Have you seen…Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

BY JOHN BILLINGER

Indiana Jones. What can I say? In many people’s opinion (mine included)m it’s one of the best movie trilogies of all time. These films were thrilling, action-packed, funny, emotional, and even scary at times. I grew up with them, and have recently rewatched them, and I gotta say, they hold up really well. “Raiders of the Lost Ark” might not just be one of the greatest action films ever made, but one of the greatest films ever made. “Temple of Doom,” while it has its flaws (to be fair, Steven Speilberg and George Lucas wanted it to be completely different from “Raiders”) it’s still a really good film. And last but not least, “The Last Crusade,” while it does try to replicate “Raiders,” it still manages to stand on its own and complete the trilogy on a high note. All in all, the Indy films are 10/10. It’s impossible not to have a good time while watching these.

And then there’s 2008’s “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” as well as the soon-to-be-released “Dial of Destiny.” I suppose these days, no movie series is fully complete. There has to be some form of continuation decades later. Although, to be fair, development on a fourth movie dates long before modern-day franchise continuations. Let’s go back to the 90s, with a TV show about Indiana Jones. Before George Lucas made the “Star Wars” prequels, he created the show “The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.” It was a prequel show about Indiana Jones’ childhood to early adulthood, from about the early 1900s to the early 1920s. Incidentally, during the course of the show, he met a bunch of historical figures like Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Edison. Yep, in addition to giving the backstory for Indiana Jones, George Lucas also wanted the show to be educational for some reason.

The usual story structure of each episode featured an old Indiana Jones in the present day early 1990s, meeting someone who needs some form of guidance, and Indy tells them of some adventure-type story from his youth, and that gives that person the motivation or guidance that they need in that moment. Most episodes featured old elderly Indy portrayed by George Hall, but one episode stood out, as it featured Harrison Ford reprising the role for a guest appearance. The Old Indy segment featuring Ford has him on an adventure in the year 1950. Aside from seeing Ford as Indy, there isn’t much to say (his screen time is just a few minutes), but it got Lucas thinking.

The idea of an older Indy on adventures during the 1950s intrigued Lucas. He could imagine Indiana Jones fighting monsters or aliens. Keep in mind, the original three Indy films were meant as an homage to the adventure films of the 1930s and 40s. So, in Lucas’ mind, having the fourth film set in the 50s and paying homage to films like “Them” or “The Thing from Another World,” made perfect sense to him. Series Director Steven Spielberg was hesitant because he had already done aliens in films such as “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “E.T.,” but eventually, Lucas convinced him under the guise that the aliens were not traditional aliens, but “Interdimensional Beings.” 

Around this time, Lucas became interested in Crystal Skulls (more on those later), and he wrote a script featuring one for an episode of “Young Indiana Jones,” which never materialized, so he decided to have that be the MacGuffin for this film. To make a long story short, after several scripts and delays, the movie was made and released in 2008, to a reception comparable to the reaction the “Star Wars” prequels received.

And I remember when this film came out. I was too young to fully experience the hype surrounding the movie. I wasn’t on any message boards or anything like that to hear what other people from across the world were saying about it. Instead, I’d watch the trailers and TV spots as they’d come out, which were somewhat vague plot-wise, and I’d try to imagine what the story would be like. In January of 2008, LEGO released sets based on the first three films, and eventually, around April, they released sets based on the fourth film. 

The sets were the biggest indicator to me of what the film was about, although they were still pretty vague. They just featured Indy in a jungle-type setting, fighting Russian troops with some guy who looked like he came from the set of “Grease.” I did find out through the sets that Marion Ravenwood (Indy’s love interest from “Raiders” would be in the movie). Finally, the film came out. My family and I went out to the cinema, we watched it, and left the auditorium feeling a little disappointed – this is why. 

Spoilers ahead for a film that is 15 years old. The story is also kind of complicated for an Indiana Jones film.

The year is 1957, and Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) and his friend Mac (Ray Winstone) have been kidnapped by Soviet Troops under the command of Dr. Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), and are taken to Area 51. Jones is soon betrayed by Mac (who is revealed to have been a double agent) and is forced to look for a crate containing a body that was previously recovered by him during a top-secret mission in Roswell 10 years prior. Jones escapes but gets in major trouble as the U.S. government now believes him to have communist sympathies. As a result, he loses his job at Marshall College. Just as he’s about to leave town, he is contacted by Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf), who tells him that the Soviets have kidnapped Mutt’s mentor and Indy’s old college buddy, Harold Oxley (John Hurt) and Mutt’s mother. They soon piece together that the Soviets are trying to find the fabled Crystal Skull of Akator, which legend says if returned to the Lost City of Akator, a great power will be bestowed. Indy and Mutt set out on an adventure to find the Skull, all the while the Soviets are on their tail.

Now that the plot is out of the way let’s talk about what works and what doesn’t, starting with what does work.

First, some easy ones. Harrison Ford is great as always as Indiana Jones. Some would say that he’s too old to play the character, but if Sylvester Stallone can still reprise the role of Rocky, why can’t Ford do the same with any of his characters? He’s still the same gruff and tough guy we had 30 years ago, just older. Returning love interest Marion Ravenwood (played by Karen Allen) is also great to have back. She was easily the best love interest of the original films, and I’d gladly take her over some new ones that they could’ve easily created (in fact, an earlier draft for a fourth film, featured a new love interest for Indy). And John Williams’ score. Need I say more?

Then there are the things that work that some people might have a problem with but don’t really bother me much. The 1950s setting doesn’t bother me all that much. Harrison Ford and company are older, and it wouldn’t make sense for it to still be the 1930s. The production design is great as it was in the originals, and they do a good job at presenting the time period to the audience. Using the Soviets as the antagonizing force was also a clever idea. Early drafts for a fourth film featured ex-nazi characters, but after making films such as “Schindler’s List” and “Saving Private Ryan,” Spielberg felt uncomfortable using Nazis as traditional villains. 

And yeah, I’d say after making two movies depicting real-life atrocities committed by the Nazis, it’s hard to go back to them as mustache-twirling baddies. Plus, considering that the MacGuffin driving the story forward is science fiction in nature, it makes sense for the Soviets to go after that. In real-world history, the Nazis did try to find religious artifacts, and the Soviet Leaders were interested in scientific ones, so it’s logical to go with the latter antagonist.

Then there’s the most controversial aspect, the Aliens or “Interdimensional Beings” or whatever Lucas wants to call them. A lot of people have a problem with them, saying that they contrast with the other films and feel too out of place. I’d argue, though, that they fit. As stated earlier, the Indiana Jones films (at least 1-4) are made to reflect the pulp fiction stories of their settings. The first three featured Lost Artifacts, Adventure, Faraway Lands, Nazis, Sacrificial Cults, and ridiculous situations that in real life would kill someone, because during the 1930s (when the first films are set), those were the kinds of stories that were popular in films, dime novels, and comic books. 

In the 1950s, there were adventure films such as “Secret of the Incas” (a film credited as an inspiration for Indiana Jones), but a lot of pop culture movies of the time featured giant monsters and aliens, such as the films “Tarantula” and “The War of the Worlds.” Some of them even combined genres similar to this film-meshing adventure with science fiction. Just watch “Them.” The first third plays out like a mystery story or film noir.

It also shouldn’t have been a surprise that there were aliens in the film. In the first trailer, there’s a shot of a metal box that says “ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO 1947”. That should’ve been a huge indicator. I mean, it’s almost impossible in popular culture to include “Roswell” and “1947” in a sentence without including aliens at some point in the conversation. It should’ve been a dead giveaway. Besides, it’s not like the other films had a consistent worldview. The previous films imply that both the Christian God and the Hindu Gods exist in the same universe (that was confusing for me to think about as a kid), and if you ever do a deep dive into the expanded Indiana Jones lore (as I did a few years ago), you’d find that Indy has had encounters with plenty of other outlandish elements. These elements would probably also be deemed out of place if they were ever featured in a proper Indy film. These include Vampires, Atlantis, Sea Monsters, Greek Gods, the Chinese Netherworld, Zombies, Dinosaurs, and much more. Do aliens still seem far-fetched?

Now time to talk about the things that do not work.

Starting with Mutt Williams. Mutt is a 19-year-old kid, big into the greaser/rock and roll culture of the 1950s, who is later revealed to be Indiana Jones and Marion’s son. The basic idea of this character and his role in the story is not bad. It’s Indy bonding with his long-lost son. If anything, it’s kind of a clever reversal of his relationship with his father in “The Last Crusade.” Except, in that film, Indy and his Father were established to be rather similar from the get-go, as they’re both academics who are obsessed with finding lost artifacts at the cost of their own personal relationships, who are estranged from each other, and through the course of that film, bond over time and reconcile their differences. 

Here, Mutt at first seems to have almost nothing in common with Indy, as he looks like he came straight out of the set of a James Dean movie. However, as the film goes on, you do see similarities with Indy, and they bond over time. It’s not a bad idea, and it’s clever that now Indy is in the same position as his father was in the previous film.

The problem is that Mutt is played by Shia Labeouf. Shia does not work as this tough Marlon Brando type. He looks less like the leader of a 50s gang, and more like some prissy wimp who just did the look to look cool and impressive. And that wimpy voice doesn’t do much to help, either. In short, the character does not work fully because of the actor. I’m not sure who they should’ve gotten to play the character, but it really shouldn’t have been Even Stevens. Apparently, there was talk back then about doing a Mutt spin-off. Lucas soon lost interest, and once joked that if it were ever made, it’d be called “Mutt Williams and the Search for Elvis.”

In my opinion, however, there is one character that deserves more hate than Mutt, and that is Mac, played by Ray Winstone. I can’t understand why people focus solely on Mutt, and this guy receives a free pass. He’s not funny, not contributable in any way, and isn’t likable at all. The character is just along for the ride, and there is only one plot-relevant thing he does that just plain frustrates me. At the beginning of the film, he betrays Indy to the Soviets. He did this solely for money, and you’d think he’d cut and run after this whole incident, but for some reason, he still sticks around with the Soviets. Why? Aside from betraying Indy, he serves no other purpose in the story. 

The bad guys could’ve easily disposed of him early on in the film, similar to Wu Han in “Temple of Doom” (gone but not forgotten), but no, they figure keeping some traitorous guy around will help them out in the long run. But what makes his inclusion even more infuriating, is that he later reunites with Indy, and wins back his trust by claiming he was a double agent and was in with Uncle Sam the whole time, only to betray Indy again later on. Like seriously? First off, how stupid would you have to be to trust this guy again? Second, is that the only reason he’s in this film, because that’s just really tedious have him eventually be revealed that he was the bad guy…again.

Third, one could make an argument that “The Last Crusade” had a similar element to “Kingdom” in the form of the character Elsa Sciender, the love interest in that particular film. She works with Indy on the quest to find the grail, only to betray him, with the reveal being that she was with the Nazis the whole time. But, the big difference between her and Mac is that, unlike Mac, Elsa doesn’t betray Indy until halfway through the film. So, any audience member can get to know her more as a character, as does Indy, so that when the betrayal happens you feel just as shocked as Indy. 

And throughout the rest of the film, she goes through an arc where she clearly begins to slowly regret betraying him, and briefly joins his side again in the end, only to betray him again, but not out of allegiance to the Nazis (it’s implied that she never supported them in the first place), but out of a newly found greed for the grail. Mac, on the other hand, betrays Indy five minutes after he’s introduced, and they try to do something of an arc with him. But because he made a very poor first impression, you end up not caring for him. Overall, there’s nothing good about Mac.

