Paramount Pictures | Release Date: May 22, 2008
5.3
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 1185 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
482
Mixed:
341
Negative:
362
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)
1
marcmyworksJun 25, 2014
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!
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
FranzHcriticJul 24, 2014
'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'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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
GreatbealloFeb 23, 2012
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 theThis 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
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
3
Aaron_WassermanJun 1, 2016
Goddamn it guys, you ruined a classic and great trilogy, which can no longer remain one of the best trilogies because now it has 4 parts and the 4th part is awful. Why would you bring in Shia Labeuof?
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
AaronWasserman1Apr 11, 2016
So poor, failed attempt to recapture the classic trilogy. Harrison Ford is awesome once again as Indiana Jones, but... that's the only positive I can really say about this movie. Why Shia Labeoff????
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
BigZSep 10, 2014
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 ideasOkay, 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
Gamed2longDec 21, 2013
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 CGThere 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
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
0
night4Apr 28, 2016
This movie made me lose faith in humanity. Immediately after watching it, I sank into a deep depression and almost tried to end my life.

To this day, I refuse to acknowledge that this is an Indiana Jones movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
RedfordstoJul 21, 2015
This is a movie so bad that it tarnished a beloved franchise. The writing is and cinematography is beyond hackneyed; it disgraceful. If they character's name wasn't Indiana, it wouldn't have been made because no one would be willing to fundThis is a movie so bad that it tarnished a beloved franchise. The writing is and cinematography is beyond hackneyed; it disgraceful. If they character's name wasn't Indiana, it wouldn't have been made because no one would be willing to fund it. It's not even enjoyable for the it's idiocy like Sharknado because you can sense the serious effort and subconscious contempt for a classic. In fact, if the character had not been Indiana Jones and just Harrison Ford screwing around fight communist sterotypes that were tired when the original Indiana Jones came out, it might be worth a laugh a zoning out while it's on in the background on TNT while you're cooking in the kitchen; much like The Postman. It's so terrible, the internet has coined a phrase to note when a series or franchise has destroyed itself. Look up "nuking the fridge" in google. This is literally the only movie I've asked for my money back after a full viewing. The manager, who is required to watch each new movie, actually gave me my money. Crystal Skull is so bad, the UN actually met in 2012 to consider the forced viewing of this movie a war crime. Admittedly, the last one is an exaggeration. The only reason I gave this movie a 1 rather than a zero is that I didn't physically vomit during the screening. This movie is so bad, I repressed the memory of watching it till I saw it in a 99 cent DVD bin and became enraged enough to write this review. Seven years after watching this movie, just seeing the box art for seconds ruined my day. That's how bad this movie is. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
jcasetnlJul 7, 2013
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
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
mrjeffsirMar 27, 2012
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!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! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
mintloNov 25, 2011
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
BigMike71Oct 25, 2016
it suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit sucked

-10/10
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
WWABTT123Sep 18, 2010
19 years to wait for the 4th movie of Indiana Jones and it a half disappointing
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
1
dellamorteMay 10, 2011
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 fatalThis 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
aleksasstaFeb 8, 2014
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 stupidI'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! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
cowbell31Feb 5, 2012
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 movieA 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
SpacePopeSep 4, 2011
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 wasFor 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
KevyBJan 12, 2014
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
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
2
MattBMay 22, 2008
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!
2 of 3 users found this helpful
1
KirkM.May 27, 2008
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 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
1 of 1 users found this helpful
0
GrantS.Jun 7, 2008
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 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. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
0
JoMamaSep 3, 2008
Disgrace to Indiana Jones. I laughed through it it was so bad.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
2
BenP.May 23, 2008
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 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
2 of 3 users found this helpful
3
RobynMay 23, 2008
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 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
2 of 3 users found this helpful
2
BrianL.May 25, 2008
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.
2 of 2 users found this helpful
0
indyfanMay 31, 2008
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 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 Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful
3
MarkB.May 30, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JoeAnonymousMay 31, 2008
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 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
2 of 2 users found this helpful
1
daveJun 16, 2008
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
2 of 2 users found this helpful