User Score
5.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1048 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jul 24, 2014
    3
    'Kingdom of Crystal Skull's' action scenes are so effortlessly fake I instantly find a dislike for the movie. The action scenes lack the deadpan delivery of Harrison Ford, the CGI was horridly unnecessary, that it destroyed the classic tradition of Indian Jones, and Shia Labeouf was so conceited I wished he had gotten eaten by the ants (By the way, Siafu ants don't live in South America,'Kingdom of Crystal Skull's' action scenes are so effortlessly fake I instantly find a dislike for the movie. The action scenes lack the deadpan delivery of Harrison Ford, the CGI was horridly unnecessary, that it destroyed the classic tradition of Indian Jones, and Shia Labeouf was so conceited I wished he had gotten eaten by the ants (By the way, Siafu ants don't live in South America, George Lucas). This film should have been made in the mid 90's at the most, when this s**t CGI didn't exist. Expand
  2. Jun 25, 2014
    1
    Probably the worst film I have ever seen. Not only because of its reliance on incredibly bad CG effect, but also because of the shlock camp value and idiocy of the villains. No one should ever see this film!
  3. 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 theirThis 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
  4. Sep 10, 2014
    3
    Okay, fail. Just fail. I heard they were gonna do another Indiana Jones and I was really excited. It's hard to argue with the consistency of the other three films and their delivery. But what happened? Why??? There had to be hundreds of ideas they could have considered for the plot, but they had to pick one about aliens. And personally I am incredibly tired of alien movies. Of course theyOkay, fail. Just fail. I heard they were gonna do another Indiana Jones and I was really excited. It's hard to argue with the consistency of the other three films and their delivery. But what happened? Why??? There had to be hundreds of ideas they could have considered for the plot, but they had to pick one about aliens. And personally I am incredibly tired of alien movies. Of course they try to make it not seem like its about aliens by trying to twist the plot into seeming like it's about "alternate-dimensional beings" and not aliens. Even though they look just like aliens and travel in flying saucers. George Lucas...stop guy, just stop. You've already proven all you can do is make movies about space and milk it for all it's worth. Steven shouldn't have listened to you. I loved seeing Harrison Ford back in action but they threw him in an environment that made his character seem off-step and on the cheesier side. They had good elements and solid plot points to work with like Indy having a long lost son, but Shia was not a good cast for it, watering down any good momentum they had. The CGI seemed out of place and labored as well. I wanted to like this. But I just can't. Crystal Skull mortally wounded the Indiana Jones series. Expand
  5. Dec 21, 2013
    1
    There is a moment watching Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull when I realized that maybe seeing this film was a bad idea. That moment occurred less than 3 minutes in when way too much time and effort was spent focusing on a CG gopher, that did not look at all real. It added nothing to the plot and just looked bad. Someone, somewhere made a bad choice leaving that in. InThere is a moment watching Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull when I realized that maybe seeing this film was a bad idea. That moment occurred less than 3 minutes in when way too much time and effort was spent focusing on a CG gopher, that did not look at all real. It added nothing to the plot and just looked bad. Someone, somewhere made a bad choice leaving that in. In effect choosing cheap thrills over trying to make a good movie. There were a lot of things like that because it was the start of a long disappointing ride.
    My favorite moment in this film is when Indiana Jones rides out that nuclear blast in the lead lined fridge. He comes out the other side alive and in one piece. Sure he gets the awkward scrub-down after. But he`s not cooked hamburger, which is a testament to how ridiculous the film is as a whole.
    I don`t really remember much of the ``plot`` of the middle of the film. Something about not dead-dead people, a crazy friend and indies son played by actor Shia Labeouf. I get they were trying to go for an Indie 2.0 here. Maybe create a character likable enough for a spinoff franchise, or taking up Harrison Ford`s mantle. In this regard they failed badly. His character has all the swagger of Indiana at the end of the original trilogy, without having done anything to earn it. And it makes him extremely un-likable. They should have gone back to basics. Choosing an actor that more reflects Indiana at the start of the first film and show him growing up.
    Throw in all the extremely unlikely chase sequences (I know how ridiculous the original trilogy is in that regard, but the setup was better), the intermittent magnetism of the crystal skull, Harrison Ford being ``too old for this sh*t`` and capping it all off with that bizarre out of left field ending. And what you are left with is something so awful it does not deserve acknowledgement as an Indiana Jones film. This is a bad B movie with A list actors, an A list director, and a huge budget.

    If one good thing came of this film it is this. Scientists went back and examined the crystal skull`s in the museums, and found them all to be fraudulently passed off as historical relics, when they are more simply modern art.
    Expand
  6. 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!
  7. Jul 7, 2013
    1
    As the credits rolled, I turned to my brother and said, "It's official: Temple of Doom is no longer the worst Indiana Jones film."

    Crystal Suck is one of the few movies I've ever seen that actually managed to insult me. South Park's parody of the film's reception where George Lucas and Steven Spielberg repeatedly rape Indy was just... well... to use a cliche'd term, it "resonated".
    As the credits rolled, I turned to my brother and said, "It's official: Temple of Doom is no longer the worst Indiana Jones film."

    Crystal Suck is one of the few movies I've ever seen that actually managed to insult me. South Park's parody of the film's reception where George Lucas and Steven Spielberg repeatedly rape Indy was just... well... to use a cliche'd term, it "resonated".

    It's the most cynical cash-in I've ever seen. I mean, even Blues Brothers 2000, train wreck through it was, believed in itself. Crystal Skull feels like George Lucas going "nyah nyah! You didn't like my Star Wars prequels so thanks for the ten bucks and screw you, jack!"

    p.s. Shia Lebeouf needs a serious beating.
    Expand
  8. Sep 18, 2010
    2
    19 years to wait for the 4th movie of Indiana Jones and it a half disappointing
  9. 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 theThis 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
  10. Feb 8, 2014
    0
    I'm so disappointed! The first three parts were excellent! And this part had some good actions because of the new technology compared to the technology of the previous ones. But when I saw that kid jumping with monkeys and many other stupid scene, I was very disappointed!
