IMDb user comments for
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 37:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

362 comments in total

---

138 out of 159 people found the following comment useful :-
The Last Crusade is the best of the Indy trilogy and the most fun one can have watching a movie., 2 November 2003

Author: Li-1

Rating: **** out of ****

My opinion of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade could be deemed slightly biased. It is the first film I ever saw in theaters and it's also the first movie I purchased on video. I even own the same, worn-down, beat-up copy (and look upon it even more fondly than the widescreen edition, for sentimental reasons, of course) (but nothing beats the pristine quality DVD). I think it's fair to say it's this movie that cemented my love of cinema, the high regard I hold for great escapism, which is sorely lacking from today's cinema; movies that should be fun now drag or bludgeon themselves with relentlessly awful scripts or MTV-style direction that turns relatively simple scenes into chaotic blurs. The Last Crusade may only be thirteen years old, but I think I can safely say they don't make them like they used to.

The film stars, of course, Harrison Ford as Indy Jones, the archaeologist/adventurer who's on yet another quest, this time to find his father, who'd been searching for the Holy Grail. Said Dad is played by none other than Sean Connery, whose highly charismatic performance is quick to place this film, acting-wise, above the others in the trilogy by giving Ford a genuine acting equal (let me put it this way, he's only half a notch below Harrison Ford/Indy in charisma and appeal if that tells you anything). The rest of the film focuses on this ongoing journey between father and son (eventually joined along by Sallah and Marcus Brody), complete with amazing action and stunt sequences, clever humor, and nasty (but fun) surprises.

The script, by Jeffrey Boam, takes a few cues from Raiders of the Lost Ark, but actually improves upon that story by paying more attention to characterization. The delightful opening scene (all three movies really open with a bang, don't they?); which details how young Indy got his scar, whip, hat, and fear of snakes; makes for a better prequel than Temple of Doom (and any of The Adventure of Young Indiana Jones, for that matter).

The story is engrossing because there's a lot of fun clues offered towards the location of the Grail and, thus, there's a lot of engaging little discoveries (love the "X marks the spot" scene). I'm quite certain, like with Raiders of the Lost Ark, the plot has a few holes, but they're fairly hard to notice, and I've seen this movie quite a few times, but maybe it's just my enjoyment of the film clouding that up. Either way, it speaks volumes in favor of Spielberg's direction and the performances.

Given that action and adventure is the series' selling point, you can expect the thrills and wondrous delight of discovery delivered in spades. The action scenes are terrific (and matched well with John Williams' rousing, memorable score, also the best of the trilogy), the best being an excellent ten-minute setpiece on board (and in) a Nazi tank in a fantastic chase sequence across the desert, possibly the best action sequence of Spielberg's career. I also loved the motorcycle chase and the Zeppelin setpiece, where the heroes go about dispatching of two enemy fighters in unexpected, but quite hilarious, fashion. The climax, complete with frightening booby traps, is a suspenseful venture into the unknown, which is the pinnacle adventure movies aspire to.

The Last Crusade is far more humor-oriented than its predecessors, but part of the movie's effectiveness is that it's able to deliver belly laughs without defusing the tension during the action sequences. Some of the jokes are just brilliant, including one with Indy armed with a Luger in confrontation with a trio of Nazis on board a tank that's even funnier than the swordsman scene in Raiders (well, to me, at least).

The supporting cast is all-around superb; John Rhys-Davies is back as Sallah, wonderful as ever and displaying a bit more enthusiasm searching for the Grail than he did digging up the Ark of the Covenant. The late Denholm Elliot also returns as Marcus Brody, the most lovable goof of a museum curator. Alison Doody is interesting as Elsa, the blonde historian whom Indy falls for; a twist involving her character and her actions towards the climax make her not as one-dimensional as she may initially appear. Julian Glover is the best of the main Indy villains, he's far more menacing than Paul Freeman's Belloq and less over-the-top but equally enjoyable as Amrish Pruri's Mola Ram. I also enjoyed Michael Byrne's performance as the Jones hating Colonel Vogel, who relishes in torturing Indy and his father. When it comes to pure delightfully nasty villainy, Byrne is even more fun to watch than Glover.

Harrison Ford delivers his best Indy performance (maybe even his best performance, period) in this particular adventure. With the addition of Connery as his father, it reveals a personal side to Indy we haven't seen before. It's his rapport with Connery that strikes that spark that separates this from 99% of the genre. They craft an uncannily touching, funny, and genuine bond unlike any duo I've seen. You could call it a buddy picture, but one with genuine heart and emotion, something filmmakers Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer could learn a thing or two about. The Last Crusade is the pinnacle of high adventure summer entertainment.

---

89 out of 108 people found the following comment useful :-
Probably The Best Movie Of The Trilogy., 18 April 2005
Author: BigHardcoreRed from Calimesa, California

Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade was, in my opinion, the best movie of the Indiana Jones trilogy. This movie featured the same type of humor we have become accustomed to from Jones, as well as another beautiful woman (also probably the best Indy girl) and lots of great action scenes! This movie starts off with a teenage Indy (River Phoenix) which gives us a look at an event that molds his life and character as well as his relationship with his father, Henry (Sean Connery). We also learn he is a "Junior" and that he hates to be called that.

Back as an adult, Indy's father is kidnapped and he must set out to find him. His only clues are his father's diary notes, which were mysteriously sent to him earlier that day. They lead him to Italy, where he meets the gorgeous blonde, Dr. Elsa Schneider (Alison Doody), who becomes an integral part of this story.

Once again, the grown up Indy (Harrison Ford) does battle with the Nazis. Apparently, Adolf Hitler is after the Holy Grail, which contains the blood of Christ. So Indiana and his father team up to get there first. Along the way, there is a great action scene where Jones fights a few Nazis on board a moving tank.

Overall, as I mentioned earlier, I believe this to be the best Indiana Jones movie of the three. This action movie was good long before movie studios learned to make the great CGI and special effects. It's effects were pretty good anyways but back in 1989, things just did not look as good as they can make them today. Still, highly recommended and worth your time. 9.5/10

---

74 out of 88 people found the following comment useful :-
You call this archaeology? Sure do!, 19 August 1999

Author: George Litman from Marietta, OH USA

One thing you gotta say for this series: it isn't boring.

And "Last Crusade" has enough thrills, chills and spills to fill up a few dozen old Saturday afternoon serials.

Right down the line, everything about this film is superb. Ford and Connery do the father and son routine superbly. Rhys-Davies returns as Sallah, as does Elliott who plays Brody with as much befuddlement as Connery does his role. And who can blame him?

And the FX: there's so many you lose count. But don't bother, just sit back, relax and get swept up in the moment. You can't help yourself but to get into this "Crusade".

Ten stars. A classic Ford with a bright Sean.

---

94 out of 144 people found the following comment useful :-
The best of the Indiana Jones trilogy, 23 November 2003

Author: Kristine (kristinedrama14@msn.com) from Chicago, Illinois

I was a little concerned why this was lower then Raider's of the Lost Ark, I thought this Indiana Jones was a lot more fun. But you can't win 'em all right? After all, how could you resist Sean Connery's "Junior!". It's so funny. And Harrison Ford does it once again with the exciting adventures. And it even has a little accurate history about the natzis. I loved this film. It's definatly better then Raider's or Temple of Doom.

10/10

---

47 out of 52 people found the following comment useful :-
Top-Notch Entertainment, 11 May 2006

Author: jonathon_naylor from Manitoba, Canada

Everything clicks in this action-packed cliffhanger. In his third (and what for years what thought to be his last) adventure, Indy is on the hunt for that ultimate treasure, the Holy Grail. Along the way he must contend with Nazis, a secret brotherhood and, of course, snakes. Sean Connery is a wonderful addition as Indy's father, and the chemistry between he and star Harrison Ford may just be one of the best in film history. The movie is a true rarity in that its attempts to outdo each preceding chase sequence succeed. Though children might have trouble interpreting the plot, this crusade is one people of all ages will enjoy.

---

42 out of 49 people found the following comment useful :-
Movie Magic!, 13 August 2005

Author: gottogorunning from United States

When the two greatest filmmakers in the world teamed up to create the best action movie of all time - Raiders of the Lost Ark, it seemed unlikely that they could duplicate their divinely-inspired work. After a miss with the entertaining yet forgettable Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade comes pretty close to doing just that.

Film history's most profitable star Harrison Ford returns to his signature role in a performance that speaks for itself, and benefits greatly from a gallery of memorable supporting characters. That includes Sean Connery, the grandest of all modern action day movie heroes (and appropriately cast, as the spiritual father of the character is James Bond). Connery plays against that, in a performance that is different than anything he has ever done, and it works. Even so, Denholm Elliott can't seem to help stealing every scene he's in as Marcus Brody, a lifelong friend of the Jones family.

This movie stands by itself in the way it deals with spirituality, and is thick with religious themes throughout, without preaching to you. This is a very difficult balance to achieve in any film, and that alone makes the film stand out as brilliant. It is more abundant with humor than the previous two films, without the characters falling into irritating self-parody. Being a sequel, this is a difficult balance to achieve as well. (Look at action sequels such as Lethal Weapon 4).

This film stands among the greatest action adventures of all time. I don't know anyone who hasn't seen it, but if you haven't, don't walk to see it. Run.

---

43 out of 58 people found the following comment useful :-
A truly great feel good film, 28 November 2004

Author: Franklstein from Windsor, United Kingdom

The second sequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark is an awesome, beautifully crafted film, and arguably the best of the Indiana Jones trilogy. The film is funnier, classier and far more laid back than the other two woody story lines, mostly because of the introduction of the excellent Sean Connery as Indy's eccentric father. Spielberg and Lucas get back on track after their off the rails first sequel in which to many peoples' horror had none of the Nazis or characters that made Raiders so unique, however, what Spielberg does to make this film a classic is the use of historical data with the swashbuckling storyline of adventure and action. Not to mention that this may well be the greatest feel good film ever made...

---

25 out of 37 people found the following comment useful :-
familiar formula redeemed by great casting, 17 April 2002
Author: Special-K88

An ideal action-comedy/adventure if there ever was one. In this entertaining third installment archaeologist Ford must travel to Italy to try and rescue his estranged father. However, the rescue mission soon turns into a historic quest as he seeks out the Holy Grail, and once again finds himself battling Hitler's Nazis and encountering dangerous perils every step of the way. Follows basically the same formula as Raiders of the Lost Ark, but Connery is an added bonus and the two make a perfect duo. A good blend of elements as the film provides lots of exciting, cliffhanger style action/stunts, memorable lines, and genuine humor, but the relationship between the two leads is what really gives it stability. Lots of fun. ***½

---

6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
The Penitent Man, 16 August 2008
Author: tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) from Virginia Beach

I had to come back to this, because I'm puzzled.

I wonder what it is about Spielberg. Its easy to criticize his mawkish sentimentality and his theatrical sweeps. But I think it is more than that. After all, we happily tolerate that and worse in some others. And it cannot be simply that we are put off by what we imagine as his riches.

After all, there is at least one film in there that was deep, and a couple that were both well made and have that quality we call personal — meaning that there's some internal insight. But even those repel me; even the "holy" ones.

My working theory is that he is neither deep as a man, nor inclined to innovate in any way. He makes yesterday's pictures but with no added insight or annotation. So they appear as stupid.

The story goes that Lucas understood this, either by being told or intuiting it. So he made up one of his Campbell-inspired, Kurosawa-flavored stories, talked his buddy into starring and turned the thing over to Steven. That first one ("Lost Ark") was a phenomenon.

Lucas is at root a storyteller, a good one. You know, he's still filling in the Star Wars narrative. I will re-watch "Willow" soon. There's twice as much story as is in the movie, and Lucas was careful to find other outlets to tell it. Spielberg on the other hand is someone with an interest in shots (like Scorsese). He's interested in immediate effect, in clarity. Lucas will — every time — sacrifice that for the larger continuity of story and its integration in with the larger mythical context we carry. His films — the ones he directs — are visually barbarous, even when they copy masters.

Spielberg will — every time — sacrifice the power of the story for visual juice. This is the case even when the film is supposed to be grave and deep. Remember how trilling it was to "see" the D-day landing? And how little it mattered, even to the rest of the film? And how little that film mattered.

So I'm fascinated by this. The first film was mostly Lucas. Steven had done his one really good film ("Encounters") trying his darnest to be French. Then a flop, and then the first Indy film. He was simply a director hired by the then richest filmmaker in history. Then, monetary success for our Steven and the second film comes along. That one was mostly Spielberg, and ranks with his biggest disasters.

Then this one. Now here we have both men playing a role. They alternate in influence, and the result is almost a film school in itself.

Half of the movie is the story: father and son, greed power and goodness. Magic versus science, detective work versus adventure-driven guts. Intrigue. These are all unsophisticated in themselves, but they are basic to life. Every time we shift into this mode, the environment fades (even in the last horizon shot) and we focus on the characters.

The other half of the movie is the eyewash. Now I must admit that knowing that the exterior locations are real places (excepting the fakey Austrian Castle) gives a thrill. Spielberg could not have known that this would soon matter and that anyone would be impressed by the texture of the real. But the rest is worthless. It really is. Especially disappointing is the final sequence after they enter Petra.

Its all about the short view, the visual cleanliness. Its a sterility of soul, a lack of purpose. That's why I don't like the man, or anything he does.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

---

6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Excellent!, 27 August 2003

Author: Scott LeBrun from Winnipeg, Canada

It is now 1938 and Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) sets off on a new adventure - this time, to find and rescue his professor father (Sean Connery) who disappeared while on a quest to locate the Holy Grail.

A noticeable improvement over part two; while not quite as good as the first movie, it's still adrenaline-pumping, intriguing entertainment, with nary a dull moment. Best part of the movie is the chemistry between Ford and Connery, who make a convincing father-and-son duo (despite being only 12 years apart in real life). They play off each other well and it's the strained relationship between Indy and his father that provides the movie with some of its more interesting moments. We even get to see Indy as a young man in the opening sequence, and the late River Phoenix does an admirable job in the role.

Once again, there is a sequence designed to provoke a reaction among the more squeamish viewers; in the first movie, it was snakes, in the second, it was insects, here it's rats. GROSS!

This is a worthwhile action-adventure that holds up as a solid example of its genre.

8/10

---

---

Page 1 of 37:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Parents Guide	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history