ROTTEN TOMATOES: Cannes 2008: Review - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Comments

Cannes 2008: Review - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

by Joe Utichi | May 18, 2008

Summary

The early RT verdict on the fourth chapter in the Indy franchise. Is it more Phantom Menace than A New Hope? Back to Article

(1-50 of 50 posts) | Reply

Maase writes:
on May 18 2008 09:10 AM

B'uh, that's a shame.

I'l still see it tough, i didn't see yet the other Indiana Jones movies, maybe this will be a good movie as a Solo Movie and not as an Indiana Jones movie :)

(Reply to this)

Xavier Telouran writes:
on May 18 2008 09:14 AM

So for this reviewer it was mostly a Kindom of the Crystal Dulls?

Sorry, had to get it out there so I could claim "shenanigans" when all the papers started using it...

(Reply to this)

blinkybrown writes:
on May 18 2008 09:19 AM

Good thing I think Cannes is an over-pretentious (though not as bad as sundance) excuse for slamming regular film with a focus on only enjoying experimental art. They've often hated good movies and loved bad movies, so I'm still not worried. Plus, even a bad Indy movie is a good movie...because it's Indy.

(Reply to this)

RottenRob writes:
on May 18 2008 09:26 AM

I tried not to judge the movie too much by its previews, but it's strange how this review seems to exactly reflect my impressions from the trailers. Of course I'll still see it and probably have fun.

Heck, I still think Phantom Menace is fun despite its problems.

Heck, indeed.

(Reply to this)

bwozar07 writes:
on May 18 2008 09:35 AM

I would comment that there are some more pleasant reviews of Indy coming out, McCarthy at Variety for instance

http://www.variety.com/VE1117937176.html

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on May 18 2008 09:41 AM

Phantom Menace kicked *** so I'm not going to listen to this review.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on May 18 2008 10:09 AM

IDK... I still think its going to be great. Some critics im sure like some viewers wanted it to be bad.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on May 18 2008 10:13 AM

I think this will still get a positive RT meter. These are just a few reviews there basing this story on im sure.

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on May 18 2008 10:18 AM

I'm finding this review very hard to make sense of..
"it's not as much of a disaster as it could so easily have been". Huh? So it was a disaster then, just not a very big one??? You sure didn't say anything too damning about the film though - just too much CGI.. and the other stars didn't get the chance to shine (I think it should all be about Indy anyway).

(Reply to this)

salsafish writes:
on May 18 2008 10:18 AM

Can we use the word "Zeitgeist" without being pretentious?

You know without seeing it that this movie has one foot in the 80s, and one in 2008. It's going to have "flaws" since it's trying to do a bunch of things at once. What matters is that it's going to be fun to watch, and that's the real point.

(Reply to this)

blattman writes:
on May 18 2008 10:47 AM

Anyone who didn't see all the CGI in the first trailer was blind. You go for the adventure, to lose yourself for a couple of hours in his world, and I don't want it too real. I'm still pretty sure the boulder from the first movie wasn't a real threat to Harrison Ford anymore then the cgi ones are in this pic. Jeesh!

(Reply to this)

mrshock13 writes:
on May 18 2008 10:56 AM

In reply to this comment (#1739304)
Salsafish, you pretty much have it, this movie exists for the pure entertainment value for all the fans who have seen and loved the previous indy movies. Regardless of what reviewers will say, people will go see this movie, and probably love it, because for the most part they aren't a bunch of pretentious pricks that think that this movie isn't good because there is TOO much action...how that is in an ACTION film, much less an INDY film, I will never understand. Can't wait to see it, it's gonna be great!

(Reply to this)

Timbo0075 writes:
on May 18 2008 11:15 AM

this is rubbish, I thrust Empireonline.com, they warned us that more mixed reviews would come out like this but to ignore them. They said it was fun so I'm gonna believe them. Not this *** who wrote this

(Reply to this)

The Federal Farmer writes:
on May 18 2008 11:17 AM

In reply to this comment (#1739231)
Just echoing blinkybrown. As someone who's worked Sundance for many years, it's pretty obvious when critics reach a little too deep when making their reviews. I have no idea why on earth Indy premiered at Cannes. No doubt there were anti-American sentiments abounding, full of hatred towards Spielberg, Lucas, and everything with a budget over $100. If it's anything like Sundance, the negative reaction means it's probably a good movie, since so many of those festival goers are caught up in acting like movie bourgeoise, simply because they've seen a few non-mainstream flicks. Even the bad reviews make this sound great - full of action, all the stuff of the old movies. And, hey, when you can impress a hard-nosed critic like Emmanuel Levy, you're doing just fine.

(Reply to this)

smitty112485 writes:
on May 18 2008 11:22 AM

What I'm not clear on... is this one guy's opinion or is it a consensus?

Right now, it has a 63% Tomatometer, and the good reviews are clearly contradicting the bad ones. It's not like most films where the bad reviews and good reviews share criticisms, but this is one where one person is saying "Cate Blanchett is forgettable" and another is saying "She's good enough to be a Bond Villain". It's crazy. And knowing how pretentious the Cannes crowd have been in the past (The Da Vinci Code was disappointing, but their reaction to it was a bit much), they're not exactly the most reliable source when it comes to what's great. Didn't Babel win the Palme d'Or one year?

(Reply to this)

just a fan writes:
on May 18 2008 11:27 AM

Going to the movies is like meeting new people. You don't always understand them, may not like them initially or later but it is an experience. Seeing a franchise film like Indy or even X Files is like a reunion with some old friends you may not like everything about them but they are familiar and you have some common experiences good and bad. I want to have have fun, be moved, infuriated, scared out my pants or laugh and be entertained. Ironman was a new found "friend" despite its flaws, Young at Heart was a delight and whatever Indy is or isn't I'm sure I'll have some fun in the dark with some old friends.

(Reply to this)

monkeybrow writes:
on May 18 2008 11:33 AM

interesting that Variety and Time's reviews are quite positive compared to this...

(Reply to this)

cypress550 writes:
on May 18 2008 12:38 PM

for the most part i dont listen to reviewers anyway i have to see it first to make an opinion not go off somebody elses. also ive heard alot of good reviews too so this doesnt worry me at all.

(Reply to this)

sunsaz writes:
on May 18 2008 01:06 PM

IMO, this review really doesn't say if it was any good or not. Maybe it's because I'm reading it with a headache, but this appears more cryptic than the plot itself. Oh well, I can wait a couple more days for the other reviews to come in.

And I'm still going to see it anyways, so that'll be the best possible review.

(Reply to this)

Bloody Mathias writes:
on May 18 2008 01:07 PM

Just as i thought, mixed reviews.

Some calling this a travesty to the trilogy others sayings they had a blast.

Oh well, bring on July 18. :D

(Reply to this)

Floor Man writes:
on May 18 2008 01:26 PM

:( Oh, well. I'm still going to see it on its opening weekend. To me, Indy's Indy. I just think that the total mindset of film-making is inherently different now, and therefore, the approach to the whole process affects the final film. Consequently, I really don't think anyone could ever make a movie now that possesses the same style and creative texture that was abundant (even baseline) in Hollywood production 20-30 years ago.... :|

Hmmm...this makes me think that either The Dark Knight (or even Iron Man?) might end up taking this year's box office crown.

Prince Caspian isn't doing so well, and will certainly end up with less than the final gross of its predecessor....

I have a feeling that Iron Man is going to be the "Transformers" of this summer: the movie that people knew was going to do well, but didn't know it was going to do *so* well. :) I could see it barely pushing past $300 million near the end, as I also predict The Dark Knight will.

Additionally and lastly, I really hope The Incredible Hulk does well...this version looks so much better than Lee's, and I haven't seen anything that Edward Norton's been in that I haven't liked.

Woo! Summer, here we go!

(Reply to this)

whiskeyriver writes:
on May 18 2008 01:38 PM

Naaah...the original three were just as absurd and just as unbelievable. Some of these critics seem to forget that...that they are expecting a completely different film than they SHOULD be expecting...one that is just good fun. After all, they ARE based on old adventure serials that were at their heart, very absurd and escapist fun. If this one was any different, I'd be upset. And if this film DIDN'T use CGI, but rather old special effects techniques, people would have found it laughable and would have been just as upset. Bring it on, I say!

(Reply to this)

whiskeyriver writes:
on May 18 2008 01:43 PM

Here's ANOTHER fresh review:
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/may/18/review-indiana-jones-and-kingdom-crystal-skull/

(Reply to this)

whiskeyriver writes:
on May 18 2008 01:44 PM

And ANOTHER fresh review:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/erstein/entries/2008/05/indiana_jones_a.html

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on May 18 2008 01:46 PM

This is one movie where I think I'll wait until I see it myself. I don't expect it to be the greatest movie ever, or even this year (thanks to Mr. Nolan) so I probably won't be let down.

(Reply to this)

Novastar. writes:
on May 18 2008 01:47 PM

It's a damn shame they didn't go with Drabonts script as that man knows to write a script as no other.

(Reply to this)

cloudparty writes:
on May 18 2008 01:58 PM

In reply to this comment (#1739231)
Just not true. "Temple of Doom" is bad Indy and a bad movie. Just sayin'.

(Reply to this)

sunsaz writes:
on May 18 2008 02:16 PM

A couple more things to put this into perspective:
-Remember that this is Spielberg's first big budget popcorn film since "Jurassic Park" 15 years ago. Since then, he's only done dramas or sci-fi films with subliminal themes.
-As much as most of us loved the ILM models and effects growing up, CGI is here to stay and there's no going back. It's a hard fact, but a fact nonetheless.
-It'll be better than "Postal."

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on May 18 2008 02:28 PM

In reply to this comment (#1739768)
What "Temple Of Doom" is a bad movie? Are you NUTS!!! All Indy flicks were great... My order of best indy flicks #1-Raiders, #2-Last Crusade, #3- Temple... I think The Chrystal Skull will be better then Temple though.

(Reply to this)

kodie131 writes:
on May 18 2008 02:31 PM

I hope Jar-Jar makes a cameo in Crystal Skull

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on May 18 2008 02:36 PM

I have read such varying opinions on this movie, and it's just been premiered! Reviews I've read have said a lot of opposite things to this one, such as the CG aspect. One said that it's very minimal compared to most summer blockbusters.

And Temple of Doom is not a bad movie. It's not the best Indy, but it's a great movie. Capshaw is the only real problem I have with that one.

(Reply to this)

Xavier Telouran writes:
on May 18 2008 02:49 PM

On a slightly related/unrelated note, who thinks the South Park episode with George Lucas and Steven Spielberg will be re-airing this week?

(Reply to this)

CallMeBakes writes:
on May 18 2008 03:00 PM

Many people have wanted to see this movie fail from the beginning. I just don't understand it. I love Indy and expect this one to be really fun and exciting. Will it be as good as the others? Probably not, but that's just because the others are pure classics. Raiders basically redefined the action movie.
There's a double standard here. The review above is an example. If the movie had spent a lot of time on the other actors to develop them, they would complain that not enough time was spent on Indy. If they spend most time on Indy, they complain not enough time was spent on the other actors. It's lose-lose for Spielberg and Lucas.
I'll go see it though and enjoy it.

(Reply to this)

lateralus2 writes:
on May 18 2008 03:25 PM

Well as much as I liked the Indy films as a kid, I can honestly say that this film has always had a ? over it. Its like the rolling stones doing a tour in wheel chairs. Why did they need to make it?

Saying that I'll still go to see it in the first week, cause spielberg always makes good movies.

But to all those who think it will be box office champ for the year, think again. The winner is THE DARK KNIGHT!!!! Heath R.I.P

(Reply to this)

Voice Over Guy writes:
on May 18 2008 03:29 PM

If you're paying attention to all of the reviews pouring in from Cannes, most are very favorable, so I wouldn't worry too much about Joe Utichi's review.

(Reply to this)

smi1ey writes:
on May 18 2008 03:35 PM

not real peril? they do know that the original Indy movies used special effects too, don't they? personally ive immensly enjoyed all the new star wars films, so I'm not worried about some bad reviews. its Indy. it'll be cheesy, unbelievable, and quite entertaining. even if its not technically sound as it should be!

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on May 18 2008 03:51 PM

In reply to this comment (#1739768)
Here's one of the 4 people who still doesn't like Temple of Doom.

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on May 18 2008 03:56 PM

Roger Ebert just gave Indy 4 three and a half stars.

Nuff said.

(Reply to this)

splatterscribe writes:
on May 18 2008 04:03 PM

This review is terrible. I mean the waffling is ridiculous: It begins with "it confirms the worst" then ends up at "there's a lot to love here." I don't hold the RT critics in particularly high regard and this sort of indirect, vague writing is why.

Look, I don't care if the film gets trashed here or not. I'm gonna see it opening night and decide for myself anyway (though it's worth mentioning that the majority seems to favor it at the moment)- but the only clear opinion I took from this review was that the author didn't like the Star Wars prequels (???). If the critic is gonna play the angry fanboy lashing out because Unca George didn't give him the Star Wars treat that he had concocted in his mind with the prequels, maybe he shouldn't be the one assigned to review a film in another series Lucas is involved with. As it is, I'm a lot more skeptical about the open mindedness of the author of this piece when he went into the film than I am about the quality of IJ&TKOTC.

(Reply to this)

barnaby Jones writes:
on May 18 2008 04:59 PM

Most of the reviews coming in are postive, Ebert gave it 3.5/4

(Reply to this)

barnaby Jones writes:
on May 18 2008 05:06 PM

For some reason, alot of people have wanted this film to fail from the outset. Its a shame people have't waited to see for themselves before creating a negative buzz.

(Reply to this)

Voice Over Guy writes:
on May 18 2008 05:13 PM

There shouldn't be any negative buzz, anymore! Top critics like Richard Corliss of the "LA Times", Roger Ebert and many more have given "Crystal Skull" praise! Blogger critics don't hold a candle to people like Roger Ebert. I am relieved and very excited for the opening!

(Reply to this)

jono1018 writes:
on May 18 2008 05:18 PM

im not going now they always have some clue

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on May 18 2008 05:40 PM

In reply to this comment (#1740032)
Zombie.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on May 18 2008 06:44 PM

In reply to this comment (#1739957)
Do u have a link to that review?

(Reply to this)

cacklebunny writes:
on May 18 2008 09:45 PM

People have really let Temple of Doom have it over the years. Indeed, when I watched TOD again recently, I was surprised at how annoyed I was at Kate Capshaw's whiny character; the cheesy special effects; and the mumbling dialogue.

It just goes to show how one's perspective of a film can change over time. When I first saw TOD in the theaters, it left me breathless. Ebert had called it a "bruised forearm" movie and it was easy to see why.

I've not seen Crystal Skull yet, but I suspect a lot of this negativity has to do with people's disconnect between memory and reality. We've placed the previous three films on pedastals no other sequel can ever hope to reach.

But if you were to watch the first three films again, you'd find that they aren't as perfect as you remember them to be.

(Reply to this)

smitty112485 writes:
on May 18 2008 11:47 PM

In reply to this comment (#1740336)
That's not true. Raiders of the Lost Ark and the Last Crusade definitely belong on that pedestal. Maybe the Temple of Doom is kind of the "lesser" Indy film, it's still entertaining.

That being said, I'm watching Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as both an Indy film and a Spielberg film. Either way, I don't expect to be disappointed. And really, what's the point of wanting a movie to fail? As a general rule, I want movies to be good. But those whiny bloggers... never can tell what they want.

(Reply to this)

rgallitan writes:
on May 19 2008 12:05 AM

Huh. Another review I read coming out of Cannes (from the BBC website), praised the movie for its RESTRAINT concerning CG effects.

(Reply to this)

Jen Yamato writes:
on May 19 2008 09:54 AM

Joe's review is accurate - you will be disappointed. You'll also see a lot more reviews coming in because of additional Indy 4 screenings in LA, elsewhere. And I promise you, they will be mixed to negative.

It's the fourth-best Indiana Jones movie so far. And one of the better in the National Treasure/The Mummy series, too.

(Reply to this)

minderbinder writes:
on May 19 2008 10:14 AM

Sorry to hear that they went overboard on special effects instead of just doing real stunts like the other movies. That's one of the things that made the original ones so cool, they were actually doing the stuff virtually all the time.

I'd rather see action sequences that were more realistic even if they were less insane than what most movies do these days.

And to be honest, while Raiders is an all-time classic, the second and third movies are pretty disappointing in comparison. If this one is a step down from those, I'm not expecting much.

This will probably open big, but it wouldn't surprise me if there is a backlash from a disappointed general public, and it drops quite a bit. I'm not convinced this will end up making more than Iron Man in the end.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Cannes Film Festival 2008

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links