User Score
5.1 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 853 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

  1. DaveY
    May 21, 2008
    2
    Huh, what the hell just happened? Just back from the Midnight premiere. Indiana Jones meets Mars Attack. Not to mention killer ants, sword fighting, and Shia LeBeauf swinging on vines with a gang of monkeys. I am extremely baffled. I really am. Aliens...really? C'mon Spielberg, lets try to keep Indiana Jones and E.T. seperate films. And please god don't let Shia become the heir to the throne. End this series now, before you make it worse...again. Expand
    • 3 of 3 users said yes
  2. JaredK.
    Oct 25, 2008
    10
    This is an underated gem. I'm not surprised so many complain. Some won't give anything a chance. Still, it's great.
    • 3 of 4 users said yes
  3. Sep 24, 2011
    5
    "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is a decent movie to add into the Jones Franchise. The movie is way outdated with a 'old' performance by 'old' Harrison Ford. Looks like Spielberg & Lucas is getting older...
  4. Oct 4, 2011
    10
    The best of all the four films, interesting, impressive images and effects, funny, and entertaining, a good film after 19 years that we saw for the last time Indiana Jones, the new score is good, a good job made by Steven Spielberg.
  5. DaleS
    May 21, 2008
    3
    Just a terrible movie that bares little to no resemblance of the original trilogy. Harrison Ford has lost the character's charisma, and the story is just ridiculous and so "un-indiana jonesish" that you will possibly want to stop it before the credits role out of disgust at the blatant money grubbing ways of Lucas and Spielberg. They knew it was crap, but knew people would pay to see it. There is no way that movie materialized out of anything but a horrible plot outline, an even worse script, and a lackluster execution. Expand
    • 1 of 2 users said yes
  6. JohnV
    May 22, 2008
    0
    Infuriatingly awful. Obviously a movie hijacked by George Lukas. Worst of all, it started turning into Stargate.
    • 1 of 2 users said yes
  7. patrick
    May 22, 2008
    4
    Entertaining simply based on the implausibility of every plot twist (if you can call it a plot). I sat there thinking "this might be the dumbest movie I've ever seen" throughout the entire ordeal, but luckily I remembered that I saw a free screening of Van Wilder 2: Rise of Taj. Honestly, it seemed like it was just an homage to the originals with a trumped up cast (Blanchett was absolutely atrocious). Expand
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  8. OwenP.
    May 22, 2008
    1
    Hmmm, let me think for just a moment....why did they make this movie? Better yet, how did they allow this script to get in the hands of Spielberg. Suppose they said,"The hell with it." I thought Temple of Doom was the weaker of the series, but it's a masterpiece next to Crystal Skull. I wanted to like this movie, but the interest just gets tired as it progresses. Sorry to all fans, stick to the originals. Expand
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  9. BethD.
    May 22, 2008
    1
    Worst movie I have ever seen. I'm sorry I stayed up late to watch the premiere. Absolutely terrible.
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  10. JimboJ.
    Oct 17, 2008
    9
    Fantastic Indy movie. It might not be the best in the series - it may even be the worst - but all the same, it's a damn fun movie to watch and make no mistake, this is an Indiana Jones movie. So I say drop the expectations, let go of the comparisons, and just sit back and enjoy the ride.
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  11. ChristopherJ.
    Nov 22, 2008
    8
    After reading the reviews here I decided I should put my 2 cents in. If you didn't like it that's fine, but to blame it on the effects...is sort of ridiculous. The originals are known for amazing effects, why wouldn't they do the same here. I felt the plot and script were good. The story was great. The idea was fun and interesting. I felt it was a fine piece of cinema.
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  12. KieranS
    Feb 26, 2009
    10
    As another user has said, Indiana Jones hasn't always been realistic, nor does it have to be. Maybe it has some scenes where any ordinary human would die, but he is Indiana Jones after all! Just like James Bond, he cannot be killed. You may say "This movie is terrible because it has CGI in it" well: A) So does every-other movie today B) When Raiders, Temple and Crusade were released back in the 80s, they used Matte-Paints, CGI is the "Matte-Paints" of today. If you say it has terrible CGI, well, I would like to see YOU try and do CGI, CGI is if not, one of the hardest parts in movie as it is extremely complex to achieve something that is realistic, Indy IV DID achieve that. You could go "Why did Mutt swing on the vines with those monkeys??!? That was totally stupid and unrealistic" Well, how else would he have reached the vehicle in time? Well? Exactly. There was no other way (except for Running, even then would he encounter animals and not be able to reach it in time) Well, it does make perfect sense. In the 50s Aliens were a popular topic, the government were apparently hiding Aliens from the public, all the UFO "Sightings", not to mention the Roswell incident. It was the perfect topic because Aliens were associated heavily with the 1950s. Of Course the ending would be Alien because what creature has a skull like that? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is probably one of the best movies I've seen in a long time, and nothing is better seeing a classic hero come back after 19 years and kick ass! Expand
    • 1 of 3 users said yes
  13. KM
    Mar 23, 2009
    7
    It's a decent enough sequel in the series, I don't think it deserves the harsh criticism the users are giving it, maybe it's just out-dated.
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  14. Aug 27, 2010
    5
    If there is one thing this movie succeeds at it is entertainment, even if only in the campiest sense of the word. Unfortunately, in this case fans were hoping for so much more.
  15. DavidJ
    May 15, 2008
    10
    The most amazing movie of the year so far, IJ:atKotCS is a masterpiece. Fantastic story, special effects, writing, and acting combine fruitfully to entertain anyone who lays eyes on it.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  16. MichaelT.
    May 18, 2008
    4
    Everything else is a retread from the VHS age. There are some nice moments, and everything is good-natured enough. But this is a moment for Harrison Ford to hang up the hat.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  17. AllenT.
    May 18, 2008
    5
    occasionally Indy IV genuinely entertains and gives you the warm, fuzzy feeling that you get when one is the company of a character you love. However, far too many moments fail to make an impact, too many ideas so disappointingly half-baked. The fatal flaw though is the film's utter lack of dramatic tension, and an absence of the sense of danger and adventure so vital to the success of the previous instalments. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  18. JamesC.
    May 18, 2008
    1
    He doesn't wear the fedora with quite the same jaunty angle, his bullwhip doesn't crack as smartly - and Harrison Ford looks all of his 65 years.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  19. PistolP.
    May 18, 2008
    10
    Best adventure film ever since Lastu Crusade
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  20. JohnC.
    May 18, 2008
    10
    Indiana Jones 4 has been a 15 year wait. and its worth it.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  21. ErinL.
    May 18, 2008
    10
    This is classic Indiana Jones! It's superb in every way, from the storyline and action sequences to the characters and humor. Kudos to all involved!
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  22. BillS.
    May 19, 2008
    10
    True to tradition. Just have expectation of CGI like in previews, and you will enjoy it more.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  23. peterr
    May 19, 2008
    5
    I was very disappointed. And I had low expectations too. I think the reviews, overall, have been being very 'kind' I wanted to love this film but Lucas' continued emphasis on technology and production advances with computer generated sets really bogs down everything organic, playful and ultimately everything that was so cool about all the Indy films. I heard that Spielberg wanted to make a 'non-cgi film' but he did not get his way. Look for the cute digital prairie dogs at the opening of the movie. Your enjoyment of the picture will probably be determined by how much you like or dislike them. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  24. ChrisT.
    May 19, 2008
    9
    Excellent film that manages to capture the spirit of the franchise while providing an era-appropriate context.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  25. TysonF.
    May 21, 2008
    10
    One of the best movie's ive seen in years!!!!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  26. SamF.
    May 21, 2008
    6
    Someone needs to confiscate George Lucas' computer sometimes. He just kills it with green screen.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  27. JustinG.
    May 21, 2008
    0
    Horrible lines horrible plot with the stupid alien head in the aztec temple everything was bad.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  28. SebastienP.
    May 21, 2008
    8
    Brought me back to my teens, it was great to see Indy back on the big screen, realy enjoyed from start to finish. This movie is just plain entertainment and was'nt ment to be taken seriously, 140min of total scapism ,we asked for it and Steven and George delivered...thanks Bring on number 5!!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  29. WaltG
    May 22, 2008
    7
    Clearly the 4th best in the series, but in such a wonderful series that's not a bad thing. It's a whole lot of fun and that's all it needed to be.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  30. GeorgeJ
    May 22, 2008
    2
    Beware! This movie is to the Indiana Jones series as the prequels were to Star Wars, as Generations was to Star Trek: a horribly-bungled attempt to milk a cash cow one time too many. Nothing in the entire movie was handled with even an ounce of finesse; it was just a series of one cliche after another. If you have good memories of the Indiana Jones series, this movie will do nothing but tarnish them; you will be a much happier person if you just skip it completely. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  31. AndrewD
    May 22, 2008
    8
    This movie I think brought Indiana Jones to the new era, keeping all of its core elements and modernising them. The humour was fantastic but I thinnk there wasn't enough of it. The aamount of action was brilliant despite being a little over the top at times, I wonder if this old Indie can actually do some of the things in this movie, and walk away. The plot is a little farfetched but compelling, and fast moving. It was a little shallow but entertaining throughout. Great choice of actors too. I would like to have given it 8.5 not just 8. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  32. NickD
    May 22, 2008
    10
    It's An Indy Film! But how does it stack up against the classics? Crystal Skull is most definitely a true blue Indiana Jones film. That being said, it is the worst of the Indiana Jones films. Not that that is all bad. I'd still take Crystal Skull over any modern action film (Spider-Man, Pirates, Casino Royale, and Iron Man included) hence the perfect score. Anyone and everyone should see Crystal Skull, Indy fan or not, as it is the best movie is a long, long time. Still, when stacked up against the classics, it does fall short (just barely). From here on out, expect many SPOILERS: First off, Harrison Ford is NOT too old. I never once thought, "gee, he's sixty-five." And the movie is very tasteful at making fun of his age where appropriate, but not overdoing it. From the minute it starts, Skull will blow you away with how it looks. It is shot like an old Indy film. I thought I was in a theater in the 80s (which is impressive, cause I would have have to have been an infant to pull off such a feat). The opening at Area 51 is great! Jones at its best. I'd stack up the opening action sequences with all my favorites from the classic films. We see Indy fight in the warehouse, we get a glimpse of the Ark, and we see our hero survive a nuclear bomb. I'll admit, I was worried about the bomb part, having heard about it going in, but it was executed brilliantly, and fit in well with classic Jones. The 50s vibe of the film is great. It really takes advantage of the Red Scare, and Greasers, and aliens, really everything that makes the 50s the 50s. We see Jones deal with CIA and FBI and KGB in a way that would make Bond jealous. There is a great bit with Greasers and a 50s style brawl in a 50s diner which Mutt fits into perfectly. Really, the first half of the film is top notch. Almost classic Indiana Jones. The second half is not quite as good. A lot of clue following broken up by some respectable action scenes, but nothing that comes close to Raiders, Doom, or Crusade. The dialogue is always so on the nose! Even when the audience has already figured something out, Mutt or Indiana will repeat an earlier clue and then tell them again what it means. The River Boat action scene was not as good as I had heard. I actually like the opening one at Area 51 better. It really seemed that Mutt was doing much more action than Indy, which bothered me a bit. Also, The only part of the movie I truly hated came in this action scene. Mutt is taught to swing by Monkeys? Come on. Lame! Plus, this is the most CGIy part of the film. Everywhere else is seems tasteful and unnecessary, here it is a little over done. Ah, Mutt (Shia's character). What can I say about Mutt? He starts off fine. His greaser character aspects work surprisingly well and he is a fine character. But, as the film gets into its weaker half, he begins to pick up more and more of Indiana's slack until he's doing more in the River Boat chase than Indiana is! Is Mutt destined to replace Jones? (God, when he almost put on the hat at the end I was about to leave the theater. Thank you, Spielberg, for having Indy take what was rightfully his). let's hope not. I was open to the idea going in, and he was an alright character, but he is NO Indiana Jones and after seeing the film, a Mutt spin off is a horrible idea! Lots of other good secondary character here that fit the Jones films. Mac is great, Irina Spalko is a fine baddie (though she pales in comparison to Donavin or Belloq), and Marion is a welcome return to the series. The Macguffin is fine with me too. I have seen the power of God before, and now I have no problems with aliens and psychics. Some Jones fans may be turned off by aliens, but are they any more ridiculous than the power of God melting people's faces? To Sum It All Up: Good action, looks and feels like the classics (90% of the time), good wit, and lots of Indiana Jones! The best action film you can get in this millennium. Still, Mutt and Monkeys, a wee bit too much CGI in the River Boat scenes, some weak dialoge, the kinda lame wedding ending, and the fact this film was made 20 years after the others keeps it from beings as good as Raiders, Doom, or Crusade. So go see it for God's sake. And Lucas, if you are listening, I'd be fine with a 5th true Indy film, but NO MUTT MOVIE! Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  33. PriyanthT
    May 22, 2008
    8
    Its full of adventure and Harrison Ford has done the impossible stunt for his age. And Steven Spielberg has been very inventive and didn't let the hope down of the fans and he has made the audience to enjoy it. Some scenes are really funny and this has raised the name again.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  34. BenR
    May 22, 2008
    6
    Not the best of the series, but not the worst. Full of action and all the expected Indy humour. More like a Lucas film then a Spielberg film, recycled John William's score, but all around a good film.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  35. sorenu.
    May 22, 2008
    9
    I was expecting a mediocore action flick but man this movie blew me away! I was on the edge of my seat for the entire time. It was non-stop with some great allusions to the old films and its back with one line zingers. Sure its not as funny as the originals but do not let this deter you from an amazing movie going experience
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  36. MatthewW.
