Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - is it Really that Bad?

Indiana Jones is a film icon, and one of the best characters ever created. So when another movie was announced, many of us went nuts just with the thought of it. After nearly 20 years, could it really be? Another Indy film?

Well, Lucas and Spielberg did indeed give us another one. Almost as soon as it was announced, criticism surfaced. Now that it's on DVD, the criticisms have not let up. Why? Well, I think some of it is valid, but a lot of it forgets what the franchise is and what this movie really seeks to accomplish.

First, let's be honest. The Indiana Jones Trilogy is not ruined. The first three films are still the first three films. This new one isn't trying to be like the other ones. In fact, it is very much aware that it's removed from the rest. So let's stop whining about how it ruins the other three. It doesn't. Those of us who love the original three still love the original three. At the very least, we can forget the fourth even happened.

But another thing. This film isn't really a sequel. It's a follow-up. The difference is that a sequel will take place after the events of one film and either try to tie up loose plot threads left over from the first film, or focus more on the characters involved. A follow-up doesn't just take place after the first film; it follows after a considerable span of time. Many of the same characters will be there, but some will not make it. Take into consideration the film Anaconda. It spawned another film, the Curse of the Blood Orchid. But this film had little connection to the first. It was a follow-up featuring a similar concept. Maybe it's not the best model to work with, but the fact is it CAN work. In the case of Indy, it worked well.

What I mean by that is this. The film knows how much time has passed. It acknowledges it, and doesn't try to make up for lost time. We get some clues to what Indy and his colleagues have been doing in-between, but it carries little significance to the rest of the film. This is a new era, and an old hero.

Third, are we forgetting what the Indiana Jones franchise is? Lucas and Spielberg set up the series based on the adventure serials of the 1930's and 40's. In its purest form, Indiana Jones is just a glorified B-movie. To some extent, you can't take it very seriously. These claims that the fourth film "rapes" the franchise is more than ridiculous.

Some of the criticism does seem valid, though. There were some bad gags in the movie, like that bit with the snake as a rope, and the infamous "nuking the fridge" scene. But so what? It's not the most ridiculous the franchise has ever been. On the whole, Temple of Doom is far more goofy. That film has one gag after another in many scenes. I don't have enough space to list all of them.

Then there's the complaint that aliens don't belong in Indiana Jones. Hhmm. I confess this one had me for a while. But there is a lot of speculation that extra-terrestrials did visit Earth during the period of the great Ancient civilizations, like the Mayans, Incans, and even Egyptians. It's called the Ancient Astronaut Theory. I'm not defending or attacking the Theory itself. I'm just stating a fact. Several people believe this, and during the period of the adventure serials, several alien films debuted as well. Indy is an archaeologist who is well-read. Certainly, he's run across the Ancient Astronaut Theory before. Is it really that much of a stretch?

A lot of people are complaining about the CG used in the film. Come on, folks. Do you really expect a movie made by Spielberg and Lucas in 2008 NOT to include CGI? You're being incredibly optimistic. But this film doesn't have any more CGI than the average film out there. And when you think about it, it's understandable why a studio uses CGI. You know, I remember the days when CGI in film was praised just because it was there. Remember Terminator 2? What happened? Well, I think we've just seen it so often that we're spoiled by it and even tired of it. I confess I wish for real scenery and animals every now and then.

But consider this. If you really want to use elaborate sets and animals, these sets and animals have to be extensive. The animals need to know where to go and what to do - extensive training by certified trainers. The sets have to be complete - the lights and drawers have to be real, not just props. When you add all this up, it becomes very expensive after a while. And if you're using real stuntmen to do real stunts. . .you can forget about your budget. CGI gives the studio a way to keep all of those in a film, yet keep costs very low. Don't misunderstand. CGI is expensive, too. But it's not nearly AS expensive as doing the above. It's the difference between spending 20 million and 200 million. It only makes sense, and I promise you, if you were in their shoes, you'd do the same.

I do admit there are plot holes in the film. Specifically with the skulls themselves. If the skulls are all inhuman, alien artifacts, what is the Mitchell-Hedges skull? Is that just an extra one?

But on the whole, the film is charming. Okay, it's not the best in the franchise, but it doesn't have to be. It's not claiming to be. It's just fun to watch and reminisce. And it has some value to it, too. I can't begin to describe how happy I was to see Marion Ravenwood return to the franchise. It's about time. Out of all the "Indy girls" (I guess that's like Bond Girls) she was certainly the best. Willie from Temple of Doom was a spoiled, rich snot. That Nazi girl (I don't even care to remember her name) was a greedy traitor. But Marion, she was the girl next door, a bit fiery but a lot of heart. The twist of Indy and Marion having a child was admittedly a stretch, but it wasn't unreasonable.

So what's really the big deal with this movie? Why all the criticism? I think it's the nostalgia factor more than anything. Many of us like the old movies, and we don't want to imagine anything else. Is it really wise to live in the past? I think if we were all more open-minded, we'd learn a lot more. Sure I like the old Trilogy, even prefer it. But that doesn't mean everything else is bad. What do we criticise the Young Indiana Jones series and all the video games, too? I know some will, but I'm an easy-going guy myself. Live and let live. Don't worry about it.