MovieChat Forums > Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) Discussion > First Two Are Better

First Two Are Better

posted a year ago by TerminatorRex (9)
5 replies | jump to latest

Any others who agree both Raiders and Temple Of Doom are far superior to this one? I still like this one a lot and enjoy it, but find it overrated and think it gets put on far too high a pedestal. Too much of a Raiders retread with the Nazis and another bible-oriented relic, lots of silly slapstick that undermines the tension, boring villains and both Brody and Sallah become embarrassing comic relief. It never has the same feeling of tension and danger as the first two for me and just isn't nearly as exciting. It's still good and has plenty of things to like such as the chemistry between Indy and his father which no doubt elevates it a huge deal and gives it a great deal of heart. The boat and tank scenes are good, the Grail trials are an excellent sequence. But as much as I enjoy the relationship Indy has with his father, I like him better as a rogue.

A good movie for sure, but I've always felt the first two were much better and have a real grit and edge and sense of danger and foreboding to them. It's a shame the Temple Of Doom backlash resulted in this one being so toned down and comical. I know Temple Of Doom has never been the darling of the series but it's always been my hands down favorite and I've always liked how it's never afraid to get dark and relentless and doesn't pull any punches.

[–] Kalyber (60) a year ago

You're not alone, but it's a topic for forever.

In my opinion:
Temple is more original than Crusade. Crusade is an obvious copy of the first, but I still like it a bit more. The structure is better in Crusade, and while it's often silly, Temple was the first to be way more silly than Raiders, so it started the trend. Crusade has some spiritual uplifting feeling with the Holy Grail, thus making the trilogy look like a closed circle. With Sean Connery as the father figure, the music, the vibes makes this a classic with Temple being something of a black sheep of the family.

Though, the original three is perfect the way it is.
4 & 5 are more apocryphal.

[–] FilmBuff (7234) a year ago

The Last Crusade has some excellent moments, but overall it doesn't succeed for me as a film. The slapstick moments undermine any sense of danger, and fail in bringing comic relief to the film. While the first two films were exciting, the third vacillates between goofy and serious in a very disjointed manner.

My main issue with the film, however, is the simplicity of Indy's mission. Every step of the way he observes some simple solution to a puzzle that has somehow eluded scholars, archeologists, and experts for centuries. He waltzes through the film connecting dots no one else seems able to connect, and easily dances his way to the literal Holy Grail. It felt childish on opening night in the theater, and it feels equally lame upon each rewatch.

This isn't to say I hate the film. It's a very good film in many respects, and as I said, has some high points, but of the five films it ranks solidly in fourth place for me. Only the Crystal Skull is worse, and oh boy, is it ever worse.

[–] vilafire (655) 10 months ago

You think Dial of Destiny is better than Last Crusade???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Bless….

[–] Melton (4435) 10 months ago

Nah, Last Crusade is the best of a 10/10 trilogy.

Perfect balance of thrills and gags, Indy and Bond father/son combination is dynamite, Elsa is ridiculously hot and makes a great surprise villain, action scenes are sublime, three tests at the end are genius, and the customary supernatural horror with Donovan’s fate is memorably disturbing.

Oh yeah, River Phoenix opening Indy origin story is a perfect short film in itself.

I watch Crusade more than any other Indy film.

[–] csweetleaf2 (3669) 10 months ago

Not me, I thought "Last Crusade" was the best one of the series, I thought Sean Connery was a great addition to the series.