Paramount Pictures | Release Date: May 22, 2008
5.3
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 1170 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
475
Mixed:
332
Negative:
363
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
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)
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
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
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
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
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
6
SamF.May 21, 2008
Someone needs to confiscate George Lucas' computer sometimes. He just kills it with green screen.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
RockySMay 22, 2008
First off, thank you George Lucas and Steven Spielberg for trying. It was a noble effort. But the fact is, on the Indiana Jones scale, this movie is nothing. I liked the 1930s serial Jones, not the 1950s B-Movie Indy. This new installment First off, thank you George Lucas and Steven Spielberg for trying. It was a noble effort. But the fact is, on the Indiana Jones scale, this movie is nothing. I liked the 1930s serial Jones, not the 1950s B-Movie Indy. This new installment replaces the "just beyond plausible" escapist magic of its predecessors with a total computer-generated abandonment of any notion of reality. In a traditional Indiana Jones movie, he might go off one giant water fall and miraculously survive. Not in this one. In this movie he survives three, in a row, with his whole family, a mentally disabled guy, and his fat friend. And the Disney "family entertainment" vibe made me what to throw-up. The monkeys randomly attacking the Soviets, are you kidding me? And as for Roger Ebert liking it, go screw yourself, you fat elitist nerd. Don Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
PaulK.May 22, 2008
I never got into the Indy films as a kid, although I did see parts here and there on cable in the 80's. So while not an ardent fan, I still have to say that this was good, not great. The story was ok, nothing exceptional. At times hokey I never got into the Indy films as a kid, although I did see parts here and there on cable in the 80's. So while not an ardent fan, I still have to say that this was good, not great. The story was ok, nothing exceptional. At times hokey and completely silly (the monkeys for instance), I found myself half laughing at the film and half with it. I have a feeling die hard fans might not like this too much. Everyone else will enjoy the ride for what it is, but few will walk out craving another sequel starring Shia LaBeouf as the next Indy. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AdamM.May 22, 2008
Doesn't live up to the other Indiana Jones movies.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
PaulCMay 22, 2008
I was very, very disappointed. A spaceship should never be in an Indiana Jones movie...guess what???
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ChadS.May 22, 2008
A slow start, a crushing bore of a start, really, kills your nostalgia, right off the bat, because the film regards its own mythology a bit too pompously. We know where the lost ark is being stored. We don't need a reminder. As for A slow start, a crushing bore of a start, really, kills your nostalgia, right off the bat, because the film regards its own mythology a bit too pompously. We know where the lost ark is being stored. We don't need a reminder. As for Indiana Jones himself, Harrison Ford may look great for his age, but he sounds disinterested. Grumpy. This fourth installment of "Raiders..." needs a comedy transfusion; a young female sidekick who constantly reminds the aging archeologist how he's becoming the very thing he studies and collects, a relic. Shia LeBeouf is a good actor. But he's totally lost, here. Talking about comedy transfusions, at the very least, "...Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" needs a shot of Short Round, stat! In the wake of all those "Star Wars"-wanna bes that followed the mother-of-all-blockbusters(which killed off the personal filmmaking trend of American directors during the early-to-mid seventies) in '77, George Lucas actually got around to sueing two of these space opera "homages": the ABC series "Battlestar Galactica", and "Battle Beyond the Stars", starring one of "The Waltons", for story infringement. Twenty-five-plus years later, now the shoe is on the other foot, since writer/producer Chris Carter might have a little something to say about Lucas' so-called original story. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
SteveMay 22, 2008
Really?! This is the best they could do?! 20 years mulling over a script and this is the result?! Yeah, it had the skeleton of an Indy movie, but you've actually seen very single aspect of the plot/story/dialogue before...somewhere in Really?! This is the best they could do?! 20 years mulling over a script and this is the result?! Yeah, it had the skeleton of an Indy movie, but you've actually seen very single aspect of the plot/story/dialogue before...somewhere in the first 3. So...it's boring. To boot, not even John Williams came up with something unique...they just recycled the same themes from the other movies. Lame. Let's see, what else sucked? Oh, the gags. Every moment in the movie is a gag, whether that be the "punch," (of which there were too many), the bullets that miss (again, too many), the car chases, everything Indy says now is a one-liner, and the inexplicable less-than-realistic action sequences are more comical than they are thrilling, the monkees, another Tarzan reference (like they did with Chewbacca in Star Wars 3/6), ripping pants...the list is endless really. At least Indy got shot in the 1st one, and we thought he fell off that cliff in the 3rd one. It would take Kryptonite to destroy him in Crystal Skull. Speaking of Kryptonite: There are aliens, just like in "Signs." And an atomic bomb. And Russians. And Indiana Jones was a secret agend during WW2. Don't waste your $10. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
MikeCMay 23, 2008
Deeeeeeeply disappointed. It was the same disappointment that you got when you saw the Phantom Menace. It just isnt the same indiana jones that we all know and love.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MrjonesMay 23, 2008
The first 45min of the film was engaging and exciting. The last hour and a half of the film sorry to say derailed into self-indulgent, unfunny and over the top mess. Hollow characters never developed beyond weak accents and wacky The first 45min of the film was engaging and exciting. The last hour and a half of the film sorry to say derailed into self-indulgent, unfunny and over the top mess. Hollow characters never developed beyond weak accents and wacky expressions( thanks George Lucas) I'm starting to despise the cheap effects that computers can generate. If there were actually ants like that in South America no one would live there. Disappointing. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
mikemMay 23, 2008
Average in every way. no inspiration, no excitement, strictly going thru the motions.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JudyTMay 23, 2008
This movie was really bad. The action was cartoonish. Spielberg usually does better and Indy deserved better. But with so many problems getting decent writers whatelse could we expect. Poor old Harrison Ford didn't even start acting This movie was really bad. The action was cartoonish. Spielberg usually does better and Indy deserved better. But with so many problems getting decent writers whatelse could we expect. Poor old Harrison Ford didn't even start acting until Karen Allen, the one bright spot, came on screen. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JustinH.May 23, 2008
Quite possibly one of the biggest movie disappoints I can remember. Full of extremely corny lines that are not only poorly written but poorly acted. This movie might have a huge opening weekend but the drop off is going to be so big that not Quite possibly one of the biggest movie disappoints I can remember. Full of extremely corny lines that are not only poorly written but poorly acted. This movie might have a huge opening weekend but the drop off is going to be so big that not even Dr. Jones can stop it. Save your money. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ChrisKMay 24, 2008
When they were making this movie - somebody somewhere was thinking videogame.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RobertC.May 24, 2008
A disapointment. The movie has one cliche after another. All it is is chase scenes. The plot does not make any sense, the chase scenes and plot have been done dozens of times in other movies. Kate Blanchett is wasted in the film with an A disapointment. The movie has one cliche after another. All it is is chase scenes. The plot does not make any sense, the chase scenes and plot have been done dozens of times in other movies. Kate Blanchett is wasted in the film with an accent that I found comedic. Harrison Ford is not very good in the movie. Shia LeBeouf is also wasted not given a chance to display his talent. Shame on Lucas productions and Steven spielburg for passing this crap on us. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ShaunM.May 24, 2008
Squeaking by with a 6, only because it was slightly entertaining until the end.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
SwamiMay 24, 2008
It was OK, but it is missing that magic that the others had. Harrison Ford looked great, and I can't help thinking with a better script this movie could have been great. I get that many of the plots dealt with the fact this was set in It was OK, but it is missing that magic that the others had. Harrison Ford looked great, and I can't help thinking with a better script this movie could have been great. I get that many of the plots dealt with the fact this was set in 1957 instead of Nazi Germany times. However, for me, maybe it was trying too hard. It just did not have that sense of familiarity the other 3 did. LaBouef character was worthless and brought nothing but wasted screen time away IMO also. I didn't want to see Indiana Jones and the Fonz in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but that's what I got. Go in with an open mind and you might be pleasantly surprised. I was let down. Expand
0 of 0 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
5
JohnHMay 25, 2008
Cool action sequences, bad script.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
5
CharlieJul 24, 2008
It was good, it just wasn't Indy.
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
6
XtremeNerdz12Feb 26, 2016
It was okayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy6666y666
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews