Redux: Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Redux Review #168: Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Cast: 

Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones), Karen Allen (Marion Ravenwood), Paul Freeman (René Belloq), Ronald Lacey (Major Arnold Toht), John Rhys-Davies (Sallah), Denholm Elliott (Marcus Brody), with Alfred Molina (Satipo), Wolf Kahler (Colonel Dietrich), Anthony Higgins (Major Gobler), Vic Tablian (Barranca / Monkey Man), Don Fellows (Colonel Musgrove), William Hootkins (Major Eaton), Bill Reimbold (Bureaucrat), Fred Sorenson (Jock), Patrick Durkin (Australian Climber), Pat Roach (Giant Sherpa / 1st Mechanic), and George Harris (Simon Katanga) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind).

Review: 

"Indiana Jones was never a machine. I think one of the things we brought to the genre—and we didn’t coin the genre; it’s been around a lot longer than we’ve been around—but one of the things that George [Lucas] and I and, originally, Larry Kasdan, the writer of Raiders of the Lost Ark, brought to the genre, was the willingness to allow our leading man to get hurt and to express his pain and to get his mad out and to take pratfalls and sometimes be the butt of his own jokes. I mean, Indiana Jones is not a perfect hero, and his imperfections, I think, make the audience feel that, with a little more exercise and a little more courage, they could be just like him. So he’s not the Terminator. He’s not so far away from the people who go to see the movies that he’s inaccessible to their own dreams and aspirations."

What is it about Indiana Jones that drives so much fascination after 45 years? As the story goes, George Lucas, fresh off American Graffiti, had ideas in mind about wanting to do a movie like the ones he used to see a kid. He thought of doing an adventure with a college professor who basically was like James Bond on as "a bounty hunter of antiquities" that liked the nightclub. A little collaboration with his friend Philip Kaufman (director of films such as The Great Northfield, Minnesota Raid [1972] and The White Dawn [1974]) led to the ditching of the nightclub but also led to the pursuit of the Ark of the Covenant. Lucas paused on the idea when Kaufman was off to direct The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) to focus on, well, Star Wars (1977). Incidentally, one person who wanted to do a Bond type of adventure thriller was Steven Spielberg; the success of Star Wars in May 1977, with Lucas and Spielberg each on vacation in Hawaii, spurred things along for an eventual collaboration (after months of Lucas waiting to see if Kaufman would do it fell through). Spielberg brought in Lawrence Kasdan, who Spielberg suggested because he had just convinced Universal Pictures to purchase Kasdan's script for Continental Divide. They spent several days in 1978 doing a pitching session that argued and paced out what would happen in the story (which you can find here, because it was taped). Kasdan was once quoted as stating that everything in the film "resonates from other movies", specifically adventure films like Seven Samurai to The Great Escape, where they chased that feeling while the film did not take itself too seriously*. Filmed in 1980, Raiders was Spielberg's sixth feature film as a director, falling right between 1941 (1979) and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982). It was released on June 12, 1981 with mild expectations because of the impending release in America of Superman II that was coming on June 19 (incidentally, audiences could also choose between Raiders or Clash of the Titans, or History of the World, Part I); the result was a massive hit that reportedly saw over 70 million tickets be sold in a time when people could see a movie in theaters for a year. It was nominated for nine Academy Awards that went down from Best Picture to Cinematography, winning for art direction, editing, sound, visual effects, and a special one for sound editing (that year, Chariots of Fire, a movie that I'm sure everyone knows beyond that one song, won Best Picture*). There were four sequels of varying quality (Temple of Doom - really good, actually; Last Crusade - a charmer; Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - better the next time around; Dial of Destiny - fine the one time I saw it) and a television show with The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.

It's easy to go on and on about the influences that shaped Indiana Jones (matinee serials, China [1943], Secret of the Incas [1954], others) or just go point by point about the beauty of the film from its cinematography by Douglas Slocombe or the tremendously diverting score by John Williams all the way down to Harrison Ford being the one to lead it over, say, Tom Selleck. It was released in a time where you could show multiple people get shot (along with the whole Ark thing), snakes going around dead bodies, blood splatter right as a dude gets chopped by a plane blade...and get a PG rating. The easiest way to describe the movie is that it is an adventure with tremendous respect for its viewer that has something for everyone in a manner that seems effortless but is actually the result of so many worthy things going so well. It is the kind of movie that benefits from re-watches in what you view from certain scenes the second time around, because there are moments that really are just allowed to breathe without needing dialogue, when you think about it (this may come from the fact that the movie was extensively storyboarded, because he felt he needed every storyboard to stay on schedule). You enjoy the people that enter the sphere around Jones in what they bring to the table in their own pockets of time, whether that involves a trained monkey spy or the worthy menace brought by people such as Lacey. It's a wonderful movie to look at, right down to what is right there on screen and what actually is say, a matte painting. It all rests on Ford being something beyond the matinee hero: an academic and an adventurer (okay that was paraphrasing what he once said about the character, but still). He balances the tightrope of strength and wit that can be just as vulnerable as he can be funny in an adventure that basically is a ride of humility (contrary to Han Solo, the character of Jones doesn't start out as, well a conman).

It's not all about rescuing and getting the girl on the way to glory, it is a movie where you really do have to close your eyes to see beyond what you think you know about the world. Allen is just simply charming in that sort of independence that we gravitate to even in without as much backstory to really sink into (which is where imagination comes to play when thinking about looking at the interactions between her and Ford as compared to the ones between her and Freeman). Freeman is a capable shadow of Ford, a disturbing presence in how sly one can be when collaborating with the worst of humanity because he believes in himself so highly as a fallen angel of archaeology. A fly could buzz around his mouth and all he cares about is where he looms on the chessboard. You get the delightful elegance, charm or otherwise, with Rhys-Davies (cast as a mix between his role in Shōgun and John Falstaff*) and Elliott (the always beloved British actor), did I forget that? Wrapped within its 115-minute runtime is a movie that breezes along in finding the pieces of the puzzle in its adventure ride that respects its audience in allowing it to breathe and experience the action sequences or its effects spectacle (spooky ghosts always gets a vote) that I probably appreciate even more than when I first saw it as a teenager. It's hard to really say just what is the best sequence of the whole film between, say, the opening sequence or the Map Room - you just have to see it (and I mean see it) to really believe it, where a B-movie feel leads to going along with its rhythm quickly. It's the kind of movie that makes you feel young again, and it is the kind of movie that scratches the itch every now and then to crave adventure and maybe get something from the pursuit of history. The second one plays to the lizard brain interests for intensity and comedy, the third and fourth ones pursued a family tale with leaps of faith and the fifth, well, plays to having at least one more good time in old age, so there's that as well. It is sincerity without becoming devout in the best ways imaginable. 45 years later, it is the movie with the best type of qualities: the milage of craftsmen at work all coming together for a true return to the great adventure.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

theme of the day

*Because of his work in the script, Kasdan was approached by Lucas to work on The Empire Strikes Back (1980).

*Nobody really dwells on a Welsh actor playing Sallah and neither do you.

*Of all the times to give an Academy Award to the British, good lord. I do wonder if Reds holds up enough that Warren Beatty deserved a Best Director award. 

*Incidentally, Steven Soderbergh did a cut of the film in 2014 that aimed to show how the film really shined in the staging, which he did by taking out the audio and converted it to black-and-white

*And, well, vintage footage

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.

Review #2027: Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.

Cast: 

Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones), Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Helena Shaw), Mads Mikkelsen (Jürgen Voller), Antonio Banderas (Renaldo), John Rhys-Davies (Sallah), Toby Jones (Basil Shaw), Boyd Holbrook (Klaber), Ethann Isidore (Teddy Kumar), Shaunette Renée Wilson (Mason), Thomas Kretschmann (Colonel Weber), Karen Allen (Marion Ravenwood), and Olivier Richters (Hauke) Directed by James Mangold (#912 - Logan and #1302 - Ford v. Ferrari)

Review: 

“I am interested in making something that works from beginning to end — to curtain. Otherwise, I’m working on the world’s most expensive television show.” - James Mangold

Before one gets to the inevitable, why don't I address the easiest question out of the way? Just which sequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark is the best one? (If you just want to get right down to the film, skip the paragraph or enjoy a rundown). Let me look at the three sequels that followed up the classic 1981 feature film in a brief rundown while stating the obvious: Raiders of the Lost Ark, in the tradition of many franchises, is by default the most original of the films, which is saying something as a film that is a tribute to the old adventure serials that George Lucas had enjoyed in his younger days. He worked with Philip Kaufman on the original script before years of waiting eventually led to collaborating with Steven Spielberg, who used his rejection of not being allowed to do a James Bond film to influence his directing (complete with Lawrence Kasdan writing the screenplay). Needless to say, the resulting film is one of the best of its time, probably even the best film of its year (no human being seriously believes Chariots of Fire is a memorable Best Picture winner unless they happen to be born in England- think about it). The sequel film, as directed by Spielberg in 1984 as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is thought of as the lesser of the 80s films, and that may be true, but I enjoyed the hell out of it the second time around. Honestly, the complaint of it being too dark is a lazy one, because what the hell is wrong with that? Adventure serials were not chipper and friendly features, you know, and the last film had people's faces being melted off because they looked at the Ark, so don't tell me that one suddenly decided to get squeamish just because they saw a heart ripped out. I enjoyed it far more than I expected to when seeing it the night before seeing Destiny, to the point where I would argue that a 9/10 rating is more appropriate than the 8 I originally gave it. It was a film with all of the fun you could hope from trying to spook your friends on a thrill ride to counter the original in spectacle, and I will go to my grave saying that. Last Crusade (1989) is undeniably just as good as the first film, one that shows the power of adventure goes hand in hand with family and its touches of faith beyond being just an adventure for another artifact. The ending with father and son on horseback with friends into the sunset is probably the highest point of the whole series, and one would be forgiven for thinking that the series could have just ended right there. Lucas felt that the series was finished and thus focused his time on The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which ran from 1992 to 1993 that detailed a handful of young adventures, and it was shooting Ford for a guest spot in one episode that had got him to think of ideas for a possible fourth film that theoretically would be set in the 1950s (his "saucer men from mars" script isn't exactly a treat to hear about, but I digress). Eventually, he got Spielberg into doing something that would involve "interdimensional beings" (so no, not really just aliens) within a sci-fi B-movie tribute, albeit one with a bit of computer-generated imagery (such as in the jungle or with the alien). Fifteen years later, screw it, I actually think it is a fine movie, so spare me the complaints about "nuking the fridge, or space aliens or CGI monkeys" (okay the last one is corny). It is a nitpicker's dream movie, to put it mildly, but sometimes, even folks like me just let loose and take stock at the fact that a movie can sometimes be "fine" anyway. It captures some of what one might call a "lizard brain" energy required to make a tribute to older films with ridiculous execution, and as long as one respects the intelligence or patience of the viewer, you can get through with a number of things (Doom, if you recall, had a stunt where folks survived a freefall on an inflatable raft). Really, it only seems to flounder when a certain individual next to Ford is on screen that results in a 7/10 experience that was better than I remembered. But we are here to talk about a film from 2023, not just ones from 1984, 1989, or 2008.

Perhaps it is not surprising that four writers are credited here: Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth, David Koepp, and James Mangold (you may remember Koepp as a co-writer on Crystal Skull and the Butterworths for their work on Edge of Tomorrow). Plans for a fifth film technically started in 2016 with pre-production that had a target of 2019, which originally had Koepp write for Spielberg as intended director before both left (the latter is instead executive producer), which is where the Butterworths and Mangold come in. The first and immediate thought that came out after seeing the credits end was one of laughter. It is just as average as the film from fifteen years ago, with the only difference being that Ford is now 80 rather than 65 years old. Think about it: both films feature a secondary lead that takes up a good chunk of action stunts (for evident reasons) that have some relation to Ford that was just established in this film (secret son, goddaughter, whatever) while dealing with some sort of mystical/magical allure that mines the well a bit for nostalgia. Mangold may claim that the last film didn't really know what it was about when it came to an older Indy, but, respectfully, what the hell has he really done to improve on that? At 154 minutes, it is the longest of the five films, and I honestly don't know how they got to that point aside from the lengthy opening sequence involving a de-aged Ford in the 1940s. You know, sometimes, the old trick of using a lookalike or just a brief recasting (you know, like the opening to Last Crusade?) really is better than the alleged best new trick. Roughly 25 minutes spent with a CG face morph and action spent mostly in the dark (with some decent dialogue, but alas) is such a baffling way to get things going in establishing things to come back in play for the real ideal setting: the summer of 1969, right after man has walked on the Moon...and a nearly divorced and retiring Indiana Jones that seems ready to fade away with his joys and regrets. This is single-handily the most uneven film of the series, one that is technically fun when it comes to the overall entertainment level but as a whole is just a reminder that sometimes, you just have to let it go. People who think Temple of Doom is the "dark" one of the series will now get to eat a heap of humble pie with a film in Dial of Destiny that seems to want to top it in being the bleakest of the five in its initial trappings, where only the climax can provide a respite to what you damn well know is going to happen. I suppose if you never should see your heroes grow old, you surely don't want to see them end up the same place as everything else: vanished from the line of sight. 

The interesting thing is that there are no real bad performances in an Indiana Jones movie, with this one being no different. Ford obviously enjoyed the idea of doing this role one more time to wrap things in peace, one that seems him at odds with just where he should be in his life, and I enjoy it. He is still most of the measured force of dignity in the face of harrowing adventure, regardless of how many stunts he gets involved in. Waller-Bridge makes a quality presence to go along with Ford when it comes to generating amusement as basically a lingering grifter, one who matters to the story when it comes to asserting what matters most when interacting with people beyond cash. That involves a degree of humor, because Isidore is present as essentially the third part of a trio that comes there in the middle of the film to go with the two, which results in a mildly compelling rogues gallery that hit and miss at times. Mikkelsen (speaking of irony relating to Bond and Indy, he's now played a villain in both franchises just like Julian Glover) is a semi-compelling threat in the idea that being the flipside of the coin with Ford in the art of trying to re-write what made them who they were, which is inspired by Operation Paperclip in the actual relocation of German scientists, engineers, and technicians from the former Nazi Germany to America after World War II. As such, he calmly waltzes his way to what he feels is something he earned, something where cold and calculated victory is all that matters at his age with strength behind him to try to rewrite the lost cause.  Honestly, I think it is the final fate that I wish was handled better, because think about it, do you remember the villains in the series for who they are, or in how they are vanquished? Food for thought. Rhys-Davies turned down a cameo in the fourth film because he stated that "the character of Sallah is worth more to the audience than that." This seems ironic now, because he is in a grand total of two scenes (one that is basically right in the trailer anyways, but at least it is beneficial to the plot, so "eh"), so the cynic wiseass in me thinks "worth more" means "more money". But hey, he is just fine here in that aged warm presence. Banderas is basically a gloried cameo, but hell, that was the case with Rhys-Davies in those previous movies, but you still see him make a chuckle anyway. Jones closes it out with mild obsessive paranoia that is, well, one that comes and goes fine. When the film at last gets to its climax involving one particular revelation, I think that is where the film handles things at its best in not taking the complete easy out in paradoxical clumps that made me chuckle, right down to the meaning of "stacked deck".

There are various sources that make up the "MacGuffin" of the five films, whether that involves the Book of Exodus in an Ark, an off-shoot of Hinduism in stones, Arthurian legend about Christ and a Grail, alleged pre-Columbian Mesoamerican skull artifacts, or an ancient Greek discovery (which is actually referred to as an Antikythera mechanism). I would like to give credit for the big device of the film for reminding me of an egg timer. If one finds pieces of the egg timer and fixes it up, they could use it to help them figure out how much time is needed to cook (or go through time), and boom, you have made a plot device that amuses me to where I think, well, one will never top the search for the Holy Grail, but a search to maybe loop back to somewhere with an eggtimer-sorry, dial of destiny, is fine. The action is handled just fine in the kinetic sense, making for a modern ride through the past work in a way that will at least make you think Mangold wanted to make something that was not just a faux Spielberg hack. So yes, there is the basic thrill required within the inevitability that comes in the adventure. The world has outgrown Indy in 1969, but that doesn't mean his end is going to be a futile oblivion without some sort of fight. As a whole, the enjoyment of the film will depend on how you view your expectations when it comes to what you saw before in the last couple of films. If you desire one more return of the grand adventure with some of what you have seen before, you will do just fine here. The one thing that can be said about the Indiana Jones series is that five films are fine enough for anyone to view for themselves in curiosity without desiring a glut of more (anyone who tries a spinoff will probably be mocked into oblivion, please note). This is a movie that will surely inspire a barrage of discussion over just what modern Indy film was the more interesting adventure to try and forge their way of destiny that reminds me of a tired runner trying to make one more push for the finish line. It might wheeze and make an offbeat move, but I liked it enough to see it cross without waiting to tear them to shreds. With a franchise that inspires so much discussion over what it means to the viewer, you can take that for what it is worth and decide for yourself. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

In the Name of the King.

Review #1765: In the Name of the King.

Cast: 

Jason Statham (Farmer / Camden Konreid), Leelee Sobieski (Muriella), John Rhys-Davies (Merick), Ron Perlman (Norick), Claire Forlani (Solana), Kristanna Loken (Elora), Matthew Lillard (Duke Fallow), Ray Liotta (Gallian), Burt Reynolds (King Konreid), Brian White (Commander Tarish), and Mike Dopud (General Backler) Directed by Uwe Boll.

Review: 

Have you ever wanted to see a bad filmmaker get $60 million dollars to make a fantasy ripoff of Lord of the Rings? Here is your chance. Uwe Boll was born in Wermelskirchen, West Germany. He wanted to make movies when he was a kid; he studied at the University of Cologne and Siegen. Of course, he has managed to go viral for all the strange reasons. In 2006, he actually challenged critics who gave him harsh reviews to a boxing match; this resulted in Boll fighting and winning against five participants. I'm sure one already knows that prior to 2006 he had utilized a loophole in the tax system in Germany that meant that he could recieve rebates from his movies if they flopped. In 2015, he tried to crowdfund a film and failed to get the targeted funds; he proceeded to release a video lashing out about failing to fund the movie. Boll initially retired from filmmaking in 2016, doing so he could open up his own restaurant (which actually had fair reviews). However, he has since decided to return to filmmaking. The thing about Boll is that not all of his features have exactly been called terrible (2009's Darfur and Rampage received attention for example). The movie is adapted from Dungeon Siege, an action role-playing game published in 2002. This is one of the numerous video game adaptations he would do in his career, which started with House of the Dead (2003) before expanding to great failures such as Alone in the Dark (2005) and Postal (2007); Boll would direct two sequels (2011, 2014) with decidedly smaller budgets. The movie was done by Brightlight Pictures and distributed by Freestyle Releasing and Vivendi Entertainment in the US while 20th Century Fox did overseas distribution (which explains why I saw a Fox logo on the cover on my DVD). 

Beyond the terrible handling of green screen effects and use of wire fu (as helped by action choreographer Ching Siu-tung) is a hilarious failure. You've got battles that apparently feature ninjas to go along with creatures that are catapulted into the air...while being set on fire (this was written by a man named Doug Taylor, who has exactly the amount of writing credits you would guess). This is 127 minutes of pure tedium, since it is a movie that looks and feels terrible in nearly every frame imaginable, packed with cliches that might make you yearn for the days of Krull. Where did all the money go? Did it really go to packing the cast with a bunch of familiar faces? If that is the case, why does everyone seem thoroughly miscast? I have not seen many movies with Statham as a star, but I do know that he is thought to be a suitable presence for action films in his era (i.e. the 2000s). That said, he is thoroughly unsuited for a film like this, since he looks outmatched in any scene that requires anything other than an attempt at action; the script fails to give him anything to do besides hope he can make these inept words seem useful. Who better to play in a Lord of the Rings "inspiration" than someone from those movies...Rhys-Davies? Well, he is a decent character presence, although one always seems to wonder if he is looking more to when the check will clear rather than a performance beyond "autopilot", and we are talking about a movie that has acting wooden enough to attract termites. Sobieski, Forlani, Loken, and White all suffer from this. Perlman looks like he is waiting to get off the screen and escape. If anybody looks outmatched and out-everything, the honor goes to Reynolds, who as we all know is the sentimental favorite in a variety of mediocre (or terrible) movies on Movie Night. For all of the times he had the knack for curious charisma in any film he did, he also had the knack for having the weirdest film choices ever to cross a screen: Can any man say they have acted with Paul Thomas Anderson and Uwe Boll? He looks befuddled to even be in this role, particularly with that kingly get-up. He grimaces through a role that seems to be suited for has-beens, and while Reynolds clearly had seen better days...there are worse options. At least Lillard seems to know he is in a terrible film, acting with the grand camp value of someone who has decided to go with just having silly fun without looking for a good performance (i.e. range). However, the most dubious performance goes to Liotta, who appears to be wearing street clothes in half of his scenes. He seems to be under the impression that a great evil wizard is best repersented by moving his eyes around while somehow resembling Wayne Newton. His performance in Goodfellas (1990) seems like a lifetime ago (you thought Anderson-Boll was nuts, try an actor who worked with Scorsese and Boll). He is probably just as ill-suited for a fantasy role as Statham is, and the ultimate fight between the two of them is just as hysterical as when Liotta and Rhys-Davies interact with each other (involving swords flying around). As a whole, the fights between the pseudo-orcs and everyone else isn't exactly horrible, but one always has the feeling that Boll is just waiting for the next tax dodge or project to rip off somewhere, complete with a twist near the middle of the movie that makes one go "Oh, we're going that route, are we?". Supposedly Boll had thought about releasing the film in two parts, but he instead settled with having a director's cut released (imagine a two-and-a-half-hour "epic", I bet). Despite its length, the plot manages to be quite inept in moving past first gear, with the only notable thing really happening involving the color starting to look less brown as the film gets to the end, which is handled abruptly. As a whole, this turns out to be a grand joke for those who desire to see what a mismatched cast can do with a mismatched director looking to make money out of a molehill and wind up with one of the dumbest movies I have ever had pleasure laughing at. It isn't exactly terrible enough to be one of the worst, but squeezing a star out of pulp is not exactly an accomplishment.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: One must suffer for the crime of believing there is no such thing as a horrible animated movie - Foodfight! (2012). 

Movie Night: The Living Daylights.

Review #281: The Living Daylights.

Cast
Timothy Dalton (James Bond), Maryam d'Abo (Kara Milovy), Jeroen Krabbé (Georgi Koskov), Joe Don Baker (Brad Whitaker), John Rhys-Davies (Leonid Pushkin), Art Malik (Kamran Shah), Andreas Wisniewski (Necros), Thomas Wheatley (Saunders), Robert Brown (M), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Geoffrey Keen (Frederick Gray), and Caroline Bliss (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by John Glen.

Review
This is the fourth and final film review of Bond films (that were intended for posting yesterday). I've moved from the era of Connery to the short thought of  Lazenby to Connery again to Timothy Dalton (sorry for skipping Roger Moore, but that will be rectified in the future), so how is this one? This was released 25 years ago (it's been 50 years since Dr. No so in a way its the middle ground anniversary., and this just happens to be the 15th film in the franchise). After A View to A Kill, a new actor would be hired, Timothy Dalton (originally was offered the role for On Her Majesty's Secret Service). How is Dalton? He's...Middle ground. He is definitely an improvement over Lazenby, but I don't exactly think he beats Connery here. Dalton is allright, but I feel something doesn't click as well as what happened with Brosnan. The plot is allright, but I barely recognized the villian in the film as well I did with Dr. No/Grant/Blofeld. The supporting cast is allright, and the action works well. While this isn't a great film, it is at least a well film at gives the franchise good solid footing.

Overall, I give it 007 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Review #170: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Cast
Harrison Ford (Indiana "Henry" Jones Jr.), Sean Connery (Henry Jones Sr.), Alison Doody (Elsa Schneider), Denholm Elliott (Marcus Brody), John Rhys-Davies (Sallah), Julian Glover (Walter Donovan), Michael Byrne (Colonel Vogel), Kevork Malikyan (Kazim), and Robert Eddison (Grail Knight) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, and #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom)

Review
This film is lighter in tone then Temple of Doom, which is a good thing as once again Harrison Ford is excellent once again. Sean Connery is also excellent, with the father-son relationship having a dramatic and comedic standpoint, and it is good. One thing I hadn't mentioned is that apparently Lucas conceived Jones to be "James Bond without the hardware" When I think about it, that makes sense, considering the adventures to stop evil from collecting things to take over the world. With Connery in this film, it makes it even more like Bond. Before I go off into more of a tangent, I must mention that the story is good. It's different from the first two in a way I won't tell you of, which is good to keep the story fresh. And that ends the Last Crusade. Indiana Jones had 3 films in 8 years, with success following its way. Ford kept his success going from Han Solo into the 80s and beyond with this and beyond. Truly an excellent sequel with excellent directing and writing.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.