Indiana Jones has always been my childhood hero. I found everything about him appealing, from
the whip and the adventures to the artifacts, the amazing ability to beat the
crap out of Nazis and of course, the hat. So when they announced a new Indiana
Jones movie after nearly 20 years, you better believe I was extremely excited.
And there I was, during the midnight release wearing my Indy hat on the edge of
my seat waiting for the movie to start. Needless to say that at the end of the
movie, I was less than pleased.
I was in denial for a about a week, trying to convince
myself that it was a good movie, but that didn't last long. The movie just wasn't good, and I had to deal
with it. I was so disappointed that I hadn't seen the movie since its midnight
release, and didn't plan on seeing it ever again. But then I started writing an
Indiana Jones movie for fun (yes, fun. Why, what do you do for fun?) And it got
me to thinking, was Kingdom of the Crystal Skull really that bad? So I went back to watch it after six years and I
discovered some surprising things. I’m gonna run down some of the biggest
complaints from the masses and see if I can respectfully disagree. And if I can’t
be respectful about it, I’ll just disagree with you anyway. It’s my article!
Nuking the Fridge
Let’s start with the several megaton elephant in the room.
This scene has become so ingrained in people’s minds that it finally usurped “jumping
the shark” as the term when a film or movie has just gone too far. When I
re-watched Kingdom it was at the end of an Indiana Jones marathon, and I have to
tell you, I had a lot less of a problem with that scene than when I saw it initially.
I think the problem with this scene is people saw it in a vacuum.
They somehow forgot that Indiana Jones
is by no means a series known for its gritty realism. In the first ten minutes
of the first movie he disarms a guy with a whip, shuts down an ancient booby trap
set off by light, grabs an idol that appears to be set upon a complicated counterweight
system and gets chased by a giant boulder. The second movie has the infamous inflatable raft
parachute scene and the mine cart chase. The Last Crusade is the closest
anything comes to “realism” but that movie still has spinning saw blades still
sharp after hundreds of years and an invisible bridge.
So why do people have such a problem with this moment?
Again, I think it’s a matter of forgetting what kind of movie they are in the
theater seeing. This isn't James Bond or Jason Bourne or The Dark Knight, this
is Indiana Jones. These are supposed to be fun adventure films. You’re not
supposed to think too hard about it! He gets out of tight situations in ways
that you wouldn't expect! And without this scene, we would be denied the amazing
image of Indy silhouetted against the mushroom cloud. Is it a little over the
top for an Indy movie? Maybe. But you’ll have to explain to me how he held on
to that u-boat in Raiders, or pretty much all of Temple of Doom. Hell, he meets
Hitler in Last Crusade! These movies are not gritty realistic movies! They are
just supposed to be fun! Stop thinking so hard!
Shia LaBeouf is So
Bad in this Movie!
No, he’s not. And his character, Mutt, isn't bad either. I
am no Shia fan, I think he’s a dick outside of acting and I don’t think he’s a
great actor in general, but he doesn't do anything wrong in this movie. In
fact, that whole scene in the diner is great for all the subtle things both
Harrison Ford and Shia are doing. He’s funny in all the right moments, actually
shows some emotional range when they find Oxley’s old cell at the sanatorium.
He’s witnessing the madness of the only father figure he knew and has a great, natural
reaction to it.
Mutt is very out of his element adventuring with Indy, and
he shows that in more ways than just being clumsy. He has no idea that a larger
scorpion bite is less harmful than a small one (I knew that. But don’t ask why it’s
a long story), he’s quick to give up when the path isn't clearly in front of
him. In a lot of ways, he’s the opposite of Indy. It’s all a callback to Last
Crusade where Indy and his father don’t get along, but he performs it well.
I think the problem many people have with Shia is the monkey
swinging scene and the stigma attached to him from the Transformers series,
which is by no means his fault. It’s not his fault at all. You think Shia wrote
that scene? Or directed it? It as in the script, and Spielberg shot it. And of
course he wants to be in a big blockbuster film! The guy wants money just as
much as the next person. Someone point to a scene or moment where Shia’s acting
is so terrible in Kingdom? And don’t just cop out and say “the whole thing”
because that just means you don’t have an argument. Shia does great with what
he’s given in this movie and certainly shouldn't be listed as one of the faults
of the film.
Why is there so much
CGI?! I thought they were going to make an old school Indiana Jones movie!
I’ll admit, this was one of my biggest problems with the
movie when I first saw it back in 2008. But on the second viewing I realized
that they really only use CGI when they absolutely have to. Yes, the first
thing you see is a CG Prairie Dog, and you see lots of CG prairie dogs, but that’s
really the last bit of CG you see for a while. Seriously, guys, they only use
it when they absolutely have to. Most of the stuff with the town exploding is a
practical effect done with miniatures with some CG elements. Most of the jungle
chase is actually Hawaii, I think. A surprising amount of that scene is
actually shot on location if you go back and watch it.
The idea that they were going to avoid CG all together is a
bit silly. They couldn't possibly do that in a modern film. It would be too
expensive to build all those sets. Even Steven Spielberg has to answer to the
studio budget system. So they CGed some ants and green screened the sword fight
on the cars in the jungle. They HAD to! There was no other way to get these shots! They
would have blue screened it or done rear projection if this movie were shot
back in the day, and that would have looked no more real than what we got. They
certainly didn't rely on CG to make the film.
I think most of the hate of the CG in Kingdom comes from the
prequel trilogy of Star Wars. People were worried that George Lucas was going
to green screen everything in Kingdom so every time a CG prairie dog or
background popped up, people freaked out. They didn't actually look to see that, in fact, most
of the visuals in front of them were all practical effects.
Aliens suck! What a
stupid idea!
I will admit that execution of this idea wasn't done very
well. But the concept itself is not something I have a problem with. I really
would have like to have seen this as more of a mystery. A “maybe they are
aliens, but maybe not.” Sort of thing, but they didn't go that way. The fact that there are aliens (yes, they’re aliens, fuck this “interdimensional
beings” shit) isn't the problem.
All three of the previous movies require us to believe is
something from the paranormal/beyond. Raider is about a chest that apparently
contains the power of God himself. The Temple of Doom is about MAGIC ROCKS.
Yes, MAGIC. FREAKING. ROCKS. Last Crusade had the Holy Grail, the subject of a
Monty Python movie. So I ask you, why are aliens so hard to believe in? There
are a vast number of ancient alien contact theories out there. Hell, the
History Channel even has a show all about them. Can’t they be within the realm
of Indy’s possibilities?
This is one of the problems with Kingdom that I’m discussing
(there are plenty more, I’ll get to that later) that can really be traced right
back to the film itself. It was just poor execution on the filmmaker’s part.
The mystery is gone within the first 15 minutes, and it’s disappointing that it
had to be this way. I mean, I couldn't
even get through the first paragraph of this section without calling it shit.
It’s a poor execution of an otherwise interesting concept.
So what does this all mean? Is Indiana Jones and the Kingdom
of the Crystal Skull really THAT bad? Well, yes and no. I had a much better
experience with the film on my second viewing, and my third as I brushed up for
this article. However, the movie does still fail in some monumental ways. The
character of Mac is ridiculous, they give Marion, one of my favorite Indy
girls, absolutely nothing to do, the movie really goes off the rails in the
last half, and the ending makes almost no sense what so ever.
There are a lot of good things about the movie as well. The
first hour of the film is really well done and a lot of fun to watch, Harrison
Ford is great to watch as Indy - I don’t care how old he gets - and the action
is still well done. What the real shame is that it’s fairly apparent that
Steven Spielberg wasn't really interested in making this film, and I feel a lot
of the mistakes that the film makes (other than wasting Marion, that’s a script
problem) were due to his lack of creativity and passion for the project. Could
this movie have been better? Oh, so much so. But is it the terrible movie that
murders our childhood while we sleep? No, not even close.
The thing about the original Indy films is that they were love letters to pulp nooks and serials of that era. Indy4 takes place years later and is now in a post war America and as such it now begins to emulate comics, sci-fi, and the movies of the 50s. In that regard it is a wonderful film, and evolves instead of just being stuck in 30s pulp.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more about the genre emulation switch, that is something i truly liked about the movie, though I found it problematic. I also liked the hidden Mccarthyism/freedom of thought plot that ran throughout the movie.
ReplyDelete- Jarys
Interesting and well thought out article, but I unfortunately have to disagree with most of it.
ReplyDeleteOn the fridge: yes, it true that there was always humor in the Indiana Jones movies, and impossible stunts that defy physics, but in Crystal Skull they are presented in such a way that is too self-referential. The fridge scene is just so utterly rediculious even by action movie standards that it took me out of the movie. There was always a grittiness and realism to the original Indiana Jones - even in its more rediculious moments. KOTCS seemed more like wacky hi-jinx.Again, don't get me wrong; the older films had plenty of silly physics-defying moments, but they were usually pretty minor and not super over the top. The problem with the fridge is that it asks the audience to suspend their disbelief just a bit too much.
When people want to defend Crystal Skull they often use things like the raft from Temple of Doom, the submarine ride of Raiders or the supernatural elements. The comparisons never stand because the execution in those three movies was different. Those movies managed to keep the tension and excitement throughout their duration, Crystal Skull was all about making us know no one was ever going to really get hurt because it was like a Looney Tunes cartoon.
On Shia leBoeuf: I actually agree here and I don't agree with a lot of the hate for Shia leBoeuf. The character of Mutt makes sense to me. But he's poorly written. Completely out of character , he is set up to have prior training in fencing so that conveniently he can have a silly fight scene at the end with the villain. Maybe he should have been a tough guy wannabe who was totally useless until the very end when he does something brave? That would be better character development, and feel more real. Having him fight in such a stupid and unrealistic manner at the end seemed forced and made Indiana Jones a little pointless. It also drifted into the “had to give them something to do” territory, which is never a good sign.
CGI: I mostly agree here, the CGI was pretty seamless for the most part. But I hated the cartoon prairie dogs. And the jungle chase scene was digitally enhanced to the point where it started to look fake. It just doesn't sit with you right. Compare to the excellent practical chase scene in Raiders of the Lost Arc.
Aliens: I agree that Aliens in Indiana Jones is weird and strange. It could have been good if it were done right. There was lots of archaeological adventure stuff with the Russians that could have been used, even perhaps involving aliens or a sci-fi element (Sputnik), but instead we got a weird plot about inter-dimensional aliens that made little sense.
And at its core Temple of Doom isn't really about the magic rocks (which fits with the mystical/spiritual elements of the other films), but it's really about bringing life back to the Indian village.
I also disliked the way the filmakers dishonestly claimed that Indiana Jones 4 was an homage to the 1950s B movies, in the same way as the original films were an homage to the 1930s adventure serials. This movie had nothing to do with those old 1950s movies - it's just the same adventure serial crap from the first 3 movies except with an alien thing in it.
Very good article. Nice to see someone seeing the movie for what it is. A fun adventure movie. Sure there things that could be better.
ReplyDeleteBut people getting upset over the whole fridge scene. If in the Indy universe a guy can keep living after his heart is ripped out. A fridge can save you from a nuke.