Share RNakamura's profile
RNakamura
RNakamura's stats
- Review count1
- Helpfulness votes0
- First reviewMay 22, 2008
- Last reviewMay 22, 2008
- Featured reviews0
- Average rating3
RNakamura's Reviews
Overall rating
3
/
5
They're old
PostedMay 22, 2008
RNakamura
from Los Angeles, CA
Indiana Jones succeeded best when it had true emotional storytelling. "Raiders" is about personal ambition. "Crusade" was about personal responsibility. But "Crystal Skull" seems to be missing something.
"Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" starts off wonderfully in a Nevada warehouse which immediately evokes memories of the haunting final scene of "Raiders." Blanchett is great as a harsh KGB baddie and Ford is as he should be-- old. After all, it's 1957, nearly two decades since we last saw him in "Crusade." The fight/chase sequence is routine, but the action is relentless, ending with a rousing sequence with an A-bomb. It's all what's meant to be an equivalent of the opening in the idol's temple with the iconic rolling ball.
But after that, Indy doesn't really develop emotionally. And neither do Blanchett, Ray Winstone, John Hurt, or the less-than-masculine Shia Lebouf. Even when Karen Allen makes a very welcome return as Marion, the much-desired moment where Indy and Marion have the "talk" about what happened to each other in the last twenty years feels rushed. The plot, involving ancient Mayans, space aliens, and the legendary city of El Dorado isn't much to write home about either. "Crystal Skull" is merely an assortment of stunt sequences that add up to an entertaining but relatively routine adventure pic.
One reason the earlier films were so great was because we loved young Harrison-- the tall, strong, handsome and intelligent hero-- who single-handedly takes on enemies against insurmountable odds. He wasn't Arnold or Rambo or John McClane who triumphed with weapons; most of the time, he used his fists. Girls wanted him, and guys wanted to be him.
Next, the computer effects do taint the action. The earlier films had an organic feeling to them. We knew that was a real guy hanging on to the grill of the truck, rolling around on top of the tank, or leaping into a pit of live snakes. Those were real tarantulas crawling on Alfred Molina and real cockroaches stuck in Capshaw's hair. But the Siafu ants are about par with the scarabs in Stephen Sommers' much less esteemed Mummy series. The monkeys and prairie dogs are cute, but they're cartoonish. And the chase through the thick jungle, an effects shot using two locations lain on top of one another, still looks like an effects shot. So does the wide angle view as the two jeeps are duking it out against the edge of a cliff. We know the 2nd unit cameraman isn't sitting on top of a helicopter. It's CGI. And it's not bad CGI at all... but the fact of the matter is, we just saw these amazing effects in recent, better, emotionally engaging films like "King Kong" and "Lord of the Rings."
Third, the villains in the earlier films actually made us feel like we were in real peril. When Mola Ram tore the heart out straight of the man on the metal rack, we gasped. When Toht held up the red hot fire poker to Marion's face saying "my dear Miss Ravenwood, let me tell you what I am used to dealing with..." we reeled back. The lighting in those films by Doug Slocombe evoked that noir of 1930s and 40s Bogart films, using heavy, ominous shadows. Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, on the other hand, is known for wash-outs, backlighting and smoke-- which worked wonders in "Munich" "A.I." and "Private Ryan" -- but miss their mark here. Cate Blanchett in full daylight is not scary to me. It just makes her look hot.
My friends accompanying also argued they preferred it when Indy was pursuing religious artifacts, tangible things we could root in history rather than myth. That's probably why the fountain of youth or Atlantis film treatments all got rejected. While the legends of conquistadors are interesting, most of it is rooted in an oral tradition. There's no Bible, Koran, or Veda texts from which we can draw it out from. There aren't paintings hanging in the Louvre that depict stories from Francisco de Orellana. And I think that's why it's not so incongruent to see space aliens derived from it at its somewhat comical conclusion.
But I don't think writers David Koepp, George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson are to be blamed, necessarily. All signs lead to Spielberg and Ford, whose tremendous careers in the 70s and 80s guarantee they can both retire tomorrow and expect to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. They're making "Crystal Skull" as much for themselves as they are for their audiences. It's a reunion picture, not a true sequel. We're just supposed to enjoy seeing them together on screen, sort of like a viewing of "The Jetsons meet The Flintstones."
In short, don't judge "Crystal Skull" too harshly. Now in their 60s, Ford and Spielberg don't have anything more to prove. Yet Spielberg still has passion. He can make an anti-war statement by momentarily depicting a villain bigger than America and its ego ("War of the Worlds"). He can make the Holocaust into a riveting character study about power, business ethics, and true leadership ("Schindler's List"). But if American audiences don’t appreciate films like "Munich" or 'A.I." I understand if he'll churn out sub-par popcorn fodder just to capture the European and Japanese markets.
If you want a real Indiana Jones spectacle, "Crystal Skull" probably isn't it. Go rent "Raiders" again, or watch the superb "Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" on DVD. But if you can appreciate the film as a celebration of Spielberg and Ford's historic, iconic collaboration during the 1980s, call your parents, bring your friends, buy some popcorn, and enjoy the ride.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.