The Last Crusade is definitely NOT the best
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
joshjsnow — 12 years ago(January 10, 2014 10:48 AM)
This was the first time I have ever watched the Indiana films. Here's my order
- Raiders Of The Lost Ark 8.5/10 possibly a 9/10.
- Temple Of Doom - 8/10
- The Last Crusade - 7/10
- Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull - 6.5/10
-
T-eschberger — 12 years ago(January 27, 2014 07:26 PM)
I'm probably the only person that rates Skull over Crusade.
I'm sorry, but the love for Crusade leaves me baffled. It's a largely safe, almost Disney like adventure film. It doesn't contain the narrative drive or excitement of the first two or even Skull. It is truly a remake, just watered down and with a different Christian mythological MacGuffin. The film doesn't come alive until the tank chase, which is admittedly a showstopper. The chemistry between Ford and Connery keep the first two acts from being totally bland. In a series with mosrtly weak villains, Donovan is the weakest and barely makes a dent and I don't even remember the typical Nazi henchmans name he's so forgettable. And the love interest/femme fatale has no personality. At least Willie had a personality and sexual chemistry with Ford. Hate on her character all you want, she gives a good comedic performance. Half the stuff people complain about in Skull can be found in Crusade, yet it's lauded as the the best of the series by many fans and even some critics.
It plays it so safe I can almost see Spielberg holding himself back, trying not to deviate from the Raiders formula and whitewashing the action. -
stephenguti — 12 years ago(February 27, 2014 10:04 PM)
Now I know what you are saying about "Crusade," but it baffles me that you rank "Skull" over it because that film puts into overdrive everything that you say faults "Crusade." That film literally feels like a Disney film, there is no sense of danger at all for Indy and company unlike "Crusade" where we are forced to think Indy died falling off a cliff and Indy's Dad being shot. The most perilous thing in "Skull" is Mutt chilling with the monkeys. All the other dangers are played for laughs, such as the nuking of the fridge, the ride through the university, the quick sand, getting the skull back from Irina. Even more, "Skull" is more of an inferior remake of "Crusade."
After 5 Years of Chuck, I have learned that at the end the nerd will ALWAYS get the girl. Chuck me. -
stephenguti — 12 years ago(March 18, 2014 02:44 PM)
Well, I will agree it is the most energetic and playful of the entire Indy films, but for me it's too much to be completely enjoyable and entertaining as an Indy film. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
After 5 Years of Chuck, I have learned that at the end the nerd will ALWAYS get the girl. Chuck me. -
JackHammer69 — 10 years ago(August 11, 2015 12:07 AM)
My biggest problem with Skull was that 65 year old Indiana Jones was fitter and more agile than 35 year old Indiana Jones. 65 year old Indy free-running across sleepers in the ceiling, surviving a nuclear blast and then the impact from that massive fall? He never did anything like that in the original trilogy.
The original trilogy took reality and merely "stretched" it a little. By reality, I mean mortality and human physicality. Skull was like watching an episode of The Road Runner.
I was extremely peessed off with Shia LaBeouf being cast as the son of Indiana Jones. He is nowhere near "manly" enough. But him swinging through the jungle like Tarzan and fencing with Cate Blanchett on moving cars was just a massive insult to fans of the franchise.
I can't understand why they did that to us. -
buddyboy28 — 10 years ago(August 12, 2015 05:58 PM)
The original trilogy took reality and merely "stretched" it a little
LOL. A bunch of people on a live volcano, a woman a few feet from lava without being burned to death, a metal cage being lifted out of lava, Indy stopping a speeding mine cart with his feet, a speeding mine cart jumping and landing perfectly on to the next track, young Indy teleporting himself from a "magic box" to the outside of a train
Raiders was the only one that merely stretched reality. Crystal Skull probably had more OTT stuff overall but none of the things were anymore cartoonish than some of the things that happened in the other sequels.
Yeah well, history is gonna change -
ScottBBT — 11 years ago(July 01, 2014 09:13 AM)
T-eschberger,
First, I know two people who rank Skull over Crusade - and that's just me! - so you're not the only one
I prefer Crusade because a) I think the father-son relationship is terrific, and it has a complete arc; and b) there are more action setpieces in Crusade, and on the whole they are better (although I'll take the Area 51 chase over the young Indy train chase any day).
Love them both, though! -
hnt_dnl — 11 years ago(July 22, 2014 11:00 PM)
Yep! I've re-watched
Temple of Doom
a bunch of times. The movie just has a confidence, flow, and self-effacing sense of fun that makes it stand the test of time. And the action sequences are superbly done. Not to mention, I love the dark tone and theme of that movie.
Doom
is probably in my Top 5 favorite Spielberg movies he's ever done. Whenever I watch
Crusade
, which is as little as possible, I literally believe Spielberg and Company decided to just make a copy of
Raiders
to cash in! -
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.