User Score
5.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1047 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. GaryB
    Jun 17, 2008
    1
    The funny thing is that Lucas refuses to let anyone see his infamous "Star Wars Holiday Special" from 1977. That was far more entertaining than this piece of garbage. Face it, he's a con man.
  2. DavidC.
    Jun 17, 2008
    0
    Shia ruined this movie! Way over hyped.
  3. NickB.
    Jun 1, 2008
    0
    This is the worst installment of the Indiana Jones movies. Within the first 10 minutes I wanted to walk out and get my money back. The acting was terrible and the storyline was just too much to handle
  4. MargaretT.
    Jun 2, 2008
    2
    Overrated. What a waste of time. The critics must love anything Lucas, Spielberg & Ford make regardless of the quality. Horrid acting, dull dialogue, nothing new to show us.
  5. RajeevG.
    Jun 25, 2008
    4
    Story line was too fantasy-oriented; many/most events were very improbable. This is throwback to the adventure movies of the 70s but such plots seem too quaint in modern times. While some suspension of disbelief if required for this genre, the events must still have some plausibility. Not so for this movie. It was too tongue-in-cheek, even to the point where it felt that the joke was on Story line was too fantasy-oriented; many/most events were very improbable. This is throwback to the adventure movies of the 70s but such plots seem too quaint in modern times. While some suspension of disbelief if required for this genre, the events must still have some plausibility. Not so for this movie. It was too tongue-in-cheek, even to the point where it felt that the joke was on the audience, as if the filmmakers are taking use for a ride. Expand
  6. AlexAlex
    Jun 25, 2008
    1
    Horridly Overdone ! I was watching awful acting preformed on a Disney ride. Well at least some theme park has a stunt show. Might as well have donated $10+popcorn to the senior home for 90's actors. Can you put more special effects in a movie? Might as well have been animated. Not just: "Thumbs down", Thumbs cut-off. The 1 pt is for getting it to the movie theater in time (Unfortunately).
  7. LevS.
    Jun 26, 2008
    1
    Yes, it's meant to be a big, fun, blockbuster, but then again, so were National Treasure and Pirates of the Caribbean. What I'm sure everyone loved about the Indy movies was the charm and sense of adventure that are completely lacking in this one. Completely out of touch with the originals and sadly, poorly executed in all fields. Just another money-turner.
  8. TonyP
    Jun 2, 2008
    2
    Got borred within the first 30 minutes and it never got better.
  9. SteveB.
    Jun 3, 2008
    3
    Couldn't wait for it to end. So cheesy, such a rehash of the previous. It's as if they sat around and said, "OK, need to have lot's of cobwebs, skulls, skeletons, chase scene in military vehicles...Let's write a story around that." There's just no life in this one.
  10. RickyQ.
    Jun 4, 2008
    4
    The two things I
  11. GuyH.
    Jun 8, 2008
    0
    Did they just make this movie just to scam us out of money ill never watch a nether Lucas movie ever again.
  12. K.Ward
    Jul 11, 2008
    2
    What a stinker, the wink, wink, nod, nod (I'm Indiana Jones) performance from Harrison ford wasn't the worst of the film. side bar roles that you wanted to care about but didn't Overly long and boring chase scenes, and the story was just a mess. Aliens, fricken aliens... you've got to be kidding. Even in the end they presented it like it was a mystery... maybe for a What a stinker, the wink, wink, nod, nod (I'm Indiana Jones) performance from Harrison ford wasn't the worst of the film. side bar roles that you wanted to care about but didn't Overly long and boring chase scenes, and the story was just a mess. Aliens, fricken aliens... you've got to be kidding. Even in the end they presented it like it was a mystery... maybe for a child. Boo. Expand
  13. Dominic
    Jul 14, 2008
    2
    If the filmmaker tried to make this story or movie funny, it's not funny at all! One of the worst movies of all time!
  14. JoshB.
    Jul 19, 2008
    4
    Thanks George Lucas for making another digital movie that looks like a cartoon. Maybe a commercial success, but the art of movie making is lost on you. He'd rather contract out the whole movie making process to people with apple computers. Lest I forget, the script was terrible as well. Don't see this movie, don't buy it, don't rent it.
  15. DominicM.
    Aug 16, 2008
    4
    It was alright, but it didnt have that Indiana Jones feel to it. I think George Lucas should stick to Star Wars.
  16. SuperMarioSuperMario
    Aug 17, 2008
    4
    -I loved the original trilogy, but I didn't like this movie. Don't tell me that I'm being biased or small-minded or unfair: I wanted to like this movie as much as the others (why would I pay money otherwise?), but it wasn't me who failed, it was Lucas and Spielberg. I loved the charm and magic and energy and humour of the old films, and even the fact that they were -I loved the original trilogy, but I didn't like this movie. Don't tell me that I'm being biased or small-minded or unfair: I wanted to like this movie as much as the others (why would I pay money otherwise?), but it wasn't me who failed, it was Lucas and Spielberg. I loved the charm and magic and energy and humour of the old films, and even the fact that they were unbelievable (with the Biblical or Indian artifacts), but this movie lacks a lot of the charm, humour, grace, and magic of the original (not that it's entirely missing). It didn't feel like an Indy movie: how come we didn't laugh as much as with the originals? But really, the aliens did ruin it. It pushes fantasy into the absurd: dealing with aliens works for Fox and Scully, not Indiana Jones. -I thought the Cold War and Russians as the antagonists worked (since Indy IS older), but what totally ruins this movie is (besides the aliens) how Indy is now a father. This is a freaken horrible cliche that every movie seems to take after: the main character ages, and surprisingly, we find out he has a son; the two don't usually get along and they have to work things out and by the end father and son are united. Kiss my ass Lucas! That's the stupidest, lamest plot (next to aliens, of course) that I've ever seen. The biggest problem with this is (I'm sure any Indy fan would agree with me here): it takes the focus off Indy. Now the focus is divided between Indy and his annoying son. We all love the Indiana Jones movies because they're about Indiana Jones/Harrison Ford, who's the soul of the movie (funny, charming, accidental), but his son/Shia, takes away from what the audience wants. He's really annoying: they try to make him funny and charming like Indy, but he's really not. -The original movies are about Indiana Jones and his love interests; the only reason that Crusade worked with Indiana Jones' father is because Lucas and Spielberg still had the imagination to make it work. Also, Connery was HILARIOUS and charming. -And I didn't like the fact that there's so much explaining done in this movie: they spent so much time at the start by having Indy LECTURING to Shia about Eldorado and the Crystal Skulls so the audience can "get what the movie is about." -So bad a movie, you'd think that Shia had his head up Ford's a**, Ford has his head up Spielberg's a**, and everyone had their heads up Lucas' a**. Expand
  17. JayD.
    Aug 30, 2008
    2
    Best way to describe it? Another George Lucas cash-grab. Ford is too old and creaky for the role now, and it's obvious each scene he's in. Karen Allen is another who hasn't aged well, leaving the love aspect between the two akin to watching your grandparents makeout. Ech. And why why why why why does Speilberg say Shia LeBouf is the next Tom Hanks? From his deep, riveting Best way to describe it? Another George Lucas cash-grab. Ford is too old and creaky for the role now, and it's obvious each scene he's in. Karen Allen is another who hasn't aged well, leaving the love aspect between the two akin to watching your grandparents makeout. Ech. And why why why why why does Speilberg say Shia LeBouf is the next Tom Hanks? From his deep, riveting roles in Transformers & this stinker? I doubt he's ever read from a script not written by a 12 year-old. Great, another wonderful trilogy from my childhood marred by George Lucas' lust for a 12th home in the Carribean. On the contrary, the only cool part was the aliens. Didn't think I'd ever say it, but Indiana Jones could have used more aliens in it. Ouch. Expand
  18. JohnM.
    Aug 4, 2008
    2
    This is such a bad film that I cannot believe Speilberg directed this. Is he actually happy with the end result?! The script is so overly cheesy, and what is it with Lucas and CGI, someone needs to teach him when and where it
  19. KevinG.
    Sep 30, 2008
    1
    Terrible movie. Anyone who gave this movie a positive review is a complete moron. Fake looking sets,like everything was flimed on a sound stage.Bad acting,Talking and talking and talking to eat up time and about things that don't advance the plot. I put this movie on the same level of howard the Duck and death to smoochy.
  20. JamesB.
    Sep 5, 2008
    1
    Proof that George Lucas needs to be sterilized for the good of humanity!
  21. nige
    Jan 4, 2009
    1
    What i really don't get is why have CGI gophers, monkeys, scorpions and ants, but then use a rubber snake for Indy's biggest phobia? Silly, silly film. Some unintentionally funny lines though 'Not space.......the space between space' ??!?? John Hurt must have cringed all the way to the bank.
  22. AL
    May 3, 2009
    1
    One of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Unbelievably bad. Startlingly implausible at every turn, Wildly illogical and improbable occurrences in almost every scene. Embarrassing dialog throughout, as if it were written by a child. And this is the first ILM film (assuming they did the FX) I've seen with anything other than impressive and innovative visual effects... in One of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Unbelievably bad. Startlingly implausible at every turn, Wildly illogical and improbable occurrences in almost every scene. Embarrassing dialog throughout, as if it were written by a child. And this is the first ILM film (assuming they did the FX) I've seen with anything other than impressive and innovative visual effects... in fact, they were shockingly substandard. The CGI on this film looked about like the quality of what you'd see on a, say, a Sci Fi channel original film... which is to say not very good. It seems as if they decided to rush a new Indy flick to the theaters; it seems to be cobbled together hastily with no attention to even the most basic points of physics and logic, maybe to meet some contractual obligation... or maybe just to squeeze one last drop out of the Indiana Jones series before Harrison Ford gets too old to be believable in the role. Expand
  23. Sam
    Jun 19, 2009
    4
    This movie was a dissapointment but it wasn't a complete failure. I found myself enjoying the first half of the movie but the 2nd half was awful. The CGI looked incredibly out of place and some of the later scenes were just stupid. The old Indie movies had scenes that were unbelieveable to be sure but at least they were fun and enjoyable to watch. The scene with Mutt swinging through This movie was a dissapointment but it wasn't a complete failure. I found myself enjoying the first half of the movie but the 2nd half was awful. The CGI looked incredibly out of place and some of the later scenes were just stupid. The old Indie movies had scenes that were unbelieveable to be sure but at least they were fun and enjoyable to watch. The scene with Mutt swinging through the trees with the monkeys was incredibly lame. The acting was decent but it couldn't save the movie from its awful plot. Expand
  24. JamesL.
    Oct 12, 2008
    2
    I'm sorry. Indiana Jones defeats the aliens after he survives a 'nukular' blast. They write in a double agent that Indiana lets follow them around just to stir things up. I really have to wonder if all of these reviewers weren't paid off by Lucas.
  25. GrahamM.r
    Oct 17, 2008
    0
    Harrison Ford is my favorite movie star and he can't save this sad, sad excuse for a movie. Lucas...please go away and stop ruining all the franchises that made our childhoods great. Nothing in this movie makes sense or is entertaining. The special effects are awful as well. As for the end.....It's a joke this movie made so much money.
  26. TomN.
    Oct 18, 2008
    3
    Horrible, the plot is whack. Everything is sloppy. Too many plot holes. Ridiculous. Action is also stupid, retarded, and contrived. Skull is maagnetic, but only when they throw the gun powder into the air does the powder then floats and follows? Nuclear warhead? Aliens, did they explain anything about it? Aliens, seriously?
  27. JonK.
    Oct 22, 2008
    3
    Very disappointing. Right off the bat, the lighting was noticeably bad - artificial and fake. Awkward and fake pretty much sums it all up for the rest of the show. I could suspend belief enough to really enjoy Independence Day but this show was rather insulting.
  28. RayH.
    Oct 22, 2008
    1
    This movie is absolutely pathetic! It represents everything that is wrong with movies today. They are ruined by trying to appeal to everyone and in doing so, they don't please anyone. Shia L. was obviously added to appeal to the teeny boppers. The CGI gophers and the monkeys that "befriend" Shia L.'s character within a matter of seconds were added to appeal to the kiddies. The This movie is absolutely pathetic! It represents everything that is wrong with movies today. They are ruined by trying to appeal to everyone and in doing so, they don't please anyone. Shia L. was obviously added to appeal to the teeny boppers. The CGI gophers and the monkeys that "befriend" Shia L.'s character within a matter of seconds were added to appeal to the kiddies. The fake ants, the sword fight between two moving vehicles while Shia's character is hit with branches in his most private area, not to mention that the main characters were bullet proof, makes me want to vomit. Top it off with falling down three waterfalls without a scratch and Indiana Jones surviving a direct Nuclear blast because he was inside of a "lead fridge" and then thrown for a country mile unscratched makes this film completely useless to society. Anyone that is giving it a good review is doing so because they are one of the previously mentioned groups or because their kids laughed. This movie is pathetic! Expand
  29. 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. 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
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. PhilS.
    May 23, 2008
    4
    Worse than Temple of Doom. George screws up again.
  35. KyleB.
    May 24, 2008
    0
    This was the biggest piece of sh*t I've seen in years. It was even more disappointing than The Phantom Menace. Imagine watching a fan film made in an all new Indiana Jones theme park ride. Who wants to be Indy? How 'bout you Grandpa! The writing sucks, the acting sucks, the special effects really suck, even the lighting sucks! I could have forgiven it all its other faults if This was the biggest piece of sh*t I've seen in years. It was even more disappointing than The Phantom Menace. Imagine watching a fan film made in an all new Indiana Jones theme park ride. Who wants to be Indy? How 'bout you Grandpa! The writing sucks, the acting sucks, the special effects really suck, even the lighting sucks! I could have forgiven it all its other faults if only Harrison Ford hadn't looked so sedated and completely uninterested in what was happening. My eight dollars should be worth at least one scene with some dramatic tension. Expand
  36. JamesG.
    May 24, 2008
    2
    This is one of the worst films I have ever seen. It is a disgrace to the Indiana Jones franchise and should never be seen by anyone.
  37. jackS.
    May 24, 2008
    0
    [***SPOILER***] Aliens. Are you kidding me. Aliens. You guys are rating this too high. When did Aliens ever cross a Indiana Jones movie. This movie was just a pass the torch movie to Shia. Lucas is crazy. He screwed up the Star Wars series and now this. HE HAD 10 YEARS TO WRITE THIS. It's unbelievable how bad this movie was. I would write more but I don't want to miss the Aliens [***SPOILER***] Aliens. Are you kidding me. Aliens. You guys are rating this too high. When did Aliens ever cross a Indiana Jones movie. This movie was just a pass the torch movie to Shia. Lucas is crazy. He screwed up the Star Wars series and now this. HE HAD 10 YEARS TO WRITE THIS. It's unbelievable how bad this movie was. I would write more but I don't want to miss the Aliens landing on my front lawn. - OUT! Expand
  38. shawnc.
    May 24, 2008
    3
    Wow. What a silly, uninvolving disappointment. Spielberg is done.
  39. DimitreR.
    May 24, 2008
    1
    I'm an Indy fanboy; I grew up with the original three movies and loved every single one of them (even Temple of Doom). I was of course, extremely excited to see this one. The first 45 minutes were good but then the movie morphed into a distasteful combination of X-files, National Treasure, and Tarzan... The magic's simply gone and ultimately there was no reason whatsoever for I'm an Indy fanboy; I grew up with the original three movies and loved every single one of them (even Temple of Doom). I was of course, extremely excited to see this one. The first 45 minutes were good but then the movie morphed into a distasteful combination of X-files, National Treasure, and Tarzan... The magic's simply gone and ultimately there was no reason whatsoever for this film to be made... well okay, I guess it was for the money... Speilburg, Lucas; how far the mighty have fallen. Expand
  40. Nate
    May 24, 2008
    0
    This shallow, pathetic effort defiles and insults the legacy of "Raiders of the Lost Ark," and raises major questions about the ongoing viability of Speilberg as a legitimate creative force. Much as we may fondly remember the mastery that was "Raiders," this film is simply a cheap and insulting exuse to exploit nostalgia for the original films to get people into the theater. Yes. It is This shallow, pathetic effort defiles and insults the legacy of "Raiders of the Lost Ark," and raises major questions about the ongoing viability of Speilberg as a legitimate creative force. Much as we may fondly remember the mastery that was "Raiders," this film is simply a cheap and insulting exuse to exploit nostalgia for the original films to get people into the theater. Yes. It is that bad. The dialogue consists of little more than lame one-liners, the plot is overstuffed and underdeveloped, the acting (especially Indy himself) is wooden and embarrasing, character development is non-existent, and even the action sequences themselves are unoriginal and uninspired. This is an offensivley bad film. Expand
  41. peter
    May 25, 2008
    3
    We already seen the great car chaches on a cliff, secret temples hidden in the rocks, and incredible non-human made objects that can change the world. This movie was just like a remake of all the different Indiana-Jones movies put together! this movie was disaproving!
  42. RM
    May 25, 2008
    4
    Nothing new here. fell asleep a couple of times. certainly doesn't deserve the money it's making, much like the star wars prequels. Much ado about nothing.
  43. whydidtheymakethis??
    May 25, 2008
    3
    A big disappointment. This film is a caricature of the original trilogy, almost completely devoid of any heart or character development.. and don't even get me started on the plot, starting out of nowhere, quickly becoming tedious, and ending preposterously. I feel cheated as I disregarded the negative press and watched this film based on my love of the original three. I guess I A big disappointment. This film is a caricature of the original trilogy, almost completely devoid of any heart or character development.. and don't even get me started on the plot, starting out of nowhere, quickly becoming tedious, and ending preposterously. I feel cheated as I disregarded the negative press and watched this film based on my love of the original three. I guess I should have realised what was coming when the cinema screened an advert for a Indy 4 toy just before the film started- a movie designed around merchandising bah. Expand
  44. MichelleS
    May 25, 2008
    3
    I will admit I have never seen any of the Indiana Jones movies all the way through except this one. I hear they are really good, but if I were to base my decision to watch them off this installment, I would not waste my $1.99 rental fee or gas to drive to the video store to get them. This movie sucked, bad. I gave it a 3 because it had it's moments that were mildly entertaining but I will admit I have never seen any of the Indiana Jones movies all the way through except this one. I hear they are really good, but if I were to base my decision to watch them off this installment, I would not waste my $1.99 rental fee or gas to drive to the video store to get them. This movie sucked, bad. I gave it a 3 because it had it's moments that were mildly entertaining but the entire movie looked like it had been shot in front of a green screen (was it??). At the end of it all the best part of this movie was the snow caps I ate during it. My boyfriend is officially banned from picking the movies we see after this. It was his third strike after Cloverfield and No Country For Old Men! Expand
  45. MH
    May 25, 2008
    4
    Such a horrible script in so many ways...did not look or feel like an Indie movie...by far the worst of the series if you can even somehow lump it in with the rest of the films...very very disappointed!
  46. BrandonH.
    May 25, 2008
    3
    Replace Ford with a character like Mr. Bean, and this movie would have been hilarious. Sadly, it just comes off as depressing and poorly written and directed (seriously Steve, lay off the soft focus).
  47. ChadM.
    May 25, 2008
    4
    The sequel, along with the aging Ford, has lost it's charm over the years... The movie, like a never-ending visit to grandpa in the retirement home, drags on and on and while Spielberg tries to keep up the flash and pop of the prequels and in part is successful in creating a flurry of impossible escapes, although with the clumsier, older Ford Spielberg may have bitten off more than The sequel, along with the aging Ford, has lost it's charm over the years... The movie, like a never-ending visit to grandpa in the retirement home, drags on and on and while Spielberg tries to keep up the flash and pop of the prequels and in part is successful in creating a flurry of impossible escapes, although with the clumsier, older Ford Spielberg may have bitten off more than he could chew. The result is an increase in chase scenes and Jones (and also son) swinging from whips and vines in an attempt to compensate for the poor quality green-screen video overlapping. The only saving grace in the latest Jones saga is that it does not pretend and embraces every cliche. Let's call it what it really is, a hilariously unintentional farse! Expand
  48. Paul
    May 26, 2008
    1
    The film starts with a bad CGI gopher, and really goes downhill from there. Bad plot, too many wooden and supporting actors and Indy rarley shines or has good lines - and dont even get me started on the ending! It seems that special effects and turning the action meter up to 11 were more important that good scripting and pacing or making this feel like an indiana jones movie. I avoided The film starts with a bad CGI gopher, and really goes downhill from there. Bad plot, too many wooden and supporting actors and Indy rarley shines or has good lines - and dont even get me started on the ending! It seems that special effects and turning the action meter up to 11 were more important that good scripting and pacing or making this feel like an indiana jones movie. I avoided seeing trailers and reading reviews and hoped for the best - what a dissapointment. It's a real pity that even if you read this review,I know your going to go and watch this anyway. If like me you grew up with the trilogy, and can possibly steel you nerves - avoid this insult to the original films. Expand
  49. SteveH
    May 26, 2008
    4
    Defintely the worst Indy movie. I know why Harrison Ford and Karen Allen are in the film but Cate? What's more scary, this will be the top grossing film of the year.
  50. MarkR.
    May 26, 2008
    3
    Booorrrinngg.. Saw this with 6 of my friends.. two of us pained through it while the rest slept.
  51. AdamD.
    May 26, 2008
    4
    For a script that was notable for all its rewrites, why did it still have the biggest bad idea in sequel-dom, don't ruin formula. [***SPOILER***] The second worst idea, Aliens. The Third worst idea, Standard looking CGI Aliens that are actually shown like signs, only not the 3rd sequel of a beloved franchise.
  52. DonS.
    May 26, 2008
    2
    Terrible dissapointment. I felt used and decieved. What a waste.
  53. JosephS
    May 26, 2008
    0
    Of kafka, broghes asked if a man could be so great as to influence not only all that follows, but also all that has proceeded him. If the revrse applies, and a work could be so offensive and ludicrous as to harm its predecessors, to cast doubt upon speilberg, Lucas, and koep, as artists, as men, as indices hollywood, and of what is to come, the kingdom of the crystals skull is it. The Of kafka, broghes asked if a man could be so great as to influence not only all that follows, but also all that has proceeded him. If the revrse applies, and a work could be so offensive and ludicrous as to harm its predecessors, to cast doubt upon speilberg, Lucas, and koep, as artists, as men, as indices hollywood, and of what is to come, the kingdom of the crystals skull is it. The economic forces and hollywood lobbyist have clearly turned the responsible film criticism into a retelling of the emperors new clothes. The choice of whethe to see this film is one between a responsible and principled boycott or a ride into an off-screen heart of darkness. Expand
  54. Beefalo
    May 27, 2008
    3
    Don't bother with this one. It's all redux, with Harrison Ford taking the backseat to everyone and everything, including aliens with typically elongated skulls. Please. This film wasn't worthy of the name Indiana Jones.
  55. Maurice
    May 27, 2008
    0
    A big, resounding BOMB!
  56. ErrolL.
    May 27, 2008
    0
    Why does George Lucas insist on destroying everything he did that was good? There are so many unbelievable things about this movie and too many inconsistencies. I can't believe that anyone would write any of this and think it was a good idea. With this movie everyone is a loser except Sean Connery. [***SPOILER***] The movie sucked thats the spoiler. The heat from the atomic blast Why does George Lucas insist on destroying everything he did that was good? There are so many unbelievable things about this movie and too many inconsistencies. I can't believe that anyone would write any of this and think it was a good idea. With this movie everyone is a loser except Sean Connery. [***SPOILER***] The movie sucked thats the spoiler. The heat from the atomic blast won't bake a body inside a fridge and the flying far enough away from the blast and landing won't break any bones. Blowing up the road making machine and then having a chase scene on very clear roads through the jungle is very believable. The stairs suck into the wall but the bad guys can still catch up very very quickly. Monkeys in the trees with the kid from Holes swinging on vines to catch up to the cars. Aliens. Expand
  57. AndrewS.
    May 27, 2008
    1
    The plot was bad, the direction aimless, casting misguidedl overall, the worst movie in Spielberg's career. My biggest disappointment - how did any critic, albeit there were just a few, give this one a pass. Truly horrid fiilmmaking!
  58. SeanD.
    May 27, 2008
    3
    A terrible story that includes the new brand of George Lucas dialog - stilted and completely unconvincing - even Harrison Ford can't make it work - though it seems he tries hard enough. The initial motorcycle chase and dialog was amusing - but was the best the film had to offer... Perhaps worth renting - not worth the admission in the theatre though.
  59. PatricioJ.
    May 28, 2008
    3
    Bad film, the end is good for E.T. But you won't be bored
  60. FanNomore
    May 28, 2008
    4
    I really wanted this to be good, I really really did. But it wasn't even close. It was actually bad and I wish it hadn't been made, or that at least I hadn't seen it. It taints the fond memories that are the other Indy films. If you haven't seen it, or even some of the others, just get the first one - a true classic - on DVD, and perhaps the third. Steer way clear of I really wanted this to be good, I really really did. But it wasn't even close. It was actually bad and I wish it hadn't been made, or that at least I hadn't seen it. It taints the fond memories that are the other Indy films. If you haven't seen it, or even some of the others, just get the first one - a true classic - on DVD, and perhaps the third. Steer way clear of this last one. It's simply a money-machine, fan-insulting, face slap delivered by the creators. Expand
  61. IanC
    May 29, 2008
    0
    This is precisely why I hate 21st Century cinema. I can see the focus group of Indy fans now, being asked what they'd most like to see, and the video games developers being asked what bits could go into the movie that would make decent levels. Complete c**p, barely a coherent story, zero effort in the acting (I loved the way the team ambled their way through the traps, and NO that This is precisely why I hate 21st Century cinema. I can see the focus group of Indy fans now, being asked what they'd most like to see, and the video games developers being asked what bits could go into the movie that would make decent levels. Complete c**p, barely a coherent story, zero effort in the acting (I loved the way the team ambled their way through the traps, and NO that had nothing to do with the relative age of them all, it just looked like they couldn't be bothered), pretty dreaful effects here and there, continuity errors abound... george Lucas should be stopped from destroying any more of the good memories, just leave it alone! Expand
  62. SharonC.
    May 29, 2008
    3
    A ridiculously poorly conceived movie where the plot makes no sense and nothing affects the characters or motivates them to move forward.. "but Indy why do YOU have to return the skull?"...because Lucas told him too.
  63. KeithP.
    May 31, 2008
    4
    Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is supposed to be a big welcome back to the kind of on-screen adventure we've all been craving since, well, since the last Indiana Jones movie nearly 20 years ago. If you've never seen an Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) movie, the globe-trekking, part-time archeology professor of the title is the penultimate adventurer who often Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is supposed to be a big welcome back to the kind of on-screen adventure we've all been craving since, well, since the last Indiana Jones movie nearly 20 years ago. If you've never seen an Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) movie, the globe-trekking, part-time archeology professor of the title is the penultimate adventurer who often finds his down-to-Earth beliefs challenged in many of his journies. And, usually, there's a leading lady involved in the mess. He's James Bond of the dig sites. This "Jones" film has an aging Indy being drawn into adventure when a '50s greaser named Mutt (played by Shia Labeou...uh...Shia Lebieu...um...Lisa Bonet. Yeah.) delivers a letter from an old friend who needs, A, Indy's archaeological know-how to dig up a "mythical crystal skull," and, B, Indy's adventurous side to save the old friend and Mutt's mom who joined this friend on his journey. Soon, Indy and Mutt are running from the '50s Russkies, Peruvian natives, and, um, actually, that's about all they're running from. In case you missed it in the above, the Russians are the bad guys here. And, in case you don't catch on when Indy refers to them as "Reds" or when he sneers "Russians!" or when the FBI discusses the evil Red Menace, or the 15 other references to the Russians being evil, not to worry, director Spielberg literally hits the cameraman, and thus the viewer, over the head with it, when Indiana Jones crashes through an anti-Russia protest on his school's campus, with signs and banners slamming right into the lens. Not only does the first half-hour of the movie treat its audience like a group of mentally challenged six-year-olds, but screenwriter David Koepp, generally one of the industry's more-reliable popcorn movie writers (Spider-Man 1 for instance), peppers the first third of the movie with enough references to past Indy films that it seemed abundantly clear: without them, the first 30+ minutes would've dragged tremendously. By the time we're past the first third, we're off on an adventure. Where Indy's past movies take us around the world and back again, this one brings us to Peru, where Indy and friends get mired down in what might as well be quicksand. None of the danger Indy and Mutt are in feels dangerous anymore -- there's no peril. While we always know Indy will survive, there's never a moment where you ask yourself, How will he survive? In the first film we had things like a giant stone ball chasing him, a Nazi tossed him over the hood of a speeding truck, snakes surrounded him in a pit where there seemed to be no way out. In the second film, Indy was was captured and nearly killed by a bizarre high Priest of a cult (granted, this was ultimately the scene most people find to be the weakest, but at least there was peril), he was trapped in a shrinking room with spikes coming out of the floor, and he had to listen to Kate Capshaw. In the third film it was burning buildings, impervious tanks, and -- aw, you get the idea. The biggest excitement we get is a teeter-tottering rock that reveals an ancient room of artifacts. And that was this movie's biggest weakness. Save for the exciting set-piece of the film's climax, there was nothing new, exciting, or creative here. Even Mutt has nothing going for him -- his big weapon is a pocket knife. When Indiana Jones was first introduced back in 1981, the idea of a whip as his weapon of choice was interesting and exciting. Why not give the kid something more intriguing like a bow & arrow, a shield from a knight's armor, or he can wield a screaming Kate Capshaw. The film had other weaknesses, aside from Spielberg's lazy direction (although, I give him [or his Director of Photography] kudos for a few gorgeous shots of Kate Blanchett as the head Russkie, and there was finally some creativity in the map scenes, where a red line traverses the globe to show us where Indy's headed [although, again, this could've been an editor's idea, not Spielberg's]). The main issue for me was that there was nothing at stake for Indiana Jones. In the first film, "Raiders," Indy's life, and the world itself, were at stake. And, if that weren't enough, he also had to save the love of his life, Marion (whose death he, for a short time, had thought he caused). In "Temple of Doom," Indy's very belief-system and an entire village's children -- and thus future -- were at stake. In the third "Last Crusade" film it was the very life of Indy's dad. While Indy is out to save Mutt's mom, Indy states from the beginning that he has no idea who that is -- it's the other "old friend" he's going to save. So, if she has any importance in Indy's life, Indy himself is left completely in the dark to that fact. Also, there is nothing new here in terms of the beliefs we're dealing with. Yes, Indy does not believe this Crystal Skull is anything but a myth, but this again has no real bearing on his character, on his make-up. And, once Indy, Mutt, Mutt's mom, and the "old friend" are brought together, you never really feel like they're about to get got -- whether the danger be Russians, waterfalls, or natives. With the aging Indy being little more than a tour guide and daddy figure to the wanderlustful Mutt, the movie feels more like a Disney family film then an exciting chapter serial-type Indiana Jones adventure. Yes, there are some laughs, and there's enough action to keep most people satiated but this might as well have been called Indiana Jones and the Phantom Menace. Because, much lie that much-maligned film, the only menace here are the box-office ticket prices. Expand
  64. EdwinWu
    May 31, 2008
    4
    Too similar to the previous ones. Background of story outdated.
  65. dodgydon
    May 31, 2008
    4
    Surely the udders of this particular cash-cow are sore after being miled so inexpertly. I reckon Speeilberg should have put it out to pasture or better yet kill it and make a juicy burger out of it. No need for the inhumane treatment of a once fine animal.
  66. BrandonD.
    Jun 1, 2008
    2
    This movie is an embarrassing pile of sh*t. If you replaced Harrison with Rowan Atkinson from Mr. Bean, it would be f*cking hilarious. Spielberg has managed to stoop down to Lucas' level in being a money grubbing whore that knows what art can be, but just doesn't give a shit anymore.
  67. ChrisL.
    Jun 19, 2008
    1
    Nothing in the film looked dangerous. Indy, a old man, a fat guy, Marion, and Mudd were all getting past the traps without even a scratch. You might as well throw in a kid in a wheelchair passing up Indy. The effects were bad, the action was dull, and Indy was out of character. I almost walked out of the theatre. Avoid this one and fondly remember the others.
  68. RonimusPrime
    Jun 23, 2008
    4
    Thoroughly disappointing. Didn't care what happened to anyone on screen. The acting was stilted and unemotional. Does not compare to any of the originals
  69. Tavo
    Jun 23, 2008
    0
    George Lucas needs to walk himself into ongoing traffic for this one.....it ruined the legacy that is Indiana Jones.
  70. BillB.
    Jun 29, 2008
    2
    This film insults the audience. You really get the strong sense the producers smugly knew they could throw together this utterly mediocre effort and it would still be propped up by critics and fan boys. Either that, or it's a really lame attempt by those involved, who undoubtedly had their heyday back in the 80 and 90s, to prove they can still hack it.
  71. ShaneD.
    Jun 4, 2008
    0
    5 minutes in and my heart was already sinking. The scenery looked fake, the acting seemed unsure and the tone of the whole thing was all off. This film doesn't know what it wants to be and ends up being nothing. No tension, no laughs, no excitement and no entertainment. Avoid.
  72. MikeS
    Jun 4, 2008
    0
    This movie was NOT good. I had such high expectations. It was a disappointment.
  73. HalB.
    Jun 4, 2008
    0
    I am embarrassed for everyone involved in this movie. Worst flick I've seen in the theatre since Battlefield Earth.
  74. MarkoJ.
    Jun 7, 2008
    4
    I hate to say it, but this movie was just stupid. Similar to the second Indiana Jones movie, in that it is stupid. There were some exciting moments, but too many stupid things happened. I am not say it is bad, just stupid. Getting the idea yet? Don't expect much and you won't be too disapointed. Oh, Harrison Ford was good in the part.
  75. Brad
    Jul 11, 2008
    4
    As a stand-alone action movie, this would have been decent. If it was named something different and the characters were named something other than Jones, it would have been decent. However, it just doesn't seem to feel like an Indiana Jones movie. With the Indiana Jones movies you expect unrealistic things, but this movie seemed to go well beyond that.
  76. JoshuaL.
    Jul 14, 2008
    4
    Movie got boring early on, and the story concept was really unoriginal. Not what I expected from an Indiana Jones movie.
  77. ShortRound
    Jul 15, 2008
    0
    This movie was terrible. The only good part was the motorcycle chase in the town, everything else was absolutely garbage.
  78. TerryF.
    Aug 12, 2008
    0
    Again, Lucas, just like in the Star Wars series, fails to captivate us with a good story.
  79. JonB.
    Aug 3, 2008
    2
    Some of the adventure remains from the original trilogy, but being on the bench too long has led to atrophy of this classic series.
  80. RussellJ
    Jun 27, 2009
    1
    This is dire. Saw it at the pictures and it was like having my childlike self ripped apart. The equivalent of finding Santa on xmas morning wanking onto your mince pies you left him. The story was shit. There was no suspense or mystery. The action was laughable and full of cgi. The acting was atrocious even Harrison Ford couldn't pull it off he's too old for the role. To be fair This is dire. Saw it at the pictures and it was like having my childlike self ripped apart. The equivalent of finding Santa on xmas morning wanking onto your mince pies you left him. The story was shit. There was no suspense or mystery. The action was laughable and full of cgi. The acting was atrocious even Harrison Ford couldn't pull it off he's too old for the role. To be fair it maintained itself with a certain sense of disbelief all the way to the Amazon scenes and the film just gave up. So many bad scenes in a row. Mutt swinging from vine to vine like Tarzan. The giant (cgi) ants. Three waterfalls. Kill me now. The worst is left to the end of the movie. Spielberg do you really think we'll buy this shit with the aliens as lightheated fun. Raiders worked because it was mythological but aliens shouldn't be in this type of movie. Especially in a close encounters style. Oh Indy I still like you in the trilogy without jowls. Expand
  81. NC.
    Nov 12, 2008
    2
    From it's opening green screen madness (it's everywhere, but totally replicable by set and just done by choice by mr lazy bum himself)... it is clear, and eventually undeniable, that this film has been savaged by the now soulless wonder who made one of my all-time favourite childhood gems. I speak of George Lucas, who, allowed to go near the charcters and, oh dear God no, the From it's opening green screen madness (it's everywhere, but totally replicable by set and just done by choice by mr lazy bum himself)... it is clear, and eventually undeniable, that this film has been savaged by the now soulless wonder who made one of my all-time favourite childhood gems. I speak of George Lucas, who, allowed to go near the charcters and, oh dear God no, the STORY, has made the most blasphemous, ridiculous, endless yawnfest of unreailstic set-pieces (No, NO, NO! That is NOT what the series is based on and NOT what it has traditionally espoused at all Roger Ebert... I LOVED the other films, especially Raiders of the Lost Ark (But I HATED this dredge))... Back to film school Roger you hack. It's full of unconvincing acting or acting hammed up to the eyeballs (cos they knew it was crap, it's written all over the more astute actors' visages). It is childish, uses poor cgi to make animals that are cute but totally beside the point - totally (except to george, the retarded kidult), has balls been hit repeatedly etc (oh, hahahahahahaha, yeah, aweeeesome bro...)... and I would definitely rate this as the MOST disappointing movie I have seen since the turn of the century.... and I have watched PLENTY.... I have passed stools smarter than this film. Shame on you Geroge, get out of the game buddy, stop 'revisiting' (ie., ruining) classics and trying to make new ones when you have 100% lost it - artistically and intellectually... you are too old, let go... and as for you Mr two thumbs up Ebert, unless you want me to take your job and give it to one of the chimps from the film, learn to respect the difference between timeless classics with daring stunts as compared with mashed-up, hodge-podge, technically-obsessed (this film is full of machines and lasers and aliens, even though it is the 50s, nice one George, you f'ing iiiiiiiiiiidddiot) garbage with ridiculous transporter part 29 stunts that don't rase a heartbeat because they are George Lucas' yawny, dreamy, boring wet dreams about s*** that never happens and no one gets off on unless they are idiots or are 4 years old or both. The movie was total, utter, unmitigated GARBAGE. Go back to the ranch George, and FO. U ruined a classic series, ruined it. I am simply not counting it. It never happened. It's like a Crow sequel... WHAT crow sequels? That's what I say, and now I say, "What Indy 4? Stop talking nonsense." Hang your head in shame buddy.... and you Steven, how'd you let him do it!? Appalling..... Need an example? Girl drives car off cliff with everyone on board and onto a tree that bends over all the way to the bottom of the canyon (pefectly, with not a bump, hundreds of metres below) and they drive gently off.... cos who wouldn't? It's totally unrelaistic and also uncool.... wow!! Idiots....... I should give it 1/10, but it was the first blu-ray I watched on my new system and so I give it 1 more for looking awesome (and, I might add, awesome enough to see they barely used one set in the WHOLE film..... lazy scum). Expand
  82. CraigG
    Nov 27, 2008
    0
    Worst movie in the entire film industry. What a piece of S**t. Horrible acting, direction, screenplay, writing, etc. Shia is a terrible actor. Ford looked like he didn't want to be there. I would rather take a dump in my hand than watch this one again. Spielberg should be ashamed of himself. My pet turtle could have made a better movie than this c**p. He was my favorite movie maker, Worst movie in the entire film industry. What a piece of S**t. Horrible acting, direction, screenplay, writing, etc. Shia is a terrible actor. Ford looked like he didn't want to be there. I would rather take a dump in my hand than watch this one again. Spielberg should be ashamed of himself. My pet turtle could have made a better movie than this c**p. He was my favorite movie maker, but now the worst. Expand
  83. Lauranda
    Oct 14, 2008
    3
    Shia is not all that, contrary to Spielberg's obsession for him. And Lucas needs to go back to his glory days and take examples from that. This 4th chapter is just plain bad. Aliens? come on!! Blanchett was the only reason I didn't give this a 1.
  84. Ginny
    Oct 17, 2008
    0
    Definition of stupid Space aliens "interdimensional space aliens": 1. who are archeologists who destroy everything they've collected 2. blow someone up as a "thank you" and drive others insane 3. Sit around as skeletons for hundreds of years but fail to die 4. Have a hive mind for absolutely no reason. 5. Form back into said live space alien before wisking themselves away in a ship Definition of stupid Space aliens "interdimensional space aliens": 1. who are archeologists who destroy everything they've collected 2. blow someone up as a "thank you" and drive others insane 3. Sit around as skeletons for hundreds of years but fail to die 4. Have a hive mind for absolutely no reason. 5. Form back into said live space alien before wisking themselves away in a ship without a trace 6. Forget to take all the other space alien bodies with them that apparently couldn't survive for hundreds of years 7. Have a movie with absolutely no plot other than "return my skull" and you will get a reward (to be blown up). 8. And let us not forget...they have magnetic bones cause it's such an inventive plot device. Lame, very lame. Don't waste this much of your life. I'm pretty sure space aliens took over the writer of this film to make it so unappealing so no one would ever want to find them. Expand
  85. ManuelB.
    Nov 8, 2008
    1
    There is no depth to this movie. It is definitely not the continuation of a legend. Its boring and the plot is downright ridiculous. I don't understand how an actor with the backgroud of H. Ford agree to do this retarded show.
  86. BC
    Dec 11, 2008
    1
    this movie was completely cartoonish. I haven't seen this much randomly sprayed automatic weapons fire since the A-Team. The CGI quality of the chase scene thru the Jungle was laughably bad. Don't waste your time, please, you'll thank me.
  87. DarrenS
    Oct 28, 2008
    3
    Also disappointed. Awkward is a great way to describe the movie. If you're a hardcore Indy fan, you probably won't like it. If you hate corny-ness or terrible cliches, you probably won't like it. If you're not okay with extremely unbelievable situations you won't like it. Sure, the old movies had some pretty far - fetched stunts or situations, but they were Also disappointed. Awkward is a great way to describe the movie. If you're a hardcore Indy fan, you probably won't like it. If you hate corny-ness or terrible cliches, you probably won't like it. If you're not okay with extremely unbelievable situations you won't like it. Sure, the old movies had some pretty far - fetched stunts or situations, but they were somewhat believable, and in my opinion this movie pushed it way too far. I liked some stuff: an older Indy was interesting, Soviets as the bad guys was a good idea, and some of the scenes were pretty fun. Unfortunately, the ending left such a bad taste in my mouth that I spent the next day watching all three Indy movies trying to forget Crystal Skull. Maybe you'll like it, but most likely you won't. Expand
  88. AdamM.
    May 22, 2008
    4
    Doesn't live up to the other Indiana Jones movies.
  89. 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!
  90. INCForest
    May 23, 2008
    0
    Hey Dude. This movie is a real piece of SH*T!, Just a Dirt kingdom of dust.
  91. 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 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
  92. JudyT
    May 23, 2008
    4
    This movie was really bad. The action was cartoonish. Spielberg usually does better and Indy deserved better. But with so many problems getting decent writers whatelse could we expect. Poor old Harrison Ford didn't even start acting until Karen Allen, the one bright spot, came on screen.
  93. MiguelVerde
    May 23, 2008
    1
    I walked out in the first 15 minutes. It was that bad. Lucas Jar Jar'd another one.
  94. JustinH.
    May 23, 2008
    4
    Quite possibly one of the biggest movie disappoints I can remember. Full of extremely corny lines that are not only poorly written but poorly acted. This movie might have a huge opening weekend but the drop off is going to be so big that not even Dr. Jones can stop it. Save your money.
  95. RobertC.
    May 24, 2008
    4
    A disapointment. The movie has one cliche after another. All it is is chase scenes. The plot does not make any sense, the chase scenes and plot have been done dozens of times in other movies. Kate Blanchett is wasted in the film with an accent that I found comedic. Harrison Ford is not very good in the movie. Shia LeBeouf is also wasted not given a chance to display his talent. Shame on A disapointment. The movie has one cliche after another. All it is is chase scenes. The plot does not make any sense, the chase scenes and plot have been done dozens of times in other movies. Kate Blanchett is wasted in the film with an accent that I found comedic. Harrison Ford is not very good in the movie. Shia LeBeouf is also wasted not given a chance to display his talent. Shame on Lucas productions and Steven spielburg for passing this crap on us. Expand
  96. Rob
    May 24, 2008
    2
    Same problems as Star Wars episodes 1-3 and all of the other shameless remakes currently being released: overcomplicated plot, excessive action, awkward dialog, miscast actors, obviously computer generated special effects - all tied together by reused quotes and plot devices from the earlier films. I loved Raiders, liked Temple, and really enjoyed the Last Crusade, but this film was Same problems as Star Wars episodes 1-3 and all of the other shameless remakes currently being released: overcomplicated plot, excessive action, awkward dialog, miscast actors, obviously computer generated special effects - all tied together by reused quotes and plot devices from the earlier films. I loved Raiders, liked Temple, and really enjoyed the Last Crusade, but this film was painful to watch. There were a few brief moments where it had potential, but then another blue-screen generated chase sequence would start. Expand
  97. AnnS.
    May 24, 2008
    0
    Idiotic drivel with amazingly flat, boring characters. Not like the old Indy.
  98. JOshrad
    May 24, 2008
    2
    Lucas ruins another saga. Wow, Steven is a sell out for letting this film be made.
  99. MargaretM.
    May 25, 2008
    1
    This is no indiana jones movie. what happened? would have been just as easy to make a decent movie now wouldn't it? Fools.
  100. MattS.
    May 25, 2008
    3
    Too over the top. Shia Lequeef sucked as usual.
Metascore
65

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.