Oh, I haven't seen Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull yet, but plenty of people have. Here are some of the reactions I've encountered so far. Perhaps the most surprising (to me anyway), is Michael E. Smith's contention that maybe some of the crystal skulls were actually of Aztec origin. Hmmm!
Actors Karen Allen, Harrison Ford, and Shia LaBeouf attend the New York premiere of 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' at the AMC Magic Johnson Theatre in Harlem May 20, 2008 in New York City.
Photo Credit: Stephen Lovekin / Getty Images
- Indiana Jones Open Thread, PZ Myers on Pharangula says Spielberg's using MadLib to create movie plots now
- Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, NoelByNature on South East Asia Archaeology "like reminiscing with an old friend"
- The Man in the Fedora, Mark Rose on Archaeology online, "very well done and... aggravating"
- Comment: Indiana Jones is no bad thing for science, Cornelius Holtorf in New Scientist, "Ultimately, archaeology has far more to gain from being associated with characters like Indiana Jones than it has to fear."
- The Kingdom of Indy, Skullduggery and All, D. Lende on Neuroanthropology, "...the magic of the Indiana Jones series is how it brings together entertainment, capitalism, storytelling, and science in a way that resonates more than any single piece alone"
- Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull Review, Rebecca Murray on Movies@About.com, "Steven Spielberg had me at hello and then lost me when he introduced some CG monkeys..."
Crystal Skulls
- Aztec Crystal Skulls, Michael E. Smith on Publishing Archaeology: hey, some of those crystal skulls might be Aztec
- Just how old are ‘the Crystal Skulls’?, Kambiz on Anthropology.net, "the pursuit of recovering the crystal skull artifact, is based on faux pseudo-archaeology"
- Mayan Crystal Skull Apocalypse, Chris Braak on Threat Quality Press, on the SciFi channel special, which really was deeply crackers, but after all, it is the SciFi channel...
Comments
Crystal Skull missed the mark. One of the major shticks of the first three movies is Indy vs. insurmountable odds. Indy vs an encampment of Nazis, Indy vs a temple of Thugees, Indy on horseback fighting a tank. Indy is the driving force who overcomes these incredible odds through skill, cleverness, brute force and sheer willpower. In Crystal Skull, however, it feels like he’s just along for the ride and one of a hapless crew following a map and who all collectively get lucky along the way. At no point did you see Indy really get beaten down and on the edge of failure and then magically – in true Indy style – pull a win out from his bag of tricks.
Also in the previous three movies, comic relief was interspersed briefly throughout the movie but always secondary to the story. In Crystal Skull, it definitely took center stage. Scenes repeatedly seemed focus on silly dialogue between the characters that never furthered the story. Lucas stated that Crystal Skull (and the Indy series) is a B-movie with A-movie treatment. They take things seriously, he said. While I agree this was mostly true for the first three movies (starting to fail with Last Crusade), the fourth was nothing more than a B-movie with an A-movie budget. The scene with the quicksand is case and point. Indy breaks into a science-class lesson while he and Marion are sinking into the sand. Sheesh! Lost was the opportunity to show a real struggle and being in a serious jam and then working their way out of it. They might as well have been sitting around a coffee table talking than in the middle of the jungle.
Another hugely sore point is no character development. Although Indy needed no introduction, Mac, Irina Spalko and Oxley, plus the guy who took Marcus’ place (I didn’t catch his name) all had no build up and left a huge gap in understanding their relationship to Indy and to the movie on the whole.
The only saving graces in Crystal Skull were Harrison Ford and Shia LaBeouf. Despite his age, Ford continues to shine in the role. Not for a second did he leave any doubt that he was capable of the feats he performed. If anything, he was refreshingly vibrant and strong. Shia came through, also, as a strong actor – due in part, perhaps, to having about the only real interaction with Indy. But still, Shia stood his ground with a screen presence that was not overcast by the power of the Indy icon.
Combine all the failures of this movie with unforgivable CGI throw-ins like jungle monkeys helping fight the Russians and pointless groundhog cutaways that showed the animals “watching” the action and you get, from this lifetime Indy fan a big “thumbs down”. I was thoroughly disappointed and hope Spielberg and Lucas get this note and start IMMEDIATELY making a new one to make up for this one. One that is true to the Indy spirit!
Thanks, Frank! Here’s what Brian Fagan had to say about it in the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121157677439918285.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
thanks to Brian Kenny for sending it along.
Kris
Here’s another one, from Claire Smith, current president of the World Archaeological Congress:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/23/2253295.htm
I have not seen the movie and will not until it comes out on DVD. Then I can watch it in the comfort of our den. However, I strongly favor anything that suggests that old geezer archaeologists do not have to pass their lives sitting in front of the fireplace spinning yarns to the grandkids. I just wish I had could lead an action-filled life with somebody else paying the air fares.
Dick Diehl