User Score
5.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1048 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. TylerG.
    May 27, 2008
    7
    Something about this was uninspired to me. It seemed like they went through the normal motions of a sequel. I found the whole experience to be pretty disappointing.
  2. DionT.
    May 27, 2008
    0
    One of the worst movies ever!
  3. BassemH.
    May 27, 2008
    0
    The movie started out with a shatered ark lying on the ground. How very appropriate - everything in this movie distroyed the legacy of this franchise. Unwatchable, terrible acting, Ravonwood smiling like an idiot in every scene and unbelievably bad story development. All I can say is wow and beg Lucas and Spielberg to stop ruining my childhood memories - stop going for the cash and retire!!!!
  4. 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.
  5. A.Nonymous
    May 27, 2008
    2
    This is not the same calibrated campiness that is enjoyably found in the prior three films. No. This time around Lucas in his worsening senility has gone way outside the franchise's established universe to cook up pointless sequences that can only be taken as insulting to one's intellect. Any one of the following phrases could, on it's own, summarize the disaster this film This is not the same calibrated campiness that is enjoyably found in the prior three films. No. This time around Lucas in his worsening senility has gone way outside the franchise's established universe to cook up pointless sequences that can only be taken as insulting to one's intellect. Any one of the following phrases could, on it's own, summarize the disaster this film is: - CG prairie dogs - Nuclear blast-launched refrigerator ride with injury-free exit - CG monkeys with Tarzan sequence - Aliens - Psychic powers - Riding over falls of Niagara proportions (or even greater) multiple times with nary a scratch - Did I mention CG prairie dogs? I found myself wincing in the theater at the sheer funless, pointless, stupidity that these and many other portions of this film had to offer. Expand
  6. SaraH
    May 27, 2008
    2
    This is Indiana Jones scrubbed free of anything that made it remotely fun- Lucas was concerned about making it too violent, so he "toned it down." Translation: it is incredibly lame. Almost anything that was good in it is a rehash of the old movies, which had grit and grime. The film quality is muddy because it was digitally filmed, and the ridiculous plot- complete with aliens and This is Indiana Jones scrubbed free of anything that made it remotely fun- Lucas was concerned about making it too violent, so he "toned it down." Translation: it is incredibly lame. Almost anything that was good in it is a rehash of the old movies, which had grit and grime. The film quality is muddy because it was digitally filmed, and the ridiculous plot- complete with aliens and crystal skulls- is laughable. If the idea of a squeaky clean, murky looking video game with lame jokes is appealing to you, then run, don't walk. And bring your grandma. Expand
  7. UlicB.
    May 27, 2008
    3
    While the previous Indys have had us suspend belief for a few moments in the film, this latest romp asks us to suspend belief for much longer. Instead of a spiritual basis for the whole deal, they take a wrong turn, and make this more into an X-Files movie than not. I was quite bored and unamused by it, others slept during the movie, and in the ending scenes, I wanted to give the screen While the previous Indys have had us suspend belief for a few moments in the film, this latest romp asks us to suspend belief for much longer. Instead of a spiritual basis for the whole deal, they take a wrong turn, and make this more into an X-Files movie than not. I was quite bored and unamused by it, others slept during the movie, and in the ending scenes, I wanted to give the screen the bird and yell "Screw you, George Lucas. SCREW. YOU." Expand
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. LouF.
    Jul 11, 2008
    2
    This was a terrible and disappointing movie. The plot was non-existant. It was just a stream of cgi and unbelievable special effects. George Lucas tarnishes yet another classic trilogy. Thanks George!
  11. DavidJ
    May 15, 2008
    10
    The most amazing movie of the year so far, IJ:atKotCS is a masterpiece. Fantastic story, special effects, writing, and acting combine fruitfully to entertain anyone who lays eyes on it.
  12. PistolP.
    May 18, 2008
    10
    Best adventure film ever since Lastu Crusade
  13. ErinL.
    May 18, 2008
    10
    This is classic Indiana Jones! It's superb in every way, from the storyline and action sequences to the characters and humor. Kudos to all involved!
  14. SamF.
    May 21, 2008
    6
    Someone needs to confiscate George Lucas' computer sometimes. He just kills it with green screen.
  15. 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
  16. Guerrer
    May 22, 2008
    10
    It's extremely better than "Temple of Doom" and as spectacular as the other two. It has the truth Indiana Jones essence, combined well with the unknown powers of old myths and legends. ( ET ) I can not wait for the next film! Fate of Atlantis perhaps?
  17. CoreyC.
    May 22, 2008
    3
    Hugely disappointing, what a waste. Lucas has nothing left to offer cinema. A joke.
  18. JaimieR
    May 22, 2008
    3
    Sorry Indy fans...I was anticipating another exciting adventure with Dr. Jones & the gang. And it just didn't deliver. Credibility went out the window, as I found myself saying "Oh, come on..." with almost every action scene in the movie. Sure, it's a fantasy/adventure, but when characters decide to drive off a cliff without consequence or conduct a swordfight in separate Sorry Indy fans...I was anticipating another exciting adventure with Dr. Jones & the gang. And it just didn't deliver. Credibility went out the window, as I found myself saying "Oh, come on..." with almost every action scene in the movie. Sure, it's a fantasy/adventure, but when characters decide to drive off a cliff without consequence or conduct a swordfight in separate vehicles amidst a seemingly obstacle-free jungle road, then the filmmakers just don't respect their audience. Plus, alien intelligence and cold war-era Russians provide little tension and evil for our protagonists. A true disappointment on many fronts. Expand
  19. crystaldull
    May 22, 2008
    2
    George Lucas needs to be stopped. I could have come up with a better plot in about nineteen minutes, he had nineteen years... The film degenerates into a bunch of CGI nonsense - I mean, for god's sake George and Steven, we've all seen this sub-Playstation stuff before. Close encounters of the third-rate. While Spielberg should be castigated for what amounts to a vanity project, George Lucas needs to be stopped. I could have come up with a better plot in about nineteen minutes, he had nineteen years... The film degenerates into a bunch of CGI nonsense - I mean, for god's sake George and Steven, we've all seen this sub-Playstation stuff before. Close encounters of the third-rate. While Spielberg should be castigated for what amounts to a vanity project, the real failing of the film is the utterly nonsensical story (thanks, GL); this is quite an achievement given that the first films involved the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail and Sankara stones, which let's face it looked like glow-in-the-dark potatoes. If the film had any saving grace, it was that Jar Jar Binks didn't feature; if he had, I wouldn't have been at all surprised. Yet another Darth Vader/Frankenstein 'Noooooooo' moment, which amounted to a ruination of fond childhood memories. Expand
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. AndreF.
    May 28, 2008
    8
    I was very happy with this long awaited sequel. It wasn't Raiders, but nothing was. Those who are going to see Raiders will be really disappointed, but those who are going to see an Indiana Jones feature will be very happy with the result. Some of the scenes, don't want to spoil it, really are a stretch, but so is a whip casting professor. Hope to see another one.
  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. Sep 18, 2010
    2
    19 years to wait for the 4th movie of Indiana Jones and it a half disappointing
  27. MarkB.
    May 30, 2008
    3
    If you were in first grade when the original Raiders of the Lost Ark (or for that matter, either of the first two sequels) came out, then you're now old enough to have first graders of your own! So it's perfectly understandable that the massive groundswell of anticipation for the fourth installment of the Indiana Jones saga is a natural result of the world's near-unanimous If you were in first grade when the original Raiders of the Lost Ark (or for that matter, either of the first two sequels) came out, then you're now old enough to have first graders of your own! So it's perfectly understandable that the massive groundswell of anticipation for the fourth installment of the Indiana Jones saga is a natural result of the world's near-unanimous affection for Steven Spielberg's and George Lucas' justly beloved 1981 original (even if reactions to 2 and 3 were more mixed) and equally so that exit reactions to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull fall almost evenly into two seperate camps (as the current Metacritic 5.2 viewer response indicates). Rose-colored memories CAN lead viewers to rate it at least on par with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (if not better), but out of respect for the gritty realism that Spielberg subsequently brought to Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan and Munich, let's call a skull a skull: Indy 4 stinks. Forget comparisons to worthy Raiders knockoffs like Romancing the Stone: this isn't even as good as National Treasure 2 (not that National Treasure 2 was any good to begin with). It's expected that Spielberg, Lucas and credited writer David Koepp (Jurassic Park) would incorporate Harrison Ford's advanced age into this movie's characterization of Hollywood's most human action hero, but Jones comes off here like that cranky old guy who yells at school kids for cutting across his yard; close your eyes and you almost hear Dana Carvey! Speaking of which, Cate Blanchett's vocal characterization of the series' most one-dimensional villain ever would better have been done by June Foray as the original Natascha Fatale; this isn't the worst example of an Oscar-winning actress slumming since Shirley MacLaine did Cannonball Run 2, but it's in the parking lot of the same ballpark. And the everyman-junior quality that Shia LaBoeuf brought so successfully to his past work, making Holes a terrific entertainment, Disturbia a tolerable one and Transformers somewhat less painful than a red hot poker up your most sensitive orifice is totally out of place here; you don't put a teddy bear on a motorcycle and call it dangerous. Only Karen Allen, everyone's favorite Indy-go Girl (including mine, even though I'm a big Kate Capshaw defender) comes close to scoring, but the writing completely lets her and memories of her down; why does the wonderfully gritty Marion Ravenwood, who gave as good as she got, spend so much time here sitting on the sidelines? Aside from Crystal Skull's bluntness in treating both communism and anti-communism as dangerous forces (which may have been a calculated decision to avoid offending either the Right or the Left) its view of the 1950s is distressingly superficial even for pop entertainment; it comes off as the work of people who watched every episode of Happy Days and about a third of Rebel Without a Cause, but even that wouldn't matter if the special effects and action sequences were up to snuff. They aren't. A very wise friend once described the original Raiders as the best movie of all time because it had very few computer effects...just blood, sweat and tears. Well, times have changed and not for the better: this installment is nearly all digital and totally bloodless. The obligatory Attack of the Creepy-Crawlies in the first three Indy movies (snakes, bugs and rats, respectively) worked because the creatures were (or seemed real); the red ants here aren't. (When the killer-ant sequence in the 1954 Charlton Heston-Eleanor Parker adventure-soaper The Naked Jungle STILL comes across as infinitely more harrowing, you know you're in trouble!) And let's not forget the cheesily-rendered title object itself: the crystal skull, which looks like one of those plastic see-through models sold in hobby shops and stuffed with Saran Wrap, is so unconvincing it makes The DaVinci Code's cereal-box decoder device look like Rosebud. The final "hat joke" seen just before the closing credits threatens a fifth installment, but if Spielberg biographer Douglas Brode is right in theorizing that every Raiders movie deals with a major religious belief system (Judaism in Lost Ark, Hinduism in Temple of Doom, Christianity in Last Crusade and New Agephilosophy here), then the massive disappointment expressed by many Indyphiles (like me) in this poorly paced, endlessly self-referential chapter, Spielberg's sloppiest and most indifferently directed film since Hook, would indicate that he, Lucas and Ford won't be getting around to making the Muslim one. Expand
  28. JoeM.
    Aug 10, 2008
    8
    What's all the fuss? Preposterous yes, but also highly entertaining. And as I recall, that's what all the Indiana Jones films have been, I mean come on, Temple of Doom is one of the silliest films I've ever seen, but it's still a great thrill ride and so is this. A worthy entry in the series. Haters, GET OVER IT.
  29. LaurenS.
    Jan 20, 2009
    8
    Indiana Jones yet again takes the thrilling attempt of adventure, CGI and action sequences make it a great movie. But it's better than the 1st (raiders of the lost ark) and the 3rd (The last crusade), the 2nd one was not good at all. Indiana Jones, good movie, but not spielberg's best.
  30. meso
    Nov 20, 2008
    5
    Dull, hollywood cheese. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
  31. JackS.
    Nov 22, 2008
    7
    I have to say...this did make me a little disappointed, it is really random, some of the time I didn't get it. I love Lucas and Spielberg's films, like I loved the Jurassic Park. But, this was just a little to fast, it did turn out to be a decent ending and still have some good action and humor.
  32. BrandonS.
    Oct 16, 2008
    9
    Impossible to fulfill my hopes, but it totally exceeded my expectations. An excellent movie, and a fine sequel.
  33. DavidF
    Oct 17, 2008
    7
    The first 100 minutes of this movie is classic Indiana Jones and worth a 9 or 10. The last 20 minutes were rediculous. If voting for that alone this movie would get a 2 from me.
  34. 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.
  35. Daniel
    Dec 8, 2008
    0
    This movie was a horrible experience, and for people who appreciated the good movies of the series (1st and 3rd), it is also an insult. 10 minutes into it i was already trying to figure out what the hell spielberg and lucas were thinking when they made this. The movie barely makes any sense on it's own terms, let alone ours. I mean god, i gotta ask this, can you really survive a This movie was a horrible experience, and for people who appreciated the good movies of the series (1st and 3rd), it is also an insult. 10 minutes into it i was already trying to figure out what the hell spielberg and lucas were thinking when they made this. The movie barely makes any sense on it's own terms, let alone ours. I mean god, i gotta ask this, can you really survive a nuclear blast by HIDING IN A FRIDGE? Questions like these are the ones you'll find yourselves asking throughout this movie. And it's such a boring experience, whereas in previous movies, you felt excited and some emotion as to the things that we're being discussed and found (ark or the cup of christ), here they don't even bother with any of that, it's just a 200 mile per second experience where nothing is really analized or explored, and nothing makes sense. Avoid this movie at all costs, it is not indiana jones by any means, it's a waste of money and time. Expand
  36. HenryJ.
    Oct 3, 2008
    1
    So bad, you'll be angry.
  37. SeanC.
    Oct 30, 2008
    2
    A disgusting display of Lucas' CGI. His answer to every problem in filmmaking seems to be, let's just do it in post with computer graphics. Spielberg's motive's for making this film are unbeknowst to me, the acting was lousy and the story, weird and disconnected (Even for an Indiana Jones Movie) and the effects were even worse. I wouldn't mind another Indiana A disgusting display of Lucas' CGI. His answer to every problem in filmmaking seems to be, let's just do it in post with computer graphics. Spielberg's motive's for making this film are unbeknowst to me, the acting was lousy and the story, weird and disconnected (Even for an Indiana Jones Movie) and the effects were even worse. I wouldn't mind another Indiana Jones, just don't let Lucas get his mits on it and let Harrison Ford take a seat. I enjoy sequels that are done in appreciation of the previous films, this was not the case. I will not be buying this unholy mess on DVD and I don't recommend it to anyone. Expand
  38. ThomasW.
    Oct 6, 2008
    8
    Enjoyable film, couldn't see much wrong with it, I guess some people expected way too much and thought it was going to best the originals, which is kinda unreasonable and unrealistic to be honest. Had everything an Indy film needs, action, chases, fist fights, and a sense of awe and discovery.
  39. P.J.S.
    Oct 6, 2008
    1
    This is the worst kind of Hollywood drivel. The whole film looks like a Saturday morning kid show shot on a badly dressed sound stage. Other Indy movies were fun and action filled. This movie tries too hard to be fun, so it'd nothing but forced humor that's never funny, and it comes off as just plain dumb. If I had not been in the theater with other people, I would have walked out.
  40. MattA
    May 22, 2008
    7
    Indiana Jones proves that Harrison Ford can still portray a believeable action Hero, 19 years later in his life. The art direction and cinematography was pretty, as well as the special effects. However, the movie is plagued by campy plot twists and some cheesy action sequences that almost feel like George Lucas said, "I want to play too." It's hard for me to hate an Indiana Jones Indiana Jones proves that Harrison Ford can still portray a believeable action Hero, 19 years later in his life. The art direction and cinematography was pretty, as well as the special effects. However, the movie is plagued by campy plot twists and some cheesy action sequences that almost feel like George Lucas said, "I want to play too." It's hard for me to hate an Indiana Jones movie, and i can't possibly say that i didn't find it at least entertaining to see one of my favorite characters back on screen. If it wasn't Indiana Jones, it'd probably be a 5 or 6, but Indy gives it that extra bump. Expand
  41. JoshS.
    May 22, 2008
    8
    Good, campy, dumb fun. I had a great time. It's probably as good or slightly better than Temple of Doom. I could have done without some of the CGI. The CGI animals, CGI refrigerator bouncing wildly and cartoonishly around the desert, some of the CGI backgrounds, etc. just do not sit well with me. That being said, there were some great one-liners, lots of over-the-top chase scenes, Good, campy, dumb fun. I had a great time. It's probably as good or slightly better than Temple of Doom. I could have done without some of the CGI. The CGI animals, CGI refrigerator bouncing wildly and cartoonishly around the desert, some of the CGI backgrounds, etc. just do not sit well with me. That being said, there were some great one-liners, lots of over-the-top chase scenes, fun stunts, and the characteristic goofiness that we've all come to love. I can't wait to see it, and the rest of the series, again. Expand
  42. 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
  43. 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.
