The Last Crusade: Explain the Hate

Well, I like it...

Connery with the birds quoting Charlamagne was badass.

It's not as good as Temple of Doom or Raiders. That's really it. It's not a bad movie by any means, just not as special as either of those.

Never understood it myself. It's always the one I watch the most of from the trilogy and did so religiously, like once a day during one summer, so I always wondered what the backlash against it was.

I don't prefer Temple of Doom because its darker, I like it because its different and strange and takes some chances and is exactly what I want from an Indiana Jones picture. Last Crusade is fun, but I think a little unfamiliarity is good for this particular franchise in terms of locales, tone and characters. I enjoy not having any clue what's around the next corner. It ties into the whole spirit of archeology and discovery.

Indy 3 is self consciously trying to win back the audience's trust after the stormy cloud around Temple of Doom and as such hits familiar beats from Raiders. Also, its the most jokey of the 3, and once a franchise goes there, its tough to go back.

That IS badass. Any time anyone mentions Last Crusade, that's the scene I think of. Talk about a great representation of character defining action.

I think Last Crusade is a fine little movie. Nowhere near as amazing as Raiders, obviously, but not as uneven as Temple of Doom, and it does a satisfying job of being entertaining. I don't think it aspired to do a whole lot more than that, so it's OK by me.

As far as I can tell, people don't prefer TEMPLE OF DOOM to LAST CRUSADE simply because it's dark. It's also mean. And politically-incorrect. And violent. But most importantly, it's a fine-tuned action machine that includes some truly breathtaking sequences, thrilling escapes, harrowing close-calls and some really great fights. I saw TEMPLE OF DOOM opening night with a packed audience and to this day, I've never seen a crowd so completely on the edge of their seats, cheering and screaming all the way through.

Dumbed-down, bloated, derivative, silly...LAST CRUSADE joins a long line of uninspired Part III's, from RETURN OF THE JEDI to SPIDER-MAN 3. It gets by on the supposed chemistry between Ford and Connery (not too hard to generate that between those two) but rehashes so many plot points and elements from RAIDERS, it's hard to be taken as anything other than a tired retread.

It infuriates me that Spielberg considers LAST CRUSADE his apology for TEMPLE OF DOOM. Some of his most deft, energetic filmmaking is on display in TEMPLE OF DOOM. Kahn's editing is also a marvel (Club Obi-Wan, Bug Chamber, etc.) but so is Williams' score and Slocombe's cinematography. It's nowhere near as great as RAIDERS but it's still leagues beyond LAST CRUSADE.

That its a retread of Raiders with a father son angle seems to bother alot of people, but Connery to me has never been better at light fair as he was in this, and Denholm Eliiot is gold as well. Also I will also admit channeling John Ford for a flashback is about the best way to do one. Plus add in a hot Austrian girl who happens to be a Nazi, and the Holy Grail and I am sold. Which is why I still rank Indy as the best Trilogy as a whole, even though my respect for BTTF 3 has grone by leaps and bounds.

I think I like it better than the other two. It was the first one of the films I saw, so that might affect my view of it. I haven't seen any of them for a long time, but from what I remember The Last Crusade was a bit more serious in tone, whereas the other two had a slight zaniness to them. Spielberg's films have a quality to them that's hard to describe. I think a lot of people are attracted by it, but for some reason I've always been put off by it. The Last Crusade doesn't feel as Spielbergy (for lack of a better word) as the others. I think that's also why I liked Munich so much. It's a Spielberg film, but it doesn't feel like one.

I felt that Last Crusade veered sharply away from the original mission statement, and suffered for it. Raiders is a throwback to the thrill-a-minute cliffhanger movie serials of the thirties and forties. Temple of Doom picks up that ball and runs with it, and its flaws are at least consistent with that attitude. Last Crusade takes a sharp left and becomes a father/son bonding comedy with the occasional lighthearted action sequence. Hell, its best action piece comes a good half hour before the end of the film, leaving it with a very limp finale. And don't even get me started on the crimes it commits against Sallah and Brody as established characters. All in all, I don't hate it, it just doesn't feel of a piece with the series to me.

Everybody loves Raiders and Crusade because the Nazis get their asses handed to them.

Nazis are universally identified as bad guys that need to get their asses kicked.

Weird voo-doo-esque man with penchant for stealing your heart = NOT a Nazi.

Using poor nearly naked and starving children as slave labor was alot worse than anybody knew about Nazis if we follow the time line, and sure scared the shit out of me as kid, more so than guys in black leather coats with collapsable hangars for sure.

Wow, 13 post and no mention of Short Round yet(Shit! just jinxed this thread)

To me, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Last Crusade felt like the same franchise while Temple of Doom feels more like a side story. Maybe its the whole Nazi/Religious element that permeate the 1st and 3rd films.
Growing up I remember I liked Raiders and Crusade a shitload more then I liked Temple. I also liked Return of the Jedi the best so I guess you can just certify me as batshit crazy.

(Disclaimer: As an adult who pays bills I prefer Episode 4 the most with Empire a close second, and I like both Crusade and Temple the same I would say, Raiders is a totally other monster thou)

That's like saying MOONRAKER was more serious than those laff-a-minute campfests CASINO ROYALE or LICENCE TO KILL.

I enjoyed Last Crusade. It "felt" more like an Indiana Jones movie, especially after the second one.

When I first saw Temple Of Doom, I thought it was awesome, better than the first one even! I was a teenager at the time, but I thought it was the greatest thing ever; non-stop action, wild stunts, and cool special effects.

Looking back on it, it's rather flawed, mean-spirited, and gruesome. Willy and Short Round (Jinx!) are both extremely annoying too, and that drags the movie down. The action is great, but there's way too much of it. You barely have time to breathe while watching.

Last Crusade isn't as good as Raiders, but for me it's still better than ToD.

Please go watch all three movies again, so you can come back and recant.

I really enjoy Crusade, but it's easily the least of the three. Sadly, I have such low expectations for Indy 4, that I'll be overjoyed if it even matches the quality of Crusade.

People expressing a preference for Last Crusade because it has more in common with Raiders is actually another one of my complaints. It has too much in common with Raiders. I love that Temple of Doom got away from the Bible and the Nazis. There's a great wealth of supernatural subject matter out there, and bad guys who need beatin' up. I don't think the series really needed to repeat itself on its third outing.

LAST CRUSADE infantilises the genuine sense of danger that gave RAIDERS such a frisson. Instead of being a well-crafted homage to the serials of old, a la its predecessor(s), it's a campy pastiche of them. Brody and Sallah go from smart, useful and engaging characters to punchlines and stereotypes; the peril is muted in favour of Connery/Ford hijinx; Indy becomes a doe-eyed fool over a woman who is clearly playing him. It's like a systematic undoing of the previous films.

There's also something infuriatingly politically correct about casting the principal villain as a Western turncoat. After the resolutely un-PC antics of RAIDERS and TEMPLE it feels like a conscious sop to the modern cinematic constructs which Spielberg and Lucas sought to retreat from with the creation of the franchise.

That said, I don't hate it. Ford and Connery are on fine form, and it's fun in its own way. But it's certainly the least of the series.

For now.

I adore the Last Crusade...

...possibly as much as Freddy got Fingered. So a lot.

I think what bothers people is that while Last Crusade a bit of a distillation of everything that made the first film work, it's almost too efficient, predictable, and self-consciously goofy. The third act absurdities (which, to be honest, I love) are an important step in Spielberg's maturation as a director as he went from making great movies to making great movies with horrible and illogical endings, so it's an auteur film, too. Also, the shot choice in this film is a LOT more organized than in Raiders and the framings more impressive aesthetically and in terms of what they say and how they parse than in previous Spielberg films. Visually, at least, Spielberg has only gotten better over time, and the visual maturity in this film hints to me that it's not just Kaminski's influence.

Some highlights:

The long, boring exposition that sets up the story in the first act is basically just Harrison Ford talking with some guy for twenty minutes. Watch the clever blocking and camera work that keeps the scene visually interesting. Very impressive stuff; the best random camera work during dialogue of its time, and only slightly worse than the reigning champ (the Rock--where every phone conversation has at least three push-ins and a jib move). While Scorsese might use acting or story to make a scene like this compelling, masters like Spielberg and Bay know that it's all about the dynamic camerawork. Love it.

The fight scene on a train at the beginning. What could set the tone of this movie (fun, but sillier than previous Indiana Jones films) better than this absurd, absurd scene? Nothing, except maybe a jet pack. You can usually tell how good a movie is by how many fights it has on moving vehicles.

The weird religious implications of the ending. The whole film is basically a call for secular humanism, but with a return to a chivalric code of honor; in making Indy the redemptive figure (I mean, he finds the Holy Grail!) Spielberg is announcing the death of Christianity but promising that we can still live in a morally upright society if we kill Nazis.

I love the problem solving scene at the church. What the hell is this? It's the worst puzzle ever; you just put some numbers somewhere. It's like one of those video games where you have to stop shooting things for a while and solve a stupid puzzle, except in cinematic terms. Loved it.

Anyhow, four stars. And I can't wait for the fourth film. I swear it will be good.

And there goes another thread.

Now I feel dirty for liking Crusade.

Random question... Why have most of the effects shots in Raiders and Temple of Doom held up so much better than the ones in Last Crusade? Some of the blue screen work in particular in the latter is atrocious.

Anyways, for the record, I prefer Last Crusade to Temple of Doom, just slightly. Crusade Never approaches ToD's highs, but it never hits it's lows, either. As others have said, it relies on comic relief too much, and never really feels "dangerous" like the other two, but it's still a good adventure flick and had a perfect ending for the series(oh, wait). Eh, maybe it's just the Nazis.
Raiders is perfect.

"I adore the Last Crusade...possibly as much as Freddy got Fingered. So a lot."

Policar

Hmmm.... new signature, maybe?

It strikes me that, though I haven't watched the film in ages, Last Crusade is a bit flabby. The cut to the boat after the River Phoenix sequence reveals a lesser action scene, and the rats and subsequent boat chase never comes to life. Not helping things any are the absolute worst special effects in the series. The book burning sequence is a lot of fun, and I love the exchange between Doody and Ford ("You stood up to be against everything the grail stands for, who gives a damn what you think!" is just so quotable). It strikes me the film works better as a comedy than action film, which may be why it's not as much fun as the other films. Spielberg's always known that a great action beat has the pacing of a joke, but here he really indulges his slapstick. It's not a bad film, but it never feels like its own film, which you can say for Temple of Doom.

I think that's the best way of describing it. You can sense Spielberg's focus being pulled in several different directions with CRUSADE. He seems to want it to be another RAIDERS, but shies away from truly embracing that aesthetic due to the somewhat-negative reception to TEMPLE. The result is a tonally uneven and characterless movie. Spielberg being unsure often leads to Spielberg being mediocre (see TERMINAL, THE and, to a certain, extent, 1941), and CRUSADE is no exception.

I have a big book about Industrial Light and Magic, and while I haven't read through it in a while, I do recall it being mentioned that the last couple years of the 80's were just packed for them. Between Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters 2, and the Back to the Future sequels, I think any less than stellar effects can be chalked up to ILM just being overextended.

I really like the film, though.

If it's the coffeetable book called "Into the Digital Realm"(I believe there's an X-Wing on the cover), I have the same one. Great book, but I haven't looked at it in a while.
No doubt you're right, they've had quite a few lapses in quality in the last decade as well(Spawn, the Mummy Returns), no doubt due to taking on too many jobs. I guess I just expected more, especially since it was a Lucasfilm project, you would think it would be prioritized.
Still they did have some groundbreaking work in Last Crusade with set extensions and digital trickery, but ug, those damn blue screen shots stick out like a sore thumb. Especially the Nazi cursing the Jones's after being ejected from the zeppelin.

This movie rules. A bit of a mess, not quite imaginative, but just so innocent and fun. Connery and Ford rule. It's also the funniest movie Spielberg's ever made. He generally tries way too hard, but here it works. When the gags aren't funny, they're at least fun.

And TEMPLE OF DOOM isn't "dark". It's just really fucking shrill.

Indiana was cool until they decided that he had daddy issues.

There needs to be a thread called: Short Round: Explain the Hate.

Although I had seen the first two a number of times, Last Crusade is the one where I remember seeing it in the cinema for the first time and just loving it as a kid. It's still the one I enjoy the most rewatching now on dvd. As has been said (surprisingly late into the thread!), the two sidekicks in Temple are festering sores of non-entertainment and that fact alone is enough to put me off watching that particular dvd in the box set.

I really think it is the goofiness that appeals to me for some reason. That and "penitent man, penitent man, KNEEL!" gets stuck in my head at inopportune moments of great stress. Which is amusing in its own weird way.

I think Temple is downright fantastic ... until they get to India. Then there's the interminable scenes in the village, and in the jungle with Willie and Short Round, and dinner at the palace, so that by the time we get to the bugs and the temple and all the good stuff, I'm just not that into it anymore. Plus, my hatred of Short Round has been well-documented around here, so that's always a negative. And I just think that, compared to the globe-spanning nature and implications of the first film, keeping this one in India and focusing on a relatively minor threat makes it seem like a minor film in comparison. Sure, Mola Ram talks about toppling the Hindu god and the Hebrew god and the Christian god, but in the end, the whole story is about getting some stones back to a village. After seeing Indy save the world from the Nazis, it felt like a bit of a letdown.

Last Crusade returns to the globe-trotting and the high stakes, and has a much more fascinating quest object. And yes, there's some dodgy effects, but let's not forget the awful blue screen work during the flood scene in Temple, shall we? The way you can see the three of them standing still and then starting to run from the water is about as bad as the first shot of the zeppelin in Last Crusade. To me, Last Crusade is about the birth and death of Indiana Jones. We see where he came from, how he got to be who he is, and then we see him put all that behind him and ride off into the sunset. As anxious as I am to see what they come up with next, that final shot always said to me that they should have left it there.

Well put, Sir.

Too much blue screen and too damned silly. And it had a 2000 year old knight. A 2000 YEAR OLD KNIGHT. Before that scene I never thought it would be possible to make Raiders face melting finale look subtle.

Yeah, if the film had been about the quest for an artifact that grants eternal life, this would have made sense, but -- oh, wait.

Oh it makes perfect sense. That's the problem. The movie went so overboard with magic and fantasy you could have Indy defeat the Nazis while riding atop a unicorn and it would still make sense. That's just too damned silly a movie compared to Raiders.

I don't think the Holy Grail is all that fantastical, not any more so than the Ark of the Covenant or the Shankara Stones.

I've never seen so many love a film for excelling at being terrible before. Policar's entire post can be destilled down to: "I love it! It sucks!"

However, I get the feeling that in a little more than a year from now, LAST CRUSADE's failings will suddenly be perceived as charming, in comparison.

Now hang on, Policar's all by himself on that island.

As much as you may disagree with my post, you actually seem to understand it. I really, really like Last Crusade, so much so that its uninentionally campy moments are as charming as its intentionally campy ones. The film also holds a place in my heart as the beginning of modern Spielberg. Spielberg (as of late), is more aware of aesthetics and formal trickery, but he also can't end his movies and goes totally crazy in the third act. In Last Crusade, the extra style is there--even without Kaminski. So too is the bungled third act, but it's quirky and not too far out of control; it's still a total WTF moment, but it's hugely enjouyable. In AI, by comparison, the third act made me want to die a little bit. Also, the fancy camera work to cover boring exposition is so ingenious that you have to give Spielberg props for that. I haven't seen that boring ass movie 12 Angry Men or whatver, but if it had a bunch of jib moves and push ins, I'd consider. If Michael Bay does a remake, I'm there.

But seriously, Last Crusade is a fun movie. If Indy 4 sucks, I at least hope it sucks this awesomely or is in 3D.

Well, I agree with everything you wrote, too. (Very cogent, by the way!) It's just that all the stuff you pointed out is actually good, and thereby not as charming as the stuff that sucks and is amazing.

Policar is reminding me of Fabfunk without the necrophilia.

For the sake of argument, I'll pose this question: What was the best moment and worst moment in each of the Indy films?

I'll start...and I'll probably need to revise my picks as others remind me of better bests and worse worsts...

RAIDERS Best:
Incredibly tough. It's a movie filled to the rafters with potential "best" moments. But since the Arab Swordsman was more of a happy accident, and Indy standing against the sunset was more of a transitional flourish, I'll go with the brilliantly executed truck chase (ironically NOT shot by Spielberg, but by Second Unit Director Mickey Moore.

RAIDERS Worst:
Also incredibly tough. Not much bad in this film. I'll go with the use of a dummy to double Toht in the front seat of Belloq's staff car as they're briefly parked in front of Omar's Garage. And that's really reaching.

TEMPLE Best:
Loved Club Obi-Wan. Loved the bug chamber. Dug the film's dark pulp journey through the Temple of Doom. The third act nearly runs off the rails (literally) but it's fun. I suppose for sheer edge-of-your-seat bravura filmmaking, even if it's confined to a tiny room, I have to go with the bug chamber.

TEMPLE Worst:
Could be the terrible visual effect of Lao Che's plane hitting the side of the mountain. Could be Indy and Willie's painful "nocturnal activities" antics. Could be Short Round's terribly convenient discovery of how to revive someone from the Black Sleep of Kali. But even though I don't hate her as much as most people, I'll go with Willie's prolonged bitch sessions on the plane and through the jungle.

CRUSADE Best:
Probably Indy's leap of faith and the invisible bridge. But I also love Henry firing the tank cannon and blowing up an entire convoy truck filled with mannequins dressed as Nazi troops.

CRUSADE Worst:
Hmmm. In a film riddled with stupidity and cheese, it's nearly impossible to call out the Worst of the Worst. Rather than pick a moment, I think I have to pick an element. And that element is the sudden brain removal of one Marcus Brody. He goes from "Wiped clean by the Wrath of God" in RAIDERS to "Henry! I say! The pen! The pen is mightier than the sword!" in LAST CRUSADE. Sallah gets dumbed-down too, which is a shame. But then, so does Indy. And the Nazis. And Spielberg, for that matter. You base a major action beat of peril on your hero not simply letting go of his satchel while hanging from the tank as it's conveniently inching towards a small outcropping of hillside? I shit on this movie.

And two predictions:

CITY OF GODS Best:
Marion returns.

CITY OF GODS Worst:
Aliens. Or nuke-proof refrigerator.

I think the only shortcoming of Last Crusade is the stupifying of Marcus. He bacame a comical character in Crusade that didn't know the front end of a horse from it's rear.

In Raiders, he speaks as if he'd been on journey's like Indy's back in the day. I always wanted a story about that Marcus.

I'd argue is the worst moment of Crusade was when Indy tries a disguise and phony accent to get into Castle Grunwald like he was Fletch.

I love me some LAST CRUSADE, but I'm glad to hear some Marcus criticisms.

Temple of Doom has Kate Capshaw in it, so LAST CRUSADE wins it for me. Then again, TOD did have the actor that would go on to play Dhalsim in STREET FIGHTER: THE MOVIE.

Not to derail, but:
Regarding Raiders, can anyone explain how Indy makes the leap of logic into knowing that their eyes must be closed during the "wrath of god" sequence? That's always bugged me. On the one hand, there's the concept that man was not meant to witness the glory of god, etc. etc. On the other, there's the concept of "Holy hell, I've got to see what's in the box!" To me, Indy would fall into that second camp. How does he know that Jesus isn't going to drift out of the Ark in a plume of sweet smelling smoke? It's an awesome movie that isn't ruined in the least by this moment, but it bugs me none the less. The only explanation, vis-a-vis the script itself, seems to be Indy's initial meeting with the military intelligence guys where he shows them the illustration of the ark. They ask what the beams eminating from the Ark are and Indy responds (paraphrasing here), "Lightning. Fire. Wrath of God."

Also, is there any significance to the fact that the Ark is filled with sand? Or is that just a process of having been buried in the desert for a few millenia?

Mysterium Tremendum

Dude, God would kick your ass.