbuster movie. It was more than obvious.
On the other hand we saw an aged Ford trying to do all these scenes with little success. But I give him credit.
Also, the whole thing was told in the past. Aliens etc… Even the spaceship of the aliens was not impressive…They could have tried more.
Finally the most annoying thing was the overall anticommunism. I wonder why in 2008 they are in such a concern and try to stir up things like “bad” soviets and “ultrakiller” Stalin.Are they so afraid of communism that they have to remind us, and frighten people, in every occasion on how “bad” things were? Everyone is entitled to critisize but if one does that he should try to be more objective.
As i said, the movie was merely a blockbuster. It is normal though since hollywood is concerned only in making money and always presenting movies for mass consumption. I suppose nowadays Tomb Raider is better and more complete than Indiana Jones.
Billy,
Concerning the anti-communisim of the film, we have to remember that it does take place in 1957, in the midst of the red scare, and 2008 politics should not be considered. Most of the characters, including Indy (who is a veteran by this point) would probably bear a strong resentements against the Soviets. There were some modern concerns issued (albiet somewhat awkwardly) when Indy was being hounded by the govt. agents, and some statements were made about American paranoia. But we have to remember that there were some in communist Russia who WERE bent on making the world like them, represented by Cate’s character. It felt to me like the film did not hate the Russians as much as the other films hated the Nazis.
Overall, I thought AMG’s review was ample and accurate: the movie is not near as significant as the others, and it bears a strong lack of urgency for an action picture, but it’s a good time and, if nothing else, a worthy effort.
i would want to open a public dispute on that because it is irrelevant with this site’s philosophy. i have to admit that at some points some statements depicted that paranoia and i know that the fifties were tough as far as these subjects are concerned.
finally i don’t make a comparison between nazis and soviets because, simply, they are completely opposites. but we can always make a comparison with other films that have as a theme that period.
:-)
p.s.
“i wouldn’t want to”
Nazis and commies complete opposites? Well, I think they’re both totalitarian in essence (although some forms of communism/marxism weren’t meant to be, I’m told)…
This review made me want to cry. The author’s motto is apparently “never use an ordinary word when a pretentious one will do.” “Maestro” instead of “composer”? “Sweet slice of cinema pie”? The “mistrust that is co-creator George Lucas’s touch”? Is anybody even aware that, according to the grammar of the sentence, Lucas makes the film mistrustful (not, as the author intended, that we are mistrustful of him)? Calling all editors!