User Score
5.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1130 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. DarrenZ.
    Oct 17, 2008
    9
    Are you a fan of Indiana Jones and his particular brand of over-the-top action films? Then you will love "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". Are you one of those bitter and jaded movie goers who insists that everything was done better yesterday? Then you will hate "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". That's pretty much all you need to know to decide if seeing this movie will be worth your Are you a fan of Indiana Jones and his particular brand of over-the-top action films? Then you will love "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". Are you one of those bitter and jaded movie goers who insists that everything was done better yesterday? Then you will hate "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". That's pretty much all you need to know to decide if seeing this movie will be worth your time. In my case, I loved it. It's everything I expect and want from an Indiana Jones movie; nothing more, and nothing less. Expand
  2. 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!
  3. MI
    May 23, 2008
    9
    HE"S BACK!!!! Indy is still great. This is a movie to just enjoy and not to take serious. Don't analyze it, just have fun with it.
  4. 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
  5. SusanL.
    May 28, 2008
    8
    Hey, this is an Indiana Jones movie -- period sets, world travel, secret kingdoms buried treasure and a story line straight from a British Boys' Adventure book from the 50's. It is not a movie about Iraq. There is no deep thought here. Thank God. Last fall there was nothing but deep thought and Iraq and nobody went to the movies. Indiana Jones is a franchise people go to the movies for.
  6. 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.
  7. JoMama
    Sep 3, 2008
    0
    Disgrace to Indiana Jones. I laughed through it it was so bad.
  8. WaltG
    May 22, 2008
    7
    Clearly the 4th best in the series, but in such a wonderful series that's not a bad thing. It's a whole lot of fun and that's all it needed to be.
  9. AndrewD
    May 22, 2008
    8
    This movie I think brought Indiana Jones to the new era, keeping all of its core elements and modernising them. The humour was fantastic but I thinnk there wasn't enough of it. The aamount of action was brilliant despite being a little over the top at times, I wonder if this old Indie can actually do some of the things in this movie, and walk away. The plot is a little farfetched but This movie I think brought Indiana Jones to the new era, keeping all of its core elements and modernising them. The humour was fantastic but I thinnk there wasn't enough of it. The aamount of action was brilliant despite being a little over the top at times, I wonder if this old Indie can actually do some of the things in this movie, and walk away. The plot is a little farfetched but compelling, and fast moving. It was a little shallow but entertaining throughout. Great choice of actors too. I would like to have given it 8.5 not just 8. Expand
  10. AustinB.
    May 23, 2008
    9
    Not as good as the old ones, but a helluva lot better than the star wars prequels. Besides, after seeing Iron Man, every movie from now on is superfluous.
  11. FredG.
    May 23, 2008
    7
    I was expecting more. It was fun and went by quickly, but contained no new material. Thought the crystal skull looked like it was made of plastic and tin foil.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. NeilG.
    May 24, 2008
    5
    In its day, the indiana Jones movies were innovative; they have been since surpassed by the superhero films, Matrix trilogy and others. There was nothing new here. It seemed like it had been made 20 years ago with the other three.
  15. 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.
  16. MarkD
    May 26, 2008
    6
    Whoa, talk about mixed reactions! Anyone giving this a 9 or 10 is clearly blinded by nostalgia and people giving this below 6 are probably fanboys overreacting because they expected too much. Just taken as an action movie this is enjoyable nonsense but yes, it's dissapointing when you compare it to the other movies in the franchise. The appeal of the Indiana Jones movies is the way Whoa, talk about mixed reactions! Anyone giving this a 9 or 10 is clearly blinded by nostalgia and people giving this below 6 are probably fanboys overreacting because they expected too much. Just taken as an action movie this is enjoyable nonsense but yes, it's dissapointing when you compare it to the other movies in the franchise. The appeal of the Indiana Jones movies is the way they were still exhilarating and involving even though they pushed the bounderies of believeability. This movie goes too far though. Several times i found myself thinking "that wouldn't happen" or "that's just silly". When this happens you struggle to suspend your disbelief and the magics gone. Expand
  17. 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
  18. ManRaySky
    May 27, 2008
    7
    I was half dreading and half looking forward to this, and I was surprised how good a film it is. Whereas Lucas completely trashed Star Wars, I think this is a pretty decent addition to the Indiana ouvre. It was a canny idea to move it forward 20 years to the 1950's amd there are some wonderfully detailed moments which still prove Speilberg to be a great action director. Don't I was half dreading and half looking forward to this, and I was surprised how good a film it is. Whereas Lucas completely trashed Star Wars, I think this is a pretty decent addition to the Indiana ouvre. It was a canny idea to move it forward 20 years to the 1950's amd there are some wonderfully detailed moments which still prove Speilberg to be a great action director. Don't see the problem with having Aliens as the main plotline (fits in well with the 1950's B Movie idea). Just don't mention the swinging through the vines scene. Expand
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. DaveR.
    May 30, 2008
    8
    A great fun movie that never disappointed in spite of the silly ending which itself was inline with the previous movies, especially Temple of Doom.
  23. 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
  24. KarthikP.
    May 30, 2008
    10
    Fun, entertaining, and made With an abundance of what appears to be honest genuinely amusing, Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull is a worthy addition to one of the great movie franchises. Im happy that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas set out to make one for the fans and delivered it.
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. JimB.
    Jun 1, 2008
    0
    Crap they mad this movie just to make money, sad sad day for movies.
  28. Jonathan
    Jun 3, 2008
    6
    Hey, dont worry, I hear that indy 5 has to do with genghis kahn and the holy cross jesus was crucified on, if it ever gets into production that is.
  29. KarelD.
    Jun 4, 2008
    5
    Ford is old, Spielberg is complacent and Lucas is senile.
  30. 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.
  31. 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. Expand
  32. 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.
  33. SteveF.
    Jun 8, 2008
    8
    Very enjoyable movie well worth the price of a theater ticket. No Raiders but way better than temple! I liked the first half of the movie better than the second half. Some of the action sequences were a bit far fetched
  34. 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
  35. JoeM.
    Aug 10, 2008
    8
    What's all the fuss? Preposterous yes, but also highly entertaining. And as I recall, that's what all the Indiana Jones films have been, I mean come on, Temple of Doom is one of the silliest films I've ever seen, but it's still a great thrill ride and so is this. A worthy entry in the series. Haters, GET OVER IT.
  36. LaurenS.
    Jan 20, 2009
    8
    Indiana Jones yet again takes the thrilling attempt of adventure, CGI and action sequences make it a great movie. But it's better than the 1st (raiders of the lost ark) and the 3rd (The last crusade), the 2nd one was not good at all. Indiana Jones, good movie, but not spielberg's best.
  37. 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.
  38. meso
    Nov 20, 2008
    5
    Dull, hollywood cheese. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
  39. JackS.
    Nov 22, 2008
    7
    I have to say...this did make me a little disappointed, it is really random, some of the time I didn't get it. I love Lucas and Spielberg's films, like I loved the Jurassic Park. But, this was just a little to fast, it did turn out to be a decent ending and still have some good action and humor.
  40. RhodyT.
    Oct 15, 2008
    10
    I can't be the only one who doesn't live in a dream world where aliens are less ridiculous than a box that melts faces, right?
  41. BrandonS.
    Oct 16, 2008
    9
    Impossible to fulfill my hopes, but it totally exceeded my expectations. An excellent movie, and a fine sequel.
  42. DavidF
    Oct 17, 2008
    7
    The first 100 minutes of this movie is classic Indiana Jones and worth a 9 or 10. The last 20 minutes were rediculous. If voting for that alone this movie would get a 2 from me.
  43. JayH.
    Oct 10, 2008
    6
    6.5/10. Faithful to the other films in the series, a bit too much over the top, but the cast is terrific and it certainly has a fast pace. Exceptionally well produced and it is fun to watch.
  44. 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
  45. HenryJ.
    Oct 3, 2008
    1
    So bad, you'll be angry.
  46. 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
  47. ThomasW.
    Oct 6, 2008
    8
    Enjoyable film, couldn't see much wrong with it, I guess some people expected way too much and thought it was going to best the originals, which is kinda unreasonable and unrealistic to be honest. Had everything an Indy film needs, action, chases, fist fights, and a sense of awe and discovery.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.
  51. BillS.
    May 19, 2008
    10
    True to tradition. Just have expectation of CGI like in previews, and you will enjoy it more.
  52. MattA
    May 22, 2008
    7
    Indiana Jones proves that Harrison Ford can still portray a believeable action Hero, 19 years later in his life. The art direction and cinematography was pretty, as well as the special effects. However, the movie is plagued by campy plot twists and some cheesy action sequences that almost feel like George Lucas said, "I want to play too." It's hard for me to hate an Indiana Jones Indiana Jones proves that Harrison Ford can still portray a believeable action Hero, 19 years later in his life. The art direction and cinematography was pretty, as well as the special effects. However, the movie is plagued by campy plot twists and some cheesy action sequences that almost feel like George Lucas said, "I want to play too." It's hard for me to hate an Indiana Jones movie, and i can't possibly say that i didn't find it at least entertaining to see one of my favorite characters back on screen. If it wasn't Indiana Jones, it'd probably be a 5 or 6, but Indy gives it that extra bump. Expand
  53. 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.
  54. SimonC.
    May 22, 2008
    10
    If you liked the others you'll like this one. Even Shia Labouf (or whatever) did a surprisingly good job. My only gripe (if I must have one) is that try though they did it still looked like a current style movie with CG and what not, but hey, no big deal. I hope they do another!
  55. JoshS.
    May 22, 2008
    8
    Good, campy, dumb fun. I had a great time. It's probably as good or slightly better than Temple of Doom. I could have done without some of the CGI. The CGI animals, CGI refrigerator bouncing wildly and cartoonishly around the desert, some of the CGI backgrounds, etc. just do not sit well with me. That being said, there were some great one-liners, lots of over-the-top chase scenes, Good, campy, dumb fun. I had a great time. It's probably as good or slightly better than Temple of Doom. I could have done without some of the CGI. The CGI animals, CGI refrigerator bouncing wildly and cartoonishly around the desert, some of the CGI backgrounds, etc. just do not sit well with me. That being said, there were some great one-liners, lots of over-the-top chase scenes, fun stunts, and the characteristic goofiness that we've all come to love. I can't wait to see it, and the rest of the series, again. Expand
  56. RobertB.
    May 22, 2008
    6
    The movie is fun, yes, and watchable but... and its a big one, there will be a point when they find and discuss the Crystal Skull where you will become suspicious of where the movie is going. Fortunately we go straight back to the fun until the very end when George Lucas promptly kicks you in the shins and runs away to hide in his big piles of money. It is a deeply unsatisfying ending to The movie is fun, yes, and watchable but... and its a big one, there will be a point when they find and discuss the Crystal Skull where you will become suspicious of where the movie is going. Fortunately we go straight back to the fun until the very end when George Lucas promptly kicks you in the shins and runs away to hide in his big piles of money. It is a deeply unsatisfying ending to the plot, stolen from a presumptive National Treasure 3, though it doesn't make me regret watching and enjoying the film - it just made me feel a little dirty for doing so. Expand
  57. JohnV
    May 22, 2008
    0
    Infuriatingly awful. Obviously a movie hijacked by George Lukas. Worst of all, it started turning into Stargate.
  58. 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. Collapse
  59. PriyanthT
    May 22, 2008
    8
    Its full of adventure and Harrison Ford has done the impossible stunt for his age. And Steven Spielberg has been very inventive and didn't let the hope down of the fans and he has made the audience to enjoy it. Some scenes are really funny and this has raised the name again.
  60. 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
  61. BenR
    May 22, 2008
    6
    Not the best of the series, but not the worst. Full of action and all the expected Indy humour. More like a Lucas film then a Spielberg film, recycled John William's score, but all around a good film.
  62. 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
  63. 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.
  64. 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
  65. PaulM.
    May 23, 2008
    7
    I have to say this movie doesn't disappoint, however it doesn't really impress either. With better than just average performances from Kidder, Ford and LaBeouf, I was surprised to discover the terrible "russian" accent delivered was by none other than Cate Blanchett. Terribly cheesy. Like Gorgonzola. The special effects are, as expected from George, fairly spectacular. Sadly the I have to say this movie doesn't disappoint, however it doesn't really impress either. With better than just average performances from Kidder, Ford and LaBeouf, I was surprised to discover the terrible "russian" accent delivered was by none other than Cate Blanchett. Terribly cheesy. Like Gorgonzola. The special effects are, as expected from George, fairly spectacular. Sadly the scenes of showing me a ground hog's reaction to a nuclear explosion are reminiscent of Jar Jar Binks. The cinematography, editing and stunts are all fine, but to wrap it all up, the story is far too thin to let you walk away saying "Wow I wish it was longer". It's more like " Wow I wish I had waited to rent this." Expand
  66. NateH
    May 23, 2008
    9
    I thought this movie was very good. The action is great, the story is well thought out and really cool, and there are a lot of hidden easter eggs for indy fans. My only complaint is that this should have been done sooner.
  67. DanR.
    May 23, 2008
    9
    This is classic Indiana Jones. The formula has not been modernized to appeal to the more jaded theater audience of today. Those unaccustomed to watching fun, adult-oriented action movies may not get it. For those of us that remember and loved them, however, it is an absolute blast. They don't make them like this anymore, and that's a shame.
  68. AndrewG.
    May 23, 2008
    10
    Good clean fun, never dull, and good to see him back. The story is a bit bizarre, Blanchette could have been a little more sympathetic - but it's simple to follow. Better than Temple of Doom, which at least serves to elevate this new offering. Rated 10 to increase the average to what this film deserves! (about 7-8).
  69. EvanT
    May 24, 2008
    10
    This movie stays defiantly true to the previous films. There was only one problem that I myself had with this film, but I still rated it a ten becuase it is just my tastes. With the expanded tech in recent years, most of the effects are digital, which is a dissapointment, but my good sir do not fret, this is as genuine an Indy experience as you will get. 10/10
  70. JOs
    May 24, 2008
    2
    Certainly sucked. Three word summary: Prairie Dog, Monkeys.
  71. StevenK.
    May 24, 2008
    5
    I'm a big Indiana Jones fan. I've seen the first 3 more times than I care to mention! And although I love them all, I do admit that all 3 have flaws, plot holes, and problems with the storytelling, but as entertainment, they beat almost everything that dares to challenge them. After having seen Indy 4 last night, I can say that I was underwhelmed and dissatisfied by it, I'm a big Indiana Jones fan. I've seen the first 3 more times than I care to mention! And although I love them all, I do admit that all 3 have flaws, plot holes, and problems with the storytelling, but as entertainment, they beat almost everything that dares to challenge them. After having seen Indy 4 last night, I can say that I was underwhelmed and dissatisfied by it, especially because I had to wait 19 years for it and the best that they could offer was Crystal Skull. It's unforgivable! The talent involved, the caliber of the people involved, the money involved, and the time it took to work on this should have yielded much, much better results. Most of all, I feel heartbroken and crestfallen. Stuff I hated: ----SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS---- I hated the CGI monkeys! And the CGI prairie dogs for that matter. I hated the idea of the Tarzan-style swinging. I hated just how fake the swinging looked and how well Mutt managed to do it and how he even caught up with the vehicles without much trouble. I hated how Indy survived a nuclear explosion just because he was in a lead-lined fridge. It's not like the entire fridge was lead-lined and even if it was, it would be thin lead-lining, not enough to protect Indy from a blast, much less a nuclear blast. And he walks away from it all unscathed. This is Indy, not Superman!!! And why did the fridge have a curved trajectory from the nuclear blast? And why was the fridge the only thing that was ejected from the blast site? And why was Indy safe from the radiation once he got out of the fridge? And why was the test site so close to Area 51? I hated just how boring and undefined a villain Spalko was. It's like Blanchett didn't know where to go with her character. Her accent was also the conventional Russian accent that we've come to expect from Hollywood, so I expected better from this Academy-Award-winning actress. But we can fault the writing too. Also, how come nothing ever came off of her alleged ability to read minds? I hated just how adept Mutt was with the sword-fighting. He was fencing with Spalko the pro on top of moving vehicles yet he never missed a beat! And the whole thing with Mutt's leg split and crotch pain was more ridiculous than funny or clever. I hated how boring the music was. The first three movies had distinctive memorable themes and tunes that I could whistle to, this one didn't. It felt like John Williams was going through the motions. I hated the cinematography! The cinematography of the first three was beautiful when it had to be and gritty/realistic when it had to be. With Indy 4, the cinematography made it look hazy, out of focus, as if the colours washed over each other, there were annoying light flares and no crispness or sharpness to the images. In fact, the cinematography gave the movie this fake, artificial, inauthentic look/feel. Kaminski's style worked in Private Ryan and Minority Report, for example, but not here. I hated how Mac (Winstone) was a completely unnecessary character that didn't advance the plot forward. He was also a confused character but that was the writers' fault. Also, Mac didn't really have to die. He could've easily saved his own life or have been saved by Indy. Karen Allen was bad! I'm sorry people! And she was too eager to please which came off as desperate. Also, she didn't seem like a woman from the 1950s, in fact, she felt more like a loopy, drugged, modern-day soccer-mom. Indy and Marion were never given a moment to reconnect as characters after not having seen each other for so long and after having been through all these calamitous events. They just launched into their schtick immediately after they had met. There wasn't a single romantic moment between them like in Raiders. Not only that, but he abandons her for 10 years in Raiders, then backs away from the marriage and leaves her for 19 years, then she has his child without telling him and married some guy that Indy supposedly introduced her to and then suddenly, in Crystal Skull, she falls into his arms and is in love with him again and ready to marry him without skipping a beat?!!! Come on! And how tired is that cliche? The long-lost son?! I hated the CGI. Too much CGI (apparently Spiely was lying to us when he said that this movie was not going to rely on CGI and was going to be old-fashioned). It felt like Spiely was copying The Mummy and Lara Croft, which is ironic, since those awful movies were inspired by his work. The ending, for example, when the entire city whirls around and gets engulfed in a whirlpool of dust, debris and water... that was CGI overkill and it reminded me of the endings to the Mummy movies. Not only that, but to add insult to injury; the CGI was shoddy. The entire bit at the end of the sequence inside the alien temple when it starts to fall apart and the portal to another dimension opens up and sucks everything up was just not detailed enough as a piece of CGI. It looked terrible. Is it me or is CGI getting worse every year?! The whole chase scene in the jungle felt and looked absolutely fake! Almost all of it: the sword fighting, the swinging, the monkeys, the racing-near-the-cliffs, the CGI jeep landing on top of Indy Expand
  72. 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.
  73. 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
  74. 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.
  75. 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.
  76. 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
  77. DanB.
    May 26, 2008
    6
    It made me smile a lot, but it was not light enough on its feet to match the quality of the old ones. There were few flashes of wit, few great exchanges of dialogue. There were too many moments that were just too removed from physical reality (I don't mind supernatural, but swinging from vines?). Lastly, the crystal skulls... were... terrible. But. Still. It's Indy. I may not It made me smile a lot, but it was not light enough on its feet to match the quality of the old ones. There were few flashes of wit, few great exchanges of dialogue. There were too many moments that were just too removed from physical reality (I don't mind supernatural, but swinging from vines?). Lastly, the crystal skulls... were... terrible. But. Still. It's Indy. I may not watch it 6 times in the theaters like I did Last Crusade, but I'll buy the blu-ray tetralogy and not skip this one when re-watching the movies. Expand
  78. 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.
  79. Brandon
    May 26, 2008
    8
    Great film, although no where close to the older Indy's. It could have done without a few of the scenes.. some of which just seemed like last minute thoughts and others were just cheesed out (Shia swinging from branches, WTF was that?
  80. 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.
  81. JasonT
    May 26, 2008
    3
    This could have only been more disappointing if Ja Jar Binks was in it.
  82. KentC
    May 26, 2008
    8
    You all need to relax and stop giving this movie such harsh reviews. This was an incredible action movie, much better than other summer blockbusters like iron man or speed racer, and that jungle chase scene was one of the most exciting chase scenes in any movie I've seen. The parts that did bring the movie down was that stupid monkey rope swinging scene, and the plot got silly at the You all need to relax and stop giving this movie such harsh reviews. This was an incredible action movie, much better than other summer blockbusters like iron man or speed racer, and that jungle chase scene was one of the most exciting chase scenes in any movie I've seen. The parts that did bring the movie down was that stupid monkey rope swinging scene, and the plot got silly at the end, but the main thing was that the film was dark. It was a bit hard to see in the beginning until you got used to it, but they could have brightened the film up. Kind of hurt the eyes a bit. Expand
  83. 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.
  84. 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"!
  85. 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.
  86. 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.
  87. MikeQ.
    May 27, 2008
    10
    Very fun movie. Don't listen to all these fanboys complaining about aliens. This is no more far fetched than the other 3. I really enjoyed this movie and cant wait for the next.
  88. 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.
  89. Fantasy
    May 27, 2008
    0
    Exploitation of a once great character. REFUND!
  90. SamC.
    May 27, 2008
    7
    Indiana Jones has always been unbelievable. Are Aliens any more preposterous than killer angels or an immortal crusader? The start is a bit meh, Blanchett is useless as the villain but this sticks faithfully to the Indie formula and I really enjoyed it.
  91. 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.
  92. JeffA.
    May 28, 2008
    9
    Loved the movie - great action set pieces, great humor, great finale! Bring on Indy V!
  93. 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
  94. GeoffG
    May 28, 2008
    7
    Not the Best Indy but still very entertaining and fun. I left the theartre with a satisfied grin. Agree that Tarzan moment just took me out of the movie and cringe like everyone else. Did not fit at all George and Steve.
  95. 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
  96. GeoffreyF.
    May 29, 2008
    8
    People are freaking out way too much about the alien plot device. They do not make it a big deal about the actual ALIENS, There is no emphasis on meeting the visitors from another world. The important thing is the crystal skull artifact, and getting it to its final resting place. That makes it a classic Indy film through and through. I think they did a spectacular job, but I was a bit People are freaking out way too much about the alien plot device. They do not make it a big deal about the actual ALIENS, There is no emphasis on meeting the visitors from another world. The important thing is the crystal skull artifact, and getting it to its final resting place. That makes it a classic Indy film through and through. I think they did a spectacular job, but I was a bit disappointed with some overly done CGI in the film, balancing between two cars at high speeds? :-/ thats all minor stuff, I would have given the score as 8.5 but i can only choose 8 or 9. Harrison Ford has still got it, nuff said. Summary: Great new Indy film, a bit rough around the edges, but authentic Indy fun! People just need to stop freaking out about the plot device. Expand
  97. 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.
  98. 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
  99. DaveL
    May 31, 2008
    10
    Been a big fan of the Indy movies. Was a bit worried about this one, but it did not disappoint! Harrison Ford is a great as ever! He's still got that wit and charisma about him thats so suited to the character. Top performance by both Ford and LaBeouf. Plenty of action, fun and humor which is what makes the Indy films so great! A+
  100. 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.
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.