I’ve never been a huge fan of LC either. I find a lot of it redundant (rats = snakes. tank = flying wing) and a lot of it silly, especially the silliness at the end. By this movie, they’re using the Indy theme to get a pavlovian response, setting it off and making you get excited when very little is going on on the screen. Sean Connery adds some fun to the game, but the story just isn’t that compelling.
To be fair, neither movie lives up to the original Raiders of the Lost Ark, but I think most of the reasons people liked the 3rd one better than the 2nd one is due to the 3rd one being more along the formula of the first, whereas ToD is not as reminiscent.
I think that may help answer the OP also. People went to see ToD expecting more of what they liked about Raiders of the Lost Ark and didn’t get it. ToD had a darker story, no Nazis, and no globe-trotting chasing - it was almost all done at the Temple. With Last Crusade, they got the same characters from the original (smaller parts, but the same characters), Indy’s backstory from why he wears the hat to his fear of snakes to how he got the scar on his chin, and more chasing Nazis around the globe.
And don’t forget in your above comparision to add snakes=insects=rats
And what’s the flying wing? The tank scene to me was more along the lines of Indy fighting the Nazis in the truck from RotLA.
But IMO, Sean Connery as Indy’s father was perfect casting and one of the best uses of a big name star in a Hollywood film.
I like LC better than ToD, but I also don’t think ToD sucks. If I was to review them, I’d give RotLA 4 stars, ToD 2 and a half, LC 3 stars. But then again I’m a huge Connery fan.
I think LC was better than ToD but it still had substantial weaknesses. Among them:
By explaining Indy’s past (his fear of snakes, his passion for archaeology) they sort of ruined the mystery surrounding him. I liked Indy better in the first movie when I didn’t know too much about him.
They brought back Sallah and Brody, characters I liked in the first movie, and pretty much made them buffoons. Brody is suddenly an inept fool and Sallah frets about his freakin’ camels the whole time.
They cast Connery as Indy’s dad, but then made the character a buffoon - he mistakenly whacks Indy on the head with a vase, accidentally blows away part of his own plane with a machine gun, etc.
“Funny” touches that just fell flat - Indy impersonating the Scottish lord, the Hitler encounter, Brody getting lost, etc.
A weak female lead. The actress was not up to the part and the whole affair between her and Indy seemed perfunctory. Contrast this with the intriguing and well-developed relationship between Indy and Marion in the first movie.
In its defense, it had some fine action scenes - the tank chase, the motorcycle scene - but all in all it did not measure up to the classic that is Raiders.
I’d agree with most of the weaknesses expressed here. Generally speaking, Last Crusade is much more self-consciously, by-the-numbers-formulaic a sequel than Temple of Doom. Thus it can coast on some measure of good will and fond memories of the original. I think Sean Connery’s fan base is another reason for the surprisingly positive public response to the movie. Also, as I state in my post to the Temple of Doom thread, the Holy Grail is at least a more familiar and evocative prize than Temple of Doom had to work with.
To the criticisms expressed above, I would add that I think the jokeyness of Last Crusade makes it less satisfying as an adventure movie. Raiders, to my way of thinking, had just the right seasoning of humor, while Last Crusade layers it on much too thickly (The slapsticky Brody, the wacky Sultan, much of the fight on the tank). This is taken to its worst extreme in the running battle with the fighter planes after the Joneses bail out of the zeppelin. This was one of those sequences to make you wish CGI had never been invented. There might be a compelling action sequence to be filmed involving a pair of aircraft pursuing two men on the ground, but this wasn’t it. It played out like North by Northwest starring Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd. My threshold of belief thus trampled, I couldn’t take any action set piece in the film seriously thereafter, and the attempts at gravity in the scenes with the grail and its keeper were undermined as well.
I disagree respectfully. Most of the negatives listed were among my favorite parts.
**
By explaining Indy’s past (his fear of snakes, his passion for archaeology) they sort of ruined the mystery surrounding him. I liked Indy better in the first movie when I didn’t know too much about him.**
The only of the negatives I somewhat agree with. I could go either way on this one.
** - They brought back Sallah and Brody, characters I liked in the first movie, and pretty much made them buffoons. Brody is suddenly an inept fool and Sallah frets about his freakin’ camels the whole time.**
Hilarious! The long narrative by Indy on how smooth Marcus is and then cut away to Marcus walking down the road, confused.
** - They cast Connery as Indy’s dad, but then made the character a buffoon - he mistakenly whacks Indy on the head with a vase, accidentally blows away part of his own plane with a machine gun, etc. **
I liked the contrast between Indy and his dad. Sean Connery’s best comedic turn ever.
** - “Funny” touches that just fell flat - Indy impersonating the Scottish lord, the Hitler encounter, Brody getting lost, etc.**
I guess they just made me laugh.
** - A weak female lead. The actress was not up to the part and the whole affair between her and Indy seemed perfunctory. Contrast this with the intriguing and well-developed relationship between Indy and Marion in the first movie.**
It was perfunctary because she drew him in to get info from him. Has she been in anything since that movie? Marion, though, was a head above her and Willie Scott.
I disagree. Jones Sr. was not a buffoon… he just wasn’t an action-hero, like his son. He was a scholar. He was a thinker. His purpose was to be the cool head to his son’s hot head… only at the times when he gave in to the excitement did he screw up.
I can’t claim to have seen any detailed “making of” explanation of this scene, though I do seem to recall discussion of CGI being used in the zeppelin-in-flight sequences. In any event, the look/color/texture of the planes during the more extreme strafing bits and the tunnel crash gave me the strong impression that they were CGI rather than miniatures.
Unless you’re claiming to be one of the crazed stunt pilots who flew real aircraft in that scene
I think BingoBurringo lives in an alternate universe. I’ve NEVER met anyone who liked ToD. It wasn’t terrible, it didn’t suck, but it in no way measures up to the first or third. I just don’t understand the viewpoint of the OP.
Plus, one of my favorite movie lines comes from Last Crusade:
“Sallah, can’t you count?!? I said ‘NO’ camels, that’s THREE camels!”
Ah, you’re all wrong. the funniest line in the Last Crusade is when Indy’s dad finds out he brought the diary back to Europe with him, and says, “I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers.”
Damnit SPOOFE, now I’m second guessing myself! I’ll have to check. However, I have a wedding to get to, and won’t be back in my apartment until Sunday (for all you would be burglars out there, could you at least feed my hamster?). But I really seem to remember the “can’t you count” part being in the front. Makes it funnier that way.
LC did have the great bit:
“How did you know?”
…
“She talks in her sleep.”
<pause>
“I’m as human as the next man.”
“Dad, I was the next man.”
“Oh, right.”
I loved Connery in that role. Absolutely phenomenal.
Original was good, ToD was fine (coulda done without the heart removal bit).
