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. PatricioJ.
    May 28, 2008
    3
    Bad film, the end is good for E.T. But you won't be bored
  2. ArthurS.
    May 28, 2008
    5
    There were some cool special effect scenes, but other than that I found myself wishing for the movie to be less than 2 hours long (which it was, thankfully).
  3. 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
  4. DarthDead
    May 29, 2008
    10
    Indiana Jones 4 is like the other Indy Movies. It is genius especially the dialogs.
  5. GMoney
    May 29, 2008
    5
    I think the part that killed it for me was how unrealistic almost everything was... from being shot at by 40 russian soldiers with machine guns, and going down 3 niagara falls sized waterfalls and coming out scratchless was just silly. Lets hope there isn't another one
  6. Zack
    May 29, 2008
    10
    This movie was exactly what I expected: another indiana jones movie. This movie is getting trashed in the exact same way Speed Racer got trashed. The critics and audience seemed to have expected some deep philisophical dialogue, but they forgot what Indy is all about. This movie is packed full of adventure, and the humorous dialogue is still just as funny as the original movies. So what This movie was exactly what I expected: another indiana jones movie. This movie is getting trashed in the exact same way Speed Racer got trashed. The critics and audience seemed to have expected some deep philisophical dialogue, but they forgot what Indy is all about. This movie is packed full of adventure, and the humorous dialogue is still just as funny as the original movies. So what if it's unbelievable? Spirits coming out of the ark are just as unrealistic. In my opinion, Lucas and Spielberg did a fantastic job at making another Indy thrill ride. Expand
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. JohnS.
    May 29, 2008
    8
    Sure one finds many flaws if one wants to. I don't. Indy 4 is alltogether a nice piece of entertainment and pure escapism. Everybody who expected more might be dissappointet. To those I say: Better a bad Indy than no Indy at all ;)
  10. JonathanH
    May 30, 2008
    8
    After reading all of the horrible reviews I thought this was going to be a real stinker. Turns out it was an enjoyable experience. Not great by any means, but certainly not the disaster a lot of people have made it out to be. A fun ride, and gets a solid grade B from me.
  11. 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
  12. Benjyx
    May 30, 2008
    9
    I dont know what everyones problem with this was. Spoiler* the aliens reflected the time and if you thought they were ridiculous what about the melting faces and invisible paths that have graced over jone's films. It was a very good film that didn't take itself seriously and was fun what more can you want from it?
  13. EdwinWu
    May 31, 2008
    4
    Too similar to the previous ones. Background of story outdated.
  14. 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.
  15. DanL
    Jun 10, 2008
    7
    I really have to laugh at all of the people below who rated this movie a zero. Please ignore those reviews and realize that those people are being incredibly dramatic. This is not the Indiana Jones we remember from the 80's, but it's not a complete failure either. If you're expecting to see another masterpiece like Raiders of the Lost Ark, yeah... you'll most likely be I really have to laugh at all of the people below who rated this movie a zero. Please ignore those reviews and realize that those people are being incredibly dramatic. This is not the Indiana Jones we remember from the 80's, but it's not a complete failure either. If you're expecting to see another masterpiece like Raiders of the Lost Ark, yeah... you'll most likely be VERY disappointed. If you're expecting a summer blockbuster with huge production values and fun action scenes, you'll leave the theater satisfied. Sure, some of the CGI is unconvincing and the movie's theme is far too Sci Fi for the Indy franchise, but it's all very entertaining if you can see past those shortcomings. Don't pay any attention to the people below... this is not the disaster that the second Star Wars trilogy was. Expand
  16. ZekeB.
    Jun 11, 2008
    7
    I thought it was as good as expected. I enjoy these kind of plot lines.
  17. 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.
  18. KeithL.
    Jun 1, 2008
    5
    George Lucas is an incredible hack job. What a putz. Steven Spielberg is now Steven Cheeseberg and they have disgraced my all-time favorite movie (Raiders) and the hero it launched. We waited 19 years for a special effects rampage that made me want to vomit. Where's the bullwhip guys? Why was Indy a cranky old man? Why was this a vehicle to make tons of cash with Shai LaBouf down the George Lucas is an incredible hack job. What a putz. Steven Spielberg is now Steven Cheeseberg and they have disgraced my all-time favorite movie (Raiders) and the hero it launched. We waited 19 years for a special effects rampage that made me want to vomit. Where's the bullwhip guys? Why was Indy a cranky old man? Why was this a vehicle to make tons of cash with Shai LaBouf down the road as the "new" Indy? Steve...George...RETIRE! You suck! Expand
  19. MartinH
    Jun 1, 2008
    8
    First, as with any movie, try to not read or watch too much about it before you see it. It's always best to let the story reveal itself to you as the director intended. This is definitely a fun movie to see and I highly recommend it. Lots of action. Fun lines. Old, and new, friends. A little romance. Now onto the [***SPOILER***] part of my review: It is interesting to read how other First, as with any movie, try to not read or watch too much about it before you see it. It's always best to let the story reveal itself to you as the director intended. This is definitely a fun movie to see and I highly recommend it. Lots of action. Fun lines. Old, and new, friends. A little romance. Now onto the [***SPOILER***] part of my review: It is interesting to read how other people are complaining that the plot seemed silly or how in real life something like that could never happen. So, an ark with the power to level armies is real? Or a knight can live eternal guarding the cup of Christ? Or an evil high-priest can grab the beating heart out of a living man? All of the Indy movies are unbelievable and a bit silly (they are, after all, an homage to the 1930 Expand
  20. JimmyW.
    Jun 13, 2008
    8
    Entertaining, Ox was hilarious.
  21. PamelaD.
    Jun 15, 2008
    9
    Welcome back Indie! You still got it!
  22. LucaM.
    Jun 17, 2008
    10
    A true master piece! Everyones needs at least to 2 view to be capable of fully appreciate all its potential !!! Better than Raider to me!
  23. MarkK.
    Jun 18, 2008
    8
    Still Indy so still worthy.
  24. 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.
  25. Luke
    Jun 2, 2008
    10
    A great movie, one of the best in the Indy Franchise and well worth the price of admission. Probably the best movie I have seen this year.
  26. ZaneA.
    Jun 20, 2008
    10
    To all how didn't like the film I say you all have no imagination! This was the best film I've seen in a long time.
  27. Spudgun
    Jun 22, 2008
    8
    After reading some of the users comments I expected to be disappointed with this film, however I was surprised to find my self leaving the cinema thinking what a great movie, not perfect by any means but very entertaining and even the bride said she enjoyed and i had to drag her kicking and screaming to cinema.
  28. RossB.
    Jun 23, 2008
    8
    Fantastic fun in classic Indy style - if you loved last crusade you'll really enjoy this one....ok, there's a couple of scenes that shouldn't be there, but there are also some amazing moments, and john williams score is amazing as usual. Don't believe the haters - dr.jones is back!
  29. 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
  30. 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.
  31. BrandonT.
    Jun 27, 2008
    5
    A poor Indiana Jones film. Decent in comparison with the movies out around the same time but it won't last in movie history. Terrible ending.
  32. 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.
  33. SteveO
    Jun 3, 2008
    5
    This movie was so unrealistic. Entertaining, sure, but so unrealistic to the point that I wanted it to end. I mean aliens helping build the mayan civilization? Anyone with a decently working brain knows that aliens dont exist... jeez hollywood, you'll have to do better then this.
  34. JimP.
    Jun 4, 2008
    8
    Just plain fun! Is it the best Indy movie? No, but it provides a ton of laughs, thrilling action sequences and classic Indy moments. This two hour movie went by fast, which is a good sign. I love the Indiana Jones movies and would highly recommend this one. Don't be dismayed by the disgruntled fanboys - Cyrstal Skull is totally worth a viewing.
  35. 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.
  36. MikeS
    Jun 4, 2008
    0
    This movie was NOT good. I had such high expectations. It was a disappointment.
  37. 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.
  38. ChristopherQ.
    Jun 7, 2008
    7
    Entertaining. Very comparable to the other ones. Good for a single watch.
  39. 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.
  40. ClydeK.
    Jun 9, 2008
    9
    I'm happy to say that unlike the new "Star Wars" movies, Indy 4 does not try to be anything that the previous Indy movies were not. It's still just pure, cheesy, thrilling old-fashioned fun, evoking old movie serials and sci-fi b-movies from the 50s. After 19 years, even the distinct 80s charm that the movie has feels retro and completely welcome among all this year's other I'm happy to say that unlike the new "Star Wars" movies, Indy 4 does not try to be anything that the previous Indy movies were not. It's still just pure, cheesy, thrilling old-fashioned fun, evoking old movie serials and sci-fi b-movies from the 50s. After 19 years, even the distinct 80s charm that the movie has feels retro and completely welcome among all this year's other summer blockbusters. The actors and actresses totally ham it up and they all look like they are having an absolute blast (especially Karen Allen who returns to the series after a 27 year abscence). Any worries I had that the series' concept would not survive the transition into the Cold War era were cleared up for me the moment Blanchett's KGB character, Irina Spalko, utters her first lines in that completely ridiculous Russian accent. The script makes constant reference to Indy's age, but Ford is better-than-ever (and still quite handsome, I must add) as the bull-whipping adventurer and part-time professor of archeology. Thanks so much to everyone involved in getting this movie made (finally!) and here's hoping they'll bring Indy back for at least one more film before he hangs up that fedora for good... and that we won't have to wait another 19 years. Expand
  41. BrianF
    Jun 9, 2008
    9
    I went to this movie rather apprehensive, and I came away impressed by the film. Of course it will never be as good as the first movie, but it's definitely the first film I've seen in a long time that had me smiling and wishing that it would never end. Well done.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. nomad
    Jul 16, 2008
    5
    Folks this is why you have to appreciate Sly. Rembo and Rocky are two icon franchises and he capped them off in an exemplary, superb fashion... many other beloved cherished and loved franchises were tarnished by travesty sequels.. Long live Sly.
  46. PaulL.
    Jul 21, 2008
    5
    IT a good but definitely not great either. "It more of a national treasure feel to it because it involves around aliens. I didn't like it how is it set in 50s because it a b movie era rather the 1930s adventure serial. not worth a wait. The CGI IS Horrible. Anyway it a good movie but not great.
  47. EricS
    Jul 7, 2008
    9
    I found the new installment offering a fresh, augmented feeling to the world of indy, and at the same time, enough familiarity to feel connected to the prior movies. This new chapter, though not as unsullied as Raiders, certainly has a lot to offer the audience. Perhaps its biggest affection is the place where it transfers the viewer - an experience that feels fun, adventurous, and I found the new installment offering a fresh, augmented feeling to the world of indy, and at the same time, enough familiarity to feel connected to the prior movies. This new chapter, though not as unsullied as Raiders, certainly has a lot to offer the audience. Perhaps its biggest affection is the place where it transfers the viewer - an experience that feels fun, adventurous, and separate from the many monotonous, disconcerting movies that Hollywood attempts to push down our throats. I have read many personal reviews that claim to have been extremely disappointed by the movie - I simply don't understand how. The many claims that the movie was too far fetched or unbelievable seem precarious - when exactly did any of the prior movies root themselves in the statistical modeling or pure, painstaking methodologies required of archeological investigation? Quite simply, they did not. Kingdom is another Indy movie that is entertaining and fun. It works on so many different levels and offers new territories for Indy to explore... and new territories for our imaginations. Expand
  48. rob
    Jul 8, 2008
    5
    I was overjoyed to hear a new Indiana Jones movie was coming out. Then i saw it, and wished they hadn't. The ending was incredibly unusual for an Indiana Jones.
  49. TerryF.
    Aug 12, 2008
    0
    Again, Lucas, just like in the Star Wars series, fails to captivate us with a good story.
  50. 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.
  51. JoeyZ.
    Sep 13, 2008
    7
    It might not be the best in the trilogy but it's still a good movie. Don't listen to people who give this movie so bad of a rating like 1,2,3,or even 0! This movie is not that bad!
  52. SophieB.
    Sep 14, 2008
    8
    Me and my mate went to see it and it was good i can understand the criticism and it is a bit creaky but it was a very good film all together.
  53. ZackaryS.
    Sep 29, 2008
    9
    I didn't really like the other indiana jones movies but this one i really liked. BUY THIS MOVIE!
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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.
  58. 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
  59. 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.
  60. 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.
  61. Jimbob
    Dec 14, 2008
    7
    Beautiful cinematography and some wonderful moments in this (hopefully) last of the Indiana Jones series of films. Unfortunately, suffers from poor plot mechanics and diarrhoeal pacing. And the extraterrestrial theme to the "revelatory" ending was just cringeworthy. Still an Indiana Jones film is an Indiana Jones film, and the film is replete with the sense of mystery, exploration and Beautiful cinematography and some wonderful moments in this (hopefully) last of the Indiana Jones series of films. Unfortunately, suffers from poor plot mechanics and diarrhoeal pacing. And the extraterrestrial theme to the "revelatory" ending was just cringeworthy. Still an Indiana Jones film is an Indiana Jones film, and the film is replete with the sense of mystery, exploration and excitement that is the hallmark of its predecessores. Expand
  62. EmilyH.
    Dec 19, 2008
    10
    Oh come on, Indiana Jones was never realistic - did you miss the shrieking woman and the Voodoo dolls in the second one? This film was great! It had Indiana Jones, as.....Indiana Jones and a load of other people you have accidentally already met in the other films, wound in the plot in a somewhat cunning, if cheesy way. Indiana Jones 4, made when Harrison Ford is what.............66? was Oh come on, Indiana Jones was never realistic - did you miss the shrieking woman and the Voodoo dolls in the second one? This film was great! It had Indiana Jones, as.....Indiana Jones and a load of other people you have accidentally already met in the other films, wound in the plot in a somewhat cunning, if cheesy way. Indiana Jones 4, made when Harrison Ford is what.............66? was never going to be the same as the others and the filmakers have emphasized this to their credit. I particularly like the tip-offs to the other films, it feels like a well-deserved 'good-bye' to the franchise. The nods to comparitative archaeology are well woven in and you get a brief sense of what Indiana Jones might do in his time off adventures. Overall - amazing!!!! Expand
  63. ColinC
    Oct 28, 2008
    6
    Disappointing. Everything felt rehashed from earlier films. The buddy relationship of Indy and Dad from three was changed to a buddy relationship with his son. [***SPOILER ALERT***] The villians met the same end as they did in 1 and 3; one being done in by the artifact they were seeking, the other being done in by their greed as they tried to escape (the blond nazi from 3 and Indy's Disappointing. Everything felt rehashed from earlier films. The buddy relationship of Indy and Dad from three was changed to a buddy relationship with his son. [***SPOILER ALERT***] The villians met the same end as they did in 1 and 3; one being done in by the artifact they were seeking, the other being done in by their greed as they tried to escape (the blond nazi from 3 and Indy's Cold War pal from 4. And lastly, Harrison Ford just feels to old to be kicking so much ass. He goes toe to toe with a Russian soldier and wins. Even that scene was a rip-off from Indy 1 when he fights the big bald nazi who gets chopped up by the airplane propeller. George Lucas and Speilberg need to push themselves harder if they're going to do another sequel. Expand
  64. 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
  65. 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!!
  66. 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.
  67. 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 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
  68. JoeR
    May 22, 2008
    8
    Good enough.
  69. AdamM.
    May 22, 2008
    4
    Doesn't live up to the other Indiana Jones movies.
  70. PaulC
    May 22, 2008
    5
    I was very, very disappointed. A spaceship should never be in an Indiana Jones movie...guess what???
  71. 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.
  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 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
  73. 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.
  74. 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!
  75. INCForest
    May 23, 2008
    0
    Hey Dude. This movie is a real piece of SH*T!, Just a Dirt kingdom of dust.
  76. 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
  77. CraigH.
    May 23, 2008
    9
    Everything it should have been and more.
  78. mikem
    May 23, 2008
    5
    Average in every way. no inspiration, no excitement, strictly going thru the motions.
  79. 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.
  80. MiguelVerde
    May 23, 2008
    1
    I walked out in the first 15 minutes. It was that bad. Lucas Jar Jar'd another one.
  81. Darkmage2002
    May 23, 2008
    7
    This was a fun movie but suffered from a bit too much ambition, plot-wise. And, unfortunately, there were too many scenes where the viewer was treated like a complete idiot/moron. If you've seen the movie, I'm sure you'll agree with me that the nuclear-detonation refrigerator stunt, triple-waterfall stunt, ant attack scene and ESPECIALLY the scene with Mutt swinging Tarzan This was a fun movie but suffered from a bit too much ambition, plot-wise. And, unfortunately, there were too many scenes where the viewer was treated like a complete idiot/moron. If you've seen the movie, I'm sure you'll agree with me that the nuclear-detonation refrigerator stunt, triple-waterfall stunt, ant attack scene and ESPECIALLY the scene with Mutt swinging Tarzan style with the monkeys were just so preposterously ridiculous that the movie was severely weakened. Expand
  82. 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.
  83. WilliamT
    May 23, 2008
    8
    If you disliked the earlier films, don't watch this movie. If you enjoyed them, jump on in. While it's not as good as its predecessors and feels a bit rushed in places, it's a ripping good time to be had.
  84. ChrisK
    May 24, 2008
    5
    When they were making this movie - somebody somewhere was thinking videogame.
  85. AndyC.
    May 24, 2008
    7
    For an Indy film it is disappointing and a little weak. Taken on its own, it is a fun pop-corn ride that doesn't make an awful lot of sense.
  86. TimP.
    May 24, 2008
    8
    So he's older and the story's a bit crazy, but lets face it, its still an enjoyable movie. Its not gonna be as good as the other films, because they were amazing, and because you're older now, and more critical!!
  87. NickT
    May 24, 2008
    9
    Not as good as Raiders or Crusade, but a very good entry in the series.
  88. 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
  89. JaclynK.
    May 24, 2008
    10
    Rated 10 to increase reader average to what this film deserves - its a thoroughly enjoyable comeback, if a little silly.
  90. 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
  91. ShaunM.
    May 24, 2008
    6
    Squeaking by with a 6, only because it was slightly entertaining until the end.
  92. Swami
    May 24, 2008
    6
    It was OK, but it is missing that magic that the others had. Harrison Ford looked great, and I can't help thinking with a better script this movie could have been great. I get that many of the plots dealt with the fact this was set in 1957 instead of Nazi Germany times. However, for me, maybe it was trying too hard. It just did not have that sense of familiarity the other 3 did. It was OK, but it is missing that magic that the others had. Harrison Ford looked great, and I can't help thinking with a better script this movie could have been great. I get that many of the plots dealt with the fact this was set in 1957 instead of Nazi Germany times. However, for me, maybe it was trying too hard. It just did not have that sense of familiarity the other 3 did. LaBouef character was worthless and brought nothing but wasted screen time away IMO also. I didn't want to see Indiana Jones and the Fonz in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but that's what I got. Go in with an open mind and you might be pleasantly surprised. I was let down. Expand
  93. MichaelG.
    May 24, 2008
    5
    Usually when I see a movie like this, I suspend all belief and just have fun. But with Indiana Jones, I just thought it was stupid and pointless.
  94. AnnS.
    May 24, 2008
    0
    Idiotic drivel with amazingly flat, boring characters. Not like the old Indy.
  95. JOshrad
    May 24, 2008
    2
    Lucas ruins another saga. Wow, Steven is a sell out for letting this film be made.
  96. JulieG
    May 24, 2008
    8
    Captures the humour and charm of the 1st and 3rd Indy movies. Fans of those will love this; but if you didn't like the earlier ones, this won't change your mind.
  97. 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.
  98. MattS.
    May 25, 2008
    3
    Too over the top. Shia Lequeef sucked as usual.
  99. CaptainSpaulding
    May 25, 2008
    7
    Alright gang, I know that everyone is questioning just about everything in this movie. Indy and Aliens? Son? Old girlfriend? No Connery? I saw this movie and liked what I saw. It wasn't my favorite Indy flick (actually fell in 4th out of 4), but any means. Made "Temple of Doom" seem like an Oscar winner. But besides all the whinning, bitching and moaning...it's a frickin' Alright gang, I know that everyone is questioning just about everything in this movie. Indy and Aliens? Son? Old girlfriend? No Connery? I saw this movie and liked what I saw. It wasn't my favorite Indy flick (actually fell in 4th out of 4), but any means. Made "Temple of Doom" seem like an Oscar winner. But besides all the whinning, bitching and moaning...it's a frickin' Indiana Jones move!?! INDIANA JONES! Accept it for what it's worth...a 2 hour great escape from the rest of the world! Indy VI anyone (without Mutt Williams if possible)? Expand
  100. MarilynZ
    May 25, 2008
    10
    Wonderfully entertaining. Great fun. The only movie we have seen in years where we went on the first day and paid full price instead of waiting for it drop to half price in two weeks. I can't wait until I get this on DVD.
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.