Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,275 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
The film tries to honor to the science fiction films B films of the time. Has good moments but the problematic script turns it in the worst of the series so far
fernandoschiavi28 June 2020
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.
47 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Good to see Indy again....but a plot that falls way short of the mark
svinnacombe23 May 2008
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).
817 out of 1,211 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Over hated I think.
ashleyfitches8 March 2022
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.
27 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Entertaining in that self-parodying sort of way, but somebody PLEASE tell George Lucas to retire!!
DrEbert22 May 2008
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.
757 out of 1,286 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Indiana Jones
0U6 March 2020
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.
60 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Kingdom of the Glass Half Full...
Xstal6 June 2022
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.
27 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Why all the hate? Is it because we've grown up? This is still a fun movie!
edjavega26 May 2008
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.
255 out of 453 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Didn't Hate It As Much As Most
ThereelscoopwithKK12 July 2023
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.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Despite being the weakest Indy movie, it's still good enough
alerikanderson20 April 2023
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.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Who are all these people giving it 10???
zekisadic27 May 2008
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.
1,212 out of 1,993 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Best Thing In This Movie Is Cate Blanchett's Sexy Ukrainian Villainess
Chrysanthepop5 November 2008
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.
114 out of 207 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It's fun for some, disappointing for others.
bobsgrock29 May 2008
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.
207 out of 379 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A 1950s Indy
A4B422 May 2008
If you're expecting Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to be a fourth in the series, you'll be disappointed. The original three were set in the 1930s, looking for buried treasure in a Treasure of the Sierra Madre style. The new film is set in the 1950s, and that changes everything.

Frankly, it should be viewed as a new series. It certainly overlaps with the previous films, however most of that seems to affect the new film trivially. I actually think it's a little unfair to present this new type of film under the great Indiana Jones reputation, and however smart marketably I believe this, and the lack of understanding and inaccurate expectations on the audience's behalf will ultimately lead to the film's demise.

The film itself is well written, and well made with only a few exceptions. As long as you don't expect another Raiders of the Lost Ark, you'll probably be pleased with the film as it is, with the exception of one sequence which doesn't quite seem to fit. Beyond that, the plot, characters and acting all fit with this new kind of Indy film.

The cinematography is not the 80s style we'd probably all like, but it's not bad. The camera is certainly held much more stable than many of today's films, and the action is very clear and easy to follow, as is the stunt work great. There is a lot of computer animation--most of it looks believable, but some of it does not--but that which was done well fits superbly.

The acting was also very good. I was very impressed by Cate Blanchett, and to my surprise very pleased with Shia LeBeouf's character and acting.

All-in-all, I really appreciated the film as a whole, although some of the animation and action sequences seemed somewhat unfinished, or at least too difficult to believe (even for an Indy film). Still, it is an excellent 1950s serial, and I really hope we'll see at least one other Indy film set in this new era.
416 out of 832 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Anyone scoring this a 1 is an idiot
2002thx11387 March 2021
This film is worth a 5, absolute minimum. Yes, its ridiculous in parts, but it's a fun watch all the same, and I've seen a lot worse. Anyone scoring it a 1 is an idiot with some kind of a grudge, who clearly has never seen a truly dreadful film.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Implausible action scenes kill this movie
All I can really conclude about this movie is that it was just okay. I can forgive the ludicrous plot, the cheesy "family" dynamic of the film, the fact that Harrison Ford is old (which is really nowhere near the worst part of this). I don't even really mind Shia LaBeouf's presence. But many of the stunts and the action scenes are so implausible that it renders all of the action scenes implausible. For example, Shia LaBoeuf sword-fighting (!) spread-eagled on two moving vehicles; a boat going over not one, not two, but three waterfalls with absolutely no one getting a scratch (I mean, what are we watching here, The A-Team?); and the "if the film hasn't jumped the shark yet it certainly has now" moment--Shia LaBoeuf swinging through the jungle a la Tarzan. It was ridiculous. And because these parts are (forgive my overuse of the word) implausible, it highlights the fact that the rest of it doesn't work, either. After seeing a number of old series trying to come back for another run (Rocky Balboa, Rambo, the Star Wars Prequels) I have concluded that when filmmakers attempt to cash in on a once-popular series, artistically the best they can hope for is to break even. Sometimes there really is nowhere to go but down. I wanted to love this, but the most charitable thing I can say is that it was just okay. Very disappointing.
378 out of 667 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Fantastic "old fashioned" adventure movie!
Erdferkel22 May 2008
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!
86 out of 158 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
average movie.. but not Indiana Jones quality
the_aummy4 June 2008
it was a fine movie. Over-drawn as many people would seem to agree by CGI and a lack of making me feel like it was an Indiana Jones film. It was a fine movie, and thats all i have to say. It entertained me, but it could've done much better. Worst in the series, but i was satisfied and felt i had gotten my money's worth. It would've impressed me had the dialog done anywhere near to what it should have been at. It was like i was watching a training video for archaeologists at times. Entertaining, but lacked girth. Not much more than i can say. Shia lebouf didn't annoy the hell out of me, which was surprising, and Ford still made me laugh at times. In truth, go see this movie and judge for yourself.
97 out of 185 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Disappointing
gbill-7487716 August 2022
Harrison Ford in this role will always have a certain appeal, and the 4th installment - made 19 years after the 3rd and released when he was 66 years old - is not without its moments. The concept behind the aliens and the titular crystal skull is decent enough, and if you like your action films campy and over-the-top, this may be for you, even if the special effects are subpar. I struggled it with it both times I've seen it though, now and when it was released, feeling it became a kitchen sink of old tropes, references, and bits that felt stale. It needed restraint, more focus on the story, and a touch of grit, but instead got things like a confession in a dry quicksand and Shia LaBeouf swinging like Tarzan through the rainforest. There are also crazy survivals through an atomic test, mutant man-eating ants, several improbable drops down waterfalls, a swordfight across two speeding jeeps, and Russian spies, the last of which are oddly contrasted to the Red Scare signs on a college campus (gee I guess McCarthy was right?).

Everything is dialed up to 11 in this film, except the charm. The romantic connection with Karen Allen in her old role wasn't satisfying as it seemed formulaic and Allen turned in a rather sleepy performance. Cate Blanchett was also badly miscast as the villain. Lastly, while I didn't mind the link to the aliens and the ties to Roswell and ancient civilizations all over the globe, the film should have kept some mystery about the origin of the skull, which was obvious from the beginning, and yet the explorers were surprised when they figured this out late. Obviously it's meant to be a fun popcorn movie and not realistic, but this one just went so far that it became a cartoon, and not a very clever one at that.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A classic hero returns.
johnnymacbest13 May 2008
I just came back from a pre-screening of the fourth Indiana Jones movie and I say I enjoyed it IMMENSELY!!! Wow, for years now I thought that after "War of The Worlds" Spielberg has lost his touch; not so here. Here he returns to the basic fundamentals of the lost arts of practicality and just plain good old fashioned genuine storytelling (something that's solely lacking in today's CGI-heavy world) helped along by the big guy himself Harrison Ford along with witty and charming Shia LaBeouf as a newcomer to the franchise with George Lucas lending some support to cinematography. Ford is simply amazing as the venerable adventurer with lots of impressive stunt work. Everything is bigger and better than before, the action is of high-caliber, the plot is thorough and exciting with intelligent writing coupled with awesome special effects. But what really surprised me was that it looked like it was filmed in the 1980's; something that's rare in this Digital Age!!! I'm sure those accustomed to digital film-making may be put off, but it actually works really well and gives the film an added dose of nostalgia and sense of wonder that Spielberg brought so successfully in his past films. Not many films can achieve that feat, but I can strongly say that Spielberg has gone out on top and brought back one of the most beloved cinematic heroes around for one more time.

I'm enthusiastically awaiting a sequel with open arms.
481 out of 971 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It's the worst Indy movie, but not the worst movie ever.
nathandm-7529715 March 2023
Indiana Jones 5 is right around the corner, so I decided to revisit the last/most infamous entry of the franchise.

I often compare the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to The Godfather part 3 in that they aren't terrible movies but they simply just don't match the same level of quality as their previous films. In the case of Crystal Skull, I feel this movie suffers from some seriously overblown and cartoonish action sequences that feel out of place with the rest of the franchise. We got the infamous fridge sequence, the swinging with the monkeys in the jungle scene, and the whole alien finale with the giant UFO. As I said, a lot of this just feels too out of place in comparison to the rest of the franchise.

On top of that, the cinematography by Janusz Kaminski doesn't come anywhere near the same quality as the great Douglas Slocombe who did the cinematography for Raiders, Temple of Doom, and The Last Crusade. Kaminski's overblown lighting and color grading take away from the gritty and grounded visuals that the original trilogy was known and loved for. He makes this Indy adventure look far too dreamy and manufactured. And that visual aesthetic mixed with the overabundance of CGI effects all contribute to the Crystal Skull looking like more of a Marvel movie than an Indy movie.

But Crystal Skull isn't without its charm. There are definitely some fun moments to be had here. Even though I feel Ford is too old to be playing Indy, he still jumps back into the rule seamlessly and is far and away the best part of the movie. It was great seeing him and Marion reconnect again. Cate Blanchet is having fun hamming it up as the evil Russian baddie which is fun to see. Shia Labeouf I could take or leave. He's not terrible, but he is one of the actors that come off like he's trying way too hard for his role. It seems like it's hard for him to act naturally or grounded in most of his performances and this one is no exception.

Overall I'd say yes, Crystal Skull is by far the worst Indiana Jones movie, but that doesn't make it one of the worst movies ever. This film is far too watchable to be labeled terrible. As for the next entry in the series goes, I'm more skeptical than I am excited. I don't like the idea of a de-aged Harrison Ford playing Indy, but I'll have to wait and see how it turns out.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Times have changed, and so has Indy...
ugyenpeljor23 May 2008
Before I go on, I would just like to say that Indiana Jones IS my favourite film series, and that Last Crusade is my all time favourite movie of all time. Now, I just saw this yesterday with some friends of mine. I liked A LOT!!!

For me, it was essentially the same characters of the 1930's era originals repackaged in a 1950's era dressing. Anyone who complains about this movie should take a minute to realise that it's MEANT to be a totally DIFFERENT experience altogether. While the originals were made in the style of the 1930's adventure serials, concerning Nazis and lost treasures, this movie is deliberately meant to show that times have changed, and so has Indy. Therefore, it's style is that of 1950's B-movies, and focuses on the 3 most common pop culture phenomena back then: the Rock n Roll generation; the Red Scare; and UFO conspiracy theories.

Harrison Ford did not disappoint in his superb performance as the elderly Indy, and Shia was a highly enjoyable character to have, a street-smart version of Short Round. It was nice to see Karen Allen reprise her role from Raiders, and Marion is a lot less annoying and whiney then her 1936 counterpart.

I'm gonna miss the Nazis! The Russians may look a helluva lot smarter and more efficient then the Germans, and Cate Blanchett as Irina Spalko played a much more believable femme fatale then Alison Doody as Elsa Schneider in Last Crusade, BUT the Russians just don't seem to have the fanatism and villainous flare about them that the Germans had.

My only criticisms at the end of the day are the: 1) Overuse of CGI; (2) Highly romanticized end sequence; and (3) the lack of the Raider's March throughout the entire soundtrack except at the end. However, I'm hopeful that these shortcomings will be fixed for the DVD release, or at least for the Special Edition DVD Release.
28 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
YES! Another Great Adventure From Indiana Jones
greg-108311 June 2008
YES this is another great adventure from Indiana Jones.

Harrison Ford is simple the greatest hero and leading man of the past 30 years and this movie cements that even at his age of 65, he still jumps, runs and punches with the same energy as the past three movies and he's joined by a new rising star in Shia LaBeouf as Mutt Williams who has some great action scenes as well and let me tell you the action is top notch and it's classic action with break neck set piece after set piece.

The plot is classic Indy with the mystery of the Crystal Skull but with a new twist that some may like and others will not but the simple fact is they don't make movies like this anymore so go see it in the cinema while you can because it will be the greatest adventure you will go on this year.
36 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not Raiders Redux,but a worthy return
Hurr7822 May 2008
There were times in this film where I cringed, because Lucas and Spielberg ask the audience to suspend their disbelief one big step beyond anything that was asked of them in the previous three films. But on the other hand, those films were a collective homage to a different kind of adventure serial. The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is an homage to B grade Sci-fi movies of the 1950s. When you keep that in mind, the cringing goes away a bit... and when you REALLY think about it, you wonder why they didn't take it a step even further in that direction than they already have.

But I digress. On the whole, this is a very entertaining film, and contains one extended action sequence that is truly on a par with the best of the first three movies. Cate Blanchett is an effective enough villain, although perhaps not as memorable as Belloq and his henchmen from Raiders. The supporting players (Winstone, Broadbent, and John Hurt) all do a fine job of the roles they've been assigned. And it's nice to see Karen Allen back again, even though she's a bit rusty in terms of the acting skills.

Still, Marian and Indy do give the film some of its best dialogue. I understand that Lawrence Kasdan was consulted on some of the more "romantic" scenes in the film, and I think it shows. There is one scene in particular, that I won't get more specific about here, that really brings back the magic of the Marian-Indy banter from Raiders, if only for a few short moments.

And then there's Shia and his character Mutt. I was ready to hate this character, but really, he didn't bother me.

Anyhow, enough said. If you're looking for a good movie to have a enjoyable summer night at the movies, this one will do the trick. I think most of you will be glad you did.
35 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"For an old guy, you ain't bad in a fight."
Galina_movie_fan26 May 2008
After twenty seven years since the Raiders of the Last Ark introduced the archaeologist and adventurer Henry "Indiana" Jones who divides his time between teaching the University students in a quiet auditorium and saving the world in the incredible dangerous and breathtaking adventures, and after nineteen years since his quest for Holy Grail in the Last Crusade, Indiana Jones is back - with his fedora, leather jacket, whip, grin, fear for snakes, and the new big adventure, spectacular, fast-paced, silly, funny, and jaw-dropping at the same time. Believe it or not, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) is the first IJ movie that I've seen at the theater. They were not released in the former USSR (that's probably why, Spielberg and Lucas made their bad guys Russians this time :)) and I saw the trilogy first in the end of the 1980s when the videotapes became available. The new movie is full of adventures, has not one but three fallings down of waterfalls and the huge attacking red ants. As in all Indy movies, there is a long and spectacular signature chase sequence, this time a multi-vehicle chase through the jungle with the heroes jumping on the full speed from one car to another, two characters engaged in the sword fight standing on the parallel moving jeeps, the Crystal Scull of the title falling back and forth from the good guys to the bad ones. The "baddest guy" here is the girl played by Cate Blanchette wearing the uniform not unlike Dr. Evil's and the black wig a-la Louise Brooks of "Pandora's Box" or Uma Thurman of "Pulp Fiction". She plays a Russian villainess, Dr. Irina Spalko, the lead researcher of psychic phenomenon and the supernatural. Blanchette is as good as ever proving that she can play successfully any role, including the one that requires a lot of physical actions. The fourth movie takes place in the different time than the first three, and it is set against the realities of the 50s: the beginning of cold war, the double agents, the talks about UFOs and aliens. One of the scenes, as remarkable as it is memorable, depicts a ground-level nuclear test in Nevada on the picturesque town that was built only to be destroyed after the drop of atomic bomb.

The movie is beautiful - no surprise here, Janusz Kaminski, usual Spielberg's "partner in crime" was DOP for it. I just realized that it was the first Indiana Jones movie for Kaminski - the first three were shot by Douglas Slocombe. I liked the story and the acting by Ford. At 65, he is perhaps one of very few actors who could bring back to life beloved character and the years would not have power over him. I like a lot John Hurt as Professor 'Ox' Oxley - equally comical and moving as the scientist who was able to talk to the mysterious Crystal Skull and who kept the keys to its secrets. I am always glad to see Ray Winstone and Jim Broadbent on the screen. No matter what nay-sayers think of it, I like the latest Indiana Jones movie and I was glad to see that "for an old guy", Dr. Jones is still good in a fight.
160 out of 312 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Indiana 4 Ever
m0ds22 May 2008
Very good! I've been waiting a long time for them to pull their fingers out and make another Indy adventure and Crystal Skull is great entertainment! There was a lot to enjoy in this movie; Harrison Ford is superb, and it's very refreshing to see him playing the role again. The in-jokes are also pretty witty! The action in places is spectacular, although it does sometimes take a while to reach it.

I think the script could've used some work, as the bad guy lady just isn't menacing enough, and as someone else said, the bad guys are always one step behind - never ahead, which is a shame.

The use of CGI is thankfully quite un-noticeable, but there are some scenes which are a bit over the top. None the less anyone who appreciates Indiana Jones will enjoy this film!
46 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed