1. George Lucas said the fanboys were pre-programmed to hate it. As it turns out, he was right. The question is: why, really?

1. On the one hand, it is hard to criticize the “Indiana Jones” pictures, because their main audience is 13-year olds, and how good does a movie with that target audience really have to be? On the other hand, ever since Spielberg took over the movie business, we’ve ALL become 13-year olds. And we will remain such, at the movies, til the day we die. It’s the true “hidden transformation” of this era. Whether we take our kids or we don’t, genre movies, SciFi movies, and comic book movies are now as acceptable an entertainment for 40-80 year olds as Westerns used to be for our grandpas, and for the same reasons. They're fun! See you at Spiderman 6 in 2015!

1. Sam Peckinpah, criticized for “going commercial” with the Steve McQueen/Ali MacGraw “blockbuster” of 1972, “The Getaway,” wrote to MacGraw, “anyway, its doing what its supposed to do, which is to make over $20 million.” That was a LOT of money in 1972, but the formula hasn’t ever really changed: “Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull” is doing what it was supposed to do: make over $400 million domestic.

1. The “Indiana Jones” sequels are supposed to avoid the usual knock on sequels in that they are meant to be “part of a series,” ala James Bond. But it turns out that the sequels couldn’t overcome cinematic destiny, after all: “Raiders of the Lost Ark” turns out to be a great breakthrough of a stand-alone pop adventure classic. The sequels simply aren’t up to snuff, despite such additives as va-va-voom ditz Kate Capshaw Spielberg, Sean Connery, Shia LaBoeuf, and Cate Blanchett. The sequels include a stupidly-written wrong turn away FROM “Raiders” (“Temple of Doom”) and two out-and-out rehashes OF “Raiders” (Nazis and a vehicle chase in “Last Crusade,” a vehicle chase and Indy-vs-brute fist-fight in “Crystal Skull”, just in reverse order back-to-back from "Raiders") in which everything feeds, parasite-like, off the characters and tropes of the once-original original. And however good it is to see them, Harrison Ford and Karen Allen 27 years later just aren’t the same (especially her.) No matter: all three sequels did what they were supposed to do.

1. Everybody lined up to see this as if ordered. I came out of my full-house megaplex showing to see people on line saying to me “Well, is it worth it?” The same Bataan Death March to the Hellplex 14 happened with last year’s “anti-entertainment,” “Pirates of the Carribbean 3,” but to its credit, the new Indiana Jones movie at least knows how to keep things moving, most of the time. I had a good time. At “Pirates 3,” I didn’t. Ever. Spielberg can still entertain even at half-speed.

1. Good things in “Crystal Skull”: The chase scenes are fun; Ford’s in fine shape and can still throw a punch and take a fall at 65; Cate Blanchett’s Russian villainess is all-purpose effective (sexy, sadistic, wry, skilled in all fighting arts, psychic, and as never-say-die in her quest for power as, say, a certain female Presidential candidate of 2008); Ray “Sexy Beast” Winstone’s a welcome presence (shoulda been used more though); and the move to 1957 makes for some nifty “newness,” principally the sight of Indiana Jones in full hat-and-jeans regalia in a 1957 tract house with nuclear family of dummies on the couch, Howdy Doody on the telly and an A-bomb outside the front door.

1. Bad things in “Crystal Skull”: I respectfully defer to the fanboys.

8. In ten more years, a Clint Eastwoodish 70-something Harrison Ford should be ready for one more go as Indy: “Indiana Jones and the Treasure of the Ho Che Minh Trail,” with Shia LaBoeuf, Jane Fonda, and Dennis Hopper as "the old man."

Seven "1"'s and an 8.

I have no freakin' idea how THAT happened.

I actually thought the first half of the film neared perfection; the last half . . . well, particularly the last third lost a lot of credibility for me. And (erm, SPOILER) Spielberg's overly long, hackneyed, "happy" denouement gave me a toothache. Whatever the flaws of the inferior Temple of Doom, the thing ended tightly. This one belabored the whole feel-good, family-value-ness of it all, and it just annoyed.

I enjoyed the period setting, and kind of wish they'd gone further with it. Seeing the aging boomer among gen-Y extras playing an aging WWII hero among vibrant socs and greasers was a real pleasure, and it might have been interesting to go further with the McCarthy-esque paranoia, maybe even throw some Beats and the like in to broaden the palette. But we can't have everything. It should be enough that they utilized Ford's (relatively few) physical limitations well, that they gave him an interesting (and, I agree, under-utilized) foil in Winstone, and that they played on the notion of Jones' becoming a relic without belaboring the issue.

The first major set piece felt refreshingly analogue; I wish the rest of the film had followed suit. Tthe chase in the jungle, with Shia LaBoeuf's CGI enhanced jeep straddle and swordfight was too much for me to take, and signaled a slow downward spiral (with a few notable upticks) for the film. LaBoeuf's Spiderman-like swing through the jungle was unforgivable. Suspension of disbelief and Rube-Goldbergian plausible impossibilities are one thing (possibly THE thing), but once it becomes a cartoon (rather than a comic book--important distinction), I lose interest. Not that I don't like cartoons, or even live-action cartoons (Sky Captain, Sin City, Kung-Fu Hustle), but that's not what I come to Indy for.

But as empty cinematic calories go, it could have been a lot worse. I was entertained.

Thanks.

I was entertained, too -- I wish there had been more "50's atmosphere, too", and Lucas edged into his "American Graffiti" era...

...and the world is a little bit better this year for having Indy in it than not.

Still, "you can't go home again," and somewhere around the time that Indy (during/after the major jungle vehicle chase that is the highlight of the film, despite the silliness with Shia) literally assumed the same tired fighting stance to fight a big Russian brute that he assumed to fight a big Nazi brute in "Raiders," I realized: nope. Exhilarating in 1981 is same-old, same-old in 2008.

--

One line I liked, very much, was Jim Broadbent's to Indy, as Indy reflected on photographs of two dead famous "Indiana Jones" characters (one actor being dead in real life):

"I'm afraid we are both reaching that point where instead of giving us things, life starts taking them away."

luca:

I haven't seen you in a while. I assume you are taking a long deserved rest from reviewing the movies. Hope you make it back.