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. Oct 8, 2013
    4
    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 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 andThey 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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. LucasFor 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
  16. Jan 12, 2014
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I had to create an account just so I could review this atrocity! I honestly can't find one thing positive to say (It took me two attempts to even get through it!). Harrison Ford is as grouchy as ever and has no chemistry with anyone on screen. Karen Allen still can't act and Shia LeBeouf brings nothing to his role. Even Cate Blanchett seems to have nothing to do with her stereotypical role beyond her accent and atrocious wig. The plot is moronic and the third act may have actually cost me IQ points! Every chatty scene (and there are A LOT of them!) looks like it takes place on an indoor set and every action scene looks like it takes place in front of a green screen. Which may be on purpose but it's far more obtrusive than in previous installments. I could write full paragraphs on the stupidity of the refrigerator, Oxley, the monkeys, the quicksand/snake scene, the ants, the waterfalls, the aliens, the well as deus ex machina OR the fact that Mutt's real name is Henry Jones III, yet he somehow believes it's Henry Williams. OR a tenured professor who cannot pronounce the word "nuclear" correctly. Ugh. Expand
  17. MattB
    May 22, 2008
    2
    I want my $10 back. This movie was horrid! On par with Crash Landing and Gigli.... it was a freaking joke from beginning to end. Horrible, horrible, horrible. Do not see this movie!
  18. KirkM.
    May 27, 2008
    1
    As with all recycled forms of art and entertainment, there is a serious danger of losing something important in any later reincarnation of something so intangibly brilliant. Hence the relationship between this newest of Indiana Jones films and the incomparable first installment of the legendary trilogy. Artistically speaking, Spielberg and Lucas have sacrificed all integrity and As with all recycled forms of art and entertainment, there is a serious danger of losing something important in any later reincarnation of something so intangibly brilliant. Hence the relationship between this newest of Indiana Jones films and the incomparable first installment of the legendary trilogy. Artistically speaking, Spielberg and Lucas have sacrificed all integrity and craftsmanship in making this movie, and it sadly begs the question of arrogance, greed, and/or possible serious degradation of their once electrifying, even magical movie-making skills. This film is not only an insult to their previous work and its enduring audience, it embodies everything that is wrong with modern film production. What made such films as "Raiders" and "Star Wars" so compelling was their balance of superb acting, script, and plot, coupled with a measured employment of technology, thus delivering a movie that had a soul and a story to tell. Just as in modern music production, we're seeing less and less of that as the years go by. Just because we have CG doesn't mean it must be used rampantly, and just because a film has Indiana Jones contained in the title doesn't mean you don't have to try as hard to deliver on the fundamentals. Perhaps all concerned with this movie are laughing all the way to the bank, but it leaves one with a dejecting, inescapable question: are these really are the same people who brought us those iconic masterpieces of yesterday? Maybe so, but thankfully the works they made when they were hungry, innovative, and masterful will live on even if their ingenuity won't. Expand
  19. GrantS.
    Jun 7, 2008
    0
    What a complete waste of time and money! Not one ounce of creativity or fun. From the first lame sceen with the groundhogs (Caddyshack?) to the last third rate SFX water flume ride this movie was a complete disappointment and both Spielberg and Lucas should be ashamed.
  20. JoMama
    Sep 3, 2008
    0
    Disgrace to Indiana Jones. I laughed through it it was so bad.
  21. BenP.
    May 23, 2008
    2
    This was the movie I had hoped I wouldn't see. How could the critics have liked this? I want to know. What about this was good film-making? The dialoge was tedious, the script was terrible, and the editing and cinematography was flat-out laughable. Everybody who made this should be ashamed. I would have been pleased with a movie half as good as Temple of Doom, but wasn't even This was the movie I had hoped I wouldn't see. How could the critics have liked this? I want to know. What about this was good film-making? The dialoge was tedious, the script was terrible, and the editing and cinematography was flat-out laughable. Everybody who made this should be ashamed. I would have been pleased with a movie half as good as Temple of Doom, but wasn't even given that. Spielberg, Lucas, AND Ford, how dare you? Critics, please watch this film again, it is not a good film by any means. It is closer to being horrible than good. I'm hurt that this movie was made. I grew up on Indiana Jones and this is the thanks I get? Again...how dare you? Expand
  22. Robyn
    May 23, 2008
    3
    This movie was completely rediculous. The story line was boring and I was falling asleep in the theater, literaly. I dozed off and woke up to see Shia Lebuf winging with monkeys through a forest to get back to the jeep. Then an X-Files moment accured and that is when I really wanted my money back. Do not see this movie in the theaters, wait until the dvd comes out, if you still have a This movie was completely rediculous. The story line was boring and I was falling asleep in the theater, literaly. I dozed off and woke up to see Shia Lebuf winging with monkeys through a forest to get back to the jeep. Then an X-Files moment accured and that is when I really wanted my money back. Do not see this movie in the theaters, wait until the dvd comes out, if you still have a desire to see this awful movie. I've seen the others, and this one was just terrible. Expand
  23. BrianL.
    May 25, 2008
    2
    Maddeningly idiotic. I was so angry when I left the theater as to what they did to a great franchise. It has George Lucas's stamp of cutesy lameness all over it. I hated this movie, and I was so excited to see it.
  24. CJ
    May 27, 2008
    4
    The final act was too short, too muddled, and most critically, did not provide a MORAL DILEMMA WORTHY OF INDIANA JONES. Throughout this Franken-script, a lot of themes were merely touched on, but a solid closer would have solidified the main one. It seems, in the end, George, Steven, and Harrison couldn
  25. indyfan
    May 31, 2008
    0
    Worst film ever. Plot is non existant. SFX are poor. Pacing is aweful. Harrison Ford looks like he's wearing depends the entire film. George Lucas kills another franchise. Don't waster your time or money on this, you'll never get it back
  26. MarkB.
    May 30, 2008
    3
    If you were in first grade when the original Raiders of the Lost Ark (or for that matter, either of the first two sequels) came out, then you're now old enough to have first graders of your own! So it's perfectly understandable that the massive groundswell of anticipation for the fourth installment of the Indiana Jones saga is a natural result of the world's near-unanimous If you were in first grade when the original Raiders of the Lost Ark (or for that matter, either of the first two sequels) came out, then you're now old enough to have first graders of your own! So it's perfectly understandable that the massive groundswell of anticipation for the fourth installment of the Indiana Jones saga is a natural result of the world's near-unanimous affection for Steven Spielberg's and George Lucas' justly beloved 1981 original (even if reactions to 2 and 3 were more mixed) and equally so that exit reactions to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull fall almost evenly into two seperate camps (as the current Metacritic 5.2 viewer response indicates). Rose-colored memories CAN lead viewers to rate it at least on par with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (if not better), but out of respect for the gritty realism that Spielberg subsequently brought to Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan and Munich, let's call a skull a skull: Indy 4 stinks. Forget comparisons to worthy Raiders knockoffs like Romancing the Stone: this isn't even as good as National Treasure 2 (not that National Treasure 2 was any good to begin with). It's expected that Spielberg, Lucas and credited writer David Koepp (Jurassic Park) would incorporate Harrison Ford's advanced age into this movie's characterization of Hollywood's most human action hero, but Jones comes off here like that cranky old guy who yells at school kids for cutting across his yard; close your eyes and you almost hear Dana Carvey! Speaking of which, Cate Blanchett's vocal characterization of the series' most one-dimensional villain ever would better have been done by June Foray as the original Natascha Fatale; this isn't the worst example of an Oscar-winning actress slumming since Shirley MacLaine did Cannonball Run 2, but it's in the parking lot of the same ballpark. And the everyman-junior quality that Shia LaBoeuf brought so successfully to his past work, making Holes a terrific entertainment, Disturbia a tolerable one and Transformers somewhat less painful than a red hot poker up your most sensitive orifice is totally out of place here; you don't put a teddy bear on a motorcycle and call it dangerous. Only Karen Allen, everyone's favorite Indy-go Girl (including mine, even though I'm a big Kate Capshaw defender) comes close to scoring, but the writing completely lets her and memories of her down; why does the wonderfully gritty Marion Ravenwood, who gave as good as she got, spend so much time here sitting on the sidelines? Aside from Crystal Skull's bluntness in treating both communism and anti-communism as dangerous forces (which may have been a calculated decision to avoid offending either the Right or the Left) its view of the 1950s is distressingly superficial even for pop entertainment; it comes off as the work of people who watched every episode of Happy Days and about a third of Rebel Without a Cause, but even that wouldn't matter if the special effects and action sequences were up to snuff. They aren't. A very wise friend once described the original Raiders as the best movie of all time because it had very few computer effects...just blood, sweat and tears. Well, times have changed and not for the better: this installment is nearly all digital and totally bloodless. The obligatory Attack of the Creepy-Crawlies in the first three Indy movies (snakes, bugs and rats, respectively) worked because the creatures were (or seemed real); the red ants here aren't. (When the killer-ant sequence in the 1954 Charlton Heston-Eleanor Parker adventure-soaper The Naked Jungle STILL comes across as infinitely more harrowing, you know you're in trouble!) And let's not forget the cheesily-rendered title object itself: the crystal skull, which looks like one of those plastic see-through models sold in hobby shops and stuffed with Saran Wrap, is so unconvincing it makes The DaVinci Code's cereal-box decoder device look like Rosebud. The final "hat joke" seen just before the closing credits threatens a fifth installment, but if Spielberg biographer Douglas Brode is right in theorizing that every Raiders movie deals with a major religious belief system (Judaism in Lost Ark, Hinduism in Temple of Doom, Christianity in Last Crusade and New Agephilosophy here), then the massive disappointment expressed by many Indyphiles (like me) in this poorly paced, endlessly self-referential chapter, Spielberg's sloppiest and most indifferently directed film since Hook, would indicate that he, Lucas and Ford won't be getting around to making the Muslim one. Expand
  27. JoeAnonymous
    May 31, 2008
    2
    Full of ridiculous sequences that would never work and also inconsistencies that make it painful to watch. (Some spoilers) Two parallel paths through thick south american jungle even after the machine is blown up? A skull which decides to be sporadically magnetic. A cloth prevents the magnetism but a metal case and crate don't? Surviving an atomic bomb at ground-zero? Falling down Full of ridiculous sequences that would never work and also inconsistencies that make it painful to watch. (Some spoilers) Two parallel paths through thick south american jungle even after the machine is blown up? A skull which decides to be sporadically magnetic. A cloth prevents the magnetism but a metal case and crate don't? Surviving an atomic bomb at ground-zero? Falling down three waterfalls onto jagged rocks without any injury? Swinging on vines faster than jeeps? Expand
  28. Camille
    May 30, 2008
    4
    I firmly believe that the generally favorable reviews from the critics is simply bias towards what was supposed to be an awesome movie. I really wanted to like this film; I tried so hard to look past some of its faults. But by the end, I was just rolling my eyes. It definitely had its moments; some suspenseful, some action packed, blah blah blah. But the overall premise doesn't live I firmly believe that the generally favorable reviews from the critics is simply bias towards what was supposed to be an awesome movie. I really wanted to like this film; I tried so hard to look past some of its faults. But by the end, I was just rolling my eyes. It definitely had its moments; some suspenseful, some action packed, blah blah blah. But the overall premise doesn't live up to what an Indiana Jones film should be. It's almost painful. Nice try, Lucas, but I think it's time we move past aliens and think about something new. And I swear to God, if one more movie/game involves looking for Cebola or El Dorado, I'm punching the nearest person in the face. Expand
  29. KyleD.
    Jun 1, 2008
    4
    I'll give the film some credit. Cut off the first 20 and last 30 minutes of the movie, and it actually drew me in. Good cinematography and decent action made me forget about the film's shoddy intro. And... that's about all I can say positively about it. The film started from an absolute crawl, and the absolute absurdity of the ending drew me to try and pull my hair out. I'll give the film some credit. Cut off the first 20 and last 30 minutes of the movie, and it actually drew me in. Good cinematography and decent action made me forget about the film's shoddy intro. And... that's about all I can say positively about it. The film started from an absolute crawl, and the absolute absurdity of the ending drew me to try and pull my hair out. Scenes were thrown in for the sake of sensationalism, dialogue was poor as is usual from Lucas' works, the movie destroys any sense of mystery by explaining every detail to the viewer, and most visual effects were thrown in for the sake of showing off ILM's latest developments. Avoid. Expand
  30. dave
    Jun 16, 2008
    1
    terrible acting, karen allen should've stayed home, Harrison Ford seemed all hunched over when he walked and if they think Shia Labeouf will be the next indy for years to come, this will be very disappointing
  31. JimB.
    Jun 1, 2008
    0
    Crap they mad this movie just to make money, sad sad day for movies.
  32. JimJ.
    Jun 5, 2008
    2
    yes truly, this film is a crime against cinema. Given the time that was supposedly spent on getting the story right and the 3 great films preceeding it , to come up with this rubbish is unforgiveable. The problem is its Indiana Jones and you feel compelled to see it no matter how bad the reviews and heresay. If you are a fan of the previous films try your best not to fall into this cynical trap.
  33. Michel
    Jun 6, 2008
    0
    I went into this expecting very little and I got even less. Lucas needs to admit he's past his glory days and stop trying to revisit them and Spielberg shouldn't indulge him. With hardly any real plot, no sense of urgency during any of the action scenes and their lousy CGI infused effects, and no truly great Indy moments that were memorable this film should be avoided by all but I went into this expecting very little and I got even less. Lucas needs to admit he's past his glory days and stop trying to revisit them and Spielberg shouldn't indulge him. With hardly any real plot, no sense of urgency during any of the action scenes and their lousy CGI infused effects, and no truly great Indy moments that were memorable this film should be avoided by all but the hardcore Indy fans. Collapse
  34. DavidH.
    Jun 8, 2008
    0
    I went in with low expectations because of word of mouth and found it to be shockingly bad. Horrible special effects, terrible over-dubbing early on and rediculous plot. Do not see this movie.
  35. ES
    Jun 8, 2008
    4
    This is not the exciting, rip-roaring adventure that we were promised. It does have two good parts that come kinda/sorta close to capturing that old Indy feeling but the rest comes off as pale and lacking. And give me a break--there's no way that a guy would be wearing the same costume as he did 20 years ago (apparently Indiana hasn't grown that much since we last saw him). Ford This is not the exciting, rip-roaring adventure that we were promised. It does have two good parts that come kinda/sorta close to capturing that old Indy feeling but the rest comes off as pale and lacking. And give me a break--there's no way that a guy would be wearing the same costume as he did 20 years ago (apparently Indiana hasn't grown that much since we last saw him). Ford is always a treat but the attempts to make him look like a spry action figure seem a little too forced. And it's great to see Karen Allen again, but the whole "crystal skull" thing is just plain silly. This film is about ten years late. Expand
  36. 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.
  37. Daniel
    Dec 8, 2008
    0
    This movie was a horrible experience, and for people who appreciated the good movies of the series (1st and 3rd), it is also an insult. 10 minutes into it i was already trying to figure out what the hell spielberg and lucas were thinking when they made this. The movie barely makes any sense on it's own terms, let alone ours. I mean god, i gotta ask this, can you really survive a This movie was a horrible experience, and for people who appreciated the good movies of the series (1st and 3rd), it is also an insult. 10 minutes into it i was already trying to figure out what the hell spielberg and lucas were thinking when they made this. The movie barely makes any sense on it's own terms, let alone ours. I mean god, i gotta ask this, can you really survive a nuclear blast by HIDING IN A FRIDGE? Questions like these are the ones you'll find yourselves asking throughout this movie. And it's such a boring experience, whereas in previous movies, you felt excited and some emotion as to the things that we're being discussed and found (ark or the cup of christ), here they don't even bother with any of that, it's just a 200 mile per second experience where nothing is really analized or explored, and nothing makes sense. Avoid this movie at all costs, it is not indiana jones by any means, it's a waste of money and time. Expand
  38. HenryJ.
    Oct 3, 2008
    1
    So bad, you'll be angry.
  39. SeanC.
    Oct 30, 2008
    2
    A disgusting display of Lucas' CGI. His answer to every problem in filmmaking seems to be, let's just do it in post with computer graphics. Spielberg's motive's for making this film are unbeknowst to me, the acting was lousy and the story, weird and disconnected (Even for an Indiana Jones Movie) and the effects were even worse. I wouldn't mind another Indiana A disgusting display of Lucas' CGI. His answer to every problem in filmmaking seems to be, let's just do it in post with computer graphics. Spielberg's motive's for making this film are unbeknowst to me, the acting was lousy and the story, weird and disconnected (Even for an Indiana Jones Movie) and the effects were even worse. I wouldn't mind another Indiana Jones, just don't let Lucas get his mits on it and let Harrison Ford take a seat. I enjoy sequels that are done in appreciation of the previous films, this was not the case. I will not be buying this unholy mess on DVD and I don't recommend it to anyone. Expand
  40. 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.
  41. MichaelT.
    May 18, 2008
    4
    Everything else is a retread from the VHS age. There are some nice moments, and everything is good-natured enough. But this is a moment for Harrison Ford to hang up the hat.
  42. JamesC.
    May 18, 2008
    1
    He doesn't wear the fedora with quite the same jaunty angle, his bullwhip doesn't crack as smartly - and Harrison Ford looks all of his 65 years.
  43. GwenA.
    May 22, 2008
    1
    This is possibly the worst movie ever made. It only gets a 1 because it is entertaining in the sheer horrendousness of every aspect of this movie. If you like Indiana Jones, don't see this.
  44. JohnV
    May 22, 2008
    0
    Infuriatingly awful. Obviously a movie hijacked by George Lukas. Worst of all, it started turning into Stargate.
  45. RichardS.
    May 22, 2008
    0
    A cheesy addition to the Indiana Jones trilogy. Two hours of constant location changes, character introductions, and plot movements without much explanation at all. Spoilers: Being a fan of the original Indiana Jones movies I was really disappointed when the movie's main villain walked into view and we are greeted with a psychopathic feminist wielding a rapier. Furthermore, this A cheesy addition to the Indiana Jones trilogy. Two hours of constant location changes, character introductions, and plot movements without much explanation at all. Spoilers: Being a fan of the original Indiana Jones movies I was really disappointed when the movie's main villain walked into view and we are greeted with a psychopathic feminist wielding a rapier. Furthermore, this movie takes a huge detour from the feel of the originals and explores a quazi-1950's the Fonz kind of feel, and then goes on a strange science-fiction plot track involving flying-saucers, aliens, and the Mayan race. This movie could have done with a lot more explanation and transitional periods because it barreled along as a rapid pace and while it did the plot holes began to mount up. Near the end you are left with little clue as to what they're exactly doing or why and a distinct lack of purpose behind the characters. For the characters you have Shia LaBeouf playing a young punk who acts almost exactly like the Fonz, Karen Allen whose role in the movie does more to tear down Indiana Jone's reputation than to augment him, and a very odd character played by Ray Winstone, who initially double-crosses Indiana, and then is welcomed by the Indiana family while they're running away from the Russians for no reason and without any sort of redemption. Indiana family? Yes. Mimicking the feel of a soap opera, the young punk who had been tagging along with Indiana is revealed to be Marion's son; but what's this?! He's Indiana's son also?! Out of wedlock? It's ridiculous and totally unneeded. Indiana's lack of utter compassion for the child makes it obvious that the actors didn't buy it either. Expand
  46. GeorgeJ
    May 22, 2008
    2
    Beware! This movie is to the Indiana Jones series as the prequels were to Star Wars, as Generations was to Star Trek: a horribly-bungled attempt to milk a cash cow one time too many. Nothing in the entire movie was handled with even an ounce of finesse; it was just a series of one cliche after another. If you have good memories of the Indiana Jones series, this movie will do nothing but Beware! This movie is to the Indiana Jones series as the prequels were to Star Wars, as Generations was to Star Trek: a horribly-bungled attempt to milk a cash cow one time too many. Nothing in the entire movie was handled with even an ounce of finesse; it was just a series of one cliche after another. If you have good memories of the Indiana Jones series, this movie will do nothing but tarnish them; you will be a much happier person if you just skip it completely. Expand
  47. patrick
    May 22, 2008
    4
    Entertaining simply based on the implausibility of every plot twist (if you can call it a plot). I sat there thinking "this might be the dumbest movie I've ever seen" throughout the entire ordeal, but luckily I remembered that I saw a free screening of Van Wilder 2: Rise of Taj. Honestly, it seemed like it was just an homage to the originals with a trumped up cast (Blanchett was Entertaining simply based on the implausibility of every plot twist (if you can call it a plot). I sat there thinking "this might be the dumbest movie I've ever seen" throughout the entire ordeal, but luckily I remembered that I saw a free screening of Van Wilder 2: Rise of Taj. Honestly, it seemed like it was just an homage to the originals with a trumped up cast (Blanchett was absolutely atrocious). Expand
  48. kend.
    May 23, 2008
    1
    I have been a dedicated Indy fan for many years, and when you consider ticket prices these days, I think all Indy fans should have received a better plot for thier buck. The acting was great and it was nice to see an old friend.
  49. SlumpsB.
    May 23, 2008
    0
    A film wholly unconnected to human intuition, though not without gratuitously empty references to the motifs of the 'Indy' installments that came before it. The film's vein attempts to flesh out its own credibility are as non-believable as the preposterous veil of Russian accented-speech provided by the train-wreck of a character displayed by Cate Blanchett. There is not a A film wholly unconnected to human intuition, though not without gratuitously empty references to the motifs of the 'Indy' installments that came before it. The film's vein attempts to flesh out its own credibility are as non-believable as the preposterous veil of Russian accented-speech provided by the train-wreck of a character displayed by Cate Blanchett. There is not a wide shot to be found in the movie entire, save for the distracting glow of CGI shots George Lucas clearly devised in a wet dream. Shia 'The Beef' LeBoeuf is in obvious Academy Award form, offering a plethora of hilarious one-liners and not a single reasonable excuse for his presence in the film. John Hurt's portrayal of the lovably-one-dimensional 'Ox' left me wondering if he was payed for his role or if he had merely gotten drunk and refused to leave the set. My only hope is that I will muster the courage to watch the original trilogy some day in the future. Expand
  50. JOs
    May 24, 2008
    2
    Certainly sucked. Three word summary: Prairie Dog, Monkeys.
  51. GerryM.
    May 25, 2008
    3
    Completely ridiculous and a huge terrible mistake. The only saving grace is that Harrison Ford still has the charm of being Indy, but everything else just stinks out loud.
  52. RussellD.
    May 25, 2008
    3
    This was the most contrived, embarassing dissillusionment I have seen I have seen in quite some time. The script smacks of ambitious college students with little education, and was painful to watch. Me and my comrades left this movie whilst speeding jeeps in the jungles became platforms for a corny family fueled humourous sword fight between Indy's son, and a sword weilding KGB agent This was the most contrived, embarassing dissillusionment I have seen I have seen in quite some time. The script smacks of ambitious college students with little education, and was painful to watch. Me and my comrades left this movie whilst speeding jeeps in the jungles became platforms for a corny family fueled humourous sword fight between Indy's son, and a sword weilding KGB agent of sorts. Save your cash. Expand
  53. MichaelB.
    May 25, 2008
    0
    This is the worst Indiana Jones movie by such a wide margin it made me long to watch Temple of Doom again. The best thing I can say about Lucas' ridiculously bad script (he needed nearly 20 years to come up withthis??) is that there is no Jar Jar Binks.
  54. TimC
    May 25, 2008
    1
    Cinematagrahy was the best part of this movie. There was no feeling of adventure or risk that the previous Indiana movies provided. The ending was a huge disappointment based on the time period and what happened. The sense of wonder about the crystal skull was a huge let down when the ending was revealed.
  55. JDcook
    May 25, 2008
    4
    I'm afraid i cant even give indy a passing grade for this effort. all concerned obviously tried very hard to deliver a quality film and it does show in places (namely the casting, shia, and in the fact that harrison is still amazing as the man with the hat and whip) but it falls down in so many others (the fridge!!!!, the waterfall drops and of the course e.t's buddies showing I'm afraid i cant even give indy a passing grade for this effort. all concerned obviously tried very hard to deliver a quality film and it does show in places (namely the casting, shia, and in the fact that harrison is still amazing as the man with the hat and whip) but it falls down in so many others (the fridge!!!!, the waterfall drops and of the course e.t's buddies showing up in their mothership) i was never expecting "raiders" but i have to say i like my sci-fi to stay out of the indy franchise, lets hope they can pull one more out of the bag and make that ever promised 5 indy films go out with a bang. Expand
  56. AaronE.
    May 26, 2008
    4
    It seems that Spielberg and Lucas were trying to rekindle the fire that is Indiana Jones, those high adventures we all love and came up with a weak-plotted CGI flop. They should have left Indie's bullwhip hanging in a museum and preserved the integrity of the series instead of giving us this 2nd rate Hollywood production laced with music that we all associate with a great adventure tale.
  57. DavidG
    May 26, 2008
    4
    Despite the fun-to-watch action scenes, and clever dialogue, this movie just wasn't very good. Apparently Indiana Jones has some sort of magnetic shielding that makes bullets never hit him as well as allow him to withstand unimaginable abuse. The plot was way too science fictiony, too much magic and unbelievable powers even more an Indy movie.
  58. JasonT
    May 26, 2008
    3
    This could have only been more disappointing if Ja Jar Binks was in it.
  59. ChrisS
    May 26, 2008
    3
    I expected more from a Indiana Jones movie. Story was stupid, some scenes felt tacked on for no reason, and the logically element that someone can swing from a vine and catch up with two speeding cars and befriend some monkeys within seconds make you wonder if Lucas wrote this or a five year old.
  60. LaurettaM.
    May 27, 2008
    2
    The new Indiana Jones was a let down. It was like the ride at Disney Land. I was expecting a "GREAT" movie but it was "CHEESEY"!
  61. davep
    May 27, 2008
    4
    Don't see this at the late show or the guy sweeping the floor will have to wake you to lift your feet.
  62. TadG.
    May 27, 2008
    4
    The only thing good about this is that Indiana is back, but couldnt a better script have been adapted? There were no memorable action scenes in this newest offering. George Lucas should be barred from making movies, instead only concentrating on CGI, and David Koepp has no knowledge of the Indiana Jones' character, further cementing the fact that he is an awful script doctor.
  63. MatthewN.
    May 27, 2008
    2
    This is one of the worst films I have ever scene. They have destroyed what was once a good film series, it should never have been brought back.
  64. Fantasy
    May 27, 2008
    0
    Exploitation of a once great character. REFUND!
  65. MattE.
    May 28, 2008
    3
    This was a wretched poor excuse for an Indiana Jones movie. I felt like the directors did a terrible job portraying Jones 20+ years later.
  66. attaboy
    May 28, 2008
    3
    Dear George Lucas, You are succeeding in your quest to ruin all the good things from my childhood. Tomorrow I am going to get a restraining order against you stipulating that you must not come within 100 feet of any movie studio. Thanks for nothing. Your one time fan, Atta Boy
  67. JD
    May 28, 2008
    1
    Ok, I'm really confused. Because some of you people actually seemed to like this film. I feel like I mistakenly wandered into the wrong one, because the "Indiana Jones" (and it hurts me to call it that) I saw was possibly the most horrible, rambling, nonsensical, characterless piece of rubbish I've seen since Pirates 3. Someone needs to get George down from the ceiling fan and Ok, I'm really confused. Because some of you people actually seemed to like this film. I feel like I mistakenly wandered into the wrong one, because the "Indiana Jones" (and it hurts me to call it that) I saw was possibly the most horrible, rambling, nonsensical, characterless piece of rubbish I've seen since Pirates 3. Someone needs to get George down from the ceiling fan and remind him of what used to make his stories good... simple plot, good characters (CG monkeys not the same thing), sense of humor, and just a dash of subtlety. Expand
  68. C.B.
    May 30, 2008
    4
    Maybe I'm just too old for the tentpoles. I would not have been so tough on Indy, if Ironman didn't kick my ass a few weeks earlier. Indy should hang up his whip.
  69. TimK
    May 30, 2008
    4
    This movie was a disappointment. I really wanted to like this movie but couldn't. I can enjoy fantasy where a character gets shot at with 1000s of bullets and they all miss. But I cannot enjoy absurd gaps in plot logic where a character suddenly knows what happened 100s of years ago from a scene that gives zero clues to the audience. Without their sudden 'revelation' we This movie was a disappointment. I really wanted to like this movie but couldn't. I can enjoy fantasy where a character gets shot at with 1000s of bullets and they all miss. But I cannot enjoy absurd gaps in plot logic where a character suddenly knows what happened 100s of years ago from a scene that gives zero clues to the audience. Without their sudden 'revelation' we would be clueless. Such forced plot progression is dry and hard to take, sorta like swallowing dry sand. Painful, that's how I would describe this movie. Expand
  70. JamesW.
    May 30, 2008
    2
    How can Lucas keep destroying the characters he made so great? What happened to the writing and creativity that made Star Wars and Indiana classic? It seems to me their skills should be improving as movie makers. But everything Lucas has touched since 1995 makes you wonder if he ever had anything to do with the originals.
  71. GuyH
    May 30, 2008
    2
    Pretty dreadful - but then the 'Temple of Doom' is an incredibly irritating film too but people gloss over that so maybe this will be received well. This film is completely schizo and reminds me of the Peter Jackson King Kong approach - throw all the sh#t you have at the screen and see what sticks. The title of the movie might as well have been 'Indiana Jones in the Outer Pretty dreadful - but then the 'Temple of Doom' is an incredibly irritating film too but people gloss over that so maybe this will be received well. This film is completely schizo and reminds me of the Peter Jackson King Kong approach - throw all the sh#t you have at the screen and see what sticks. The title of the movie might as well have been 'Indiana Jones in the Outer Limits' - the plot is absolutely barkin' mad. The villains are pathetic - a stiff Russian dominatrix type (seen before countless times) and the double dealing best mate turned bad (seen even more often). The worst thing though is that the big set pieces are rubbish - especially the moving vehicle jungle mash up that starts at ridiculous and then shoots through the stratosphere of dumb. Mind numbing Expand
  72. TimmyT.
    May 30, 2008
    4
    Disappointing. Aliens in a Indiana Jones movie? Give me a break!
  73. DennisL.
    Jun 1, 2008
    3
    Wow....what a sad disappointment. Spielberg and Lucas took a wonderful franchise and threw it away with this movie. Considering the theme I kept waiting for ET to show up.
  74. Droog
    Jun 12, 2008
    2
    Please don't see this movie -- it's awful. The first three Indy movies stand perfectly well on their own, so don't tarnish their memory by watching this boondoggle. Many people have said Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is too absurd, but that's not quite it. It's just lazy. The dialogue is poor, the acting is tired, and the predictable storyline about aliens have Please don't see this movie -- it's awful. The first three Indy movies stand perfectly well on their own, so don't tarnish their memory by watching this boondoggle. Many people have said Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is too absurd, but that's not quite it. It's just lazy. The dialogue is poor, the acting is tired, and the predictable storyline about aliens have been done far better in other films. Previous Indiana Jones movies have dealt with the supernatural before, but at least they were original. In contrast, there's isn't a single original idea in Crystal Skull. I feel everyone involved in this movie just showed up to get paid and then to go home. It's a shame, and we shouldn't support this kind of poor movie-making. Expand
  75. JonF.
    Jun 12, 2008
    3
    I am frankly shocked that a poll of film critics would give this ludicrous mess a favorable review. Could Joel Schumaker teamed with Michael Bay do any worse? Can't wait for the next Indy film set in the 1960s, he'll probably surf into Earth's atmosphere on space debris (a la DARKSTAR) after the heat shield on his Mercury spacecraft fails.
  76. charlesg
    Jun 13, 2008
    2
    Wow. This was a mess. The only guy who followed this storyline was the author of the last 2 Pirates of the Caribbean flicks. Never good for your essay grade when your concluding logic depends on dudes from outer space.
  77. Lesley
    Jun 14, 2008
    4
    A convoluted story where the "bad guys" always seem to be just one step behind the "good guys", even when impossible to do so. And the whole story was such a yawn that I was checking my watch after only an hour (which actually felt like two). I just kept thinking "poor Harrison Ford...that must hurt to run and jump like that at his age". And a pummeling from a man twice his size and half A convoluted story where the "bad guys" always seem to be just one step behind the "good guys", even when impossible to do so. And the whole story was such a yawn that I was checking my watch after only an hour (which actually felt like two). I just kept thinking "poor Harrison Ford...that must hurt to run and jump like that at his age". And a pummeling from a man twice his size and half his age left him with only a bloody lip? Come on. I just felt that the movie was a bore. I would not watch it again, even when it comes to The Movie Network where I could watch it for free. Once was quite enough. Expand
  78. gloria
    Jun 14, 2008
    0
    B-a-d. in e-v-e-r-y way. acting sucked, how could it not with such a l-a-m-e, shoddy script? the script had to suck because the story was written by a jack ass, yep that would be geoge - obviously all he was doing was looking to replentish his bank account with all us poor believers out here. i will never go to another movie with his or spielbergs name on it. this movie is a total joke, a B-a-d. in e-v-e-r-y way. acting sucked, how could it not with such a l-a-m-e, shoddy script? the script had to suck because the story was written by a jack ass, yep that would be geoge - obviously all he was doing was looking to replentish his bank account with all us poor believers out here. i will never go to another movie with his or spielbergs name on it. this movie is a total joke, a really bad joke. Expand
  79. GaryB
    Jun 17, 2008
    1
    The funny thing is that Lucas refuses to let anyone see his infamous "Star Wars Holiday Special" from 1977. That was far more entertaining than this piece of garbage. Face it, he's a con man.
  80. DavidC.
    Jun 17, 2008
    0
    Shia ruined this movie! Way over hyped.
  81. NickB.
    Jun 1, 2008
    0
    This is the worst installment of the Indiana Jones movies. Within the first 10 minutes I wanted to walk out and get my money back. The acting was terrible and the storyline was just too much to handle
  82. MargaretT.
    Jun 2, 2008
    2
    Overrated. What a waste of time. The critics must love anything Lucas, Spielberg & Ford make regardless of the quality. Horrid acting, dull dialogue, nothing new to show us.
  83. RajeevG.
    Jun 25, 2008
    4
    Story line was too fantasy-oriented; many/most events were very improbable. This is throwback to the adventure movies of the 70s but such plots seem too quaint in modern times. While some suspension of disbelief if required for this genre, the events must still have some plausibility. Not so for this movie. It was too tongue-in-cheek, even to the point where it felt that the joke was on Story line was too fantasy-oriented; many/most events were very improbable. This is throwback to the adventure movies of the 70s but such plots seem too quaint in modern times. While some suspension of disbelief if required for this genre, the events must still have some plausibility. Not so for this movie. It was too tongue-in-cheek, even to the point where it felt that the joke was on the audience, as if the filmmakers are taking use for a ride. Expand
  84. AlexAlex
    Jun 25, 2008
    1
    Horridly Overdone ! I was watching awful acting preformed on a Disney ride. Well at least some theme park has a stunt show. Might as well have donated $10+popcorn to the senior home for 90's actors. Can you put more special effects in a movie? Might as well have been animated. Not just: "Thumbs down", Thumbs cut-off. The 1 pt is for getting it to the movie theater in time (Unfortunately).
  85. LevS.
    Jun 26, 2008
    1
    Yes, it's meant to be a big, fun, blockbuster, but then again, so were National Treasure and Pirates of the Caribbean. What I'm sure everyone loved about the Indy movies was the charm and sense of adventure that are completely lacking in this one. Completely out of touch with the originals and sadly, poorly executed in all fields. Just another money-turner.
  86. TonyP
    Jun 2, 2008
    2
    Got borred within the first 30 minutes and it never got better.
  87. SteveB.
    Jun 3, 2008
    3
    Couldn't wait for it to end. So cheesy, such a rehash of the previous. It's as if they sat around and said, "OK, need to have lot's of cobwebs, skulls, skeletons, chase scene in military vehicles...Let's write a story around that." There's just no life in this one.
  88. RickyQ.
    Jun 4, 2008
    4
    The two things I
  89. GuyH.
    Jun 8, 2008
    0
    Did they just make this movie just to scam us out of money ill never watch a nether Lucas movie ever again.
  90. K.Ward
    Jul 11, 2008
    2
    What a stinker, the wink, wink, nod, nod (I'm Indiana Jones) performance from Harrison ford wasn't the worst of the film. side bar roles that you wanted to care about but didn't Overly long and boring chase scenes, and the story was just a mess. Aliens, fricken aliens... you've got to be kidding. Even in the end they presented it like it was a mystery... maybe for a What a stinker, the wink, wink, nod, nod (I'm Indiana Jones) performance from Harrison ford wasn't the worst of the film. side bar roles that you wanted to care about but didn't Overly long and boring chase scenes, and the story was just a mess. Aliens, fricken aliens... you've got to be kidding. Even in the end they presented it like it was a mystery... maybe for a child. Boo. Expand
  91. Dominic
    Jul 14, 2008
    2
    If the filmmaker tried to make this story or movie funny, it's not funny at all! One of the worst movies of all time!
  92. JoshB.
    Jul 19, 2008
    4
    Thanks George Lucas for making another digital movie that looks like a cartoon. Maybe a commercial success, but the art of movie making is lost on you. He'd rather contract out the whole movie making process to people with apple computers. Lest I forget, the script was terrible as well. Don't see this movie, don't buy it, don't rent it.
  93. 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.
  94. SuperMarioSuperMario
    Aug 17, 2008
    4
    -I loved the original trilogy, but I didn't like this movie. Don't tell me that I'm being biased or small-minded or unfair: I wanted to like this movie as much as the others (why would I pay money otherwise?), but it wasn't me who failed, it was Lucas and Spielberg. I loved the charm and magic and energy and humour of the old films, and even the fact that they were -I loved the original trilogy, but I didn't like this movie. Don't tell me that I'm being biased or small-minded or unfair: I wanted to like this movie as much as the others (why would I pay money otherwise?), but it wasn't me who failed, it was Lucas and Spielberg. I loved the charm and magic and energy and humour of the old films, and even the fact that they were unbelievable (with the Biblical or Indian artifacts), but this movie lacks a lot of the charm, humour, grace, and magic of the original (not that it's entirely missing). It didn't feel like an Indy movie: how come we didn't laugh as much as with the originals? But really, the aliens did ruin it. It pushes fantasy into the absurd: dealing with aliens works for Fox and Scully, not Indiana Jones. -I thought the Cold War and Russians as the antagonists worked (since Indy IS older), but what totally ruins this movie is (besides the aliens) how Indy is now a father. This is a freaken horrible cliche that every movie seems to take after: the main character ages, and surprisingly, we find out he has a son; the two don't usually get along and they have to work things out and by the end father and son are united. Kiss my ass Lucas! That's the stupidest, lamest plot (next to aliens, of course) that I've ever seen. The biggest problem with this is (I'm sure any Indy fan would agree with me here): it takes the focus off Indy. Now the focus is divided between Indy and his annoying son. We all love the Indiana Jones movies because they're about Indiana Jones/Harrison Ford, who's the soul of the movie (funny, charming, accidental), but his son/Shia, takes away from what the audience wants. He's really annoying: they try to make him funny and charming like Indy, but he's really not. -The original movies are about Indiana Jones and his love interests; the only reason that Crusade worked with Indiana Jones' father is because Lucas and Spielberg still had the imagination to make it work. Also, Connery was HILARIOUS and charming. -And I didn't like the fact that there's so much explaining done in this movie: they spent so much time at the start by having Indy LECTURING to Shia about Eldorado and the Crystal Skulls so the audience can "get what the movie is about." -So bad a movie, you'd think that Shia had his head up Ford's a**, Ford has his head up Spielberg's a**, and everyone had their heads up Lucas' a**. Expand
  95. 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 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
  96. 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
  97. 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.
  98. JamesB.
    Sep 5, 2008
    1
    Proof that George Lucas needs to be sterilized for the good of humanity!
  99. 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.
  100. 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 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
Metascore
65

Generally favorable reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 27 out of 40
  2. Negative: 1 out of 40
  1. Harrison Ford? Terrific -- and re-energized.
  2. Director Steven Spielberg seems intent on celebrating his entire early career here. Whatever the story there is, a vague journey to return a spectacular archeological find to its rightful home -- an unusual goal of the old grave-robber, you must admit -- gets swamped in a sea of stunts and CGI that are relentless as the scenes and character relationships are charmless.
  3. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    70
    There are scenes in the new movie that seem like stretching exercises at a retirement home; there are garrulous stretches, and even the title seems a few words too long. But once it gets going, Crystal Skull delivers smart, robust, familiar entertainment.