User Score
5.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1058 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. Camille
    May 30, 2008
    4
    I firmly believe that the generally favorable reviews from the critics is simply bias towards what was supposed to be an awesome movie. I really wanted to like this film; I tried so hard to look past some of its faults. But by the end, I was just rolling my eyes. It definitely had its moments; some suspenseful, some action packed, blah blah blah. But the overall premise doesn't live I firmly believe that the generally favorable reviews from the critics is simply bias towards what was supposed to be an awesome movie. I really wanted to like this film; I tried so hard to look past some of its faults. But by the end, I was just rolling my eyes. It definitely had its moments; some suspenseful, some action packed, blah blah blah. But the overall premise doesn't live up to what an Indiana Jones film should be. It's almost painful. Nice try, Lucas, but I think it's time we move past aliens and think about something new. And I swear to God, if one more movie/game involves looking for Cebola or El Dorado, I'm punching the nearest person in the face. Expand
  2. KyleD.
    Jun 1, 2008
    4
    I'll give the film some credit. Cut off the first 20 and last 30 minutes of the movie, and it actually drew me in. Good cinematography and decent action made me forget about the film's shoddy intro. And... that's about all I can say positively about it. The film started from an absolute crawl, and the absolute absurdity of the ending drew me to try and pull my hair out. I'll give the film some credit. Cut off the first 20 and last 30 minutes of the movie, and it actually drew me in. Good cinematography and decent action made me forget about the film's shoddy intro. And... that's about all I can say positively about it. The film started from an absolute crawl, and the absolute absurdity of the ending drew me to try and pull my hair out. Scenes were thrown in for the sake of sensationalism, dialogue was poor as is usual from Lucas' works, the movie destroys any sense of mystery by explaining every detail to the viewer, and most visual effects were thrown in for the sake of showing off ILM's latest developments. Avoid. Expand
  3. KarelD.
    Jun 4, 2008
    5
    Ford is old, Spielberg is complacent and Lucas is senile.
  4. Mar 15, 2012
    6
    I get why ppl hate this movie, I do. I was expecting that there was gonna be a big red bar full of "negative" votes. But here's my opinion about the movie, I thought it was okay. It's definitely not a masterpiece or as goos as Raiders of the Lost Ark & Last Crusade, but does it mean it's bad? Of course not! I want to review the 2 main rants that people nitpick all the time.

    1. Aliens
    I get why ppl hate this movie, I do. I was expecting that there was gonna be a big red bar full of "negative" votes. But here's my opinion about the movie, I thought it was okay. It's definitely not a masterpiece or as goos as Raiders of the Lost Ark & Last Crusade, but does it mean it's bad? Of course not! I want to review the 2 main rants that people nitpick all the time.

    1. Aliens don't belong in an Indiana Jones movie. It's like Indie meets Mars Attack.

    - I wouldn't put it that way. Did anyone even know that the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are known to be Extra-Teresstrial? Also, why don't aliens belong in an Indie movie? Did anyone even watch the other Indie movies? What about the Ghost that killed ppl in RotLA, the 700 year old knight protecting the holy grail from Last Crusade, or the voodoo stuff from Temple of Doom? Why not have science fictional experience?

    2. The refrigerator scene was ridiculous and unrealistic.

    -No Sh*t! I know this isn't realistic, many movies do that all the time but nobody complains about them. Again, did you watch the other movies? The unexpected and unseen tank escape from Last Crusade, falling off a helicopter with a inflatable boat and making it off a cliff without a scratch or a broken bone from Temple of Doom. I haven't heard anyone argue about that.

    In my opinion, I thought the movie was okay. I found it like a great comeback to Indiana Jones and the other 80's and 90's icons. We got the comeback of Die Hard, Terminator, Scream, Mission Impossible, Rambo, and Rocky Balboa and coming soon Men in Black. I liked that Indie came back as well. I would like to see Lethal Weapon 5 or Ghostbusters 3. Anyways, Indiana Jones 4 wasn't as bad as a lot of people put it. I liked it, my friends liked it, my family liked it, basically many people liked it, and others hated it. But I honestly find it to be a decent adventure movie.
    Expand
  5. NeilG.
    May 24, 2008
    5
    In its day, the indiana Jones movies were innovative; they have been since surpassed by the superhero films, Matrix trilogy and others. There was nothing new here. It seemed like it had been made 20 years ago with the other three.
  6. CJ
    May 27, 2008
    4
    The final act was too short, too muddled, and most critically, did not provide a MORAL DILEMMA WORTHY OF INDIANA JONES. Throughout this Franken-script, a lot of themes were merely touched on, but a solid closer would have solidified the main one. It seems, in the end, George, Steven, and Harrison couldn
  7. ES
    Jun 8, 2008
    4
    This is not the exciting, rip-roaring adventure that we were promised. It does have two good parts that come kinda/sorta close to capturing that old Indy feeling but the rest comes off as pale and lacking. And give me a break--there's no way that a guy would be wearing the same costume as he did 20 years ago (apparently Indiana hasn't grown that much since we last saw him). Ford This is not the exciting, rip-roaring adventure that we were promised. It does have two good parts that come kinda/sorta close to capturing that old Indy feeling but the rest comes off as pale and lacking. And give me a break--there's no way that a guy would be wearing the same costume as he did 20 years ago (apparently Indiana hasn't grown that much since we last saw him). Ford is always a treat but the attempts to make him look like a spry action figure seem a little too forced. And it's great to see Karen Allen again, but the whole "crystal skull" thing is just plain silly. This film is about ten years late. Expand
  8. TiernanS.
    May 24, 2008
    6
    I'm not sure if fans of Indiana Jones will be more disappointed than the uninitiated on this one, or vice versa. Ford does a great job putting the hat back on. It's also great to see Shia making the most of his role. Unfortunately, the script is too academic and undercooked, never mind the unusual lack of humor, and doesn't allow these great characters to really shine or I'm not sure if fans of Indiana Jones will be more disappointed than the uninitiated on this one, or vice versa. Ford does a great job putting the hat back on. It's also great to see Shia making the most of his role. Unfortunately, the script is too academic and undercooked, never mind the unusual lack of humor, and doesn't allow these great characters to really shine or even intertwine.......and it wouldn't be difficult. Indy and the gang are fantastic characters. That part was set, or so I thought. The actual plot is arbitrary nonsense that is amusing, but not engrossing.....and as the film throttles into the finale, the light saber duels and telekinetic....um, whatever become downright stupid. Since the script is so muddled and inept, when the action stops, so does the movie. The self destructing action set pieces fall in line with tradition and they're as implausable as ever, but they're still fun to see. Loved the prairie dog cameos too. Still, this one gets a mixed note from me. It'll make a good rental. Expand
  9. patrick
    May 22, 2008
    4
    Entertaining simply based on the implausibility of every plot twist (if you can call it a plot). I sat there thinking "this might be the dumbest movie I've ever seen" throughout the entire ordeal, but luckily I remembered that I saw a free screening of Van Wilder 2: Rise of Taj. Honestly, it seemed like it was just an homage to the originals with a trumped up cast (Blanchett was Entertaining simply based on the implausibility of every plot twist (if you can call it a plot). I sat there thinking "this might be the dumbest movie I've ever seen" throughout the entire ordeal, but luckily I remembered that I saw a free screening of Van Wilder 2: Rise of Taj. Honestly, it seemed like it was just an homage to the originals with a trumped up cast (Blanchett was absolutely atrocious). Expand
  10. Aug 27, 2010
    5
    If there is one thing this movie succeeds at it is entertainment, even if only in the campiest sense of the word. Unfortunately, in this case fans were hoping for so much more.
  11. Sep 24, 2011
    5
    "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is a decent movie to add into the Jones Franchise. The movie is way outdated with a 'old' performance by 'old' Harrison Ford. Looks like Spielberg & Lucas is getting older...
  12. MarkD
    May 26, 2008
    6
    Whoa, talk about mixed reactions! Anyone giving this a 9 or 10 is clearly blinded by nostalgia and people giving this below 6 are probably fanboys overreacting because they expected too much. Just taken as an action movie this is enjoyable nonsense but yes, it's dissapointing when you compare it to the other movies in the franchise. The appeal of the Indiana Jones movies is the way Whoa, talk about mixed reactions! Anyone giving this a 9 or 10 is clearly blinded by nostalgia and people giving this below 6 are probably fanboys overreacting because they expected too much. Just taken as an action movie this is enjoyable nonsense but yes, it's dissapointing when you compare it to the other movies in the franchise. The appeal of the Indiana Jones movies is the way they were still exhilarating and involving even though they pushed the bounderies of believeability. This movie goes too far though. Several times i found myself thinking "that wouldn't happen" or "that's just silly". When this happens you struggle to suspend your disbelief and the magics gone. Expand
  13. Jonathan
    Jun 3, 2008
    6
    Hey, dont worry, I hear that indy 5 has to do with genghis kahn and the holy cross jesus was crucified on, if it ever gets into production that is.
  14. MichaelT.
    May 18, 2008
    4
    Everything else is a retread from the VHS age. There are some nice moments, and everything is good-natured enough. But this is a moment for Harrison Ford to hang up the hat.
  15. AllenT.
    May 18, 2008
    5
    occasionally Indy IV genuinely entertains and gives you the warm, fuzzy feeling that you get when one is the company of a character you love. However, far too many moments fail to make an impact, too many ideas so disappointingly half-baked. The fatal flaw though is the film's utter lack of dramatic tension, and an absence of the sense of danger and adventure so vital to the success occasionally Indy IV genuinely entertains and gives you the warm, fuzzy feeling that you get when one is the company of a character you love. However, far too many moments fail to make an impact, too many ideas so disappointingly half-baked. The fatal flaw though is the film's utter lack of dramatic tension, and an absence of the sense of danger and adventure so vital to the success of the previous instalments. Expand
  16. peterr
    May 19, 2008
    5
    I was very disappointed. And I had low expectations too. I think the reviews, overall, have been being very 'kind' I wanted to love this film but Lucas' continued emphasis on technology and production advances with computer generated sets really bogs down everything organic, playful and ultimately everything that was so cool about all the Indy films. I heard that Spielberg I was very disappointed. And I had low expectations too. I think the reviews, overall, have been being very 'kind' I wanted to love this film but Lucas' continued emphasis on technology and production advances with computer generated sets really bogs down everything organic, playful and ultimately everything that was so cool about all the Indy films. I heard that Spielberg wanted to make a 'non-cgi film' but he did not get his way. Look for the cute digital prairie dogs at the opening of the movie. Your enjoyment of the picture will probably be determined by how much you like or dislike them. Expand
  17. Jon
    May 23, 2008
    5
    Good spirit, but too far out. Even Indy doesn't survive 500 foot waterfalls, much less along with four others.
  18. DamienD.
    May 23, 2008
    6
    Indy is back, but he kinda shoulda stayed where he was. This sequel is way too self aware with nostalgic references to the previous series and doesn't really find it's own steam. First half works pretty good with some decent action sets on a nuclear test site and a chase sequence through Indy's campus. The second half, once the plot really gets revealed is really Indy is back, but he kinda shoulda stayed where he was. This sequel is way too self aware with nostalgic references to the previous series and doesn't really find it's own steam. First half works pretty good with some decent action sets on a nuclear test site and a chase sequence through Indy's campus. The second half, once the plot really gets revealed is really incosistent and very slow paced at times, with a couple of thrilling action pieces, the waterfall dives are just too ridiculous. The climax was just too lame. The movie relies too heavily on CGI which detracts from the charm of the overall series where practical effects dominated. Harrison Ford is still Indy and the end really just further confirms this. Shia LeBouef and Karen Allen hold their ground but Cate Blanchett's villiain is weak and John Hurt and Ray Winstone are too underused. It took almost 20 years to come out with another Indy Adventure but personally I think it was summed up best in 'Crusade" Indy "That belongs in a museum" Villain: "So do you!" He was right! Expand
  19. vrblknch
    May 24, 2008
    6
    Problematic. Preface by stating that Star Wars was my 2nd favorite franchise to Indiana Jones from my first VHS viewing of Raiders around 6 years old... so it pains me to score so low. Walked in with a replica Indy Fedora on... left the theater quickly with the hat hidden held close in my hands. Actors were great. Kudos to Harrison Ford for owning the role. It looked like he was doing all Problematic. Preface by stating that Star Wars was my 2nd favorite franchise to Indiana Jones from my first VHS viewing of Raiders around 6 years old... so it pains me to score so low. Walked in with a replica Indy Fedora on... left the theater quickly with the hat hidden held close in my hands. Actors were great. Kudos to Harrison Ford for owning the role. It looked like he was doing all the light physical stuff with ease. Scaling crates in area 51 that would make me keel over now @ 30, let alone @ 65. Shia IS the future. Just as good as River as young indy. Spielberg started with a bang, but the Tarzan swings killed the movie. The chases were good times and the stunt work was top notch which is missing in modern cinema. After the ants it was downhill. Speaking of hills, the prarie dogs popped up one too many times. Other qualms, the cinematography was VERY hit and miss. The college campus and tomb lighting/lense was spot on, but everywhere else looked very washed and fake authentic, There was a soundstage look to RAIDERS, DOOM, CRUSADE that pasted with their ASC. Oh and the Raiders March was not featured as much as I would have liked, full fanfare maybe 3 times? The CGI was not unbearable even to my VERY crictical eye, but everything feeld second rate in terms of the Russian menace and the quest itself. Nice homages make for 3-4 REALLY good comedic/nostalgic scenes (picking up the hat beginning and end) and EXCELLENT stunt work make for 2-3 great action sequences. But they are leveraged by the 3-4 silly plot hiccups (peer into the skull, rope swing, tree driving). Indy needed quite a bigger threat to come out of retirement. Can't wait for Indy and Sleepwalking Screenwriters on dvd this December. Fin. Expand
  20. AliciaI.
    May 24, 2008
    4
    I went to the movies with all my family we are PERUVIANS and we got so upset about : First Nazca lines are in the coast of Peru Not in the Andes because CUZCO is in the andes. Then the music was not native PERUVIAN music. Moreover, we never had MAYA culture in PERU. We had INCA CULTURE furthermore, we never had those pyramids in Peru. So, I think the director needs to go back to school to I went to the movies with all my family we are PERUVIANS and we got so upset about : First Nazca lines are in the coast of Peru Not in the Andes because CUZCO is in the andes. Then the music was not native PERUVIAN music. Moreover, we never had MAYA culture in PERU. We had INCA CULTURE furthermore, we never had those pyramids in Peru. So, I think the director needs to go back to school to learn more about Inca culture before making a movie about a culture that he doesn't know and sell crap instead or real stuff. Expand
  21. JonM.
    May 27, 2008
    4
    What a dissapointing end to the franchise (and based on this, I can only hope it is the end). It lacked all the charm, wit, excitement, pace and drama of the first 3. Promising beginning gives way to middle of the film tedium which free falls into a ludicrous plot ending. Time to hang up the hat, Indy.
  22. GeMelleF.
    May 27, 2008
    4
    I was somewhat dissappointed in this movie. It made me think that Steven Spielberg had nothing to do with this movie at all. The movie smelled of George Lucas the whole way through, ranging from the CGI overusage to the ridiculous action sequenced borderlining on cartoonlike. One scene of Indiana tumbling in a refrigerator for what seemed 100 yards and step out and walk as if he was I was somewhat dissappointed in this movie. It made me think that Steven Spielberg had nothing to do with this movie at all. The movie smelled of George Lucas the whole way through, ranging from the CGI overusage to the ridiculous action sequenced borderlining on cartoonlike. One scene of Indiana tumbling in a refrigerator for what seemed 100 yards and step out and walk as if he was riding in a car the whole time told me where this movie was headed. Expand
  23. Vizruy
    May 27, 2008
    4
    This movie was terrible. It was more of an outline than an actual script. Indy 4 = The Mummy + Encounters - any of the charm. I'm a big fan of the originals, so this was a huge disappointment.
  24. SamF.
    May 21, 2008
    6
    Someone needs to confiscate George Lucas' computer sometimes. He just kills it with green screen.
  25. RockyS
    May 22, 2008
    4
    First off, thank you George Lucas and Steven Spielberg for trying. It was a noble effort. But the fact is, on the Indiana Jones scale, this movie is nothing. I liked the 1930s serial Jones, not the 1950s B-Movie Indy. This new installment replaces the "just beyond plausible" escapist magic of its predecessors with a total computer-generated abandonment of any notion of reality. In a First off, thank you George Lucas and Steven Spielberg for trying. It was a noble effort. But the fact is, on the Indiana Jones scale, this movie is nothing. I liked the 1930s serial Jones, not the 1950s B-Movie Indy. This new installment replaces the "just beyond plausible" escapist magic of its predecessors with a total computer-generated abandonment of any notion of reality. In a traditional Indiana Jones movie, he might go off one giant water fall and miraculously survive. Not in this one. In this movie he survives three, in a row, with his whole family, a mentally disabled guy, and his fat friend. And the Disney "family entertainment" vibe made me what to throw-up. The monkeys randomly attacking the Soviets, are you kidding me? And as for Roger Ebert liking it, go screw yourself, you fat elitist nerd. Don Expand
  26. ChadS.
    May 22, 2008
    5
    A slow start, a crushing bore of a start, really, kills your nostalgia, right off the bat, because the film regards its own mythology a bit too pompously. We know where the lost ark is being stored. We don't need a reminder. As for Indiana Jones himself, Harrison Ford may look great for his age, but he sounds disinterested. Grumpy. This fourth installment of "Raiders..." needs a A slow start, a crushing bore of a start, really, kills your nostalgia, right off the bat, because the film regards its own mythology a bit too pompously. We know where the lost ark is being stored. We don't need a reminder. As for Indiana Jones himself, Harrison Ford may look great for his age, but he sounds disinterested. Grumpy. This fourth installment of "Raiders..." needs a comedy transfusion; a young female sidekick who constantly reminds the aging archeologist how he's becoming the very thing he studies and collects, a relic. Shia LeBeouf is a good actor. But he's totally lost, here. Talking about comedy transfusions, at the very least, "...Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" needs a shot of Short Round, stat! In the wake of all those "Star Wars"-wanna bes that followed the mother-of-all-blockbusters(which killed off the personal filmmaking trend of American directors during the early-to-mid seventies) in '77, George Lucas actually got around to sueing two of these space opera "homages": the ABC series "Battlestar Galactica", and "Battle Beyond the Stars", starring one of "The Waltons", for story infringement. Twenty-five-plus years later, now the shoe is on the other foot, since writer/producer Chris Carter might have a little something to say about Lucas' so-called original story. Expand
  27. Steve
    May 22, 2008
    5
    Really?! This is the best they could do?! 20 years mulling over a script and this is the result?! Yeah, it had the skeleton of an Indy movie, but you've actually seen very single aspect of the plot/story/dialogue before...somewhere in the first 3. So...it's boring. To boot, not even John Williams came up with something unique...they just recycled the same themes from the other Really?! This is the best they could do?! 20 years mulling over a script and this is the result?! Yeah, it had the skeleton of an Indy movie, but you've actually seen very single aspect of the plot/story/dialogue before...somewhere in the first 3. So...it's boring. To boot, not even John Williams came up with something unique...they just recycled the same themes from the other movies. Lame. Let's see, what else sucked? Oh, the gags. Every moment in the movie is a gag, whether that be the "punch," (of which there were too many), the bullets that miss (again, too many), the car chases, everything Indy says now is a one-liner, and the inexplicable less-than-realistic action sequences are more comical than they are thrilling, the monkees, another Tarzan reference (like they did with Chewbacca in Star Wars 3/6), ripping pants...the list is endless really. At least Indy got shot in the 1st one, and we thought he fell off that cliff in the 3rd one. It would take Kryptonite to destroy him in Crystal Skull. Speaking of Kryptonite: There are aliens, just like in "Signs." And an atomic bomb. And Russians. And Indiana Jones was a secret agend during WW2. Don't waste your $10. Expand
  28. Mrjones
    May 23, 2008
    5
    The first 45min of the film was engaging and exciting. The last hour and a half of the film sorry to say derailed into self-indulgent, unfunny and over the top mess. Hollow characters never developed beyond weak accents and wacky expressions( thanks George Lucas) I'm starting to despise the cheap effects that computers can generate. If there were actually ants like that in South The first 45min of the film was engaging and exciting. The last hour and a half of the film sorry to say derailed into self-indulgent, unfunny and over the top mess. Hollow characters never developed beyond weak accents and wacky expressions( thanks George Lucas) I'm starting to despise the cheap effects that computers can generate. If there were actually ants like that in South America no one would live there. Disappointing. Expand
  29. Oct 11, 2010
    5
    Although this film retains all of the Indiana Jones necessities it goes way over the top when introducing the 'extra-dimensional' beings to the equation. This is Indiana Jones and not Star Trek. Apart from this, Ford is as lively and as brilliant as ever and keeps his comic timing but LeBoeuf, well, he just didn't cut it.
  30. Sep 1, 2010
    5
    Indiana Jones returns, but with Russians, skulls, atomic bombs & the 1950s.
    Well it wasn't as bad as I'd expected it to be. Being a massive Raiders fan there were some nice returns & references.
    Shia Labeouf plays his part pretty well whilst Cate Blanchett is on Autopilot as the stereotypical baddie. The main problems with it is that it's too far fetched, even for Indiana Jones (fridge &
    Indiana Jones returns, but with Russians, skulls, atomic bombs & the 1950s.
    Well it wasn't as bad as I'd expected it to be. Being a massive Raiders fan there were some nice returns & references.
    Shia Labeouf plays his part pretty well whilst Cate Blanchett is on Autopilot as the stereotypical baddie.
    The main problems with it is that it's too far fetched, even for Indiana Jones (fridge & waterfalls). These make the rubber dingy bit in Temple of Doom look perfectly viable.
    Also, the story is a bit ropey. I believe it was all George Lucas's idea so this explains why. Maybe he'll go back & change it in a few years?
    I also thought with all the CGI used, it didn't have the same charm as the other films.
    Expand
  31. meso
    Nov 20, 2008
    5
    Dull, hollywood cheese. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
  32. JayH.
    Oct 10, 2008
    6
    6.5/10. Faithful to the other films in the series, a bit too much over the top, but the cast is terrific and it certainly has a fast pace. Exceptionally well produced and it is fun to watch.
  33. RobertB.
    May 22, 2008
    6
    The movie is fun, yes, and watchable but... and its a big one, there will be a point when they find and discuss the Crystal Skull where you will become suspicious of where the movie is going. Fortunately we go straight back to the fun until the very end when George Lucas promptly kicks you in the shins and runs away to hide in his big piles of money. It is a deeply unsatisfying ending to The movie is fun, yes, and watchable but... and its a big one, there will be a point when they find and discuss the Crystal Skull where you will become suspicious of where the movie is going. Fortunately we go straight back to the fun until the very end when George Lucas promptly kicks you in the shins and runs away to hide in his big piles of money. It is a deeply unsatisfying ending to the plot, stolen from a presumptive National Treasure 3, though it doesn't make me regret watching and enjoying the film - it just made me feel a little dirty for doing so. Expand
  34. BenR
    May 22, 2008
    6
    Not the best of the series, but not the worst. Full of action and all the expected Indy humour. More like a Lucas film then a Spielberg film, recycled John William's score, but all around a good film.
  35. StevenK.
    May 24, 2008
    5
    I'm a big Indiana Jones fan. I've seen the first 3 more times than I care to mention! And although I love them all, I do admit that all 3 have flaws, plot holes, and problems with the storytelling, but as entertainment, they beat almost everything that dares to challenge them. After having seen Indy 4 last night, I can say that I was underwhelmed and dissatisfied by it, I'm a big Indiana Jones fan. I've seen the first 3 more times than I care to mention! And although I love them all, I do admit that all 3 have flaws, plot holes, and problems with the storytelling, but as entertainment, they beat almost everything that dares to challenge them. After having seen Indy 4 last night, I can say that I was underwhelmed and dissatisfied by it, especially because I had to wait 19 years for it and the best that they could offer was Crystal Skull. It's unforgivable! The talent involved, the caliber of the people involved, the money involved, and the time it took to work on this should have yielded much, much better results. Most of all, I feel heartbroken and crestfallen. Stuff I hated: ----SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS---- I hated the CGI monkeys! And the CGI prairie dogs for that matter. I hated the idea of the Tarzan-style swinging. I hated just how fake the swinging looked and how well Mutt managed to do it and how he even caught up with the vehicles without much trouble. I hated how Indy survived a nuclear explosion just because he was in a lead-lined fridge. It's not like the entire fridge was lead-lined and even if it was, it would be thin lead-lining, not enough to protect Indy from a blast, much less a nuclear blast. And he walks away from it all unscathed. This is Indy, not Superman!!! And why did the fridge have a curved trajectory from the nuclear blast? And why was the fridge the only thing that was ejected from the blast site? And why was Indy safe from the radiation once he got out of the fridge? And why was the test site so close to Area 51? I hated just how boring and undefined a villain Spalko was. It's like Blanchett didn't know where to go with her character. Her accent was also the conventional Russian accent that we've come to expect from Hollywood, so I expected better from this Academy-Award-winning actress. But we can fault the writing too. Also, how come nothing ever came off of her alleged ability to read minds? I hated just how adept Mutt was with the sword-fighting. He was fencing with Spalko the pro on top of moving vehicles yet he never missed a beat! And the whole thing with Mutt's leg split and crotch pain was more ridiculous than funny or clever. I hated how boring the music was. The first three movies had distinctive memorable themes and tunes that I could whistle to, this one didn't. It felt like John Williams was going through the motions. I hated the cinematography! The cinematography of the first three was beautiful when it had to be and gritty/realistic when it had to be. With Indy 4, the cinematography made it look hazy, out of focus, as if the colours washed over each other, there were annoying light flares and no crispness or sharpness to the images. In fact, the cinematography gave the movie this fake, artificial, inauthentic look/feel. Kaminski's style worked in Private Ryan and Minority Report, for example, but not here. I hated how Mac (Winstone) was a completely unnecessary character that didn't advance the plot forward. He was also a confused character but that was the writers' fault. Also, Mac didn't really have to die. He could've easily saved his own life or have been saved by Indy. Karen Allen was bad! I'm sorry people! And she was too eager to please which came off as desperate. Also, she didn't seem like a woman from the 1950s, in fact, she felt more like a loopy, drugged, modern-day soccer-mom. Indy and Marion were never given a moment to reconnect as characters after not having seen each other for so long and after having been through all these calamitous events. They just launched into their schtick immediately after they had met. There wasn't a single romantic moment between them like in Raiders. Not only that, but he abandons her for 10 years in Raiders, then backs away from the marriage and leaves her for 19 years, then she has his child without telling him and married some guy that Indy supposedly introduced her to and then suddenly, in Crystal Skull, she falls into his arms and is in love with him again and ready to marry him without skipping a beat?!!! Come on! And how tired is that cliche? The long-lost son?! I hated the CGI. Too much CGI (apparently Spiely was lying to us when he said that this movie was not going to rely on CGI and was going to be old-fashioned). It felt like Spiely was copying The Mummy and Lara Croft, which is ironic, since those awful movies were inspired by his work. The ending, for example, when the entire city whirls around and gets engulfed in a whirlpool of dust, debris and water... that was CGI overkill and it reminded me of the endings to the Mummy movies. Not only that, but to add insult to injury; the CGI was shoddy. The entire bit at the end of the sequence inside the alien temple when it starts to fall apart and the portal to another dimension opens up and sucks everything up was just not detailed enough as a piece of CGI. It looked terrible. Is it me or is CGI getting worse every year?! The whole chase scene in the jungle felt and looked absolutely fake! Almost all of it: the sword fighting, the swinging, the monkeys, the racing-near-the-cliffs, the CGI jeep landing on top of Indy Expand
  36. JDcook
    May 25, 2008
    4
    I'm afraid i cant even give indy a passing grade for this effort. all concerned obviously tried very hard to deliver a quality film and it does show in places (namely the casting, shia, and in the fact that harrison is still amazing as the man with the hat and whip) but it falls down in so many others (the fridge!!!!, the waterfall drops and of the course e.t's buddies showing I'm afraid i cant even give indy a passing grade for this effort. all concerned obviously tried very hard to deliver a quality film and it does show in places (namely the casting, shia, and in the fact that harrison is still amazing as the man with the hat and whip) but it falls down in so many others (the fridge!!!!, the waterfall drops and of the course e.t's buddies showing up in their mothership) i was never expecting "raiders" but i have to say i like my sci-fi to stay out of the indy franchise, lets hope they can pull one more out of the bag and make that ever promised 5 indy films go out with a bang. Expand
  37. DanB.
    May 26, 2008
    6
    It made me smile a lot, but it was not light enough on its feet to match the quality of the old ones. There were few flashes of wit, few great exchanges of dialogue. There were too many moments that were just too removed from physical reality (I don't mind supernatural, but swinging from vines?). Lastly, the crystal skulls... were... terrible. But. Still. It's Indy. I may not It made me smile a lot, but it was not light enough on its feet to match the quality of the old ones. There were few flashes of wit, few great exchanges of dialogue. There were too many moments that were just too removed from physical reality (I don't mind supernatural, but swinging from vines?). Lastly, the crystal skulls... were... terrible. But. Still. It's Indy. I may not watch it 6 times in the theaters like I did Last Crusade, but I'll buy the blu-ray tetralogy and not skip this one when re-watching the movies. Expand
  38. AaronE.
    May 26, 2008
    4
    It seems that Spielberg and Lucas were trying to rekindle the fire that is Indiana Jones, those high adventures we all love and came up with a weak-plotted CGI flop. They should have left Indie's bullwhip hanging in a museum and preserved the integrity of the series instead of giving us this 2nd rate Hollywood production laced with music that we all associate with a great adventure tale.
  39. DavidG
    May 26, 2008
    4
    Despite the fun-to-watch action scenes, and clever dialogue, this movie just wasn't very good. Apparently Indiana Jones has some sort of magnetic shielding that makes bullets never hit him as well as allow him to withstand unimaginable abuse. The plot was way too science fictiony, too much magic and unbelievable powers even more an Indy movie.
  40. davep
    May 27, 2008
    4
    Don't see this at the late show or the guy sweeping the floor will have to wake you to lift your feet.
  41. TadG.
    May 27, 2008
    4
    The only thing good about this is that Indiana is back, but couldnt a better script have been adapted? There were no memorable action scenes in this newest offering. George Lucas should be barred from making movies, instead only concentrating on CGI, and David Koepp has no knowledge of the Indiana Jones' character, further cementing the fact that he is an awful script doctor.
  42. C.B.
    May 30, 2008
    4
    Maybe I'm just too old for the tentpoles. I would not have been so tough on Indy, if Ironman didn't kick my ass a few weeks earlier. Indy should hang up his whip.
  43. TimK
    May 30, 2008
    4
    This movie was a disappointment. I really wanted to like this movie but couldn't. I can enjoy fantasy where a character gets shot at with 1000s of bullets and they all miss. But I cannot enjoy absurd gaps in plot logic where a character suddenly knows what happened 100s of years ago from a scene that gives zero clues to the audience. Without their sudden 'revelation' we This movie was a disappointment. I really wanted to like this movie but couldn't. I can enjoy fantasy where a character gets shot at with 1000s of bullets and they all miss. But I cannot enjoy absurd gaps in plot logic where a character suddenly knows what happened 100s of years ago from a scene that gives zero clues to the audience. Without their sudden 'revelation' we would be clueless. Such forced plot progression is dry and hard to take, sorta like swallowing dry sand. Painful, that's how I would describe this movie. Expand
  44. TimmyT.
    May 30, 2008
    4
    Disappointing. Aliens in a Indiana Jones movie? Give me a break!
  45. StevenH.
    May 30, 2008
    5
    Ridiculous! All of the waiting and anticipation and this is what they came up with?! Aren't their lives worth more than just the money they make on this crap?
  46. Lesley
    Jun 14, 2008
    4
    A convoluted story where the "bad guys" always seem to be just one step behind the "good guys", even when impossible to do so. And the whole story was such a yawn that I was checking my watch after only an hour (which actually felt like two). I just kept thinking "poor Harrison Ford...that must hurt to run and jump like that at his age". And a pummeling from a man twice his size and half A convoluted story where the "bad guys" always seem to be just one step behind the "good guys", even when impossible to do so. And the whole story was such a yawn that I was checking my watch after only an hour (which actually felt like two). I just kept thinking "poor Harrison Ford...that must hurt to run and jump like that at his age". And a pummeling from a man twice his size and half his age left him with only a bloody lip? Come on. I just felt that the movie was a bore. I would not watch it again, even when it comes to The Movie Network where I could watch it for free. Once was quite enough. Expand
  47. 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
  48. TayleyS.
    Jun 3, 2008
    6
    Well, I really wanted to like this film...and I was disappointed in a big way. It doesn't have the heart of the early ones. It felt like it was explaining itself too much, or something, which took all the mystery away from it. I guess the older ones weren't riding as much on a franchise as this was felt like it was. It was like opening an old shoe box of trinkets. You get a Well, I really wanted to like this film...and I was disappointed in a big way. It doesn't have the heart of the early ones. It felt like it was explaining itself too much, or something, which took all the mystery away from it. I guess the older ones weren't riding as much on a franchise as this was felt like it was. It was like opening an old shoe box of trinkets. You get a little excited, but it quickly fades. There were also inconsistencies in the plot, which is especially frustrating in a story such as this. The villain was never all that scary (think Raiders and the guy with the glasses and coat hanger - nothing like that!). The fighting between Marion and Indy was contrived and gratuitous - they needed it because it provided a good distraction. The plot itself was disconnected, in my opinion - too much escaping and being caught again, too much bad guy has skull/good guy has skull. I couldn't suspend disbelief enough at times to actually enjoy the film (kid with one leg on each vehicle while they're both in motion, and oh ya, having a swordfight at the same time because he conveniently had taken FENCING at prep school....pullease!) There were some beautiful wide shots in this movie but some of the backgrounds looked quite fake (e.g. first 5 minutes, outdoors). I wish the franchise hadn't had its reputation - I think this film would have been much better if it were working to prove something. My favourite part was the 3 second shot of the ark of the covenant. Expand
  49. RickyQ.
    Jun 4, 2008
    4
    The two things I
  50. 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.
  51. 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.
  52. 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
  53. EddieD.
    Sep 10, 2008
    5
    Too much fooling around. Crystal Skull doesn't get to the point.
  54. 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
  55. ChrisR
    Oct 16, 2008
    6
    I was sorely let down in the theater, but somehow on video, the Indy/Marion stuff works much better. What felt gratuitous and a thin waste of talent and goodwill, now seems economical. I'm ok with it.
  56. JamesO.
    Oct 16, 2008
    5
    Maybe Im geting too old for Indy movies, Im sure kids will love it but it just didnt wash with me.
  57. SteveK
    Oct 22, 2008
    6
    Not terrible if you come in with zero expectations. But this is INDIANA JONES! This is Spielberg and Harrison Ford! Almost impossible to do. The movie had fun moments, good actions scenes, and some really creepy moments too (I will never look at ants the same way again). But the real holes are in the plot. Too much said and not said. The whole thing is undercooked, like an excuse to make Not terrible if you come in with zero expectations. But this is INDIANA JONES! This is Spielberg and Harrison Ford! Almost impossible to do. The movie had fun moments, good actions scenes, and some really creepy moments too (I will never look at ants the same way again). But the real holes are in the plot. Too much said and not said. The whole thing is undercooked, like an excuse to make Indy, not an enthralling story that is interesting and draws you in. It starts interesting, but the end just fails to inspire. I think that people who want everything explained will actually be disappointed if it is, so I am not like everyone else on this site who are mad because "it wasn't explained", what bothers me is that we get no closure ON ANYTHING. And I'm a little tired of the whole the temple blows itself up plot device to neatly wrap everything up. Even National Treasure 2 did that, and that franchise shouldn't be able to hold a candle to Indy. I mean, they even did that in Last Crusade. We were just missing a cool Indy ending. There was nothing clever, inventive, or even interesting about the ending of this movie. They ran away and the Russians didn't. Go Indy, way to run. Seriously, I would like to see a director's cut where they fix the ending and they actually make it interesting. I don't care about the aliens, there are worse plot ideas in the world, but aliens that don't do anything are not interesting. Expand
  58. ChuckS
    Oct 26, 2008
    5
    This is how the movie is: -If you want a fantasy adventure movie, you will think this movie was 8 or higher. -If you want an Indiana Jones movie, you will think this movie was 2 or less. This movie, while entertaining, does not have the same feel that made the original Indy movies so appealing. So, what you get from this movie depends on what you want from this movie. If you want Indy, This is how the movie is: -If you want a fantasy adventure movie, you will think this movie was 8 or higher. -If you want an Indiana Jones movie, you will think this movie was 2 or less. This movie, while entertaining, does not have the same feel that made the original Indy movies so appealing. So, what you get from this movie depends on what you want from this movie. If you want Indy, you'll get disappointed. If you want a 2 hour distraction, you'll get a pleasant surprise. Expand
  59. JoshB
    May 22, 2008
    6
    Keep your expectations very low, or you risk serious disappointment.
  60. 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
  61. ShellieKelly
    May 22, 2008
    6
    Too unbelievable... Shia did a good job as did Harrison.. but the storyline was contrived and too far fetched.
  62. 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.
  63. PhilS.
    May 23, 2008
    4
    Worse than Temple of Doom. George screws up again.
  64. Fabio
    May 24, 2008
    6
    Not nearly as good as the previous ones... it's fun to see Indy back on the screen but... not much thrilling, no real (dangerous) villain, not much personality in the characters, it pretty much seemed a luna park attraction came alive... probably the worst Spielberg I've ever seen :(
  65. JaredB.
    May 24, 2008
    6
    Being a HUGE fan of the other "Indiana Jones" movies, I was really looking forward to this one. While it isn't a total loss, it is nowhere near as good as any of the films in the previous trilogy. For starters, Harrison Ford, who made the first three so great, shows his age in a big way here. I would expect for anyone playing Indy to jump fearlessly into the stunts. Here, Ford seems Being a HUGE fan of the other "Indiana Jones" movies, I was really looking forward to this one. While it isn't a total loss, it is nowhere near as good as any of the films in the previous trilogy. For starters, Harrison Ford, who made the first three so great, shows his age in a big way here. I would expect for anyone playing Indy to jump fearlessly into the stunts. Here, Ford seems more concerned about safety than realism. Speaking of realism, that leads to another problem I had. This film is completely implausible. For instance, there is a scene where the main characters are in a truck and something rolls over them. Normally, anyone who has this happen to them would be flattened. However, everyone comes out without even a scratch. If anybody can explain how this could happen, I would love to hear it. I also had a problem with the payoff. *Spoiler Alert* Near the end, the characters enter what appears to be an ancient Mayan pyramid. However, it turns out to be an alien spaceship. When is Hollywood going to stop making films where everything can be explained away by using aliens? I am getting so sick of this. Another thing I am getting sick of is Shia LeBeouf. Except his role in "Transformers," this guy is, in my opinion, a talentless hack. He should consider early retirement before he totally ruins Hollywood. If it hadn't been for some great special effects and humor, this thing would have been a complete disaster. Expand
  66. DanM.
    May 25, 2008
    5
    Outrageous and hackneyed storyline coupled with non-believable action sequences, too digitalized, I do not lump this in with the original trilogy and will not acknowledge this as an Indiana Jones movie.
  67. 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.
  68. MrToad
    May 25, 2008
    6
    Fun, but inferior to the originals, and ultimately only so-so. Action/adventure sequences are entertaining enough, though. Good if you're in the mood.
  69. 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!
  70. 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
  71. 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.
  72. MrDork
    May 26, 2008
    5
    Entertaining movie altogether, but for crying out loud... It's just so over-the-top cheesy hollywood-spielberg-lucas mumbojumbo. Half-way the movie it just went from hilariously nuts to total LSD trip. Gimme a break!
  73. PiltdownMan
    May 26, 2008
    6
    The best parts of this movie are when people are simply talking to each other, not frantically racing through the jungle (endlessly) in a too-long chase scene that defines "overwrought" and "boring." Will someone ever learn that "less is more?" If you wanna impress the kids, don't worry; they'll see the chase scene, then be able to play it for themselves when the game comes The best parts of this movie are when people are simply talking to each other, not frantically racing through the jungle (endlessly) in a too-long chase scene that defines "overwrought" and "boring." Will someone ever learn that "less is more?" If you wanna impress the kids, don't worry; they'll see the chase scene, then be able to play it for themselves when the game comes out...so you don't have to over do it for the rest of us... But there is a great deal to like about this film. I was expecting way too much obvious CGI and a lot less muscle and sweat, but the CGI was mostly invisible and the sweat was palpable. One thing I really liked was the idea that intelligence and schooling matters. I know, I sound as old and crotchety as Indy, but it is really nice to see him speaking to the locals in their native tongue.... Smarts matter is a nice takeaway for the kids watching...actually for all of us! Many people have trashed the "alien" angle, but I found no problem with it. After all, they had pretty much plumbed Christian mythology (that's how I see it) already, so why not a secular bit of the supernatural? Expand
  74. 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.
  75. IndianaJones
    May 27, 2008
    6
    This is not a bad movie, but it's not the Indy movie you were hoping for. It really is a shame; after all those years this is what they came up with. Whoever said "videogame" was correct. It gets the 6 for being such a let down.
  76. 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).
  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. EdwinWu
    May 31, 2008
    4
    Too similar to the previous ones. Background of story outdated.
  81. 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.
  82. 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
  83. 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
  84. 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.
  85. 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.
  86. 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.
  87. 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.
  88. 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.
  89. 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.
  90. 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.
  91. 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.
  92. 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
  93. 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
  94. AdamM.
    May 22, 2008
    4
    Doesn't live up to the other Indiana Jones movies.
  95. PaulC
    May 22, 2008
    5
    I was very, very disappointed. A spaceship should never be in an Indiana Jones movie...guess what???
  96. 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.
  97. mikem
    May 23, 2008
    5
    Average in every way. no inspiration, no excitement, strictly going thru the motions.
  98. 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.
  99. 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.
  100. ChrisK
    May 24, 2008
    5
    When they were making this movie - somebody somewhere was thinking videogame.
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.