Why do you hate The Last Crusade?

Sharkey

Guest
Another stupid friggin thread.

Raiders112390 said:
Discuss--If you dislike/hate TLC, tell us why so?
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.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
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.

Not diplomatically stated, but I have to agree somewhat.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
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?
 
Last edited:

Mickiana

Well-known member
"That's the spirit!" - Roy Batty, Blade Runner

A lot of points I agree with there Raiders12345. Don't worry about Sharkey. Just feed him every now and again with a decent response, which you did, and he will recede into further waters.

I enjoyed LC but I loved Raiders.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
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.
Hey, at least his opening post has 8 more words than this one!
Raiders112390 said:
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.
Agreed but I wouldn't say the action is lazy, even though the scene does lack tension. One of the only parts that has any tension becomes spoiled by a lame solution: the way Indy suddenly gets free from being stuck on the tank's cannon. I really dislike that bit. (Maybe he picked up that bag strap from the magic box back in 1912?)

I've never "hated" the film but was disappointed when it came out.:( It was essentially a re-hash of "Raiders" with dad thrown in and, until I joined The Raven, nobody I personally knew considered it their favourite Indy movie. Discovering that some people out there do like it the best, still surprises me to this very day.
Raiders112390 said:
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?
Actually, there already is one. It was started in 2008 and I bumped it last April after feeling the same way you do. Check it out: Bashing Crusade on IMDB.

P.S. No, I'm not trying to get you banned by pointing out an existing thread.;)
 

HJTHX1138

New member
At least you have your reasons this round.

One of my friends is always telling me he loves LC all the time, essentially, he thinks it's the best, and I always reply Raider's, now I'm doubly justified :D

I never really considered it "retread" material, I mean it does have a completely different feel from Raiders and ToD. I still like Last Crusade, it felt a bit more character based, and while that did lead to some of KotCS's problems, some of the things they did were great.

Love the trials, the grail knight, the boat chase, the entire castle sequence etc.

I get the OP's points. I really would have liked to see LC done differently.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
HJTHX1138 said:
At least you have your reasons this round.
:confused: What do you mean?
HJTHX1138 said:
I never really considered it "retread" material, I mean it does have a completely different feel from Raiders and ToD. I still like Last Crusade, it felt a bit more character based, and while that did lead to some of KotCS's problems, some of the things they did were great.
Yes, it has a different feel but Raiders13249871203948 listed many of the reasons why it can be viewed as a retread and undeniably follows the "Raiders" formula:
Raiders112390 said:
Nazis as Villains - Check
Judeo-Christian artifact - Check
Desert Chase - Check
Villain's body destroyed by the artifact- Check
Marshall College segment - Check
In addition to that list: Towards the end, when all the soldiers were grouped within a rocky enclosure, I sat there in the theatre thinking, "AGAIN? We've already seen this!"
HJTHX1138 said:
Love the trials, the grail knight, the boat chase, the entire castle sequence etc.
THX, remember this thread is not about what we love...and I HATE the Grail Knight!(n) (Many folks don't like the alien in "Skull" even though there was a character in "Crusade" whose appearance was just as ridiculous.:rolleyes:)
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
If the OP's every thread had an opener that now took three posts to birth, I doubt anybody would be harping on him. And if someone still did, the upkeep would likely have his back.

Bit of extra vitriol there in post #2 which is never desirable. But despite that the Sharkman has a point, and it's also hard to argue with the result that came with it.

When there're two kinds of bad behavior pitted against one another as there is in this case, it's usually good to hope the mods pass by it without reacting. Because if they end up doing so, the solution is usually to rain down hell on both.

I guess that's it for now kids. Let's see if this lesson taught us anything. <small>Though I kinda hope it doesn't. I passed by the utility closet the other day and I swear that the bucketfuls of brimstone we keep there were wailing out their dull existence.</small>
 

Toht's Arm

Active member
LC was the first Indy film I saw in the cinema and I can tell you that, for most of my peers (born in 1980), it is (or at least was for years) their favourite film. As time passed, however, I realised how in many ways it 'ruined' the franchise. By being so similar to RotLA, it made ToD the distant weird country cousin simply because it's different.

KotCS again stuck to that formula (though at least didn't feature Nazis), so I'm left hoping that Indy V is brave enough to be that little bit different.

I do really enjoy LC, but it's the film I've seen the most, so I'm less keen to rewatch it. And I agree that, if not for Sean Connery, the film would have felt like nothing more than a tired retread of RotLA.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Finn said:
I guess that's it for now kids. Let's see if this lesson taught us anything.
What "lesson" has been taught? :confused:
Toht's Arm said:
LC was the first Indy film I saw in the cinema and I can tell you that, for most of my peers (born in 1980), it is (or at least was for years) their favourite film. As time passed, however, I realised how in many ways it 'ruined' the franchise. By being so similar to RotLA, it made ToD the distant weird country cousin simply because it's different.
Just to clarify, Toht's Arm: "Last Crusade" was your peers' favourite film, overall, or their favourite Indiana Jones film?

One thing I don't understand is why some people here (like Darth Vile) consider the tank chase to be the best action sequence of the '80s.:rolleyes: They talk about it as if it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Stoo said:
:confused: What do you mean?
Yes, it has a different feel but Raiders13249871203948 listed many of the reasons why it can be viewed as a retread and undeniably follows the "Raiders" formula:
In addition to that list: Towards the end, when all the soldiers were grouped within a rocky enclosure, I sat there in the theatre thinking, "AGAIN? We've already seen this!"
THX, remember this thread is not about what we love...and I HATE the Grail Knight!(n) (Many folks don't like the alien in "Skull" even though there was a character in "Crusade" whose appearance was just as ridiculous.:rolleyes:)

I would add too that I've always considered Donovan a bit of a retread of Belloq. Belloq was a Frenchman and Donovan an American, but the similarity in their roles/characters is there: Non-German expert in antiquities who is both respected and loathed by Indy who works with the Nazis for personal benefit, and who wants the artifact first for himself rather than for the Nazis or any higher cause.

Indy: "What about der fuhrer? I thought he was waiting to take possession?"
Belloq: "All in good time. When I'm finished with it. Jones, do you realize what the Ark is? It's a transmitter! It's a radio for speaking to God! And it's within my reach!"

Donovan: "So, what do you say, Jones, ready to go down in History?"
Indy: "As what, a Nazi stooge like you?"
Donovan: "The Nazis?! Is that the limit of your vision? The Nazis want to write themselves into the Grail legend, take on the world. Well, they're welcome. But I want the Grail itself. The cup that holds everlasting life. Hitler can have the world, but he can't take it with him. I'm going to be drinking my own health when he's gone the way of the Dodo."

Similar characteristics, rather similar motive. Only difference is Donovan isn't shy about shooting someone himself whereas Belloq prefers to have others handle that side of the business for him. We're never told what Belloq's standing in the world of antiquities is, if he is respected or not (IE, is he just the bad equivalent of Indy--respected archaeologist by day, dirty graverobber by night). But apparently does have a reputation for getting things done and getting the artifact found. Similarly, we're told Donovan is quite respected and has contributed to the Museum quite a bit, which Indy appreciated, suggesting perhaps Donovan is an archaeologist of some sort himself, or at least, a businessman who has archaeological interests.

Also:

-Complex, estranged relationship between Indy and another character which is solved by the end of the film: Marion and Indy not speaking for ten years and tons of baggage between them is solved in Raiders; Henry Sr. and Indy's near 20 years of estrangement and the water under that bridge is passed in LC.

Also, Indy is either on the verge of losing someone he cares about or is presumed to have lost someone he cares about: Henry being shot in LC, Marion's "death" in Raiders. This spurs him on and makes him hate the bad guys that much more. Also, the artifact becomes secondary to his companion: Indy is willing to trade the Ark for Marion, forsaking his mission, until Belloq tempts his archaeologist side; The whole reason Indy is looking for the Grail is because he first wanted to find his father, and help him finish his quest. The treasure in LC is Henry, not the Grail. Likewise, you could say the real treasure of Raiders is Marion. In both, Indy loses the artifact he's looking for (to history in LC, to the government in Raiders) but gains instead a renewed relationship with the person he was previously estranged from.

Stoo said:
Hey, at least his opening post has 8 more words than this one!
Agreed but I wouldn't say the action is lazy, even though the scene does lack tension. One of the only parts that has any tension becomes spoiled by a lame solution: the way Indy suddenly gets free from being stuck on the tank's cannon. I really dislike that bit. (Maybe he picked up that bag strap from the magic box back in 1912?)

I just have always felt it lacked that certain magical spark which made the Truck chase and the Mine chase highlights of their respective movies; It was a dud. There was something off about the Tank chase. Just a lack of energy and tension. And yeah, that whole bit you mention is goofy.

I know the reaction to ToD being darker wasn't good, but that doesn't mean that the Beards had to go 180 the opposite towards slapstick comedy and cheap kneeslappers. It almost feels as if it's bordering on self parody; at times I am reminded of the Roger Moore era of Bond, a general tone which is further explored in KOTCS.

For example, the stupid segment wherein the fighter pilot destroys his own plane to pursue the Jones' into a tunnel and then looks befuddled and dumbfounded that his plane is destroyed and is on fire, que a double take from the Jones'. Oh, haha, so funny. :rolleyes: This is quickly followed by Henry: "Well, they don't come any closer than that!", cue a bomb being dropped just a few inches in front of the Jones' car. :rolleyes: Feels like something out of a buddy comedy film.

TOD for all it's humor doesn't have that same sort of self parodying feel. It's humor is goofy and fun but it never feels like the series is having a joke on itself or it's own tropes. It never goes too far into stupidity. And Raiders is awesome and consistent in tone generally and it's funny moments fit right in where they're supposed to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mephisto

New member
I like Last Crusade except for 2 things. I really don't like him harassing Panama Hat over something he has no claim to and getting him killed because "it belongs in a museum." The other think that bugs the crap out of me is the first test. The penitent man kneels before God...he doesn't kneel and then do a somersault. How the hell would he know to do a flip after kneeling to avoid the first blade. They should have just left it at one blade and not added the 2nd one.
 

HJTHX1138

New member
Stoo said:
What do you mean?
Yes, it has a different feel but Raiders13249871203948 listed many of the reasons why it can be viewed as a retread and undeniably follows the "Raiders" formula:
In addition to that list: Towards the end, when all the soldiers were grouped within a rocky enclosure, I sat there in the theatre thinking, "AGAIN? We've already seen this!"
THX, remember this thread is not about what we love...and I HATE the Grail Knight!(n) (Many folks don't like the alien in "Skull" even though there was a character in "Crusade" whose appearance was just as ridiculous.:rolleyes:)

I was trying to come up with a comparison point, or at least mention things that were different that were good? I read the OP. I usually don't write masters thesis quality stuff for every post, stop making me look stupid, dagnabbit :(

I don't understand how we can harp about formulas when Indy was based on serials that used these "formulas" over and over again, over decades ago even. There sort of homages, being comedic about things was the point.

I thought the whole point of LC was to reintroduce us to what we liked about Indy, give a challenge regarding his dad and then ride into the sunset, it did that perfectly . . . until the next one . . .

I get that the energy for the fights and everything was sort of off and comedic, I kinda thought that was the point as well, we were used to these things happening by now (It would really explain the tank, shooting three nazis in one shot etc. (I also find the motorcyle chase really goofy in places, the boat-motorcycle-in-box-gag specifically.)

All I'm saying is, are we really getting the point of LC, or am I bat-**** crazy to think it shouldn't move exactly -or better- than the way Raiders did?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
What "lesson" has been taught? :confused:

That to a moderator wailing out their dull existence in this joint, this bad behaviour is a welcome respite, otherwise the bucketful of brimstone might overflow and seep under the utility closet door, trickle down the corridor and into other rooms.

Raiders90210 and Sharkey are the release valves that prevent catastrophe. (As much as I like cats).


I hate that the costume department/research or budget in The Last Crusade produced this ridiculous ensemble:

indyfightnazi.jpg


It's the biggest joke in the film, though I'm not sure whether Lucas or Spielberg knew it (or cared) at the time.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Stoo said:
What "lesson" has been taught? :confused:
The one just given. But if you didn't get it, no need to sweat it since you've done nothing wrong.

As an unrelated note though, sometimes the control you aspire to present over this board is a bit worrysome.



As to the topic at hand, there is one thing that irks me in LC. In the sewer scene, Kazim lights the petroleum by tossing a lit match in it. However, only moments earlier Dr. Jones carried a flaming, visibly dripping torch over it and... nothing. Perhaps Uncle Steve could edit a flashlight over it or something if someone went and gave him a physics 101 lesson? <Last notion not serious.>
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
As to the topic at hand, there is one thing that irks me in LC. In the sewer scene, Kazim lights the petroleum by tossing a lit match in it. However, only moments earlier Dr. Jones carried a flaming, visibly dripping torch over it and... nothing.

That was a particularly silly oversight.

In these cases I can only assign the blame to Old Indy's poor story-telling. If only he'd had a better grasp of history, and a less active imagination...
 

Toht's Arm

Active member
Stoo said:
What "lesson" has been taught? :confused:
Just to clarify, Toht's Arm: "Last Crusade" was your peers' favourite film, overall, or their favourite Indiana Jones film?

Favourite Indy film. This is probably because, like me, it's the only one at that point that they'd seen at the cinema, and also because it's the funniest and seems to have the most number of action sequences*.

*Not that I've checked (just in case someone feels like disproving me). It just feels that way.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
I would add too that I've always considered Donovan a bit of a retread of Belloq. Belloq was a Frenchman and Donovan an American, but the similarity in their roles/characters is there: Non-German expert in antiquities who is both respected and loathed by Indy who works with the Nazis for personal benefit, and who wants the artifact first for himself rather than for the Nazis or any higher cause.
---
Similar characteristics, rather similar motive. Only difference is Donovan isn't shy about shooting someone himself whereas Belloq prefers to have others handle that side of the business for him. We're never told what Belloq's standing in the world of antiquities is, if he is respected or not (IE, is he just the bad equivalent of Indy--respected archaeologist by day, dirty graverobber by night). But apparently does have a reputation for getting things done and getting the artifact found. Similarly, we're told Donovan is quite respected and has contributed to the Museum quite a bit, which Indy appreciated, suggesting perhaps Donovan is an archaeologist of some sort himself, or at least, a businessman who has archaeological interests.
To me, Donovan has never felt like a retread of Belloq...but I can see why you feel that way. In my opinion, there were enough differences to set them apart.

1) Indy had never met Donovan before and had respect for him. (Unlike Belloq.)
2) Donovan appeared to be more of an antiquities COLLECTOR who rarely went out "in the field". (Unlike Belloq).
3) Donovan was eventually revealed to be a member of the Nazi party. (Unlike Belloq.)
4) Donovan seemed much more selfish in the pursuit and was not a "hired hand" like Belloq. (It seemed to me that Donovan co-operated with the Germans simply to benefit from the Grail's powers. He wanted immortality. Whereas Belloq was hired to find the Ark but took the opportunity to check the thing out before handing it over to Hitler.)
Raiders112390 said:
For example, the stupid segment wherein the fighter pilot destroys his own plane to pursue the Jones' into a tunnel and then looks befuddled and dumbfounded that his plane is destroyed and is on fire, que a double take from the Jones'. Oh, haha, so funny. :rolleyes: This is quickly followed by Henry: "Well, they don't come any closer than that!", cue a bomb being dropped just a few inches in front of the Jones' car. :rolleyes: Feels like something out of a buddy comedy film.
Man, that is a TERRIBLE scene! Sitting in the theatre back in '89, I couldn't believe what I was seeing when the pilot passed by the car with that goofy look on his face. When I watch "Last Crusade" now, I pretend that part doesn't happen!:sick:
HJTHX1138 said:
I was trying to come up with a comparison point, or at least mention things that were different that were good? I read the OP. I usually don't write masters thesis quality stuff for every post, stop making me look stupid, dagnabbit :(
THX, I'm not trying to make you look stupid. Hope you know that.:cool:
HJTHX1138 said:
I don't understand how we can harp about formulas when Indy was based on serials that used these "formulas" over and over again, over decades ago even. There sort of homages, being comedic about things was the point.
In terms of 'formulas', what I'm speaking of is not the same thing as to what you're referring to. Yes, the Indy films are PARTLY INSPIRED by the serials but they aren't meant to be 100% carbon copies of them. The formula being discussed here is: Indy teaching a class, Brody entering, Germans as enemies, chase in the desert, Germans gathered in a group towards the climax, main villain's head getting fried by artifact.

Seeing each one in theatre in the year they were released gives one a certain perspective (as opposed to seeing them out of order on TV/VHS/DVD). However good it is, "Last Crusade" was an undeniable re-hash.

Oh...and the Grail Knight is just as ridiculous as the alien in "Skull"!:p
Finn said:
As an unrelated note though, sometimes the control you aspire to present over this board is a bit worrysome.
No control aspired to. Just putting my heart & soul into something I love very much...and that 'something' is, The Raven.:D
 

HJTHX1138

New member
Stoo said:
In terms of 'formulas', what I'm speaking of is not the same thing as to what you're referring to. Yes, the Indy films are PARTLY INSPIRED by the serials but they aren't meant to be 100% carbon copies of them. The formula being discussed here is: Indy teaching a class, Brody entering, Germans as enemies, chase in the desert, Germans gathered in a group towards the climax, main villain's head getting fried by artifact.

Seeing each one in theatre in the year they were released gives one a certain perspective (as opposed to seeing them out of order on TV/VHS/DVD). However good it is, "Last Crusade" was an undeniable re-hash.

Oh...and the Grail Knight is just as ridiculous as the alien in "Skull"!:p

Ok, that makes sense.

Still, ToD broke that tradition fairly well, so what you're saying is you wanted to see something entirely different again?

Yeah, the Grail Knight is kinda odd, but the instant you saw him, you knew the Grail was real and worked. Gave it a bit of mysticism, but there were probably a ton of different ways to do that without a physical Grail Knight.
 
Top