Welcome back to the ongoing series of Reviews From Someone With Kids Who Rarely Sees Movies In The Same Year They Are Released or whatever I was calling this movie feature. I feel I don’t have to do any kind of SPOILER! warnings because everyone in every country has usually seen said films before me. Actually I’m kind of catching up, not being as far behind as usual because my kids are becoming easier to babysit, and the reason I hadn’t seen Kingdom of the Crystal Skull yet was my own delaying tactics.
Simply, Raiders of the Lost Ark was a benchmark for me and the kinds of entertainment I liked growing up. In 1980 I was old enough to go watch movies by myself when dropped off, and I thought my head had exploded, seeing so much of what I’d wanted on a screen all at once. I ran to the lobby and called my mom to tell her to come pick me up later so I could sit through it again ( a kid from my school sat next to me and babbled throughout, I wanted to watch it intently this time). Jump ahead a generation to a big gang of my studiomates going en masse to watch the Fourth Indy Movie, and me later hearing disappointment from trusted fans. So I finally went the other night when it was second-run at one of the McMenamin’s theaters here, which serve beer and food while you watch the movie- I hedged my bets. No, it wouldn’t retroactively ruin my childhood, but it might make me feel bad for everyone involved, admittedly a weird familial thing to attach to a group of entertainers but I suspect many of you can relate to it.
As often happens when you turn your expectations down way low, I was pleasantly surprised. Not that it couldn’t have been a much better movie, but the fact that I bought it as an Indiana Jones movie was quite an accomplishment. Beforehand, I couldn’t wrap my head around the fact that a sequel nearly 20 years later could connect enough to convince me that it was part of the world of the first three, but it did. I didn’t have problems with the sci-fi elements like a lot of people did, I always assumed since it would be in the 1950’s that the story would go there- that was the dominant B movie/serial genre of the time. Going the route of burying it in the past was the right way to do it (I also was dropped off to Chariots of The Gods as a kid).
Of course I am disappointed that Lucas and Spielberg pulled off the revisit- which I think would be the hardest part- and then didn’t get the screenplay to the point it needed to be to make this a Great Indy film. I realize that you’re up against a lot with a movie like this- all the actors and filmmakers have windows of availability to commit to a particular film, and at some point you have to go with what you’ve got that everyone generally agrees to. But the Koepp script feels rewritten and there’s way too much of everyone running through the plot barking exposition that we can’t even follow. It’s at that point you have to streamline and let go of some of what you think has to be in there for this to be an Indiana Jones movie because it’s getting in the way of the story moving up to another level. Sure, throwing John Hurt in does absolve you of any number of sins, but wouldn’t it have been novel to flesh out the villain for once so she’s sympathetic? Or to go a little deeper into Indy himself and walk a bit on the line that Unforgiven did with giving the final word on this kind of escapist protagonist (keep in mind I do not mean with the kind of tone Unforgiven has, but looking back at the body as a whole in that way).
The refrigerator escape didn’t bother me so much, but that’s more because I wasn’t really engaged in the opening of the movie- just like I didn’t appreciate the winking bit of showing the Arc of the Covenant- Indy referring to it in the tunnel in Venice in Last Crusade did that better. All of that opener could have been more of a build to a bigger reveal of Indy and it would have felt right. The problem with wanting to jump into ‘rollercoaster ride’ mode is that it doesn’t trust the audience, and brings this down to the level of the Mummy series or National Treasure- any of the kinds of movies that usually run in the shadows of the Indiana Jones series. The right way to think is like the Daniel Craig Bond movie- strip out what we assume a James Bond movie has to have and define what makes a James Bond movie. I’m not asking for too much because the director is Spielberg- it’s not like he isn’t capable of that. But again, I suspect it comes down to having to go with the script you’ve got at the right time. I guess I’m thinking of Bond here because after the H-Bomb escape, Indy is subjected to Dr. No shower-scrub that is all you need when exposed to a nuclear blast.
Now I’ll counter myself some (I love sabotaging my own arguments!)- the father-son moments could have been given more heart by looking back at the ones from Last Crusade. And someone correct me if this was in there and I just never noticed it, but one of my favorite Indy details-again mostly from Last Crusade- is his tendency to throw off a mean smile after a narrow escape that usually dooms his pursuers. That was a characteristic that always added a nice twist to the adventure genre, a hero who doesn’t acknowledge the deadliness with a “whew!” but zings Death each time with a “hah!”.
So for me, this was still entertaining and a pleasant surprise, but falls into the Temple of Doom range rather than the peaks of Raiders and Crusade. Similarly, I was happy to see that I didn’t mind Shia LeBeouf (still hate that name), though someone more likeable could have filled that role. I don’t think I’m asking too much of an Indiana Jones movie; my nitpicking doesn’t really come from trying to keep the Sanctity of My Childhood. Rather because it was this series along with Jaws and Star Wars that created the paradigm shift in American film, where what used to be B Movies took the role of A Movies, and now we have some of the greatest actors of stage and film filling even minor roles in a Harry Potter entry. I’m not condemning that, far from it- it’s the type of thing I do for a living and I’m all for genre escapism dominating the box office most of the time. But we can also elevate what to expect from a B Movie.
The look of it was right and it felt appropriately ’50’s to me, but ultimately much of what does work in Crystal Skull is due to Harrison Ford jumping into the role as earnestly as he can. He gave it his best and didn’t cross the line that many actors will of letting us know that they know they’re in a movie, Brendan Fraser. This goes some way to redeeming a string of unmentionable movies in recent years- rock on, Harrison.