Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[Chimpcheng]

Those who know me on MAP and in real life will know how much of a fan boy I am. Comic book, Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Kevin Smith, ViewAskew, you name it, I love it. So when news of a 4th Indiana Jones movie started to gain speed and finally a movie with a release date was announced I was literally in heaven.

What’s not to like? The Indiana Jones movies have always, always, always represented the best in action adventure movies and when I first peeped the trailer for the new movie I nearly wet my pants.

The movie promised so much in the trailer and a manic grin spread across my face when the first bars of the famous theme tune piped up. This was Indiana Jones, after a 19 year gap, he was back on the big screen.

I got to the cinema with the lady friend early because I wanted the best seat in the house and what a full house it was. Every single seat was taken and you could see the excitement in everyone’s faces. Indiana Jones was back!!! :D

When the movie starts, you see a man dragged from a car and thrown to the ground, the fedora blows into view and a figure in silhouette picks it up and puts in on. My heart leapt, this was it, this was going to be THE movie of the year.

Sadly, I was cruelly mistaken…

This isn’t Indiana Jones, not by a long shot. There was none of the fun and adventure that permeated the original trilogy, instead Lucas and Spielberg have given us crap! The movie jumps from one ludicrous scene (Indy survives a nuclear blast in a fridge) to another (take your pick of the many on offer) and you’re asked to suspend your disbelief too much.

Sure ‘The Last Crusade’ had a knight from the 11th century alive and kicking in 1938 but it fitted well within the context of that movie and in ‘Raiders’ you had the Ark of the Tabernacle which was full of ghosts. However in ‘Crystal Skull’ your disbelief is tested to its very limit and then beyond and you’re treated to scenes that wouldn’t be out of place in the new ‘X Files’ movie.

Okay there were some pure ‘Jones’ moments in there regarding booby traps, snakes and punch ups with nasty henchmen but overall the movie was dull, predictable and the ending is straight out of ‘Close Encounters…’ and clearly has Spielberg’s fingerprints all over it.

It really pains me to be dissing Indiana Jones as the first three movies are a masterclass in movie making but this 4th movie just isn’t Indiana Jones and I came away hugely disappointed as did a number of people who had left before the ending once you realise where the movie is heading…

I sat there trying to justify what I have just seen, hoping that the movie was going to get better, but it never did.

I forgave Lucas for the Star Wars prequels, as, in my view, he redeemed himself largely with ‘Revenge of the Sith’ but ‘Crystal Skull’ is a huge blot on his and Spielberg’s CV.

I’m sure there will be many people, fans even, who loved the movie and I have to admit there are some wonderful set pieces in there, but it just wasn’t enough to lift the movie.

1 out of 4… :cry:

[slipthejab]

Given that it's Spielberg... Lucas... and all the workings of Hollywood... I'm not even remotely surprised. Not even remotely.:rolleyes:

[Taffyleigh]

Gutting, i was looking forward to the film but now having second thoughts!!!

[Chimpcheng]

Gutting, i was looking forward to the film but now having second thoughts!!!

I was seriously gutted.

Like I said, the trailer promised so much and when I was sat watching the movie I kept hoping against hope that the story wasn't going to end up where it did but the rumours on the interweb were true... :(

Don't let my review stop you from going to see it, I mean you might come out thinking I'm crazy for not liking the movie.

I did try to like the movie, but it sucked badly overall... :cry:

[Moosey]

To give a one sentence review of this movie: You can tell that Spielberg directed it but sadly you can tell that Lucas wrote it.

The technical side of the movie is great - it looks lovely and there's clearly been Spielberg's eye for detail and nostalgia throughout. Unfortunately the dialogue is peppered with Lucas-isms ("I've got a bad feeling about this", "This does not look good") and witticisms that fall flat.

As Chimpster said, the plot is the main problem. Whereas the previous movies set their mysticism within the framework of existing religious mythology, giving them a sense of being grounded in reality, even if the reality was only that defined by myth (if that makes sense), this movie introduces a plotting "get out clause" which allows Lucas to write his own rules - always a bad idea (Midichlorians, anyone?)

I also get the impression that certain set-pieces were put in place just for the sake of it (the nuclear explosion section was clearly just a nod to the 1950s setting rather than being in any way useful to the film) and there was the other Lucas tradmark - excessive and unneccessary use of CGI. Did we really need CG gophers?

Having whinged a bit, I did quite enjoy watching the movie. Harrison Ford reprises the role well as a grizzly old Indiana Jones and is actually still quite believable in the action scenes. Karen Allen, as Indy's love interest, is an underdeveloped character but has still jumped up near the top of my "If I were a few years older..." list and Shia Leboef does well with the character he's given, proving himself again to be likeable actor.

Overall: not terrible as such (and better than the diabolical Star Wars prequels), but not a patch on the older trilogy and not as good as the last action movie I went to see at the cinema (Iron Man). 2.5/5

[Chimpcheng]

The technical side of the movie is great - it looks lovely and there's clearly been Spielberg's eye for detail and nostalgia throughout.

This is true and one of the few redeeming features of the movie, it does look fantastic in places but in other places it was clearly shot in a studio and for such a big movie it featured some ropey special (d)effects.

As Chimpster said, the plot is the main problem. Whereas the previous movies set their mysticism within the framework of existing religious mythology, giving them a sense of being grounded in reality, even if the reality was only that defined by myth (if that makes sense), this movie introduces a plotting "get out clause" which allows Lucas to write his own rules - always a bad idea (Midichlorians, anyone?)

I can't believe that not one of the proof readers, script doctorers, actors said "George, you can't be serious?" The plot was ludicrous and extremely painful to watch unfold and was clearly left over from some movie that Lucas/Spielberg failed to get greenlit.

I'm still pained by what I saw... :cry:

[Taffyleigh]

I think i will watch Iron Man next and wait for Indy to come out on dvd.

[Taffyleigh]

i watched the fobidden kingdom today, awesome film - watch it if you haven't already.

[Moosey]

Iron man roxx.

[Moosey]

i watched the fobidden kingdom today, awesome film - watch it if you haven't already.
Is that the one with Jet Li and Jackie Chan? I totally want to see that!

[Dan Bian]

I saw Indy on the opening day.
I went in, expecting to see an excellent movie, but came away feeling as if my heart and soul had been ripped out and stamped on by a herd of CG Gophers.

For me, the only thing that stopped me commiting suicide after seeing this movie was Harrison Ford's performance. He was top of the line, the movie was bottom of the barrel.

[Brat]

I saw it and enjoyed it, but I've never seen the first three, so I don't have a comparison scale here. I think it's a good movie with good actors.

[Yohan]

I saw it and enjoyed it, but I've never seen the first three, so I don't have a comparison scale here. I think it's a good movie with good actors.

Well good, go get the three pack for the old ones (I think I'm gonna do just that) to see some movies in the same vein, but are way better.

I gave it a 5/10, so a 2/4. I thought it was predictable, derivative, and unfathomable. Most of the older movies really had the feel of whatever era they were set in. This movie felt like the 90's. I prefer sets and props to CG almost 100% of the time.

This was possibly the most over the top movie I have ever seen.

The worst part is how they left it open for a sequel, with his "son" as the new Indiana Jones

[Brat]

Meh.. I'm not a big fan of the guy who plays Jones, so I don't really think I'd be big on the old movies.
*Giggles* I will say that having read Secrets and Mysteries of the World by Sylvia Brown, the whole thing sounded to me like it came out of her delusional writings. But it was still good as entertainment, I thought.

[19thlohan]

He was better as Han Solo!:)

[koyo]

Meh.. I'm not a big fan of the guy who plays Jones, so I don't really think I'd be big on the old movies.
*Giggles* I will say that having read Secrets and Mysteries of the World by Sylvia Brown, the whole thing sounded to me like it came out of her delusional writings. But it was still good as entertainment, I thought.

You would be better checking out the Bourne movies.

regards koyo

[Brat]

Koyo: We have 'em and I really don't care for them.

[Moosey]

You would be better checking out the Bourne movies.

regards koyo
...but avoid the books like the plague! ;)

[koyo]

...but avoid the books like the plague! ;)

Got to agree with that. Having read the books I almost did not go to see the movie. Glad I did though, he outbonds bond.

regards koyo

[Yohan]

Meh.. I'm not a big fan of the guy who plays Jones, so I don't really think I'd be big on the old movies.
*Giggles* I will say that having read Secrets and Mysteries of the World by Sylvia Brown, the whole thing sounded to me like it came out of her delusional writings. But it was still good as entertainment, I thought.

