Indiana Jones y el reino de la calavera de cristal

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

I 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.

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.

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).

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.