Sharkey said:
I hate your stupid threads, thats what I hate.
Discuss? Didn't you get banned for starting threads and abandoning them?
Why do YOU hate Last Crusade?
You don't even say anything!
Discuss.
Get a life dude.
Ok, I'll say something, but you'll attack anyway:
Here goes: I think LC is basically a retread of Raiders only with Sean Connery. The only thing which saves it is Connery, the Utah 1912 segment, and the tests. Nothing else really sticks out to me as much as in the previous two. The pacing of the film before Connery shows up is rather boring; It just feels flat somehow. The rapport between Ford and Connery is the saving grace of what would otherwise have been IMO a rather "meh" third entry. Harrison doesn't seem to be really into the role as much as he was in Raiders and TOD; He just doesn't seem to be as connected with the character as in the previous two films. He seems tired, a little long in the tooth.
The big action setpiece of the movie, the Tank chase, just lacks the kinetic energy of the Truck Chase from Raiders and the rollercoaster-esque tension of the Mine Chase in TOD. I've written this before about the tank chase, but the action just feels by the books, lazy, phoned in. It doesn't feel anywhere as energetic.
I also hate what was done to Brody. Sallah's portrayal I have no problem with because he was shown to be something of a silly sort in Raiders--It's not a far stretch. But turning Brody, the old but wise British scholar and seeming mentor of Indy, into a borderline senile, baffled old man is disrespectful to the character, all in the name of "comedic relief." I feel the same way about Brody's treatment in LC as I do of Marion's in KOTCS--Same sort of character debasement. I guess you could accept the 'Well, he's out of his element' arguments I have seen put forth. But those are out of film arguments. In the film itself, his character does a 180 from who we see in Raiders.
The Utah 1912 sequence, while an incredibly fun and well paced and directed sequence--probably the best "action" sequence in the film next to the Motorcycle chase--is in terms of the story kind of hokey. Indy gains his hat, scar, fear of snakes, future adventure attire, use of a whip all in the span of 15 minutes in 1912. A little TOO farfetched. I like the concept though, and I think River Phoenix (RIP) did a great job pulling off a Young Indy. It's a great Hardy Boys-esque romp, fast paced, the soundtrack is great, and I can forgive it's hokiness: This is after all Indiana Jones. Not a documentary. I can buy that he got all of that in 15 minutes I suppose, though it just seems like Spielberg and Lucas decided to throw the kitchen sink into that one afternoon in Utah.
I just think finally TLC sticks too heavily to the Raiders template:
Nazis as Villains - Check
Judeo-Christian artifact - Check
Desert Chase - Check
Villain's body destroyed by the artifact- Check
Marshall College segment - Check
And the Grail, while an amazing artifact in Medieval Romances, isn't handled with really any mysticism despite the potential it could've had. It isn't any real danger as an artifact; It doesn't have the dynamic sort of eeriness and mystery that surrounds the Ark. The film itself does an utter 180 from the darkness of TOD and the grittiness of Raiders, almost towards self parody, and begins to veer into a more cleaner Indy, which would be fully realized with KOTCS. Indy in LC is no longer a ruthless borderline mercenary anti-hero; No, he's presented as a hero with good motivations ("It belongs in a museum!"). He's not the mysterious, rugged, ALMOST BELLOQ of the first two films.
I just think that there were other ways to approach the Holy Grail--one of the greatest, most romanticized and well known items of all time. The film should've been more akin to Raiders in tone. Get rid of a lot of the slapstick moments and return Marcus back to his original self and you have the perfect sequel to Raiders.
Some of the sets at times don't look so great, even when compared to Raiders and TOD which came earlier. Return of the Jedi in the Star Wars franchise suffers from this same problem--a lower budget sort of appearance that I can't truly put my finger on.
For me, it's a great adventure movie which just has a lot of flaws. It's not a horrible film, and I don't hate it--but I don't love it as much as the others. It is for it's own reasons a classic--The scenes with them add a level of depth not usually seen in that genre, which is very much commendable. It just doesn't measure up for me as an Indy film to Raiders and LC. But, I'll take a lesser Indiana Jones film over most other films, so a B grade Indy would be akin to an A grade non Indy. Like I said, it is a classic in it's own rights. I just feel the potential was there for much more
A last but minor point: I do think the film has probably the second best soundtrack in the series next to Raiders. John Williams really whipped up a masterpiece with his score. I miss the days when he was at his peak--He had IMO no real rivals in terms of creating a great film score.
As to why I made this thread? LC, like ToD and KOTCS, is controversial in some ways and I figured it'd be fun to discuss it's flaws here as we did in the "Why does everyone hate TOD" thread. If we can have such a thread about ToD, why not about LC?