Sound Off: Indiana Jones 4 - What Did You Think?

May 22, 2008

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Now that you've seen it, what did you think? Here it is, after 19 years of waiting, Indiana Jones is finally back. But does he still kick ass? Is he too old to even fight? There are so many questions to be answered! And now that it has finally hit theaters, it's time to start the discussion. Was Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull all that good? How did it compare to the original three films? Was it entertaining and fun or just downright boring and flawed? Be prepared for one hell of a discussion, because not only is this film going to polarize viewers, but almost everyone will have something to say about it - good or bad! Are you ready? Warning: spoilers may be found within!

To fuel the fire, I'm sure all of you have already read my 8.5 out of 10 review and know what I thought, but after a second viewing last night, I've got to say it lost its glamour. I was definitely caught up in the hype the first time I saw it, and the second time around it just didn't play nearly as well. While I did think it was very fun, very entertaining, and did maintain the spirit of the originals, I really think the writing was pretty bad and the story begins to fall apart near the end. Plus, as creepy and cool as aliens are, there really was not satisfying conclusion. Where did they go? What the heck just happened?

What did you think of Indiana Jones 4? The best or the worst of the four films?

Please also vote in this poll being run by SlashFilm and Film School Rejects as well.

Find more posts: Discuss, Hype, Sound Off



I grew up on the Indy films, I've always been a fan. So naturally

cameron on May 22, 2008


I have been an Indy fan since I was a small kid. So naturally I was excited to see that they were making another one. I went last night at midnight with some fellow film students and we were very dissapointed. I loved the first hour and was traditional Indy, even down to the old school Paramount logo. My thoughts on the film as a whole: if you are an Inday will be very sad. George Lucas should not be allowed to create story concepts any more. He's out of his league. The last 20 or so minutes of the film had freaking aliens. ALIENS! What the crap are aliens doing in an Indiana Jones film?! The movie was awesome and traditional Indy until the climax of the movie, where it FELL APART! I really want to know why Steven and George thought it would be ok to make Indy encounter aliens. Another note: I didnt mind that Indy was old, I thought it worked. I did mind that there was the new "signature" Steven Spielberg glow on more than half the movie. The 1950's didnt glow like that...and neither did the other Indy films. Overall...very very sad. It actually hurt to watch the last 20 minutes. They had better not make another one or they will really ruin the name of Indiana Jones.

cameron on May 22, 2008


I loved the first three, saw them when I was young, thought they were awesome. Then last night I saw the new one. It sucked. At the end I asked my dad who went with me if that was Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind.

Kail on May 22, 2008


Just two or three good scenes (race on the opening credits or motorcycle chase) in the sea of crappy and stupid ones! Didn't like it. Well, maybe a bit.

KaZet on May 22, 2008


Hey Alex and everyone! I have already posted some comments bashing this movie on other entrys of I agree with poster #2, I didnt enjoy the sci-fi plot, I understand this was the 50's and there was a lot scifi going on, lots of the roswell incident talk and what not, BUT this didnt seem fitting for an Indy film, at least not for my taste. Another issue I had was Mutt Williams being Indy's son, I think we all saw this coming , heard the rumors but I was hoping it was all speculation and that Spielberg and Lucas wouldnt use this overdone idea. On that same note Indy's interaction with Marion is very lame, not a lot a chemistry, hell! they barely talked after the first half of the movie! and then the ending...he weds her! NO NO NO NOOOOO Indiana Jones is one of those characters that should've never gotten married, even as an old man Indy is married to adventure. About the Characters: way too many characters, even the villains gave me the sense that they were part of indy's crew at some points. They should've dropped Macc (and his "last crusade" cliche death). I always thought this would have been a great movie to re-introduce Short Round as Indy's sidekick, of course as a full grown up man now and a kickasss archeologist! I just think there were a lot of wasted ideas and many bad choices through out the whole movie. Very very dissapointed. I cant believe they waited 20 years for this... On the good side, I did find the first 30 minutes of the movie brilliant! And Harrison Ford did deliver! He brings an older Indiana Jones back with badassness, kickassness and grace.

bltzie on May 22, 2008


It was good. Not amazing, but very good. The problem is, that people have their expectations set way too high. This is a brilliant addition to the franchise and has some fantastic set pieces (best car chase of the trilogy) and a brilliant fast pace and energy throughout. The cast is brilliant, everyone giving a fantastic performance, especially Ford. The Spielberg magic is present and everything is brilliantly and beautifully shot. Many people may not like the ending but i would still put this as the third best in the series. Definitely worth a watch.

Ryha on May 22, 2008


I just saw it and like the other comments, I enjoyed very much the first 100 minutes. I was, unfortunately, turned off by the Aliens; however, it wasn't played up that much and kept with the supernatural/paranormal sub-text that existed in the first 3. I was actually more concerned that LaBeouf was going to be another "Short Round," but he wasn't and I liked his performance. There was, in the end, a bit of a trade-off, so I rate it just a little higher than "Temple of Doom," with "Lost Ark" and "Last Crusade" remaining at first and second place, respecitvely. By the way, did they have LED digital timers in 1957?

Fred on May 22, 2008


I thought it was pretty damn good. I don't get the complaints towards the alien plot since the movie is set in the '50s. atomic age. post-Roswell. beginning of the modern-day UFO phenomenon makes perfect sense when you really think about it

Mike G. on May 22, 2008


I liked the movie a lot. Who's to say holy light beams that melt peoples faces or invisible bridges or human sacrifices aren't wild things to put in a movie. It's not like aliens are in a different league. It was an adventure, you can't argue with that. We've just had so many crappy alien films to put us over the edge. These aliens weren't so bad. I thought Shia was great too. What did you think of the very end, where Mutt picks up Indy's hat and almost puts it on before Indy snatches it away from him? Does that mean that Mutt is gonna be the next Indy? I think so. Or does it mean that, because he took the hat away, thats the end of Indy? They wrapped up his story pretty nicely I thought.

Matt on May 22, 2008


Indiana Jones meets X-Files and it wasn't pretty.

Craig W on May 22, 2008


Wow, where to start? I wasn't expecting it to be great, but I ended up being disappointment even after low hopes. I think a mistake a lot of people make is going into a film like this and wanting to compare it directly with its predecessors. Not me. I think the best way to approach a film like this is to see if it simply FEELS like it fits in with the others. And for the most part, it just doesn't. The film had its moments of greatness, or at least some good moments that harkened back to the originals. But overall, it simply was missing the charm and wonder the originals had. And you can't gain that back by adding a million over-the-top special effects. First off, the opening of the film was rather lackluster. And by opening, I mean the first half hour. The lighting at Roswell was really odd and made me feel like I was watching a Broadway play, although visually things got progressively better. The inconsistency of the magnetism of the alien's body was really annoying to me as well. But these things are just technical aspects. What really bugged me was the dialogue. It was so over-the-top, corny and expository. It was so distracting to me, that it really didn't seem like Indiana Jones was talking, but rather that Harrison Ford was simply reading words off of a script. This too got better as the film went on though. Shia LeBoeuf was a pleasant surprise to me. I really thought he would get annoying, but his character worked for me. The special effects were surprisingly just OKAY to me. I would assume this was the case because of Lucas and his inability to realize when something looks fake. From the gophers to the car chase through the forest to the monkeys, things just weren't on par with the realism that Spielberg usually attains. And speaking of MONKEYS! What the hell was that? Shia swinging through the vines like Tarzan with monkeys leading the way?! This takes the cake for the cheesiest scene in the entire film. I should say however, that some of the special effects were amazing however. Especially the ants and the last sequence. I thought some of the best moments in the film were between Shia and Harrison Ford. These felt like the most genuine Indiana Jones moments. The smartass banter, the fun in uncovering hidden clues... This is what people want! Not the unbelievable stunts. Which brings me to my next point. The action sequences. What made the original films so much fun to me in terms of action, was how it was over-the-top, but still grounded in reality. This film threw all physics out the door, and stretched a couple of scenes that would have been great if half as long. Indiana surviving an atomic bomb blast in a fridge? C'mon! The door stayed closed throughout the entire thrashing the fridge took, but Harrison opens it in the end without a scratch on him? lol. And the car chase through the forest, which really started to feel like it had the Spielberg charm, just went on too long and far for my taste. I loved how people ended up in each others' cars, which is classic Spielberg, but there is a certain point where I was like "How many times can you jump from one car to another." And of course Shia's splits between the two cars was funny for like 5 seconds, but not 2 minutes! Then, and this is one of the big ones to me, they survive not only one, but three waterfall drops. And the first two times the car plops up out of the water and Indy's hat is still on. Again, I know this is a movie. But never before did the other films stretch things this far. One small gripe is the crystal skull itself. I just laughed when I first saw it. It didn't look like a crystal skull at all. it looked like a really light plastic skull with clear plastic bags stuffed inside of it. Maybe these aliens used their skulls as plastic recycle receptacles? And the aliens... Okay, so I'm a fan of the oldschool paranormal Indy flicks where you don't need a scientific explanation for how certain myths came to be... BUT I bought into this whole alien thing throughout the film. Even up to the drawings of them on the Mayan walls with airpacks on their backs! lol. But man, that finale in the alien chamber was about all I could take. They took (and by they, I really mean that idiot George Lucas) a kind of cool concept about aliens in the past, and made it soooo cheesy. Having all of the skeletons combine to become a live alien who catches the villain's eyes on fire? It's like too much knowledge makes your eyes catch on fire or something. Better make sure kids don't study too hard for exams. I can see the news headlines right now. Seriously though, the eyes burning actually fit with oldschool Indiana Jones stuff to me. So I was cool with that. And I even loved the UFO taking off. BUT, just taking a supernatural idea and leaving mystery would have made this SO much better. So down to my last two gripes, and I swear, I wish I wasn't hating on this movie! The villain (Cate Blanchett) was completely unthreatening. Unlike the past Indy films, this villain just did nothing for me. She didn't seem scary or threatening at all. I never really such much evil in her eyes. And lastly, Indiana looked hella old. And I don't mean that because he is old and just seems to old to play the part. I mean, the way they PORTRAYED him in the movie was as an old man who could still kind of pull it off. it's like Spielberg and Lucas felt obligated to point out that he had aged. I really think it would have been much better had he jumped right back into the role of Indy without any reference to him being old. People can see it. You don't need to say it! The more you reference his age, the more it seems like the filmmakers are trying to make excuses and come up with stupid dialogue to justify things. Anyways, this wasn't as much a review as it was me complaining about what I disliked. Don't get me wrong, it's worth seeing. But it doesn't have the same feel as the other films, and doesn't follow the same rules as the other films. Which really makes this sequel unnecessary in my opinion. If they do make another one (and you know they will) it really should be about Indy again, and not a billion other characters that help him pull his weight around. I can totally see Shia in it, but I hope they don't do what Lucas is suggesting, which is putting him in the driver's seat.

Marty Martin on May 22, 2008


I agree with what many of you are saying. It was good, but really, why aliens?!

alex on May 22, 2008


For nostalgia sake, I liked it. I find aliens much more believable than magical holy relics anyway. But couldn't Karen Allen have had some grey in her hair? "Grandma, put down the Miss Loreal!" I despise most of Spielberg and Lucas' work in recent decades so it's saying a lot that I found this moderately enjoyable. About as much as one of those National Treasure movies. (Sorry Nic, you're no Indy.) What made it for me were the nods to the 50's film genres throughout. Mindless. Escapist. Fun. Like it's predecessors.

Matt on May 22, 2008


Just got back from a showing here (its on every half hour :O) and was surprised at how many people were there - the guy on the door said they were expecting many more - guess the weekend will be the true tell tale. Anyways, Indiana Jones was nothing short of superb!... it truly was top spielberg material (so glad he's making movies still!!!) and a great continuation of the indiana saga... definitely great to see Indy's future developing. The actions scenes are stunning and SO much fun and the characters were great, Harrison fit straight back into Indy and I really dug Shia's character and thought he did a great job - my hat off to Spielberg for setting it in the 1950's - the settings were excellent and the costumes fit with the period really well. I loved the motorbike/diner scene The typical indy exploration in caves etc was fun but I could have done with more traps! Content below contains spoilers! The story was good too - not sure why its getting a bashing - I've always wanted someone to explore the GODS = Aliens who came and taught us our ways concept. The VFX were amazing most of the time - I have to jump straight to the end scene - wow!! That whole effect - smashing rocks, spinning craft and splashing water - Great stuff!! truly awe inspiring. However some scenes like the monkeys (that whole scene should have been cut and Shia should have simply been picked up by his mum in the vehicle) and the car landing in the tree - ouch that looked very blurry and was just too over the top! The matte paintings were excellent and it was great to see such a clever usage of them - they were obvious but in a subtle manner to mimick the style in the older movies - very clever! Can someone explain what happened to Cate Blanchetts character at the end? What happened there?? For me this film is second best to The Last Crusade. Some achievement given the 19 yr gap! We need more films like this - shows what fun cinema is all about! All I have to say now is - When can we expect another one!!!????

nha on May 22, 2008


I'm a huge fan of the Indy Trilogy, and the Crystal Skull was an absolute abomination...I'm going to try my hardest to repress all memory of this...

Bobthecow on May 22, 2008


Alex what you think ???? I didn't watch it still I may watch it after 2-3 days ...but I want to know how you think and notify when you mention something spoiler from the movie ... 😉

shero on May 22, 2008


it was ok thats it

jono on May 22, 2008


I don't know why all the hate is here but I LOVED it. It is definitley different then before but I still really enjoyed it.

Ryan on May 22, 2008


This is by far the worst movie that I have seen in a long time, the acting was awful from just about everyone and that includes Ford, mutt was bearable, the storyline should never have made it to a script and im not even going to mention the ending. If this was made for the fans then all I can say is they must really hate us!!!! This will not be joining my collection of Indy movies im going to pretend tonight never happened and they never made another one. Should have guessed it really when Sean decided not to reprise his role as Indy's father. Im so disappointed I just want to crawl into a corner and rock back and forth while crying for what the've done to my childhood hero!!!!!

Dar-El on May 22, 2008


This movie was God awful. I am not a huge fan of the Indy movies, but I went to the midnight anyways and it ended up being worse than i thought it was going to be. From Shia Lebouf swinging through the jungle with monkeys to the spaceship at the end, it was just, dumb. every ten minutes Harrison would say JUST AS I THOUGHT or some sort of variation on that so that they could tie things together.His friend (or whatever i dont keep up with these movies) who double crossed him then crossed back got to a point of pissing me off. The whole crew should feel awful for allowing a movie of such great proportions to slide by with those cheesy one liners and awful plot. I am not pro- Hollywood making sequels just to suck money out of us and this is a perfect example of that.

Kilogram on May 22, 2008


that movie sucked big time, they had poor cgi and the aliens thing that was the worst. This is indiana jones not war of the suck worlds.

Darrin on May 22, 2008


Man, some of you people are harsh with your comments towards the filmmakers.

Mike G. on May 22, 2008


I went to see this with someone who's never seen anything Indiana Jones other than the trailer for the new movie. He asked me: "why did they make another one? Are all the films that bad?" (going to school him in Indy at the weekend by re-watching the originals, don't worry!) The action was mostly great, that much we both agreed on...but as a whole film... 'meh'. The end? ARGH! I have to give it 5/10... and i wonder if that Alan Quatermain and the Temple Of Skulls DVD 'effort' is probably more enjoyable than what Spielberg & Lucas could come up with? :op

chrisUK on May 22, 2008


Before I went to go see this film, a friend asked me "well, has Spielberg let us down yet?" I now have an answer.

Echelon on May 22, 2008


well i guess that Indiana Jones and the saucer men from mars script was the real thing. it has been getting re-writes all these years. i have seen worst films and like this one. it's just that this was to be the movie of the summer and it didn't live up to that hype.

ralph on May 22, 2008


Liked it a lot... saw it twice already. It will fit perfectly in line with the other 3 on my shelf. Dissecting every moment goes against what this series is all about. As the bloated Saturday afternoon matinee all you can ask yourself is "Was I entertained"? And answer with this is definitely yes. The end fits with the 50's throwback style that is necessary and what they were going for. Plus the first had ghosts so it's not like this is anything to take too seriously. I was happy to go along for the ride.

chrisg on May 22, 2008


They ruined this movie. It sucked. Come on, Aliens!!!!! They just ruined the whole indy series.

Tyler on May 22, 2008


Well, I thought it was really good. Not great. But how could it be? Compared to "Temple of Doom", it's "Citizen Kane". Things I liked: The nostalgia (I felt it from start to finish) Harrison Ford (He was terrific) Cate Blanchett (Scene stealer, and she was beautiful in it) Shia (The kid is getting better) The sets (Fantastic) The motor cycle chase Karen Allen (Underused and not in it enough, but loved seeing her again) Sound effects and editing (Very clear and crisp in my theater) The ending (Pitch perfect, wonderful) Things I didn't like so much: The beginning during the credits (Wasn't very Raiders like at all) Ray Winstone and John Hurt (Great actors, poorly written roles, underused) The jungle vine swinging scene (Absolutely terrible) The car chase scene in the jungle was too long Too much CGI (When I thought I read there wouldn't be) Still, minor gripes. I'd peacefully sit through "Krystal Skull" back to back to back for a week instead of just five minutes of either "Pirates" sequel. So all in all, 8 or 8.5 out of 10.

Rob on May 22, 2008


The first half was alright not great but pretty good then starting with the swordfight/carchase it was all downhill until by the end I was just happy it was over and I could go home and try to forget it happened when will Hollywood learn that green screen and CGI are no substitute for sets and real world stunts and special effects? I just can't believe that after almost 20 years this is the best they can do. I plan on keeping my trilogy box set and treating this as never having happened

Corran on May 22, 2008


am I the only one who despised Temple of Doom? Thought that was the worst of them all. Loved Indy 4.

Garrett.king on May 22, 2008


I hear many of you asking "Why Aliens?" well..that may have something to do with the fuckin' myth of the Crystal Skulls. seriously, do some damn research.

Garrett.king on May 22, 2008


People are asking "Why Aliens?" because they want to know why the hell George Lucas and Spielberg felt the need to put aliens in this story. We all know that the crystal skulls have to do with aliens. Most of us think it wasn't a great idea that's all. It's very clear that George Lucas forced this idea. He has said in numerous interviews that he always wanted this to be an alien story and that he was intent on not letting the film get made unless it was. I have a number of theories on why Lucas wanted this to be an alien story. 1. In his everlasting desire and quest to perpetuate Star Wars, he is trying to find a way to pull characters from Star Wars into other films. Perhaps the aliens in this film were originally supposed to look like Yoda? Maybe he will remake American Graffiti, with digital aliens as the main cast? 2. George Lucas made some great films in the 70's and 80's. Maybe he was abducted by an alien race in the late 80's who had really bad taste in films, and brainwashed him to make really stupid movies. 3. Maybe Lucas stared a green screens so long that it fried his brain cells and he has no idea what a movie is anymore. In fact I am convinced his next directorial effort will be directing a film entirely on greenscreen, with the greenscreen backgrounds digitally replaced by greenscreens. The actors will be entirely digital, and will look like walking greenscreens. No wait, blue screens.... No wait, greenscreens. 4. Lucas is dead and is a robot that Spielberg built for A.I.

Marty Martin on May 22, 2008


hey garrett.king....i understand that aliens were in alot of talk in the fifties...but Indy has always been about real ancient artifacts. for this film they completely fabricated something to try and make a cool story. and it sucked. the other three movies used real artifacts and historical elements, this one did not. add to really need something to do if you researched something that doesnt exist and there no need for the language you tool.

jo on May 22, 2008


Ive always been a movie fan and have gone into them open minded. I thought it was great you know, if you can have indy drink out of the cup of christ to almost having his heart pulled out of his chest by a voodoo doctor then why not try something else outlandish. The humor was good and it might just be me being a little to open minded but i thought it was a very entertaining 2 hrs.

That Guy on May 22, 2008


Hey jo... The crystal skulls aren't a fabricated by Hollywood legend. Here's an excerpt from a Lucas interview: "George Lucas: Well, these movies don't work without an object that they're going after that is supernatural and that is a real object that people believe in – whether it's actually true or not true – whether it's the Ark of the Covenant, whether it's the Holy Grail, these are things that are mythological artifacts that have real mythology. It's not made-up Hollywood, by me or by anyone else, it's the real deal. So I had to have something that would be the real deal." FWIW, -EJ

Seijornec on May 22, 2008


Yeah, Lucas has been possessed. He'll really say anything. he also thinks his new Star Wars are the real deal. Listen, this film wasn't flawed because of aliens. it was flawed because it pushed things too far into "silly land", whereas it could have kept more of that mythological feel.

Marty Martin on May 22, 2008


First of all, I’m a huge fan of the series. I grew up on these movies. I know the trilogy backwards and forwards. I understand that the inspiration for the first three were 1930s serials and swashbuckling, over-the-top action adventure movies. This film, however, is more inspired by what was going on in the 50s. Nuclear bombs, UFOs, Commies, psychic warfare, the Cold War, etc. It’s quite a jump from 1938 to 1957. That’s why this film feels different than the other ones. That, and its NEW. It’s now going to take DOUBLE the effort for a lot of people, including myself, to group this one with the old ones. Saying that, there is much that still looks and feels like an Indiana Jones movie - mainly Indiana Jones himself. Harrison Ford still knows the character and I totally believed he was Indy again. Marion was a nice touch, although I wish she had more dialog in the movie and more things to do. The cinematography screamed Indiana Jones, with the lighting on Indy’s face when he was in the catacombs searching for clues where just his eyes showed, or the various silhouettes of him throughout the film. For the most part, this feels like and Indiana Jones film. The action was top-notch, although I will admit that some of it was far fetched. I actually liked the Tarzan bit with Mutt. The scene with Indy surviving the nuclear blast in the fridge was a little much. I can believe he’d be protected by the inside of a lead refrigerator, but to survive flying in the air and hitting the ground hundreds of yards away while in the fridge is too much I think. Anyhow, the thing that makes this movie hard to accept the most is the ending with the flying saucer and the “alien.” To most people, Indiana Jones has always been more fantasy, with spiritualism and mysticism at the forefront, not science-fiction. This film feels very sci-fi in areas. The problem lies within the fact that most people will not be able to get out of their heads the idea that these creatures are space aliens, even though they explain that they’re inter-dimenional beings. Indy is still dealing with the spiritual in this film, They ARE gods in this movie. Spiritual beings capable of taking on physical form and building supernatural technology. Many theorize that if heaven exists, that perhaps it exists in another dimension. Perhaps in the Indy universe, the different gods come from different dimensions. So all along, while our culture has come to believe that these beings are space aliens, Spielberg and Lucas are trying to convey that they really are just other gods (”Chariots of the ‘Gods’” anyone?). They’re telling us what these beings REALLY are. That’s why, at least technically, they saw this as a fitting tale for Indiana Jones. This movie just FEELS more sci-fi, and that’s what is going to throw people off. The image of gray aliens has been brainwashed into our culture, and we’ve thought of them as aliens for so long. Well, now we have the real explanation. I still think the flying saucer at the end was a bit much, and probably should have just been left as the inter-dimensional portal that it started out as, and just formed into a giant vortex. Anyway, I liked this movie. It will take time to grow on me, because, like most people, it’s hard to not think of the grays as aliens. I think I get where Spielberg and Lucas were trying to go with it and I am willing to give it time to fit in with the rest of the saga. No sequel can ever be Raiders, but it can be entertaining and fitting. It’s just that it’s been 19 years, the story is new and in many ways vastly different than the others. So I need to give it time. It’s definitely not a bad movie, and it’s definitely an Indiana Jones movie.

Dan Geer on May 22, 2008


I really liked seeing Indy again the banter between Indy and Mutt were true Indy colors, to me everyone else was ehh. I felt there were many scenes that were out of line and uncalled for (for example: at the end when the wind blew open the door and Indy's hat flies to LaBeouf picks it up only to have it taken away, ugh too much for me). And Indiana Jones and the saucer men from outer space was complete buzzkill. Maybe they'll redeem themselves when they make another in a few years 🙁

Silver on May 22, 2008


The movie was great. When Mutt was swinging from the trees that was funny as hell. I liked the scifi history mix it separated the jones movie from National Treasure and not another treasure hunt movie. loved it.

Tirrell on May 22, 2008


I, for one, liked the movie a lot. If this movie had been Temple of Doom, you'd be all up in arms about a musical number opening with Kate Kapshaw. Inter-dimensional travel and beings are just as fine and dandy by comparison.

Russell Troyer on May 22, 2008


Temple of Doom will always be my favorite

terces7 on May 22, 2008


I enjoyed it, but by the end of the movie I could have sworn I had just seen the new X-Files movie. I'm a big Indy fan and for the most part this was a quality Indy film. Shia surprised the hell out of me. He actually did a pretty quality job. I was afraid I'd see the whiney little kid from Transformers, which I wanted to see crushed so badly by one of the giant robots. The whole greaser tough guy schtick seemed to work out, and with a lot of work... I could see him as the newly established Indy. But I'm talking A LOT of work. Shia's performance from this movie suggests it's not impossible.

Chris H. on May 22, 2008


For all the people complaining about the aliens, can I ask how you justify immortality from a cup and face melting rays from a box? Just curious about that.

Hawkdragon on May 22, 2008


If the world were a fair and just place, the following would have occurred: [George Lucas shows up at Steven Spielberg's house with the final draft for Crystal Skull...] Georgie: Hey Steve, I'm finally done that script for the new Indy flick....and I honestly think it's my best one yet! And why wouldn't it be? Have you seen Empire?...........awesomeness. Steve: Cool man! I'd love to read it, considering I'm putting my name on this project too. I'm sure it's good, but I kinda gotta double check....cause, you you royally fucked up with the prequels and all. Hayden Christensen? What's wrong with you? Are you mental? But don't worry, i know my stuff: Close Encounters......Jaws........Schindler's List.....etc. You know, really good flicks. But anywho, here goes.... [Steven Spielberg reads, reads, reads...] Steve: George.........GUT THE FUCK OUT OF MY HOUSE!!!! And in conclusion, i feel that George Lucas needs to be tried as a war criminal for what he has done a fond piece of my childhood.

Nthngmn on May 22, 2008


Steve: George………GUT THE FUCK OUT OF MY HOUSE!!!! hahaahahhaahahahahahaha that's hilarious! but it's not uncalled for! I read somewhere that when the lucas logo appeared at the beginning of this movie, someone in the crowd shouted "indy cover your heart" in a Short Round kind of voice! hehe I'm still laughing about it! hahaaha

bltzie on May 22, 2008


I think the reason people are so up in arms about the aliens thing is that it's weak. Deus ex Machina, ever heard of it? says: 1. (in ancient Greek and Roman drama) a god introduced into a play to resolve the entanglements of the plot. 2. any artificial or improbable device resolving the difficulties of a plot. The mystical, supernatural stuff in the other movies fits because they were a part of the plot (in a religous context). But throwing aliens at the climax to solve all of the story's problems weakens the story considerably. It's. Just. Lame. And the lack of a proper explanation leaves the watcher pissed.

Nettle on May 23, 2008


I thought that the aliens and that entire finale were done to END Indiana Jones. It was fucking epic and even if the movie did not have Indiana Jones I would be happy.

Leland on May 23, 2008


Reading these comments I think most of you were not around when the trilogy was released. I also think you would give the exact same rating /criticism to the other Indy films had they been released today and not 20 years ago. How cheezy weren't the RotLA or ToD ? One thing I do not understand though. How can you all think aliens are less believable than magic of the previous flicks ? I'd rather believe there is a spaceship hidden somewhere than the fact that an old ugly cup can heal your mortal wounds. This is an adventure/family film with sily villains silly plot and silly jokes exactly as the previous three. 9/10

Shige on May 23, 2008


Russell Troyer and Shige I couldn't agree with you more. I'm a college student and everyone here is bitching up a storm, as are fanboys... but they're not putting this one in the context of the other 3 and acknowledging that while the series has been gone for 19 years, the characters and Indy universe has aged 19 years. I think the public is going to react the same way the critics are: positively. If this movie had introduced a character like Short Round instead of Temple of Doom, we'd be calling him the new Jar-Jar and the useless complaining and dissecting of the gold wrapped cotton candy it is would continue.

chrisg on May 23, 2008

50 wasn't was alright at best...

David on May 23, 2008


I feel bad for the guys who are disappointed and it makes me wonder if you went into this with just too high of expectations. If you look at the previous three films the storylines, the acting and the special effects aren't incredible. At the time there was just something about them that really worked...something that was different and special. I think this film fits in with the first three. No, it's not my favorite but I enjoyed it. I loved the old paramount logo but didn't really get the opening of the movie. I kept thinking this is odd. Also, I agree with someone earlier who said that they didn't use Karen Allen to her full potential. I'm surprised to say that I liked Shia alot more then I thought I was going to. I see his potential if they give the series over to him or a spinoff anyway. The first half of the movie was better then the second and the end seemed very anti-climatic to me. As for the aliens I think I would have been bothered by it if I hadn't heard spoilers that aliens played a part in it. As someone said earlier it does fit in with the time setting of the movie with the 50's and Roswell. I enjoyed it and I certainly don't think it ruined the series. 8/10

Janet on May 23, 2008


TO ALL THOSE SAYING THIS FILM IS TOO SCI-FI - Watch Last Crusade again and for those who aren't Christians and don't believe, the idea of the holy grail is just as much fantasy and for that matter something no one believes - a cup that makes people melt is just as much scfi paranoia madness.

nha on May 23, 2008


ok, I've read a lot of reviews here and I've had approximately 48 hours to get over the 12am screening I saw in London to watch my absolute fav movie franchise of all time throw a sequel at us. Before I go on, lemme tell u just a few things about me. I was brought up on the 80s, I'm 25 and saw the original Indy's when I was a kid and its firmly embedded in my head as a very influential series. I won't review the movie too much, but I will explain the disappoitmnent factor and why a lot of Indy's fellow fans are feeling quite empty after the 4th installment. Nostalgia is a very powerful feeling and as much as 'men' deny it, the hardcore Indy fans love the movie, but will also love the time when it was big in the 80s. What were we doing in the 80s, i was at school in London not eating my We are introduced to some fantastic characters in the first 3, and after the last Crusade, we were left with Indiana Jones saving the world, being reunited with his dad and Marcus Brody being...well Marcus In the 19 years to follow, we have all probably filled in the gaps as to what happened next, maybe it just stopped there. We come to the 4th movie and what do find out?... 1) The fact that Indy has aged a lot 2) Henry Jones Snr has died 3) Marcus Brody has died 4) Indy has a son 5) Indy was a part of some kinda miliatary/army for the USA Whats the first thing that comes to you find these out??....time has changed everything, and inevitably, we all feel old. It might sound pretty stupid, but if you really think about it, its been 27 years since Raiders Of The Lost Ark...27 years people!! To be honest it was quite upsetting to find out great characters had passed away and Indy doesn't have that spring in his step anymore. Too much emphasis was put on the fact that its the 50s and the whole 'alien' thing was happening and that Indy had gone from archeology to army....NOOO....that leads us all to believe, for 20 years he was running around for the government....thats not Indy, he's an archeologist!! I know a lot of us are feeling the pinch of this one, the first 3 movies are absolutely wonderful, not too much CGI, great supernatural activity...but within the realms of was all....magical....thats the word...MAGICAL and youth was on our side. All I will say now is don't let it get to u, our expectations has been 19 years in the making, don't expect all of it to be fulfilled in 2 hours.

Shivy on May 23, 2008


Shivy what do you mean 19 years in making ? Dont know how about rest of you but this one was in exactly same spiirit as the previous ones. Yes some characters died. However none of them brought anything to the story except maybe Connery but I somehow did not missed him since he was the most cheeziest of all the chars. The fact that indy has a son and that indy was a part of military, what exactly does it change ?. We got intorduced to the child Indy in LC and that was much bigger impact on the story since it made Indy who he is today. One more thing, I was never a huge fan of the series I just watched it for pure entertaiment sakes and for some nostalgia of the 80s film-making. This one does exactly what the others did and I fail to see how it is a bad thing since I got a new story and more of the exactly same Indy and same type of film.

Shige on May 23, 2008


i liked it a lot Problems: CGI was horrible. I couldn't believe that Industrial Light and Magic did that movie The story stopped being cohesive about half way through The end was too quick

Josh on May 23, 2008


#55 You're reasons for not liking it: CGI bad? I thought it was awesome. Story not cohesive? Agreed. End was too quick? End was like a never ending drag of bs. *SPOILERS* Also, the refrigerator deal was iffy as it gets, but I let it pass. Even though he got out and walked into radiation. I'll pass. The monkeys teaching Shia how to do rope swinging? In 2 seconds? WAIT. Monkeys helping humans in their natural habitat? WAIT. Monkeys attacking other humans for the sake of Shia... No. You lost me there. And then... The falling of three waterfalls? One is beliveable, not three, in that car. Also... ALIENS? I'm sorry, no. I don't care if it's post-roswell, 50s, etc etc.. NO. Eff that. Small qualm: There was no place for the vertebrae to connect on the skull, so that didn't make sense to me how it'd connected, unless the body is fully magnetic and just keeps itself together that way? LOL. I'd give it a 6/10 for epic scenes, and some good things it did well, but overall I will never watch it again. And I love the other Indy films. To me, the Holy Grail was believable somehow, but this... just... wow.

Joker on May 23, 2008


Dissapointed. Surprised to find such a lot of Alien hating on here though. Aliens and Atlantis are a continuous recurring concept associated with Mayan and Incan tribes. Likewise with the Egyptian Pharaohs Akhenaten, Nefartiti and Tutankamun. i.e. Stargate. Indy has never been based on historical fact alone, but historical fact embellished with archaeological myth, so for me, this element was not out of place. The indestructible fridge, however .... Grrr. "What the hell's an Aluminium Falcon?"

Dr.Duvel on May 23, 2008


Man I've read some serious loooong movie reviews on here. One guy told his damn life story before reviewing the movie. What's the big deal? So what there were Aliens or the monkey & fridge scene wasn't's a movie. It's meant to entertain us. As I said before I thought the movie was great the scenes were epic and fun. As many others have said it's no more unbelievable than the other 3 so lets just take it as is another great Iny movie great to watch with the family.

Tirrell on May 23, 2008


Is it just me, or did the big collection of treasures from all over the world, and the aliens being a deposit of knowledge seem to destroy EVERYTHING the first 3 films were about? I.. I feel like weeping.

Brad on May 23, 2008


Spoilers of course: What the frell with the monkeys and goofers or prarie dogs for "comic relief"? Who approved, or even WROTE that scene..geesh! And the ending was stolen from Mummy 2 and Mission to Mars. Indy and Roswell stuff does not mix too well. Just stick with the basics and it would have been much better. Still nice to see Indy back..and other folks, but leave ET out of it, will ya!

Bry from Chi on May 23, 2008


Oh Tirrell!!! "What's the big deal? So what there were Aliens or the monkey & fridge scene wasn't believable…it's a movie. It's meant to entertain us" Everytime there's a discussion about some film that treats it's audience like idiots, there's some guy that pulls out this argument and thinks he's doing everyone a favour. The difference is that where as these sorts of people seem to see movies as pleasent distractions between the neccessary actions of eating, sleeping and pooping, some of us get very worked up by disappointing movies because we see movies as something more, let me ask you was Schindler's List just meant to entertain us? or Dr Stranglove, how about "Triumph of the Will"? I know Indy is supposed to be a fun popcorn flick, but shrugging your shoulders at bad storytelling just allows the artists to become more blase about the intelligence of their audiences and leads to continually worse films. I mean if everyone thought like you Tirrell, Batman would still have nipples and Jar-Jar would have his own spin-off by now

Sinbad on May 23, 2008


Disclaimer - I'm a huge Indy fan and have always put Raiders in my top 10 all time favorite movies. So the only thing I knew about IJ-TKOTCS going into it was that Indy was much older and that Speilberg and Lucas mentioned in numerous interviews that it would be influenced by pop cinema from the 50's. I purposely stayed away from reviews and went to the earliest showing on the morning it opened. I then poured through many professional and message board reviews. I think Ebert states things well when he opens his with this... "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Say it aloud. The very title causes the pulse to quicken, if you, like me, are a lover of pulp fiction. What I want is goofy action--lots of it. I want man-eating ants, swordfights between two people balanced on the backs of speeding jeeps, subterranean caverns of gold, vicious femme fatales, plunges down three waterfalls in a row, and the explanation for flying saucers. And throw in lots of monkeys." Ebert nailed it on the head! IJ-TKOTCS delivers the above mentioned in spades and I found both the motorcycle and jeep chases to be thrilling and spot on with the other films. Overall it was really good to see Harrison Ford as Indy again, same sarcastic wit, same devilish smile but there's more to him this time. He a proud patriot and decorated war veteran... "I Like Ike!" love it. I've read a lot of complaining and just straight up hatred about the sci-fi aspect of the story and have read more times than I'd like to remember, "George Lucas raped my childhood again." Really? Get over yourself! Is there anyone who sees the titular skull for the first time and doesn't think that is possibly other worldly? Come on get with the program it's eluded to throughout the story. It's the 50's in the middle of cold war paranoia; Roswell and UFO's were all the rage. From the location of the motorbike chase to the very odd nuclear test explosion sequence (how strange was it to see Indy running around in pristine 50's suburbia?) I think they did a great job in the first 20 minutes to point out this isn't your father's Indiana Jones... Times have changed and so has Indiana Jones... Now he's a father. There were a few great subtleties to that dynamic, first the bit about the kids name "Mutt". "What kind of name is that? That's the name I chose." to Indy saying "This is intolerable." (When Mutt takes off without a plan.) Which is something his dad said many time in The Last Crusade. Is IJ-TKOTCS perfect? No. But frankly how could it be? Nothing will ever come close to the original but it's been a fun ride and seeing Harrison Ford as Indy again was great. This is the first movie in a long time where I felt like Ford was enjoying himself and really was a character instead of just going through the motions. I say bring on #5. I'd much rather see more than have to get my adventure fix from wannabes like The Mummy, National Treasure or Tomb Raider. -EJ

Seijornec on May 23, 2008


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 people involved, the money involved, and the time they had to work on this should've yielded better results. Most of all, I feel heartbroken and crestfallen. I'm going to list the things I didn't like about Indy 4 (I can't think of things I liked, unfortunately). The reason I want to list those things is because I feel like venting, otherwise, I'll just walk around all day weeping after having been through the trauma of watching Indy 4. I'm not interested in any mean-spirited, immature, or obnoxious posts. Please. If you have something interesting or useful to say, then by all means share it with us, we all love movies here, we all love Indy, just don't call me names just because I hated the movie and you loved it. We all have different tastes and moods when it comes to movies. Don't take my post as a personal attack on you and your family. After all, you had nothing to do with the movie. And don't tell me "dude, it's just a movie!" as if that statement by itself is the be-all and end-all of all arguments and states your case as fact, because it isn't and it doesn't. Indy is not "just a movie" and even if it was, I still expect a solid, compelling, competent piece of work from some of the best people working in the business. I still expect good storytelling, I still expect some REALITY in my FANTASY. So here we go: -----SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS----- I hated the CGI monkeys! I hated the idea of the Tarzan swinging. I hated just how fake the Tarzan swinging looked. 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!!! I hated just how boring 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 in Hollywood movies, so I expected better from this Acadeny-Award-winning actress. But we can fault the writing too. I hated just how adept Mutt was with the sword-fighting. He was fencing with a pro on top of those moving vehicles yet he never missed a beat! I hated how boring the music was. The first 3 movies had memorable themes and tunes that I could whistle to, this one didn't. I hated the cinematography! The cinematography of the first 3 was beautiful when it had to be and gritty/realistic when it had to be. With Indy 4, the cinematography made it look murky, hazy, out of focus, with annoying light flares and no crispness or sharpness. In fact, the cinematography gave the movie this fake, artificial, inauthentic look and 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's the writers' fault. Karen Allen was bad! I'm sorry people! And she was too eager to please which came off as desperate. 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 events. They just launched into their schtick immediately after they met. There wasn't a single romantic moment between them like in Raiders. 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. 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 swordfighting, the swinging, the monkeys, the racing-near-the-cliffs, the CGI jeep landing on top of the other CGI jeep that had Indy and co. in it... The design and look of the aliens was boring. Been there, done that. And the moment when the alien looks at Spalko and frowns in her face was just plain stupid. The entire bit INSIDE the temple at the end of the sequence 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. If Area 51 housed all the top secrets of the US government, why did it only have 3 guards protecting and securing it? Indiana (or maybe Harrison Ford) just seemed out of place, like he didn't fit with his environment/surroundings or something. I can't quite explain it, but he just seemed a Even when he wore his Indiana Jones attire, it just didn't feel right. The whole 1950s time period didn't carry through the entire movie. At some point early on, I felt that the movie might as well have taken place in the 20s, 40s, or 30s again. The character of Mutt was not as integral to the plot as, believe it or not, Short Round was in Temple. Mutt hardly did anything to save the day even if it LOOKED like he was doing stuff to save the day. Think about it again, or watch it again, and you might realise that he was an easily expendable character and a badly-written one too. I hated the waterfall sequence. No one, not even in a fantasy movie, can survive such a waterfall, THREE TIMES IN A ROW!!! And most of them were over 50 years old, yet not a broken bone or even a chipped finger nail among them. The heavy, magnetic, quartz, mystical crystal skull looked like a light, cheap, plastic prop! Mac didn't really have to die. He could've easily saved his own life or have been saved by Indy. If Indy blew up the tree-cutting vehicle from the side using the rocket launcher, why did the huge round sharp steel blades fly toward him? And they had not one, but two of them flying toward him, vertically! The dialogue was too expository or flat. A lot of the jokes and quips fell flat. There was something muted and lethargic about the non-action scenes and their dialogue. My favourite scenes in the previous three were the non-action scenes: Indy and his dad reconnecting in Crusade, Indy and Marion falling in love all over again in Raiders, just to name two. Indy 4 had none such thing. I didn't feel the "magic" of the first three... or a sense of re-discovery after all this time had passed. There were no surprises or, even worse, tension! The nuclear explosion was not necessary to the story even if it was a comment about the bugeoning atomic-age of the time period. Who the hell where those karate-playing Ecuadorian natives at the cemetary? And how and why did they disappear so quickly? And whatever happened to the Amazon indians at the lost kingdom? We saw them for a little bit and then they all got killed by Spalko's men (we don't really see the massacre and we don't really see how Spalko's team of 5 men dominated hundreds of natives) and why even include them in the story if they're not going to be used properly? I hated almost every movie that David Koepp had written! Now I'm wondering what Frank Darabont's script looked like, especially because Spiely and Ford liked it and Lucas didn't! I don't trsut Lucas. I wish Lucas didn't have such a powerful influence on this movie because the Lucas of today is much much worse than the Lucas of yesteryear. Why on Earth would all hell break loose at the lost kingdom once the skull was returned to the temple and attached to the rest of the skeleton? After all, at one point, the skull WAS attached to the skeleton before somebody snatched it. So why on Earth would a portal to another dimension be activated and a saucer be launched and an alien skeleton come to life and a whole city destroyed just because a skull was returned to its rightful place? Half way through the movie, we learn that the skull has power over people's minds, yet up to that point we get no indication of that until Spalko conveniently happens to mention it to Indy when he was tied to the chair. Well, that's all I can think of right now. When I walked out of the movie at the end of it, I fell into a depression. Today, I refused to get out of bed and face the world because of the damage that had been done to me last night during the screening. One woman at my screening last night (AMC theatre on 84th & Broadway in NYC, 8:15 p.m. Thursday show) looked at her boyfriend at the end as the credits were rolling and said simply : "It was just boring."

Steven on May 23, 2008


Evidently the comment before me is full of hates. You can't blame anything about this movie. Of course it isn't classic like the others. Douglas Slocumbe couldn't do the cinematography because he's 95 years old and retired. Its an adventure movie. But I love the fact that Steven's comments are not comments they're opinions and last time I checked no one gives a damn about opinions. You say its a disappointment and boring but yet you still paid and watched it so therefore you're contributing to the fact that is will do well in the box office sales. Ford, Lucas, and Spielberg don't really care about ratings and opinions or even box office sales, Spielberg and Lucas are billionaires and Ford is rich as well they don't care. Other than that this movie was great nothing compared to Raiders, because Raiders was different, Lawrence Kasdan, Douglas Slocumbe. So if you need to watch a good adventure movie, and movie that feels like a ride, Indiana Jones is the one for you.

Fish on May 23, 2008


"The Space between Space" is where they went Alex.... have to say this was most the first 3. Still "Raiders" still has to be the favorite. ....yet again.....IRON MAN still is leading the way so far this Summer. It's just to Damn good!

Tim "Cloverfield" on May 23, 2008


Everyone is complaining about the water fall things. Why? Didn't Indy survive falling out of an airplane with a life raft? nitpicking much?

Josh on May 23, 2008


I completely agree with #62. We all went to see Indiana 4 hoping to be entertained by a fun adventure. That is exactly what happened. You guys have got to stop dissecting the movie. Yes, there were some scenes that were far-fetched, but every Indy movie has had that. Like was stated before "Didn't Indy survive falling out of a airplane with a life raft?" Quit complaining and over analyzing the movie and just take it for what it is...a fun two hours.

Derrick on May 23, 2008


A MESSAGE TO ALL THE «STOP COMPLAINING» POSTS Its hard for Real Indy Fans to just see this movie as «A fun Entertaining Movie». Its way more than that! Same thing happened last year! Personnally i thought that Spidey 3 was a fun and enjoyable ride, but my roommate was devastated because he had read all the comics and had immersed himself in the Spiderman universe. When you wait 19 years !!! for a movie to come out, you dont want a FUN ADVENTURE PIC, you want real dedicated movie making. but most importantly : when you wait 19 years to CREATE a movie like Indy 4 and can rely on solid talent on all fronts, you are not making a Casual Popcorn flick, you are creating an event!!! And you have to deliver... Spielberg said he was making this film for the fans so of course fans will react. For a lot of us Indy fans , the man in the Fedora was one of the first movie icon we saw, recreating the movie's scenes in our backyard or with our action figures humming the different themes. For me , Indy was way more important than Star Wars or recently all the Comic Book frenzy. Star Wars is not just an entertaining movie, LOTR is not just a Popcorn flick. some movies are just too important for that and Indiana Jones is one of those. So Indy fans Please speak your mind, you guys have been waiting way too long for that. And to all the others , Mummy 3 is coming out in a couple of months THATS a regular Popcorn adventure flick. If you enjoyed Indy than great, but try to understand what this is all about! And you know what, some of us actually took film studies in college making it hard not to analyze. but its more than that... personnally i have to see it again because i was a little shaken by the disapointment... That being said, I wish a Great Summer 08 to all the movie fans out there!

