Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Review

Posted by

Indiana Jones is back in an entertaining, but slightly dragging film that doesn’t quite live up to the hype of the original trilogy.  Don’t get me wrong, the story wasn’t bad, actually I liked it, but good’ol Indiana needs to hang up the bull whip and fedora, and retire to Florida or something.  Harrison Ford who plays Indiana Jones, is 67 years old, and although they acknowledge his age in the film, some of the things he does, just doesn’t fit what I imagine a 67 year old even in good shape can do.

Now Indiana does have plenty of fighting experience, but taking on 5 elite Soviet soldiers and wiping the floor with them? I don’t think so. All in all, I was thoroughly entertained by the Crystal Skull, everything was played out like a traditional Indiana Jones film from the great action sequences, comedy, and storyline, but some of the action scenes involving Indiana stretched the realm of believability that the creator of the franchise, George Lucas established.   Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a good nostalgia film that acknowledges the age of its main character and passes on the torch of Action Archeologist to his son, but it is time for this great franchise to sit back on it laurels and enjoy all that it was.

Grade: B

Roshawn: A, but not as good as Ironman

Kameron: A



  1. Ron,

    Because of the lackluster reviews for “Indiana”, my sister, her husband and I went to see “IronMan” yesterday. We did like it. I think the best part about “IronMan” was that the main characters (Downy and his secretary and the army friend) were older than me. When the main character realizes that his life is meaningless despite his money, materials and women, I was hooked. Sure this is a common premise in flicks, but typically it involves young teenagers without the proper life experiences to make revolutionary changes in their young lives. Robert Downey had lived a great deal of his life, so I found his revolutionary change of character to be more believable. I make the analogy with people who have lived affluent lives yet fail to have God in their hearts. They have no clue just how shallow their life experiences are until something earth shattering creates something spiritually building. Unfortunately, some of these people become extinguished distinguished and never get a second chance. Robert Downey gets his second chance and I loved it.

    Like all super hero flicks though, the first movie does have to spend time explaining how the main character transforms into his super ego. That is why I believe the sequel could be even better. However, the creation of the spectacular iron suit and the fitting of the armor to Downey’s body was really well done. I didn’t feel like I was watching CGI effects like I did in the hapless third installment of “Spider Man” either.

    Sorry I put my “IronMan” comments in your “Indiana” review. However, I thought it appropriate because it sounds like if people have to choose between the two flicks, there is only one clear winner!



  2. Okay, I finally saw “Indiana” and I can now add my comments. I think that you concentrated on Ford’s age when you should have been more concerned with the age of the writer and producer (George Lucas) and the age of the hapless director (Steven Spielberg). The story was so absurd and convoluted that I challenge anybody to explain the plot after having viewed the movie. I feel awful that this series had to end on such a sour note. Then again, I pray that the franchise has indeed ended (Ford did take his hat back from his son at the end Ron so I’m not so sure the son will keep the series going into the future). I could never sit through this pathetic excuse of a movie again. What were they thinking? Wasn’t there anybody around to say; “Uh, Oh, Duh, Steven and George; like dudes; this flick sucks!” ???

    My grade: D

    I didn’t give it a lower grade because I was almost able to stomach the chase scene through the Amazon forest. Almost!


  3. Come on Jay, the story is basically the same as all of the others. Search for a strange missing artificat that has mystical powers. The entire concept of the Indiana Jones movies are based on actual myths given substance inthe movies. The entire film series is absurd if you look at it that way. However, the films are themselves nostalgic reflections to the by gone days of serials where the hero was left dangling in danger until next week. Think of the old Flash Gordan, Buck Rogers or even Batman tv shows. Yes they were corny, but they were fun! Although the film doesn’t carry the same creative punch and adventure of the first, the dark tone of the second, or the enjoyable camraderie of the third, it does an adequate job of closing out the franchise, letting us see our hero ride succesfully into the sunset.
    HOw is the story in this film different from all the rest? He searches for a crystal skull, which they do exist (not alien shaped however), and the skulls have magical, or in this case alien powers. This is no different than the Ark in raiders or the other films. I could easily place this film in the universe of the X-Files, and it woudl work for me.
    Granted this is not the best film, nor would I have to see it again, but I don’t think it was a D.


  4. I’ve heard others say similar things about the story line of the older flicks but I totally disagree with you regarding the importance of plot. The story lines of the first three flowed and helped me to invest in the fun. Spoiler alert (that cracks me up because how can this ludicrous story be spoiled). Anyway, you eluded to it already. The story involved space men. What crap!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s