RSS 2.0Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
I used to be a big fan of Harrison Ford when I was younger. Not so much because of his acting abilities, but because he’s played so many great characters. He must have had quite a bit of luck to end up playing not only Han Solo, but also the second coolest hero in movie history, Indiana Jones. The BBC showed the third installment, “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” last night.
I had only one real problem with this movie when I saw it last night, and that’s the incredible tempo. Because there are no comercial breaks on the BBC I had no time to get myself a drink, go pee or do anything else. This movie is filled with action, comedy and adventure right from the start and keeps up a high pace thoughout the movie.
As in “Raiders of the Lost Ark” (1981) and “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” (1984), college professor and hands-on archeology adventurer Indy goes after an ancient atrifact. In this case it’s the Holy Grail, which is said to be the key to immortality. Of course the way he does it doesn’t even resemble real archeology, but it’s far more fun to watch. Because the Nazis want the Grail as well, it becomes a race to get to it and there’s lots of fighting and stuff.
New in this movie, is that we get to meet Indy’s dad. He (played by Sean Connery) has been captured by the Nazis and somewhere in the process of getting to the Grail Indy manages to go to Berlin to free him. Dr. Jones junior and senior turn out to be a great comedy duo, adding more humour to the movie than the first two had.
After seeing movies like “The Mummy” and “Tomb Raider” in recent years it’s great to review a true classic of the genre like this. Nothing I know even comes close to Indiana Jones when it comes to adventure movies. Indy’s movies just have that much more creativity in them, with great sets, fascinating stories and brilliant performances.
Rated ****1/2 (out of 5).
Roy (117 posts)Web designer and programmer, movie fanatic and devoted dad from Huizen, The Netherlands.
11 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think it’s Indy’s dry humour (which I guess is Harrison Ford’s too, as Han Solo had it also) that makes these films and characters so enjoyable. Brendan Fraser is NOT cool or funny – he is just stupid, so The Mummy could never compete with Indy.
Comment by suzero — Tue May 27, 2003 @ 10:03I didn’t wanna bring up Brandon Fraser again in this review (I bashed him already in my Scorpion King review), but you’re 100% right. He sucks a playing Indiana Jones. The archeology scenes in the Mummy movis and Tomb Raider all look like Indy-ripoffs anyway. And on top of that this movie proves that man-man fight scenes are still far better than man-CGI character fights.
Comment by weefselkweekje — Tue May 27, 2003 @ 11:45*lol* and again I disagree
That is, with the bashing of Brandon Fraser. I really liked the Indy movie though, not disagreeing on that, although it did kinda remind me of James Bond as well, especially the ‘forced’ kiss scenes with the Austrian Woman.
But Brendan Fraser is another story, I mean I do appreciate that he is one of the Hollywood characters that some people instinctively dislike. Same as Jim Carrey and Meryl Streep, some people just run away screaming when the face comes up. I dont mind Brendan Fraser, and can keep an open mind to Jim Carrey. Meryl I run screaming, though.
But the ‘been there done that’ argument is IMHO just not relevant. I don’t like complete remakes, however the human world just has so much space for distinct stories. How many human ‘superheroes’ can you create before the next one starts to bore you. How many ‘exotic locations with interesting boobytraps’ movies can you make? How many space fighter conflict movies? Does being the first at making a movie about a cool spy automatically give you the monopoly on this? I liked Mission Impossible, for example. And what if the first movie with an innovative new idea sucked?
Id like to point at http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1999/05/050703.html for a review of ‘The Mummy’ I wholeheartedly agree with
Comment by marten — Tue May 27, 2003 @ 13:17Ok, ok, but Mission Impossible had something new to offer when compared to for instance James Bond. It was a modern version of the cool spy thing.
Brandon Fraser was both less credibe as a tough explorer and far less funny. Nothing new, just something less. Talent
I still love just about every new SF movie, even though that’s a genre that’s very good at repeating itself. But at the same time it’s quite clear which movies have nothing new to offer at all. Movies like “Supernova” for instance… Those go in one eye and out the other and deserve less credit imho…
Comment by weefselkweekje — Tue May 27, 2003 @ 15:53So what new stuff did Mission Impossible have to offer? Incidentally obviously MI is a remake of the series that started in 1966..
That eye thing’s gotta hurt.
Comment by marten — Wed May 28, 2003 @ 3:56Weefselkweekje and I are not granting any film a monopoly in its genre, methinks. Indiana Jones was not the first in the adventure / action film genre, but it was a new, fresh style WITHIN that genre. If films like the Mummy simply COPY that style then there’s nothing new. They should rather come up with a new slant on things or IMPROVE on the existing slant.
How many detective / crime films have been made? How different are A Perfect Murder, Murder on the Orient Express or The Usual Suspects?
Sci-Fi: Alien compared to E.T. …there’s so much breadth for originality and creativity WITHIN a genre that I will stick to my premise that a bad movie is a bad movie regardless of what went before it.
Marten, do you feel the same about books? There are good writers and bad writers and it doesn’t always have to do with the storyline: the SKILL of writing (or making a film) enters the equation too, n’est-ce pas?
Comment by suzero — Wed May 28, 2003 @ 10:57MI took high tech to a new level. No laser wristwatches or explosive pens but super duper communication equipment, etc. And it had a great visual style. It’s the perfect example of how an old genre (along with all it’s cliches) was adapted made into something very modern.
Comment by weefselkweekje — Wed May 28, 2003 @ 11:17Saw this one on TV too the other night. I was amazed at how outdated it seemed to me. Found myself actually listening to Williams’ dramatic soundtrack. Still mildly entertaining. Would you believe the ‘Allo ‘Allo rip-off with the Helga and Herr Flick thing. Hmm … maybe this was before that corny series.
Comment by reisneus — Wed May 28, 2003 @ 18:12Nope, Herr Flick and Helga were there before Indy
and you’re right – major rip off going on there.
Comment by suzero — Wed May 28, 2003 @ 22:27ya i just love the film!!!
Comment by breny — Sun March 21, 2004 @ 21:03i hve to meet brendan fraser im dieing!
Comment by Anonymous — Sun March 21, 2004 @ 21:04