    May 22, 2008
    3
    I am never this critical but i was very dissapointed. With some very simple changes it could have been much much better! e.g. story at end went a bit nuts, plus indy's son swinging through the jungle like tarzan, sorry unforgivable.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  37. MattA
    May 22, 2008
    7
    Indiana Jones proves that Harrison Ford can still portray a believeable action Hero, 19 years later in his life. The art direction and cinematography was pretty, as well as the special effects. However, the movie is plagued by campy plot twists and some cheesy action sequences that almost feel like George Lucas said, "I want to play too." It's hard for me to hate an Indiana Jones movie, and i can't possibly say that i didn't find it at least entertaining to see one of my favorite characters back on screen. If it wasn't Indiana Jones, it'd probably be a 5 or 6, but Indy gives it that extra bump. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  38. RockyS
    May 22, 2008
    4
    First off, thank you George Lucas and Steven Spielberg for trying. It was a noble effort. But the fact is, on the Indiana Jones scale, this movie is nothing. I liked the 1930s serial Jones, not the 1950s B-Movie Indy. This new installment replaces the "just beyond plausible" escapist magic of its predecessors with a total computer-generated abandonment of any notion of reality. In a traditional Indiana Jones movie, he might go off one giant water fall and miraculously survive. Not in this one. In this movie he survives three, in a row, with his whole family, a mentally disabled guy, and his fat friend. And the Disney "family entertainment" vibe made me what to throw-up. The monkeys randomly attacking the Soviets, are you kidding me? And as for Roger Ebert liking it, go screw yourself, you fat elitist nerd. Don’t try to evaluate action-adventure escapism when you liked Speed 2 but not Dirty Harry or Die Hard. Dumb-ass. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  39. Guerrer
    May 22, 2008
    10
    It's extremely better than "Temple of Doom" and as spectacular as the other two. It has the truth Indiana Jones essence, combined well with the unknown powers of old myths and legends. ( ET ) I can not wait for the next film! Fate of Atlantis perhaps?
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  40. Bob
    May 22, 2008
    10
    Excellent fun. If you rate it as a film in itself and not against 20+ years of familiarity and dribbling expectation you've got to love it. If you don't leave the theatre wanting to run and jump around on things like Indy then your inner 10 year old has gone AWOL.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  41. [Anonymous]
    May 22, 2008
    8
    The only reason people aren't scoring this higher is because they are comparing it to raiders, and crudsade. Which is hardly fair. I don't think anyone thought this would be the best of the series, and its not. But it is definitely a worthy and welcomed addition. This is a solid sequel and a hell of a lot of fun. If you liked the first three then you'll like this.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  42. JoshB
    May 22, 2008
    6
    Keep your expectations very low, or you risk serious disappointment.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  43. PaulK.
    May 22, 2008
    6
    I never got into the Indy films as a kid, although I did see parts here and there on cable in the 80's. So while not an ardent fan, I still have to say that this was good, not great. The story was ok, nothing exceptional. At times hokey and completely silly (the monkeys for instance), I found myself half laughing at the film and half with it. I have a feeling die hard fans might not like this too much. Everyone else will enjoy the ride for what it is, but few will walk out craving another sequel starring Shia LaBeouf as the next Indy. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  44. LuE.
    May 22, 2008
    4
    For the first 45 mins this was a Indiana Jones movie. Okay, we expected that most of the main action sequences would be heavy CGI after all I'm sure Harrison's insurance company love 'live action' for the over 60s. All the characters played their respective roles convincingly, and with enough nods to the fans. Young Indy, Mud, was a great casting. Now to the flaming. Once the plot started to get going it became clear that the George and Steven had been sat at home watching old Stargate re-runs and playing Halo (end sequence) when writing the script. Since when have aliens EVER even been hinted at in a indiana jones movie. What I think we were all hoping for was a bit of fighting, some memories from the old films, and a bit of magic and mystery thrown in at the end. We would have been happy with that. Instead we were given STOLEN plots (see stargate), STOLEN shots and a truely horrendous ending with a space ship that Halo did first. I think that in an effort to make a cheap buck the two biggest geniuses in movies made a cheap movie. The cast saved the movie. Without them George and Steven would have been in serious trouble. Ladies and gentlemen I give you Indiana Jones the Quantum of Solace. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  45. JeffW.
    May 22, 2008
    3
    Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a scrambled mess of a movie with no central point and no real sense of adventure. I never thought I'd see the day when I liked The Mummy and The Mummy Returns better than a Jones film. The movies that ripped off the 3 EXCELLENT Indy movies from the 80s are now better than the 4th Indy film? Maybe the wrong Steven directed this one. Should have gotten Sommers. Spielberg once said that as director he deserves the praise OR the blame regarding a film with his name attached. It was up to him to find the right script and the right balance of FX, action scenes and dramatic character moments and ... to quote the last good Indiana Jones movie he helmed -- Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade -- he chose poorly. Lucas must have just been in it for the cash and Ford to revive a dying career. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  46. CoreyC.
    May 22, 2008
    3
    Hugely disappointing, what a waste. Lucas has nothing left to offer cinema. A joke.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  47. Albert
    May 22, 2008
    8
    For God's sake! Did the Village Voice guy even watched to movie at all? I feared what could happen with one of my favorite movie characters but Indy is back in full form here! Forget what critics might say. Just enjoy!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  48. JaimieR
    May 22, 2008
    3
    Sorry Indy fans...I was anticipating another exciting adventure with Dr. Jones & the gang. And it just didn't deliver. Credibility went out the window, as I found myself saying "Oh, come on..." with almost every action scene in the movie. Sure, it's a fantasy/adventure, but when characters decide to drive off a cliff without consequence or conduct a swordfight in separate vehicles amidst a seemingly obstacle-free jungle road, then the filmmakers just don't respect their audience. Plus, alien intelligence and cold war-era Russians provide little tension and evil for our protagonists. A true disappointment on many fronts. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  49. crystaldull
    May 22, 2008
    2
    George Lucas needs to be stopped. I could have come up with a better plot in about nineteen minutes, he had nineteen years... The film degenerates into a bunch of CGI nonsense - I mean, for god's sake George and Steven, we've all seen this sub-Playstation stuff before. Close encounters of the third-rate. While Spielberg should be castigated for what amounts to a vanity project, the real failing of the film is the utterly nonsensical story (thanks, GL); this is quite an achievement given that the first films involved the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail and Sankara stones, which let's face it looked like glow-in-the-dark potatoes. If the film had any saving grace, it was that Jar Jar Binks didn't feature; if he had, I wouldn't have been at all surprised. Yet another Darth Vader/Frankenstein 'Noooooooo' moment, which amounted to a ruination of fond childhood memories. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  50. IndyFan
    May 22, 2008
    10
    Not perfect, but a great ride!!! Well worth the visit to the theater, and I will see it again and again. Skull needed to look a little more like crystal, and a little less like a halloween trinket. Beyond that, awesome movie!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  51. JoeR
    May 22, 2008
    8
    Good enough.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  52. AaronB
    May 22, 2008
    8
    Apart from the action scenes in the jungle which are way way way too over the top (Lucas have you not learned!) I really enjoyed most of the movie. There are some new classic lines in there, and is a fitting tribute to Tin Tins 'Flight 714' adventure. Gotta suspend your disbelief on this one.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  53. JamesS
    May 22, 2008
    8
    Sometimes the CGI and the plot get a bit cringeworthy, but the cast and non-stop action more than hold it together and it's quite frankly excellent. Proper Indiana Jones.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  54. Enrique
    May 22, 2008
    2
    R.I.P.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  55. AdamM.
    May 22, 2008
    4
    Doesn't live up to the other Indiana Jones movies.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  56. JoshN
    May 22, 2008
    10
    This movie is classic. hahaha, I loved how cheesy it was, yet still very intelligent
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  57. ShellieKelly
    May 22, 2008
    6
    Too unbelievable... Shia did a good job as did Harrison.. but the storyline was contrived and too far fetched.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  58. GwenA.
    May 22, 2008
    1
    This is possibly the worst movie ever made. It only gets a 1 because it is entertaining in the sheer horrendousness of every aspect of this movie. If you like Indiana Jones, don't see this.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  59. PaulC
    May 22, 2008
    5
    I was very, very disappointed. A spaceship should never be in an Indiana Jones movie...guess what???
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  60. MattB
    May 22, 2008
    2
    I want my $10 back. This movie was horrid! On par with Crash Landing and Gigli.... it was a freaking joke from beginning to end. Horrible, horrible, horrible. Do not see this movie!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  61. RichardS.
    May 22, 2008
    0
    A cheesy addition to the Indiana Jones trilogy. Two hours of constant location changes, character introductions, and plot movements without much explanation at all. Spoilers: Being a fan of the original Indiana Jones movies I was really disappointed when the movie's main villain walked into view and we are greeted with a psychopathic feminist wielding a rapier. Furthermore, this movie takes a huge detour from the feel of the originals and explores a quazi-1950's the Fonz kind of feel, and then goes on a strange science-fiction plot track involving flying-saucers, aliens, and the Mayan race. This movie could have done with a lot more explanation and transitional periods because it barreled along as a rapid pace and while it did the plot holes began to mount up. Near the end you are left with little clue as to what they're exactly doing or why and a distinct lack of purpose behind the characters. For the characters you have Shia LaBeouf playing a young punk who acts almost exactly like the Fonz, Karen Allen whose role in the movie does more to tear down Indiana Jone's reputation than to augment him, and a very odd character played by Ray Winstone, who initially double-crosses Indiana, and then is welcomed by the Indiana family while they're running away from the Russians for no reason and without any sort of redemption. Indiana family? Yes. Mimicking the feel of a soap opera, the young punk who had been tagging along with Indiana is revealed to be Marion's son; but what's this?! He's Indiana's son also?! Out of wedlock? It's ridiculous and totally unneeded. Indiana's lack of utter compassion for the child makes it obvious that the actors didn't buy it either. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  62. JoshS.
    May 22, 2008
    8
    Good, campy, dumb fun. I had a great time. It's probably as good or slightly better than Temple of Doom. I could have done without some of the CGI. The CGI animals, CGI refrigerator bouncing wildly and cartoonishly around the desert, some of the CGI backgrounds, etc. just do not sit well with me. That being said, there were some great one-liners, lots of over-the-top chase scenes, fun stunts, and the characteristic goofiness that we've all come to love. I can't wait to see it, and the rest of the series, again. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  63. BrittD.
    May 22, 2008
    2
    This movie was the biggest disappointment of all time. Absolutely terrible.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  64. MackM.
    May 22, 2008
    9
    I don't know why everyone is voting this one down for. It's still the same Indy we know and love and although there are supernatural elements in the movie, that in no way ruins the movie. It's very good.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  65. RobertB.
    May 22, 2008
    6
    The movie is fun, yes, and watchable but... and its a big one, there will be a point when they find and discuss the Crystal Skull where you will become suspicious of where the movie is going. Fortunately we go straight back to the fun until the very end when George Lucas promptly kicks you in the shins and runs away to hide in his big piles of money. It is a deeply unsatisfying ending to the plot, stolen from a presumptive National Treasure 3, though it doesn't make me regret watching and enjoying the film - it just made me feel a little dirty for doing so. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  66. SimonC.
    May 22, 2008
    10
    If you liked the others you'll like this one. Even Shia Labouf (or whatever) did a surprisingly good job. My only gripe (if I must have one) is that try though they did it still looked like a current style movie with CG and what not, but hey, no big deal. I hope they do another!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  67. Tylerw.
    May 22, 2008
    0
    A complete piece of trash. we left after an hour. a pathetic self mockery that only exposed the old age of the lead and the lack of imagination of the crew responsible. george lucas makes a good first movie, and then spends the next four destroying the dignity of the first. they will certainly make money on it. the toys are already in the store.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  68. ScottE.
    May 22, 2008
    3
    Being a big fan of the series this movie actually had me angry. Right from the opening dialogue it seems harrison is phoning this one in. I don't blame him though, not much else you can do with what he's been given. I almost walked out at the "Tarzan" scene.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  69. ChadS.
    May 22, 2008
    5
    A slow start, a crushing bore of a start, really, kills your nostalgia, right off the bat, because the film regards its own mythology a bit too pompously. We know where the lost ark is being stored. We don't need a reminder. As for Indiana Jones himself, Harrison Ford may look great for his age, but he sounds disinterested. Grumpy. This fourth installment of "Raiders..." needs a comedy transfusion; a young female sidekick who constantly reminds the aging archeologist how he's becoming the very thing he studies and collects, a relic. Shia LeBeouf is a good actor. But he's totally lost, here. Talking about comedy transfusions, at the very least, "...Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" needs a shot of Short Round, stat! In the wake of all those "Star Wars"-wanna bes that followed the mother-of-all-blockbusters(which killed off the personal filmmaking trend of American directors during the early-to-mid seventies) in '77, George Lucas actually got around to sueing two of these space opera "homages": the ABC series "Battlestar Galactica", and "Battle Beyond the Stars", starring one of "The Waltons", for story infringement. Twenty-five-plus years later, now the shoe is on the other foot, since writer/producer Chris Carter might have a little something to say about Lucas' so-called original story. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  70. EricD.
    May 22, 2008
    7
    The ending with Shia holding the fedora made me sick to my stomach. God forbid he ever takes over the franchise.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  71. Steve
    May 22, 2008
    5
    Really?! This is the best they could do?! 20 years mulling over a script and this is the result?! Yeah, it had the skeleton of an Indy movie, but you've actually seen very single aspect of the plot/story/dialogue before...somewhere in the first 3. So...it's boring. To boot, not even John Williams came up with something unique...they just recycled the same themes from the other movies. Lame. Let's see, what else sucked? Oh, the gags. Every moment in the movie is a gag, whether that be the "punch," (of which there were too many), the bullets that miss (again, too many), the car chases, everything Indy says now is a one-liner, and the inexplicable less-than-realistic action sequences are more comical than they are thrilling, the monkees, another Tarzan reference (like they did with Chewbacca in Star Wars 3/6), ripping pants...the list is endless really. At least Indy got shot in the 1st one, and we thought he fell off that cliff in the 3rd one. It would take Kryptonite to destroy him in Crystal Skull. Speaking of Kryptonite: There are aliens, just like in "Signs." And an atomic bomb. And Russians. And Indiana Jones was a secret agend during WW2. Don't waste your $10. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  72. MatthewA.
    May 22, 2008
    8
    The movie is a welcome addition to the existing trilogy, and although it does not break much new ground in the style and telling of the adventures of Dr. Jones, it has changed considerably with the introduction of what may be an otherworldly McGuffin. If you can buy Indy Jones hopping from the action serials of the 30's into something resembling a 50's sci-fi B-movie, then you'll do just fine with this movie. There is plenty of Spielberg magic here, and although the film is not without its detractions, the same can be said for the other Indy movies, Raiders notwithstanding. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  73. FredG.
    May 23, 2008
    7
    I was expecting more. It was fun and went by quickly, but contained no new material. Thought the crystal skull looked like it was made of plastic and tin foil.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  74. BenP.
    May 23, 2008
    2
    This was the movie I had hoped I wouldn't see. How could the critics have liked this? I want to know. What about this was good film-making? The dialoge was tedious, the script was terrible, and the editing and cinematography was flat-out laughable. Everybody who made this should be ashamed. I would have been pleased with a movie half as good as Temple of Doom, but wasn't even given that. Spielberg, Lucas, AND Ford, how dare you? Critics, please watch this film again, it is not a good film by any means. It is closer to being horrible than good. I'm hurt that this movie was made. I grew up on Indiana Jones and this is the thanks I get? Again...how dare you? Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  75. PaulM.
    May 23, 2008
    7
    I have to say this movie doesn't disappoint, however it doesn't really impress either. With better than just average performances from Kidder, Ford and LaBeouf, I was surprised to discover the terrible "russian" accent delivered was by none other than Cate Blanchett. Terribly cheesy. Like Gorgonzola. The special effects are, as expected from George, fairly spectacular. Sadly the scenes of showing me a ground hog's reaction to a nuclear explosion are reminiscent of Jar Jar Binks. The cinematography, editing and stunts are all fine, but to wrap it all up, the story is far too thin to let you walk away saying "Wow I wish it was longer". It's more like " Wow I wish I had waited to rent this." Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  76. kend.
    May 23, 2008
    1
    I have been a dedicated Indy fan for many years, and when you consider ticket prices these days, I think all Indy fans should have received a better plot for thier buck. The acting was great and it was nice to see an old friend.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  77. AustinB.
    May 23, 2008
    9
    Not as good as the old ones, but a helluva lot better than the star wars prequels. Besides, after seeing Iron Man, every movie from now on is superfluous.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  78. GaryB.
    May 23, 2008
    7
    This should be spoiler free, so here goes: The good bits are really, really good – like Raiders good. The bad bits are – a bit rubbish. First two thirds of the film were pretty damn good, final third not so much. The plot wasn’t great, the macguffin didn’t have the same resonance as the Ark or Grail, and felt weaker then the Shankara stones from Temple of Doom. Ford looks his age, but when dressed in his Indy costume he really pulls it off still. Even the kid works, apart from the second half where he gets a bit annoying, encroaching on turf he should leave to others (you’ll know what I mean when you see it). I believe everything I disliked about the film came from Lucas – it reeks of him, he should not be allowed to have creative input into films any more. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  79. SteveW.
    May 23, 2008
    0
    Horrible in all ways! Terrible acting, ugly visual effects, substandard direction, and worst of all, horrendous screen-writing. May rank as my most hated film of all time! Don't waste your money on seeing this trash.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  80. Wargamer
    May 23, 2008
    10
    This film was everything I hoped it would be. It felt every bit as thrilling as the old trilogy, and it is going to take some beating. Indy 4 is lining up to be my Film of The Year!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  81. FrancescoC.
    May 23, 2008
    1
    Very bad. There aren't a story and the characters are awful.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  82. PurgueF.
    May 23, 2008
    2
    I've given the movie 2/10. Watching this movie I felt very disconnected due mostly to the bad acting, the plot holes, and inconceivable physics (Lucas made Gold magnetic). We all loved the originals but if you are on the fence about seeing this movie just think Star Wars Episode I. With worse acting.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  83. WillC.
    May 23, 2008
    8
    Not a Masterwork, but good clean Indie fun the way you remembered it. A tad too much popcorn for the kids, but plenty of adult level plotting to keep you engaged during the entire "ride".
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  84. NateH
    May 23, 2008
    9
    I thought this movie was very good. The action is great, the story is well thought out and really cool, and there are a lot of hidden easter eggs for indy fans. My only complaint is that this should have been done sooner.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  85. DanR.
    May 23, 2008
    9
    This is classic Indiana Jones. The formula has not been modernized to appeal to the more jaded theater audience of today. Those unaccustomed to watching fun, adult-oriented action movies may not get it. For those of us that remember and loved them, however, it is an absolute blast. They don't make them like this anymore, and that's a shame.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  86. DamienD.
    May 23, 2008
    6
    Indy is back, but he kinda shoulda stayed where he was. This sequel is way too self aware with nostalgic references to the previous series and doesn't really find it's own steam. First half works pretty good with some decent action sets on a nuclear test site and a chase sequence through Indy's campus. The second half, once the plot really gets revealed is really incosistent and very slow paced at times, with a couple of thrilling action pieces, the waterfall dives are just too ridiculous. The climax was just too lame. The movie relies too heavily on CGI which detracts from the charm of the overall series where practical effects dominated. Harrison Ford is still Indy and the end really just further confirms this. Shia LeBouef and Karen Allen hold their ground but Cate Blanchett's villiain is weak and John Hurt and Ray Winstone are too underused. It took almost 20 years to come out with another Indy Adventure but personally I think it was summed up best in 'Crusade" Indy "That belongs in a museum" Villain: "So do you!" He was right! Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  87. MI
    May 23, 2008
    9
    HE"S BACK!!!! Indy is still great. This is a movie to just enjoy and not to take serious. Don't analyze it, just have fun with it.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  88. TMo
    May 23, 2008
    8
    This movie rocks. Ya'll are haters... what'd you expect, 2001: A Space Odyssey? C'mon, cut 'em some slack.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  89. AndrewG.
    May 23, 2008
    10
    Good clean fun, never dull, and good to see him back. The story is a bit bizarre, Blanchette could have been a little more sympathetic - but it's simple to follow. Better than Temple of Doom, which at least serves to elevate this new offering. Rated 10 to increase the average to what this film deserves! (about 7-8).
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  90. Robyn
    May 23, 2008
    3
    This movie was completely rediculous. The story line was boring and I was falling asleep in the theater, literaly. I dozed off and woke up to see Shia Lebuf winging with monkeys through a forest to get back to the jeep. Then an X-Files moment accured and that is when I really wanted my money back. Do not see this movie in the theaters, wait until the dvd comes out, if you still have a desire to see this awful movie. I've seen the others, and this one was just terrible. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  91. MikeR.
    May 23, 2008
    0
    That was the last movie I ever see that has any involvement of George Lucas. You sir ought to be ashamed of yourself. 20 years to get this movie right and this is the schlock you put out. I expect this kind of garbage from Michael Bay and Brendan Fraser - but come on....utterly disasterous.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  92. CN
    May 23, 2008
    2
    If you expect a quality picture and an amazing gripping story like in the first three, you will definitely not find it in number 4. You would think great film giants such as George Lucas and Steven Spielberg would consider ending their career on a high note; unfortunately, this movie was very disappointing borderline awful.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  93. MikeC
    May 23, 2008
    5
    Deeeeeeeply disappointed. It was the same disappointment that you got when you saw the Phantom Menace. It just isnt the same indiana jones that we all know and love.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  94. MarkT.
    May 23, 2008
    0
    Worst of all of them. So ridiculous. If I wanted Sci-Fi and ancient archeology I would watch Stargate. Get your Sci-Fi out of my Indy movie!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  95. INCForest
    May 23, 2008
    0
    Hey Dude. This movie is a real piece of SH*T!, Just a Dirt kingdom of dust.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  96. ChanciusD.
    May 23, 2008
    3
    Worst Spielberg movie I have ever seen. The screen play is atrocious. All of the principle actor really enjoy their parts, but do to the plot their performances lack. All of the other Indy films have instances where the viewer needs to suspend disbelief, but the outlandish situations in this one leave only a feeling of awkwardness.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  97. JackW.
    May 23, 2008
    3
    This was an extreme let down. There was not a single scene which I remember as being worth viewing. The story was sporadic and muddled, the acting flat(especially harrison- it seemed like he didnt want to be there), the set pieces unexciting, the finale rushed and confusing. Unlike the other indiana films, kotcs did not make me forget I was sitting in a cinema. The beauty of the old films (as well as all great movies of this genre) lay in their ability to draw you in so that time seems to stand still outside the screen- you become so absorbed you forget where you are. Here though, from the very start I was continually made aware I was in fact watching a very poor production with hammy acting and a diabolical script. CGI can, in some films be used to great effect, but this was just not the case here. The effects took away from the rawness and authenticity of the previous films. This was purely a money making scheme at the cost of sullying an otherwise seminal cinematic franchise. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  98. Mrjones
    May 23, 2008
    5
    The first 45min of the film was engaging and exciting. The last hour and a half of the film sorry to say derailed into self-indulgent, unfunny and over the top mess. Hollow characters never developed beyond weak accents and wacky expressions( thanks George Lucas) I'm starting to despise the cheap effects that computers can generate. If there were actually ants like that in South America no one would live there. Disappointing. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  99. JanieH.
    May 23, 2008
    4
    Cheesy movie, from start to finish. Indy is supposed to push the limit of believability, but this flick jumped right off that cliff. From poor plot to substandard acting, an utter disappointment. Save your cash and rent it in a few months.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  100. PhilS.
    May 23, 2008
    4
    Worse than Temple of Doom. George screws up again.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes

Recommended Products

  1. Raiders of the Lost Ark Image
  2. The Grey Image
Metascore

Generally favorable reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 27 out of 40
  2. Negative: 1 out of 40
  1. Harrison Ford? Terrific -- and re-energized.
  2. Director Steven Spielberg seems intent on celebrating his entire early career here. Whatever the story there is, a vague journey to return a spectacular archeological find to its rightful home -- an unusual goal of the old grave-robber, you must admit -- gets swamped in a sea of stunts and CGI that are relentless as the scenes and character relationships are charmless.
  3. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    70
    There are scenes in the new movie that seem like stretching exercises at a retirement home; there are garrulous stretches, and even the title seems a few words too long. But once it gets going, Crystal Skull delivers smart, robust, familiar entertainment.