Paramount Pictures | Release Date: May 22, 2008
5.3
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 1144 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
462
Mixed:
321
Negative:
361
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
aadityamudharApr 19, 2016
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 theI 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
gameguardian21Mar 20, 2016
I never thought Indiana Jones would be disappointing, but Spielberg has made it like it should have never been. While Harrison Ford still remains the star of the show as jones, shia loubof made it feel like he didn't care, that monkeyI never thought Indiana Jones would be disappointing, but Spielberg has made it like it should have never been. While Harrison Ford still remains the star of the show as jones, shia loubof made it feel like he didn't care, that monkey swinging scene with shia, and losing its humor, this is not what I expected. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
XtremeNerdz12Feb 26, 2016
It was okayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy6666y666
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
weirdcryoDec 24, 2015
I didn't use to get it but this movie made me understand why people hate CGI on movies soo much.
The amount (and quality) of CGI scenes really takes most of the magic out of this movie.
(Don't get my wrong, there are some scenes/details
I didn't use to get it but this movie made me understand why people hate CGI on movies soo much.
The amount (and quality) of CGI scenes really takes most of the magic out of this movie.
(Don't get my wrong, there are some scenes/details that make CGI the right choice but this movie is a good example of what to avoid.)
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Duke_NukemOct 10, 2015
Whoever came up with the idea of letting Shia La Puke play the son of Indiana Jones should be handed over in the hands of Mola Ram. Why does Indiana need a son anyway? Was it so the series can continue with his son as the hero? Ridiculous.Whoever came up with the idea of letting Shia La Puke play the son of Indiana Jones should be handed over in the hands of Mola Ram. Why does Indiana need a son anyway? Was it so the series can continue with his son as the hero? Ridiculous.

Harrison Ford is playing his role perfect as usual, although he's getting too old for this. Marion is back and she gained a few pounds extra. The music is still good and there are some nice parts in the movie. But mostly the cgi is so bad and the movie feels like a parody on the Indiana Jones movies. Shia swinging in the trees with monkeys is the best example of this. Also the giant ants are clearly computer animated, It's like Spielberg and Lucas didn't even try to make it look real.

Also the whole idea about the aliens or beings from another dimension is so over the top. I read somewhere that this was the idea of Lucas, while Spielberg realised that the alien thing had been done plenty. Unfortunately Lucas got what he wanted.

They should have stopped after the original trilogy which was perfect.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
buttonscasperJul 6, 2015
My least favourite of the 4 but still deserves credit for it's decent story but CGI is overused especially with the monkeys scene but this film is not terrible.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TheApplegnomeJun 14, 2015
This is the less impressive Indiana Jones film in the franchise. It began pretty well, with really good action and it felt superb. But after the first act..well lets just say that it totally hit the ground! The plot became weird and boring.This is the less impressive Indiana Jones film in the franchise. It began pretty well, with really good action and it felt superb. But after the first act..well lets just say that it totally hit the ground! The plot became weird and boring. It didn't feel like a Indiana Jones film, more like a bad remake. The adventure is a bit good, but it's still disappointing, especially in the second and the third act. The dialogs are at the same time very strange; there's no thrilling feeling in it! There are at the same time unnecessary subplots, and the plot is overall uninteresting and just awful at some places. The ending was okay, but not as good as what I expected to see.

But it's still an Indiana Jones movie, and it got its moments of adventure and humor, but not as much as the old movies. Those had a bigger feeling to it.

6.5/10
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
homer4presidentMar 28, 2015
Harrison Ford has still got it in him to return his landmark action hero to the screen and please old fans and new ones alike. To bad that everything else didn't turn out so well. Shia laBeouf was the worst choice for a supporting actor and aHarrison Ford has still got it in him to return his landmark action hero to the screen and please old fans and new ones alike. To bad that everything else didn't turn out so well. Shia laBeouf was the worst choice for a supporting actor and a lot of the plot elements have been re-hashed. Watching it, it reminded me of the Jaws sequels. Not Jaws number two. Because that was the good one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
JipaDec 7, 2014
This movie wasn't so good. AND I MEAN It WASN'T! How does aliens have anything to do with Indiana Jones! This is not Halo or Star Wars or Star Trek! What the hell? Hmph. Sorry. The movie is definitely GOOD but the Alien thing and theThis movie wasn't so good. AND I MEAN It WASN'T! How does aliens have anything to do with Indiana Jones! This is not Halo or Star Wars or Star Trek! What the hell? Hmph. Sorry. The movie is definitely GOOD but the Alien thing and the refrigerator part were kinda cool and dumb. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
AaronWasserman2May 5, 2014
Uhhh guys...what happened here? i kinda expected this frm Lucas after the prequels but speilberg? really? this was thebest you could do? you couldnt have just left Indy to be a trilogy ?
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
RayzorMooseNov 13, 2013
Crystal Skull has viewers bashing in theirs.
Indiana Jones makes a very unnecessary sequel to the otherwise spotless series. The acting was okay, but the story was painfully flawed with a mediocre script, and a nearly pointless ending.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
moviematthewNov 8, 2013
I don't know why, but I somehow liked this movie. I don't love it, but I don't hate it either. It's not the best of the Indiana Jones Movies, but it is certainly not the worst. Then again, none of them are bad to me.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
osostt2004Oct 8, 2013
They should've thought about this idea 10-15 years earlier, when Harrison Ford wasn't a senior citizen. Also, it should've stuck true to the original trilogy (Go away Shia LaBeouf) Second really big flaw is they gave us more of a 50s grooveThey should've thought about this idea 10-15 years earlier, when Harrison Ford wasn't a senior citizen. Also, it should've stuck true to the original trilogy (Go away Shia LaBeouf) Second really big flaw is they gave us more of a 50s groove then a 30s charm. In Raiders of the Losr Ark, It was clear the villain was Belloq. In the Temple of Doom, Mola Ram and the Last Crusade was Donovan and Schneider. Here, the only villains I see are Spielberg and Lucas Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
ncstatemikeSep 4, 2013
[5.9] This is an adventure movie, and that's all. It surprised me, and was much better than I expected, but it's still an adventure movie that is almost self-consciously unimpressive. Making a good movie doesn't always involve dedicating it[5.9] This is an adventure movie, and that's all. It surprised me, and was much better than I expected, but it's still an adventure movie that is almost self-consciously unimpressive. Making a good movie doesn't always involve dedicating it to nostalgia. It was fun, but it was horribly shallow. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Movie1997Apr 29, 2013
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 sayThis 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
python2000Jan 13, 2013
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
LivingonairDec 31, 2012
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 andThe 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
imthenoobDec 27, 2012
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
billrullerMar 15, 2012
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 theI 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
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
5
grandpajoe6191Sep 24, 2011
"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...
4 of 8 users found this helpful44
All this user's reviews
5
PaxsterOct 11, 2010
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 asAlthough 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
ERG1008Sep 1, 2010
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
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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
ryancarroll88Aug 27, 2010
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.
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
6
ArkonBladeAug 23, 2010
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 insultgrowing 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
SamJun 19, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KeenanSJun 15, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
mesoNov 20, 2008
Dull, hollywood cheese. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ColinCOct 28, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ChuckSOct 26, 2008
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 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. Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
SteveKOct 22, 2008
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 Not terrible if you come in with zero expectations. But this is INDIANA JONES! This is Spielberg and Harrison Ford! Almost impossible to do. The movie had fun moments, good actions scenes, and some really creepy moments too (I will never look at ants the same way again). But the real holes are in the plot. Too much said and not said. The whole thing is undercooked, like an excuse to make Indy, not an enthralling story that is interesting and draws you in. It starts interesting, but the end just fails to inspire. I think that people who want everything explained will actually be disappointed if it is, so I am not like everyone else on this site who are mad because "it wasn't explained", what bothers me is that we get no closure ON ANYTHING. And I'm a little tired of the whole the temple blows itself up plot device to neatly wrap everything up. Even National Treasure 2 did that, and that franchise shouldn't be able to hold a candle to Indy. I mean, they even did that in Last Crusade. We were just missing a cool Indy ending. There was nothing clever, inventive, or even interesting about the ending of this movie. They ran away and the Russians didn't. Go Indy, way to run. Seriously, I would like to see a director's cut where they fix the ending and they actually make it interesting. I don't care about the aliens, there are worse plot ideas in the world, but aliens that don't do anything are not interesting. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ChrisROct 16, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JamesO.Oct 16, 2008
Maybe Im geting too old for Indy movies, Im sure kids will love it but it just didnt wash with me.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JayH.Oct 10, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
EddieD.Sep 10, 2008
Too much fooling around. Crystal Skull doesn't get to the point.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
SuperMarioSuperMarioAug 17, 2008
-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 -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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DominicM.Aug 16, 2008
It was alright, but it didnt have that Indiana Jones feel to it. I think George Lucas should stick to Star Wars.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
CharlieJul 24, 2008
It was good, it just wasn't Indy.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
PaulL.Jul 21, 2008
IT a good but definitely not great either. "It more of a national treasure feel to it because it involves around aliens. I didn't like it how is it set in 50s because it a b movie era rather the 1930s adventure serial. not worth a wait. IT a good but definitely not great either. "It more of a national treasure feel to it because it involves around aliens. I didn't like it how is it set in 50s because it a b movie era rather the 1930s adventure serial. not worth a wait. The CGI IS Horrible. Anyway it a good movie but not great. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JoshB.Jul 19, 2008
Thanks George Lucas for making another digital movie that looks like a cartoon. Maybe a commercial success, but the art of movie making is lost on you. He'd rather contract out the whole movie making process to people with apple Thanks George Lucas for making another digital movie that looks like a cartoon. Maybe a commercial success, but the art of movie making is lost on you. He'd rather contract out the whole movie making process to people with apple computers. Lest I forget, the script was terrible as well. Don't see this movie, don't buy it, don't rent it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
nomadJul 16, 2008
Folks this is why you have to appreciate Sly. Rembo and Rocky are two icon franchises and he capped them off in an exemplary, superb fashion... many other beloved cherished and loved franchises were tarnished by travesty sequels.. Long live Sly.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JoshuaL.Jul 14, 2008
Movie got boring early on, and the story concept was really unoriginal. Not what I expected from an Indiana Jones movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
BradJul 11, 2008
As a stand-alone action movie, this would have been decent. If it was named something different and the characters were named something other than Jones, it would have been decent. However, it just doesn't seem to feel like an Indiana As a stand-alone action movie, this would have been decent. If it was named something different and the characters were named something other than Jones, it would have been decent. However, it just doesn't seem to feel like an Indiana Jones movie. With the Indiana Jones movies you expect unrealistic things, but this movie seemed to go well beyond that. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
robJul 8, 2008
I was overjoyed to hear a new Indiana Jones movie was coming out. Then i saw it, and wished they hadn't. The ending was incredibly unusual for an Indiana Jones.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BrandonT.Jun 27, 2008
A poor Indiana Jones film. Decent in comparison with the movies out around the same time but it won't last in movie history. Terrible ending.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RajeevG.Jun 25, 2008
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, 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RonimusPrimeJun 23, 2008
Thoroughly disappointing. Didn't care what happened to anyone on screen. The acting was stilted and unemotional. Does not compare to any of the originals
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
LesleyJun 14, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ESJun 8, 2008
This is not the exciting, rip-roaring adventure that we were promised. It does have two good parts that come kinda/sorta close to capturing that old Indy feeling but the rest comes off as pale and lacking. And give me a break--there's This is not the exciting, rip-roaring adventure that we were promised. It does have two good parts that come kinda/sorta close to capturing that old Indy feeling but the rest comes off as pale and lacking. And give me a break--there's no way that a guy would be wearing the same costume as he did 20 years ago (apparently Indiana hasn't grown that much since we last saw him). Ford is always a treat but the attempts to make him look like a spry action figure seem a little too forced. And it's great to see Karen Allen again, but the whole "crystal skull" thing is just plain silly. This film is about ten years late. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
4
MarkoJ.Jun 7, 2008
I hate to say it, but this movie was just stupid. Similar to the second Indiana Jones movie, in that it is stupid. There were some exciting moments, but too many stupid things happened. I am not say it is bad, just stupid. Getting the idea I hate to say it, but this movie was just stupid. Similar to the second Indiana Jones movie, in that it is stupid. There were some exciting moments, but too many stupid things happened. I am not say it is bad, just stupid. Getting the idea yet? Don't expect much and you won't be too disapointed. Oh, Harrison Ford was good in the part. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
KarelD.Jun 4, 2008
Ford is old, Spielberg is complacent and Lucas is senile.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
4
RickyQ.Jun 4, 2008
The two things I
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SteveOJun 3, 2008
This movie was so unrealistic. Entertaining, sure, but so unrealistic to the point that I wanted it to end. I mean aliens helping build the mayan civilization? Anyone with a decently working brain knows that aliens dont exist... jeez This movie was so unrealistic. Entertaining, sure, but so unrealistic to the point that I wanted it to end. I mean aliens helping build the mayan civilization? Anyone with a decently working brain knows that aliens dont exist... jeez hollywood, you'll have to do better then this. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JonathanJun 3, 2008
Hey, dont worry, I hear that indy 5 has to do with genghis kahn and the holy cross jesus was crucified on, if it ever gets into production that is.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
TayleyS.Jun 3, 2008
Well, I really wanted to like this film...and I was disappointed in a big way. It doesn't have the heart of the early ones. It felt like it was explaining itself too much, or something, which took all the mystery away from it. I guess Well, I really wanted to like this film...and I was disappointed in a big way. It doesn't have the heart of the early ones. It felt like it was explaining itself too much, or something, which took all the mystery away from it. I guess the older ones weren't riding as much on a franchise as this was felt like it was. It was like opening an old shoe box of trinkets. You get a little excited, but it quickly fades. There were also inconsistencies in the plot, which is especially frustrating in a story such as this. The villain was never all that scary (think Raiders and the guy with the glasses and coat hanger - nothing like that!). The fighting between Marion and Indy was contrived and gratuitous - they needed it because it provided a good distraction. The plot itself was disconnected, in my opinion - too much escaping and being caught again, too much bad guy has skull/good guy has skull. I couldn't suspend disbelief enough at times to actually enjoy the film (kid with one leg on each vehicle while they're both in motion, and oh ya, having a swordfight at the same time because he conveniently had taken FENCING at prep school....pullease!) There were some beautiful wide shots in this movie but some of the backgrounds looked quite fake (e.g. first 5 minutes, outdoors). I wish the franchise hadn't had its reputation - I think this film would have been much better if it were working to prove something. My favourite part was the 3 second shot of the ark of the covenant. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KyleD.Jun 1, 2008
I'll give the film some credit. Cut off the first 20 and last 30 minutes of the movie, and it actually drew me in. Good cinematography and decent action made me forget about the film's shoddy intro. And... that's about all I I'll give the film some credit. Cut off the first 20 and last 30 minutes of the movie, and it actually drew me in. Good cinematography and decent action made me forget about the film's shoddy intro. And... that's about all I can say positively about it. The film started from an absolute crawl, and the absolute absurdity of the ending drew me to try and pull my hair out. Scenes were thrown in for the sake of sensationalism, dialogue was poor as is usual from Lucas' works, the movie destroys any sense of mystery by explaining every detail to the viewer, and most visual effects were thrown in for the sake of showing off ILM's latest developments. Avoid. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
5
KeithL.Jun 1, 2008
George Lucas is an incredible hack job. What a putz. Steven Spielberg is now Steven Cheeseberg and they have disgraced my all-time favorite movie (Raiders) and the hero it launched. We waited 19 years for a special effects rampage that made George Lucas is an incredible hack job. What a putz. Steven Spielberg is now Steven Cheeseberg and they have disgraced my all-time favorite movie (Raiders) and the hero it launched. We waited 19 years for a special effects rampage that made me want to vomit. Where's the bullwhip guys? Why was Indy a cranky old man? Why was this a vehicle to make tons of cash with Shai LaBouf down the road as the "new" Indy? Steve...George...RETIRE! You suck! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KeithP.May 31, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is supposed to be a big welcome back to the kind of on-screen adventure we've all been craving since, well, since the last Indiana Jones movie nearly 20 years ago. If you've never Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is supposed to be a big welcome back to the kind of on-screen adventure we've all been craving since, well, since the last Indiana Jones movie nearly 20 years ago. If you've never seen an Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) movie, the globe-trekking, part-time archeology professor of the title is the penultimate adventurer who often finds his down-to-Earth beliefs challenged in many of his journies. And, usually, there's a leading lady involved in the mess. He's James Bond of the dig sites. This "Jones" film has an aging Indy being drawn into adventure when a '50s greaser named Mutt (played by Shia Labeou...uh...Shia Lebieu...um...Lisa Bonet. Yeah.) delivers a letter from an old friend who needs, A, Indy's archaeological know-how to dig up a "mythical crystal skull," and, B, Indy's adventurous side to save the old friend and Mutt's mom who joined this friend on his journey. Soon, Indy and Mutt are running from the '50s Russkies, Peruvian natives, and, um, actually, that's about all they're running from. In case you missed it in the above, the Russians are the bad guys here. And, in case you don't catch on when Indy refers to them as "Reds" or when he sneers "Russians!" or when the FBI discusses the evil Red Menace, or the 15 other references to the Russians being evil, not to worry, director Spielberg literally hits the cameraman, and thus the viewer, over the head with it, when Indiana Jones crashes through an anti-Russia protest on his school's campus, with signs and banners slamming right into the lens. Not only does the first half-hour of the movie treat its audience like a group of mentally challenged six-year-olds, but screenwriter David Koepp, generally one of the industry's more-reliable popcorn movie writers (Spider-Man 1 for instance), peppers the first third of the movie with enough references to past Indy films that it seemed abundantly clear: without them, the first 30+ minutes would've dragged tremendously. By the time we're past the first third, we're off on an adventure. Where Indy's past movies take us around the world and back again, this one brings us to Peru, where Indy and friends get mired down in what might as well be quicksand. None of the danger Indy and Mutt are in feels dangerous anymore -- there's no peril. While we always know Indy will survive, there's never a moment where you ask yourself, How will he survive? In the first film we had things like a giant stone ball chasing him, a Nazi tossed him over the hood of a speeding truck, snakes surrounded him in a pit where there seemed to be no way out. In the second film, Indy was was captured and nearly killed by a bizarre high Priest of a cult (granted, this was ultimately the scene most people find to be the weakest, but at least there was peril), he was trapped in a shrinking room with spikes coming out of the floor, and he had to listen to Kate Capshaw. In the third film it was burning buildings, impervious tanks, and -- aw, you get the idea. The biggest excitement we get is a teeter-tottering rock that reveals an ancient room of artifacts. And that was this movie's biggest weakness. Save for the exciting set-piece of the film's climax, there was nothing new, exciting, or creative here. Even Mutt has nothing going for him -- his big weapon is a pocket knife. When Indiana Jones was first introduced back in 1981, the idea of a whip as his weapon of choice was interesting and exciting. Why not give the kid something more intriguing like a bow & arrow, a shield from a knight's armor, or he can wield a screaming Kate Capshaw. The film had other weaknesses, aside from Spielberg's lazy direction (although, I give him [or his Director of Photography] kudos for a few gorgeous shots of Kate Blanchett as the head Russkie, and there was finally some creativity in the map scenes, where a red line traverses the globe to show us where Indy's headed [although, again, this could've been an editor's idea, not Spielberg's]). The main issue for me was that there was nothing at stake for Indiana Jones. In the first film, "Raiders," Indy's life, and the world itself, were at stake. And, if that weren't enough, he also had to save the love of his life, Marion (whose death he, for a short time, had thought he caused). In "Temple of Doom," Indy's very belief-system and an entire village's children -- and thus future -- were at stake. In the third "Last Crusade" film it was the very life of Indy's dad. While Indy is out to save Mutt's mom, Indy states from the beginning that he has no idea who that is -- it's the other "old friend" he's going to save. So, if she has any importance in Indy's life, Indy himself is left completely in the dark to that fact. Also, there is nothing new here in terms of the beliefs we're dealing with. Yes, Indy does not believe this Crystal Skull is anything but a myth, but this again has no real bearing on his character, on his make-up. And, once Indy, Mutt, Mutt's mom, and the "old friend" are brought together, you never really feel like they're about to get got -- whether the danger be Russians, waterfalls, or natives. With the aging Indy being little more than a tour guide and daddy figure to the wanderlustful Mutt, the movie feels more like a Disney family film then an exciting chapter serial-type Indiana Jones adventure. Yes, there are some laughs, and there's enough action to keep most people satiated but this might as well have been called Indiana Jones and the Phantom Menace. Because, much lie that much-maligned film, the only menace here are the box-office ticket prices. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
dodgydonMay 31, 2008
Surely the udders of this particular cash-cow are sore after being miled so inexpertly. I reckon Speeilberg should have put it out to pasture or better yet kill it and make a juicy burger out of it. No need for the inhumane treatment of a Surely the udders of this particular cash-cow are sore after being miled so inexpertly. I reckon Speeilberg should have put it out to pasture or better yet kill it and make a juicy burger out of it. No need for the inhumane treatment of a once fine animal. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
EdwinWuMay 31, 2008
Too similar to the previous ones. Background of story outdated.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
C.B.May 30, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
TimKMay 30, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
StevenH.May 30, 2008
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?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
TimmyT.May 30, 2008
Disappointing. Aliens in a Indiana Jones movie? Give me a break!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
CamilleMay 30, 2008
I firmly believe that the generally favorable reviews from the critics is simply bias towards what was supposed to be an awesome movie. I really wanted to like this film; I tried so hard to look past some of its faults. But by the end, I was I firmly believe that the generally favorable reviews from the critics is simply bias towards what was supposed to be an awesome movie. I really wanted to like this film; I tried so hard to look past some of its faults. But by the end, I was just rolling my eyes. It definitely had its moments; some suspenseful, some action packed, blah blah blah. But the overall premise doesn't live up to what an Indiana Jones film should be. It's almost painful. Nice try, Lucas, but I think it's time we move past aliens and think about something new. And I swear to God, if one more movie/game involves looking for Cebola or El Dorado, I'm punching the nearest person in the face. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
5
GMoneyMay 29, 2008
I think the part that killed it for me was how unrealistic almost everything was... from being shot at by 40 russian soldiers with machine guns, and going down 3 niagara falls sized waterfalls and coming out scratchless was just silly. Lets I think the part that killed it for me was how unrealistic almost everything was... from being shot at by 40 russian soldiers with machine guns, and going down 3 niagara falls sized waterfalls and coming out scratchless was just silly. Lets hope there isn't another one Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ArthurS.May 28, 2008
There were some cool special effect scenes, but other than that I found myself wishing for the movie to be less than 2 hours long (which it was, thankfully).
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
pasikkoMay 28, 2008
Though I wasn't expecting greatness,I still came out a bit disappointed.After 19 years of waiting it should have been so much better.I have to say this is easily the worst of all four,the whole thing seemed quite routine and forced.The Though I wasn't expecting greatness,I still came out a bit disappointed.After 19 years of waiting it should have been so much better.I have to say this is easily the worst of all four,the whole thing seemed quite routine and forced.The plot was nothing to write home about,although served the purpose.Still,after all that brainstorming and developing,I wonder if they really couldn't assemble a more inspiring and creative one. Action scenes in Indy movies have always been exaggerated but still enjoyable and charming.In this however they disappointingly often are just plain stupid.Sword fighting extravaganza on moving vehicles,the monkey scene with Mutt and much discussed refrigerator scene are prime examples.In previous films absurdities almost like these somehow worked,sadly not here.Simply too much implausible action sequences,even for an Indy movie.Thanks to the advancements in digital imagery there were more laughs in ridiculous action than in most alleged humor,which didn't quite hit the mark in many situations. And yes,the most annoying thing in the movie was the overuse of CGI and how, in this day and age,can special effects look so bad.In this regard it often could've been almost a "Librarian" tv-movie.What happened ILM... However,as a big fan of all previous installments,it was nice to see Harrison Ford wearing Indy costume one last time.In whole the movie was still entertaining,if nothing special.I'd say 6/10. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
FanNomoreMay 28, 2008
I really wanted this to be good, I really really did. But it wasn't even close. It was actually bad and I wish it hadn't been made, or that at least I hadn't seen it. It taints the fond memories that are the other Indy films. I really wanted this to be good, I really really did. But it wasn't even close. It was actually bad and I wish it hadn't been made, or that at least I hadn't seen it. It taints the fond memories that are the other Indy films. If you haven't seen it, or even some of the others, just get the first one - a true classic - on DVD, and perhaps the third. Steer way clear of this last one. It's simply a money-machine, fan-insulting, face slap delivered by the creators. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AnnetteS.May 27, 2008
I thought the movie was boring and unrealistic. i could tell when a stunt double was thrown in the movie for harrison. i was truly disappointed.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BenM.May 27, 2008
5 only because the acting wasnt terrible, but the plot was. As we have already seen Lucus has fallen far to the dark side, and shouldn't be allowed to write anymore. These old men have peaked long ago, time for some new blood, and new 5 only because the acting wasnt terrible, but the plot was. As we have already seen Lucus has fallen far to the dark side, and shouldn't be allowed to write anymore. These old men have peaked long ago, time for some new blood, and new movies. Iron Man, for example, was great. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JohnF.May 27, 2008
What an unbelievably crushing letdown. All the talent they had working on this, and all the time they had to work on it, and they couldn't come up with anything better? The story is absurd. The acting is half-hearted, with the exception What an unbelievably crushing letdown. All the talent they had working on this, and all the time they had to work on it, and they couldn't come up with anything better? The story is absurd. The acting is half-hearted, with the exception of Cate Blanchett, who seems like a fish out of water in this movie and does about as good as one can with a prepostrous character. The characters are boring except for Indy and Marian. The effects are lousy -- not once do you feel like you are looking at something other than second-rate CG effects. The enemies are dull. The action sequences are either "been there/done that" or totally absurd (Tarzan LaBeouf... I'd call that the Indiana Jones version of Revenge of the Sith's "Noooooo" moment if there weren't several moments that qualified). The movie does have some moments, but the bad overshadows the good. I thought this movie flopped even harder than Phantom Menace. Based on this movie and the Star Wars prequels, George Lucas should probably retire before he does anymore damage. What a waste. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
StefanP.May 27, 2008
Lucas and Spielberg have lost their touch it seems. The pace is too slow, the actionscenes are pretty dull and the story is a mess. Is this what Lucas has been working on for 15 years?! Sure, the Indiana Jones movies aren't exactly Lucas and Spielberg have lost their touch it seems. The pace is too slow, the actionscenes are pretty dull and the story is a mess. Is this what Lucas has been working on for 15 years?! Sure, the Indiana Jones movies aren't exactly known for their realism but the first three films had an internal sort of logic, they made sense. This one however is just simply idiotic. From the helpfull little monkeys to Indiana surviving an atomic bomb in a refrigerator. The movie felt like a sort of bad copy of the other Indiana Jones movies. A lot of the Indiana Jones elements were there but the magic that bound them together and made the previous movies such good fun is gone. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
IndianaJonesMay 27, 2008
This is not a bad movie, but it's not the Indy movie you were hoping for. It really is a shame; after all those years this is what they came up with. Whoever said "videogame" was correct. It gets the 6 for being such a let down.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
davepMay 27, 2008
Don't see this at the late show or the guy sweeping the floor will have to wake you to lift your feet.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JohnnyM.May 27, 2008
I don't think all the malicious vituperations directed toward this film are really justified. I mean, it doesn't seem very reasonable to expect the third sequel in a decidedly uneven series to measure up to the original, especially I don't think all the malicious vituperations directed toward this film are really justified. I mean, it doesn't seem very reasonable to expect the third sequel in a decidedly uneven series to measure up to the original, especially when you consider that it's been nineteen years since the last entry and there have been countless knock-offs and send-ups. Having said that, I can still understand what the fuss is about. Even though I feel it wouldn't be equitable to expect freshness and innovation from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it doesn't seem altogether unfair to ask for something a bit more ambitious. There isn't a single stunt, action sequence or special effect in KOTCS that hasn't been seen before and it lacks the breakneck pace and unrelenting energy of its predecessors. Though there is a plethora of big, elaborate action sequences, they are more absurd and over-the-top than anything we've seen in National Treasure or The Mummy pictures - there is even one that features Indy surviving an atomic blast by hiding in a lead-lined refrigeratror. As for the CGI, it isn't used as pervasively as many have claimed but when it does show up (in the form of voracious ants, vine-swinging monkeys and jittery prairie dogs) it is admittedly somewhat distracting. The movie's sole undeniable pleasure is seeing Harrison Ford return as Indy. Despite his age, Ford is more vital than ever and he delivers the film's (borderline tiresome) one-liners with relish. It's nice to see Karen Allen return as well but she isn't given a particularly substantial role. In fact, we see more of Shia LaBeouf's preening, thick-skulled Mutt than we do Marion Ravenwood which is simply inexcusable. LaBeouf hasn't one iota of screen presence or charisma and his character quickly becomes a bit of an annoyance. Then there's the matter of the story's disappointing climax, which involves the discovery of "interdimensional beings" a colossal flying saucer. This sequence had some people in the audience tittering but I didn't find it to be anymore ridiculous than what we've seen invovling the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail. Overall, I must concede it was a bit of a disappointment but it isn't nearly as awful as its myriad detractors have said it is. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
TadG.May 27, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
VizruyMay 27, 2008
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
GeMelleF.May 27, 2008
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
CJMay 27, 2008
The final act was too short, too muddled, and most critically, did not provide a MORAL DILEMMA WORTHY OF INDIANA JONES. Throughout this Franken-script, a lot of themes were merely touched on, but a solid closer would have solidified the main The final act was too short, too muddled, and most critically, did not provide a MORAL DILEMMA WORTHY OF INDIANA JONES. Throughout this Franken-script, a lot of themes were merely touched on, but a solid closer would have solidified the main one. It seems, in the end, George, Steven, and Harrison couldn Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
4
JonM.May 27, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
AdamD.May 26, 2008
For a script that was notable for all its rewrites, why did it still have the biggest bad idea in sequel-dom, don't ruin formula. [***SPOILER***] The second worst idea, Aliens. The Third worst idea, Standard looking CGI Aliens that are For a script that was notable for all its rewrites, why did it still have the biggest bad idea in sequel-dom, don't ruin formula. [***SPOILER***] The second worst idea, Aliens. The Third worst idea, Standard looking CGI Aliens that are actually shown like signs, only not the 3rd sequel of a beloved franchise. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
PiltdownManMay 26, 2008
The best parts of this movie are when people are simply talking to each other, not frantically racing through the jungle (endlessly) in a too-long chase scene that defines "overwrought" and "boring." Will someone ever learn that "less is The best parts of this movie are when people are simply talking to each other, not frantically racing through the jungle (endlessly) in a too-long chase scene that defines "overwrought" and "boring." Will someone ever learn that "less is more?" If you wanna impress the kids, don't worry; they'll see the chase scene, then be able to play it for themselves when the game comes out...so you don't have to over do it for the rest of us... But there is a great deal to like about this film. I was expecting way too much obvious CGI and a lot less muscle and sweat, but the CGI was mostly invisible and the sweat was palpable. One thing I really liked was the idea that intelligence and schooling matters. I know, I sound as old and crotchety as Indy, but it is really nice to see him speaking to the locals in their native tongue.... Smarts matter is a nice takeaway for the kids watching...actually for all of us! Many people have trashed the "alien" angle, but I found no problem with it. After all, they had pretty much plumbed Christian mythology (that's how I see it) already, so why not a secular bit of the supernatural? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JohnN.May 26, 2008
I liked it, but it doesn't live up to the other movies. It was a fun addition, yet there were several flaws. I did like the ants though.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MrDorkMay 26, 2008
Entertaining movie altogether, but for crying out loud... It's just so over-the-top cheesy hollywood-spielberg-lucas mumbojumbo. Half-way the movie it just went from hilariously nuts to total LSD trip. Gimme a break!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
SteveHMay 26, 2008
Defintely the worst Indy movie. I know why Harrison Ford and Karen Allen are in the film but Cate? What's more scary, this will be the top grossing film of the year.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AaronE.May 26, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DavidGMay 26, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DanB.May 26, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MarkDMay 26, 2008
Whoa, talk about mixed reactions! Anyone giving this a 9 or 10 is clearly blinded by nostalgia and people giving this below 6 are probably fanboys overreacting because they expected too much. Just taken as an action movie this is enjoyable Whoa, talk about mixed reactions! Anyone giving this a 9 or 10 is clearly blinded by nostalgia and people giving this below 6 are probably fanboys overreacting because they expected too much. Just taken as an action movie this is enjoyable nonsense but yes, it's dissapointing when you compare it to the other movies in the franchise. The appeal of the Indiana Jones movies is the way they were still exhilarating and involving even though they pushed the bounderies of believeability. This movie goes too far though. Several times i found myself thinking "that wouldn't happen" or "that's just silly". When this happens you struggle to suspend your disbelief and the magics gone. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
MHMay 25, 2008
Such a horrible script in so many ways...did not look or feel like an Indie movie...by far the worst of the series if you can even somehow lump it in with the rest of the films...very very disappointed!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RRichMay 25, 2008
This moie was a mixture of good and bad. It clearly had spectacular production costs, with well-coriographed action scenes, and tightly directed scenes in-between. It is relatively true to the feel of the origional triligy. But, the fils is This moie was a mixture of good and bad. It clearly had spectacular production costs, with well-coriographed action scenes, and tightly directed scenes in-between. It is relatively true to the feel of the origional triligy. But, the fils is also shallow, poorly cut, poorly scripted, and quite silly parody of Indiana Jones. The CGI completely ruined the suspence, and the animated animals were just stupid. I believe that this movie suffers the same as Lucas's SW prequals - loosing it's origional honest flair, and simply pandering to the lowest common denominator, and tryin too much to look like a video game. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JDcookMay 25, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MrToadMay 25, 2008
Fun, but inferior to the originals, and ultimately only so-so. Action/adventure sequences are entertaining enough, though. Good if you're in the mood.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JohnHMay 25, 2008
Cool action sequences, bad script.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RMMay 25, 2008
Nothing new here. fell asleep a couple of times. certainly doesn't deserve the money it's making, much like the star wars prequels. Much ado about nothing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DanM.May 25, 2008
Outrageous and hackneyed storyline coupled with non-believable action sequences, too digitalized, I do not lump this in with the original trilogy and will not acknowledge this as an Indiana Jones movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ChadM.May 25, 2008
The sequel, along with the aging Ford, has lost it's charm over the years... The movie, like a never-ending visit to grandpa in the retirement home, drags on and on and while Spielberg tries to keep up the flash and pop of the prequels The sequel, along with the aging Ford, has lost it's charm over the years... The movie, like a never-ending visit to grandpa in the retirement home, drags on and on and while Spielberg tries to keep up the flash and pop of the prequels and in part is successful in creating a flurry of impossible escapes, although with the clumsier, older Ford Spielberg may have bitten off more than he could chew. The result is an increase in chase scenes and Jones (and also son) swinging from whips and vines in an attempt to compensate for the poor quality green-screen video overlapping. The only saving grace in the latest Jones saga is that it does not pretend and embraces every cliche. Let's call it what it really is, a hilariously unintentional farse! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JaredB.May 24, 2008
Being a HUGE fan of the other "Indiana Jones" movies, I was really looking forward to this one. While it isn't a total loss, it is nowhere near as good as any of the films in the previous trilogy. For starters, Harrison Ford, who made Being a HUGE fan of the other "Indiana Jones" movies, I was really looking forward to this one. While it isn't a total loss, it is nowhere near as good as any of the films in the previous trilogy. For starters, Harrison Ford, who made the first three so great, shows his age in a big way here. I would expect for anyone playing Indy to jump fearlessly into the stunts. Here, Ford seems more concerned about safety than realism. Speaking of realism, that leads to another problem I had. This film is completely implausible. For instance, there is a scene where the main characters are in a truck and something rolls over them. Normally, anyone who has this happen to them would be flattened. However, everyone comes out without even a scratch. If anybody can explain how this could happen, I would love to hear it. I also had a problem with the payoff. *Spoiler Alert* Near the end, the characters enter what appears to be an ancient Mayan pyramid. However, it turns out to be an alien spaceship. When is Hollywood going to stop making films where everything can be explained away by using aliens? I am getting so sick of this. Another thing I am getting sick of is Shia LeBeouf. Except his role in "Transformers," this guy is, in my opinion, a talentless hack. He should consider early retirement before he totally ruins Hollywood. If it hadn't been for some great special effects and humor, this thing would have been a complete disaster. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
NeilG.May 24, 2008
In its day, the indiana Jones movies were innovative; they have been since surpassed by the superhero films, Matrix trilogy and others. There was nothing new here. It seemed like it had been made 20 years ago with the other three.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
5
MichaelG.May 24, 2008
Usually when I see a movie like this, I suspend all belief and just have fun. But with Indiana Jones, I just thought it was stupid and pointless.
0 of 0 users found this helpful