User Score
5.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1047 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. TimmyT.
    May 30, 2008
    4
    Disappointing. Aliens in a Indiana Jones movie? Give me a break!
  15. Lesley
    Jun 14, 2008
    4
    A convoluted story where the "bad guys" always seem to be just one step behind the "good guys", even when impossible to do so. And the whole story was such a yawn that I was checking my watch after only an hour (which actually felt like two). I just kept thinking "poor Harrison Ford...that must hurt to run and jump like that at his age". And a pummeling from a man twice his size and half A convoluted story where the "bad guys" always seem to be just one step behind the "good guys", even when impossible to do so. And the whole story was such a yawn that I was checking my watch after only an hour (which actually felt like two). I just kept thinking "poor Harrison Ford...that must hurt to run and jump like that at his age". And a pummeling from a man twice his size and half his age left him with only a bloody lip? Come on. I just felt that the movie was a bore. I would not watch it again, even when it comes to The Movie Network where I could watch it for free. Once was quite enough. Expand
  16. RajeevG.
    Jun 25, 2008
    4
    Story line was too fantasy-oriented; many/most events were very improbable. This is throwback to the adventure movies of the 70s but such plots seem too quaint in modern times. While some suspension of disbelief if required for this genre, the events must still have some plausibility. Not so for this movie. It was too tongue-in-cheek, even to the point where it felt that the joke was on Story line was too fantasy-oriented; many/most events were very improbable. This is throwback to the adventure movies of the 70s but such plots seem too quaint in modern times. While some suspension of disbelief if required for this genre, the events must still have some plausibility. Not so for this movie. It was too tongue-in-cheek, even to the point where it felt that the joke was on the audience, as if the filmmakers are taking use for a ride. Expand
  17. RickyQ.
    Jun 4, 2008
    4
    The two things I
  18. JoshB.
    Jul 19, 2008
    4
    Thanks George Lucas for making another digital movie that looks like a cartoon. Maybe a commercial success, but the art of movie making is lost on you. He'd rather contract out the whole movie making process to people with apple computers. Lest I forget, the script was terrible as well. Don't see this movie, don't buy it, don't rent it.
  19. DominicM.
    Aug 16, 2008
    4
    It was alright, but it didnt have that Indiana Jones feel to it. I think George Lucas should stick to Star Wars.
  20. SuperMarioSuperMario
    Aug 17, 2008
    4
    -I loved the original trilogy, but I didn't like this movie. Don't tell me that I'm being biased or small-minded or unfair: I wanted to like this movie as much as the others (why would I pay money otherwise?), but it wasn't me who failed, it was Lucas and Spielberg. I loved the charm and magic and energy and humour of the old films, and even the fact that they were -I loved the original trilogy, but I didn't like this movie. Don't tell me that I'm being biased or small-minded or unfair: I wanted to like this movie as much as the others (why would I pay money otherwise?), but it wasn't me who failed, it was Lucas and Spielberg. I loved the charm and magic and energy and humour of the old films, and even the fact that they were unbelievable (with the Biblical or Indian artifacts), but this movie lacks a lot of the charm, humour, grace, and magic of the original (not that it's entirely missing). It didn't feel like an Indy movie: how come we didn't laugh as much as with the originals? But really, the aliens did ruin it. It pushes fantasy into the absurd: dealing with aliens works for Fox and Scully, not Indiana Jones. -I thought the Cold War and Russians as the antagonists worked (since Indy IS older), but what totally ruins this movie is (besides the aliens) how Indy is now a father. This is a freaken horrible cliche that every movie seems to take after: the main character ages, and surprisingly, we find out he has a son; the two don't usually get along and they have to work things out and by the end father and son are united. Kiss my ass Lucas! That's the stupidest, lamest plot (next to aliens, of course) that I've ever seen. The biggest problem with this is (I'm sure any Indy fan would agree with me here): it takes the focus off Indy. Now the focus is divided between Indy and his annoying son. We all love the Indiana Jones movies because they're about Indiana Jones/Harrison Ford, who's the soul of the movie (funny, charming, accidental), but his son/Shia, takes away from what the audience wants. He's really annoying: they try to make him funny and charming like Indy, but he's really not. -The original movies are about Indiana Jones and his love interests; the only reason that Crusade worked with Indiana Jones' father is because Lucas and Spielberg still had the imagination to make it work. Also, Connery was HILARIOUS and charming. -And I didn't like the fact that there's so much explaining done in this movie: they spent so much time at the start by having Indy LECTURING to Shia about Eldorado and the Crystal Skulls so the audience can "get what the movie is about." -So bad a movie, you'd think that Shia had his head up Ford's a**, Ford has his head up Spielberg's a**, and everyone had their heads up Lucas' a**. Expand
  21. Sam
    Jun 19, 2009
    4
    This movie was a dissapointment but it wasn't a complete failure. I found myself enjoying the first half of the movie but the 2nd half was awful. The CGI looked incredibly out of place and some of the later scenes were just stupid. The old Indie movies had scenes that were unbelieveable to be sure but at least they were fun and enjoyable to watch. The scene with Mutt swinging through This movie was a dissapointment but it wasn't a complete failure. I found myself enjoying the first half of the movie but the 2nd half was awful. The CGI looked incredibly out of place and some of the later scenes were just stupid. The old Indie movies had scenes that were unbelieveable to be sure but at least they were fun and enjoyable to watch. The scene with Mutt swinging through the trees with the monkeys was incredibly lame. The acting was decent but it couldn't save the movie from its awful plot. Expand
  22. LuE.
    May 22, 2008
    4
    For the first 45 mins this was a Indiana Jones movie. Okay, we expected that most of the main action sequences would be heavy CGI after all I'm sure Harrison's insurance company love 'live action' for the over 60s. All the characters played their respective roles convincingly, and with enough nods to the fans. Young Indy, Mud, was a great casting. Now to the flaming. For the first 45 mins this was a Indiana Jones movie. Okay, we expected that most of the main action sequences would be heavy CGI after all I'm sure Harrison's insurance company love 'live action' for the over 60s. All the characters played their respective roles convincingly, and with enough nods to the fans. Young Indy, Mud, was a great casting. Now to the flaming. Once the plot started to get going it became clear that the George and Steven had been sat at home watching old Stargate re-runs and playing Halo (end sequence) when writing the script. Since when have aliens EVER even been hinted at in a indiana jones movie. What I think we were all hoping for was a bit of fighting, some memories from the old films, and a bit of magic and mystery thrown in at the end. We would have been happy with that. Instead we were given STOLEN plots (see stargate), STOLEN shots and a truely horrendous ending with a space ship that Halo did first. I think that in an effort to make a cheap buck the two biggest geniuses in movies made a cheap movie. The cast saved the movie. Without them George and Steven would have been in serious trouble. Ladies and gentlemen I give you Indiana Jones the Quantum of Solace. Expand
  23. JanieH.
    May 23, 2008
    4
    Cheesy movie, from start to finish. Indy is supposed to push the limit of believability, but this flick jumped right off that cliff. From poor plot to substandard acting, an utter disappointment. Save your cash and rent it in a few months.
  24. PhilS.
    May 23, 2008
    4
    Worse than Temple of Doom. George screws up again.
  25. AliciaI.
    May 24, 2008
    4
    I went to the movies with all my family we are PERUVIANS and we got so upset about : First Nazca lines are in the coast of Peru Not in the Andes because CUZCO is in the andes. Then the music was not native PERUVIAN music. Moreover, we never had MAYA culture in PERU. We had INCA CULTURE furthermore, we never had those pyramids in Peru. So, I think the director needs to go back to school to I went to the movies with all my family we are PERUVIANS and we got so upset about : First Nazca lines are in the coast of Peru Not in the Andes because CUZCO is in the andes. Then the music was not native PERUVIAN music. Moreover, we never had MAYA culture in PERU. We had INCA CULTURE furthermore, we never had those pyramids in Peru. So, I think the director needs to go back to school to learn more about Inca culture before making a movie about a culture that he doesn't know and sell crap instead or real stuff. Collapse
  26. RM
    May 25, 2008
    4
    Nothing new here. fell asleep a couple of times. certainly doesn't deserve the money it's making, much like the star wars prequels. Much ado about nothing.
  27. MH
    May 25, 2008
    4
    Such a horrible script in so many ways...did not look or feel like an Indie movie...by far the worst of the series if you can even somehow lump it in with the rest of the films...very very disappointed!
  28. ChadM.
    May 25, 2008
    4
    The sequel, along with the aging Ford, has lost it's charm over the years... The movie, like a never-ending visit to grandpa in the retirement home, drags on and on and while Spielberg tries to keep up the flash and pop of the prequels and in part is successful in creating a flurry of impossible escapes, although with the clumsier, older Ford Spielberg may have bitten off more than The sequel, along with the aging Ford, has lost it's charm over the years... The movie, like a never-ending visit to grandpa in the retirement home, drags on and on and while Spielberg tries to keep up the flash and pop of the prequels and in part is successful in creating a flurry of impossible escapes, although with the clumsier, older Ford Spielberg may have bitten off more than he could chew. The result is an increase in chase scenes and Jones (and also son) swinging from whips and vines in an attempt to compensate for the poor quality green-screen video overlapping. The only saving grace in the latest Jones saga is that it does not pretend and embraces every cliche. Let's call it what it really is, a hilariously unintentional farse! Expand
  29. SteveH
    May 26, 2008
    4
    Defintely the worst Indy movie. I know why Harrison Ford and Karen Allen are in the film but Cate? What's more scary, this will be the top grossing film of the year.
  30. AdamD.
    May 26, 2008
    4
    For a script that was notable for all its rewrites, why did it still have the biggest bad idea in sequel-dom, don't ruin formula. [***SPOILER***] The second worst idea, Aliens. The Third worst idea, Standard looking CGI Aliens that are actually shown like signs, only not the 3rd sequel of a beloved franchise.
  31. JonM.
    May 27, 2008
    4
    What a dissapointing end to the franchise (and based on this, I can only hope it is the end). It lacked all the charm, wit, excitement, pace and drama of the first 3. Promising beginning gives way to middle of the film tedium which free falls into a ludicrous plot ending. Time to hang up the hat, Indy.
  32. GeMelleF.
    May 27, 2008
    4
    I was somewhat dissappointed in this movie. It made me think that Steven Spielberg had nothing to do with this movie at all. The movie smelled of George Lucas the whole way through, ranging from the CGI overusage to the ridiculous action sequenced borderlining on cartoonlike. One scene of Indiana tumbling in a refrigerator for what seemed 100 yards and step out and walk as if he was I was somewhat dissappointed in this movie. It made me think that Steven Spielberg had nothing to do with this movie at all. The movie smelled of George Lucas the whole way through, ranging from the CGI overusage to the ridiculous action sequenced borderlining on cartoonlike. One scene of Indiana tumbling in a refrigerator for what seemed 100 yards and step out and walk as if he was riding in a car the whole time told me where this movie was headed. Expand
  33. Vizruy
    May 27, 2008
    4
    This movie was terrible. It was more of an outline than an actual script. Indy 4 = The Mummy + Encounters - any of the charm. I'm a big fan of the originals, so this was a huge disappointment.
  34. FanNomore
    May 28, 2008
    4
    I really wanted this to be good, I really really did. But it wasn't even close. It was actually bad and I wish it hadn't been made, or that at least I hadn't seen it. It taints the fond memories that are the other Indy films. If you haven't seen it, or even some of the others, just get the first one - a true classic - on DVD, and perhaps the third. Steer way clear of I really wanted this to be good, I really really did. But it wasn't even close. It was actually bad and I wish it hadn't been made, or that at least I hadn't seen it. It taints the fond memories that are the other Indy films. If you haven't seen it, or even some of the others, just get the first one - a true classic - on DVD, and perhaps the third. Steer way clear of this last one. It's simply a money-machine, fan-insulting, face slap delivered by the creators. Expand
  35. KeithP.
    May 31, 2008
    4
    Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is supposed to be a big welcome back to the kind of on-screen adventure we've all been craving since, well, since the last Indiana Jones movie nearly 20 years ago. If you've never seen an Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) movie, the globe-trekking, part-time archeology professor of the title is the penultimate adventurer who often Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is supposed to be a big welcome back to the kind of on-screen adventure we've all been craving since, well, since the last Indiana Jones movie nearly 20 years ago. If you've never seen an Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) movie, the globe-trekking, part-time archeology professor of the title is the penultimate adventurer who often finds his down-to-Earth beliefs challenged in many of his journies. And, usually, there's a leading lady involved in the mess. He's James Bond of the dig sites. This "Jones" film has an aging Indy being drawn into adventure when a '50s greaser named Mutt (played by Shia Labeou...uh...Shia Lebieu...um...Lisa Bonet. Yeah.) delivers a letter from an old friend who needs, A, Indy's archaeological know-how to dig up a "mythical crystal skull," and, B, Indy's adventurous side to save the old friend and Mutt's mom who joined this friend on his journey. Soon, Indy and Mutt are running from the '50s Russkies, Peruvian natives, and, um, actually, that's about all they're running from. In case you missed it in the above, the Russians are the bad guys here. And, in case you don't catch on when Indy refers to them as "Reds" or when he sneers "Russians!" or when the FBI discusses the evil Red Menace, or the 15 other references to the Russians being evil, not to worry, director Spielberg literally hits the cameraman, and thus the viewer, over the head with it, when Indiana Jones crashes through an anti-Russia protest on his school's campus, with signs and banners slamming right into the lens. Not only does the first half-hour of the movie treat its audience like a group of mentally challenged six-year-olds, but screenwriter David Koepp, generally one of the industry's more-reliable popcorn movie writers (Spider-Man 1 for instance), peppers the first third of the movie with enough references to past Indy films that it seemed abundantly clear: without them, the first 30+ minutes would've dragged tremendously. By the time we're past the first third, we're off on an adventure. Where Indy's past movies take us around the world and back again, this one brings us to Peru, where Indy and friends get mired down in what might as well be quicksand. None of the danger Indy and Mutt are in feels dangerous anymore -- there's no peril. While we always know Indy will survive, there's never a moment where you ask yourself, How will he survive? In the first film we had things like a giant stone ball chasing him, a Nazi tossed him over the hood of a speeding truck, snakes surrounded him in a pit where there seemed to be no way out. In the second film, Indy was was captured and nearly killed by a bizarre high Priest of a cult (granted, this was ultimately the scene most people find to be the weakest, but at least there was peril), he was trapped in a shrinking room with spikes coming out of the floor, and he had to listen to Kate Capshaw. In the third film it was burning buildings, impervious tanks, and -- aw, you get the idea. The biggest excitement we get is a teeter-tottering rock that reveals an ancient room of artifacts. And that was this movie's biggest weakness. Save for the exciting set-piece of the film's climax, there was nothing new, exciting, or creative here. Even Mutt has nothing going for him -- his big weapon is a pocket knife. When Indiana Jones was first introduced back in 1981, the idea of a whip as his weapon of choice was interesting and exciting. Why not give the kid something more intriguing like a bow & arrow, a shield from a knight's armor, or he can wield a screaming Kate Capshaw. The film had other weaknesses, aside from Spielberg's lazy direction (although, I give him [or his Director of Photography] kudos for a few gorgeous shots of Kate Blanchett as the head Russkie, and there was finally some creativity in the map scenes, where a red line traverses the globe to show us where Indy's headed [although, again, this could've been an editor's idea, not Spielberg's]). The main issue for me was that there was nothing at stake for Indiana Jones. In the first film, "Raiders," Indy's life, and the world itself, were at stake. And, if that weren't enough, he also had to save the love of his life, Marion (whose death he, for a short time, had thought he caused). In "Temple of Doom," Indy's very belief-system and an entire village's children -- and thus future -- were at stake. In the third "Last Crusade" film it was the very life of Indy's dad. While Indy is out to save Mutt's mom, Indy states from the beginning that he has no idea who that is -- it's the other "old friend" he's going to save. So, if she has any importance in Indy's life, Indy himself is left completely in the dark to that fact. Also, there is nothing new here in terms of the beliefs we're dealing with. Yes, Indy does not believe this Crystal Skull is anything but a myth, but this again has no real bearing on his character, on his make-up. And, once Indy, Mutt, Mutt's mom, and the "old friend" are brought together, you never really feel like they're about to get got -- whether the danger be Russians, waterfalls, or natives. With the aging Indy being little more than a tour guide and daddy figure to the wanderlustful Mutt, the movie feels more like a Disney family film then an exciting chapter serial-type Indiana Jones adventure. Yes, there are some laughs, and there's enough action to keep most people satiated but this might as well have been called Indiana Jones and the Phantom Menace. Because, much lie that much-maligned film, the only menace here are the box-office ticket prices. Expand
  36. EdwinWu
    May 31, 2008
    4
    Too similar to the previous ones. Background of story outdated.
  37. dodgydon
    May 31, 2008
    4
    Surely the udders of this particular cash-cow are sore after being miled so inexpertly. I reckon Speeilberg should have put it out to pasture or better yet kill it and make a juicy burger out of it. No need for the inhumane treatment of a once fine animal.
  38. RonimusPrime
    Jun 23, 2008
    4
    Thoroughly disappointing. Didn't care what happened to anyone on screen. The acting was stilted and unemotional. Does not compare to any of the originals
  39. MarkoJ.
    Jun 7, 2008
    4
    I hate to say it, but this movie was just stupid. Similar to the second Indiana Jones movie, in that it is stupid. There were some exciting moments, but too many stupid things happened. I am not say it is bad, just stupid. Getting the idea yet? Don't expect much and you won't be too disapointed. Oh, Harrison Ford was good in the part.
  40. Brad
    Jul 11, 2008
    4
    As a stand-alone action movie, this would have been decent. If it was named something different and the characters were named something other than Jones, it would have been decent. However, it just doesn't seem to feel like an Indiana Jones movie. With the Indiana Jones movies you expect unrealistic things, but this movie seemed to go well beyond that.
  41. JoshuaL.
    Jul 14, 2008
    4
    Movie got boring early on, and the story concept was really unoriginal. Not what I expected from an Indiana Jones movie.
  42. RockyS
    May 22, 2008
    4
    First off, thank you George Lucas and Steven Spielberg for trying. It was a noble effort. But the fact is, on the Indiana Jones scale, this movie is nothing. I liked the 1930s serial Jones, not the 1950s B-Movie Indy. This new installment replaces the "just beyond plausible" escapist magic of its predecessors with a total computer-generated abandonment of any notion of reality. In a First off, thank you George Lucas and Steven Spielberg for trying. It was a noble effort. But the fact is, on the Indiana Jones scale, this movie is nothing. I liked the 1930s serial Jones, not the 1950s B-Movie Indy. This new installment replaces the "just beyond plausible" escapist magic of its predecessors with a total computer-generated abandonment of any notion of reality. In a traditional Indiana Jones movie, he might go off one giant water fall and miraculously survive. Not in this one. In this movie he survives three, in a row, with his whole family, a mentally disabled guy, and his fat friend. And the Disney "family entertainment" vibe made me what to throw-up. The monkeys randomly attacking the Soviets, are you kidding me? And as for Roger Ebert liking it, go screw yourself, you fat elitist nerd. Don Expand
  43. AdamM.
    May 22, 2008
    4
    Doesn't live up to the other Indiana Jones movies.
  44. JudyT
    May 23, 2008
    4
    This movie was really bad. The action was cartoonish. Spielberg usually does better and Indy deserved better. But with so many problems getting decent writers whatelse could we expect. Poor old Harrison Ford didn't even start acting until Karen Allen, the one bright spot, came on screen.
  45. JustinH.
    May 23, 2008
    4
    Quite possibly one of the biggest movie disappoints I can remember. Full of extremely corny lines that are not only poorly written but poorly acted. This movie might have a huge opening weekend but the drop off is going to be so big that not even Dr. Jones can stop it. Save your money.
  46. RobertC.
    May 24, 2008
    4
    A disapointment. The movie has one cliche after another. All it is is chase scenes. The plot does not make any sense, the chase scenes and plot have been done dozens of times in other movies. Kate Blanchett is wasted in the film with an accent that I found comedic. Harrison Ford is not very good in the movie. Shia LeBeouf is also wasted not given a chance to display his talent. Shame on A disapointment. The movie has one cliche after another. All it is is chase scenes. The plot does not make any sense, the chase scenes and plot have been done dozens of times in other movies. Kate Blanchett is wasted in the film with an accent that I found comedic. Harrison Ford is not very good in the movie. Shia LeBeouf is also wasted not given a chance to display his talent. Shame on Lucas productions and Steven spielburg for passing this crap on us. Expand
  47. RRich
    May 25, 2008
    4
    This moie was a mixture of good and bad. It clearly had spectacular production costs, with well-coriographed action scenes, and tightly directed scenes in-between. It is relatively true to the feel of the origional triligy. But, the fils is also shallow, poorly cut, poorly scripted, and quite silly parody of Indiana Jones. The CGI completely ruined the suspence, and the animated animals This moie was a mixture of good and bad. It clearly had spectacular production costs, with well-coriographed action scenes, and tightly directed scenes in-between. It is relatively true to the feel of the origional triligy. But, the fils is also shallow, poorly cut, poorly scripted, and quite silly parody of Indiana Jones. The CGI completely ruined the suspence, and the animated animals were just stupid. I believe that this movie suffers the same as Lucas's SW prequals - loosing it's origional honest flair, and simply pandering to the lowest common denominator, and tryin too much to look like a video game. Expand
  48. StefanP.
    May 27, 2008
    4
    Lucas and Spielberg have lost their touch it seems. The pace is too slow, the actionscenes are pretty dull and the story is a mess. Is this what Lucas has been working on for 15 years?! Sure, the Indiana Jones movies aren't exactly known for their realism but the first three films had an internal sort of logic, they made sense. This one however is just simply idiotic. From the Lucas and Spielberg have lost their touch it seems. The pace is too slow, the actionscenes are pretty dull and the story is a mess. Is this what Lucas has been working on for 15 years?! Sure, the Indiana Jones movies aren't exactly known for their realism but the first three films had an internal sort of logic, they made sense. This one however is just simply idiotic. From the helpfull little monkeys to Indiana surviving an atomic bomb in a refrigerator. The movie felt like a sort of bad copy of the other Indiana Jones movies. A lot of the Indiana Jones elements were there but the magic that bound them together and made the previous movies such good fun is gone. Expand
  49. AnnetteS.
    May 27, 2008
    4
    I thought the movie was boring and unrealistic. i could tell when a stunt double was thrown in the movie for harrison. i was truly disappointed.
  50. KeenanS
    Jun 15, 2009
    4
    This film was such a disappointment, I will probably not be able to watch the old trilogy again for years after what this film left me with. It was one of the biggest disappointments ever and was a huge letdown. This film was ridiculous for all the wrong reasons and failed miserably. Why George Lucas? Do you insist on ruining every classic franchise you helped create? Bad CGI, bad acting, This film was such a disappointment, I will probably not be able to watch the old trilogy again for years after what this film left me with. It was one of the biggest disappointments ever and was a huge letdown. This film was ridiculous for all the wrong reasons and failed miserably. Why George Lucas? Do you insist on ruining every classic franchise you helped create? Bad CGI, bad acting, bad music, bad action scenes, this film screwed up in all the areas Indy should be succeeding in. Don't ever watch it. Expand
  51. Oct 8, 2013
    4
    They should've thought about this idea 10-15 years earlier, when Harrison Ford wasn't a senior citizen. Also, it should've stuck true to the original trilogy (Go away Shia LaBeouf) Second really big flaw is they gave us more of a 50s groove then a 30s charm. In Raiders of the Losr Ark, It was clear the villain was Belloq. In the Temple of Doom, Mola Ram and the Last Crusade was Donovan andThey should've thought about this idea 10-15 years earlier, when Harrison Ford wasn't a senior citizen. Also, it should've stuck true to the original trilogy (Go away Shia LaBeouf) Second really big flaw is they gave us more of a 50s groove then a 30s charm. In Raiders of the Losr Ark, It was clear the villain was Belloq. In the Temple of Doom, Mola Ram and the Last Crusade was Donovan and Schneider. Here, the only villains I see are Spielberg and Lucas Expand
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. 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.
  55. 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.
  56. 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
  57. JasonT
    May 26, 2008
    3
    This could have only been more disappointing if Ja Jar Binks was in it.
  58. 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.
  59. 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.
  60. 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
  61. DennisL.
    Jun 1, 2008
    3
    Wow....what a sad disappointment. Spielberg and Lucas took a wonderful franchise and threw it away with this movie. Considering the theme I kept waiting for ET to show up.
  62. JonF.
    Jun 12, 2008
    3
    I am frankly shocked that a poll of film critics would give this ludicrous mess a favorable review. Could Joel Schumaker teamed with Michael Bay do any worse? Can't wait for the next Indy film set in the 1960s, he'll probably surf into Earth's atmosphere on space debris (a la DARKSTAR) after the heat shield on his Mercury spacecraft fails.
  63. SteveB.
    Jun 3, 2008
    3
    Couldn't wait for it to end. So cheesy, such a rehash of the previous. It's as if they sat around and said, "OK, need to have lot's of cobwebs, skulls, skeletons, chase scene in military vehicles...Let's write a story around that." There's just no life in this one.
  64. TomN.
    Oct 18, 2008
    3
    Horrible, the plot is whack. Everything is sloppy. Too many plot holes. Ridiculous. Action is also stupid, retarded, and contrived. Skull is maagnetic, but only when they throw the gun powder into the air does the powder then floats and follows? Nuclear warhead? Aliens, did they explain anything about it? Aliens, seriously?
  65. JonK.
    Oct 22, 2008
    3
    Very disappointing. Right off the bat, the lighting was noticeably bad - artificial and fake. Awkward and fake pretty much sums it all up for the rest of the show. I could suspend belief enough to really enjoy Independence Day but this show was rather insulting.
  66. DaleS
    May 21, 2008
    3
    Just a terrible movie that bares little to no resemblance of the original trilogy. Harrison Ford has lost the character's charisma, and the story is just ridiculous and so "un-indiana jonesish" that you will possibly want to stop it before the credits role out of disgust at the blatant money grubbing ways of Lucas and Spielberg. They knew it was crap, but knew people would pay to see Just a terrible movie that bares little to no resemblance of the original trilogy. Harrison Ford has lost the character's charisma, and the story is just ridiculous and so "un-indiana jonesish" that you will possibly want to stop it before the credits role out of disgust at the blatant money grubbing ways of Lucas and Spielberg. They knew it was crap, but knew people would pay to see it. There is no way that movie materialized out of anything but a horrible plot outline, an even worse script, and a lackluster execution. Expand
  67. JeffW.
    May 22, 2008
    3
    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 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
  68. ScottE.
    May 22, 2008
    3
    Being a big fan of the series this movie actually had me angry. Right from the opening dialogue it seems harrison is phoning this one in. I don't blame him though, not much else you can do with what he's been given. I almost walked out at the "Tarzan" scene.
  69. MatthewW.
    May 22, 2008
    3
    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.
  70. ChanciusD.
    May 23, 2008
    3
    Worst Spielberg movie I have ever seen. The screen play is atrocious. All of the principle actor really enjoy their parts, but do to the plot their performances lack. All of the other Indy films have instances where the viewer needs to suspend disbelief, but the outlandish situations in this one leave only a feeling of awkwardness.
  71. chads
    May 24, 2008
    3
    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 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
  72. shawnc.
    May 24, 2008
    3
    Wow. What a silly, uninvolving disappointment. Spielberg is done.
  73. peter
    May 25, 2008
    3
    We already seen the great car chaches on a cliff, secret temples hidden in the rocks, and incredible non-human made objects that can change the world. This movie was just like a remake of all the different Indiana-Jones movies put together! this movie was disaproving!
  74. whydidtheymakethis??
    May 25, 2008
    3
    A big disappointment. This film is a caricature of the original trilogy, almost completely devoid of any heart or character development.. and don't even get me started on the plot, starting out of nowhere, quickly becoming tedious, and ending preposterously. I feel cheated as I disregarded the negative press and watched this film based on my love of the original three. I guess I A big disappointment. This film is a caricature of the original trilogy, almost completely devoid of any heart or character development.. and don't even get me started on the plot, starting out of nowhere, quickly becoming tedious, and ending preposterously. I feel cheated as I disregarded the negative press and watched this film based on my love of the original three. I guess I should have realised what was coming when the cinema screened an advert for a Indy 4 toy just before the film started- a movie designed around merchandising bah. Expand
  75. MichelleS
    May 25, 2008
    3
    I will admit I have never seen any of the Indiana Jones movies all the way through except this one. I hear they are really good, but if I were to base my decision to watch them off this installment, I would not waste my $1.99 rental fee or gas to drive to the video store to get them. This movie sucked, bad. I gave it a 3 because it had it's moments that were mildly entertaining but I will admit I have never seen any of the Indiana Jones movies all the way through except this one. I hear they are really good, but if I were to base my decision to watch them off this installment, I would not waste my $1.99 rental fee or gas to drive to the video store to get them. This movie sucked, bad. I gave it a 3 because it had it's moments that were mildly entertaining but the entire movie looked like it had been shot in front of a green screen (was it??). At the end of it all the best part of this movie was the snow caps I ate during it. My boyfriend is officially banned from picking the movies we see after this. It was his third strike after Cloverfield and No Country For Old Men! Expand
  76. BrandonH.
    May 25, 2008
    3
    Replace Ford with a character like Mr. Bean, and this movie would have been hilarious. Sadly, it just comes off as depressing and poorly written and directed (seriously Steve, lay off the soft focus).
  77. MarkR.
    May 26, 2008
    3
    Booorrrinngg.. Saw this with 6 of my friends.. two of us pained through it while the rest slept.
  78. Beefalo
    May 27, 2008
    3
    Don't bother with this one. It's all redux, with Harrison Ford taking the backseat to everyone and everything, including aliens with typically elongated skulls. Please. This film wasn't worthy of the name Indiana Jones.
  79. UlicB.
    May 27, 2008
    3
    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 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
  80. SeanD.
    May 27, 2008
    3
    A terrible story that includes the new brand of George Lucas dialog - stilted and completely unconvincing - even Harrison Ford can't make it work - though it seems he tries hard enough. The initial motorcycle chase and dialog was amusing - but was the best the film had to offer... Perhaps worth renting - not worth the admission in the theatre though.
  81. PatricioJ.
    May 28, 2008
    3
    Bad film, the end is good for E.T. But you won't be bored
  82. SharonC.
    May 29, 2008
    3
    A ridiculously poorly conceived movie where the plot makes no sense and nothing affects the characters or motivates them to move forward.. "but Indy why do YOU have to return the skull?"...because Lucas told him too.
  83. Lauranda
    Oct 14, 2008
    3
    Shia is not all that, contrary to Spielberg's obsession for him. And Lucas needs to go back to his glory days and take examples from that. This 4th chapter is just plain bad. Aliens? come on!! Blanchett was the only reason I didn't give this a 1.
  84. DarrenS
    Oct 28, 2008
    3
    Also disappointed. Awkward is a great way to describe the movie. If you're a hardcore Indy fan, you probably won't like it. If you hate corny-ness or terrible cliches, you probably won't like it. If you're not okay with extremely unbelievable situations you won't like it. Sure, the old movies had some pretty far - fetched stunts or situations, but they were Also disappointed. Awkward is a great way to describe the movie. If you're a hardcore Indy fan, you probably won't like it. If you hate corny-ness or terrible cliches, you probably won't like it. If you're not okay with extremely unbelievable situations you won't like it. Sure, the old movies had some pretty far - fetched stunts or situations, but they were somewhat believable, and in my opinion this movie pushed it way too far. I liked some stuff: an older Indy was interesting, Soviets as the bad guys was a good idea, and some of the scenes were pretty fun. Unfortunately, the ending left such a bad taste in my mouth that I spent the next day watching all three Indy movies trying to forget Crystal Skull. Maybe you'll like it, but most likely you won't. Expand
  85. CoreyC.
    May 22, 2008
    3
    Hugely disappointing, what a waste. Lucas has nothing left to offer cinema. A joke.
  86. JaimieR
    May 22, 2008
    3
    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 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
  87. JackW.
    May 23, 2008
    3
    This was an extreme let down. There was not a single scene which I remember as being worth viewing. The story was sporadic and muddled, the acting flat(especially harrison- it seemed like he didnt want to be there), the set pieces unexciting, the finale rushed and confusing. Unlike the other indiana films, kotcs did not make me forget I was sitting in a cinema. The beauty of the old films This was an extreme let down. There was not a single scene which I remember as being worth viewing. The story was sporadic and muddled, the acting flat(especially harrison- it seemed like he didnt want to be there), the set pieces unexciting, the finale rushed and confusing. Unlike the other indiana films, kotcs did not make me forget I was sitting in a cinema. The beauty of the old films (as well as all great movies of this genre) lay in their ability to draw you in so that time seems to stand still outside the screen- you become so absorbed you forget where you are. Here though, from the very start I was continually made aware I was in fact watching a very poor production with hammy acting and a diabolical script. CGI can, in some films be used to great effect, but this was just not the case here. The effects took away from the rawness and authenticity of the previous films. This was purely a money making scheme at the cost of sullying an otherwise seminal cinematic franchise. Expand
  88. MattS.
    May 25, 2008
    3
    Too over the top. Shia Lequeef sucked as usual.
  89. RachelM.
    May 25, 2008
    3
    Horrible. Even worse for being so disappointingly bad. Every line is cheese. The plot is pathetic. A traitor to the spirit of the original three.
  90. PeterN
    May 26, 2008
    3
    What can you say that others before have not already said.... This was a travesty. As previously said, Lucas and Spielberg are trying to grow another franchise for a new generation, and much like the new Star Wars movies, really missed the boat. From what I've read here, it seems that more and more people are getting sick of the extensive use of CG. It's fake, it's What can you say that others before have not already said.... This was a travesty. As previously said, Lucas and Spielberg are trying to grow another franchise for a new generation, and much like the new Star Wars movies, really missed the boat. From what I've read here, it seems that more and more people are getting sick of the extensive use of CG. It's fake, it's unbelieveable, and so overused. With Indiana Jones, the fans want more of the same thing. This isn't it! This is a cash grab using the Indiana Jones moniker. The first three were great (and as many have pointed out, Temple of Doom has newfound appeal in light of this). Not just the worst of the series, this is terrible compared with ALL movies. Further, if you are going to comment and rate films, don't rate it higher to change the average score!!! You're missing the point. Several reviewers rated this a 10 when they say they only felt it was worth a 7-8, because they felt it deserved more. You're cheating everybody. Expand
  91. KasparH.
    May 27, 2008
    3
    Repackaged Lost Ark "plot" and "characters". Substitute Soviets for Nazis and Crystal Skull for Lost Ark. Very tired effort.
  92. dh
    May 27, 2008
    3
    I felt so empty when I came out of the cinema. I felt disapointed that Spielberg and Lucas relied so heavily on CGI, that the story was truly awful, the stunts were so unbelievable and most importantly of all it didn't feel like an indy movie. I was soooo looking forward to this film but Lucas and Spielberg decided to make this film like all the others these days-they didnt care I felt so empty when I came out of the cinema. I felt disapointed that Spielberg and Lucas relied so heavily on CGI, that the story was truly awful, the stunts were so unbelievable and most importantly of all it didn't feel like an indy movie. I was soooo looking forward to this film but Lucas and Spielberg decided to make this film like all the others these days-they didnt care about the film, they cared about the money! Real shame Expand
  93. EnaV.
    May 28, 2008
    3
    Pancho Villa spoke quechua with Indiana?? wasn't he Mexican? Quechua is from the Andes, Peru!!! Pancho Villa was never in Peru!!! That's like telling that George Washington was born in Russia!! It's as if no one in the production minded whether Peru or Mexico are in America or Asia!!! and the Russians were the one who came to steal treasures??? wasn't people from Pancho Villa spoke quechua with Indiana?? wasn't he Mexican? Quechua is from the Andes, Peru!!! Pancho Villa was never in Peru!!! That's like telling that George Washington was born in Russia!! It's as if no one in the production minded whether Peru or Mexico are in America or Asia!!! and the Russians were the one who came to steal treasures??? wasn't people from Yale??? Peru is still waiting to be given back lots of treasures that people from Yale took with them many years ago!! Next time: do your homework producers!!! Expand
  94. AndrewC.
    Jun 19, 2008
    3
    Mystique and script is lacking in new Indiana Jones.
  95. PatrickF.
    Jun 27, 2008
    3
    A real stinker! Think it's 100% nostalgia for the older, better movies that has anyone liking this clunky & ridiculous movie.
  96. EvanS.
    Nov 23, 2008
    3
    What starts out as a worthy successor quickly turns into ridiculous silliness about the time Karen Allen shows up on the scene. It's a mess.
  97. WaltS.
    Dec 19, 2008
    3
    Well, I'm not a die-hard Indiana Jones fan, nor a jaded hater off big motion pictures. All I wanted was a popcorn movie that could give me 2 hours of entertainment. The good news: the first 60-80 minutes of this movie are enjoyable. No, it's not on the level of Raiders of the Lost Ark by any means, but it gets the job done. The bad news: the last 40 minutes are absolutely Well, I'm not a die-hard Indiana Jones fan, nor a jaded hater off big motion pictures. All I wanted was a popcorn movie that could give me 2 hours of entertainment. The good news: the first 60-80 minutes of this movie are enjoyable. No, it's not on the level of Raiders of the Lost Ark by any means, but it gets the job done. The bad news: the last 40 minutes are absolutely horrible. The script is the real zero here: unquestionably wretched. The special effects make you want to do a double-take because they are so ridiculous. Literally, the last 40 or so minutes look like the product of Spielberg, Lucas, and whoever else throwing together patch-work ideas and other scenes borrowed from previous Indiana Jones movies and trying to make them stick. It is a little depressing that this movie is ranked in the Top 25 highest grossing movies of all time. Customers came looking for a great time and were cheated. Shame on everyone involved in the creation of this mess. Expand
  98. May 20, 2011
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Rather than me sit and whinge about how it wasn't as good as the others I will just give you the below...

    Blah blah blah, explosions, blah blah, I am your son, blah blah I am an enemy, blah blah I am your friend really, blah blah it was aliens, blah blah marriage, blah blah give me my hat.
    Expand
  99. Feb 23, 2012
    3
    This movie should have never been made. It is a discredit to the original trilogy, and it damages the series as a whole. Aliens should not have been included in an Indiana Jones film. Also, I know that there has always be an element of the ridiculous in the franchise, but seriously, some of the scenes in this film are downright ludicrous. Spielberg and Lucas need to learn that theirThis movie should have never been made. It is a discredit to the original trilogy, and it damages the series as a whole. Aliens should not have been included in an Indiana Jones film. Also, I know that there has always be an element of the ridiculous in the franchise, but seriously, some of the scenes in this film are downright ludicrous. Spielberg and Lucas need to learn that their classics should not be tampered with. A train wreck. Expand
  100. Feb 5, 2012
    3
    A movie of complexity that doesn't pay off. The story is so compounded, it seems like it was a combination of 20 different ideas. But it was one of those movies that was popular with the public, mainly because they can't tell a good movie from a bad movie.
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.