MovieChat Forums > Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) Discussion > [deleted]

[deleted]

posted 4 years ago by [deleted]
58 replies | jump to latest

[deleted]

[–] strntz (11275) 4 years ago

I'm as big a fan of Crusade as anyone, but the first film of a trilogy always has that magic - probably because it caught our imaginations for the first time (like that first kiss). Still, I will always have Raiders first and Crusade fractional points behind only because it's a sequel. But yes, Crusade has that quality of being eminently rewatchable as only the great films are.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8461) 4 years ago

I put TLC in the top spot. As you say, it's extremely rewatchable. I've see Raiders and Temple both a good handful of times, but they pale in comparison to the number of times I've watched The Last Crusade.

TLC is just so damn much fun and the Grail serves as an excellent artifact with all the lore surrounding it.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11317) 4 years ago

ROTLA is just in a league of its own. When it came out there was nothing like it. It’s almost flawless as far as effects, score etc...

Saw TLC in the theatre and it was hilarious and all good stuff. The ending and the tests and the bridge blew peoples minds. The green screen effects were brand new and have not aged well. That’s really my only problem with the movie. TLC is not quite as epic as ROTLA.

Both have epic soundtracks. TLC is outstanding as it includes an updated version of ROTLA theme. TLC was the movie that introduced the THX opening, even that blew people away.

Love both films.

reply

[–] csweetleaf2 (3545) 4 years ago

I personally thought this was the best Indiana Jones film of the series, I thought Harrison Ford & Sean Connery were great together.

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16670) 4 years ago

I would say this has the best plot out of all them. But Raiders was better directed and better paced.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8461) 4 years ago

I agree with him 100%. The Last Crusade is easily the best, most entertaining entry in the Indy canon. The story, action, cast and sense of heart that TLC has is not matched by the other entries. Ford and Connery are EXCELLENT together and Elsa Schneider, while admittedly being second to Marion, is a great character and love interest.

Raiders is also a great film, and easily the franchise #2, but TLC is just something really special.

reply

[–] abigolcwock (517) 4 years ago

I'm a non Indiana Jones fan and recently rewatched the trilogy, and will say that the first one was boring af, the second one was straight up bad, and the third was amazing. Sean Connery makes that movie.

reply

[–] abigolcwock (517) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

He also gave The Force Awakens a higher grade than Interstellar, Chris Stuckmann is a clown who doesn't know what he's talking about. He just goes with what everyone else is saying so he can appear relevant and get more sponsors.

If Chris were honest he would have given Last Crusade either an F or a Hilariocity like he did with Batman and Robin and Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. (FYI I am SpaceAce on youtube)

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (920) 4 years ago

If he were being honest? So you can read his mind? So it is impossible for him to think Last Crusade is a good film?

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

It's objectively a bad movie so yes he's not being honest

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (920) 4 years ago

By what standard? Movies and art are objective? Are you the person who determines what is good or bad?

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

So you're saying it's objectively good to have poor pacing, atrocious dialogue, poorly written characters, childish humor, etc?

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (920) 4 years ago

You were the one that said it is objectively a bad film. I made no claim movies were objective you did. So what is the criteria you used to determine it being objectively bad?

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

I just gave you 4 examples

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (920) 4 years ago

Is this a universally accepted criteria?

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Yes it is universally accepted that you shouldn't have poor pacing, atrocious dialogue, poorly written characters and childish humor. Instead you should have good pacing, well written dialogue, well written characters and appropriate humor for the targeted demographic.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (920) 4 years ago

All of what you said was opinion. What if someone said in my opinion Last Crusade has great pacing, great dialogue, greatly written characters, and I find childish humor great? You can't say they are wrong because it is based off of opinion.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Except it didn't

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (920) 4 years ago

In your opinion.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Not at all, this is objective. It's a bad movie.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (920) 4 years ago

Show me the criteria used then. One that is universally accepted as truth.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

I've already explained this twice, if you don't understand by this point that's your own problem.

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (920) 4 years ago

No you didn't you gave your opinion on why you think it is bad. All of what you said can be dismissed with an opposing opinion. An objective fact can not be disputed. I made no such claim a movie is objectively good or bad you did and you failed to back up that claim.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Your concession is accepted

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (920) 4 years ago

Your concession is accepted

Concession on what?

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

You made no intelligent rebuttal in your last post so I am dismissing your case, better luck next time. In the words of a very bad movie: “you lost today kid but you don’t have to like it”

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (920) 4 years ago

All you gave was opinion no objective facts. You tried to pass off your opinions as objective facts. Ignorant on your end. Also you quoted it wrong lol.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Your concession remains noted better luck next time

reply

[–] einsteinfountain (920) 4 years ago

Cool story. I find it funny you think movies and art are objective.

Last crusade has great writing, great pacing, great dialogue, and great humor. Therefore it is objectively a great film lol. Quite simple I will use your reasoning and just turn it the other way. The ignorance is strong in you.

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 4 years ago

this is all he says to people/ "your concession is noted". he actually thinks he sounds clever. my guess is hes a 300lb neckbeard really into medieval shit and says "milady" to women and wonder why they dont like him

reply

[–] abigolcwock (517) 4 years ago

Actuallythe cringiest shit I have read in weeks. Even by Moviechat standards this is embarrassing

reply

[–] djangounlamed (1769) 4 years ago

the guy MovieChatuser497 is cringe. every time he loses a debate he just says "your concession is noted"

he actually thinks he sounds intelligent.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

So you don’t have anything to contribute to this discussion?

reply

[–] abigolcwock (517) 4 years ago

The incredible discussion of: "art is subjective" "no" "art is subjective" "no" "art is subjective" "no" "art is subjective" "no" "art is subjective "no". Pointless arguing with you.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Yet you took the time to actually respond so which is it? If you go by the standards filmmakers use to make a good movie you’ll see that Last Crusade doesn’t measure up to any of them it’s a bad movie plain and simple

reply

[–] BillySlater (4134) 4 years ago

I don´t agree but he loves Temple which makes him OK in my book.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Yes I did at least respect him for a short period of time for not going along with the crowd on the hate temple of doom bandwagon. That all changed though when he put last crapade on the same level as Raiders

reply

[–] johnmiller (3603) 4 years ago

Dude's on crack. :-P Of course, you have to say something stupid to get people to watch you on YouTube.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

I don't think he's on crack, I think he's just desperate for attention and I think he wants to be able to direct his own movie and get more sponsors.

I realized he was a joke when he tried to say that The Force Awakens wasn't a rehash of A New Hope and then deflected to "well Indiana Jones follows a formula as does the Rocky franchise" when no they did not repeat themselves to the degree that TFA does and even if those two franchises have problems that doesn't erase the problems TFA has.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4134) 4 years ago

I don´t think he´s doing it for attention he already has nearly 2 million subs. I think he is sincere about the majority of opinions even though I don´t agree with him that often, I find his reviews entertaining and I appreciate he doesn´t hold back on plot holes, even on films he loves. That said, I do think he held back on criticizing the new Star Wars films for not wanting to bite the hand that feeds. I think in 10 years time we will see a more genuine review on those films from him.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

He does have some good reviews, his one for Fant4stic was hilarious as was his Batman and Robin Hilariocity, and as I said I did appreciate him for not jumping on the hate Temple of Doom/TDKR bandwagons that a very vocal minority has been. But man in 2015 once he started talking about Star Wars that was when I knew he wasn't reliable

reply

1
2
3