I am going to try, but it is difficult to add anything to what has already been written about the film. Critical commentary has been all over the map and while the overall consensus is positive there have been strong dissents and an overall feeling that something is missing. In terms of sheer action and pace the movie certainly works. One critic complained that she found it boring and came close to falling asleep. If so, having a history of sleep problems myself, I must say I envy her. The film is so frenetic, so non-stop in it's rush to achieve whatever the goal is that it is after, that my eyes were never off the screen, even when I wished at times they were. Certainly the first hour of the film is the best. The lead-up to the quest is very well done and some of the imagery -- you will know it when you see it -- is startling, mind-bending in one instance. The introduction of the characters is well-done and the overall context -- a very intense cold-war conflict being played out in America is credible given the times. Moreover, the use of Russians ("Soviets" be precise) as the bad guys, very bad guys, is wonderfully refreshing -- I am so tired of movie Nazis monopolizing cinematic evil. And just to see Harrison Ford in full Indy get-up is a joy beyond words.
Let's start with the characters. Indy is old. The film makers make absolutely no bones about it, almost rubbing it in. His punches seem slower probably because they really are. Like Rocky, however, he can absorb tremendous punishment and just keeps coming at you no matter how many times you punch him down. Shia leBeouf is quite good and for all those who worried he was going to be the human Jar Jar Binx of the picture, can relax. He does just fine. And Karen Allen, in contrast to Indy, is ageless. And unlike Ford's mostly dour performance, her's is best described as giddy. She is obviously so delighted to be back in an Indy film that it comes across probably too well. And Cate Blanchett does a great villain, utterly convincing.
Technically the film is a marvel. The depiction of the 50's is so well-done that you half expect Marty McFly to show up. Everything works, which is why I give the first half four stars. But after the first half, Crystal Skull is pretty much one over the top action sequence after another. If you like that kind of thing (and mostly I do), this is the kind of thing you will like. The problem is that you start to see the influences and they creak even worse than Indy: George has once again raided ideas from his stack of Uncle Scrooge comics and this time I really felt the late, great Carl Barks was robbed. Everything from the ants (nasty, hideous, horrifyingly gross ants) to the jungle clearing Paul Bunyon machine come from those comics. If you think of the Russians/Soviets in the second half of the film as crazed Beagle Boys led by Magica de Spel, you know all you have to know.
All that is forgivable, however. What I think what was really missing was a McGuffin that we cared about, which in the best Indy pictures has been something possessing a culturally religious connection. The substitute, the "Crystal Skull" is just not that interesting. Lucas is on record stating he felt bad about using the Ark of the Covenant in the classic, never to be equaled first film, because it had upset and offended people (we live in time when the act of breathing upsets and offends some people), and did not want to do that again. Both the Ark and the Grail are objects that are direct links ("Radio transmitter," was the phrase used in the first movie) to God. Whether you believe that or not, these artifacts are a core part of our culture, and the quest for these sacred objects has tremendously dramatic potential. You know at once why people would go crazy to find and possess them. Which is why the first and third Indy films worked so much better than the second (remember the magic rocks?).
So while I liked the film, this is why I give the second half of the movie two stars. The fourth and the second have to be marked up as mostly fun failures.
Let's start with the characters. Indy is old. The film makers make absolutely no bones about it, almost rubbing it in. His punches seem slower probably because they really are. Like Rocky, however, he can absorb tremendous punishment and just keeps coming at you no matter how many times you punch him down. Shia leBeouf is quite good and for all those who worried he was going to be the human Jar Jar Binx of the picture, can relax. He does just fine. And Karen Allen, in contrast to Indy, is ageless. And unlike Ford's mostly dour performance, her's is best described as giddy. She is obviously so delighted to be back in an Indy film that it comes across probably too well. And Cate Blanchett does a great villain, utterly convincing.
Technically the film is a marvel. The depiction of the 50's is so well-done that you half expect Marty McFly to show up. Everything works, which is why I give the first half four stars. But after the first half, Crystal Skull is pretty much one over the top action sequence after another. If you like that kind of thing (and mostly I do), this is the kind of thing you will like. The problem is that you start to see the influences and they creak even worse than Indy: George has once again raided ideas from his stack of Uncle Scrooge comics and this time I really felt the late, great Carl Barks was robbed. Everything from the ants (nasty, hideous, horrifyingly gross ants) to the jungle clearing Paul Bunyon machine come from those comics. If you think of the Russians/Soviets in the second half of the film as crazed Beagle Boys led by Magica de Spel, you know all you have to know.
All that is forgivable, however. What I think what was really missing was a McGuffin that we cared about, which in the best Indy pictures has been something possessing a culturally religious connection. The substitute, the "Crystal Skull" is just not that interesting. Lucas is on record stating he felt bad about using the Ark of the Covenant in the classic, never to be equaled first film, because it had upset and offended people (we live in time when the act of breathing upsets and offends some people), and did not want to do that again. Both the Ark and the Grail are objects that are direct links ("Radio transmitter," was the phrase used in the first movie) to God. Whether you believe that or not, these artifacts are a core part of our culture, and the quest for these sacred objects has tremendously dramatic potential. You know at once why people would go crazy to find and possess them. Which is why the first and third Indy films worked so much better than the second (remember the magic rocks?).
So while I liked the film, this is why I give the second half of the movie two stars. The fourth and the second have to be marked up as mostly fun failures.