The Last Crusade is definitely NOT the best
-
LionInWinter — 10 years ago(April 30, 2015 12:57 AM)
"Better little personality than an obnoxious, cringe worthy, annoying, omnipresent and just all around movie ruining one"
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you right there. To me, the "love interest" wasn't in this movie, instead functionally replaced by Sean Connery, who was the best supporting character in the series. The only real complaint you have is that it's "playing it safe", which I happily welcomed after all the retarded changes brought in Temple of Doom. -
hnt_dnl — 11 years ago(July 22, 2014 10:56 PM)
Total agreement. Not even close to the best. My order is:
Temple
Raiders
Skull
Crusade
I know I'll get blasted for putting Skull before Crusade, but at least Skull offers up something different, while Crusade is a (very) poor clone of Raiders. -
ravi02 — 11 years ago(July 28, 2014 11:14 AM)
but at least Skull offers up something different,
No. In fact, Skull's story outline is similar to both Raiders and Crusade: Indy has to reconnect with Marion and an estranged family member (this time, Mutt); start at the University; has to battle a military force (this time, the Russians) and it all ends with him reconciling with both Marion and his formerly estranged family. The only difference with Skull is the presence of aliens at the end.
You hyperbole much? Crusade still has enough to distinguish it from Raiders: the backstory of Indy's origins; the father-son relationship; the female lead working with the villains and the exploration of medieval lore.
Oh and when it comes to sidekicks: Henry Jones Sr., Marcus and Sallah > Mutt, Oxley and Mac. -
hnt_dnl — 11 years ago(August 03, 2014 11:13 PM)
The "backstory" of Indy's origins was the first few minutes of the movie, which was a ridiculous few minutes that "explained" Indy's idiosyncrasies. It was filler. It's not like there were detailed flashback scenes interspersed at various points of the movie. THAT would actually have been more interesting storytelling. After the backstory part, we had Indy against Nazis looking for a religious artifact as the main part of the film, same plot as Raiders. And the father-son stuff could easily be construed as Connery taking on the "female" role, because of the nonstop bickering and (so-called) chemistry, just like with Marion and Willie in the first 2 movies.
-
ravi02 — 11 years ago(August 04, 2014 11:03 AM)
I guess you missed the scenes in the River Phoenix segment that told us how Indy and his father were distant even during their younger days. It shows us how Indy developed his adventurous spirit and drifted away from his father. River Phoenix does a good job in that scene and it leads to a great transition of adult Indy getting punched in the face. Doing further flashbacks would not have been "interesting storytelling" as that would have just been irrelevant.
The Nazi-stuff was not the same as Raiders. This time the mythology centered around Medieval lore and the backstory of the crusades. The female lead was also in league with the villains. Indy's backstory is also explored bringing in some character development. There is also the Brotherhood of the Cruciform sword and their ambiguous nature, making the story about the grail more interesting as to which side was good and bad.
because of the nonstop bickering and (so-called) chemistry, just like with Marion and Willie in the first 2 movies.
Again, you seem to cherry-pick certain points while ignoring the rest of the film. While they do engage in some comical bickering, they have enough dramatic moments to balance the levity. The scene where Henry slaps Indy for blasphemy, the dinner aboard the zeppelin, "I discovered my Charlemagne" and the climax where Indy has to save his father from dying.
It's much more dramatically interesting than the stuff with Indy and Willie in ToD as that relationship was all slapstick comedy played for laughs. -
NeonManiac0 — 11 years ago(July 31, 2014 01:27 AM)
Last Crusade and Crystal Skull tend to rotate for me but these days I'm more likely to marginally pick Crystal Skull. Entertaining as Last Crusade is, for me it's too comical and jokey at times and too deriative of the first movie and lacks the feeling of danger the others have. Still an outstanding film, though.
-
Kruleworld — 11 years ago(January 24, 2015 08:47 PM)
by
CyborgGoblin
too deriative of the first movie
That's because after Temple of Doom, everyone said Raiders was better and that's what they should do. it's a common theme around these boards. While you have mentioned this is derivative, others have complained that it's not enough like Raiders.go figure.
Gimli: Youll find more cheer in a graveyard. -
chime1985 — 10 years ago(April 28, 2015 03:59 AM)
I agree, it's not the best. However, (in my opinion) it's not the worse either.
My personal order:
Raiders of the Lost Ark
The Last Crusade
Temple of Doom
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
I would have put Crusade and Doom joint if it wasn't for Willie and Short-Round. I found them cringe worthy and next to useless (in fairness, Short-Round actually did something useful occasionally!)
Why, thank you, Thing! -
clark_gillies — 10 years ago(April 28, 2015 08:23 AM)
As a kid Temple of Doom was my favorite, but this was mainly down to short round, the action in it and the mine chase..
For a long time Crusades was my least favorite as I felt it was far to story driven, with no action in it.
As time went on I grew to appreciate it a lot more, with it now being my favorite, and Doom being majorly relegated.
My order of rank just now is.
Last Crusade - 9/10
Raiders of the Lost Ark - 8/10
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull 6.5/10 (For all its faults, the first 2/3 of the movie is up there with the best of Indy I feel, just dragged down by a poor and majorly rushed ending)
Temple of Doom - 6/10