  44. SlumpsB.
    May 23, 2008
    0
    A film wholly unconnected to human intuition, though not without gratuitously empty references to the motifs of the 'Indy' installments that came before it. The film's vein attempts to flesh out its own credibility are as non-believable as the preposterous veil of Russian accented-speech provided by the train-wreck of a character displayed by Cate Blanchett. There is not a A film wholly unconnected to human intuition, though not without gratuitously empty references to the motifs of the 'Indy' installments that came before it. The film's vein attempts to flesh out its own credibility are as non-believable as the preposterous veil of Russian accented-speech provided by the train-wreck of a character displayed by Cate Blanchett. There is not a wide shot to be found in the movie entire, save for the distracting glow of CGI shots George Lucas clearly devised in a wet dream. Shia 'The Beef' LeBoeuf is in obvious Academy Award form, offering a plethora of hilarious one-liners and not a single reasonable excuse for his presence in the film. John Hurt's portrayal of the lovably-one-dimensional 'Ox' left me wondering if he was payed for his role or if he had merely gotten drunk and refused to leave the set. My only hope is that I will muster the courage to watch the original trilogy some day in the future. Expand
  45. PaulM.
    May 23, 2008
    7
    I have to say this movie doesn't disappoint, however it doesn't really impress either. With better than just average performances from Kidder, Ford and LaBeouf, I was surprised to discover the terrible "russian" accent delivered was by none other than Cate Blanchett. Terribly cheesy. Like Gorgonzola. The special effects are, as expected from George, fairly spectacular. Sadly the I have to say this movie doesn't disappoint, however it doesn't really impress either. With better than just average performances from Kidder, Ford and LaBeouf, I was surprised to discover the terrible "russian" accent delivered was by none other than Cate Blanchett. Terribly cheesy. Like Gorgonzola. The special effects are, as expected from George, fairly spectacular. Sadly the scenes of showing me a ground hog's reaction to a nuclear explosion are reminiscent of Jar Jar Binks. The cinematography, editing and stunts are all fine, but to wrap it all up, the story is far too thin to let you walk away saying "Wow I wish it was longer". It's more like " Wow I wish I had waited to rent this." Expand
  46. NateH
    May 23, 2008
    9
    I thought this movie was very good. The action is great, the story is well thought out and really cool, and there are a lot of hidden easter eggs for indy fans. My only complaint is that this should have been done sooner.
  47. DanR.
    May 23, 2008
    9
    This is classic Indiana Jones. The formula has not been modernized to appeal to the more jaded theater audience of today. Those unaccustomed to watching fun, adult-oriented action movies may not get it. For those of us that remember and loved them, however, it is an absolute blast. They don't make them like this anymore, and that's a shame.
  48. EvanT
    May 24, 2008
    10
    This movie stays defiantly true to the previous films. There was only one problem that I myself had with this film, but I still rated it a ten becuase it is just my tastes. With the expanded tech in recent years, most of the effects are digital, which is a dissapointment, but my good sir do not fret, this is as genuine an Indy experience as you will get. 10/10
  49. JOs
    May 24, 2008
    2
    Certainly sucked. Three word summary: Prairie Dog, Monkeys.
  50. 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
  51. GerryM.
    May 25, 2008
    3
    Completely ridiculous and a huge terrible mistake. The only saving grace is that Harrison Ford still has the charm of being Indy, but everything else just stinks out loud.
  52. RussellD.
    May 25, 2008
    3
    This was the most contrived, embarassing dissillusionment I have seen I have seen in quite some time. The script smacks of ambitious college students with little education, and was painful to watch. Me and my comrades left this movie whilst speeding jeeps in the jungles became platforms for a corny family fueled humourous sword fight between Indy's son, and a sword weilding KGB agent This was the most contrived, embarassing dissillusionment I have seen I have seen in quite some time. The script smacks of ambitious college students with little education, and was painful to watch. Me and my comrades left this movie whilst speeding jeeps in the jungles became platforms for a corny family fueled humourous sword fight between Indy's son, and a sword weilding KGB agent of sorts. Save your cash. Expand
  53. MichaelB.
    May 25, 2008
    0
    This is the worst Indiana Jones movie by such a wide margin it made me long to watch Temple of Doom again. The best thing I can say about Lucas' ridiculously bad script (he needed nearly 20 years to come up withthis??) is that there is no Jar Jar Binks.
  54. TimC
    May 25, 2008
    1
    Cinematagrahy was the best part of this movie. There was no feeling of adventure or risk that the previous Indiana movies provided. The ending was a huge disappointment based on the time period and what happened. The sense of wonder about the crystal skull was a huge let down when the ending was revealed.
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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.
  58. Brandon
    May 26, 2008
    8
    Great film, although no where close to the older Indy's. It could have done without a few of the scenes.. some of which just seemed like last minute thoughts and others were just cheesed out (Shia swinging from branches, WTF was that?
  59. 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.
  60. JasonT
    May 26, 2008
    3
    This could have only been more disappointing if Ja Jar Binks was in it.
  61. KentC
    May 26, 2008
    8
    You all need to relax and stop giving this movie such harsh reviews. This was an incredible action movie, much better than other summer blockbusters like iron man or speed racer, and that jungle chase scene was one of the most exciting chase scenes in any movie I've seen. The parts that did bring the movie down was that stupid monkey rope swinging scene, and the plot got silly at the You all need to relax and stop giving this movie such harsh reviews. This was an incredible action movie, much better than other summer blockbusters like iron man or speed racer, and that jungle chase scene was one of the most exciting chase scenes in any movie I've seen. The parts that did bring the movie down was that stupid monkey rope swinging scene, and the plot got silly at the end, but the main thing was that the film was dark. It was a bit hard to see in the beginning until you got used to it, but they could have brightened the film up. Kind of hurt the eyes a bit. Expand
  62. ChrisS
    May 26, 2008
    3
    I expected more from a Indiana Jones movie. Story was stupid, some scenes felt tacked on for no reason, and the logically element that someone can swing from a vine and catch up with two speeding cars and befriend some monkeys within seconds make you wonder if Lucas wrote this or a five year old.
  63. LaurettaM.
    May 27, 2008
    2
    The new Indiana Jones was a let down. It was like the ride at Disney Land. I was expecting a "GREAT" movie but it was "CHEESEY"!
  64. 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.
  65. 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.
  66. MikeQ.
    May 27, 2008
    10
    Very fun movie. Don't listen to all these fanboys complaining about aliens. This is no more far fetched than the other 3. I really enjoyed this movie and cant wait for the next.
  67. MatthewN.
    May 27, 2008
    2
    This is one of the worst films I have ever scene. They have destroyed what was once a good film series, it should never have been brought back.
  68. Fantasy
    May 27, 2008
    0
    Exploitation of a once great character. REFUND!
  69. SamC.
    May 27, 2008
    7
    Indiana Jones has always been unbelievable. Are Aliens any more preposterous than killer angels or an immortal crusader? The start is a bit meh, Blanchett is useless as the villain but this sticks faithfully to the Indie formula and I really enjoyed it.
  70. MattE.
    May 28, 2008
    3
    This was a wretched poor excuse for an Indiana Jones movie. I felt like the directors did a terrible job portraying Jones 20+ years later.
  71. JeffA.
    May 28, 2008
    9
    Loved the movie - great action set pieces, great humor, great finale! Bring on Indy V!
  72. attaboy
    May 28, 2008
    3
    Dear George Lucas, You are succeeding in your quest to ruin all the good things from my childhood. Tomorrow I am going to get a restraining order against you stipulating that you must not come within 100 feet of any movie studio. Thanks for nothing. Your one time fan, Atta Boy
  73. GeoffG
    May 28, 2008
    7
    Not the Best Indy but still very entertaining and fun. I left the theartre with a satisfied grin. Agree that Tarzan moment just took me out of the movie and cringe like everyone else. Did not fit at all George and Steve.
  74. JD
    May 28, 2008
    1
    Ok, I'm really confused. Because some of you people actually seemed to like this film. I feel like I mistakenly wandered into the wrong one, because the "Indiana Jones" (and it hurts me to call it that) I saw was possibly the most horrible, rambling, nonsensical, characterless piece of rubbish I've seen since Pirates 3. Someone needs to get George down from the ceiling fan and Ok, I'm really confused. Because some of you people actually seemed to like this film. I feel like I mistakenly wandered into the wrong one, because the "Indiana Jones" (and it hurts me to call it that) I saw was possibly the most horrible, rambling, nonsensical, characterless piece of rubbish I've seen since Pirates 3. Someone needs to get George down from the ceiling fan and remind him of what used to make his stories good... simple plot, good characters (CG monkeys not the same thing), sense of humor, and just a dash of subtlety. Expand
  75. GeoffreyF.
    May 29, 2008
    8
    People are freaking out way too much about the alien plot device. They do not make it a big deal about the actual ALIENS, There is no emphasis on meeting the visitors from another world. The important thing is the crystal skull artifact, and getting it to its final resting place. That makes it a classic Indy film through and through. I think they did a spectacular job, but I was a bit People are freaking out way too much about the alien plot device. They do not make it a big deal about the actual ALIENS, There is no emphasis on meeting the visitors from another world. The important thing is the crystal skull artifact, and getting it to its final resting place. That makes it a classic Indy film through and through. I think they did a spectacular job, but I was a bit disappointed with some overly done CGI in the film, balancing between two cars at high speeds? :-/ thats all minor stuff, I would have given the score as 8.5 but i can only choose 8 or 9. Harrison Ford has still got it, nuff said. Summary: Great new Indy film, a bit rough around the edges, but authentic Indy fun! People just need to stop freaking out about the plot device. Expand
  76. 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.
  77. 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
  78. DaveL
    May 31, 2008
    10
    Been a big fan of the Indy movies. Was a bit worried about this one, but it did not disappoint! Harrison Ford is a great as ever! He's still got that wit and charisma about him thats so suited to the character. Top performance by both Ford and LaBeouf. Plenty of action, fun and humor which is what makes the Indy films so great! A+
  79. JamesW.
    May 30, 2008
    2
    How can Lucas keep destroying the characters he made so great? What happened to the writing and creativity that made Star Wars and Indiana classic? It seems to me their skills should be improving as movie makers. But everything Lucas has touched since 1995 makes you wonder if he ever had anything to do with the originals.
  80. GuyH
    May 30, 2008
    2
    Pretty dreadful - but then the 'Temple of Doom' is an incredibly irritating film too but people gloss over that so maybe this will be received well. This film is completely schizo and reminds me of the Peter Jackson King Kong approach - throw all the sh#t you have at the screen and see what sticks. The title of the movie might as well have been 'Indiana Jones in the Outer Pretty dreadful - but then the 'Temple of Doom' is an incredibly irritating film too but people gloss over that so maybe this will be received well. This film is completely schizo and reminds me of the Peter Jackson King Kong approach - throw all the sh#t you have at the screen and see what sticks. The title of the movie might as well have been 'Indiana Jones in the Outer Limits' - the plot is absolutely barkin' mad. The villains are pathetic - a stiff Russian dominatrix type (seen before countless times) and the double dealing best mate turned bad (seen even more often). The worst thing though is that the big set pieces are rubbish - especially the moving vehicle jungle mash up that starts at ridiculous and then shoots through the stratosphere of dumb. Mind numbing Expand
  81. TimmyT.
    May 30, 2008
    4
    Disappointing. Aliens in a Indiana Jones movie? Give me a break!
  82. 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?
  83. DennisL.
    Jun 1, 2008
    3
    Wow....what a sad disappointment. Spielberg and Lucas took a wonderful franchise and threw it away with this movie. Considering the theme I kept waiting for ET to show up.
  84. Droog
    Jun 12, 2008
    2
    Please don't see this movie -- it's awful. The first three Indy movies stand perfectly well on their own, so don't tarnish their memory by watching this boondoggle. Many people have said Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is too absurd, but that's not quite it. It's just lazy. The dialogue is poor, the acting is tired, and the predictable storyline about aliens have Please don't see this movie -- it's awful. The first three Indy movies stand perfectly well on their own, so don't tarnish their memory by watching this boondoggle. Many people have said Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is too absurd, but that's not quite it. It's just lazy. The dialogue is poor, the acting is tired, and the predictable storyline about aliens have been done far better in other films. Previous Indiana Jones movies have dealt with the supernatural before, but at least they were original. In contrast, there's isn't a single original idea in Crystal Skull. I feel everyone involved in this movie just showed up to get paid and then to go home. It's a shame, and we shouldn't support this kind of poor movie-making. Expand
  85. JonF.
    Jun 12, 2008
    3
    I am frankly shocked that a poll of film critics would give this ludicrous mess a favorable review. Could Joel Schumaker teamed with Michael Bay do any worse? Can't wait for the next Indy film set in the 1960s, he'll probably surf into Earth's atmosphere on space debris (a la DARKSTAR) after the heat shield on his Mercury spacecraft fails.
  86. BradleyD.
    Jun 13, 2008
    7
    It was an good, if a little bizarre, action film but it simply was not a good Indy film. The film, whilst generally enjoyable, featured too many odd twists and lacked the traditional relic-hunting that ifred Indy to greatness
  87. charlesg
    Jun 13, 2008
    2
    Wow. This was a mess. The only guy who followed this storyline was the author of the last 2 Pirates of the Caribbean flicks. Never good for your essay grade when your concluding logic depends on dudes from outer space.
  88. 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
  89. gloria
    Jun 14, 2008
    0
    B-a-d. in e-v-e-r-y way. acting sucked, how could it not with such a l-a-m-e, shoddy script? the script had to suck because the story was written by a jack ass, yep that would be geoge - obviously all he was doing was looking to replentish his bank account with all us poor believers out here. i will never go to another movie with his or spielbergs name on it. this movie is a total joke, a B-a-d. in e-v-e-r-y way. acting sucked, how could it not with such a l-a-m-e, shoddy script? the script had to suck because the story was written by a jack ass, yep that would be geoge - obviously all he was doing was looking to replentish his bank account with all us poor believers out here. i will never go to another movie with his or spielbergs name on it. this movie is a total joke, a really bad joke. Expand
  90. JakeA.
    Jun 16, 2008
    8
    Personally, I really enjoyed it! Sucked me in to another world for 2 hours which is what I want from a movie.
  91. MelmanD
    Jun 1, 2008
    9
    Relally good. Scereenplay supurb.Indylooked old sometimes, but, ith was cool
  92. GaryB
    Jun 17, 2008
    1
    The funny thing is that Lucas refuses to let anyone see his infamous "Star Wars Holiday Special" from 1977. That was far more entertaining than this piece of garbage. Face it, he's a con man.
  93. DavidC.
    Jun 17, 2008
    0
    Shia ruined this movie! Way over hyped.
  94. RobertoM.
    Jun 1, 2008
    8
    Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford keep the Indiana touch and LaBeouf is a good surprise. There´s no sense in compairing it with the predecessors, you´d better enjoy it as a satisfactory adventure movie!
  95. NickB.
    Jun 1, 2008
    0
    This is the worst installment of the Indiana Jones movies. Within the first 10 minutes I wanted to walk out and get my money back. The acting was terrible and the storyline was just too much to handle
  96. MargaretT.
    Jun 2, 2008
    2
    Overrated. What a waste of time. The critics must love anything Lucas, Spielberg & Ford make regardless of the quality. Horrid acting, dull dialogue, nothing new to show us.
  97. saml
    Jun 20, 2008
    8
    Now, keep in mind, I'm incredibly pretentious. I could bore you to death talking about Bergman and I loved My Dinner With Andre. And yet, I enjoyed the hell out of this. The second he survives a nuke in a fridge all bets are off in ridiculousness.
  98. 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
  99. AlexAlex
    Jun 25, 2008
    1
    Horridly Overdone ! I was watching awful acting preformed on a Disney ride. Well at least some theme park has a stunt show. Might as well have donated $10+popcorn to the senior home for 90's actors. Can you put more special effects in a movie? Might as well have been animated. Not just: "Thumbs down", Thumbs cut-off. The 1 pt is for getting it to the movie theater in time (Unfortunately).
  100. LevS.
    Jun 26, 2008
    1
    Yes, it's meant to be a big, fun, blockbuster, but then again, so were National Treasure and Pirates of the Caribbean. What I'm sure everyone loved about the Indy movies was the charm and sense of adventure that are completely lacking in this one. Completely out of touch with the originals and sadly, poorly executed in all fields. Just another money-turner.
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.