moriarty@tc.fluke.com (Jeff Meyer) (05/30/89)
INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
A film review by Jeff Meyer
Copyright 1989 Jeff Meyer
Before getting into Review Mode, I should disclaim a bit: I haven't been
crazy about previous Indiana Jones movies. I liked RAIDERS, particularly the
first 15 minutes, but it always seemed like a one-joke concept -- take all
those old serial cliffhangers and one-up them. Stylishly done, but after
coming out of the theater, I had no great wish to pay $4.50 (those were the
days) to get back in again.... TEMPLE OF DOOM, on the other hand, was a film I
wished I'd never gotten into in the first place. The film had a thin, brittle
edge that made the whole thing impersonal; it was as if Spielburg was so out of
breath doing his rollercoaster bit, that he never gave the audience the
opportunity to treat the characters as more than cardboard cut-outs. I walked
out of TEMPLE feeling gyped and a bit wary of future Spielburg/Lucas
collaborations.
With this out of the way, let me give a whole-hearted thumbs-up to INDIANA
JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE. The film opens up with a flashback of Indy as a
young man (River Phoenix), and goes from their into the setup of the whole
film: the Holy Grail is near to being found again, and Indy's father has
disappeared on the quest. Indy, accompanied by Marcus (Denholm Elliot) and
eventually Sallah (John Rhys-Davies), accompany Indy on his search for both
relic and father. Yes, there are a ton of stunts; yes, there are loads of
visual humor; yes, there is a female romantic interest and yes, there are
Nazis. (It is always convenient to have villains whom you can have no qualms
about seeing shot, blown up, or run over by large man-made objects; the Gestapo
are particularly appropriate for this.)
So, what makes this different than previous Indy films? Well, the first
part is still a bit too frantic, even the Phoenix bit; a lot of plot is tossed
off, and a lot of stunts done. It almost reaches RAIDERS during this time ...
and then, in a sudden flash, it surpasses it. I can tell you exactly when,
too: the introduction of Dr. Henry Jones (Sean Connery).
Several things happen immediately after Connery makes his entrance. One,
the script improves ... and improves and improves. Witty dialogue, and an
actual story, with a few moralistic messages which go down pretty easily (at
least, more easily than in THE 10 COMMANDMENTS). Secondly, the actors do more
*with* the dialogue. Connery plays each of his lines for all their worth, but
what's more, he and Ford seem to bounce their performances off one another,
making a funny line twice as funny due to the chemistry that the two set up.
And believe me, this is *great* casting; Harrison Ford and Sean Connery do a
father/son routine that several recent comedies dealing with filial relations
would envy.
The rest of the film is a breeze -- you just sit back and let it carry
you. (P.S. See it with a large audience -- this is a definite crowd-pleaser.)
One of my major complaints with RAIDERS has always been that the best
puzzle/stunt scene is the opening; in LAST CRUSADE, Spielburg has the sense to
put his puzzle at the end, and to make it a good one. Rhys-Davies is never
given much of chance to perform, Elliot plays alarmingly close to a dithering
idiot (I seem to remember him as a somewhat tougher character in RAIDERS),
Alison Doody (my God, woman, people change their names in Hollywood *all* the
*time*) does what she can with her role, and for some reason Julian Glover is
given an American accent, when he does a wonderful British one. But Marcus and
Sallah aren't made to feel like baggage, and if they aren't exactly given the
chance to entertain, their presence is a comfort, as second banannas if nothing
else.
In summary, it's worth the $6 I paid to see it, and I think you'll enjoy
it, even if you weren't that much of a RAIDERS fan.
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, hplsla, thebes, microsoft}!fluke!moriarty
leeper@mtgzx.att.com (Mark R. Leeper) (05/30/89)
INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1989 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Forget that Indian thing. This is the
*real* RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK II. Slightly more realistic
than RAIDERS, a little more concentration on character, and
less on chases, this is a solid action adventure film putting
the series back on track. George Lucas needs a hit and for
the first time since RETURN OF THE JEDI he deserves one.
Rating: high +2.
It is no real secret. The Hollywood wonder-boy of twelve summers ago
and much of the time since, George Lucas, is hurting for money. Things have
not really panned out for him. HOWARD THE DUCK, which featured the greatest
technological duck special effects the screen has ever seen, laid an egg.
And it was NOT a golden egg. That was only one of several projects that
have enhanced neither Lucas's fortune nor his reputation. Lucas needs a
hit. That much seems to be fact. My opinion is that Lucas knows how to
have a pit if all he wants is a hit rather than trying something new and
original. He just makes another one of his series films. It takes too long
to do a STAR WARS film, so he did another Indiana Jones film instead. The
one drawback is INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM was a disappointment
and done much more in the Spielberg style than in the style Lucas put into
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Spielberg directs all the Indy films, of course,
but I suspect some of the exaggerated cartoonish feel of the second film was
Spielberg's. And many of the fans preferred the style of the first film.
All Lucas really needed for a hit was to do again what he did with RAIDERS.
And he did. The style of the first film is back. Welcome back.
INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE semi-fulfills Lucas's unrealistic
promise that each episode would be a prequel to the one made before it.
Harrison Ford is not getting younger. So of the three films, this takes
place the latest, but there is an extended flashback in which we learn a lot
of H=how Indiana Jones became Indiana Jones. The young Indy is played by
River Phoenix, who almost resembles a young Harrison Ford, and in fact
played Ford's son in MOSQUITO COAST. In Indy's early adventure we see where
he got a lot of what he becomes and even what he wears. When he gets older
we also get introduced to his father (voiced, and in later scenes played, by
Sean Connery). Indy is once again after a Biblical treasure. Earlier it
was the greatest prize of the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant. This
time it is the greatest prize of the New testament, the Holy Grail.
Do you remember what you liked about the first film? If you said Karen
Allen, you are out of luck. This time Indy's female sidekick is Elsa
Schneider (played by Alison Doody), the most attractive of the traveling
companions of the three films, but also the one with the least real
personality. That means in this aspect, as in most aspects, this is better
than the second Indy film but not up to the original. If you said you liked
just about anything else about the original--the gritty chases, the fights,
the baroque Nazi military equipment, the ancient sites that are gamuts of
booby traps, the snakes, whatever--you are in luck. It is all back and
more. You also get Indy's love/hate relationship with his father. You get
to see more of Sallah and Marcus Brody (played by John Rhys-Davies and
Denholm Elliot respectively). One disappointment is that they did a Nigel-
Bruce on Denholm Elliot's character (i.e., they turned a perfectly serious
and interesting character into a buffoon). But for almost any reason that
you liked the first Indy film, you will also like the third. On the -4 to
+4 scale, I give RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK a +3, INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE
OF DOOM a flat 0, and INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE a high +2, missing
a +3 only for its lack of originality.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzx!leeper
leeper@mtgzx.att.com