BLASPHEMER!! :D

You mean Harrison Ford!? The older movies aren't quite as far fetched.

[Light123]

Technically, I'm Indiana Jones. Why don't y'all love me? :'(











:D

[Moosey]

Technically, I'm Indiana Jones. Why don't y'all love me?
How does one become Indiana Jones on a technicality? :confused:

[Light123]

Indiana techniques. :P

[SB1970]

Ok guys,let me break this down for you without me trying to sound to much like a muppet lol
When the first Indy film came out in 1981 I thought it was the best thing since sliced bread-I ate slept and lived the film,it was something that lit up my life,I was 11 years old!
The "new" Indy came out in the uk this week and the first chance to go and see it i did
and it is aimed at the same type of people the origanal was aimed at, 11 years olds boys and thus i felt a little let down as I am now 38.
I don't think this is the problem of the film, I think it is our problem-films like that this are VERY important to people as they represent happy childhoods and good times passed and we all want to recapture this.But we can't be we are older,have jobs,maybe kids and life moves on and we look at things with a different point of view.This is not our fault but i think we want this film, and the new star wars film to do something they can't ....lets us be 11 again.
I'll be intrested to hear people's thoughts on the above.............

[Chimpcheng]

While I think it's true that there'll be a certain amount of rose tinted viewage (after all the original trilogy were masterclasses in action/adventure movie making) it still doesn't make the 4th movie any less of a turkey.

I first watched the original trilogy as a kid and loved them. I'm now 32 and own the own the uncut R1 DVD set and still enjoy the movies. I'm not sure they make me feel like a kid any more, they're just extremely good movies unlike, sadly, 'Crystal Skull'.

With the Star Wars prequels I meh 'Phantom Menace', thought 'Attack' was dull and that 'Revenge' went some way to righting wrongs.

Still, don't let the negativity put any of you off going to see the flick, it did get some great reviews in the press, and besides you might think it's better than the original trilogy... :confused::p

[jwt]

Got to agree with that. Having read the books I almost did not go to see the movie. Glad I did though, he outbonds bond.

regards koyo

Interesting. I enjoyed the Bourne novels and thus watched the first film. I personally couldn't stand what they'd done to the characters and the plot.

[koyo]

Interesting. I enjoyed the Bourne novels and thus watched the first film. I personally couldn't stand what they'd done to the characters and the plot.

I liked the books but I thought there was no way they could be brought to the screen. The films I liked because of the lack of gadjets and bimbos.


regards koyo
Check our David Morrels trilogy
Brotherhood of the rose
Fraternity of the stone
League of night and fog.
I think you may like them.

[Slindsay]

The film could have been worse but i could have been a lot better as well. I enjoyed it but didn't really think it was an Indiana Jones film. The plot was terrible but all the action, actors and SFX where decent too good.

BUt seriously, not an Indiana Jones film in many ways, it was just not clever enough and Indy was too much of a superhero.

[jwt]

I liked the books but I thought there was no way they could be brought to the screen. The films I liked because of the lack of gadjets and bimbos.


I'll look up the books.

I liked the lack of gadgets, but I hated the dropping of anything resembling a plot in favour of non stop action scenes. One car chase looks much the same as another to me (excepting Ronin) and if I want to see realistic fights I'll go training.

[sg516]

you are forgetting the one positive aspect of the movie.

its my new measuring stick on how quickly i can completely disregard a persons opinion. for instance if one of my friends comes up to me and says "aww man you need to see bratz the movie, its not at all as bad as they say." i can simply reply "what did you think of the new indiana jones movie?" and they would of course reply with a hearty "it rocked", (or if their iq has sunk so low, "it roxxors") then they will begin to drool, wet themselves and run face first into a wall. bc in order to think this movie is good you would have to be completely pants on head retarded. i don't even think i can muster the proper amount of vitriol this early in the day to describe just how much i hated it.

but as a measuring stick for turning normally intelligent and informed opinions to ambiant white noise it is perfect.

[Moosey]

pants on head retarded


Nice turn of phrase, I'll have to note that one for future use! :D

[jwt]

Saw it today.

I liked it. I didn't find it spectacularly different to the other movies overall. It was an enjoyable action romp, no more, no less. I didn't find anything in it that suspended disbelief in greater ways than previous films (thinking here of leaping from an aircraft in a raft, or ripping out hearts without breaking the skin, angelic beings emerging from arks or very old knights).

The film was bound to be different from the others - the older character and time setting ensure that is the case. Of the quartet I would rate it 2nd personally. In overall content, action level, enemy type, plot coherence and 'potential effect on the world of failure' etc I find it closer to the other movies than the prequel 'temple of doom'. I found the humour content much the same as the others, only this time I found that more of the non-slapstick jokes were aimed at people with the life experience of being in their 40s rather than people in their 20s - much in keeping with the last outing.

Overall though I found that the film took the standard elements of an IJ movie and adapted them very well in keeping with the new character age and time setting. I didn't expect it to be any better than it was. I suspect that the biggest problems many people have with it are:
1. The mythology employed.
2. The lack of a young girl clinging to Indy.

With regard to the second - get real. The choice of woman in this film is far more appropriate. With regard to the first, we've already had two outings of Abrahamic faith mythology and one of Hindu based mythology - I see no issue with taking a known South American legend and giving it a twist in keeping with the time period of the movie.

Given the disparity of judgements I have come across with regard to this film, it does indeed set a benchmark. In conversation with people who have liked previous IJ films I can ask the question - did they enjoy this one? If they did not I can accurately judge them as delusional fantasists whose perception of reality is distorted by false nostalgia and view any other opinions they may voice appropriately.

[Chimpcheng]

I didn't find anything in it that suspended disbelief in greater ways than previous films (thinking here of leaping from an aircraft in a raft, or ripping out hearts without breaking the skin, angelic beings emerging from arks or very old knights).

I think the deal here is that, although the original trilogy were arguably just as fantastical, the supernatural haps in them fitted well within the context of those movies.

For me (and many others it seems) the 4th movie was very jarring and was basically not an Indiana Jones movie. It was more at odd than the 'Star Wars' prequels which didn't quite feel like 'Star Wars' movies despite being very familiar.

If it had been a different movie - i.e. some stand alone movie with the exact same story and setup but with a different main character (Moosey for example :D ) then movie goers and Indy fans in general would probably dismiss it out of hand as a 'B' movie.

[jwt]

I find your comments interesting as I didn't feel it jarred in the same way, but I will concede that is probably because I regard UFOs the same way as I regard the supernatural.

For me the only slightly jarring aspect was the use of cgi bugs - but as they played a very minor role in the film I wasn't really concerned.

In contrast I felt this film fitted better within the pantheon than 'temple of doom'. It had strong core themes of links with govt agencies as were present in raiders, it had the snake elements as with raiders, the same dame and similar reasons for engaging in the 'task' as in movies 1 and 3. We had the links to Jones' family, relationships and work that were present in movies 1 and 3 but pretty absent in 'temple'. We had plays on father son and father figure relationships as we had had in the last movie. By having the main action take place in south america it linked up with the 'home territory' of the first scenes of the first movie. As soon as we saw the warehouse at the start of the movie my mind was immediately transported to the final scenes of 'Raiders' - a link that was reinforced by one of the events in the subsequent action.

The linking of aliens to south american civilisation (and indeed to Egyptian civilisation) is not a new one and is part of various cultural traditions - so I did not feel that out of place. So if we have "god" and his host appear with respect to the Abrahamic legends of the Ark - why not the Aliens with respect to the south american legends? The Jones films began with him attempting to take a golden skull from South America - so is solving a mystery behind crystal skulls and Eldorado in the same area of the world a big departure?

With regard to dialogue - I found it no different than any other IJ movies - which is hardly surprising given that they al had the same hand behind them. In terms of cinematography I felt that they had managed to keep the feel, pace and texture of the older movies in precisely the way that many people wish Lucas had done with his Star Wars prequels instead of going down the cgi route.

As I recall the director and writer have described IJ movies as B movies - just good ones that have caught the popular imagination.

[Moosey]

If it had been a different movie - i.e. some stand alone movie with the exact same story and setup but with a different main character (Moosey for example :D ) then movie goers and Indy fans would have found their new hero and forgotten all about Han Solo.

Corrected that for ya!

[koyo]

I think the problem is that the first three were aimed a teenagers mainly and so too was the last one. The "teenagers" who saw the first three then almost twenty years later watch the forth cannot hope to catch lightning in a bottle again.

regards koyo

[tom pain]

I think the problem is that the first three were aimed a teenagers mainly and so too was the last one. The "teenagers" who saw the first three then almost twenty years later watch the forth cannot hope to catch lightning in a bottle again.

regards koyo

I'm not a teenager anymore (I'm 20) but I loved and still love the original 3, but thought this was crap.

[Tatsumaru]

I'm not a teenager anymore (I'm 20) but I loved and still love the original 3, but thought this was crap.

much the same, i'm 21 and i think i first watched the indy movies when i was about 14. I don't think the problem is that i'm remembering the original trilogy as being better than they really were, or that i'm holding this new one up to some impossibly high standard. In truth i probably could have forgiven everything else in that movie if it weren't for the final 10 or 15 minutes starting when they 'put back' the crystal skull.

Its sort of difficult to argue my point effectively here without spoilers, so i'm going to replace a specific word, which i'm sure those who have seen the movie can guess, with the word 'disappointments'.

OK, seriously now, the disappointments, there really is no justification for them being in this film. Jwtitchen, i'm sure the makers of this movie would be proud because honestly you've done a good job arguing your point in their favour but i am going to have to agree with the chimp on this one. There is definitely, in my mind at least, a clear distinction between the kind of slightly supernatural myths of the first trilogy and the disappointments in this new one. The disappointments just seem so totally out of place in the world of indiana jones, its as if they thought, "hey you know what would be cool, if we could somehow add a bit of sci-fi to indy"....WRONG! The disappointments were not cool, they just did not seem part of that reality that was created in the original trilogy.

Jungles: great
snakes and bugs: great
elaborate traps: great
tombs and temples: great
cheesy one-liners: great
'the disappointments': BAD!

This whole incongruous thing is i think what chimpy was citing as his main problem with the new film and if that's the case, i agree with him.

[tom pain]

In truth i probably could have forgiven everything else in that movie if it weren't for the final 10 or 15 minutes starting when they 'put back' the crystal skull.

That's exactly how I felt. The other IJ films do have their flaws but you kind of forget all about them because the movies are overall enjoyable.

With this one, because the ending was disapointing I just couldn't helping thinking the overall film was a disapointment. Maybe if it had ended better I could have overlooked the flaws...

[Chimpcheng]

I really tried to like the movie, I really did, but I just couldn't get into it. Perhaps it's one of those movies that will get better with repeated viewing but I just don't see it happening.

Sure, the original trilogy required a certain amount of disbelief but the supernatural/religious element fitted well within the confines of those movies and the Indiana Jones canon as a whole. The fourth movie really didn't - it reminded me of an Indiana Jones comic book where the pyramids or some temples were built by alien robots. Indiana Jones and alien beings/interdimensional beings do not mix in my opinion.

I'm a huge Indiana Jones fan, so much so that I was almost prepared to convince myself that I enjoyed it, sadly I was so disappointed that I had to tell the truth...

The movie will definitely have its fans just as the 'Star Wars' prequels have fans who prefer them over the original (idiots I call them... :D).

Still, go see it, like I said you might think I'm a fool for not liking it. :)

[flutterfists]

Eh. I gave it a two out of four. I went into the movie with a "let's have some good ol' Indy fun and not look at the plot realistically" attitude. It helped me enjoy the plot more (which wasn't close to fantastic in my opinion), but honestly, much of my feeling entertained and excited throughout the movie felt... forced on my part. Without going into detail (most of the negative things I felt about the movie were already mentioned), I'll sum things up by saying I thought this movie lacked important elements to the story that made the other Indy movies fun.

I was also annoyed with the random little things that provided no contribution to the plot whatsoever. Like Tarzan - I mean Shia - getting the help of some random monkey friends. It just seemed like they drew blanks while writing the movie, and decided they should fill in the gaps with random nonsense and computer graphics. "If we can't wow them with the plot, let's wow them with special effects!" was the impression I suppose I got.

Other than the above issues, it was a somewhat enjoyable movie. :D

[Chimpcheng]

I was also annoyed with the random little things that provided no contribution to the plot whatsoever. Like Tarzan - I mean Shia - getting the help of some random monkey friends.

Aww man, I completely forgot (re: forced out of my memory) that incredibly stupid scene with the monkeys! Gah, the more I think about it the more upset I get... :cry:

[jwt]

Now THAT was the bit I disliked.

[flutterfists]

Sorry for bringing back such bitter memories, haha. It's actually a fond one for me. When the scene happened, I was entertained when everyone in the theature simultaneously turned to each other and mouthed the words, "WTF." :D

[Blade96]

I watched it soon after it came out. Even bought the movie (before i saw it) on dvd and I wasted my money. Completely.

Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Numbskull. And thats about all I will say about that.

The skull was pathetic, for one thing, it was supposed to mess with your mind but the potion of the black sleep of kali did a better job of portraying that in the temple of doom than blanchett's crystal bum wipe.

That's just one thing wrong with this. Just for fun, here's a little jem of things I found that I agree with. Have fun lol

Indiana Jones and the Close Encounters with Mediocrity!!!!

Crystal Numbskull and the Kingdom of the Buttoned Shirt

Indiana Jones and the Massive Creative Breakdown

Indiana George and the Kingdom of the Crystal Caca,

Indian Jones and the Kingdom of the Adolescent Screenplay

' Indiana Jones and the High School Reunion'


Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of We Still Have All Your Money


Indiana Jones and The Incredible Flopnik


Indiana Jones and The Title That Has Something to do With Skulls

Indiana Jones and the Dumb Script



In need of mood elevators after this.

Indiana George and the Kingdom of the Crystal Squirrels.

Indiana joke and the kingdom of E.T skull.

Indiana Jones And The Abysmal Sequel.

Indiana Jones and the Comedy of Errors.

Indiana Jones and the Curse of the Fractured Hip.

Indiana Jones and the Jar Jar Binx Affair.

Spoilers, both of you Steven and George, Damn spoilers.

Indiana Jones and the close encounters of the lame kind.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Impossible Special Effects.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the Battlefield Earth of the Franchise.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the huge disappointments.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Unfortunate Icon Destruction.

Indiana Jones and the Little Green Men.

Indiana Jones and the Massive Creative Breakdown.

Indiana Jones and the Mummy and Mummy Returns, the National Treasure II, and the skulls of the Aliens.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Suckage.

Indiana Jones and the ultimate disappointment!.

Indiana Jones and the Waste of Money.

Indiana Jones and the worst story in script history.

Indiana Jones meets Close Encounters of the Third Kind...

Indiana should've stayed in retirement.

Indy is actually the father of Tarzan? .

It doesn't have to be like this!.

Lara Croft in a Mummy film playing Indiana Jones.

Like watching your grandma die.. but with a good theme tune.

Lucas and Spielberg...What Were You Thinking?.

Lucas is trying to figure out how bad he can make movies and people will still go...

Lucas...why did it have to be Lucas?.

Mayan magical jigsaw puzzle.

Monkeys do not attack communists for no reason.

Motorized stonehenge palace.

Much like the Holy Grail.... Indy should have been laid to rest.

NO NUKE IS SAFE FROM THE MIGHTY FRIDGE!?!?!?!?.

No wonder Sean Connery didn't want to return for this.
Not Just Bad........Embarrassing.

Oh well.. at least my original box set can't be ruined by Indy 4.

One of the worst movies my skull has ever seen.

Rick O'Connell in a Tomb Raider film playing Indiana Jones.

Russians?! why can't we have Nazis again?.

Shia Lebeouf and the phantom menace that is the new Jones flick.

So much time wasted in human life waiting……Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Still in tears .... and not the good kind.

Temple of Doom is no longer the worst Indiana Jones film.

The films greatest crime is that is just not a fun film.

The fridge came and left and wasn't given much room to expand as a character.

The Funeral of a Classic Movie Character .

The government admits that they screwed up and not only give Indy his job back but they promote him to Associate Dean.

The most insulting film since Phantom Menace .

The Phantom Menace of the Indiana Jones Franchise .

The Phantom Menace of the Indiana Jones Saga.

There was a spaceship....

This movie couldn't hold my middle schoolers attention it was so bad.

Uncle Steven reaches out to your childhood & leaves you feeling molested.

Unthinkable, Unwatchable.

Very disappointing is an understatement.

Well thats 2 hours of my life I can't get back!!!.

When Indiana Jones became the Mummy, Stargate and E.T.

Why Indy Why? Why, Lucas??? Why? Why...? ...Why??? Please! Tell me!!! Why???! Why?!!! WHY???!!!!.

Written, Produced, and Directed by Jar Jar Binks.

Yawn - Your boring me now.

You have chosen wisely, Mr. Connery!.

INDIANA JONES AND THE QUEST TO KISS MY FAT ASS.