Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Paramount Pictures | Release Date: May 22, 2008
5.4
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 1401 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
571
Mixed:
436
Negative:
394
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
0
SteveW.May 23, 2008
Horrible in all ways! Terrible acting, ugly visual effects, substandard direction, and worst of all, horrendous screen-writing. May rank as my most hated film of all time! Don't waste your money on seeing this trash.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
RobKMay 23, 2008
Read the Village Voice review, it is right on the money with its review. George Lucas had his directorial hands all over this movie. I couldn't get over how fake this movie looked. There was no authenticity at all. Not a single action Read the Village Voice review, it is right on the money with its review. George Lucas had his directorial hands all over this movie. I couldn't get over how fake this movie looked. There was no authenticity at all. Not a single action scene looked real. The dialogue was atrocious. Karen Allen looked scary with her plastic surgery face grinning creepily throughout. There was no joy or crispness to the plot. Aliens? Really 19 years and that's the script they used one involving aliens. Indy always was about mythology and history but never sci fi. Awfully disapointing in every way. Its a shame… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
JonMay 23, 2008
Good spirit, but too far out. Even Indy doesn't survive 500 foot waterfalls, much less along with four others.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
DavidM.May 23, 2008
Seeing Harrison Ford was the only redeeming quality of this movie. It drifted so far from the origins of the series into a hard-to-believe concoction of failure.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
FrancescoC.May 23, 2008
Very bad. There aren't a story and the characters are awful.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
PurgueF.May 23, 2008
I've given the movie 2/10. Watching this movie I felt very disconnected due mostly to the bad acting, the plot holes, and inconceivable physics (Lucas made Gold magnetic). We all loved the originals but if you are on the fence about I've given the movie 2/10. Watching this movie I felt very disconnected due mostly to the bad acting, the plot holes, and inconceivable physics (Lucas made Gold magnetic). We all loved the originals but if you are on the fence about seeing this movie just think Star Wars Episode I. With worse acting.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
DamienD.May 23, 2008
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
MikeR.May 23, 2008
That was the last movie I ever see that has any involvement of George Lucas. You sir ought to be ashamed of yourself. 20 years to get this movie right and this is the schlock you put out. I expect this kind of garbage from Michael Bay and That was the last movie I ever see that has any involvement of George Lucas. You sir ought to be ashamed of yourself. 20 years to get this movie right and this is the schlock you put out. I expect this kind of garbage from Michael Bay and Brendan Fraser - but come on....utterly disasterous.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
vrblknchMay 24, 2008
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
AkioC.May 24, 2008
CG gophers! Shia Tarzan Labuff! Alien Flying Saucers! George Lucas has completed his descent. Game over Georgie!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
chadsMay 24, 2008
This is an absolute embarassment to Spielberg's resume. How could such an extremely great director make such a garbage film. Spielberg is by far one of my favorite directors and Schindlers list is by far the best movie ever made, but This is an absolute embarassment to Spielberg's resume. How could such an extremely great director make such a garbage film. Spielberg is by far one of my favorite directors and Schindlers list is by far the best movie ever made, but this indiana jones is ridiculously over the top and in an extremely cheesy way. Harrison Ford is that old grandpa you see everyone once in a while who always has a dumb one liner or joke for you and you just smile at how stupid it was to make him feel good. The comedy in this movie was worse than epic movie or meet the spartans, yes its possible. Also, the story is ten times more far fetched than any previous indiana jones. Why in the heck is supernatural alien crap the central focus in an indiana jones movie? are you kidding me? Please just go rewatch the other movies in the series because this is a failure in every way. I pray there is no indiana starring shia, i pray!… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
thedudeMay 24, 2008
It's really hard to figure out what happened here. Were they trying to make this as bad as possible? Lucas and Spielberg turn the cute and the camp up to eleven, and manage to make Temple of Doom look like a classic by comparison. It's really hard to figure out what happened here. Were they trying to make this as bad as possible? Lucas and Spielberg turn the cute and the camp up to eleven, and manage to make Temple of Doom look like a classic by comparison. Granted, it would have been hard for me to be satisfied with anything here, as Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of my all-time favorite films, but I went in expecting it to be around the quality of the Last Crusade, which wasn't too bad, or at worst Temple of Doom, which was bad but nowhere near this bad. I just can't think of anything worthwhile about this film. The more Lucas does now, the more he detracts from the excellent work he did in the late seventies and early eighties. I will be forever grateful to him for American Graffiti, Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Return of the Jedi, but everything since then is a disaster, and this film, unfortunately, just continues that trend.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
AliciaI.May 24, 2008
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 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.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
8
SlyF.May 24, 2008
I was not hyped and thus not dissatisfied at all. Indy 4 is a fun 148 min of escapism.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
NateBMay 27, 2008
The only thing that could've been worse is if it Indy was a snuff film starring my family.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
7
TylerG.May 27, 2008
Something about this was uninspired to me. It seemed like they went through the normal motions of a sequel. I found the whole experience to be pretty disappointing.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
DionT.May 27, 2008
One of the worst movies ever!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
BassemH.May 27, 2008
The movie started out with a shatered ark lying on the ground. How very appropriate - everything in this movie distroyed the legacy of this franchise. Unwatchable, terrible acting, Ravonwood smiling like an idiot in every scene and The movie started out with a shatered ark lying on the ground. How very appropriate - everything in this movie distroyed the legacy of this franchise. Unwatchable, terrible acting, Ravonwood smiling like an idiot in every scene and unbelievably bad story development. All I can say is wow and beg Lucas and Spielberg to stop ruining my childhood memories - stop going for the cash and retire!!!!… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
JonM.May 27, 2008
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 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.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
A.NonymousMay 27, 2008
This is not the same calibrated campiness that is enjoyably found in the prior three films. No. This time around Lucas in his worsening senility has gone way outside the franchise's established universe to cook up pointless sequences This is not the same calibrated campiness that is enjoyably found in the prior three films. No. This time around Lucas in his worsening senility has gone way outside the franchise's established universe to cook up pointless sequences that can only be taken as insulting to one's intellect. Any one of the following phrases could, on it's own, summarize the disaster this film is: - CG prairie dogs - Nuclear blast-launched refrigerator ride with injury-free exit - CG monkeys with Tarzan sequence - Aliens - Psychic powers - Riding over falls of Niagara proportions (or even greater) multiple times with nary a scratch - Did I mention CG prairie dogs? I found myself wincing in the theater at the sheer funless, pointless, stupidity that these and many other portions of this film had to offer.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
SaraHMay 27, 2008
This is Indiana Jones scrubbed free of anything that made it remotely fun- Lucas was concerned about making it too violent, so he "toned it down." Translation: it is incredibly lame. Almost anything that was good in it is a rehash of the old This is Indiana Jones scrubbed free of anything that made it remotely fun- Lucas was concerned about making it too violent, so he "toned it down." Translation: it is incredibly lame. Almost anything that was good in it is a rehash of the old movies, which had grit and grime. The film quality is muddy because it was digitally filmed, and the ridiculous plot- complete with aliens and crystal skulls- is laughable. If the idea of a squeaky clean, murky looking video game with lame jokes is appealing to you, then run, don't walk. And bring your grandma.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
UlicB.May 27, 2008
While the previous Indys have had us suspend belief for a few moments in the film, this latest romp asks us to suspend belief for much longer. Instead of a spiritual basis for the whole deal, they take a wrong turn, and make this more into While the previous Indys have had us suspend belief for a few moments in the film, this latest romp asks us to suspend belief for much longer. Instead of a spiritual basis for the whole deal, they take a wrong turn, and make this more into an X-Files movie than not. I was quite bored and unamused by it, others slept during the movie, and in the ending scenes, I wanted to give the screen the bird and yell "Screw you, George Lucas. SCREW. YOU."… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
GeMelleF.May 27, 2008
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
VizruyMay 27, 2008
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
LouF.Jul 11, 2008
This was a terrible and disappointing movie. The plot was non-existant. It was just a stream of cgi and unbelievable special effects. George Lucas tarnishes yet another classic trilogy. Thanks George!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
DavidJMay 15, 2008
The most amazing movie of the year so far, IJ:atKotCS is a masterpiece. Fantastic story, special effects, writing, and acting combine fruitfully to entertain anyone who lays eyes on it.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
PistolP.May 18, 2008
Best adventure film ever since Lastu Crusade
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
ErinL.May 18, 2008
This is classic Indiana Jones! It's superb in every way, from the storyline and action sequences to the characters and humor. Kudos to all involved!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
SamF.May 21, 2008
Someone needs to confiscate George Lucas' computer sometimes. He just kills it with green screen.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
RockySMay 22, 2008
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
GuerrerMay 22, 2008
It's extremely better than "Temple of Doom" and as spectacular as the other two. It has the truth Indiana Jones essence, combined well with the unknown powers of old myths and legends. ( ET ) I can not wait for the next film! Fate of It's extremely better than "Temple of Doom" and as spectacular as the other two. It has the truth Indiana Jones essence, combined well with the unknown powers of old myths and legends. ( ET ) I can not wait for the next film! Fate of Atlantis perhaps?… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
CoreyC.May 22, 2008
Hugely disappointing, what a waste. Lucas has nothing left to offer cinema. A joke.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
JaimieRMay 22, 2008
Sorry Indy fans...I was anticipating another exciting adventure with Dr. Jones & the gang. And it just didn't deliver. Credibility went out the window, as I found myself saying "Oh, come on..." with almost every action scene in the Sorry Indy fans...I was anticipating another exciting adventure with Dr. Jones & the gang. And it just didn't deliver. Credibility went out the window, as I found myself saying "Oh, come on..." with almost every action scene in the movie. Sure, it's a fantasy/adventure, but when characters decide to drive off a cliff without consequence or conduct a swordfight in separate vehicles amidst a seemingly obstacle-free jungle road, then the filmmakers just don't respect their audience. Plus, alien intelligence and cold war-era Russians provide little tension and evil for our protagonists. A true disappointment on many fronts.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
crystaldullMay 22, 2008
George Lucas needs to be stopped. I could have come up with a better plot in about nineteen minutes, he had nineteen years... The film degenerates into a bunch of CGI nonsense - I mean, for god's sake George and Steven, we've all George Lucas needs to be stopped. I could have come up with a better plot in about nineteen minutes, he had nineteen years... The film degenerates into a bunch of CGI nonsense - I mean, for god's sake George and Steven, we've all seen this sub-Playstation stuff before. Close encounters of the third-rate. While Spielberg should be castigated for what amounts to a vanity project, the real failing of the film is the utterly nonsensical story (thanks, GL); this is quite an achievement given that the first films involved the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail and Sankara stones, which let's face it looked like glow-in-the-dark potatoes. If the film had any saving grace, it was that Jar Jar Binks didn't feature; if he had, I wouldn't have been at all surprised. Yet another Darth Vader/Frankenstein 'Noooooooo' moment, which amounted to a ruination of fond childhood memories.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
ChadS.May 22, 2008
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
SteveMay 22, 2008
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
MrjonesMay 23, 2008
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
8
AndreF.May 28, 2008
I was very happy with this long awaited sequel. It wasn't Raiders, but nothing was. Those who are going to see Raiders will be really disappointed, but those who are going to see an Indiana Jones feature will be very happy with the I was very happy with this long awaited sequel. It wasn't Raiders, but nothing was. Those who are going to see Raiders will be really disappointed, but those who are going to see an Indiana Jones feature will be very happy with the result. Some of the scenes, don't want to spoil it, really are a stretch, but so is a whip casting professor. Hope to see another one.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
PaxsterOct 11, 2010
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 asAlthough 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.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
ERG1008Sep 1, 2010
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 whilstIndiana 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
WWABTT123Sep 18, 2010
19 years to wait for the 4th movie of Indiana Jones and it a half disappointing
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
8
spadenxJan 1, 2012
I thought it was good. Yes it did annoy me that it was about aliens but still, Its classic Indiana Jones. This film was really made to introduce a new generation of fans to Jones and I think it works good.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
BigMike71Oct 25, 2016
it suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit suckedit sucked

-10/10
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
XtremeNerdz12Feb 26, 2016
It was okayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy6666y666
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
AaronWasserman1Apr 11, 2016
So poor, failed attempt to recapture the classic trilogy. Harrison Ford is awesome once again as Indiana Jones, but... that's the only positive I can really say about this movie. Why Shia Labeoff????
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
night4Apr 28, 2016
This movie made me lose faith in humanity. Immediately after watching it, I sank into a deep depression and almost tried to end my life.

To this day, I refuse to acknowledge that this is an Indiana Jones movie.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
2
powerhouse1996Jul 5, 2016
Whats Wrong With This Movie Everything This Movie Is A Disgrace To The Indiana Jones Trademark And Should Be Wiped Off This Planet ... Why The Hell Would You Put Shia lebuff as "JR" like WTF Were There Smoking 40kg Of Weed When Makeing ThisWhats Wrong With This Movie Everything This Movie Is A Disgrace To The Indiana Jones Trademark And Should Be Wiped Off This Planet ... Why The Hell Would You Put Shia lebuff as "JR" like WTF Were There Smoking 40kg Of Weed When Makeing This Movie... Nuff Said I Gotta Go Watch The Original 3 Movies Just To Compensate The Pain Of Reviewing This **** Pile Of ****… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
8
JPKJun 29, 2019
Definitely Not A Bad Film
Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull is definitely not as great as the first 3, But this one is still quite fun.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
FilipeNetoFeb 22, 2018
In this film, the latest in Indiana Jones franchise so far, the explorer and archaeologist will go in search of the crystal skulls, objects about which abound myths. Directed by Steven Spielberg, this film has screenplay by David Koepp andIn this film, the latest in Indiana Jones franchise so far, the explorer and archaeologist will go in search of the crystal skulls, objects about which abound myths. Directed by Steven Spielberg, this film has screenplay by David Koepp and has Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett and Shia LaBeouf in the lead roles.

The script is the main problem of this film, totally unrealistic. The action scenes abused in computerized effects and eventually became so absurd that only lacked some laser swords to the characters during the fencing scene. There is still a certain character, "Professor Oxley", played by John Hurt, that I don't know what the hell is doing for 90% of the movie because he's left in the plot. And this kind of basic errors multiplied by the script. Harrison Ford still doesn't accuse the weight of his age, managing to fulfill his role in a very good way, but in a film that doesn't do justice to his talent. The stunning scenery are in accordance with the script, and are as unbelievable as it. The picture is very good, perhaps the best of the franchise to date, as well as special visual and sound effects, unsurprisingly. The soundtrack fulfilled her role without much brilliance.

I will never be able to understand why Spielberg almost cannot make a film without involving extraterrestrials. Is himself an alien giving clues to the human race in blockbuster movies? When directors want to impose by force an idea into a script this is what happens: Spielberg likes sci-fi, and is not able to keep it away from movies that don't belong to that style. This film, lamentably, is a confusing and boring mix of Indiana Jones and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", soaked with computerized effects as if Spielberg had never seen a computer before. I regret that the film hasn't been lost in the forest before finding theaters or our technology doesn't allow Mr. Spielberg to go for a ride to Mars, on a one-way trip, if he comes back trying to shove aliens where they are not needed.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
zeldaguy100Mar 29, 2019
poopy garbage. this movie makes me want to play Lego Indiana Jones. But i want to play that regardless of whatever happens in my life.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
zNeverSleepingAug 23, 2020
O filme me entreteve do inicio ao fim.

As cenas de ação foram diversas, apresentando situações cômicas e surpreendentes, do jeito que estamos acostumados em Indiana Jones. A cena do bar e a perseguição de carros na selva foram as minhasO filme me entreteve do inicio ao fim.

As cenas de ação foram diversas, apresentando situações cômicas e surpreendentes, do jeito que estamos acostumados em Indiana Jones. A cena do bar e a perseguição de carros na selva foram as minhas favoritas

A historia me manteve curioso. Quase tudo nesse filme teve uma amplitude maior. Isso geralmente é algo que me incomoda, mas aqui da certo na maioria das vezes, principalmente tendo em vista que os filmes antigos não são lá "pé no chão". O McHale me encheu um pouco o saco mudando de lado o tempo todo, mas de forma geral, nada me afastou da trama. Não posso deixar de comentar que os efeitos especiais acrescentam na magnitude da trama. A cena icônica da explosão nuclear + a nave alienígena saindo com tudo do solo foram excelentes.

O elenco tá muito bem. E pra ser sincero, até me surpreendi com o LaBeouf, que tava bem a vontade aqui depois de um certo tipo de duração do longa. Harrinson Ford não precisa fazer muito esforço pra ser carismático - aqui ele se sente em casa.

Não vou dizer que uma continuação era necessária, mas eu gostei do desfecho, e como entretenimento me satisfez. Alias, já posso considerar que esse filme aqui é muito superior ao segundo, que detesto.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
KlebartNov 1, 2019
Bad. Forced. Bad characters, bad twists, bad chase scenes. Movie killed the franchise.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
Goldenwind58Feb 1, 2023
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'm a huge Jones fan, love every movie, but not this one. It became cartoonish and strange. Not a good balance. The plot made no sense, and at the end there is straight up aliens. Pass.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
MarkB.May 30, 2008
If you were in first grade when the original Raiders of the Lost Ark (or for that matter, either of the first two sequels) came out, then you're now old enough to have first graders of your own! So it's perfectly understandable If you were in first grade when the original Raiders of the Lost Ark (or for that matter, either of the first two sequels) came out, then you're now old enough to have first graders of your own! So it's perfectly understandable that the massive groundswell of anticipation for the fourth installment of the Indiana Jones saga is a natural result of the world's near-unanimous affection for Steven Spielberg's and George Lucas' justly beloved 1981 original (even if reactions to 2 and 3 were more mixed) and equally so that exit reactions to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull fall almost evenly into two seperate camps (as the current Metacritic 5.2 viewer response indicates). Rose-colored memories CAN lead viewers to rate it at least on par with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (if not better), but out of respect for the gritty realism that Spielberg subsequently brought to Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan and Munich, let's call a skull a skull: Indy 4 stinks. Forget comparisons to worthy Raiders knockoffs like Romancing the Stone: this isn't even as good as National Treasure 2 (not that National Treasure 2 was any good to begin with). It's expected that Spielberg, Lucas and credited writer David Koepp (Jurassic Park) would incorporate Harrison Ford's advanced age into this movie's characterization of Hollywood's most human action hero, but Jones comes off here like that cranky old guy who yells at school kids for cutting across his yard; close your eyes and you almost hear Dana Carvey! Speaking of which, Cate Blanchett's vocal characterization of the series' most one-dimensional villain ever would better have been done by June Foray as the original Natascha Fatale; this isn't the worst example of an Oscar-winning actress slumming since Shirley MacLaine did Cannonball Run 2, but it's in the parking lot of the same ballpark. And the everyman-junior quality that Shia LaBoeuf brought so successfully to his past work, making Holes a terrific entertainment, Disturbia a tolerable one and Transformers somewhat less painful than a red hot poker up your most sensitive orifice is totally out of place here; you don't put a teddy bear on a motorcycle and call it dangerous. Only Karen Allen, everyone's favorite Indy-go Girl (including mine, even though I'm a big Kate Capshaw defender) comes close to scoring, but the writing completely lets her and memories of her down; why does the wonderfully gritty Marion Ravenwood, who gave as good as she got, spend so much time here sitting on the sidelines? Aside from Crystal Skull's bluntness in treating both communism and anti-communism as dangerous forces (which may have been a calculated decision to avoid offending either the Right or the Left) its view of the 1950s is distressingly superficial even for pop entertainment; it comes off as the work of people who watched every episode of Happy Days and about a third of Rebel Without a Cause, but even that wouldn't matter if the special effects and action sequences were up to snuff. They aren't. A very wise friend once described the original Raiders as the best movie of all time because it had very few computer effects...just blood, sweat and tears. Well, times have changed and not for the better: this installment is nearly all digital and totally bloodless. The obligatory Attack of the Creepy-Crawlies in the first three Indy movies (snakes, bugs and rats, respectively) worked because the creatures were (or seemed real); the red ants here aren't. (When the killer-ant sequence in the 1954 Charlton Heston-Eleanor Parker adventure-soaper The Naked Jungle STILL comes across as infinitely more harrowing, you know you're in trouble!) And let's not forget the cheesily-rendered title object itself: the crystal skull, which looks like one of those plastic see-through models sold in hobby shops and stuffed with Saran Wrap, is so unconvincing it makes The DaVinci Code's cereal-box decoder device look like Rosebud. The final "hat joke" seen just before the closing credits threatens a fifth installment, but if Spielberg biographer Douglas Brode is right in theorizing that every Raiders movie deals with a major religious belief system (Judaism in Lost Ark, Hinduism in Temple of Doom, Christianity in Last Crusade and New Agephilosophy here), then the massive disappointment expressed by many Indyphiles (like me) in this poorly paced, endlessly self-referential chapter, Spielberg's sloppiest and most indifferently directed film since Hook, would indicate that he, Lucas and Ford won't be getting around to making the Muslim one.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JoeM.Aug 10, 2008
What's all the fuss? Preposterous yes, but also highly entertaining. And as I recall, that's what all the Indiana Jones films have been, I mean come on, Temple of Doom is one of the silliest films I've ever seen, but it's What's all the fuss? Preposterous yes, but also highly entertaining. And as I recall, that's what all the Indiana Jones films have been, I mean come on, Temple of Doom is one of the silliest films I've ever seen, but it's still a great thrill ride and so is this. A worthy entry in the series. Haters, GET OVER IT.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
LaurenS.Jan 20, 2009
Indiana Jones yet again takes the thrilling attempt of adventure, CGI and action sequences make it a great movie. But it's better than the 1st (raiders of the lost ark) and the 3rd (The last crusade), the 2nd one was not good at all. Indiana Jones yet again takes the thrilling attempt of adventure, CGI and action sequences make it a great movie. But it's better than the 1st (raiders of the lost ark) and the 3rd (The last crusade), the 2nd one was not good at all. Indiana Jones, good movie, but not spielberg's best.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
mesoNov 20, 2008
Dull, hollywood cheese. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JackS.Nov 22, 2008
I have to say...this did make me a little disappointed, it is really random, some of the time I didn't get it. I love Lucas and Spielberg's films, like I loved the Jurassic Park. But, this was just a little to fast, it did turn out I have to say...this did make me a little disappointed, it is really random, some of the time I didn't get it. I love Lucas and Spielberg's films, like I loved the Jurassic Park. But, this was just a little to fast, it did turn out to be a decent ending and still have some good action and humor.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
BrandonS.Oct 16, 2008
Impossible to fulfill my hopes, but it totally exceeded my expectations. An excellent movie, and a fine sequel.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
DavidFOct 17, 2008
The first 100 minutes of this movie is classic Indiana Jones and worth a 9 or 10. The last 20 minutes were rediculous. If voting for that alone this movie would get a 2 from me.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JayH.Oct 10, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
DanielDec 8, 2008
This movie was a horrible experience, and for people who appreciated the good movies of the series (1st and 3rd), it is also an insult. 10 minutes into it i was already trying to figure out what the hell spielberg and lucas were thinking This movie was a horrible experience, and for people who appreciated the good movies of the series (1st and 3rd), it is also an insult. 10 minutes into it i was already trying to figure out what the hell spielberg and lucas were thinking when they made this. The movie barely makes any sense on it's own terms, let alone ours. I mean god, i gotta ask this, can you really survive a nuclear blast by HIDING IN A FRIDGE? Questions like these are the ones you'll find yourselves asking throughout this movie. And it's such a boring experience, whereas in previous movies, you felt excited and some emotion as to the things that we're being discussed and found (ark or the cup of christ), here they don't even bother with any of that, it's just a 200 mile per second experience where nothing is really analized or explored, and nothing makes sense. Avoid this movie at all costs, it is not indiana jones by any means, it's a waste of money and time.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
HenryJ.Oct 3, 2008
So bad, you'll be angry.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
SeanC.Oct 30, 2008
A disgusting display of Lucas' CGI. His answer to every problem in filmmaking seems to be, let's just do it in post with computer graphics. Spielberg's motive's for making this film are unbeknowst to me, the acting was A disgusting display of Lucas' CGI. His answer to every problem in filmmaking seems to be, let's just do it in post with computer graphics. Spielberg's motive's for making this film are unbeknowst to me, the acting was lousy and the story, weird and disconnected (Even for an Indiana Jones Movie) and the effects were even worse. I wouldn't mind another Indiana Jones, just don't let Lucas get his mits on it and let Harrison Ford take a seat. I enjoy sequels that are done in appreciation of the previous films, this was not the case. I will not be buying this unholy mess on DVD and I don't recommend it to anyone.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
ThomasW.Oct 6, 2008
Enjoyable film, couldn't see much wrong with it, I guess some people expected way too much and thought it was going to best the originals, which is kinda unreasonable and unrealistic to be honest. Had everything an Indy film needs, Enjoyable film, couldn't see much wrong with it, I guess some people expected way too much and thought it was going to best the originals, which is kinda unreasonable and unrealistic to be honest. Had everything an Indy film needs, action, chases, fist fights, and a sense of awe and discovery.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
P.J.S.Oct 6, 2008
This is the worst kind of Hollywood drivel. The whole film looks like a Saturday morning kid show shot on a badly dressed sound stage. Other Indy movies were fun and action filled. This movie tries too hard to be fun, so it'd nothing This is the worst kind of Hollywood drivel. The whole film looks like a Saturday morning kid show shot on a badly dressed sound stage. Other Indy movies were fun and action filled. This movie tries too hard to be fun, so it'd nothing but forced humor that's never funny, and it comes off as just plain dumb. If I had not been in the theater with other people, I would have walked out.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MattAMay 22, 2008
Indiana Jones proves that Harrison Ford can still portray a believeable action Hero, 19 years later in his life. The art direction and cinematography was pretty, as well as the special effects. However, the movie is plagued by campy plot Indiana Jones proves that Harrison Ford can still portray a believeable action Hero, 19 years later in his life. The art direction and cinematography was pretty, as well as the special effects. However, the movie is plagued by campy plot twists and some cheesy action sequences that almost feel like George Lucas said, "I want to play too." It's hard for me to hate an Indiana Jones movie, and i can't possibly say that i didn't find it at least entertaining to see one of my favorite characters back on screen. If it wasn't Indiana Jones, it'd probably be a 5 or 6, but Indy gives it that extra bump.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JoshS.May 22, 2008
Good, campy, dumb fun. I had a great time. It's probably as good or slightly better than Temple of Doom. I could have done without some of the CGI. The CGI animals, CGI refrigerator bouncing wildly and cartoonishly around the desert, Good, campy, dumb fun. I had a great time. It's probably as good or slightly better than Temple of Doom. I could have done without some of the CGI. The CGI animals, CGI refrigerator bouncing wildly and cartoonishly around the desert, some of the CGI backgrounds, etc. just do not sit well with me. That being said, there were some great one-liners, lots of over-the-top chase scenes, fun stunts, and the characteristic goofiness that we've all come to love. I can't wait to see it, and the rest of the series, again.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
RobertB.May 22, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BenRMay 22, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
SlumpsB.May 23, 2008
A film wholly unconnected to human intuition, though not without gratuitously empty references to the motifs of the 'Indy' installments that came before it. The film's vein attempts to flesh out its own credibility are as A film wholly unconnected to human intuition, though not without gratuitously empty references to the motifs of the 'Indy' installments that came before it. The film's vein attempts to flesh out its own credibility are as non-believable as the preposterous veil of Russian accented-speech provided by the train-wreck of a character displayed by Cate Blanchett. There is not a wide shot to be found in the movie entire, save for the distracting glow of CGI shots George Lucas clearly devised in a wet dream. Shia 'The Beef' LeBoeuf is in obvious Academy Award form, offering a plethora of hilarious one-liners and not a single reasonable excuse for his presence in the film. John Hurt's portrayal of the lovably-one-dimensional 'Ox' left me wondering if he was payed for his role or if he had merely gotten drunk and refused to leave the set. My only hope is that I will muster the courage to watch the original trilogy some day in the future.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
PaulM.May 23, 2008
I have to say this movie doesn't disappoint, however it doesn't really impress either. With better than just average performances from Kidder, Ford and LaBeouf, I was surprised to discover the terrible "russian" accent delivered I have to say this movie doesn't disappoint, however it doesn't really impress either. With better than just average performances from Kidder, Ford and LaBeouf, I was surprised to discover the terrible "russian" accent delivered was by none other than Cate Blanchett. Terribly cheesy. Like Gorgonzola. The special effects are, as expected from George, fairly spectacular. Sadly the scenes of showing me a ground hog's reaction to a nuclear explosion are reminiscent of Jar Jar Binks. The cinematography, editing and stunts are all fine, but to wrap it all up, the story is far too thin to let you walk away saying "Wow I wish it was longer". It's more like " Wow I wish I had waited to rent this."… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
NateHMay 23, 2008
I thought this movie was very good. The action is great, the story is well thought out and really cool, and there are a lot of hidden easter eggs for indy fans. My only complaint is that this should have been done sooner.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DanR.May 23, 2008
This is classic Indiana Jones. The formula has not been modernized to appeal to the more jaded theater audience of today. Those unaccustomed to watching fun, adult-oriented action movies may not get it. For those of us that remember and This is classic Indiana Jones. The formula has not been modernized to appeal to the more jaded theater audience of today. Those unaccustomed to watching fun, adult-oriented action movies may not get it. For those of us that remember and loved them, however, it is an absolute blast. They don't make them like this anymore, and that's a shame.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
EvanTMay 24, 2008
This movie stays defiantly true to the previous films. There was only one problem that I myself had with this film, but I still rated it a ten becuase it is just my tastes. With the expanded tech in recent years, most of the effects are This movie stays defiantly true to the previous films. There was only one problem that I myself had with this film, but I still rated it a ten becuase it is just my tastes. With the expanded tech in recent years, most of the effects are digital, which is a dissapointment, but my good sir do not fret, this is as genuine an Indy experience as you will get. 10/10… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JOsMay 24, 2008
Certainly sucked. Three word summary: Prairie Dog, Monkeys.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
StevenK.May 24, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
GerryM.May 25, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
RussellD.May 25, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MichaelB.May 25, 2008
This is the worst Indiana Jones movie by such a wide margin it made me long to watch Temple of Doom again. The best thing I can say about Lucas' ridiculously bad script (he needed nearly 20 years to come up withthis??) is that there is This is the worst Indiana Jones movie by such a wide margin it made me long to watch Temple of Doom again. The best thing I can say about Lucas' ridiculously bad script (he needed nearly 20 years to come up withthis??) is that there is no Jar Jar Binks.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
TimCMay 25, 2008
Cinematagrahy was the best part of this movie. There was no feeling of adventure or risk that the previous Indiana movies provided. The ending was a huge disappointment based on the time period and what happened. The sense of wonder about Cinematagrahy was the best part of this movie. There was no feeling of adventure or risk that the previous Indiana movies provided. The ending was a huge disappointment based on the time period and what happened. The sense of wonder about the crystal skull was a huge let down when the ending was revealed.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JDcookMay 25, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DanB.May 26, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AaronE.May 26, 2008
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
BrandonMay 26, 2008
Great film, although no where close to the older Indy's. It could have done without a few of the scenes.. some of which just seemed like last minute thoughts and others were just cheesed out (Shia swinging from branches, WTF was that?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DavidGMay 26, 2008
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JasonTMay 26, 2008
This could have only been more disappointing if Ja Jar Binks was in it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
KentCMay 26, 2008
You all need to relax and stop giving this movie such harsh reviews. This was an incredible action movie, much better than other summer blockbusters like iron man or speed racer, and that jungle chase scene was one of the most exciting chase You all need to relax and stop giving this movie such harsh reviews. This was an incredible action movie, much better than other summer blockbusters like iron man or speed racer, and that jungle chase scene was one of the most exciting chase scenes in any movie I've seen. The parts that did bring the movie down was that stupid monkey rope swinging scene, and the plot got silly at the end, but the main thing was that the film was dark. It was a bit hard to see in the beginning until you got used to it, but they could have brightened the film up. Kind of hurt the eyes a bit.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
ChrisSMay 26, 2008
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
LaurettaM.May 27, 2008
The new Indiana Jones was a let down. It was like the ride at Disney Land. I was expecting a "GREAT" movie but it was "CHEESEY"!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
davepMay 27, 2008
Don't see this at the late show or the guy sweeping the floor will have to wake you to lift your feet.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
TadG.May 27, 2008
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MikeQ.May 27, 2008
Very fun movie. Don't listen to all these fanboys complaining about aliens. This is no more far fetched than the other 3. I really enjoyed this movie and cant wait for the next.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MatthewN.May 27, 2008
This is one of the worst films I have ever scene. They have destroyed what was once a good film series, it should never have been brought back.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
FantasyMay 27, 2008
Exploitation of a once great character. REFUND!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
SamC.May 27, 2008
Indiana Jones has always been unbelievable. Are Aliens any more preposterous than killer angels or an immortal crusader? The start is a bit meh, Blanchett is useless as the villain but this sticks faithfully to the Indie formula and I really Indiana Jones has always been unbelievable. Are Aliens any more preposterous than killer angels or an immortal crusader? The start is a bit meh, Blanchett is useless as the villain but this sticks faithfully to the Indie formula and I really enjoyed it.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
MattE.May 28, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JeffA.May 28, 2008
Loved the movie - great action set pieces, great humor, great finale! Bring on Indy V!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
attaboyMay 28, 2008
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 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… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
GeoffGMay 28, 2008
Not the Best Indy but still very entertaining and fun. I left the theartre with a satisfied grin. Agree that Tarzan moment just took me out of the movie and cringe like everyone else. Did not fit at all George and Steve.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
Page:
More From This Movie

65 Critic Reviews

5.4 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 72 The Sheep Detectives
5 68 Crime 101
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL