Indiana Jones et le Royaume du crâne de cristal

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.

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

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

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

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

I 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 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.

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.