In Defense of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

The Indiana Jones franchise is one of the most popular of all time. However, after three films in the 1980's: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989), it took 19 years for a fourth installment. While many critics gave Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull high marks, most of the fan community voiced disgust. I did not have a strong reaction either way in theaters, but after a viewing yesterday evening it occurred to me that this film took a great deal of undeserved criticism, and is a good addition to the Indiana Jones franchise. Let's address some of the grievances against the film. Reader input welcome.

Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) uncovers the crystal skul

                              Aliens
I have heard this one too many times to not offer a response. Many say that ancient aliens are too ridiculous  for a 'believable' story. So the plot is ridiculous? Yeah. No kidding. This is Indiana Jones. The guy uncovered the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail, and witnessed a man get his heart ripped out by an occult priest. Why are ancient aliens so hard to take? Having exhausted a good deal of traditional religious lore, it seems a fitting progression from the previous three films. 

 The Refrigerator and the Ants

The scene to the left caused a great deal of outcry and negative feedback. As with the aliens, it is pretty ridiculous. That is the point! What is cooler than a hero that survived an atomic detonation? 

The giant ant sequence is the second most often maligned in the film. Tough to argue with that one. If you are unfamiliar, a fight scene is interrupted when the combatants come upon a massive hive of hive-minded giant ants, so mentally connected that they climb on top of one another to reach prey. It's out there, but that's Hollywood.

                            Too Much Hindsight?

Marion Ravenwood returns

When we wait many years for a sequel, nostalgia can become overehelming. Overindulgence in this nostalgia can ruin films. The reboot of the Star Trek franchise in the last few years has taken its fair share of criticism in this regard, and Star Wars fans pensively await Episode VII. Some argue that Crystal Skull is overindulgent, but there is just enough to make the film work cohesive with the earlier trilogy. My favorite moment in the movie comes when Dr. Jones informs his students that to be good archaeologists they should spend more time in the field, reversing his mantra from the previous films, "Seventy percent of archaeology is done in the library." Bringing Marion Ravenwood back provides a good link to the past and welcomes a character that many wish had been present in Doom and Last Crusade. Filmmakers did not make the mistake of bringing back Connery or Rhys-Davies. One character was enough, and it felt more than satisfying. To answer the question, there was just enough hindsight to make sure it was Indiana Jones, but not so much as to repulse.

No words- just awful

  

The Complaint I Will Concede - Shia LaBeouf is TERRIBLE

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is the best of the four films, in large part because of Sean Connery's role as Henry Jones Sr. It seems that the Ford and Connery's terrific father-son dynamic inspired Lucas and Spielberg to make another attempt by introducing Indiana's son, Mutt. I stand by their decision to introduce a son, but LaBeouf's greaser-bad boy-wannabee was terrible, and he failed to deliver anything close to a good result. Mutt's character does not develop throughout the story and has no rapport with his father. Every exchange degenerates to him calling Jones "old man." In my mind, LaBeouf's performance and character is the only inexcusable misdeed done by the filmmakers.

STRONG POINTS

Harrison Ford

The years did not take away anything from his portrayal of Indiana Jones. Everything is still there: the fighting, sly smile, moral fiber, intelligence, and resilience. Even more impressive, Ford did all of the stunts he possibly could. His physical fitness showed. The result? An Indiana Jones who has gotten older, and maybe lost a step or two, but is still tough as nails. He owns the character and the screen throughout.

Villains 

Vladimir Putin

Col. Dovchenko (Igor Jijikine)

The main antagonist is Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett). Spalko's goal is to tap into the psychic power of the titular skull to use psychological warfare against the United States. While more covert than previous plots it fits well with the Cold War theme. Blanchett plays the possessed and dutiful servant of the state well, and the swords are a nice touch ("an elegant weapon, of a more civilized age" anyone?). What she lacks in physical presence is filled in by her henchman, Colonel Dovchenko (Igor Jijikine). He was one of the best surprises. Something about the character was humorous while intimidating (uncanny resemblance with Putin, right?). 

Final Thoughts

The purpose of this outpouring was to give a maligned film a fair review. Casting, with the exception of LaBeouf, was excellent. John Hurt put in a solid performance as the crazed Dr. Harold Oxley, and believably transitioned into a lucid version of his character for the final ten minutes. Karen Allen's return as Marion Ravenwood was welcome and vital to tying the film to its predecessors. If anything there could have been more of her. All the hallmarks of the old days are there: the hat, the deductions, Indiana getting out of absurd situations, exotic locales and a hero who can somehow always manage a grin. It may not be the Indiana Jones of years past, but I thoroughly enjoyed Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull and highly recommend it to anyone.

As always, comments welcome below.