James Absolon explains how this Pope-themed film, despite its risky premise, works
Alex Pollard reviews Hollywood's biopic of the controversial Margaret Thatcher
It is, as Ebert puts it, 'goofy action' and if that is enough then you will be entertained. The script, due to its army of script writers, is disjointed and confused and in an attempt to eclipse the discovery of the Holy Grail in the last film, Jones’ quest is almost laughable in its ostentatious nature.
Where the older films accepted their B-movie status, allowing them to be fresh as well as tongue-in-cheek; Crystal Skull (unmemorable title aside) does not know what it wants to be. Serious moments include Jones’ attack by the McCarthy-style suspicions of the FBI and his confrontation with an imminent atomic bomb explosion. The rest of the film fails to keep up with this benchmark, degrading into a treasure hunt quest for the Crystal Skull of Akator (El Dorado).
It all starts when Soviet agents kidnap Jones to help them find something hidden in a US military base. Led by Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) sporting a Louise Brooks hairstyle and a typical 'Russkie' accent, the Soviets and Jones, along with dubious ally Mac (Ray Winstone) start a race to Peru to find a city of gold and the crystal skull.
if you go in with no expectations based on the older films, you can enjoy it as an above par adrenaline-rush.
The introduction of Mutt (Shia LaBeouf) begs the question: is a younger replacement for Ford being formed? If so, hopefully he will lose the James Dean in The Wild One look. LaBeouf is a strong point in the film, a refreshing take on the young accomplice. But when Mutt’s mother Mary (who was Jones’ fling in Raiders of the Lost Ark) appears, no guesses needed to see what relationship Indy has to Mutt. Finally there is Professor Oxley (John Hurt) who is clearly made to look as old and senile as possible to make Ford look younger in comparison. His second role is to explain every legend and myth in minute detail, which quickly becomes weary.
Crystal Skull to its credit avoids being lumped with other treasure-hunting films like National Treasure and has an air of confidence. It has, however, no emotional resonance. It feels too self-referential: Spielberg making a 'best-of' rather than something new. And the final twist in Jones’ quest is sadly predictable but also very disappointing.
It is a thrill ride: chase scenes on cliff edges, killer ants and plunging down waterfalls. Over the top action, so if you go in with no expectations based on the older films, you can enjoy it as an above par adrenaline-rush. That, however, is it. Stunning work by John Williams and the nostalgic 'travelling-graphics' do not stop this new Indiana Jones adventure bordering on superfluous and ordinary.
I'm sorry, but did you just describe the original films as "B-movies"?
Just a minor point. It's Marlon Brando who's in The Wild One, not James Dean.
in response to #2 - thanks a lot for pointing that out! i was very tired when i wrote this but no excuse for such a mistake! cheers
and to #1 - the originals are quintessential b-movies - spielberg was coming off the back of the really bad "1941" so he purposely cut out the a-movie stuff (from films like close encounters) and made a gung-ho, adrenaline rush! im not saying in any way they are b-quality movies. the very fact they dont take themselves too seriously is what makes them such works of art. hope that clears that up, thanks for the comment, much appreciated!
A B-movie is defined as one with low budget and/or small distribution. Given that all the original Indiana films had $20m+ budgets and two of them were the biggest grossing films of their release years then I'm not quite sure they fit that description. 
I'd compare them to Pirates of the Caribbean: gung ho, tongue-in-cheek, action adventure, family fun.
I have a different opinion, i thought film was actually quite good. The original films contained equally as much 'goofy action' as the new one. Never at any point have any of the films been serious and this new one doesn't attempt to be. If the film had contiued with its exploration of McCarthyism it would not have been the family action adventure its supposed to be. I don't think Inid's confrontation with the atomic bomb is really meant to deal with serious issues, more like a convenient escape. You have to be prepared for the unbelievable with this film thats all.
hey, me again! sorry its just i still feel i havent explained myself properly! believe me, if i wrote this review now, it would be very different!
one point, im not sure there is sucha strict definition of a "B-movie" - spielberg really had to buck up his career again in 1981. although it had a decent budget and had huge success does not mean it cant be a "b-movie"! its "b-movie" in style, not distribution or money involved. im really not saying its awful, it is good fun... but it was dragged down by its high expectations!
#5 - i totally agree. i do feel the a-bomb test was building up the film to be something it was not intending to live up to, but it was certainly tongue-glued-to-the-cheek!
i will try to stop ranting, im just happy to be able to discuss films like this, thanks everyone!
oh, and the CGI prairie dogs at the start were really bad...
The original Indiana Jones films are famous for being B-Movies. It is not possible to define everything, especially in Arts!
I was completely disappointed by the whole film. I felt they trampled over every action cliche they could find, copying so many action movies, and doing it badly. The over use of CGI was irritating.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report