Then there’s the film’s big action scenes. Way too many CGI effects. The big chase scene in this film set in the jungle looks cool but doesn’t feel real. You constantly think this was done on a set and rendered on a computer. Looking back at the chase scenes in the originals, they used real cars, actors, stuntmen, and practical effects. You get more invested in them because what you see in front of you is real. There actually is a good chase scene in the movie. It’s the college campus chase, where Indy and Mutt are on a motorcycle and are being pursued by Soviet spies. It’s a really well-done scene, and all done practically. It’s really something that a short chase scene is better than the much bigger chase scene that’s supposed to be more exciting. The villains’ deaths are also not as scary as the originals. When I was a kid, the originals used to have me close my eyes in fear whenever one of the villains met their fate, but here, it’s a lot more tame in comparison. It’s a bit of a letdown.

There’s also the infamous nuke scene. I’m not going to discuss it much here, because it’s been talked about to death, but you can’t talk about this movie without mentioning it. It’s dumb, but it does have a good setup. Indy’s trying to hide from the Russians, and stumbles across a town full of mannequins. It’s like something from “The Twilight Zone.” Of course, it’s a nuke test site and he hides in a fridge to shield himself from the bomb. Again dumb, but to be fair, in “Temple of Doom,” he survived jumping out of a plane on an inflatable boat. Sure, it’s not the same as surviving a nuke in a fridge, but even the originals had their unrealistic death-defying moments.

Finally, we’ll discuss the MacGuffin of the film, the Crystal Skull. If you don’t know what a MacGuffin is, it’s a person or object that drives a narrative forward. The past MacGuffins in the series were the Lost Ark of the Covenant, the Sankara Stones, and the Holy Grail. All three of these have their roots in religious mythology and history. The Crystal Skull, on the other hand, feels different from the other ones seen previously. First off, it has a science fiction origin. It’s the skull of an alien. That’s not my problem with it. As said earlier, Indy has encountered weirder things than aliens. My problem with the Crystal Skull comes from its real-world history. Unlike the other MacGuffins, which can be found in one form or another in ancient history from centuries ago, Crystal Skulls have a much more recent history. 

The first Crystal Skulls were first discovered in the early 1900s, and they were believed to be pre-Columbian artifacts. The most famous and well-known Crystal Skull was discovered by explorer F.A. Mitchell-Hedges, who claimed that he discovered it in 1924 at the Mayan city of Lubaantun (although a discovered letter written by him proves that he actually bought it at an auction in 1943). Later on, his daughter, Anna, claimed that she was actually the one who found the Skull back in 1924 and that it was magical in nature. She would talk about how it gave her visions of the 1963 Kennedy assassination and allowed her to psychically kill a man. 

Later forensic studies on the Skulls (including the Mitchell-Hedges Skull), proved that the Skulls were never pre-Columbian, and were most likely made in Germany during the late 19th century. All stories surrounding the Crystal Skulls and their being magical artifacts are all products of either the Mitchell-Hedges family or the various pulp writers of the 20th century who have written stories about them. As a result, it’s rather hard for me to take the Crystal Skull seriously, because its real-world history is muddled with controversy and lies. I can’t fault the filmmakers, as the true origins of the Skulls weren’t discovered until shortly after the movie was made, but it kind of taints the story in my eyes.

In conclusion, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is…not great. It has great stuff in it, but it’s impossible to ignore the bad stuff in it. The other Jones films are 10/10, but I’d give this film a 6/10; it belongs in a museum. 

With the release of “Dial of Destiny” coming up, I’m sure people will debate endlessly about which film is better. “Dial of Destiny” releases this weekend, but I will give it a fair shot. Regardless of how it turns out, no new film, remake, reboot, or whatever, will replace the original films. They stand the test of time, far more than any fake Crystal Skull can ever hope to.