Maxwell on May 23, 2008


There were so many drafts of the screenplay and the final result felt really muddled to me. We all read about how it took so long for Lucas, Ford, and Spielberg to all approve a script. This amalgam of screenwriters--Frank Darabont, Shyamalayan, David Koepp, etc...I think they just were trying to find a story everyone could agree with and didn't realize that clarity was lost. I read an interview with Koepp saying he aimed to make the movie not as comical and tongue-in-cheek as Last Crusade was, but slightly more serious like Raiders. To me, Crystal Skull was by far the most tongue-in-cheek...and in a really obnoxious way. Like others have said, did we really need twenty different shots of prairie dogs and monkeys? Not a Shia Lebouf fan at all, I'll just say it. I don't find him appealing, and this movie didn't need him. I don't want to see that Indy has a long-lost son. That plot point is so familiar at this point, how many times have we seen it? I don't want Indy 2.0 or Son of Indy. I was so excited to hear that Karen Allen was coming back, but the movie takes way too long to introduce her, and the backstory added between Marion and Indy didn't add up for me. They were going to get married after the events of Raiders and then Indy backed out? She was pissed at him in Raiders for having left her for ten years, they spend the whole movie getting back together. Then he goes and leaves her for twenty more years, but almost as soon as they meet in this movie, she's totally in love with him again, not even mad? Bull. And then Indy says something like "yeah there were other girls, but none of them were you." Indy wouldn't say something like that, and if he truly believed that, why did he leave her for twenty years? And who was it she married that INdy said he introduced her to? I just didn't get it. The action sequences were truly over-the-top. Yes, in the original trilogy all the action has an intentionally caricaturish slant to it, being based on 30s serials. But nothing was truly unbelievable. You still got the sense that the filmmakers cared enough to create something that was even remotely possible. In Crystal Skull, you have Karen Allen intentionally flooring a truck off the cliff because she somehow magically knows she can line herself up perfectly with some flimsy tree branch growing out of the cliff--and that it will hold the weight. The action was so unbelievable, it felt like Spielberg and Lucas were saying "yeah, we can do this. It's only a movie, the audience will believe anything. It's Indy!" The price of that: if the filmmakers are so cavalier about putting anything into the movie no matter how ridiculous, it's because they know Indy can survive anything, he's invincible. If the filmmakers believe that, then the audience is forced to believe that. If Indy can survive anything, there is no tension in any of the sequences. Or when Mutt (what a stupid name, enough with the 50s greaser, Marlon Brando Wild Bunch, James Dean wannabe) is swordfighting with Spalko, you don't for a second think that Spalko will impale him through the heart (like Spielberg did with Ruffio in Hook). Didn't have a problem at all with the aliens like most people, i don't think aliens are any more outlandish than stones with magical powers or an ark that can melt people's faces. Supernatural elements have always been firmly a part of Indiana Jones, that's where a lot of the saturday matinee fun comes in. Plus like has been said, the influence of this movie was 50s sci-fi B movies and not 30s serials like in the original trilogy. Agreed that Ray Winstone's character was unnecessary and distracting. Too many characters in general in the movie. Another thing that bothered me: why did John Hurt's character have to be in the movie? Because then the whole movie Indy is working in his footsteps, following his clues. It's like Indy isn't good enough to solve the puzzles on his own. I mean I know that yes, technically it's the same thing in Last Crusade with Indy using his father's Grail diary and everything but somehow that worked better to me. I bought Last Crusade totally, didn't buy this movie. Ford is still the man, I never had any doubts that he would still be awesome. Once a movie star, always a movie star, and Indiana Jones was never portrayed as young (first movie, "it's not the years honey, it's the mileage). Indy has always been grizzled and somewhat world-weary. The warehouse sequence was great, best part of the movie. Ford still has the stuff, and I would watch him play Indy until he was 120. I don't think the movie is his fault. He put his trust in Spielberg (and why wouldn't he, the first three changed the cinematic landscape). But I just felt that Spielberg was phoning it in, that he didn't really care anymore, he was just doing it for the fans, going through the motions. He wasn't seeking to make any really iconic sequences (boulders in Raiders, minecart chase in T o D, tank sequence in LC) like before. Not a single memorable line in KOTCS in my book. I just saw the movie and can't remember a single line of dialogue. But how many infinitely quotable lines are there in the other three? ("Nazis...I hate these guys!") And I hate when sequels think that blatant self-reference to previous films is enough for a laugh (I'm talking about when Indy is sinking in the quicksand or whatever and Mutt throws him a snake for a rope. Not saying that moment couldn't have been funny, but it was poorly executed. "Call it a rope, then I"ll grab it!" Come on, Indy is a funny character, but not stupid cheap laughs. Christ. Thought the wedding at the end was forced as well. Forced, that's the one word I would use to describe this film. I don't think the movie is a total disaster, I enjoyed it, I think Ford will forever be one of the best action guys to watch, and he only gets better with age. But it certainly didn't live up to my expectations and I think it could have been a lot better with a tighter and more coherent script and if Spielberg had really laid it all on the line and gone for broke like he did with the original three, or at least Raiders. If Lucas is serious about continuing the franchise with LeBeouf in the driver's seat, I hope someone will seriously consider taking him out.

Cameron Cubbison on May 23, 2008


I had no problems with the alien story ................... Like most people. I thought it was OK

SHANE D on May 23, 2008


Reading and browsing these posts makes me realize that I can't wait for Dark Knight more than ever. A friend of mine and my brother got a somewhat advanced screening Thurs. morning. Both of them said it was a fine summer popcorn movie but the plot was lacking. That's about what you get anymore. If you think Lucas has the ability to write a decent script you missed the last three Star Wars films. Forgettable films that left nary an imprint in my memory. Generally speaking most sequels do a bit of lip service or tip of the fedora in this case to the uber fans with dialogue and certain scenes containing "easter eggs". Nothing more and nothing less. Lucas and Spielberg have a great character in Indy and thought it was time to dust him off for a new generation. When the fans of the first three movies (or in my case 1 and 3) show up we already have these set benchmarks we expect a film to hit or go over. The poor film hasn't even gotten a fair chance since we bring with us all of our expectations, memories and baggage into the theater with us. Therein lies the rub. Set the expectation bar lower because Hollywood did a long time ago in case you've been asleep under a mushroom. Therefore it's generally better just to grab your very expensive ticket, your ultra expensive popcorn then relax and let the movie wash over you. That's all you're going to get. Sorry. Ask nothing more of your movies today. Otherwise you end up posting on forums like this with biblical diatribes of how much you "loved" the movie or "hated" the movie. Then who do you bill for those hours? How do you recoup those lost times better spent chatting with Freddie Mercury fans who still think he may be alive in Kensington? Almost the same B.S. happens with any movie on any forum. It's the sad state of affairs but you can vote with your dollars and download the movie. Just kidding. Better yet get it from your local libraryor Netflix in 3 months and burn a copy. The turnaround on theater to DVD release is so small you can afford to wait...Money saved! Your welcome. Then you can bitch and moan at yourself in the basement until your wife can't take it any more and tells you of her affair with a neighbor! Sorry...where was I? Oh, yeah...go see Indy or don't....just lower your expectations of the modern blockbuster. Chances are you'll be more satisfied walking out of the theater. Now let me wrap this insane post up and let's just see the following posts that ask what their expectations are supposed to be. I'll give you a future forum look ahead: "Just what the fuck are my expectations supposed to be Endless? I demand to be entertained with a multitude of explosions and whip cracking, motorcycle chases, crazy fights and...and...and...and...oh wait, it had all that. Ummm...."

Endless on May 23, 2008


Not bad. I'd probably rank it third among the films (after Lost Crusade and Raiders).

Sean Kelly on May 23, 2008


This movie was completely ridiculous. I left the movie think Wait what just happened? Instead of getting control of the city she gets vaporized, and how did the conquistadors get in, and then reset the whole entire sand stair case mechanism??? ummmm what? Disappointed.

SmartGuy on May 23, 2008


9.2/10. It was a great installment in Indiana Jones, but ridiculous it took 18 years to make another one. It's not like they're inventing sliced bread. Bring us a couple more in the next few years and give the fans what they want, George!

Man Tana on May 24, 2008


This Indiana Jones reminds me of Episodes 1, 2, and 3 of Star Wars. Its like Lucas takes forever to make them and when he does, they're completely different from the originals, too much special effects, stupid screenplay, or stupid title. Other than that its great. What I don't understand, how did the Russians get down the obelisk area where Indy and crew ran down the steps that disappeared. And where was Sallah, he was a great supporting cast member. Are they hinting that they're going to make more to evolve Shia into the new Indiana Jones. I don't see it because it would ruin the Indiana Jones franchise including Young Indy. Oh well, next up The Dark Knight.

Fish on May 24, 2008


I think the film's big flaw is Ford's age and the screenwriters/producer/director's insistence to overcook that fact. The film starts with a more world-weary, clumsy Jones and it sort of works - you'd expect Jones to be less sharp. Watch Jones falling about when he's in the small town about to be nuked. Amusing and affectionate. The film acknowledges Ford's age and an older Indiana Jones but this works to the film's detriment when Mutt Williams is introduced. Notice how Mutt leads the action, not Indiana. Indiana is the back seat passenger on the bike, Mutt does most of the action in the jungle chase. Where was Indiana's heroism? I can't recall one heroic action. Where was the character's inventiveness, his ability to think on his feet, his courage? I didn't see any. Mutt was the inventive one, he was the one using the sword. Jones played second fiddle to Mutt and that was a great shame. Some of the CGI animals moments were silly - such as the opening shot of the film. I'm not sure what Mr Lucas was thinking when he thought that shot was appropriate! Another problem is the ensemble nature of the story. Did the film need Mac and Professor Oxley to follow Indy, Marion and Mutt to the city? The film should have made Jones the main attraction but it became more like Indiana Jones and his extended family. The additional cast seemed unnecessary and John Hurt's character wasn't needed. I'd rather he were killed off prior to the jungle chase. All he did was look deranged. The end scenes, whilst visually impressive, lacked an exciting action set piece. This was no opening of the ark, no rollercoaster type Temple of Doom chase scene, just a homage to Close Encounters - aliens appear and then leave. Jones didn't do anything in the end scenes - he was a bystander. A more inventive screenplay could have had Marion trapped inside the structure and Jones trying to rescue her before the alien ship took off but, sadly, we got no invention. The film is enjoyable but the 19 year absence does show. Ford's age inhibits his performance, he's not given enough to do and what he does do lacks the invention we've come to expect from an Indiana Jones movie. At times he's almost a supporting character when he should be leading the narrative. Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull delivers exactly what you expect - a film made by three men in their 60s and it shows. It's an old-fashioned film, a safe, one note film and yet trying to appeal to the 21st century 'internet Ipod' generation. It's the motion picture equivalent of a 'Beatles reunion' Indiana Jones film. The talent is all there but time has passed and the magic has gone. 6 out of 10

Trent on May 24, 2008


Let me first say that I had no problem with the alien storyline, I understand the whole Aliens were the original God's. I just thought the whole pacing of the movie was choppy and frustrating. Here are the moments that killed the movie for me: *spoilers* 1) The opening. Not very Indiana Jones 2) Worst Villian of the four, no depth and horrible accent 3) The monkey scene... HORRIBLE 4) At the end when Mac was just laying on the floor when Indy threw him the whip... just stand up you fat ass, its not like you are in a deep hole or anything! 5) Spalko death scene, could her head not handle that much "knowledge" 6) When Marion drives the car off of the cliff and just knows that the tree will gently lower the car into the river 7) Also, was it just me or did Karen Allen seem a little to happy in every scene? I think she was just so happy to be working again 8) Ant fight scene, way to long with no elements of danger like the airplane fight in Raiders. I hate it when movie makers go over the top in scenes. In the last three Indy's the action was not "unbelievable" you could actually see Indy being able to do those things. In Crystal Skull a lot of the action is unbelievable (monkey swing, car cliff jump, waterfalls, car sword fight) and laughably bad. I loved Ford in this movie, he did a great job of being an "old" Indy. I felt like I was watching King Kong all over again. A movie that had so much potential but missed the mark in a big way. Anyway, thats my opinion. Also, does anyone else notice that using jungle tribes people is the kiss of death for the quality of recent big budget movies: 1) Indy 4 2) King Kong 3) Pirates 2

stc on May 24, 2008


The problem with Indy 4 is we have a standard for it. If they changed the names of the characters it would have been a pretty good movie, but this was an Indiana Jones movie and we expected so much more. Don't spend almost 20 years on a movie and have it be the worst of the series (or third whatever). And yes Karen Allen did seem a little too happy in all her scenes lol. A good movie but that's it. If someone asks me if they should see it I'll respond with a: "*Shrug* it was alright" or a "Well it has Indiana Jones in it..." Definitely not the reaction the fans should have.

Silver on May 24, 2008


It was unexpectedly boring. The action was Cartoony, no sense of danger whatsoever with characters behaving more like superheroes than humans. Plain characters, uninteresting villains, overblown use of bad CGi, just a big disappointment. And if i wanted UFOs, i would wait for X Files 2. I normally don't mind sequels that change stuff, i liked Die Hard 4, Star Wars, etc whatever. But this neither had the charm of National Treasure nor the thrills of previous Tomb Raiders. My GF, when we came out of the theater, said she had much more fun with Iron Man. Can't say i disagree, what a surprise. 🙁

Discateia on May 24, 2008


Forgot to mention another thing. This movie really took a nose dive when it reached the Tarzan scene, followed by the jeep on a Three scene, followed by a jeep falling down 3 times. It kept digging it's own grave, i couldn't believe i was seeing that.

Discateia on May 24, 2008


Why aliens? Because it's set in the 50's, that's why. It fits. Whether I like it or not, the concepts fits the times. I wasn't crazy about this movie, but I had a good time. There was, however, something missing. I think the human drama took a hit in this one, sorry to say. And, the cinematography bothered me. It was... soft. I know they said they tried to emulate Slocombe as much as possible but I think they failed. The bits of cgi here and there bugged me as well (no pun intended!). But then cgi bugs me anyway. Even if it turns out the be the worst of the series, it's far and away better than 99% of the crap adventure movies they crank out these days.

Deeh on May 24, 2008


Its Crap !!!

Albert on May 25, 2008


#7: You're right: they didn't have LED's in the 50's. "The first practical LED was invented by Nick Holonyak, Jr., in 1962" (wikipedia) Now, about the [hatred for the] Aliens... I don't know how many of you played the Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis adventure game, but in this game is suggested that the Atlanteans are... you guessed it: aliens! So, the sci-fi element in IJ isn't new, since this game is from the 90's. BTW, this game should be the 4th IJ!

Fox on May 25, 2008


As far as old school films turned to modernized sequel go, this one was pretty damn good. Last year I felt extraordinarily let down by Die Hard 4 due to the lack of consistency with the style of the original films. Suddenly good cop John McClane is not just a clever guy in the wrong places at the right times, but a full-on action hero, driving cars into helicopters. Crystal Skull is admittedly over the top at points with the whole aliens thing, but at least it retains the feel of the classic films. There is a small amount of modern cinematic glow that wasn't in the original films, but the film quality isn't as stark a contrast as was seen between old Die Hard and new Die Hard. Also, Crystal Skull pretty well beats out Temple of Doom in my book. There's no annoying sub characters to be found here, no overly whiny and weak female lead, no sickeningly cute little boy sidekick. Instead there's a strong but human female lead, and a surprisingly successful son character. Admittedly, the villain was a bit hollow in this one, but hey, just try to watch the first half of Temple again.

Peter Hess on May 26, 2008


I haven't had the chance to watch it already, but thinking that Shia-LaBeouf-nephew-of-some-bigshot is in it, drops my expectations. That stupid sucked bad in Transformers, and I'm it sux again here. Now that I know that there are aliens at the end it, I wouldn't bet much on it.

David on May 28, 2008


Ok I liked the movie so much ...and as I mentioned before you must watch it with a childhood spirit get maximum entertainment as the previews 3 movies .... you can read what I wrote about the movie how they made it .... story ...CGI ...Goofs ....even things that I didn't like 😉 in my blog in myspace : or just enter my blog : and read the 27.May.2008 blog Hope you like it

shero on Jun 1, 2008


I think Karen Allen did an amazing job creating her character Marion Ravenwood for this movie . She is definitely one of the best female action icon around no doubt . Everything that she does whether if it's doing each of these scenes were totally awesome . Like for an example : Marion, Mutt, Oxley and Indy were running from these Russians going into the quicksand and she told Indy herself a secret that she kept for quite a while now like Mutt Williams is actually ( Henry Jones Williams Jr. III ) his son and apparently he didn't believe it until now and from then on both of them decided to argued while getting inside the truck as you may know it was that love - hate relationship to continues upon this day in which it was so hilarious when Karen's character began to smiled afterwards . Also there was a time when she actually has taken control of certain situations like driving shot gun in front of the truck and transferred into another car that looks like a boat even but this time she went full throttle towards into the water rapids while Indy himself gave her directions on where to turn even . I think it's very neat though on how she's able to do this kind of stunt work dropping three times while she's holding onto the wheel and began to smile and laugh all at the same time even . Finally when all of them have to run down those big giant steps going into the cave was absolutely amazing on how they even have to do their own physical training to really prepared for especially Karen Allen herself whom is a much better shape though at her age of 56 looks like my age of 36 cause she hasn't change a bit come on now people . If there's going to be another film in the works perhaps maybe Karen Allen would probably do like " You Got Served 2 " become a Hip - Hop teacher whom searching for ways to compete against any sort of group dancers in the country inside a night club where she usually hang out sometimes after school and wanted to pursue her own dreams to become a professional urban Hip - Hop dancer as well no doubt . Something like that sort of .

Lynn Angela Pisco on Jun 17, 2008

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram