User Score
5.2 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 916 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 11, 2013
    8
    It's been a while since Indy has been on the big screen and the decision to make a new fresh film might not have paid off. It's a good movie, and certainly entertaining, but too heavy on CGI in my opinion and as well as that Cate Blanchett just can't pull off the villain well. It has its shining moments and there's no denying it's a fun cast, but the new characters like Mutt & Irina simply don't compare to those of the originals. Overall fans will probably still like it, and I did too. Expand
  2. May 10, 2013
    8
    He may not be the best, but it has Harrison Ford in the style of the character, and packed with a good plot regularly, makes it worthwhile.And it shows that the union of Spielberg and Lucas still works right.
  3. Apr 29, 2013
    6
    This movie definitely has its mixed reviews. It's usually you either really hate this movie or really love this movie. Personally, I'm kind of inbetween, but honestly it was still an enjoyable Indiana Jones movie. I think it's safe to say that it has some of the old and the new. For old, it still has its enjoyable swash-buckling action sequences, which truly helps give the movie a boost (in a sense). For the new, it adds in some new characters and a plot that doesn't live up to the trilogy's expectations. All the characters are pretty average and have some good moments, but there's one big problem that stands in there way. This movie has some of the worst screenplay I've ever heard. When you hear a character say those cheesy on-liners, it just sounds terrible. The reason I gave this movie a 6 is that it has good memorable swash-buckling action and the story (beside getting to the alien part) really tries to bring back a legend. Overall, for some of its major bumps on the road, it's still an enjoyable Indiana Jones movie. Expand
  4. Feb 23, 2013
    7
    After 20 years, Indiana Jones returned for a new generation to enjoy. It is simply amazing that at almost 70 years of age, Harrison Ford was able to do this movie, and even perform some of his own stunts. In the film, they introduce Shia LaBeouf as his son, so that the franchise can continue. Indiana Jones has been around since the early 80s. There are hundreds of books and stories they could have chosen from, and I suspect most of them would have been better than the Crystal Skull. Don't get me wrong, the movie wasn't bad, but aliens, Elvis, sword fights on the back of a jeep, cannibalistic ants, and Shia swinging through the Amazon with a family of monkeys? That's not Indiana Jones. I realize they wanted to portray him in perhaps the final years of his career, but the story was not great. The action scenes, effects, stunts, and cast were all great, and what you've come to expect from Indy, but the movie itself wasn't the best. It's enjoyable and worth seeing, but for the most part it doesn't fit with what we know of Indiana Jones. Expand
  5. Jan 13, 2013
    5
    The spark of action humour and villains has fizzled out and George Lucas has killed another good film series, repeating the disaster of The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones.
  6. Dec 31, 2012
    5
    The saddest thing about this movie.. is if it weren't for just a few really terrible scenes (that could leave some viewers insulted by suggesting they are so gullible and easy to please that they will buy into ridiculously outlandish and stupid scenes)... it could have fit nicely with part's 1 and 3. Unfortunately, this film was somewhere near the temple of doom (although I would say Temple of Doom was still worse).

    The main scene that comes to mind is the part where Indy's son and the Russian are sword fighting on two jeeps... this is where I really made up my mind that this film was totally blown, even though it was already heading in that direction fast. The beauty of Indy 1 and 3 and many other good adventure classics, are that although very fantastical, they still have an element of believability within the world created by the movie.

    Indy and the Crystal Skulls completely lost sight of trying to stay believable, and I think that's why so many hardcore fans were really turned off almost feeling that their intelligence had been insulted (Although I know this certainly wasn't the intent of the makers, but just the reality of how many viewers felt).
    Expand
  7. Dec 29, 2012
    8
    I've never understood the hate for this belated fourth Indy installment. "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is just about everything I expected it to be . . . just another Indiana Jones film. It's a sweet and satisfying nostalgic indulgence that brings back everything you knew and loved about the series. No, of course it's not as memorable as the first three, and yeah, it is tamer and more family-friendly than the others. But it's not a bad movie, it's still a lot of fun. Shia is, to great relief, much more bearable here than in "Transformers"; Cate Blanchett is great as the Soviet villain; and the plotline with the crystal skull is very entertaining. And yeah, I don't mind the aliens. I honestly don't. They were still done in the same way as the Ark, the Grail or even the Temple of Doom - it was just aliens this time, and about as plausible as any of the other concepts. The jungle chase sequence is the highlight of the action (and I'll admit, yeah, the monkeys were just a tad silly), the alien discovery scene is fun, there's some fun new music score (listen closely for a brief borrowing from Speilberg's 'War of the Worlds') and overall, it's just . . . fun. Pure popcorn fun. And what the heck's wrong with that? True, the Indy series would have been more than fine as a trilogy, but this last-minute addition is certainly a welcome encore and deserves its place along the other three. Expand
  8. Dec 27, 2012
    6
    The whole Aliens ending was an awful way to end the film but it was still enjoyable to watch. It was action packed, Had good acting, and it was entertaining. I can see why Indiana Jones fans hate it but it wasn't all that bad.
  9. Dec 4, 2012
    7
    Didn't quite live up to the quality of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" or "The Last Crusade". But much better than "The Temple of Doom". A decent movie with decent special effects, an okay story and true to the Indiana Jones franchise (well except "Aliens?" really? Shouldn't it be some kind of Old Testament Religious artifact or Hindu Curse? But whatever... BTW: I wonder if this movie was the inspiration for the over-the-top Ancient Aliens show lol). Expand
  10. Jul 12, 2012
    7
    This movie is very underrated. I thought that, although it wasn't as good as the first three Indiana Jones films, it found Indy back in adventurous shape and recaptured the genuine fun of the originals. Really, guys, see this movie! It was good!
  11. Jul 11, 2012
    10
    Great film. I'm still happy with it and most everyone I know thought it was good back when it came out. I liked it alot when it came out but it's grown alot on me moreso than I had expected. It's not my second favorite of the series! :) Raiders is still always the best, though. But in all seriousness, this is a great film and while not worth 20 years of waiting, it's still awesome as can be. Indy will always be the very best. Check it out, it's a good sequel! :) Expand
  12. May 23, 2012
    9
    Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the crystal skull is a very good action movie. It's underrated. Why do people dislike it so much, it's a genuinely good film, its got great action scenes, tense and kinda spooky moments, a great dialogue/script, an interesting plot with good twists and quite good acting. I do admit the film has bad moments: like the monkeys and stuff. If you did your research, if it has crystal skull in the name, it's probably gonna have aliens in it, and anyway, the aliens are cool. What's so bad about sword fights, they're not bad. If it's different from its predecessors, that doesn't mean it's bad, it's a really good film! Expand
  13. Mar 27, 2012
    1
    Was really looking forward to seeing this movie, unfortunately, it was dreadful, the first 3 are excellent films, this one is just the polar opposite, Ray Winstone is dreadful in it, so is Shia Lebeouf and Cate Blanchett is even worse! Harrison Fords comic timing and some strategically place Gophers make the opening 20 minutes enjoyable but after that it really is awful!
  14. 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 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
  15. Feb 23, 2012
    3
    This movie should have never been made. It is a discredit to the original trilogy, and it damages the series as a whole. Aliens should not have been included in an Indiana Jones film. Also, I know that there has always be an element of the ridiculous in the franchise, but seriously, some of the scenes in this film are downright ludicrous. Spielberg and Lucas need to learn that their classics should not be tampered with. A train wreck. Expand
  16. Feb 5, 2012
    3
    A movie of complexity that doesn't pay off. The story is so compounded, it seems like it was a combination of 20 different ideas. But it was one of those movies that was popular with the public, mainly because they can't tell a good movie from a bad movie.
  17. Jan 1, 2012
    8
    I thought it was good. Yes it did annoy me that it was about aliens but still, Its classic Indiana Jones. This film was really made to introduce a new generation of fans to Jones and I think it works good.
  18. Nov 27, 2011
    10
    This is my favorite Indiana Jones movie of them all. It may have a different story than the others but somehow it stands out further than the others to me. Plus, Harrison Ford is still Indiana Jones.
  19. Nov 25, 2011
    1
    Steven Spielberg went full retard on this one. Sure, the other ones weren't believable either...but this one? Dr. Jones survives atomic bomb test in a refridgerator, survives thousand foot drop from waterfall, and then he brings in the aliens.
  20. Oct 4, 2011
    10
    The best of all the four films, interesting, impressive images and effects, funny, and entertaining, a good film after 19 years that we saw for the last time Indiana Jones, the new score is good, a good job made by Steven Spielberg.
  21. Oct 2, 2011
    8
    i don't really get where all the negative buzz of this movie comes from. to me, it is as good as any other indiana jones movie.
  22. 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...
  23. Sep 4, 2011
    2
    For years there were rumors of the new Indiana Jones movie. Finally it was confirmed and we eagerly awaited the 4th love child of Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Harrison Ford. There were a lot of naysayers out there who thought Ford was too old, that Lucas/Spielberg ought to leave well enough alone, but they saw past all that and went for it. The result: Unbelievable Crap. Lucas explains to the AP: â Expand
  24. Jul 30, 2011
    9
    Great follow up to possibly the greatest movie series ever. Not the best one of the lot though but I completely recommend this to anyone who's looking for a hell of an adventure!
  25. May 20, 2011
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Rather than me sit and whinge about how it wasn't as good as the others I will just give you the below...

    Blah blah blah, explosions, blah blah, I am your son, blah blah I am an enemy, blah blah I am your friend really, blah blah it was aliens, blah blah marriage, blah blah give me my hat.
    Expand
  26. May 10, 2011
    1
    This episode of Indiana Jones takes place several years after the TV series ended, but to my mind is the best episode to date. The fact that they decided to not use Sean Patrick Flanery and instead Shiabelouff as the Young Indy is a fatal mistake, but doesn't stop the episode from being highly original and very, very entertaining. The story sees an bloated ageing Indiana Jones save the world from Russian Nazi's by climbing inside a refrigerator and time traveling back to the 1930's where he meets his younger self, but now bizarrely modelled as James Dean in a gay hat for some reason. The use of monkeys and rubber snakes really works here though, as does the over-crowding of old people. Karen Allen's brilliantly observed portrait of senile dementia is right on the money, even though she looks about as attractive as your dead grandmother sucking off a horse. And John Hurt is brilliantly miscast as Sean Connery's incontient jibbering brother. Although not as good as Flanery (or Jaquin Phoenix for that matter) Shialeboufddff does prove a welcome asset to offet the stench of decay as the Young Indy to the gang of coffin dodgers, but at times is jarring considering the amount of dust falling off the old folks and filling the stale putrid air. I also don't know why at the end they had to have not one, but about twelve old farts running around the Aztec temple trying to save the world when Indiana Jones and his younger self would have sufficed. Oh well the stunts are as always well above anything else on TV and the high production values at times make it seem as though your watching an actual movie and not just some unnecessary bloated distraction to an otherwise perfect series of old school adventures. Expand
  27. May 4, 2011
    9
    Very, very underrated. Hating this movie because of small instances is unfair and unreasonable. I found this movie just as fun as the last three Indiana Jones films. Yes, it's not as good as the other three by a mile but the story is still interesting, the Indiana Jones character is still the same charismatic adventurer we all know and love and the handful helping of nostalgia actually makes the film all the fun it can be plus the "Nuke the Fridge" scene was the highlight in my opinion. Expand
  28. Apr 6, 2011
    9
    What is with all of the negative criticism? Sure, the ending could've been better, but the fun action, good acting, and a great score, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a great movie. And people complaining that hte movie is too unrealistic, that is insane. Did you ever see Temple of Doom?
  29. Mar 14, 2011
    9
    Sheesh, what's with all the negativity? If you ask me, I think this was the best Indiana Jones movie since the original one. Not saying the last two sequels were bad, but they were kinda going left and right between what the true religion in the Jones universe is. I for one was glad they departed from looking for religious artifacts, and Harrison Ford is still the same old Indiana Jones we all know and love. Expand
  30. Mar 6, 2011
    10
    What the heck is with all the negative critisism? This movie is awesome! It feels exactly like an old fashioned Indy movie! Granted, its not as good as those movies, but who would expect it to be? The acting is great, the action is intense and lots of fun, and the same adventurous atmosphere that made the others so much fun is back full throttle! Yes, it's very unrealistic, but what Indy movie is? Yes, I didn't really like the whole alien thing, but that's the only thing I didn't like about it. Overall, KOTCS is a great installment in the amazing franchise. Expand
  31. 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.
  32. Sep 18, 2010
    2
    19 years to wait for the 4th movie of Indiana Jones and it a half disappointing
  33. 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 & w
    aterfalls). 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
  34. 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.
  35. Aug 23, 2010
    6
    growing up loving the original trilogy i couldnt wait for this film . though i believed it arrived 15 years to late. its not a bad film but really doesnt capture what the original trilogy was . shilo boof like always is annoying and a insult to fans to think he may become the next indiana jones . some people where upset that they moved away from the reliougous theme towards aliens . i didnt mind it it infact its still following the same lines if you know your history . many archioligists believe that the nascans and other from that area worshiped some thing that resembled aliens . so it looked to me they where still on that theme . the action was good although didnt feel near as good as raiders or last crusade . it was a ok entry to the series but not really the ending i woulda liked the series to go out on. my only last and best hope is they dont bring that moron shilo boof in to replace harrison ford as indiana jones . just let this series stay dead. Expand
  36. AaronG
    Aug 28, 2009
    7
    Honestly now, this movie gets beat up for a lot more than it deserves. It's one of those fun summer films which set expectations impossibly high, and of course couldn't meet them. A lot of people complain about the CG, and they have the right to. In many scenes it can look out of place, or just fake altogether. However, Speilberg and Lucas use it to their advantage with some truly jaw-dropping images that look beautiful or just amazing. The Plot....was pretty iffy this time around. Really disappointing. But the movie makes up for this with some very well shot action sequences and some great dialogue. If you enjoyed the original trilogy, there's no doubt you'll at least like to see another Indiana Jones movie. If you've never seen any of the movies, then what are you doing? Go rent "Raiders of the Lost Ark" for what I consider to be one of the best movies ever made. Expand
  37. LeventeS
    Jun 27, 2009
    7
    Aside from some forced interactions between the occasionally poorly-written character and a painfully cheesy ending, The Crystal Skull is completely competent and adequate member of the Indiana Jones series. The plot is a bit insane, but that's what the series is all about, putting human ingenuity against ancient freaky magic. It's not nearly as bad as that awful middle-child Temple of Doom. Expand
  38. RussellJ
    Jun 27, 2009
    1
    This is dire. Saw it at the pictures and it was like having my childlike self ripped apart. The equivalent of finding Santa on xmas morning wanking onto your mince pies you left him. The story was shit. There was no suspense or mystery. The action was laughable and full of cgi. The acting was atrocious even Harrison Ford couldn't pull it off he's too old for the role. To be fair it maintained itself with a certain sense of disbelief all the way to the Amazon scenes and the film just gave up. So many bad scenes in a row. Mutt swinging from vine to vine like Tarzan. The giant (cgi) ants. Three waterfalls. Kill me now. The worst is left to the end of the movie. Spielberg do you really think we'll buy this shit with the aliens as lightheated fun. Raiders worked because it was mythological but aliens shouldn't be in this type of movie. Especially in a close encounters style. Oh Indy I still like you in the trilogy without jowls. Expand
  39. 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 the trees with the monkeys was incredibly lame. The acting was decent but it couldn't save the movie from its awful plot. Expand
  40. KeenanS
    Jun 15, 2009
    4
    This film was such a disappointment, I will probably not be able to watch the old trilogy again for years after what this film left me with. It was one of the biggest disappointments ever and was a huge letdown. This film was ridiculous for all the wrong reasons and failed miserably. Why George Lucas? Do you insist on ruining every classic franchise you helped create? Bad CGI, bad acting, bad music, bad action scenes, this film screwed up in all the areas Indy should be succeeding in. Don't ever watch it. Expand
  41. AL
    May 3, 2009
    1
    One of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Unbelievably bad. Startlingly implausible at every turn, Wildly illogical and improbable occurrences in almost every scene. Embarrassing dialog throughout, as if it were written by a child. And this is the first ILM film (assuming they did the FX) I've seen with anything other than impressive and innovative visual effects... in fact, they were shockingly substandard. The CGI on this film looked about like the quality of what you'd see on a, say, a Sci Fi channel original film... which is to say not very good. It seems as if they decided to rush a new Indy flick to the theaters; it seems to be cobbled together hastily with no attention to even the most basic points of physics and logic, maybe to meet some contractual obligation... or maybe just to squeeze one last drop out of the Indiana Jones series before Harrison Ford gets too old to be believable in the role. Expand
  42. KM
    Mar 23, 2009
    7
    It's a decent enough sequel in the series, I don't think it deserves the harsh criticism the users are giving it, maybe it's just out-dated.
  43. KieranS
    Feb 26, 2009
    10
    As another user has said, Indiana Jones hasn't always been realistic, nor does it have to be. Maybe it has some scenes where any ordinary human would die, but he is Indiana Jones after all! Just like James Bond, he cannot be killed. You may say "This movie is terrible because it has CGI in it" well: A) So does every-other movie today B) When Raiders, Temple and Crusade were released back in the 80s, they used Matte-Paints, CGI is the "Matte-Paints" of today. If you say it has terrible CGI, well, I would like to see YOU try and do CGI, CGI is if not, one of the hardest parts in movie as it is extremely complex to achieve something that is realistic, Indy IV DID achieve that. You could go "Why did Mutt swing on the vines with those monkeys??!? That was totally stupid and unrealistic" Well, how else would he have reached the vehicle in time? Well? Exactly. There was no other way (except for Running, even then would he encounter animals and not be able to reach it in time) Well, it does make perfect sense. In the 50s Aliens were a popular topic, the government were apparently hiding Aliens from the public, all the UFO "Sightings", not to mention the Roswell incident. It was the perfect topic because Aliens were associated heavily with the 1950s. Of Course the ending would be Alien because what creature has a skull like that? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is probably one of the best movies I've seen in a long time, and nothing is better seeing a classic hero come back after 19 years and kick ass! Expand
  44. Antonyk.
    Jan 24, 2009
    0
    Lucas lured us into thinking that they can be trusted again, and we, unfortunately, believed him. While the first moments of the movie rang with all the epic ardor of the original trilogy, the film turned for worse the second Cate Blanchett showed up in an annoying hairstyle and plummeted to depths we all worried the franchise could fall years from now at the hands of a know-nothing filmmaker banking on money coming in for an old favorite, now we know that Lucas himself, once again, who has the wrongs hands. Expand
  45. 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.
  46. nige
    Jan 4, 2009
    1
    What i really don't get is why have CGI gophers, monkeys, scorpions and ants, but then use a rubber snake for Indy's biggest phobia? Silly, silly film. Some unintentionally funny lines though 'Not space.......the space between space' ??!?? John Hurt must have cringed all the way to the bank.
  47. RonaldB.
    Jan 4, 2009
    3
    Replete with anachronisms ("same-old, same-old" which could be used as an overall comment) and acting on-the-cob, "Crystal Skull" was one of the few Spielberg efforts that found its way back to the slipcase ere the ending.
  48. WaltS.
    Dec 19, 2008
    3
    Well, I'm not a die-hard Indiana Jones fan, nor a jaded hater off big motion pictures. All I wanted was a popcorn movie that could give me 2 hours of entertainment. The good news: the first 60-80 minutes of this movie are enjoyable. No, it's not on the level of Raiders of the Lost Ark by any means, but it gets the job done. The bad news: the last 40 minutes are absolutely horrible. The script is the real zero here: unquestionably wretched. The special effects make you want to do a double-take because they are so ridiculous. Literally, the last 40 or so minutes look like the product of Spielberg, Lucas, and whoever else throwing together patch-work ideas and other scenes borrowed from previous Indiana Jones movies and trying to make them stick. It is a little depressing that this movie is ranked in the Top 25 highest grossing movies of all time. Customers came looking for a great time and were cheated. Shame on everyone involved in the creation of this mess. Expand
  49. EmilyH.
    Dec 19, 2008
    10
    Oh come on, Indiana Jones was never realistic - did you miss the shrieking woman and the Voodoo dolls in the second one? This film was great! It had Indiana Jones, as.....Indiana Jones and a load of other people you have accidentally already met in the other films, wound in the plot in a somewhat cunning, if cheesy way. Indiana Jones 4, made when Harrison Ford is what.............66? was never going to be the same as the others and the filmakers have emphasized this to their credit. I particularly like the tip-offs to the other films, it feels like a well-deserved 'good-bye' to the franchise. The nods to comparitative archaeology are well woven in and you get a brief sense of what Indiana Jones might do in his time off adventures. Overall - amazing!!!! Expand
  50. Jimbob
    Dec 14, 2008
    7
    Beautiful cinematography and some wonderful moments in this (hopefully) last of the Indiana Jones series of films. Unfortunately, suffers from poor plot mechanics and diarrhoeal pacing. And the extraterrestrial theme to the "revelatory" ending was just cringeworthy. Still an Indiana Jones film is an Indiana Jones film, and the film is replete with the sense of mystery, exploration and excitement that is the hallmark of its predecessores. Expand
  51. Anonymous
    Dec 11, 2008
    1
    Simply wretched from beginning to end ... and the middle kinda sucks too.
  52. BC
    Dec 11, 2008
    1
    this movie was completely cartoonish. I haven't seen this much randomly sprayed automatic weapons fire since the A-Team. The CGI quality of the chase scene thru the Jungle was laughably bad. Don't waste your time, please, you'll thank me.
  53. 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 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
  54. CraigG
    Nov 27, 2008
    0
    Worst movie in the entire film industry. What a piece of S**t. Horrible acting, direction, screenplay, writing, etc. Shia is a terrible actor. Ford looked like he didn't want to be there. I would rather take a dump in my hand than watch this one again. Spielberg should be ashamed of himself. My pet turtle could have made a better movie than this c**p. He was my favorite movie maker, but now the worst. Expand
  55. EvanS.
    Nov 23, 2008
    3
    What starts out as a worthy successor quickly turns into ridiculous silliness about the time Karen Allen shows up on the scene. It's a mess.
  56. ChristopherJ.
    Nov 22, 2008
    8
    After reading the reviews here I decided I should put my 2 cents in. If you didn't like it that's fine, but to blame it on the effects...is sort of ridiculous. The originals are known for amazing effects, why wouldn't they do the same here. I felt the plot and script were good. The story was great. The idea was fun and interesting. I felt it was a fine piece of cinema.
  57. 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.
  58. meso
    Nov 20, 2008
    5
    Dull, hollywood cheese. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
  59. NC.
    Nov 12, 2008
    2
    From it's opening green screen madness (it's everywhere, but totally replicable by set and just done by choice by mr lazy bum himself)... it is clear, and eventually undeniable, that this film has been savaged by the now soulless wonder who made one of my all-time favourite childhood gems. I speak of George Lucas, who, allowed to go near the charcters and, oh dear God no, the STORY, has made the most blasphemous, ridiculous, endless yawnfest of unreailstic set-pieces (No, NO, NO! That is NOT what the series is based on and NOT what it has traditionally espoused at all Roger Ebert... I LOVED the other films, especially Raiders of the Lost Ark (But I HATED this dredge))... Back to film school Roger you hack. It's full of unconvincing acting or acting hammed up to the eyeballs (cos they knew it was crap, it's written all over the more astute actors' visages). It is childish, uses poor cgi to make animals that are cute but totally beside the point - totally (except to george, the retarded kidult), has balls been hit repeatedly etc (oh, hahahahahahaha, yeah, aweeeesome bro...)... and I would definitely rate this as the MOST disappointing movie I have seen since the turn of the century.... and I have watched PLENTY.... I have passed stools smarter than this film. Shame on you Geroge, get out of the game buddy, stop 'revisiting' (ie., ruining) classics and trying to make new ones when you have 100% lost it - artistically and intellectually... you are too old, let go... and as for you Mr two thumbs up Ebert, unless you want me to take your job and give it to one of the chimps from the film, learn to respect the difference between timeless classics with daring stunts as compared with mashed-up, hodge-podge, technically-obsessed (this film is full of machines and lasers and aliens, even though it is the 50s, nice one George, you f'ing iiiiiiiiiiidddiot) garbage with ridiculous transporter part 29 stunts that don't rase a heartbeat because they are George Lucas' yawny, dreamy, boring wet dreams about s*** that never happens and no one gets off on unless they are idiots or are 4 years old or both. The movie was total, utter, unmitigated GARBAGE. Go back to the ranch George, and FO. U ruined a classic series, ruined it. I am simply not counting it. It never happened. It's like a Crow sequel... WHAT crow sequels? That's what I say, and now I say, "What Indy 4? Stop talking nonsense." Hang your head in shame buddy.... and you Steven, how'd you let him do it!? Appalling..... Need an example? Girl drives car off cliff with everyone on board and onto a tree that bends over all the way to the bottom of the canyon (pefectly, with not a bump, hundreds of metres below) and they drive gently off.... cos who wouldn't? It's totally unrelaistic and also uncool.... wow!! Idiots....... I should give it 1/10, but it was the first blu-ray I watched on my new system and so I give it 1 more for looking awesome (and, I might add, awesome enough to see they barely used one set in the WHOLE film..... lazy scum). Expand
  60. ManuelB.
    Nov 8, 2008
    1
    There is no depth to this movie. It is definitely not the continuation of a legend. Its boring and the plot is downright ridiculous. I don't understand how an actor with the backgroud of H. Ford agree to do this retarded show.
  61. 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 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
  62. DarrenS
    Oct 28, 2008
    3
    Also disappointed. Awkward is a great way to describe the movie. If you're a hardcore Indy fan, you probably won't like it. If you hate corny-ness or terrible cliches, you probably won't like it. If you're not okay with extremely unbelievable situations you won't like it. Sure, the old movies had some pretty far - fetched stunts or situations, but they were somewhat believable, and in my opinion this movie pushed it way too far. I liked some stuff: an older Indy was interesting, Soviets as the bad guys was a good idea, and some of the scenes were pretty fun. Unfortunately, the ending left such a bad taste in my mouth that I spent the next day watching all three Indy movies trying to forget Crystal Skull. Maybe you'll like it, but most likely you won't. Expand
  63. ColinC
    Oct 28, 2008
    6
    Disappointing. Everything felt rehashed from earlier films. The buddy relationship of Indy and Dad from three was changed to a buddy relationship with his son. [***SPOILER ALERT***] The villians met the same end as they did in 1 and 3; one being done in by the artifact they were seeking, the other being done in by their greed as they tried to escape (the blond nazi from 3 and Indy's Cold War pal from 4. And lastly, Harrison Ford just feels to old to be kicking so much ass. He goes toe to toe with a Russian soldier and wins. Even that scene was a rip-off from Indy 1 when he fights the big bald nazi who gets chopped up by the airplane propeller. George Lucas and Speilberg need to push themselves harder if they're going to do another sequel. Expand
  64. 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, you'll get disappointed. If you want a 2 hour distraction, you'll get a pleasant surprise. Expand
  65. JaredK.
    Oct 25, 2008
    10
    This is an underated gem. I'm not surprised so many complain. Some won't give anything a chance. Still, it's great.
  66. RayH.
    Oct 22, 2008
    1
    This movie is absolutely pathetic! It represents everything that is wrong with movies today. They are ruined by trying to appeal to everyone and in doing so, they don't please anyone. Shia L. was obviously added to appeal to the teeny boppers. The CGI gophers and the monkeys that "befriend" Shia L.'s character within a matter of seconds were added to appeal to the kiddies. The fake ants, the sword fight between two moving vehicles while Shia's character is hit with branches in his most private area, not to mention that the main characters were bullet proof, makes me want to vomit. Top it off with falling down three waterfalls without a scratch and Indiana Jones surviving a direct Nuclear blast because he was inside of a "lead fridge" and then thrown for a country mile unscratched makes this film completely useless to society. Anyone that is giving it a good review is doing so because they are one of the previously mentioned groups or because their kids laughed. This movie is pathetic! Expand
  67. JonK.
    Oct 22, 2008
    3
    Very disappointing. Right off the bat, the lighting was noticeably bad - artificial and fake. Awkward and fake pretty much sums it all up for the rest of the show. I could suspend belief enough to really enjoy Independence Day but this show was rather insulting.
  68. 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 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. Collapse
  69. TomN.
    Oct 18, 2008
    3
    Horrible, the plot is whack. Everything is sloppy. Too many plot holes. Ridiculous. Action is also stupid, retarded, and contrived. Skull is maagnetic, but only when they throw the gun powder into the air does the powder then floats and follows? Nuclear warhead? Aliens, did they explain anything about it? Aliens, seriously?
  70. JimboJ.
    Oct 17, 2008
    9
    Fantastic Indy movie. It might not be the best in the series - it may even be the worst - but all the same, it's a damn fun movie to watch and make no mistake, this is an Indiana Jones movie. So I say drop the expectations, let go of the comparisons, and just sit back and enjoy the ride.
  71. GrahamM.r
    Oct 17, 2008
    0
    Harrison Ford is my favorite movie star and he can't save this sad, sad excuse for a movie. Lucas...please go away and stop ruining all the franchises that made our childhoods great. Nothing in this movie makes sense or is entertaining. The special effects are awful as well. As for the end.....It's a joke this movie made so much money.
  72. Ginny
    Oct 17, 2008
    0
    Definition of stupid Space aliens "interdimensional space aliens": 1. who are archeologists who destroy everything they've collected 2. blow someone up as a "thank you" and drive others insane 3. Sit around as skeletons for hundreds of years but fail to die 4. Have a hive mind for absolutely no reason. 5. Form back into said live space alien before wisking themselves away in a ship without a trace 6. Forget to take all the other space alien bodies with them that apparently couldn't survive for hundreds of years 7. Have a movie with absolutely no plot other than "return my skull" and you will get a reward (to be blown up). 8. And let us not forget...they have magnetic bones cause it's such an inventive plot device. Lame, very lame. Don't waste this much of your life. I'm pretty sure space aliens took over the writer of this film to make it so unappealing so no one would ever want to find them. Expand
  73. 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.
  74. DarrenZ.
    Oct 17, 2008
    9
    Are you a fan of Indiana Jones and his particular brand of over-the-top action films? Then you will love "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". Are you one of those bitter and jaded movie goers who insists that everything was done better yesterday? Then you will hate "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". That's pretty much all you need to know to decide if seeing this movie will be worth your time. In my case, I loved it. It's everything I expect and want from an Indiana Jones movie; nothing more, and nothing less. Expand
  75. Ethan
    Oct 16, 2008
    9
    Its got that movie magic
  76. 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.
  77. BrandonS.
    Oct 16, 2008
    9
    Impossible to fulfill my hopes, but it totally exceeded my expectations. An excellent movie, and a fine sequel.
  78. 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.
  79. RhodyT.
    Oct 15, 2008
    10
    I can't be the only one who doesn't live in a dream world where aliens are less ridiculous than a box that melts faces, right?
  80. Lauranda
    Oct 14, 2008
    3
    Shia is not all that, contrary to Spielberg's obsession for him. And Lucas needs to go back to his glory days and take examples from that. This 4th chapter is just plain bad. Aliens? come on!! Blanchett was the only reason I didn't give this a 1.
  81. JamesL.
    Oct 12, 2008
    2
    I'm sorry. Indiana Jones defeats the aliens after he survives a 'nukular' blast. They write in a double agent that Indiana lets follow them around just to stir things up. I really have to wonder if all of these reviewers weren't paid off by Lucas.
  82. 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.
  83. 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.
  84. 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.
  85. HenryJ.
    Oct 3, 2008
    1
    So bad, you'll be angry.
  86. KevinG.
    Sep 30, 2008
    1
    Terrible movie. Anyone who gave this movie a positive review is a complete moron. Fake looking sets,like everything was flimed on a sound stage.Bad acting,Talking and talking and talking to eat up time and about things that don't advance the plot. I put this movie on the same level of howard the Duck and death to smoochy.
  87. ZackaryS.
    Sep 29, 2008
    9
    I didn't really like the other indiana jones movies but this one i really liked. BUY THIS MOVIE!
  88. JohnM.
    Sep 26, 2008
    0
    This is such a bad film that I cannot believe Speilberg directed this. Is he actually happy with the end result?! The script is so overly cheesy, and what is it with Lucas and CGI, someone needs to teach him when and where it
  89. SophieB.
    Sep 14, 2008
    8
    Me and my mate went to see it and it was good i can understand the criticism and it is a bit creaky but it was a very good film all together.
  90. JoeyZ.
    Sep 13, 2008
    7
    It might not be the best in the trilogy but it's still a good movie. Don't listen to people who give this movie so bad of a rating like 1,2,3,or even 0! This movie is not that bad!
  91. EddieD.
    Sep 10, 2008
    5
    Too much fooling around. Crystal Skull doesn't get to the point.
  92. JamesB.
    Sep 5, 2008
    1
    Proof that George Lucas needs to be sterilized for the good of humanity!
  93. JoMama
    Sep 3, 2008
    0
    Disgrace to Indiana Jones. I laughed through it it was so bad.
  94. JayD.
    Aug 30, 2008
    2
    Best way to describe it? Another George Lucas cash-grab. Ford is too old and creaky for the role now, and it's obvious each scene he's in. Karen Allen is another who hasn't aged well, leaving the love aspect between the two akin to watching your grandparents makeout. Ech. And why why why why why does Speilberg say Shia LeBouf is the next Tom Hanks? From his deep, riveting roles in Transformers & this stinker? I doubt he's ever read from a script not written by a 12 year-old. Great, another wonderful trilogy from my childhood marred by George Lucas' lust for a 12th home in the Carribean. On the contrary, the only cool part was the aliens. Didn't think I'd ever say it, but Indiana Jones could have used more aliens in it. Ouch. Expand
  95. 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 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
  96. 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.
  97. TerryF.
    Aug 12, 2008
    0
    Again, Lucas, just like in the Star Wars series, fails to captivate us with a good story.
  98. 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.
  99. JohnM.
    Aug 4, 2008
    2
    This is such a bad film that I cannot believe Speilberg directed this. Is he actually happy with the end result?! The script is so overly cheesy, and what is it with Lucas and CGI, someone needs to teach him when and where it
  100. JonB.
    Aug 3, 2008
    2
    Some of the adventure remains from the original trilogy, but being on the bench too long has led to atrophy of this classic series.
Metascore

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.