Putting into words exactly how much Indiana Jones means to me is not an easy feat. What I can say is that it holds a special place in my heart, and had the film series not existed I can say that I would have been a different person. Without Indiana Jones, I would not have pursued an archaeology school internship when I was very young. without Indiana Jones, I would not have been as excited to pursue academia. I can trace so many of my interests back to these films. They mean a lot to me. But I had never previously sat down to watch them with a critical eye and with the purpose of reviewing them. So, as Indiana Jones was set to make his return to the big screen this week with James Mangold’s Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, I decided to finally review the four Indiana Jones films that Steven Spielberg directed.
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Directed by Steven Spielberg — Screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan — Story by George Lucas and Philip Kaufman.
Inspired by the kinds of serial films and B-movie adventures that George Lucas and Steven Spielberg grew up watching, Steven Spielberg’s desire to make a James Bond-film, and real-life world leaders’ fascination with mysticism and the occult, Steven Spielberg’s Raiders of the Lost Ark takes place in 1936 and follows archaeologist Dr. Henry “Indiana” Jones (played by Harrison Ford) as he is recruited by intelligence officers to recover the Ark of the Covenant before a Nazi-led excavation gets to it first. To know the proper location of it, Indiana Jones will have to locate a former lover, Marion Ravenwood (played by Karen Allen), who possesses a key medallion.
Although, admittedly, growing up I was always more fond of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Raiders rises in my estimation every time I see it), there is no denying that this one is an all-timer of a film. It is instantly quotable and features some of the most iconic action-adventure movie imagery. The Golden Idol, the boobytraps, and the giant boulder are all things that any cineliterate individual with a functional knowledge of blockbuster history can instantly conjure up in their minds just by being described those three objects. When I pictured it prior to rewatching the film, I could just see Harrison Ford’s facial expressions and I could vividly hear John Williams’ score blast inside of my mind. It is pure nostalgia nowadays but back then it was just a genius action-adventure set-piece that instantly let you know what kind of film this was. And this film is jam-packed with these kinds of set-pieces and scenes that are easily as iconic as Mark Hamill’s incredulous scream at the end of The Empire Strikes Back, the tone-setting and mysterious ‘rosebud’ whisper in Citizen Kane, or the Fredo-kiss in The Godfather Part 2. You name it, and Raiders of the Lost Ark has scenes that are as iconic and culturally significant as anything you can come up with (the fight scene next to a Nazi plane propeller, the Cairo showdown, etc. — all of it is executed with a precision that make cinephiles gobsmacked and cheery to this day). It is thanks to Spielberg, Kasdan, Kaufman, and Lucas’ eye for action-adventure, Harrison Ford’s note-perfect delivery, John Williams’ unforgettable musical accompaniments, and the mythology of it all.
From the get-go, as the Paramount Pictures logo cross-dissolves and you’re suddenly in the middle of a South American jungle, everything about that opening sequence is meticulously planned out and executed with Indiana Jones being introduced with patience, a steady hand, and an eye toward characterization. This opening sequence is notable for all of its many boobytraps and iconic lines, but it is even more significant than just being a cool action-adventure set-piece. It — like Marion Ravenwood’s first scene later on (in which I love the use of silhouettes) — is filled to the brim with well-orchestrated character beats. At first, Indiana Jones comes across as this pulpy hero brimming with confidence and with eyes in the back of his head. He’s always a step ahead until he isn’t. This opener doesn’t just establish that the hero is knowledgeable, confident, brave, and capable of escaping certain death, it also establishes him as human. He’s fine with spiders, but he’s terrified of snakes. He wants the Golden Idol, but he would rather give up the treasure momentarily than lose his life — because he is used to doing the dirty work only for Belloq to take what slips out of Indy’s hand like the grains of sand he removes from his pouch. He gets away in the nick of time and is then scared witless by snakes, which almost completely shatters your image of him as fearless in a way that is just so charming and fun.
And then moments later we see him completely transformed as this formal professor (and an object of desire, which he is wholly unprepared for in class) in academia. He even wears glasses that I’m not sure he needs, almost as if it is his Clark Kent-esque disguise. The first act then continues to establish the character in a way that perhaps ought to be studied in screenwriting and acting classes, as Ford infuses his performance in the big exposition scene with that dry wit and slight irritation that only Ford could hit this perfectly. The first act also does a phenomenal job of establishing an almost Han Solo-esque disbelief. Indiana Jones says that he doesn’t “believe in magic” thus setting up how these kinds of films might disprove that. You can also definitely see hints of Spielberg’s James Bond-interest here with Marcus Brody and the intelligence officers. You can definitely imagine them being Q or M.
This is also a film that is populated with loads of interesting supporting characters. They manage to craft a world that feels lived-in and real with characters like Belloq and Sallah, and like pulpy entertainment like this would do, it sands away any nuance of the true villains who are outright (almost cartoonishly so) evil. No other supporting character is as significant to the film as Karen Allen’s Marion Ravenwood though. I love how confident, worldly, and fun she is in her first scene, and I love how intense and feisty she is in her first scene with Indiana Jones. Karen Allen is an excellent screen partner to Harrison Ford and their relationship on screen is engaging to watch. However, the thing that I like the least about this film is the backstory that they have given her and Jones. I think they wanted to establish that while Jones is charming he is also a little bit of a rogue, but the detail about him having exploited her when she was very young tarnishes his character in a way that I think makes it an outright terrible decision by Lucas and the rest of the storytellers who OK’d it.
That detail has always been bad, but it has only gotten worse over time. It also doesn’t help that in spite of this fact and Marion’s fury about what he had done, the film wastes no time to shift us to Cairo where she is immediately smitten by him again. I don’t like how easily that detail is brushed off and how easily the film moves past it. Other than that, the film holds up almost completely, with a couple of composited jungle backgrounds early on and a composited thunderous night sky being some of the only effects shots that don’t quite stand the test of time (but that’s okay). I am also fully aware of the popular criticism that the antagonist would’ve found the Ark of the Covenant even without Indiana Jones’ involvement in the plot, but I don’t think it tarnishes the film as much as some people suggest. Also, would it really be true? Did the Nazis know where the medallion was, or were they hoping that Indy would lead them to it? I think the latter is true, so he is integral to the plot.
In spite of minor quibbles, Steven Spielberg’s Raiders of the Lost Ark remains a timeless action-adventure classic thanks to iconic music, several outstanding action set-pieces, and how real it all feels. Had it been made today, then the spiders and the snakes would have been CGI, the ingenuity of the set-pieces would’ve been less impressive due to the stunts not being performed as often as they are here and so much of it would’ve been digital. Furthermore, I love that it dares to be bloody, dangerous, and mystical. It is a film that I contest could only have been made exactly as it was then, and yet it remains a timeless and masterful achievement in action-adventure filmmaking that will perhaps never be topped. Every inch of it oozes a love of filmmaking and pulpy entertainment and that love for the medium and the genre is infectious and always will be. It remains a masterpiece — a cherished treasure.
10 out of 10
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Directed by Steven Spielberg — Screenplay by Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz — Story by George Lucas.
Three years after the release of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas had again collaborated on a pulpy Indiana Jones-led adventure film. Titled Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, this was intended as a prequel to allow the filmmakers to build a story around a different kind of antagonist. Set in 1935, the film begins during one of Indiana Jones’s missions. Dr. Jones (played by Harrison Ford) is in Shanghai at Club Obi Wan (yes, really) to finish up a deal with the crime boss known as Lao Che (played by Roy Chiao). When the criminal organization tries to murder Indy, he flees and escapes with nightclub singer Willie Scott (played by Kate Capshaw) as Dr. Jones’ young companion ‘Short Round’ (played by Ke Huy Quan) drives them to a nearby airplane. However, the flight that they catch a ride on is owned by the aforementioned crime boss, and therefore they have to exit the aircraft while it is crashing. They now find themselves in the middle of India. In a nearby village, Indiana Jones learns of an evil group at the so-called Pankot Palace who has stolen the villagers’ sacred stone and the village children.
Temple of Doom includes my favorite supporting character in the whole franchise — Ke Huy Quan’s Short Round — but is also simultaneously the film in the original trilogy that I have rewatched the least. I think one of the main reasons why is that it doesn’t feel as timeless Raiders and Last Crusade do. While Spielberg is still doing excellent work with these great elaborate set-pieces such as the intense mine cart sequence and the change of setting and pace in the iconic opening sequence — which leads us to the pitch-perfect Lao Che air freight visual gag — there are several things about it that seem off and which have aged poorly (and I’m not just talking about the composited backgrounds that just look off here — or how its relentlessness can be a tiny bit exhausting at some point). The depiction of Indian culture and Indian cuisine is insensitive and sometimes outright offensive, there is no getting around that. There are instances of brownface that are just really offensive, and there is a gross-out ‘othering’ that happens in the dinner scenes especially that is just unpleasant to watch. I know that actor Roshan Seth claims the dinner scene was meant to be read as a joke that the Indians played on the Westerners, but it certainly doesn’t come across like that. The film has also often been criticized for the white savior trope that it adheres to (perhaps deliberately to follow along with the serial films that Lucas and Spielberg sought to recreate), but I also think there is something to be said about the notion that Indiana Jones’s arc in this film hinges on the idea that he learns to let the villagers keep their sacred object. Here he knows that not all things belong in a museum and that feels really significant.
On top of those criticisms that make it easy for people to categorize the film as one with a racism problem, the way its principal female character is written is also an issue. I want to make it clear that I don’t think Kate Capshaw is at fault for what her character turned out to be. Capshaw does what is asked of her. She nails the over-the-topness of her character, she is really fun to watch in the opening dance number, and I think she has a couple of really strong scenes with Ford. Unfortunately, she has been written, in Capshaw’s words, like a “dumb screaming blonde.” Those are harsh words, but given that Lucas and Spielberg admitted to be going through relationship issues at the time, it isn’t that much of a stretch to suggest that they may have taken some of their problems out on their leading lady’s character. They wanted something unlike Karen Allen’s Marion Ravenwood, and they got that, but what they went with was a poor decision that made some of the questionable gender politics in these films prevalent throughout the entire second film.
In addition to those ‘problematic’ issues that tarnish the experience, I do also have some nitpicks that I must mention. While the fact that it is such a relentless rollercoaster of a film is one of its selling points, I also think it feels like the filmmakers deliberately distract you from the scenes that seek to explain the narrative — the pivotal exposition scenes — with the elephant’s snout and thee gross-out reactions. Also, this is meant to be a prequel to a film in which Indy says that he doesn’t believe in magic, and yet in this very film a voodoo doll is used on him, someone removes a heart with their bare hands, he’s put under a trance, and, as he invokes the name of Shiva, the three sacred stones burn through his satchel. So, um, what gives? That seems inconsistent to me.
It is a film about which I have a lot of complicated feelings. Because it also has incredible highs. I’ve already mentioned the mine cart sequence, but the execution of that bridge scene — where Indy cuts it in half — is also so impressively well done (it still looks surprisingly real). The relationship that Short Round and Indiana Jones share is rather sweet, and I genuinely think that Ke Huy Quan knocks it out of the park both with his line delivery and his physical work. He’s such a lovable sidekick. I think it is such a fascinating sequel because it isn’t just trying to be a darker chapter, it is outright different and it also feels — at times — like Steven Spielberg opted to lean into his James Bond interest fully. In fact, that entire opening sequence is so different from the one in Raiders that were it not for the name of the main character being shown on-screen beforehand you could genuinely fool people into thinking this was some obscure Sean Connery Bond-flick right until you see Harrison Ford’s face. It is an exhilarating wish-fulfillment sequence for Spielberg, in which he also gets to show off some of his skills as a musical filmmaker, which he would later put to good use in his West Side Story remake. It is, of course, also one of the principal films that inspired the creation of the PG-13 certification. And while I get that it goes to dark places with the child slavery and death cult storyline, I don’t actually think it is more violent than Raiders was. Frankly, even though it is a darker story, it is also funny in a different way than Raiders was, and I think that is also one of the reasons that it’s still a film people love.
Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is nowhere near as timeless as Raiders of the Lost Ark is. The writing is definitely more problematic. And yet, even though Spielberg has basically disavowed it, it still feels pretty true to the original aim of the franchise. Frankly, I think this one feels more like a B-movie than the first one did (for better and worse), and it also does a better job of existing as a showcase for its filmmaker as a potential James Bond director with its opening. The truth is that I have a complicated relationship with this film because I do feel like its problematic lows tarnish the franchise as a whole, but at the same time it is also this relentless thrill ride that doesn’t just give you ‘more of the same.’ It is risky and not a simple retread, and it deserves some credit for that.
7.9 out of 10
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Directed by Steven Spielberg — Screenplay by Jeffrey Boam — Story by George Lucas and Menno Meyjes.
Five years after the release of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Steven Spielberg had yet again collaborated on a film about everyone’s favorite adventurer archaeologist. Unlike Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was set after the events of Raiders of the Lost Ark, but, like with Raiders, the narrative once again focused on Judeo-Christian mythology and — once again — the chief villains were Nazis. Primarily set in 1938, two years after the events of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade sees the titular hero (still played by Harrison Ford) follow in the footsteps of his Holy Grail-obsessed father, Henry Jones, Sr. (played by Sean Connery), who has allegedly disappeared while searching for it.
In my review of Raiders of the Lost Ark, I noted that even though it has a better critical reputation, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade had always been my favorite of the series growing up. I thought that might have changed when I rewatched it, but I can now confirm that it did not. The Last Crusade remains my favorite of the bunch, and I think it is a damn near flawless action-adventure blockbuster that stands the test of time and is no less thrilling or funny nowadays. Are there a couple of compositing issues here like in the first two films? Sure, but for some reason they don’t bother me as much. From minute one, it just holds my attention and keeps me in its grasp until the characters have ridden off into the sunset as the closing credits start rolling.
I don’t think there is any way of getting around the fact that Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is also a direct response to what happened with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Displeased with the reception and reaction to Temple of Doom, and the dark headspace that Lucas and Spielberg were supposedly in back then (and how it may or may not have tarnished the end product of the second film), the filmmakers opted to have a lighter and breezier crowd-pleasing tone to this third film. Now, I think the harshest critics of the Last Crusade would probably also argue that it is more or less a retread of the general premise of Raiders of the Lost Ark. It is admittedly easy to see where they’re coming from, as the Judeo-Christian mythology and Nazi villains are elements that have been used yet again. To add to that, the initial scene at the University and then Indy’s first scene with Brody are almost identical to scenes in Raiders of the Lost Ark, but I think the one-to-one similarities more or less end there. Yes, there is a Nazi plane propeller equivalent in the Venice section, but I think it is different enough. Although there is no denying that this isn’t as original as Raiders, this is not a re-run. I think this film is distinct in a number of ways. One of the key reasons it is distinct is that this film features a more marked character arc both for the titular hero and his father.
I absolutely think that Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is as timeless as Raiders of the Lost Ark. It is a breezier and much more fun adventure in Indiana Jones’ career, and it is such a delightful rewatch. While it isn’t as relentless in its pacing as Temple of Doom is or as shiny and new as Raiders was, I think this film is somewhat better-paced than the previous two entries. Like the first two films, it opens with an instantly iconic sequence that speaks to the rest of the film in great ways. Here we open with this excellent scene set in 1912 where a young Indiana Jones risks life and limb to prevent Coronado’s crucifix from falling into the wrong hands. It is an excellent sequence that great artists like Steven Spielberg, John Williams, and many others have great fun with. It is admittedly relentless in how it seeks to explain how the titular hero got this and that, but it works precisely because of John Williams’ often playful musical accompaniments and Steven Spielberg’s eye for comedy and action. There’s the fun bit where the horse moves out of the way from his jump, there’s the magician visual gag, and there are all-around great comedic bits with a variety of animals. And of course, it ends with one of the most popular match cuts in blockbuster history as the late River Phoenix, who is just flat-out awesome throughout the sequence, becomes Harrison Ford as his trusty brown Fedora hat is put on Indy’s head. To this day it still gives me chills. It isn’t just a cute and dynamic way of telling an origin story, it is also a sequence that says quite a bit about the relationship at the heart of the film — the father-son dynamic, that is — but also about the central theme of letting go of obsessions over objects.
“I didn’t come for the cup of Christ. I came to find my father.”
Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,”
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is, to me, the ultimate Father’s Day film, and we really shouldn’t be surprised that this would be an angle that Steven Spielberg would be particularly interested in given his focus on this element throughout his filmography, including Close Encounters of the Third Kind. All of the exchanges between Ford and Connery are so well-written and relatable, as they speak to a relationship with a lot of pent-up emotion, words unspoken, and a son who desires approval from his father — to be seen as an equal, to be seen for the person he chose to become. But for as well-written as these exchanges are — and for as good of an eye for this kind of relationship-focused theme as Spielberg has — none of it would work if it weren’t for the performances of the actors having to bring it to life. There’s a delicate line that the film has to walk where the father-son exchanges both have to switch between being funny and loving without ever losing the verisimilitude of it all.
His performance earned Sean Connery a BAFTA nomination for Best Supporting Actor and that was well-deserved. This was nothing like what we had known Connery — whose inclusion is an obvious reference to Spielberg’s 007 aspirations (James Bond is a father to Indiana Jones in more ways than one) — for beforehand but he never misses a beat. He has so many great comedic beats like the Marx brothers line, the Charlemagne quote, the mishap with the weaponry in their action scene on the plane, the secret handshake with Brody, the “she talks in her sleep” line, and the Ming dynasty vase bit. I could go on. In spite of all of that, it never lessens his character as an expert, and it by no means lessens the emotional impact of his arc — it still makes me teary-eyed when he calls his son by his chosen name and tells him it is okay to let go of obsessions. Even though they are both extremely famous and only twelve years apart in age, you buy that they are father and son, and Harrison Ford is also to thank for that because he is fantastic here. Ford manages to adjust his performance in a way that genuinely makes it seem like Indy regresses a little bit around his father. You buy that he is seeking approval. He makes you invested in the complicated nature o their relationship. They nail that father-son dynamic in a genuinely moving way with the ‘cliffhanger’ hug being one of the most affecting scenes in the entire franchise.
For as comedic as it is (with that Marcus Brody smash cut being one of the funniest cuts in all of Spielberg’s career), it doesn’t skimp on lore or elaborate mythology-inspired puzzles and boobytraps. The Holy Grail trials are tense, exciting, and fascinating and the way the ‘cup of Christ’ selection process plays out is genuinely satisfying and clever. It is also a sequence that features a great combination of practical and special effects to showcase the decay as a result of ‘a poor choice.’ It is every bit as creepy as the face-melting in Raiders of the Lost Ark, just as the stunts and action scenes are every bit as good here.
Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is not as original as Raiders of the Lost Ark, but even though elements of them are similar it would be wrong to classify this third film as a simple retread. The Last Crusade features action and puzzles that are every bit as well-executed as the ones in the original film, but I would argue that this film as a whole is better-paced than the other films in the series. On top of this, it is much, much funnier than the rest of the series, and this infectiously funny third film is also more affecting than previous entries thanks to a well-written character-focused father-son dynamic that is brought to life through Sean Connery and Harrison Ford’s note-perfect performances. To me, it is as much of a timeless classic as the original extremely culturally significant film, and it, too, is a picture that deserves eternal life.
10 out of 10
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Directed by Steven Spielberg — Screenplay by David Koepp – Story by George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson.
Following the perfect ending of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, it certainly seemed like the franchise would make a permanent move from the big screen to novels, video games, comic books, and the small screen. And while it did live on in those mediums, there were more big-screen Indiana Jones adventures to tell, or, at the very least, George Lucas thought so. Eventually, one co-creator convinced the other to accept a fourth film built around a markedly different set of beliefs. The Indiana Jones franchise would move from Judeo-Christian mythology and Indian death cults to aliens, as, just like the passing of time meant that the character would have to exist in the 1950s, so too would it make sense for the film to be inspired by science-fiction B-movies of the same decade. This change also allowed the filmmakers to have the Soviet Union and the KGB serve the role of primary antagonists rather than the Nazis of the late 1930s.
Released in 2008 and set in 1957, Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull follows Indiana Jones (still played by Harrison Ford) in the immediate aftermath of an encounter with the KGB at ‘Hanger 51.’ In spite of his reputation, this explosive encounter with the Soviets results in Dr. Jones being put on a list by the FBI, as he is suspected of being in cahoots with communists, and because of this he loses his job. Right as he is about to pack his bags and leave the place that he has called home for decades, he is approached by a young greaser named Mutt Williams (played by Shia LaBeouf) who asks him to help him find and rescue Mutt’s mother (played by Karen Allen) and one of Jones’ old colleagues (played by John Hurt), who was abducted during his search for a mysterious crystal skull.
Let me come out here and say what everyone is thinking — this has long been regarded as the black sheep of the series. Admittedly, I can’t say that this film has previously ever fully worked for me. That said, I have not ever been as frustrated with this film as I know others genuinely have. I don’t think it completely ruins the franchise. I haven’t ever thought of it as an abomination, which I know other online voices do. For these reasons, I was both concerned and intrigued when I sat down to watch it for the first time in many years. I was excited to give it another chance, but I was nervous that my relationship with this film would actually worsen after this rewatch. Having now finished my rewatch, I can say that it’s more or less exactly how I remembered it. It is not a complete and utter failure, even though that is partly its reputation online. But, yeah, it still isn’t particularly great. It has some very high highs, but it also has quite a few low lows. The overwhelming thought I had as I had completed my rewatch was that there was a good movie somewhere in here but that the final product is a tale of two halves, with the second half too often having taken an ‘easy’ way out by being over-reliant on computer-generated action and losing every trace of verisimilitude along the way.
The harshest critics of this film tend to harp on and on about what doesn’t work about this film, so let me instead start by stressing what elements the filmmakers actually succeed with. First, I think Harrison Ford is quite good here. I never got the feeling that he had forgotten who Indy was. Frankly, that’s because he had not — I don’t think he ever could. His delivery of a line like “they weren’t you, honey” elevates the material significantly, for example. He also, frankly, looks great. Although it is obvious that he is not as agile as Indiana Jones is in this movie, Harrison Ford does not — I repeat, does not — look too old for this. He has some really good moments here, such as the sequence with Indy and Mutt that eventually leads to them finding the grave of Orellana and his men, but especially that motorcycle sequence in the first hour. In my mind, that right there is the highlight of the movie. The way they shot it makes it so that the entirety of it looks good because they are actually, at least for the most part, on location. It is exciting and features a lot of elements that — as I rewatched it — made me blurt out that this was classic Indiana Jones. That is not an exaggeration, as it manages to not just utilize the era specificity in great ways as well as be genuinely thrilling, but it also features a great and revealing character moment. As the members of the KGB crash into the Marcus Brody statue, Mutt looks excitedly over at Indy (Mutt is seeking approval) who looks disapprovingly back at him. The moment speaks to youthful excitement and ignorance as well as Jones’ love of Brody, but it also speaks to the connection between Mutt and Indiana that they don’t know they share, as it is a direct reference to an almost identical moment in Last Crusade.
Now, stick with me here, but I’m also going to point to a couple of relatively controversial elements that I would actually argue work in spite of their reputation. First and foremost, I want to talk about the extremely controversial ‘nuke the fridge’ sequence in which Indiana Jones miraculously survives a nuclear blast by hiding inside a refrigerator. Look, there is no getting around the fact that it is very unrealistic and over-the-top. But I think people are being too harsh on a sequence that is not that much more unrealistic than, say, the inflatable raft sequence in Temple of Doom. Furthermore, this is also a sequence that feels like a deliberate attempt to place the titular character in this new era, as well as to hit on both the nuclear development and the nuclear family as this film is all about Indiana Jones discovering that family is still an option at this point in life. Secondly, I think Shia LaBeouf gets too much hate for this film. Yeah, I know that he made some difficult comments about this film that hurt his relationship with Spielberg, but I’m not here to defend his comments or his personal life. What I will say is that LaBeouf does a decent job with a role that was always going to be divisive because of who Mutt is and what Shia is asked to do in the film. In that first hour of the film, he has some perfectly adequate chemistry with Harrison Ford in a couple of sequences. As Mutt and Indy’s relationship is then turned upside down — with some ‘okay’ moments afterward — LaBeouf gets fewer and fewer opportunities to really take part in the type of scenes that might have done a better job of establishing him as who his character was designed to be. Just like how the FBI-list story thread sort of disappears, the film doesn’t dedicate enough time to building the father-son relationship that this film should have been all about.
But this is where we get to the negatives. As I mentioned above, this is a tale of two halves. The first hour is really solid, but I think the second half drops the ball by being over-reliant on CGI to enhance sequences that would have been infinitely better if they had been built around the restraints that made the original trilogy feel so real in spite of the stretching of credulity that is inherent in a B-movie homage series like Indiana Jones. You can’t have ants do what they do in this movie without CGI. You can’t have Mutt believably catch up to a moving vehicle by swinging through the jungle like Tarzan without CGI (and even then it is not at all believable). You can’t have a sword-fighting Mutt be struck in the groin by foliage while he is standing with one leg on one moving vehicle and another leg on another moving vehicle without CGI. I understand all of that, but then it would’ve been much better to design sequences that could be done practically. Frankly, wouldn’t that have been the right thing to do given that Lucas and Spielberg sought to honor mid-century B-movies that never had that CGI luxury and thus had to succeed with restraints and practical effects ingenuity? Look, the film isn’t without great moments of excellent special effects, but those moments are overshadowed by so much unconvincing and weightless CGI mumbo jumbo. To add to this, even though Spielberg wanted this movie to look like the original three films, it much too often looks off due to it being distractingly overlit.
Other than a key underdeveloped relationship the true nature of which the film ought to have been built on from the get-go, contemporary CGI techniques that it is over-reliant on, and a tendency to be overlit in exterior shots, my other gripes with the film concern the supporting characters that fail to live up to the equivalents from previous films. You really miss people like John Rhys Davies, Denholm Elliott, and Sean Connery because unlike those characters their equivalents in Crystal Skull are completely unmemorable and cardboard thin in the writing department. Ray Winstone has fun with his walking-talking cliche of a character, but his character only exists to be a slightly irritating plot device. Karen Allen’s return is at first really delightful, but it quickly becomes clear that she too is a plot device first and foremost. She has very little to do beyond revealing a key piece of information and to be the one sidelined behind the steering wheel of the film’s most criticized action sequence. While I think it is fun to watch Cate Blanchett and John Hurt in this movie, they don’t get a lot to do either. I could zoom in on some of these supporting performances and point out performances that I think are relatively bland, but, frankly, I think the problem is more so with the writing than the performances. They did the best they could with material that didn’t do enough with their characters.
Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a tale of two halves with some underappreciated high highs but also frustratingly low lows. It is a mixed bag that feels disjointed but it is also clear as day that there is a good movie here somewhere. The first hour does not get enough credit for being as strong as it is, but the second hour is exactly as disappointingly over-reliant on verisimilitude-shattering and dated CGI as you may remember. I think the film as a whole gets way too much hate online because it is still not a ‘franchise-ruiner’ despite what you may have heard. Rather, it is just a rare instance in which Spielberg’s execution of an action-adventure film failed to live up to the high standard set by himself years ago. And, hey, when someone as talented as Spielberg doesn’t hit the bullseye exactly, there is still more than enough of value to get excited about.
6 out of 10
– Reviews Written by Jeffrey Rex Bertelsen.
I'm Jeffrey Rex 
One thought on “Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones Films | REVIEWS”