Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Review

“Welcome Back Indiana Jones...”

May 23rd, 2008

After 19 years of reading, and following, and waiting for the next installment of the indiana jones saga, i am happy to say that although the wait was worth it, it was still like going out and buying the car you want, but its not the color that you initially wanted.

I wont reveal spoilers, i think most of us know the premise of the jones story, and many of those elements remain, some are gone, and there are new ones that emerge. It was suprisingly good to see la beef in the film, he didnt necessarily drown indy's role, but was a supporting player (something i thought would get lost in the mix) and karen allen was a welcome face back, but the role was so minimal that i wonder if she only returned for nostalgic reasons only.

As you may or may not know the plot device or artifact if you will is the crystal skulls, that are wanted by the soviets, and although it is more of a surreal prop in the film, i feel that it did not have the same effect as the previous plot devices from the others (although i thought it was much more interesting than the stones in temple of doom) and feel it was a bit overused throughout the film. Although the film was beautifully shot by spielberg and i thought it played well with fords age throughout the film without drowning us with "i am too old for this" type of demeanor.

The script had very few holes, and the end was summed up with a nice bow, but felt the ending was too clean cut to be a fitting ending to this film, or possibly the series. (i still feel last crusade summed it all up nicely at the end)

Although i promised no spoilers, my only hope is that this is not a slap in the face for fans to have the series continue on without indiana. the ending showed that it could very well go any which way... but my hope is that if this is not the end of the series then this wont be the end of indiana either.

HARRISON FORD... the man still knows how to charm the audience... a little more crack to the voice, wrinkles, and lots more grey in the hair, he still has got indiana after 19 years of being out of character. Many complained of his age... that he hasnt had many hits in the past few years... his age... and well his age, but it was good to see him and although his stunts were performed by stuntmen (take most of hollywood no matter the age anyhow for that matter) i really hope his performance shut many of you up.

so overall:

story 3.5: welcome additions, great action, good building of characters, but last 25 minutes seemed a bit out of place for a jones movie.

acting 4: arguments seemed rush and pushed between allen and ford, and ford seemed bored in a few spots

directing 5: what can i say, spielberg served dessert to us, and i was left with only the crumbs.

visuals: action was great, great gag effects, glad the fight in the diner worked much better than in spielbergs "1941", and cgi seemed minimal... thank god lucas did not co direct.

overall 4: welcome addition to the indy saga, but last 25 minutes seemed a bit of a letdown. great movie though, and cannot wait to see it a second time.


Want to join the discussion?

Facebook Twitter
  • slysnide • 8 years ago

    You're right about that marcus, there was a lot of CGI that they could've substituted with real sets/locations. But given that Harrison is gettin' up there, and only agreed to do this film if it was out by '08, then they probably wouldn't drag him around the southern continent for this film. Plus, it'd cost a lot more money to make. But would still look more grungy and dirty like these films are supposed to look, and not have that cleanliness appearance to it. Though a lot of it still looked real to me, so I guess ILM did its' job.


    • marcusx • 8 years ago

      inc, i just wana say whatcha said to film pro was hilarious haha. but hes right about there being far too much cgi. that was another thing i didnt like.


      • incmob • 8 years ago

        agreed sly... bourne not dumb, you enjoyed the film as a fan, and it may have been unexpected that is how i like to think of it, i thought there were alot of conspiracies and thought well maybe it will happen but noone sees it, my comparison is at the end of raiders when indy and marion knew something was going to happen that was bad or good, and turned away... never seeing what happened but seeing the aftermath, that is more of what i expected that they wouldnt really see the end, but see the end result of things. on top of that, i would have been sh*tting my drawers, but they seemed very casual about seeing a ufo fly up from the ground, leaving only a wake of debris... that seemed a little out of place to me... so if you saw it from the point of view that the aliens essentially were part of the plot device of the skulls then it seemed fitting, and after all everyone of the plot devices in the films have had some supernatural theory behind them as well.


        • slysnide • 8 years ago

          You're not dumb. If you don't know much about the history of the Mayans or skulls (which I didn't until a few months ago) then you wouldn't see it coming, hence why there are so many naysayers on this flick. Or at least there seems to be, since the average rating out of what is currently 31 reviews is 4 stars on 21 of them, then I suppose a lot of people got this too. But since you enjoyed it as much for a 5 star w/out expecting the aliens, then that just means that you're that much more accepting of the fun thrill ride this film had to offer, along with all the trademark scenes. And that's great!


          • narrator • 8 years ago

            Haha. I agree with Slysnide.. Nice review. Oh n Filmpro needs a hug. lol.

            p.s. I must be dumb cause I didn't see aliens coming. Then again I am part Blond. lol.


            • slysnide • 8 years ago

              I agree with you about how much of a dick "filmpro" is about your opinions.

              Now, to my opinion of your review:

              I agree with a lot of it. I for one loved the movie (as you may have guessed from reading mine), and being knowledgeable about the Mayans and the Crystal Skulls in advance, I kind of already overly suspected alien involvement in the plot. For if one understands these things, such as how the Mayans are adamant that their gods came from the sky to help them build the pyramids (hence where the inspiration for AVP came from) and how the crystal skulls they had can still NOT be reproduced by any human or machine, then there's more credibility to ET making the skulls than the Mayans. It's like Sala says in "Raiders": "It is not of this earth." Plus the Mayans were the only ones to have the skulls, so the title also hinted at extraterrestrial involvement. But you are right "incmob" in that the climax could've been more similar to the others, and have been more dramatic/action like than it was, but it still measures up to be well worth the wait. Plus you can't make a '50s "B" movie if Indy doesn't age as much, so the time-frame works. I still seem to be the only one overall accepting of the alien part of the plot though, even amongst the supporters of the film.

              And I whole heartedly agree about the over useage of the skull. It scared every nonhuman enemy away! That was kind of a cop out. But still okay. Having the brainwashed guy in the film didn't really help as much by the climax, cuz it was more like an escort of the crazy man! Such as when Indy says: "I'll give it back. I promise." lol!

              There was a lot of CGI, but if you didn't notice it as much, then that's a compliment to ILM in that they did a good job! I thought it still looked realistic too!

              Overall a great review from an Indy fan that is realistic with their expectations after the 19yr hiatus. (Unlike the naysayers whom got to the theater and forgot to check unrealistic expectations at the door. **cough**Filmpro**cough**)


              • incmob • 8 years ago

                WOW dude, you really need to be on some medication... did you happen to notice this was a review of the film (and yes... have seen it and uh oh... twice! did i just add some fuel to the fire for ya princess?) ... well frankly you need some therapy or a nice drunk weekend, had you written a review (and personally your name should be changed to filmdope) frankly i would have just wiped my ass with it, had it been on paper.

                So please, go post a comment on a review that you actually agree with instead of opening your mouth and taking a warm steamy sh*t on someones "OPINION".



                • filmpro • 8 years ago

                  I'm more than serious when I say this - Did you see this movie? The "cgi seemed minimal"??? The entire movie from groundhogs to scorpions, to LaBeouf's ridiculous ball whacking sword fight was CGI and the CGI was beyond horrendous. And what does this mean "last 25 minutes seemed a bit out of place for a jones movie." "A bit" out of place? Really? Only a bit? Christ Jesus Lord of the heavens and the underworld. This guy clearing was watching another movie. I'll never get those 2 hours and 10 mins of my life back. They're gone forever along with the $12 the ArcLight snaked from me. This movie was more like a sequel to Cocoon and ET than Indiana Jones.

                  Please go see the movie before posting a review you copied from a guy who works for Paramount.


                  Top Movies