several scenes with knife and gun play, including a man's toe getting blown off (we don't see it, but there's a bloody hole in his boot)...

indiana jones (harrison ford), still a part-time university professor / part-time treasure hunter, becomes embroiled with some russians, led by irina spalko (cate blanchett), who are searching for archaeological treasures which are rumoured to have paranormal powers. and so indy sets off on a quest to find a crystal skull and a mysterious city of gold...
well, i pretty much agree with every criticisms that has been thrown at the film, so far, and very little of the praise, which seems to be flowing towards it...
it really was shit.
now, don't get me wrong, i expected it to be dreadful but, unbelievably, it surpassed even my wildest expectations of how bad it could be. the narrative is a 'by the numbers', entirely predictable affair, which manages to include almost every genre cliche and trite narrative device. plus, whilst the other films required a leap of faith, this one requires an inter dimensional transfer of it. clumsy doesn't even come close to describing the narrative, although it'll do nicely for the script, which is both clumsy and dull; there's far too much exposition, far too much needless crap and almost none of the charm or humour that made 'raiders...' (and, to a lesser extent, its sequels) so enjoyable. at its very best, it evokes only a slight, sympathetic, chuckle from time to time. aah bless, it's trying...
one of the main things which made the original great were the characters, especially indy, but also the support from the likes of marcus, sallah, bellog, toht etc providing memorable moments regardless of their limited screentime, the same is not true here. there are traces of the old indy in the older indy but, probably thanks to the dreadful dialogue, he's far less likeable. spalko (complete with dodgy accent) is a pretty poor villain, mac (ray winstone) is entirely forgettable, oxley (william hurt) is just a bit of a joke, mutt (shia lebeouf) is reasonable, as is marion (yep, karen allen is back). after his star turn; being the best thing in 'the last crusade', denholm elliott is sorely missed...
as for the action, it becomes more and more unbelievable as the film progresses; it is either lacklustre and uninspiring or fails miserably when it tries to rely on spectacle. at one point, i began to consider that the film just really wasn't being made for me; but wondered if children would enjoy it? sure, there are moments where i'm sure they'd love it, but others which might be a little too scary or gruesome, in between sections which i think they may be bored by. still, i'm by no means a child these days and i'm just not sure what their reaction would be...
as for me and my viewing companion, we were practically speechless by the time it was finished. both of us were, quite simply, amazed at how it just kept getting worse as it progressed: quite a marvellous achievement. and, in reality, the only reason to keep watching it was out of some kind of morbid curiosity...
still, despite this, i'd have happily left the cinema after around fifteen minutes...