What could be better than a rip-roaring, action-packed, good vs. evil adventure across three continents? One that includes Indiana Jones!The third installment in the Indy trilogy is by far the best one, as it contains themes and conflicts the level of which are simply not found in the first two. Don’t get me wrong, the first two are great, especially Raiders of the Lost
The Last Crusade was released in 1989, a time when special effects were not the thing they are today. In modern times, digital photography and advanced post-production make virtually anything possible. Back in ’89, filmmakers had to use a little more ingenuity to make things happen. The Last Crusade had basically everything going for it, because it had a genius of a director in Spielberg, and a master of special effects (and nothing else…) in George Lucas. Besides having production values that gave it the space to stretch out, it was amazingly cast as well. Harrison Ford plays one of the only roles that fits him like a glove, as he had proven with the first two films. Trumping him is Sean Connery, who injects comedy and light-heartedness as well as a strong sense of dignity to his aging archeological professor.
Like I said, this movie has overarching themes that bring it out of the realm of simple good storytelling, the realm the previous two movies exist in. The father-son struggle is very strong throughout, but in typical Spielberg-ian style, it transforms from a struggle to an appreciation and admiration, and maybe even a love. But what really makes this movie great is the optimism of it, another element of it being a Spielberg film. The character of Indiana Jones is a real, genuine hero, stereotypical and iconic in the best way. When he beats the bad guys, you cheer. When he’s in danger, you flinch. When it looks like he’s about to fail, you get filled with a sense of dread. Those things are a part of good storytelling, and are the result of creating a character that the audience can believe in and root for 100%. In order to create that kind of character, the filmmakers have sacrificed some realism and believability, but I think it’s more than a fair trade. In a way, the ridiculousness and un-reality of some situations only make them more enjoyable. Of course Indy’s hat comes back to him after he almost falls off a cliff. Of course the tank veers to the right at the last second. Of course Indy and his dad don’t get killed or severely maimed when they crash the plane. It’s not a surprise, and it’s sort of expected. If it weren’t there, we’d be disappointed.
The original genesis of the Indiana Jones character was an idea in George Lucas’s head, one he generated around the same time he had created the Star Wars universe. It was based around 1930s serial adventure stories, ones where plucky heroes would find riches, glory, and pieces of tail on escapade after exotic escapade. Three films later, Indy has become one of the most enduring and immortal characters ever put on film, and a part of the childhood of many members of my generation. Whispers of a fourth film exist, but it’s been almost 20 years since The Last Crusade, and you now have an entirely new demographic to appeal to, and Indy isn’t quite as big a star to them. Never mind the fact that as the Indy trilogy is 20 years older, so is Harrison Ford. I don’t think the whip and fedora will fit him the same way anymore. We’ll see, though.
“X marks the spot!”
“He chose… poorly.”
“You call this archeology?”
Particle Man
12 comments:
For the record, I consider Last Crusade to be the indicator of the decline of the Indiana Jones endeavor.
Yes, it does have more depth than the previous two films through the development of a father to son analogy, but do you really watch an Indiana Jones film for that? I watch it for the adventure thrills that managed to capture me so deeply when my parents took me to the cinema to see Raiders. Maybe it's the age difference between us that matters, in the fact that I saw the first two as they came out to the cinemas and as they were all the rave.
The main problem with Last Crusade is exactly the thing you're talking about in your review: by now, it's all contrived and everything happens exactly as expected, almost taken for granted. You know Indy will survive, you know some religious miracle will happen. Gone is the thrill, gone is the originality. Also gone is that dark satirical aroma that was all over the place in Temple of Doom, which in my mind is the series best.
In your defense I will say that Spielberg thinks the way you do; he has been quoted saying he doesn't like Temple of Doom. Then again, what does he know?
well, i guess we just disagree. The Last Crusade HAS all the adventure thrills that you mentioned, AND it has more. it has a fantastically great element to the story, and that is the father-son struggle. for me, the originality and and thrill are intact, because i actually saw all three of them at around the same time, when i was about 9 years old. my parents bought all three movies in a VHS box set, and they were popcorn fodder for many years.
also, like Spielberg, i consider The Temple of Doom to be the least of the three. i still like it, but it was a little too dark and scary in places. i'm thinking of Moliram ripping the guy's heart out of his chest, and Indy drinking blood. basically, when there is darkness, i like it to be overcome by light, instead of circumstance like in Temple of Doom. maybe in Last Crusade the ligfht was a little obvious and hammy, but this is an Indiana Jones movie we're talking about here.
but it's okay that we disagree. difference of opinion is the heart of discussion. :-)
YES!!!
Well Moshe, we can add this onto the list of things we agree on: I ALSO thing the Temple of Doom is the best, but have never heard those words from any other person until now. I now feel like it's ok to have that opinion...
It's funny, but I used to say that Last Crusade was the best, but I'm realizing now that I enjoy Temple of Doom so much more, even though I've seen it about 30 times. I feel like it has more character, and honestly, I liked Indy's character development in it a bit more than the other two. Plus, Short Round is really funny.
But in regards to the review, I will agree that Indiana Jones is a fantastic character, and that his adventures are enthralling. I love the style of action that it gives us. I also think that the introduction of Indy's father added a really nice element, and packed a good punch for the last of the trilogy. Yes, Moshe, a lot of what happens is expected, but it's ok...because the point is a kind of purpose to all this traveling and killing and searching, which he finds in the end by connecting with his father. Good review, PM.
I agree that Temple of Doom was the worst of the three, but for a different reason: Willie.
I cringe every time she opens her mouth in that movie. Part of is the the fault of the screenwriters (Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz), for creating such a disgustingly stereotyped diva. But a lot of the blame also goes to Kate Capshaw, who played the role with all the subtlety and nuance of a bulldozer.
The scenes where Indy is supposed to seem attracted to her make no sense to me. I can actually see Harrison Ford thinking, "I hate you so much, but the director says I have to kiss you, so ... fine."
Friggin' Willie.
(Incidentally, Temple of Doom has the lowest rating of the three on IMDB.)
I agree with Doctor Worm that Capshaw
hurt Temple of Doom a LOT. I think that Raiders of The Lost Ark is still the best. There's something kinda forced about Temple of Doom, but I haven't seen it for a while, so it's hard for me to put my finger on it. I'll have to rewatch it. For what it's worth though, Temple has the best opening sequence, hands down.
If we ever get to meet and have something to eat together, watch out for that snake surprise.
WLC will be excused - she'll get the soup.
P.S. No one mentioned Raiders at all, which is by far the most original of the three. Just like Temple has the best opening scene, Raiders has the funniest ever moment in cinematic history (ok, that point is disputable, but I challenge the one who didn't laugh to raise his/her hand; and I'm not even saying which scene I'm talking about).
i'm assuming you're talking about Indy shooting the guy with the sword....?
You chose wisely.
P.S. After some contemplation, I'd say the Rolling Stones opening scene in Raiders is just as good as the one in Temple.
yeah, that's pretty awesome. whenever movie channels are doing some commercial pasting together all the great movie scenes or shots over all time, they ALWAYS use the big rock chasing Indy.
What a vivid imagination!
I like all three movies, but I think Raiders is my favorite. I even like its opening scene best (how can you beat a giant rolling stone?).
Unfortunately I don’t really have any convincing arguments (although I’ll take “bad dates” or ‘“we have top men working on it.” “who?” “Top men”’ or my quote above, over any of your lines). But I’ve seen them all about the same number of times, and I can give a scene-by-scene of the first two and only a rough outline of the third, so I guess there’s no question of which movie left the least impression.
Of course, as Moshe has mentioned, age is likely involved – Watching a movie at age 10 has more impact than at 18.
right on about the age thing, Uri. my parents got that box set when i was around 9, and i watched all three of them at around the same time, so they ALL had impact.
So...since Particle Man is just plain obviously wrong about "Life is Beautiful," it's nice to see that he's spot on about "The Last Crusade." It was pretty much the best of the three for all the reasons he mentioned. End of thread ;-)
Post a Comment