User Score
5.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1123 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. Swami
    May 24, 2008
    6
    It was OK, but it is missing that magic that the others had. Harrison Ford looked great, and I can't help thinking with a better script this movie could have been great. I get that many of the plots dealt with the fact this was set in 1957 instead of Nazi Germany times. However, for me, maybe it was trying too hard. It just did not have that sense of familiarity the other 3 did. It was OK, but it is missing that magic that the others had. Harrison Ford looked great, and I can't help thinking with a better script this movie could have been great. I get that many of the plots dealt with the fact this was set in 1957 instead of Nazi Germany times. However, for me, maybe it was trying too hard. It just did not have that sense of familiarity the other 3 did. LaBouef character was worthless and brought nothing but wasted screen time away IMO also. I didn't want to see Indiana Jones and the Fonz in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but that's what I got. Go in with an open mind and you might be pleasantly surprised. I was let down. Expand
  2. ShaunM.
    May 24, 2008
    6
    Squeaking by with a 6, only because it was slightly entertaining until the end.
  3. 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
  4. RobertC.
    May 24, 2008
    4
    A disapointment. The movie has one cliche after another. All it is is chase scenes. The plot does not make any sense, the chase scenes and plot have been done dozens of times in other movies. Kate Blanchett is wasted in the film with an accent that I found comedic. Harrison Ford is not very good in the movie. Shia LeBeouf is also wasted not given a chance to display his talent. Shame on A disapointment. The movie has one cliche after another. All it is is chase scenes. The plot does not make any sense, the chase scenes and plot have been done dozens of times in other movies. Kate Blanchett is wasted in the film with an accent that I found comedic. Harrison Ford is not very good in the movie. Shia LeBeouf is also wasted not given a chance to display his talent. Shame on Lucas productions and Steven spielburg for passing this crap on us. Expand
  5. 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
  6. ChrisK
    May 24, 2008
    5
    When they were making this movie - somebody somewhere was thinking videogame.
  7. 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
  8. 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 :(
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. mikem
    May 23, 2008
    5
    Average in every way. no inspiration, no excitement, strictly going thru the motions.
  14. PhilS.
    May 23, 2008
    4
    Worse than Temple of Doom. George screws up again.
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  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. 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
  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. 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
  22. PaulC
    May 22, 2008
    5
    I was very, very disappointed. A spaceship should never be in an Indiana Jones movie...guess what???
  23. ShellieKelly
    May 22, 2008
    6
    Too unbelievable... Shia did a good job as did Harrison.. but the storyline was contrived and too far fetched.
  24. AdamM.
    May 22, 2008
    4
    Doesn't live up to the other Indiana Jones movies.
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. JoshB
    May 22, 2008
    6
    Keep your expectations very low, or you risk serious disappointment.
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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.
  31. SamF.
    May 21, 2008
    6
    Someone needs to confiscate George Lucas' computer sometimes. He just kills it with green screen.
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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.
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.