Cannes consensus: 'Indy' has lost a step

Here are excerpts from the mostly mixed reviews generated by “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” following its world premiere Sunday at the Cannes Film Festival:

Leah Rozen, People:
“ ‘Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,’ the fourth chapter in the saga of the whip-wielding archeologist-adventurer, is full of thrills, spills, chills and plenty of amusingly lame jokes. While the flick is easy to like, it never quite knocks you silly with delight the way 1981’s ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ did.”

David Gritten, the Telegraph:
“[T]he audience cheered it in advance, even breaking into a wordless singing of its theme tune. But they ended up laughing at moments that weren’t intentionally funny, and they seemed listless for long spells. Their response at the end was polite but muted.”

Richard Corliss, Time:
“[O]nce it gets going, 'Crystal Skull' delivers smart, robust, familiar entertainment. Ford looks just fine, his chest skin tanned to a rich Corinthian leather; he's still lithe on his feet and can deliver a wisecrack as sharp as a whipcrack.”

Mark Savage, BBC News:
“As ever, Spielberg brings both humour and visual flair to sequences where other films are happy to provide mere spectacle.”

Michael Phillips, the Chicago Tribune:
“The dialogue doesn't even try to make its story points with any flair. ‘Indiana Jones and the Temple of Exposition’ is more like it.”

Peter Bradshaw, the Guardian:
“There are some nice moments, and everything is good-natured enough. But this is a moment for Harrison Ford to hang up the hat.”

Todd McCarthy, Variety:
“[The film] begins with an actual big bang, then gradually slides toward a ho-hum midsection before literally taking off for an uplifting finish.”

Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly:
“ 'The Crystal Skull' threatens at times to crumble under the weight of all the impersonal zigging and zagging loaded on for the sake of special effects. The precious ancient cranium itself — where it came from, how to keep it out of the hands of the Russkies and get it to where it belongs — is of little interest, no matter how many waterfalls loom, monkeys swing, and locks unmesh.”

Read the Los Angeles Times review from Kenneth Turan.

--John Horn

Photo courtesy Getty Images

Comments

[Daniel Gray]

This movie was horrible! I don't even know where to start. George Lucas really called this one in .. For a paycheck.. This movie is a flop, not true to the Trilogy . There are so many parts of this movie that turned my stomach I cant even express the true disappointment I have for this film . I waited for this movie for so long and then to have scene after scene of ridiculous dialog, lame jokes and outlandish story line makes me want my money back. I am not sure where the "good" reviews are coming from . Did I see the same movie? Ugg. I wish they never made this movie and left the best for last " Last Crusade".

[Nep]

It had its moments of pitch and mirth. Indy was older, but hey, all things change. I found myself wishing it was darker and that we did not have to deal with so many characters, but at the same time realize this: it's a just a movie. Except, of course, for those skulls, which are 100% real (do your research, people).

Have a drink, enjoy the party, and don't sweat the small stuff.

Indiana Jones does not even read movie reviews, and I would love to see the naysayers when he cracks that whip though the air...

[Tim Nike]

I have been looking forward to this film for 19 years. After a lighthearted car race over the opening credits, the film begins fairly neutrally with the potential to be good. But as soon as Indy begins co-operating all to readily with a band of nasty (yet not very nasty) Russians, those high hopes began to descend. It's a bit too heartbreaking to go into specifics, but lets just say there was a lot of over-acting fuelld by a convoluted script and story line..not to mention the ridiculous over-use of computer generated effects which totally robbed this film of that wonderful and tangible tension of the previous three. I got the feeling that this film just had too many ingredients both behind the scenes and on the screen for them to come together in any kind of satisfying way. It was the same feeling of disappointment that follwed the release of Star Wars Episode One.. in which case, I suppose one can legitimately point an accusing finger at the hard-drive-hungry Lucas. Having loved and enjoyed all of Steven Spielberg's previous films, I can only imaging that he somehow lost creative control over this one. I honestly think it bears more resemblance to The Mummy Returns than anything else. Boo Hoo!!!

[M J B]

I have not seen it yet, but can't anyone come up with something new??? Why trilogies??? Why not something new, something thought provoking?

Spielberg and Lucus make too much money.

[tigerstripes]

Non-stop action. Not my idea of a good movie, but I understand that's the ideal these weird days. But I liked IJ and the CS. It's my second fave Indy film, right after Raiders, and it could play as a direct sequel. I do wish the filmmakers had given the plot a squidge more breathing room, with a slice more time for the characters to interact and bloom, but, still great. Thank gawdess they cast Karen Allen - none of the other women in the Indy canon ever held a candle to Marion, and it's due to Allen's credible, grounded performance.
And that Harrison Ford, shaggy and grey as he's become, watching his lopsided smile is like seeing the sun come up.
P.S. The LaBeef kid didn't ruin it. But jeez, I wish they'd gotten anybody but him...

[Dianna Gonzalez]

Shame on you! I hope you enjoy all the zillions you made at the box office. I personally would like my money back..that's the least you can do, you can afford it.