User reviews

I'll be the first to admit it is nothing even remotely close to as good as the Last Crusade, but I still enjoyed the adventure of it. I liked the addition of Shia Labeouf and was hoping that the series could potentially continue on with him. Unfortunately the actor dealt with many issues but seems to have them resolved now. Unfortunately the newest movie somewhat eliminates the hope of him coming back to take on the role going forward, although it's still not impossible for them to make this happen if they really wanted to.

Pros:

• still a good Indy adventure
• the crystal skull certainly wasn't as cool as the holy grail but it still had a cool mysticism to it
• enjoyed some of the runaway action scenes.

• enjoyed a little change up from Nazis being the bad guys to the Soviets. Both were horrific totalitarian regimes, just feel Soviets haven't been as exposed as well as the Nazis have in cinema.

Cons:

• after returning the crystal skull I was hoping for something a little more spectacular
• Cate Blanchett I just don't see as a villain, and the accent was not convincing to me.

• sort of rushed into the story.

• no great reason provided why Ravenwood and him didn't figure it out together before and seems incredibly unlikely she wouldn't tell them about their son.

• the triple agent character just became incredibly annoying and wasn't really necessary to most of the story.

To be honest, I kind of expected this to happen. People are going nuts about aliens and area 51 stuff. Like Jurassic World Dominion, it's about locusts and a dinosaur sanctuary in Europe, but they gave more 10 star ratings than the other sequels. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is better than what everyone is saying. It gives you good visuals and action to love and decent characters to have a rollercoaster ride to this movie. The only Issues I have with it is some of the alien stuff, Mac the traitor, and the storylines can't bring down the movie that much. Also, I like the beginning where it plays the song Hound Dog.

I came into this watching the previous original trilogy, and was expecting it to be the weakest, as I've heard and although that is true, I think it gets too much hate for what it is. I actually enjoyed this movie, and although not on the same level as the original trilogy, it still was fun to watch, and with much less comedy aspect, it delved into old flames and potential new comers to this series. Although it was fun they was still times where the plot did annoy me, and it made Indiana look more stupid and silly than he is, which is not really what his character is about. In the end I would recommend this movie especially if you're watching the franchise from the beginning.

Usually, when you go to see an action/adventure movie, especially an Indiana Jones movie, you're going to suspend your disbelief and just allow yourself to "get into" the movie. These kinds of movies are supposed to be mindless escapist fun. Still, one might expect some small modicum of plausibility or connection to the real world. When it comes to "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," forget about suspending disbelief. Just pretend you're in another dimension altogether. If you do that, you'll have have met one of the two prerequisites for seeing this movie. (If you don't believe me now, you will when you see this film and see our hero survive a cataclysmic event in a fairly cartoonish manner a mere 15 minutes into the film.) The other prerequisite is that you've seen the other three movies...religiously. A huge chunk of the entertainment value of this film comes from nostalgia, in-jokes, and self-parody. It is an entertaining movie and I had fun and laughed while I was watching it and the reason for this is because we are either enjoying seeing all of the same old gags done once again in a bigger and cooler way, or we are enjoying seeing those gags mocked. Trusty bullwhip? Check. Fedora? Check. Long car chase with fighting and leaping and what-not? Check. Dark tombs lit only by torches? Check. Gross creepy crawly critters? Check.

This is what makes the movie entertaining, but is also what prevents it from greatness and what makes me hesitant to call it a true "Indiana Jones" movie. George Lucas (who co-wrote the screenplay) has tried to do here what he did to the "Star Wars" prequels, namely that he thinks that appealing to the fan base with in-jokes, self-parody, and re-hashing the same old stuff can take the place of actually writing a a story that can stand on its own merits. The "Star Wars" prequels failed because Lucas could not get past his constant references to the original trilogy and so instead created fan fiction instead of true prequels. (Well, there was also the fact that Lucas' dialogue SUCKED.) Here, the stunts and action sequences and in-jokes keep us feeling entertained during the course of the film, but when we walk away, we wonder where was the real story.

Indiana Jones is a homage to 1930s serials about treasure hunters. He's out of place in the 1950s. Also out of place are the Soviets(led by Cate Blanchett in a Rosa Kleb-like role). And there are many, many, MANY instances where you will get to wondering just how implausible the next stunt will be. All of that I can put up with, though, and in fact can and do add to the entertainment value of the film. What I could not put up with was the ending, which will remind you not of Indiana Jones but of the ending to another Spielberg movies that pre-dates "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

This movie is lots of fun to watch, but it doesn't take itself seriously and probably shouldn't be part of the Indiana Jones canon.

I reached a movie buff conclusion after the 2nd set of Star wars films. It's simply not possible to top an iconic, legendary film or series. The original can't be beat, and is next to impossible to match. Doesn't matter who directs, stars, the effects, etc - can't be done. Being sure of this in advance made the Crystal Skull easier for me to take - but I still have to be critical - because they let us down on the simple stuff. My other movie buff observation is - its ALWAYS the writing first. The STORY. The other stuff flows from that, making the film better or worse. In Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the writing failed us. The story does not hold together well and the dialog rings intermittently false throughout the film. I wanted to love the movie - but I was disappointed. When I heard they were all waiting for the "right" script to make another Indy film - that sounded good. But it appears that wasn't really true. I have to assume they all just decided the timing was "right" and it would be fun to get the old group together to do a flick - because the script was poor. The movie is more like an attempt at what an Idiana Jones adventure SHOULD look like - but with no real substance. A series of Indiana like dangerous situations and exploits strung together loosely with some attempts at humor thrown in. But no clear beginning to end plot. No disaster to avert, no one to rescue. Nothing in particular to root for... The actors seemed a bit uncomfortable to me - even Harrison Ford himself. Indy's love interest from Raiders (Marian) was underutilized and apparently a bit rusty in the acting department. She seemed to be just "thrown in" to add a nostalgic romantic element. The young Mutt character was well cast and did a good job with what he had to work with. The story arc regarding Indys age, his old love and young Mutt is dealt with - but could have been a better, more solid part of a more well written story. I'm glad I saw the film. I enjoyed seeing Indy again, but my hope that I'd be wanting to go again didn't pan out. It's worth only one visit - and that just to see some Indiana JonesLIKE adventures - in a story that doesn't make much sense. Sorry to break bad news to anyone who reads fan reviews - but that's my story and I'm sticking to it. George - you should have fussed over the writing a bit more and Harrison - I'd have waited longer for the right script. This was a weak effort and it didn't need to be. Mr Lucas and Mr Spielberg -you surprised me on this one - and let us all down on the story. Just my opinion :) Scott (an Indy Fan).

Many will definitely argue this addition to the 'Indiana Jones' saga was unnecessary and somewhat confusing. But as another film, you can't deny Spielberg's crisp direction and Harrison Ford's slick leading performance. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is visually a blockbuster success, though potholes could be avoided in its story and plot, it's still stable nonetheless.

Reading all the comments here, it looks like this is one of the worst films ever made, and it's absolute rubbish, Shia's character is Jar Jar Binks, etc.

But it's earning a ton of money, and the rankings (7.6) are high, so what does that tell you? That compared to the haters, MOST people came to his movie expecting a fun adventure movie and got it.

Look, the Indiana Jones movies aren't flawless. Even in the previous movies, you had to suspend belief (people melting? someone surviving a fall from a plane just on a craft? a Knight living more than 1,000 years?) and just enjoy the action scenes - and you have them here! Mutt swinging on the vines is real corny but the car chase through the jungle, complete with sword fight, fisticuffs, giant ants, etc. - they are what you can expect from an Indiana Jones movie. And Cate Blanchett is a SUPER villain, Harrison somehow makes it all believable for him to still be an action star at 60 plus, and it's great to see Marion Ravenwood again.

STAR WARS I was a major major disappointment, but this one is NOT. We have wanted to see Harrison Ford suit up as Indy again, and here he has a good cast with him, and yet we bash the movie because it isn't RAIDERS? Nothing can be as much fun as the first Indy Jones movie. But this one is still MUCH MUCH better than any adventure movie out there for the past several years.

Just watch it with an open mind. Don't expect miracles, but fun entertainment for 2 hours and you will get it.

19 years after a perfect ending to the trilogy, behold, George Lucas, Frank Marshall and Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford come together again to produce Indiana Jones' fourth adventure. This time, the film pays honor to the science fiction films B films of the time. The decision was certainly risky, since almost two decades had passed, having to introduce the character, now older and without the same mobility as before, to a new generation, in addition to having to overcome one of the most acclaimed trilogies of cinema at all times.

This fourth adventure by the American archaeologist continues to bring good doses of adventure, ingenious scenes and fun to those who follow. In the three Indiana Joness of 1981, 1984 and 1989, the MacGuffins are the treasures: the Ark of the Covenant, the Sankara stones and the Holy Grail, respectively. For the fourth film, Lucas wanted to put ETs in the middle; Ford and Spielberg, not so much. They reached a consensus that it is the translucent skull of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. David Koepp's script follows the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull structure, which is identical to that of Raiders of the Lost Ark: good guys and bad guys fighting for terrain in a race that will only be solved in the final corner. The difference is that in the new cat and mouse game, the Nazis leave and the Soviets enter the full 1950s.

The script seeks to fill in the gaps left by Connery (who refused to abandon retirement), Elliott (who died in 1992) and John Rhys-Davies (who overcharged) from creating obvious and unimaginative substitutes: the teacher Oxley, which Hurt is forced to interpret distantly, as if in a trance, for almost the entire film; the dean who appears at the head of Jim Broadbent; and the poorly developed assistant experienced by Ray Winstone. Meanwhile, paling in front of the villains of the original films, Cate Blanchett plays the Russian Irina Spalko in an absolutely caricatural way, never sounding threatening and letting her hairstyle, costume and accent do all the work of "composing" the character. On the other hand, it is undeniable that Lucas had a good idea in bringing an impetuous young man as a counterpoint to the aging protagonist, which, in an ideal world, could recapture the wonderful dynamics established by Ford and Connery in "The Last Crusade", oscillating only Indiana's stance towards the frowning side of the spectrum - and, in fact, this effort can be seen in the scene in which Mutt, after a bold move, looks with a proud smile at Indy, who returns a sullen expression (exactly as it had happened so many times in the 89 film). Unfortunately, this dynamic appears only punctually throughout the projection, which prefers to spend more time on the repeated (and only occasionally funny) references to the hero's more advanced age. Likewise, Marion's return is disappointing for not rescuing the explosive chemistry seen in Hunters, since everything here seems just an uninspired imitation of what happened in the original: the couple's fights seem forced, as well as the eventual (and inevitable) romance.

The irregularity of the script, however, is not only characteristic of the development of the characters. Contrary to what happened in the previous films, the Indiana Jones plot and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is not only not interesting, it is also developed in a chaotic way. The plot of the crystal skulls is the worst of the entire series, even surpassing the already claudicating of Sankara stones in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom: you never know what the skulls really are, what they can do, how they came to be here and why there is a need to return them. The story is so absurd that Spielberg, Koepp and Lucas simply have no idea how to end it, culminating in an ending that comes close to catastrophe.

If before Indy's missions were explained in a simple and objective way, putting the narrative in motion quickly, here the searches and deductions of the heroes take a long time - and the worst: nevertheless, they do not become clearer. Furthermore, although there is an obvious symbolic Catholic aspect in the presence of 13 aliens (Christ and the apostles), the nature of that temple and the objectives of the creatures are never clear. In fact, the fact is that the plot of The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is simply bad - and Lucas's insistence on using it is probably the biggest factor responsible for the failure of this new film, since not even Indy's motivations are explained satisfactorily: why, for example, does he insist so much on "returning" the skull as Oxley wishes? And why did Ox, after failing in his first effort to enter the temple, return the artifact to the place where he had found it instead of saving it for later attempts? And why do certain creature (s) act that way at Irina's request? Unfortunately, instead of trying to refine the plot, Koepp tries to disguise the absurdities through ridiculous lines like "They went back to the space between the spaces" (in fact, practically everything that John Hurt has to say in this film hurts his ears).

Another thing that bothers is the fact that Spielberg sometimes treats the characters as unbeatable. Some of the best scenes in the entire series are forced and exaggerated, like the mine chase in 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' or the classic truck moment in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'. These sequences, however, also worked thanks to the reactions of the characters, who were surprised by the facts. In Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, they seem to be sure they will never be hurt, resulting in moments that are difficult to swallow like the jump of Marion's jeep. There is a limit to common sense. Despite this, the action sequences mostly work. From the start in the car duel in the desert with Soviet soldiers, going through the whole sequence in the warehouse and in the bizarre ghost town (except the refrigerator scene, of course), the motorcycle chase in college, culminating in the forest race, including the falls in the geographically incorrect Iguazu Falls and the revelation of El Dorado, what we see is pure Indiana Jones, albeit with a Steven Spielberg much less inspired by evoking truly unforgettable moments. Again, he exaggerates like the endless sword fight on top of the cars and the dark "Tarzan moment" with Mutt in the vines, but, in general, the director gets it right by materializing Koepp's ideas in a harmonic set.

However, with the exception of a motorcycle chase in the first act, nothing in this project reminds us of brilliant moments like Indy and the Nazi trucks (in Raiders of the Lost Ark), the chase on the underground tracks (in Temple of Perdition) or the tank fight (in The Last Crusade). Yes, there is a long fight over jeeps in the jungle, but the most that Spielberg can create is a beaten mutt gag being hit between the legs by the local vegetation. In addition, the sequence is orchestrated in a confusing, almost chaotic, bordering on laziness when, after the fight comes to an end, new Russian vehicles appear out of nowhere. In the same way, if the joke involving the tree that hits the communist agents hanging from the rock is even funny, it is sad to realize that, soon after, those same henchmen reappear next to Irina, as if nothing had happened. And why does Spielberg insist on showing agile natives hiding in the temple and other ruins if their nature is never explained clearly and they have no effect on the narrative's development?

The production tried to use the maximum of practical and stunt effects to avoid overuse of computer graphics. Despite using many practical effects, a 2008 production could not very easily evade CGI, and here I have it that Spielberg made a premeditated - and ultimately misunderstood - choice to make computer graphics emulate the effects practical that would have been possible, to a certain extent, in the 1980s, bringing an "old-fashioned" veneer to the film which, I am the first to say, sometimes seems strange. Even with all its problems, however, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull works at least as an exercise in nostalgia: it is pleasurable, as a movie buff, to review the Paramount logo turning into a real version that opens the adventure or accompanies the hero's path through the red line on a map. In addition, Spielberg is adept at rescuing all the language of previous films, from the constant travellings that bring us closer to the characters at dramatically relevant moments to the occasional backlight that marks the (here, only supposed) strength of the villains. Likewise, director of photography Janusz Kaminski does an impeccable job in recreating the style of the now retired Douglas Slocombe, recapturing his preference for shadows and silhouettes, for plans that reveal only the characters' eyes and for the elegant sepia tone that gives the film a classic tone that, even beautiful, does not betray the homage to the B productions made by the series. Not to mention another soundtrack by John Williams. How not to shiver with the Indy theme? Revisiting classics and showing that he is still a master at what he does, this trio - Lucas, Spielberg and Ford - proves that the new doesn't always mean the best. In some cases, luckily, the experience still has a lot to say.

After a long nineteen year wait, Indiana Jones is back on the big screen hamming it up and continuing his search for rare and wild artifacts that could seriously take someone's life away. This film has Jones in the late 1950s fighting against the Soviets in order to obtain a crystal skull found in Peru which they believe will give them absolute knowledge over all other countries. Without telling the spoilers, it is important to state right here and now that this is definitely the weakest written of the four films. It simply doesn't give the magic and suspense that Raiders was able to throughout the entire running time. Of course the acting is good with Harrison Ford looking as good as ever and Karen Allen and Shia Labeouf supporting him well. The directing by Steven Spielberg is solid as we get some nice chase scenes and the pace is just fine. Still, it's that script that is giving me winces of pain as I watch this film. Of course, you shouldn't go into this thinking it was going to be as good or better than Raiders or the Last Crusade. I didn't expect too much and that is exactly what I got; not too much but enough to recommend for all fans of the original three to see. Are the first three the best? Of course. Should they have made this fourth one? Probably not. Still, if you are a fan, it doesn't hurt too much to see Indy crack the whip one more time.

The problems with 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' are manifold and it certainly does not match up to it's predecessors. The film looks too artificial. What worked with the other movies was that, taking into account that they were made before the CGI boom, they looked real. Here the overuse of CGI and bluescreen grafting is painfully apparent. The story is a mess. It lacks coherency and there are too many uninteresting subplots. And, what was with the aliens? Does Spielberg harbour a secret obsession for UFOs? The pacing is slow at times and boring. The dialogues are not anything noteworthy and the action sequences, while some are fun to watch, others are plain bad and again, the prominent CGI stands in the way. With the exception of Cate Blanchett, none of the actors stand out, even Harrison Ford plays the clichéd hero. Shia LeBeouf is miscast. Ray Winstone is wasted and the rest are forgettable. Blanchett is barely recognizable as the sexy Ukrainian military villainess. She looks alluring and I her use of the accent is hilarious. She makes an awesome baddie which somewhat makes up for some of the flaws. Among the few other likable things about the movie is the chase sequence which features some well choreographed stunts. Overall, 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' disappoints and only Cate Blanchett makes up for some of the flaws.

I had the chance to watch the new Indiana Jones last night here in Germany as a preview. Much can be said about this movie, but it needs only four words to describe this film properly: INDIANA JONES IS BACK!!! Thank you Steven & George! When I watched the old Indiana Jones movies last week, I was a little frightened, because I thought the filmmakers would make the same mistakes as with "Star Wars" Episodes 1 - 3. Fortunately they did not. "Indy 4" stands in a clean row with the first three parts: Evil villains, breathtaking action, a marvelous Harrison Ford, a good amount of humur, John William's extraordinary music and a nice "old fashioned" flair - that's what was presented to the audience and that's what I expected! Although there are more CGI-effects in the movie than the makers would admit, the effects are PART of the story and NOT THE REASON for it. (A mistake which destroyed my love for Star Wars!) A great adventure movie for the summer which will hopefully be loved by all the old fans and even hopefully will bring on a totally new generation of fans!

I don't fully understand the poor reviews and ratings this film has gained on here and other platforms in the years that have elapsed since its 2008 release. It might be in my opinion the some 19 years or so gap from the 'original' trilogy that ended in 1989 with The Last Crusade.

In the 19 years the whole technical aspect of films has changed with the ever increasing use of CGI that replaced ever more the original stuntwork that were a hallmark of the original trilogy.

The main character, Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is visibly as well as actually older. Without wanting to be disrespectful this may be an overt reason for the film's visible difference from the original trilogy.

The film attempts to continue the franchise perhaps with the inclusion of yet another Henry Jones, this time Indiana's son (Shia Lebouf). Other notable casting was a strong point from a British angle, Ray Winstone, John Hurt and Jim Broadbent. I was less endeared by the scary appearance of Cate Blanchett as a Soviet era agent.

The events have moved on from the 1930s period of the original trilogy to the late 1950s featuring events such as the Roswell Incident and nuclear weapons testing in the area. I forgot to mention the welcome reappearance of Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen). The romantic interest from the original Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981).

The film has to be viewed as a separate entity from the original trilogy from a different generation!

I find it very amusing to read all the reviews here. I mostly agree with all the ones who found it disappointing, I can see why the Michael Bay-loving GTA-generation could give this a '10', however: Lots of CGI, fake green-screen action and style over substance.

For me - a die hard Indiana Jones fan, who grown up attending premieres for the first three - this was a big letdown, primarily because of the script, which could have been written by a 11 year-old.

A lot of Indiana Jones fans all over the world are probably scratching their heads these days, wondering why a script (Darabonts) which Spielberg called "the best he has read since Raiders", was scrapped by Lucas. So he could give us this? Tarzan meets X-files?

It just didn't rock my boat, like the first three. I even found 'National Treasure II' more entertaining, than this mess.

Many years and the shine has been tarnished, the fascia has cracked like old varnish, though there's still a small spark, that carries some kind of arc, there's enough to enjoy and be cherished.