User Score
5.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1114 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. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. TayleyS.
    Jun 3, 2008
    6
    Well, I really wanted to like this film...and I was disappointed in a big way. It doesn't have the heart of the early ones. It felt like it was explaining itself too much, or something, which took all the mystery away from it. I guess the older ones weren't riding as much on a franchise as this was felt like it was. It was like opening an old shoe box of trinkets. You get a Well, I really wanted to like this film...and I was disappointed in a big way. It doesn't have the heart of the early ones. It felt like it was explaining itself too much, or something, which took all the mystery away from it. I guess the older ones weren't riding as much on a franchise as this was felt like it was. It was like opening an old shoe box of trinkets. You get a little excited, but it quickly fades. There were also inconsistencies in the plot, which is especially frustrating in a story such as this. The villain was never all that scary (think Raiders and the guy with the glasses and coat hanger - nothing like that!). The fighting between Marion and Indy was contrived and gratuitous - they needed it because it provided a good distraction. The plot itself was disconnected, in my opinion - too much escaping and being caught again, too much bad guy has skull/good guy has skull. I couldn't suspend disbelief enough at times to actually enjoy the film (kid with one leg on each vehicle while they're both in motion, and oh ya, having a swordfight at the same time because he conveniently had taken FENCING at prep school....pullease!) There were some beautiful wide shots in this movie but some of the backgrounds looked quite fake (e.g. first 5 minutes, outdoors). I wish the franchise hadn't had its reputation - I think this film would have been much better if it were working to prove something. My favourite part was the 3 second shot of the ark of the covenant. Expand
  8. ChrisR
    Oct 16, 2008
    6
    I was sorely let down in the theater, but somehow on video, the Indy/Marion stuff works much better. What felt gratuitous and a thin waste of talent and goodwill, now seems economical. I'm ok with it.
  9. SteveK
    Oct 22, 2008
    6
    Not terrible if you come in with zero expectations. But this is INDIANA JONES! This is Spielberg and Harrison Ford! Almost impossible to do. The movie had fun moments, good actions scenes, and some really creepy moments too (I will never look at ants the same way again). But the real holes are in the plot. Too much said and not said. The whole thing is undercooked, like an excuse to make Not terrible if you come in with zero expectations. But this is INDIANA JONES! This is Spielberg and Harrison Ford! Almost impossible to do. The movie had fun moments, good actions scenes, and some really creepy moments too (I will never look at ants the same way again). But the real holes are in the plot. Too much said and not said. The whole thing is undercooked, like an excuse to make Indy, not an enthralling story that is interesting and draws you in. It starts interesting, but the end just fails to inspire. I think that people who want everything explained will actually be disappointed if it is, so I am not like everyone else on this site who are mad because "it wasn't explained", what bothers me is that we get no closure ON ANYTHING. And I'm a little tired of the whole the temple blows itself up plot device to neatly wrap everything up. Even National Treasure 2 did that, and that franchise shouldn't be able to hold a candle to Indy. I mean, they even did that in Last Crusade. We were just missing a cool Indy ending. There was nothing clever, inventive, or even interesting about the ending of this movie. They ran away and the Russians didn't. Go Indy, way to run. Seriously, I would like to see a director's cut where they fix the ending and they actually make it interesting. I don't care about the aliens, there are worse plot ideas in the world, but aliens that don't do anything are not interesting. Expand
  10. JoshB
    May 22, 2008
    6
    Keep your expectations very low, or you risk serious disappointment.
  11. ShellieKelly
    May 22, 2008
    6
    Too unbelievable... Shia did a good job as did Harrison.. but the storyline was contrived and too far fetched.
  12. DamienD.
    May 23, 2008
    6
    Indy is back, but he kinda shoulda stayed where he was. This sequel is way too self aware with nostalgic references to the previous series and doesn't really find it's own steam. First half works pretty good with some decent action sets on a nuclear test site and a chase sequence through Indy's campus. The second half, once the plot really gets revealed is really Indy is back, but he kinda shoulda stayed where he was. This sequel is way too self aware with nostalgic references to the previous series and doesn't really find it's own steam. First half works pretty good with some decent action sets on a nuclear test site and a chase sequence through Indy's campus. The second half, once the plot really gets revealed is really incosistent and very slow paced at times, with a couple of thrilling action pieces, the waterfall dives are just too ridiculous. The climax was just too lame. The movie relies too heavily on CGI which detracts from the charm of the overall series where practical effects dominated. Harrison Ford is still Indy and the end really just further confirms this. Shia LeBouef and Karen Allen hold their ground but Cate Blanchett's villiain is weak and John Hurt and Ray Winstone are too underused. It took almost 20 years to come out with another Indy Adventure but personally I think it was summed up best in 'Crusade" Indy "That belongs in a museum" Villain: "So do you!" He was right! Expand
  13. vrblknch
    May 24, 2008
    6
    Problematic. Preface by stating that Star Wars was my 2nd favorite franchise to Indiana Jones from my first VHS viewing of Raiders around 6 years old... so it pains me to score so low. Walked in with a replica Indy Fedora on... left the theater quickly with the hat hidden held close in my hands. Actors were great. Kudos to Harrison Ford for owning the role. It looked like he was doing all Problematic. Preface by stating that Star Wars was my 2nd favorite franchise to Indiana Jones from my first VHS viewing of Raiders around 6 years old... so it pains me to score so low. Walked in with a replica Indy Fedora on... left the theater quickly with the hat hidden held close in my hands. Actors were great. Kudos to Harrison Ford for owning the role. It looked like he was doing all the light physical stuff with ease. Scaling crates in area 51 that would make me keel over now @ 30, let alone @ 65. Shia IS the future. Just as good as River as young indy. Spielberg started with a bang, but the Tarzan swings killed the movie. The chases were good times and the stunt work was top notch which is missing in modern cinema. After the ants it was downhill. Speaking of hills, the prarie dogs popped up one too many times. Other qualms, the cinematography was VERY hit and miss. The college campus and tomb lighting/lense was spot on, but everywhere else looked very washed and fake authentic, There was a soundstage look to RAIDERS, DOOM, CRUSADE that pasted with their ASC. Oh and the Raiders March was not featured as much as I would have liked, full fanfare maybe 3 times? The CGI was not unbearable even to my VERY crictical eye, but everything feeld second rate in terms of the Russian menace and the quest itself. Nice homages make for 3-4 REALLY good comedic/nostalgic scenes (picking up the hat beginning and end) and EXCELLENT stunt work make for 2-3 great action sequences. But they are leveraged by the 3-4 silly plot hiccups (peer into the skull, rope swing, tree driving). Indy needed quite a bigger threat to come out of retirement. Can't wait for Indy and Sleepwalking Screenwriters on dvd this December. Fin. Expand
  14. TiernanS.
    May 24, 2008
    6
    I'm not sure if fans of Indiana Jones will be more disappointed than the uninitiated on this one, or vice versa. Ford does a great job putting the hat back on. It's also great to see Shia making the most of his role. Unfortunately, the script is too academic and undercooked, never mind the unusual lack of humor, and doesn't allow these great characters to really shine or I'm not sure if fans of Indiana Jones will be more disappointed than the uninitiated on this one, or vice versa. Ford does a great job putting the hat back on. It's also great to see Shia making the most of his role. Unfortunately, the script is too academic and undercooked, never mind the unusual lack of humor, and doesn't allow these great characters to really shine or even intertwine.......and it wouldn't be difficult. Indy and the gang are fantastic characters. That part was set, or so I thought. The actual plot is arbitrary nonsense that is amusing, but not engrossing.....and as the film throttles into the finale, the light saber duels and telekinetic....um, whatever become downright stupid. Since the script is so muddled and inept, when the action stops, so does the movie. The self destructing action set pieces fall in line with tradition and they're as implausable as ever, but they're still fun to see. Loved the prairie dog cameos too. Still, this one gets a mixed note from me. It'll make a good rental. Expand
  15. Fabio
    May 24, 2008
    6
    Not nearly as good as the previous ones... it's fun to see Indy back on the screen but... not much thrilling, no real (dangerous) villain, not much personality in the characters, it pretty much seemed a luna park attraction came alive... probably the worst Spielberg I've ever seen :(
  16. JaredB.
    May 24, 2008
    6
    Being a HUGE fan of the other "Indiana Jones" movies, I was really looking forward to this one. While it isn't a total loss, it is nowhere near as good as any of the films in the previous trilogy. For starters, Harrison Ford, who made the first three so great, shows his age in a big way here. I would expect for anyone playing Indy to jump fearlessly into the stunts. Here, Ford seems Being a HUGE fan of the other "Indiana Jones" movies, I was really looking forward to this one. While it isn't a total loss, it is nowhere near as good as any of the films in the previous trilogy. For starters, Harrison Ford, who made the first three so great, shows his age in a big way here. I would expect for anyone playing Indy to jump fearlessly into the stunts. Here, Ford seems more concerned about safety than realism. Speaking of realism, that leads to another problem I had. This film is completely implausible. For instance, there is a scene where the main characters are in a truck and something rolls over them. Normally, anyone who has this happen to them would be flattened. However, everyone comes out without even a scratch. If anybody can explain how this could happen, I would love to hear it. I also had a problem with the payoff. *Spoiler Alert* Near the end, the characters enter what appears to be an ancient Mayan pyramid. However, it turns out to be an alien spaceship. When is Hollywood going to stop making films where everything can be explained away by using aliens? I am getting so sick of this. Another thing I am getting sick of is Shia LeBeouf. Except his role in "Transformers," this guy is, in my opinion, a talentless hack. He should consider early retirement before he totally ruins Hollywood. If it hadn't been for some great special effects and humor, this thing would have been a complete disaster. Expand
  17. MrToad
    May 25, 2008
    6
    Fun, but inferior to the originals, and ultimately only so-so. Action/adventure sequences are entertaining enough, though. Good if you're in the mood.
  18. PiltdownMan
    May 26, 2008
    6
    The best parts of this movie are when people are simply talking to each other, not frantically racing through the jungle (endlessly) in a too-long chase scene that defines "overwrought" and "boring." Will someone ever learn that "less is more?" If you wanna impress the kids, don't worry; they'll see the chase scene, then be able to play it for themselves when the game comes The best parts of this movie are when people are simply talking to each other, not frantically racing through the jungle (endlessly) in a too-long chase scene that defines "overwrought" and "boring." Will someone ever learn that "less is more?" If you wanna impress the kids, don't worry; they'll see the chase scene, then be able to play it for themselves when the game comes out...so you don't have to over do it for the rest of us... But there is a great deal to like about this film. I was expecting way too much obvious CGI and a lot less muscle and sweat, but the CGI was mostly invisible and the sweat was palpable. One thing I really liked was the idea that intelligence and schooling matters. I know, I sound as old and crotchety as Indy, but it is really nice to see him speaking to the locals in their native tongue.... Smarts matter is a nice takeaway for the kids watching...actually for all of us! Many people have trashed the "alien" angle, but I found no problem with it. After all, they had pretty much plumbed Christian mythology (that's how I see it) already, so why not a secular bit of the supernatural? Expand
  19. IndianaJones
    May 27, 2008
    6
    This is not a bad movie, but it's not the Indy movie you were hoping for. It really is a shame; after all those years this is what they came up with. Whoever said "videogame" was correct. It gets the 6 for being such a let down.
  20. ColinC
    Oct 28, 2008
    6
    Disappointing. Everything felt rehashed from earlier films. The buddy relationship of Indy and Dad from three was changed to a buddy relationship with his son. [***SPOILER ALERT***] The villians met the same end as they did in 1 and 3; one being done in by the artifact they were seeking, the other being done in by their greed as they tried to escape (the blond nazi from 3 and Indy's Disappointing. Everything felt rehashed from earlier films. The buddy relationship of Indy and Dad from three was changed to a buddy relationship with his son. [***SPOILER ALERT***] The villians met the same end as they did in 1 and 3; one being done in by the artifact they were seeking, the other being done in by their greed as they tried to escape (the blond nazi from 3 and Indy's Cold War pal from 4. And lastly, Harrison Ford just feels to old to be kicking so much ass. He goes toe to toe with a Russian soldier and wins. Even that scene was a rip-off from Indy 1 when he fights the big bald nazi who gets chopped up by the airplane propeller. George Lucas and Speilberg need to push themselves harder if they're going to do another sequel. Expand
  21. SamF.
    May 21, 2008
    6
    Someone needs to confiscate George Lucas' computer sometimes. He just kills it with green screen.
  22. PaulK.
    May 22, 2008
    6
    I never got into the Indy films as a kid, although I did see parts here and there on cable in the 80's. So while not an ardent fan, I still have to say that this was good, not great. The story was ok, nothing exceptional. At times hokey and completely silly (the monkeys for instance), I found myself half laughing at the film and half with it. I have a feeling die hard fans might not I never got into the Indy films as a kid, although I did see parts here and there on cable in the 80's. So while not an ardent fan, I still have to say that this was good, not great. The story was ok, nothing exceptional. At times hokey and completely silly (the monkeys for instance), I found myself half laughing at the film and half with it. I have a feeling die hard fans might not like this too much. Everyone else will enjoy the ride for what it is, but few will walk out craving another sequel starring Shia LaBeouf as the next Indy. Expand
  23. ShaunM.
    May 24, 2008
    6
    Squeaking by with a 6, only because it was slightly entertaining until the end.
  24. Swami
    May 24, 2008
    6
    It was OK, but it is missing that magic that the others had. Harrison Ford looked great, and I can't help thinking with a better script this movie could have been great. I get that many of the plots dealt with the fact this was set in 1957 instead of Nazi Germany times. However, for me, maybe it was trying too hard. It just did not have that sense of familiarity the other 3 did. It was OK, but it is missing that magic that the others had. Harrison Ford looked great, and I can't help thinking with a better script this movie could have been great. I get that many of the plots dealt with the fact this was set in 1957 instead of Nazi Germany times. However, for me, maybe it was trying too hard. It just did not have that sense of familiarity the other 3 did. LaBouef character was worthless and brought nothing but wasted screen time away IMO also. I didn't want to see Indiana Jones and the Fonz in the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but that's what I got. Go in with an open mind and you might be pleasantly surprised. I was let down. Expand
  25. JohnnyM.
    May 27, 2008
    6
    I don't think all the malicious vituperations directed toward this film are really justified. I mean, it doesn't seem very reasonable to expect the third sequel in a decidedly uneven series to measure up to the original, especially when you consider that it's been nineteen years since the last entry and there have been countless knock-offs and send-ups. Having said that, I I don't think all the malicious vituperations directed toward this film are really justified. I mean, it doesn't seem very reasonable to expect the third sequel in a decidedly uneven series to measure up to the original, especially when you consider that it's been nineteen years since the last entry and there have been countless knock-offs and send-ups. Having said that, I can still understand what the fuss is about. Even though I feel it wouldn't be equitable to expect freshness and innovation from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it doesn't seem altogether unfair to ask for something a bit more ambitious. There isn't a single stunt, action sequence or special effect in KOTCS that hasn't been seen before and it lacks the breakneck pace and unrelenting energy of its predecessors. Though there is a plethora of big, elaborate action sequences, they are more absurd and over-the-top than anything we've seen in National Treasure or The Mummy pictures - there is even one that features Indy surviving an atomic blast by hiding in a lead-lined refrigeratror. As for the CGI, it isn't used as pervasively as many have claimed but when it does show up (in the form of voracious ants, vine-swinging monkeys and jittery prairie dogs) it is admittedly somewhat distracting. The movie's sole undeniable pleasure is seeing Harrison Ford return as Indy. Despite his age, Ford is more vital than ever and he delivers the film's (borderline tiresome) one-liners with relish. It's nice to see Karen Allen return as well but she isn't given a particularly substantial role. In fact, we see more of Shia LaBeouf's preening, thick-skulled Mutt than we do Marion Ravenwood which is simply inexcusable. LaBeouf hasn't one iota of screen presence or charisma and his character quickly becomes a bit of an annoyance. Then there's the matter of the story's disappointing climax, which involves the discovery of "interdimensional beings" a colossal flying saucer. This sequence had some people in the audience tittering but I didn't find it to be anymore ridiculous than what we've seen invovling the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail. Overall, I must concede it was a bit of a disappointment but it isn't nearly as awful as its myriad detractors have said it is. Expand
  26. pasikko
    May 28, 2008
    6
    Though I wasn't expecting greatness,I still came out a bit disappointed.After 19 years of waiting it should have been so much better.I have to say this is easily the worst of all four,the whole thing seemed quite routine and forced.The plot was nothing to write home about,although served the purpose.Still,after all that brainstorming and developing,I wonder if they really Though I wasn't expecting greatness,I still came out a bit disappointed.After 19 years of waiting it should have been so much better.I have to say this is easily the worst of all four,the whole thing seemed quite routine and forced.The plot was nothing to write home about,although served the purpose.Still,after all that brainstorming and developing,I wonder if they really couldn't assemble a more inspiring and creative one. Action scenes in Indy movies have always been exaggerated but still enjoyable and charming.In this however they disappointingly often are just plain stupid.Sword fighting extravaganza on moving vehicles,the monkey scene with Mutt and much discussed refrigerator scene are prime examples.In previous films absurdities almost like these somehow worked,sadly not here.Simply too much implausible action sequences,even for an Indy movie.Thanks to the advancements in digital imagery there were more laughs in ridiculous action than in most alleged humor,which didn't quite hit the mark in many situations. And yes,the most annoying thing in the movie was the overuse of CGI and how, in this day and age,can special effects look so bad.In this regard it often could've been almost a "Librarian" tv-movie.What happened ILM... However,as a big fan of all previous installments,it was nice to see Harrison Ford wearing Indy costume one last time.In whole the movie was still entertaining,if nothing special.I'd say 6/10. Expand
  27. Aug 23, 2010
    6
    growing up loving the original trilogy i couldnt wait for this film . though i believed it arrived 15 years to late. its not a bad film but really doesnt capture what the original trilogy was . shilo boof like always is annoying and a insult to fans to think he may become the next indiana jones . some people where upset that they moved away from the reliougous theme towards aliens . igrowing up loving the original trilogy i couldnt wait for this film . though i believed it arrived 15 years to late. its not a bad film but really doesnt capture what the original trilogy was . shilo boof like always is annoying and a insult to fans to think he may become the next indiana jones . some people where upset that they moved away from the reliougous theme towards aliens . i didnt mind it it infact its still following the same lines if you know your history . many archioligists believe that the nascans and other from that area worshiped some thing that resembled aliens . so it looked to me they where still on that theme . the action was good although didnt feel near as good as raiders or last crusade . it was a ok entry to the series but not really the ending i woulda liked the series to go out on. my only last and best hope is they dont bring that moron shilo boof in to replace harrison ford as indiana jones . just let this series stay dead. Expand
  28. Mar 15, 2012
    6
    I get why ppl hate this movie, I do. I was expecting that there was gonna be a big red bar full of "negative" votes. But here's my opinion about the movie, I thought it was okay. It's definitely not a masterpiece or as goos as Raiders of the Lost Ark & Last Crusade, but does it mean it's bad? Of course not! I want to review the 2 main rants that people nitpick all the time.

    1. Aliens
    I get why ppl hate this movie, I do. I was expecting that there was gonna be a big red bar full of "negative" votes. But here's my opinion about the movie, I thought it was okay. It's definitely not a masterpiece or as goos as Raiders of the Lost Ark & Last Crusade, but does it mean it's bad? Of course not! I want to review the 2 main rants that people nitpick all the time.

    1. Aliens don't belong in an Indiana Jones movie. It's like Indie meets Mars Attack.

    - I wouldn't put it that way. Did anyone even know that the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are known to be Extra-Teresstrial? Also, why don't aliens belong in an Indie movie? Did anyone even watch the other Indie movies? What about the Ghost that killed ppl in RotLA, the 700 year old knight protecting the holy grail from Last Crusade, or the voodoo stuff from Temple of Doom? Why not have science fictional experience?

    2. The refrigerator scene was ridiculous and unrealistic.

    -No Sh*t! I know this isn't realistic, many movies do that all the time but nobody complains about them. Again, did you watch the other movies? The unexpected and unseen tank escape from Last Crusade, falling off a helicopter with a inflatable boat and making it off a cliff without a scratch or a broken bone from Temple of Doom. I haven't heard anyone argue about that.

    In my opinion, I thought the movie was okay. I found it like a great comeback to Indiana Jones and the other 80's and 90's icons. We got the comeback of Die Hard, Terminator, Scream, Mission Impossible, Rambo, and Rocky Balboa and coming soon Men in Black. I liked that Indie came back as well. I would like to see Lethal Weapon 5 or Ghostbusters 3. Anyways, Indiana Jones 4 wasn't as bad as a lot of people put it. I liked it, my friends liked it, my family liked it, basically many people liked it, and others hated it. But I honestly find it to be a decent adventure movie.
    Expand
  29. Dec 27, 2012
    6
    The whole Aliens ending was an awful way to end the film but it was still enjoyable to watch. It was action packed, Had good acting, and it was entertaining. I can see why Indiana Jones fans hate it but it wasn't all that bad.
  30. Apr 29, 2013
    6
    This movie definitely has its mixed reviews. It's usually you either really hate this movie or really love this movie. Personally, I'm kind of inbetween, but honestly it was still an enjoyable Indiana Jones movie. I think it's safe to say that it has some of the old and the new. For old, it still has its enjoyable swash-buckling action sequences, which truly helps give the movie a boostThis movie definitely has its mixed reviews. It's usually you either really hate this movie or really love this movie. Personally, I'm kind of inbetween, but honestly it was still an enjoyable Indiana Jones movie. I think it's safe to say that it has some of the old and the new. For old, it still has its enjoyable swash-buckling action sequences, which truly helps give the movie a boost (in a sense). For the new, it adds in some new characters and a plot that doesn't live up to the trilogy's expectations. All the characters are pretty average and have some good moments, but there's one big problem that stands in there way. This movie has some of the worst screenplay I've ever heard. When you hear a character say those cheesy on-liners, it just sounds terrible. The reason I gave this movie a 6 is that it has good memorable swash-buckling action and the story (beside getting to the alien part) really tries to bring back a legend. Overall, for some of its major bumps on the road, it's still an enjoyable Indiana Jones movie. Expand
  31. Jun 14, 2015
    6
    This is the less impressive Indiana Jones film in the franchise. It began pretty well, with really good action and it felt superb. But after the first act..well lets just say that it totally hit the ground! The plot became weird and boring. It didn't feel like a Indiana Jones film, more like a bad remake. The adventure is a bit good, but it's still disappointing, especially in the secondThis is the less impressive Indiana Jones film in the franchise. It began pretty well, with really good action and it felt superb. But after the first act..well lets just say that it totally hit the ground! The plot became weird and boring. It didn't feel like a Indiana Jones film, more like a bad remake. The adventure is a bit good, but it's still disappointing, especially in the second and the third act. The dialogs are at the same time very strange; there's no thrilling feeling in it! There are at the same time unnecessary subplots, and the plot is overall uninteresting and just awful at some places. The ending was okay, but not as good as what I expected to see.

    But it's still an Indiana Jones movie, and it got its moments of adventure and humor, but not as much as the old movies. Those had a bigger feeling to it.

    6.5/10
    Expand
  32. Nov 8, 2013
    6
    I don't know why, but I somehow liked this movie. I don't love it, but I don't hate it either. It's not the best of the Indiana Jones Movies, but it is certainly not the worst. Then again, none of them are bad to me.
  33. Jul 6, 2015
    6
    My least favourite of the 4 but still deserves credit for it's decent story but CGI is overused especially with the monkeys scene but this film is not terrible.
  34. Oct 10, 2015
    6
    Whoever came up with the idea of letting Shia La Puke play the son of Indiana Jones should be handed over in the hands of Mola Ram. Why does Indiana need a son anyway? Was it so the series can continue with his son as the hero? Ridiculous.

    Harrison Ford is playing his role perfect as usual, although he's getting too old for this. Marion is back and she gained a few pounds extra. The
    Whoever came up with the idea of letting Shia La Puke play the son of Indiana Jones should be handed over in the hands of Mola Ram. Why does Indiana need a son anyway? Was it so the series can continue with his son as the hero? Ridiculous.

    Harrison Ford is playing his role perfect as usual, although he's getting too old for this. Marion is back and she gained a few pounds extra. The music is still good and there are some nice parts in the movie. But mostly the cgi is so bad and the movie feels like a parody on the Indiana Jones movies. Shia swinging in the trees with monkeys is the best example of this. Also the giant ants are clearly computer animated, It's like Spielberg and Lucas didn't even try to make it look real.

    Also the whole idea about the aliens or beings from another dimension is so over the top. I read somewhere that this was the idea of Lucas, while Spielberg realised that the alien thing had been done plenty. Unfortunately Lucas got what he wanted.

    They should have stopped after the original trilogy which was perfect.
    Expand
  35. Feb 26, 2016
    6
    It was okayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy6666y666
  36. Apr 19, 2016
    6
    I get why ppl hate this movie, I do. I was expecting that there was gonna be a big red bar full of "negative" votes. But here's my opinion about the movie, I thought it was okay. It's definitely not a masterpiece or as goos as Raiders of the Lost Ark & Last Crusade, but does it mean it's bad? Of course not! I want to review the 2 main rants that people nitpick all the time.

    1. Aliens
    I get why ppl hate this movie, I do. I was expecting that there was gonna be a big red bar full of "negative" votes. But here's my opinion about the movie, I thought it was okay. It's definitely not a masterpiece or as goos as Raiders of the Lost Ark & Last Crusade, but does it mean it's bad? Of course not! I want to review the 2 main rants that people nitpick all the time.

    1. Aliens don't belong in an Indiana Jones movie. It's like Indie meets Mars Attack.

    - I wouldn't put it that way. Did anyone even know that the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are known to be Extra-Teresstrial? Also, why don't aliens belong in an Indie movie? Did anyone even watch the other Indie movies? What about the Ghost that killed ppl in RotLA, the 700 year old knight protecting the holy grail from Last Crusade, or the voodoo stuff from Temple of Doom? Why not have science fictional experience?

    2. The refrigerator scene was ridiculous and unrealistic.

    -No Sh*t! I know this isn't realistic, many movies do that all the time but nobody complains about them. Again, did you watch the other movies? The unexpected and unseen tank escape from Last Crusade, falling off a helicopter with a inflatable boat and making it off a cliff without a scratch or a broken bone from Temple of Doom. I haven't heard anyone argue about that.

    In my opinion, I thought the movie was okay. I found it like a great comeback to Indiana Jones and the other 80's and 90's icons. We got the comeback of Die Hard, Terminator, Scream, Mission Impossible, Rambo, and Rocky Balboa and coming soon Men in Black. I liked that Indie came back as well. I would like to see Lethal Weapon 5 or Ghostbusters 3. Anyways, Indiana Jones 4 wasn't as bad as a lot of people put it. I liked it, my friends liked it, my family liked it, basically many people liked it, and others hated it. But I honestly find it to be a decent adventure movie.
    Expand
  37. 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.
  38. KarelD.
    Jun 4, 2008
    5
    Ford is old, Spielberg is complacent and Lucas is senile.
  39. meso
    Nov 20, 2008
    5
    Dull, hollywood cheese. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
  40. 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
  41. StevenH.
    May 30, 2008
    5
    Ridiculous! All of the waiting and anticipation and this is what they came up with?! Aren't their lives worth more than just the money they make on this crap?
  42. EddieD.
    Sep 10, 2008
    5
    Too much fooling around. Crystal Skull doesn't get to the point.
  43. JamesO.
    Oct 16, 2008
    5
    Maybe Im geting too old for Indy movies, Im sure kids will love it but it just didnt wash with me.
  44. ChuckS
    Oct 26, 2008
    5
    This is how the movie is: -If you want a fantasy adventure movie, you will think this movie was 8 or higher. -If you want an Indiana Jones movie, you will think this movie was 2 or less. This movie, while entertaining, does not have the same feel that made the original Indy movies so appealing. So, what you get from this movie depends on what you want from this movie. If you want Indy, This is how the movie is: -If you want a fantasy adventure movie, you will think this movie was 8 or higher. -If you want an Indiana Jones movie, you will think this movie was 2 or less. This movie, while entertaining, does not have the same feel that made the original Indy movies so appealing. So, what you get from this movie depends on what you want from this movie. If you want Indy, you'll get disappointed. If you want a 2 hour distraction, you'll get a pleasant surprise. Expand
  45. AllenT.
    May 18, 2008
    5
    occasionally Indy IV genuinely entertains and gives you the warm, fuzzy feeling that you get when one is the company of a character you love. However, far too many moments fail to make an impact, too many ideas so disappointingly half-baked. The fatal flaw though is the film's utter lack of dramatic tension, and an absence of the sense of danger and adventure so vital to the success occasionally Indy IV genuinely entertains and gives you the warm, fuzzy feeling that you get when one is the company of a character you love. However, far too many moments fail to make an impact, too many ideas so disappointingly half-baked. The fatal flaw though is the film's utter lack of dramatic tension, and an absence of the sense of danger and adventure so vital to the success of the previous instalments. Expand
  46. peterr
    May 19, 2008
    5
    I was very disappointed. And I had low expectations too. I think the reviews, overall, have been being very 'kind' I wanted to love this film but Lucas' continued emphasis on technology and production advances with computer generated sets really bogs down everything organic, playful and ultimately everything that was so cool about all the Indy films. I heard that Spielberg I was very disappointed. And I had low expectations too. I think the reviews, overall, have been being very 'kind' I wanted to love this film but Lucas' continued emphasis on technology and production advances with computer generated sets really bogs down everything organic, playful and ultimately everything that was so cool about all the Indy films. I heard that Spielberg wanted to make a 'non-cgi film' but he did not get his way. Look for the cute digital prairie dogs at the opening of the movie. Your enjoyment of the picture will probably be determined by how much you like or dislike them. Expand
  47. Jon
    May 23, 2008
    5
    Good spirit, but too far out. Even Indy doesn't survive 500 foot waterfalls, much less along with four others.
  48. DanM.
    May 25, 2008
    5
    Outrageous and hackneyed storyline coupled with non-believable action sequences, too digitalized, I do not lump this in with the original trilogy and will not acknowledge this as an Indiana Jones movie.
  49. MrDork
    May 26, 2008
    5
    Entertaining movie altogether, but for crying out loud... It's just so over-the-top cheesy hollywood-spielberg-lucas mumbojumbo. Half-way the movie it just went from hilariously nuts to total LSD trip. Gimme a break!
  50. ArthurS.
    May 28, 2008
    5
    There were some cool special effect scenes, but other than that I found myself wishing for the movie to be less than 2 hours long (which it was, thankfully).
  51. GMoney
    May 29, 2008
    5
    I think the part that killed it for me was how unrealistic almost everything was... from being shot at by 40 russian soldiers with machine guns, and going down 3 niagara falls sized waterfalls and coming out scratchless was just silly. Lets hope there isn't another one
  52. KeithL.
    Jun 1, 2008
    5
    George Lucas is an incredible hack job. What a putz. Steven Spielberg is now Steven Cheeseberg and they have disgraced my all-time favorite movie (Raiders) and the hero it launched. We waited 19 years for a special effects rampage that made me want to vomit. Where's the bullwhip guys? Why was Indy a cranky old man? Why was this a vehicle to make tons of cash with Shai LaBouf down the George Lucas is an incredible hack job. What a putz. Steven Spielberg is now Steven Cheeseberg and they have disgraced my all-time favorite movie (Raiders) and the hero it launched. We waited 19 years for a special effects rampage that made me want to vomit. Where's the bullwhip guys? Why was Indy a cranky old man? Why was this a vehicle to make tons of cash with Shai LaBouf down the road as the "new" Indy? Steve...George...RETIRE! You suck! Expand
  53. BrandonT.
    Jun 27, 2008
    5
    A poor Indiana Jones film. Decent in comparison with the movies out around the same time but it won't last in movie history. Terrible ending.
  54. SteveO
    Jun 3, 2008
    5
    This movie was so unrealistic. Entertaining, sure, but so unrealistic to the point that I wanted it to end. I mean aliens helping build the mayan civilization? Anyone with a decently working brain knows that aliens dont exist... jeez hollywood, you'll have to do better then this.
  55. nomad
    Jul 16, 2008
    5
    Folks this is why you have to appreciate Sly. Rembo and Rocky are two icon franchises and he capped them off in an exemplary, superb fashion... many other beloved cherished and loved franchises were tarnished by travesty sequels.. Long live Sly.
  56. PaulL.
    Jul 21, 2008
    5
    IT a good but definitely not great either. "It more of a national treasure feel to it because it involves around aliens. I didn't like it how is it set in 50s because it a b movie era rather the 1930s adventure serial. not worth a wait. The CGI IS Horrible. Anyway it a good movie but not great.
  57. rob
    Jul 8, 2008
    5
    I was overjoyed to hear a new Indiana Jones movie was coming out. Then i saw it, and wished they hadn't. The ending was incredibly unusual for an Indiana Jones.
  58. PaulC
    May 22, 2008
    5
    I was very, very disappointed. A spaceship should never be in an Indiana Jones movie...guess what???
  59. ChadS.
    May 22, 2008
    5
    A slow start, a crushing bore of a start, really, kills your nostalgia, right off the bat, because the film regards its own mythology a bit too pompously. We know where the lost ark is being stored. We don't need a reminder. As for Indiana Jones himself, Harrison Ford may look great for his age, but he sounds disinterested. Grumpy. This fourth installment of "Raiders..." needs a A slow start, a crushing bore of a start, really, kills your nostalgia, right off the bat, because the film regards its own mythology a bit too pompously. We know where the lost ark is being stored. We don't need a reminder. As for Indiana Jones himself, Harrison Ford may look great for his age, but he sounds disinterested. Grumpy. This fourth installment of "Raiders..." needs a comedy transfusion; a young female sidekick who constantly reminds the aging archeologist how he's becoming the very thing he studies and collects, a relic. Shia LeBeouf is a good actor. But he's totally lost, here. Talking about comedy transfusions, at the very least, "...Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" needs a shot of Short Round, stat! In the wake of all those "Star Wars"-wanna bes that followed the mother-of-all-blockbusters(which killed off the personal filmmaking trend of American directors during the early-to-mid seventies) in '77, George Lucas actually got around to sueing two of these space opera "homages": the ABC series "Battlestar Galactica", and "Battle Beyond the Stars", starring one of "The Waltons", for story infringement. Twenty-five-plus years later, now the shoe is on the other foot, since writer/producer Chris Carter might have a little something to say about Lucas' so-called original story. Expand
  60. Steve
    May 22, 2008
    5
    Really?! This is the best they could do?! 20 years mulling over a script and this is the result?! Yeah, it had the skeleton of an Indy movie, but you've actually seen very single aspect of the plot/story/dialogue before...somewhere in the first 3. So...it's boring. To boot, not even John Williams came up with something unique...they just recycled the same themes from the other Really?! This is the best they could do?! 20 years mulling over a script and this is the result?! Yeah, it had the skeleton of an Indy movie, but you've actually seen very single aspect of the plot/story/dialogue before...somewhere in the first 3. So...it's boring. To boot, not even John Williams came up with something unique...they just recycled the same themes from the other movies. Lame. Let's see, what else sucked? Oh, the gags. Every moment in the movie is a gag, whether that be the "punch," (of which there were too many), the bullets that miss (again, too many), the car chases, everything Indy says now is a one-liner, and the inexplicable less-than-realistic action sequences are more comical than they are thrilling, the monkees, another Tarzan reference (like they did with Chewbacca in Star Wars 3/6), ripping pants...the list is endless really. At least Indy got shot in the 1st one, and we thought he fell off that cliff in the 3rd one. It would take Kryptonite to destroy him in Crystal Skull. Speaking of Kryptonite: There are aliens, just like in "Signs." And an atomic bomb. And Russians. And Indiana Jones was a secret agend during WW2. Don't waste your $10. Expand
  61. MikeC
    May 23, 2008
    5
    Deeeeeeeply disappointed. It was the same disappointment that you got when you saw the Phantom Menace. It just isnt the same indiana jones that we all know and love.
  62. Mrjones
    May 23, 2008
    5
    The first 45min of the film was engaging and exciting. The last hour and a half of the film sorry to say derailed into self-indulgent, unfunny and over the top mess. Hollow characters never developed beyond weak accents and wacky expressions( thanks George Lucas) I'm starting to despise the cheap effects that computers can generate. If there were actually ants like that in South The first 45min of the film was engaging and exciting. The last hour and a half of the film sorry to say derailed into self-indulgent, unfunny and over the top mess. Hollow characters never developed beyond weak accents and wacky expressions( thanks George Lucas) I'm starting to despise the cheap effects that computers can generate. If there were actually ants like that in South America no one would live there. Disappointing. Expand
  63. mikem
    May 23, 2008
    5
    Average in every way. no inspiration, no excitement, strictly going thru the motions.
  64. ChrisK
    May 24, 2008
    5
    When they were making this movie - somebody somewhere was thinking videogame.
  65. MichaelG.
    May 24, 2008
    5
    Usually when I see a movie like this, I suspend all belief and just have fun. But with Indiana Jones, I just thought it was stupid and pointless.
  66. JohnH
    May 25, 2008
    5
    Cool action sequences, bad script.
  67. JohnN.
    May 26, 2008
    5
    I liked it, but it doesn't live up to the other movies. It was a fun addition, yet there were several flaws. I did like the ants though.
  68. JohnF.
    May 27, 2008
    5
    What an unbelievably crushing letdown. All the talent they had working on this, and all the time they had to work on it, and they couldn't come up with anything better? The story is absurd. The acting is half-hearted, with the exception of Cate Blanchett, who seems like a fish out of water in this movie and does about as good as one can with a prepostrous character. The characters What an unbelievably crushing letdown. All the talent they had working on this, and all the time they had to work on it, and they couldn't come up with anything better? The story is absurd. The acting is half-hearted, with the exception of Cate Blanchett, who seems like a fish out of water in this movie and does about as good as one can with a prepostrous character. The characters are boring except for Indy and Marian. The effects are lousy -- not once do you feel like you are looking at something other than second-rate CG effects. The enemies are dull. The action sequences are either "been there/done that" or totally absurd (Tarzan LaBeouf... I'd call that the Indiana Jones version of Revenge of the Sith's "Noooooo" moment if there weren't several moments that qualified). The movie does have some moments, but the bad overshadows the good. I thought this movie flopped even harder than Phantom Menace. Based on this movie and the Star Wars prequels, George Lucas should probably retire before he does anymore damage. What a waste. Expand
  69. BenM.
    May 27, 2008
    5
    5 only because the acting wasnt terrible, but the plot was. As we have already seen Lucus has fallen far to the dark side, and shouldn't be allowed to write anymore. These old men have peaked long ago, time for some new blood, and new movies. Iron Man, for example, was great.
  70. Charlie
    Jul 24, 2008
    5
    It was good, it just wasn't Indy.
  71. Oct 11, 2010
    5
    Although this film retains all of the Indiana Jones necessities it goes way over the top when introducing the 'extra-dimensional' beings to the equation. This is Indiana Jones and not Star Trek. Apart from this, Ford is as lively and as brilliant as ever and keeps his comic timing but LeBoeuf, well, he just didn't cut it.
  72. Sep 1, 2010
    5
    Indiana Jones returns, but with Russians, skulls, atomic bombs & the 1950s.
    Well it wasn't as bad as I'd expected it to be. Being a massive Raiders fan there were some nice returns & references.
    Shia Labeouf plays his part pretty well whilst Cate Blanchett is on Autopilot as the stereotypical baddie. The main problems with it is that it's too far fetched, even for Indiana Jones (fridge &
    Indiana Jones returns, but with Russians, skulls, atomic bombs & the 1950s.
    Well it wasn't as bad as I'd expected it to be. Being a massive Raiders fan there were some nice returns & references.
    Shia Labeouf plays his part pretty well whilst Cate Blanchett is on Autopilot as the stereotypical baddie.
    The main problems with it is that it's too far fetched, even for Indiana Jones (fridge & waterfalls). These make the rubber dingy bit in Temple of Doom look perfectly viable.
    Also, the story is a bit ropey. I believe it was all George Lucas's idea so this explains why. Maybe he'll go back & change it in a few years?
    I also thought with all the CGI used, it didn't have the same charm as the other films.
    Expand
  73. Aug 27, 2010
    5
    If there is one thing this movie succeeds at it is entertainment, even if only in the campiest sense of the word. Unfortunately, in this case fans were hoping for so much more.
  74. Sep 24, 2011
    5
    "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is a decent movie to add into the Jones Franchise. The movie is way outdated with a 'old' performance by 'old' Harrison Ford. Looks like Spielberg & Lucas is getting older...
  75. Dec 31, 2012
    5
    The saddest thing about this movie.. is if it weren't for just a few really terrible scenes (that could leave some viewers insulted by suggesting they are so gullible and easy to please that they will buy into ridiculously outlandish and stupid scenes)... it could have fit nicely with part's 1 and 3. Unfortunately, this film was somewhere near the temple of doom (although I would sayThe saddest thing about this movie.. is if it weren't for just a few really terrible scenes (that could leave some viewers insulted by suggesting they are so gullible and easy to please that they will buy into ridiculously outlandish and stupid scenes)... it could have fit nicely with part's 1 and 3. Unfortunately, this film was somewhere near the temple of doom (although I would say Temple of Doom was still worse).

    The main scene that comes to mind is the part where Indy's son and the Russian are sword fighting on two jeeps... this is where I really made up my mind that this film was totally blown, even though it was already heading in that direction fast. The beauty of Indy 1 and 3 and many other good adventure classics, are that although very fantastical, they still have an element of believability within the world created by the movie.

    Indy and the Crystal Skulls completely lost sight of trying to stay believable, and I think that's why so many hardcore fans were really turned off almost feeling that their intelligence had been insulted (Although I know this certainly wasn't the intent of the makers, but just the reality of how many viewers felt).
    Expand
  76. Jan 13, 2013
    5
    The spark of action humour and villains has fizzled out and George Lucas has killed another good film series, repeating the disaster of The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones.
  77. Sep 4, 2013
    5
    [5.9] This is an adventure movie, and that's all. It surprised me, and was much better than I expected, but it's still an adventure movie that is almost self-consciously unimpressive. Making a good movie doesn't always involve dedicating it to nostalgia. It was fun, but it was horribly shallow.
  78. Nov 13, 2013
    5
    Crystal Skull has viewers bashing in theirs.
    Indiana Jones makes a very unnecessary sequel to the otherwise spotless series. The acting was okay, but the story was painfully flawed with a mediocre script, and a nearly pointless ending.
  79. May 5, 2014
    5
    Uhhh guys...what happened here? i kinda expected this frm Lucas after the prequels but speilberg? really? this was thebest you could do? you couldnt have just left Indy to be a trilogy ?
  80. Dec 7, 2014
    5
    This movie wasn't so good. AND I MEAN It WASN'T! How does aliens have anything to do with Indiana Jones! This is not Halo or Star Wars or Star Trek! What the hell? Hmph. Sorry. The movie is definitely GOOD but the Alien thing and the refrigerator part were kinda cool and dumb.
  81. Mar 28, 2015
    5
    Harrison Ford has still got it in him to return his landmark action hero to the screen and please old fans and new ones alike. To bad that everything else didn't turn out so well. Shia laBeouf was the worst choice for a supporting actor and a lot of the plot elements have been re-hashed. Watching it, it reminded me of the Jaws sequels. Not Jaws number two. Because that was the good one.
  82. Mar 20, 2016
    5
    I never thought Indiana Jones would be disappointing, but Spielberg has made it like it should have never been. While Harrison Ford still remains the star of the show as jones, shia loubof made it feel like he didn't care, that monkey swinging scene with shia, and losing its humor, this is not what I expected.
  83. 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
  84. 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
  85. 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
  86. 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
  87. 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.
  88. 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
  89. 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
  90. 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.
  91. 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.
  92. 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.
  93. 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.
  94. 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.
  95. 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
  96. TimmyT.
    May 30, 2008
    4
    Disappointing. Aliens in a Indiana Jones movie? Give me a break!
  97. 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
  98. 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
  99. RickyQ.
    Jun 4, 2008
    4
    The two things I
  100. 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.
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.