It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
And I'm very happy for them. For me 'Last Crusade' was too lightweight, it had a forgettable villain, the action sequences were poor, and the finale was a real damp squib! Connery was the best thing about it, but even that was a minus because his character upstaged Indy!
If i remember well, Spielberg made Crusade trying to recreate the Raiders tone and soften it as possible as it could get after Temple was criticized for being "Too dark to be PG", maybe that's why you consider it too "lightweight".
I agree mate. Cannot for the life of me get the massive appeal of Last Crusade. Ford and Connery are brilliant together, but it's just a rehash of the far superior Raiders. The action editing is quite poor. And the film commits the ultimate sin IMO by turning Marcus into a buffoon for 'comedic' effect.
They shouldve just made the City of the Gods script, it's not perfect by any means but it has a coherent 2nd act. Lucas piling things on top of it ruined the project.
Oppenheimer must be on that list too, surely? That film sounds like an absolute must at the cinema.
It is good but as you say has issues. CS has a much better opening I’d say, and I can see why they wanted to add Indy’s son: the main cast would all have been a bit old and a bit of variation was good. There were lots of bits I liked though, yes.
I'm glad so many people like it. I just find it all a bit Raiders lite. None of the sequels can touch the original IMO.
Yeah, I'm with him. Thumbs up. I'm not sure I'm quite getting the very negative reviews, but such is life.
Me three. My family wanted pure escapism, and we got it.
I like this movie too.
Let me be clear, haven't seen the movie, these are only the common mentions that I have heard in reviews. Some of the reviews were generally positive, but still mentioned any one of the above.
I'm sorry, i thought everyone here hated Short Round?
I guess they do, unfortunately, but I'm in the camp that thinks TTOD is the best of the lot and who really loves Short Round as a character, so I'm not included in that.
I don’t dislike Teddy. He’s a serviceable side kick to Helena, but he never annoys me.
I'll try to answer these from my point of view, after having seen the movie once and maybe not totally understood everything.
Second issue: You may see it as that, but it makes sense in the context.
Third issue: Time travel is certainly silly, but no more silly than ghosts from the "Arc of the Covenant" (if it ever existed) melting Nazis' faces, an Indian voodoo priest (I apologize if voodoo is not Indian, but I don't know a better expression) tearing hearts out with his own hands while the person remains alive only to be consumed by flames afterwards, an 800-year old knight guarding the "Grail" (if it ever existed) and that entire Alien Crystal Skull story. If one doesn't worry about that kind of stuff, one should not worry about time travel.
Fourth issue: Indy is in his seventies, a broken man, but not the butt of jokes. He seems to bore his students, but he is not the butt of age jokes. He's being treated respectfully, especially since he's ultimately far fitter than other septuagenarians.
Fifth issue: I don't know if CGI has ever been indistinguishable, but this gets as close as I have seen so far (and much better than the previous instalment, although I liked most of that as well (minus, maybe, the monkeys in the vine-swinging scene).
Sixth issue: Yeah, I was surprised why the kid, whom I hadn't really understood where he came from (maybe next time, with subtitles) could fly a plane. But then, flying a plane is not really a secret science. The only time my wife and I were taken on a plane ride on a Cessna, the pilot (after a very basic instruction) let both of us (one after the other) take control by simply saying "Your plane". And it worked, and at the time (over twenty-five years ago) I concluded that if I were on a small plane and the pilot got a heart-attac or so I could probably manage to land it. Helena is a sort of complicated character, in that she has the knowledge of archeology, but her own interests (cash!) dealing with it. That's why she appears a little...uhm...volatile, but she ends up on the morally correct side.
Seventh issue: The camera work isn't Spielberg, but if ever, it hasn't been in this film. It also hasn't been Janusz Kaminski as usual, but Phedon Papamichael. Check IMDb and/or Wikipedia (or at least Google) for that.
I hope this is good enough for the Greek Underworld for now (coming from the bayou) :-)
Site has spoiler tags for a reason. Please continue to use them if you don't mind.
With Teddy I liked him a lot as presented in the film. His actions and motivations made sense to me.
I sure didn't hate Short Round, I just wasn't too fond of his presence and could have done without him. I thought the main problem of TOD was Kate Capshaw's Willie screaming "Indiiiiiiiiiieeeee" constantly, even beating Tanya Roberts in invoking "Jaaaaames". Then again, Willie was allowed to be satire, Stacey Sutton not so much.