Paramount Pictures | Release Date: May 22, 2008
5.3
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 1174 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
477
Mixed:
334
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)
3
JeffW.May 22, 2008
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a scrambled mess of a movie with no central point and no real sense of adventure. I never thought I'd see the day when I liked The Mummy and The Mummy Returns better than a Jones film. The movies that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a scrambled mess of a movie with no central point and no real sense of adventure. I never thought I'd see the day when I liked The Mummy and The Mummy Returns better than a Jones film. The movies that ripped off the 3 EXCELLENT Indy movies from the 80s are now better than the 4th Indy film? Maybe the wrong Steven directed this one. Should have gotten Sommers. Spielberg once said that as director he deserves the praise OR the blame regarding a film with his name attached. It was up to him to find the right script and the right balance of FX, action scenes and dramatic character moments and ... to quote the last good Indiana Jones movie he helmed -- Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade -- he chose poorly. Lucas must have just been in it for the cash and Ford to revive a dying career. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
EnriqueMay 22, 2008
R.I.P.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
BrittD.May 22, 2008
This movie was the biggest disappointment of all time. Absolutely terrible.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
MatthewW.May 22, 2008
I am never this critical but i was very dissapointed. With some very simple changes it could have been much much better! e.g. story at end went a bit nuts, plus indy's son swinging through the jungle like tarzan, sorry unforgivable.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
SteveW.May 23, 2008
Horrible in all ways! Terrible acting, ugly visual effects, substandard direction, and worst of all, horrendous screen-writing. May rank as my most hated film of all time! Don't waste your money on seeing this trash.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
RobKMay 23, 2008
Read the Village Voice review, it is right on the money with its review. George Lucas had his directorial hands all over this movie. I couldn't get over how fake this movie looked. There was no authenticity at all. Not a single action Read the Village Voice review, it is right on the money with its review. George Lucas had his directorial hands all over this movie. I couldn't get over how fake this movie looked. There was no authenticity at all. Not a single action scene looked real. The dialogue was atrocious. Karen Allen looked scary with her plastic surgery face grinning creepily throughout. There was no joy or crispness to the plot. Aliens? Really 19 years and that's the script they used one involving aliens. Indy always was about mythology and history but never sci fi. Awfully disapointing in every way. Its a shame Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
DavidM.May 23, 2008
Seeing Harrison Ford was the only redeeming quality of this movie. It drifted so far from the origins of the series into a hard-to-believe concoction of failure.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
FrancescoC.May 23, 2008
Very bad. There aren't a story and the characters are awful.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
PurgueF.May 23, 2008
I've given the movie 2/10. Watching this movie I felt very disconnected due mostly to the bad acting, the plot holes, and inconceivable physics (Lucas made Gold magnetic). We all loved the originals but if you are on the fence about I've given the movie 2/10. Watching this movie I felt very disconnected due mostly to the bad acting, the plot holes, and inconceivable physics (Lucas made Gold magnetic). We all loved the originals but if you are on the fence about seeing this movie just think Star Wars Episode I. With worse acting. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
MikeR.May 23, 2008
That was the last movie I ever see that has any involvement of George Lucas. You sir ought to be ashamed of yourself. 20 years to get this movie right and this is the schlock you put out. I expect this kind of garbage from Michael Bay and That was the last movie I ever see that has any involvement of George Lucas. You sir ought to be ashamed of yourself. 20 years to get this movie right and this is the schlock you put out. I expect this kind of garbage from Michael Bay and Brendan Fraser - but come on....utterly disasterous. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
AkioC.May 24, 2008
CG gophers! Shia Tarzan Labuff! Alien Flying Saucers! George Lucas has completed his descent. Game over Georgie!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
chadsMay 24, 2008
This is an absolute embarassment to Spielberg's resume. How could such an extremely great director make such a garbage film. Spielberg is by far one of my favorite directors and Schindlers list is by far the best movie ever made, but This is an absolute embarassment to Spielberg's resume. How could such an extremely great director make such a garbage film. Spielberg is by far one of my favorite directors and Schindlers list is by far the best movie ever made, but this indiana jones is ridiculously over the top and in an extremely cheesy way. Harrison Ford is that old grandpa you see everyone once in a while who always has a dumb one liner or joke for you and you just smile at how stupid it was to make him feel good. The comedy in this movie was worse than epic movie or meet the spartans, yes its possible. Also, the story is ten times more far fetched than any previous indiana jones. Why in the heck is supernatural alien crap the central focus in an indiana jones movie? are you kidding me? Please just go rewatch the other movies in the series because this is a failure in every way. I pray there is no indiana starring shia, i pray! Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
thedudeMay 24, 2008
It's really hard to figure out what happened here. Were they trying to make this as bad as possible? Lucas and Spielberg turn the cute and the camp up to eleven, and manage to make Temple of Doom look like a classic by comparison. It's really hard to figure out what happened here. Were they trying to make this as bad as possible? Lucas and Spielberg turn the cute and the camp up to eleven, and manage to make Temple of Doom look like a classic by comparison. Granted, it would have been hard for me to be satisfied with anything here, as Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of my all-time favorite films, but I went in expecting it to be around the quality of the Last Crusade, which wasn't too bad, or at worst Temple of Doom, which was bad but nowhere near this bad. I just can't think of anything worthwhile about this film. The more Lucas does now, the more he detracts from the excellent work he did in the late seventies and early eighties. I will be forever grateful to him for American Graffiti, Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Return of the Jedi, but everything since then is a disaster, and this film, unfortunately, just continues that trend. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
NateBMay 27, 2008
The only thing that could've been worse is if it Indy was a snuff film starring my family.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
DionT.May 27, 2008
One of the worst movies ever!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
BassemH.May 27, 2008
The movie started out with a shatered ark lying on the ground. How very appropriate - everything in this movie distroyed the legacy of this franchise. Unwatchable, terrible acting, Ravonwood smiling like an idiot in every scene and The movie started out with a shatered ark lying on the ground. How very appropriate - everything in this movie distroyed the legacy of this franchise. Unwatchable, terrible acting, Ravonwood smiling like an idiot in every scene and unbelievably bad story development. All I can say is wow and beg Lucas and Spielberg to stop ruining my childhood memories - stop going for the cash and retire!!!! Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
A.NonymousMay 27, 2008
This is not the same calibrated campiness that is enjoyably found in the prior three films. No. This time around Lucas in his worsening senility has gone way outside the franchise's established universe to cook up pointless sequences This is not the same calibrated campiness that is enjoyably found in the prior three films. No. This time around Lucas in his worsening senility has gone way outside the franchise's established universe to cook up pointless sequences that can only be taken as insulting to one's intellect. Any one of the following phrases could, on it's own, summarize the disaster this film is: - CG prairie dogs - Nuclear blast-launched refrigerator ride with injury-free exit - CG monkeys with Tarzan sequence - Aliens - Psychic powers - Riding over falls of Niagara proportions (or even greater) multiple times with nary a scratch - Did I mention CG prairie dogs? I found myself wincing in the theater at the sheer funless, pointless, stupidity that these and many other portions of this film had to offer. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
SaraHMay 27, 2008
This is Indiana Jones scrubbed free of anything that made it remotely fun- Lucas was concerned about making it too violent, so he "toned it down." Translation: it is incredibly lame. Almost anything that was good in it is a rehash of the old This is Indiana Jones scrubbed free of anything that made it remotely fun- Lucas was concerned about making it too violent, so he "toned it down." Translation: it is incredibly lame. Almost anything that was good in it is a rehash of the old movies, which had grit and grime. The film quality is muddy because it was digitally filmed, and the ridiculous plot- complete with aliens and crystal skulls- is laughable. If the idea of a squeaky clean, murky looking video game with lame jokes is appealing to you, then run, don't walk. And bring your grandma. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
UlicB.May 27, 2008
While the previous Indys have had us suspend belief for a few moments in the film, this latest romp asks us to suspend belief for much longer. Instead of a spiritual basis for the whole deal, they take a wrong turn, and make this more into While the previous Indys have had us suspend belief for a few moments in the film, this latest romp asks us to suspend belief for much longer. Instead of a spiritual basis for the whole deal, they take a wrong turn, and make this more into an X-Files movie than not. I was quite bored and unamused by it, others slept during the movie, and in the ending scenes, I wanted to give the screen the bird and yell "Screw you, George Lucas. SCREW. YOU." Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
LouF.Jul 11, 2008
This was a terrible and disappointing movie. The plot was non-existant. It was just a stream of cgi and unbelievable special effects. George Lucas tarnishes yet another classic trilogy. Thanks George!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
CoreyC.May 22, 2008
Hugely disappointing, what a waste. Lucas has nothing left to offer cinema. A joke.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
JaimieRMay 22, 2008
Sorry Indy fans...I was anticipating another exciting adventure with Dr. Jones & the gang. And it just didn't deliver. Credibility went out the window, as I found myself saying "Oh, come on..." with almost every action scene in the Sorry Indy fans...I was anticipating another exciting adventure with Dr. Jones & the gang. And it just didn't deliver. Credibility went out the window, as I found myself saying "Oh, come on..." with almost every action scene in the movie. Sure, it's a fantasy/adventure, but when characters decide to drive off a cliff without consequence or conduct a swordfight in separate vehicles amidst a seemingly obstacle-free jungle road, then the filmmakers just don't respect their audience. Plus, alien intelligence and cold war-era Russians provide little tension and evil for our protagonists. A true disappointment on many fronts. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
crystaldullMay 22, 2008
George Lucas needs to be stopped. I could have come up with a better plot in about nineteen minutes, he had nineteen years... The film degenerates into a bunch of CGI nonsense - I mean, for god's sake George and Steven, we've all George Lucas needs to be stopped. I could have come up with a better plot in about nineteen minutes, he had nineteen years... The film degenerates into a bunch of CGI nonsense - I mean, for god's sake George and Steven, we've all seen this sub-Playstation stuff before. Close encounters of the third-rate. While Spielberg should be castigated for what amounts to a vanity project, the real failing of the film is the utterly nonsensical story (thanks, GL); this is quite an achievement given that the first films involved the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail and Sankara stones, which let's face it looked like glow-in-the-dark potatoes. If the film had any saving grace, it was that Jar Jar Binks didn't feature; if he had, I wouldn't have been at all surprised. Yet another Darth Vader/Frankenstein 'Noooooooo' moment, which amounted to a ruination of fond childhood memories. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
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
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
0
DanielDec 8, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
HenryJ.Oct 3, 2008
So bad, you'll be angry.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
SeanC.Oct 30, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
P.J.S.Oct 6, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
SlumpsB.May 23, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful