The Last Crusade: Explain the Hate - Page 2

Following Litmus' lead:

Best Raiders Moment:
"I've looked everywhere."
"Look again."
"There he is!"
"Where?"
"There!"
Cue the Raiders march as Indy climbs onto the sub and salutes the crew of the freighter. The essense of Indy right there -- never give up unless you're not breathing anymore.

Worst Raiders Moment:
Seeing the phone pole mounted to the bottom of the truck to make it flip over during Marion's abduction. Stupid "Making of" special went and made it so I can't help noticing it every time I watch it. And that's about the only flaw in a near-perfect film.

Best Temple Moment:
The Club Obi Wan opening. Not only is the opening musical number an audacious way to kick off the proceedings, but the entire confrontation with Lao Che at the dinner table is just fantastically blocked and shot. The action of Indy's scramble for the antidote is well-done too, as is his escape out the window with Willie. It's just an all-around great opening worthy of James Bond, and probably where the film feels most like Raiders. And then...

Worst Temple Moment:
... they land in the car with Short Round and he sticks around for the rest of the film. As soon as he opened his mouth and I saw the oh-so-precious blocks of wood on his feet so he could reach the pedals, the loathing was pure and instant.

Best Crusade Moment:
"You lost today, kid. But that doesn't mean you have to like it." And the torch is passed and we get that great cut from River Phoenix to Harrison Ford and he gives that classic Ford smirk that only works when he's getting his ass handed to him. That whole opening is best part of the entire film.

Worst Crusade Moment:
That first shot of the zeppelin. I mean, I know ILM was spread thin, but did they have to let the field trip from Modesto Elementary help out on that shot?

I think he's thinking back to Soddom and Gammorah, where looking back at the wrath of God being rained down turned Lot's wife to salt. He probably assumed staring at the unleashed wrath of God in this case wasn't a good idea.

That ties into the sand in the Ark. What's inside the Ark isn't important, it's what it represents -- the Covenant. Searching for it to get what's inside is missing the whole point.

Exactly.

Plus I'll add the lighthearted "we're watching a movie" overlit vibe that permeats the whole thing, including the scenes where they turn Sallah and Brody into Laurel and Hardy (think about these characters behavior in Raiders and it makes no sense whatsoever). The whole thing just feels like a nice happy jaunt (more like Young Indy) and there are too many "oh there's his hat/we named you after the dog/I hate being called junior/no ticket" comedy bits.

Raiders had all the action and excitement of the serials, yes - but there is also a serious bit of adult dramatic acting and mature pacing going on. It has gravity. Last Crusade winks at us and says "ain't this fun?"

Temple of Doom rules and I like almost as much as Raiders. I could never tire of the first hour (until Short Round (who is OK) gets imprisoned). Also Mola Ram, blood drinking, ceiling fans, bugs, skulls, spikes, brains. Fuck yeah.

There are no iconic moments in Last Crusade either. Or if there are they seem to come off a little cheesy, like Indy going through the 3 tests at the end. Raiders has the map room and the boulder plus the melted ending (plus the best score of the trilogy). Temple of Doom has the rope bridge, which the image of Indy standing on with his machete is for me THE ultimate summation of Indiana Jones and why I like the films.

I endorse this statement, up to and including Short Round's, "Hang on, lady, we going for a ride."

Because the God of Raiders is the Old Testament Bad motherfucker God. The one who flooded the world, burned down two cities because He was not into buggery and turned people into pillars of salt.

Indy was supposed to be a scholar, as well as an adventurer. He knew that Yahweh means business.

Sorry, I was reading the thread, got up to post 42, saw this:

And had to post without finishing my reading, so if he got tarred and feathered for this one already, apologies.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE F**KING KIDDING ME!!!

I'm not just coming to the defense of one of my favorite flicks, I'm calling this guy out. He can't be for real?

Actually didn't Man with a Golden Gun and Live and Let Die feature the Southern Cracker Sheriff known as Pepper and Golden Gun I think had the slide whistle used when a car jumped a river?

I remember that this was some time during the Moore era specifically in the 70s.

Yeah, but those movies are better than Moonraker, so the sarcastic analogy would've worked slightly less well.

It's also about Indy's character change from seeking "fortune and glory" to a more selfless outlook. And it sets up the stage for his bigger quests involving the Ark and the Grail.

I'm really confused by the Short Round hatred. Not a fan? Fine. But to detest the character!? C'mon!

Last half hour of Temple of Doom is so great, from Indy's fight against the guy with the big turban to cutting the rope bridge, there really hasnt been any other adventure film thats rivalled it, let alone Raiders.

I dont understand hatred towards Crusade either, but it does feel more dated than the previous two; really does feel like an 80's film. But for a third film in a trilogy, it holds its own, there's lots to like about it and River Phoenix and Sean Connery was great casting.

The first of which was motivated by what he supposedly had overcome already.

Temple being set before Raiders but seemingly ignoring Indy's character in that film is another one of the issues I have with it.

How do you mean? And how did they ignore his character in Raiders?

Actually, if I remember correctly, the guy who translates the amulet tells him not to look in the ark. Indy was only listening with half an ear, though, so he only remembers at the last minute.

When he gets the go-ahead to go after the Ark, he talks about it as "the greatest archeological find of our time." It's not selflessness that's motivating him, it's fame -- he's not about keeping it away from the Nazis, he's about the glory of being the one to get it. And then there's the line about not believing in all that "magical mumbo jumbo" when Brody warns him about the power of the Ark, yet in a movie that took place a year earlier, he's up to his eyeballs in that very same magical mumbo jumbo.

There was really no earthly reason for Temple to be set before Raiders, except for Lucas' seeming lack of chronological awareness.

Short Round is great. He's hilarious and a great balance to the darker aspects of the film. Without him, I fear Temple of Doom would be too dark and unpleasant. He's comic relief, but he's functional and a vital part to the story. If he felt like a result of focus testing, or wanting to bring more kids in the theatres the hate would be perfectly valid, but it doesn't feel that way at all to me.

Of course, I saw all these films as a kid and not in theatres, so that may greatly affect the way I view them.

But he does want it to be in safe hands and seeks to get it away from Belloq's (and the Nazis) grasp. Remember at the beginning, he sees Belloq as a scumbag and tells him, "Too bad the Hovitos don't know you the way I do". He repeatedly expresses his frustration with Belloq's methods of archaeology. Finally, Indy does also want it be kept safe and he (and Marcus) express their frustration with the Government locking it away in big storage house.

Then again in Crusade, he doubts the power of the grail despite seeing the power of the Ark all those years earlier. That's how he changes in each film when he doubts the artifact's power at the start then becoming a believer in it by the film's end.

He just always stuck me as a mini Indy who wasn't there for much more than being a kid in danger and to comment on the action with obvious, unfunny dialog. And it doesn't help that Quan's delivery is pretty much the same no matter if he's making a joke or telling Indy he loves him.

Out of curiosity, how old were some of you when you first saw Temple of Doom? I was 15, and I'm wondering if opinions on Short Round vary based on how old you were in relation to the character.

But then he doesn't blow it up to keep it away from Belloq when he has the chance. He wants to see what's inside there as much as Belloq does. And just because he's not willing to lie, cheat, and backstab doesn't mean he's not thinking about the fame of being the man to find the Ark of the Covenant.
I don't think he doubts the power of the Grail, he just doubts it exists. Plus, his father's obsession with it certainly clouds his opinion on the matter.

By himself I guess I can understand some people's irritance with the character, but I love his relationship with Indy, thats what makes him charming and shit. Their card game always makes me smile jealously, wish I had a father figure like that!

Plus he's a Goonie, you cant hate a Goonie.

But wasn't the whole mission a top secret, confidential assignment anyway? I didn't think he was expecting to become famous out of the whole ordeal.

I still feel it fits in with his non-believer to believer character arc in each film. He feels disappointed by his dad's obsession of the grail but soon comes to respect it and even tries to save it from the gaping chasm.

SHort Round's worth is entirely dependent on his relationship with Indy. And since Ford totally sells the little guy's companionship as something meaningful, without overegging the pudding, he's a fine addition to the movie.

I don't know what that means, but reading it gives me a funny feeling downstairs.

I was 16 when Doom opened, and I had no problem with Short Round. As sequalized child sidekicks go, he's not the worst. He's not half as annoying as Furlong in T2 for example.

I was seven when I saw "Temple" and I have no problem with the Round. I think the character works because Spielberg never indulges his penchant for sickly sweetness (well, except for the last exchange between the Maharajah and Short Round), simply allowing Indy's character to play off of that of Short Round. Hell, one of my favorite scenes in "Temple" is when Indy and Short Round are playing cards. It's a great character moment.

TLC has it's moments, but it is too repetitive. Some terrible effects too. Although the tank chase, boat chase is some vintage Indy. Saw it opening night and was wowed; a good adventure film, but compared to the perfection of Raiders, not quite as much. Could do a lot worse.

One thing that always bothered me is Indy's ease in breaking off a road sign. Was it made of styrofoam or what? If I'm riding a motorcyle and reach out and grab a road sign, I'm either getting a broken arm or losing it.

Why couldn't River Phoenix have gotten a fucking haircut?


I was 12 when TOD came out and was wore out the first time I saw it. Short Round was always funny to me.

There's no time for love!

...

I'm going now.

I've always wondered that. It was 1912, for God's sake. They might as well have given Indy some rollerblades and radical pink safety pads.

At the risk of baffling some people, I think this is the best place to bring up some problems with RAIDERS; it's far from "perfect".

1) Toht is set up as being a super-nasty Nazi scumbag. We look forward to his eventual confrontation with Indy. Instead, all he does is vaguely giggle a few times, and, uh, assemble a coathanger. THE FACE OF EVIL!

2) The movie devotes a good chunk of screentime to Marion trying to effect an escape. It then turns out that she, uh, doesn't. It also establishes that she can outdrink a guy, which we assume will contribute to the plot. Instead, she, uh, doesn't. Belloq remains fairly lucid. Why?

3) I know she's popular, but I honestly cannot stand Karen Allen. For all her so-called "toughness", she screams and whines just as much as Kate Capshaw, but here, it's even less forgivable. If Marion is such an equal, then how come she achieves absolutely nothing throughout the film? She's just one more pain in the ass for Indy to contend with. At least the filmmakers knew that Willie was annoying.

4) Arab extras CANNOT ACT.

That is all.

The booze she was using was Belloq's family label. He grew up with it. Hence, strong tolerance! It was blatantly spelled out in the dialogue and was the entire point of the reversal.

I think that besides a couple minutes in the wicker basket she's absolutely fantastic in that movie.

He does say to Marcus something along the lines of "And the museum? The museum gets the Ark?"

To which Marcus replies "Oh.....yes!" in a way that he's just assuming the museum will get to display the ark.

If their museum would've gotten to display the ark, something tells me that would've brought Indy some recognition...

Yeah, but I remember them discussing first studying the Ark before doing anything with it. I guess we're led to believe that Indy was being screwed by the museum a lot during this period of this life. That's another reason why he gave the Sankara stone back to the village because it would have been "another rock collecting dust".

I'm not sure I follow the "Indy's been screwed over by the museum" line of thinking.

As Young Indy in the 1912 portion of LAST CRUSADE, we first hear him proclaim, "It belongs in a museum!"

Then, to your point, in 1935, he blows off fortune and glory because the Sankara stone "would have been another rock collecting dust." But this has less to do with disillusionment with the museum than it does with Indy doing something charitable for the villagers.

But then in 1936, he seems genuinely thrilled that the museum will supposedly get the Ark when he and Marcus are finished.

And back to LAST CRUSADE, this time in 1938, he again insists to Panama Hat that the Cross of Coronado indeed "belongs in a museum!"

Indy seems pretty pro-museum, if you ask me.

I was referring to the brief period in Indy's adult life between his adventure as a boyscout to the events of Last Crusade.

But yeah, your right though, my explanation doesn't make sense. He is pretty pro-museum throughout.

That, and having a Lovable Street Starfish latch onto Indy feels right for the time and place. How far would gaijin get in the world of Club Obi-Wan?

Actually, as has been pointed out on these boards before, Indy accomplished nothing as well. So that makes them pretty equal.

Yes, a super-nasty Nazi scumbag -- who wimpily coughs when Marion blows smoke in his face, whines in the snow when his hand gets burned (granted that would hurt like a bitch, but the moment doesn't make him out to be a badass at all), and really only ever threatens Marion in the entire film. Indy would have wiped the floor with him in about ten seconds.

It's meant to show that Marion is resourceful and a worthy companion to Indy. She's not your typical damsel in distress waiting to be rescued. The only reason she doesn't get out of the tent is because Toht shows up to interrogate her. And her outdrinking a guy was established back in her first scene, which this scene plays off of. And Belloq is acting pretty hammered later in that scene -- he's giggling like a fool through most of the conversation about the wine and when Marion pulls out the knife.

Yes, a thousand times, yes. Just had to say that most everything I would've said has been said (and said better) by Dickson, but this is what really sticks in my craw about TOD. In Raiders, the audience is thrilled with the Ark in part because Indy has seen it all but has NEVER gone after anything like this...except those glowing, magical stones and the guy who pulls hearts out of chests and...

EDIT: Sidebar, I didn't realize it until recently but in all the girlfriends I had and chased (many more chased than had, sadly) growing up, I was looking for someone both as hot and as cool as Marion.

I still am.

I'm willing to buy this explanation. Just Spielberg undermining the Nazi stereotype and showing us that they're all just wimpy nerds. I think I like it. Thanks for improving the movie a bit for me.

Marion, however, can still go die in a housefire.

SOMETHING MADE IT IN... EVIDDABLE.

I once discovered a very humorous mistake in RAIDERS nobody else seems to know, so i share it here:

When Indy and Marion finally escape from the tomb, Indy pushes a boulder out of the way to climb out. Just watch the shadow of the boulder...
They didn't fix it with some of the other "errors" for the DVD.

My best moment in Raiders would be the weighting of the idol and the sequence with the rolling boulder.
The worst probably is just the sadness of seeing the Flying Wing get blown up without seeing Indy in some sky action.

Good thing Last Crusade came along to give us an annoying scene in a plane with the worst effects of the series featuring Sean Connery shooting the rear wing with his machine gun. That was some sky action.

I'm explaining the hate.

Yeah, that's the arc for each movie (which each is it's own standalone installment, by the way), he thinks he's seen it all but by the film's end he comes away with better understanding of the artifact. And the whole excitement of each Indy film is in going on adventures different from the last and exploring new locales/things.

And it's all the setup. The payoff is worth it.

To me Raiders Of The Lost Ark is a classic. Temple Of Doom actually is more violent,mean,has less gun play and jaw dropping Action sequences is a perfect second film. While there are no Nazis, the cultists were throwbacks to the adventure films like Sinbad and Tarzan that George Lucas and Steven Spielberg probable grew up on. I thought they were great villians. The Last Crusade would be a decent film if there were not 2 much better films which came first. A horrible lead actress Alison Doody. The film lacks the energy of the first two films. Aside from River Phoenix as Young Indy, the rest of the film is very much like someone else made the film and Lucas and Spielberg added their names later. I thought Sean Connery was terrible as well. I am a big Connery fan. He was a great James Bond, fantastic in the Untouchables, The Rock, and the only good thing about Robin Hood Prince of Thieves as King Richard. I thought that Indiana Jones father should not be as goofy as Sean was in last crusade. I also thought Indy's sidekicks were not as interesting as they were in Raiders. All in all The Last Crusade was a film I never saw again, and it remains one of my least favorite films ever.

The only thing that bothers me about the plane scene in Last Crusade is the horrible continuity with the damage to the tail of the plane.

For some reason, the sped-up scene of the car crashing in the recently-created hole always gets a laugh out of me. I think it's just the film speed and the quick cutting of the bomb dropping to the car crashing. Good stuff.