Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

In my opinion, Indy works perfectly well in the 1950s. However, the situation is much worse with the 21st century. Visually, the film seemed sterile, ironed-out and sometimes pandering. Harrison Ford still has huge balls, but unfortunately the same cannot be said about Cate Blanchett (and unfortunately not only for understandable reasons). Shia LaBeouf also played his Legolas role with honor, but this winking to a younger audience, for which an old man with a whip is no longer enough, bothers me. And so does Lucas’ infantility... So what did I like about it? Some spots have the atmosphere of the old films. Spielberg's conservatism, which is not boring and does not feel anachronistic. Nevertheless, the word I would use for this film is “disconcerted". I get the feeling that where the original trilogy didn’t require a lot of extra stuff, part four had go too far into megalomania and exaggeration... It's a well-crafted product and a clear hit in my opinion, but not a cult hit. (05/26/2008)

I’m reading other reviews and what the not very satisfied viewers are complaining about the most is that the new Indie is science fiction. Personally, that doesn’t bother me it all, on the contrary, I welcome and praise this shift in Jones’s adventures. What I can’t praise, however, is that it has lost all the humour, or at least the humour that I liked – I don’t consider childish jokes like a ground squirrel (curious monkey) turning around behind me to be good enough for a legend like Indie. Indiana Jones was never about realism, so I don’t mind the innumerable WTF moments in the plot, but the triple slide on huge waterfalls in a Jeep and covering from an atomic explosion in a fridge were almost too much, even for me. 65% (10/01/2008)

The third sequel of the best adventure franchise set itself a difficult task: not to thematically continue, but to further develop the character of the individual stories, which always unfolded according to which genre and cultural corners of cinema the episode was referring to, while at the same time paying a nostalgic tribute to its own predecessors in a time of prevailing attractions. Both were successful. From the first scene, Spielberg both sets the story in a new phase full of new potential formulas for an adventure film (the 1950s marked by Western and Eastern hostility, the nuclear threat and a culture brimming with science fiction), and humorously winks at the viewer with an amusing iconisation of the beloved main character and formal devices that directly reference the original trilogy. And from this point of view, far from falling apart under the filmmakers' hands, as many have mentioned, the story brilliantly and systematically capitalises on all the suggested "50s" motifs, right up to the final alien interlude (similar to the way the second film, for example, played beautifully with Bollywood mythology, or Indian stories in general), while constantly entertaining with the tried and tested, but again inventively delivered "Indy" form (almost nothing is missing of the main attractions of the previous films), and the interaction of the old characters (Ford kind of moves into Connery's position). The only thing that bothered me a lot this time is the exaggeration of otherwise entertaining action scenes (the mine carts in the second one were also out of reality, but they still look like a viable tourist attraction compared to being kicked by a nuke and triple-dropping down a giant waterfall), the less elaborate villains and sometimes rather ugly sets. But it’s still highly entertaining and superbly acted (Ford pulls it off like in his youth, but he is well supported by LaBeouf and Ray Winstone, whose character of a "triple" agent is another great reference to the fifties) and packed with so many funny details (e.g. ants carrying away a stray hat after the most extensive action scene) that it is impossible not to love this Indy. When the greats like Spielberg and Lucas are no longer walking the earth, it will be difficult for our generation to be so perfectly returned to our childhood. (07/18/2018)

This isn’t the best Indy I’ve seen, nor the worst; at the beginning it’s the same Indy, toward the end a slightly different Indy but beyond all doubt this IS Indy; despite being disgustingly digital in places. My heart throb again dons his scruffy felt fedora and returns to the silver screen in an adventure spectacular that we had been sorely missing for an interminably long nineteen years. Over the years several movies tried to fill the void and every last one of them ended up falling into that void. Some did so honorably, others didn’t. The revamped Indy fills the void, although not throughout. Ford’s age doesn’t slow the movie down, but it is an undeniable snag. And Shia doesn’t do much to shoulder the burden of his role as initiator of action. But if you love Indy, you’ll forgive him anything. It has its shortcomings. But what movie doesn’t? But they’re just shortcomings. There’s more digital landscaping than desirable, and too many characters end up sidelined and almost forgotten. With the exception of the Tarzan scene, which is the lamest moment of the entire tetralogy, no serious shortcomings crop up. But those monkeys and especially their leader well deserve to meet the same fate as their colleagues from the Temple of Doom. But still, sixty-five year old Junior walks all over those fast-buck movies made for one season. Maybe it seems “just" darn good right now, but what about in five to ten years’ time when people get over the ending. And that applies to me too. I really enjoyed the finale (a lot), but if they could have done without those over-the-top Lucas-style literalness, I would have been much happier. But the magic that surrounded the original trilogy is back. It’s true that it’s not as evident as it used to be and you may have to perform some fiddly archeological digging to uncover it, but it’s there, no doubt about it. The it I’m talking about is the pure essence of “movieness" which turns adults back into kids, critics into fans and kids into movie enthusiasts. So even this less strong (but not weak) fourth Indy expedition into film in my eyes didn’t manage to topple him from his position as my favorite hero of world cinema. (05/21/2008)

My god, so much hype! The discussion forum had several thousand posts before the premiere, half of the FilmBooster users experienced many sleepless nights playing the same trailer over and over again, and impatiently crossed off the days on the calendar until the midnight premiere, for which tickets had been lying on the table for quite a few days, of course. And all of this was totally shit, because as usual, the most anticipated blockbuster of the year, if not the decade, is utter crap, and nobody can believe what actually happened and what went wrong. Indy is the past. The feeling of the 1980s will never return, just like the time when these films were made. Spielberg tries to stick to the old ways (titles, references to age, sound of fights, filter-free camera), but brutally knocks himself down with a ton of visual effects and accumulating nonsense, which are a bit too much even for the playful Indy. Ford surprised me with his strength and vitality – he can still handle his fists and whip well – but otherwise it's just a plain and boring setup mashed up with today's trend of “action - plot, action - plot, action - plot...”. Boring and average, not even pretty. Even Temple of Doom entertained me more. (07/02/2008)