2 comments

• 

  papa

  6 months ago

  Sean Connery was a great addition to this film. Not only did it add a wonderful father/son dynamic, but they also had a great old/young dynamic (didn't both of them want the same hot blonde Nazi chick at one point?). They tried to play up the father/son and old/young thing again in Crystal Skull, but somehow -- like other aspects of that film -- it fell short of its predecessor (Crusade) and ended up having the "been there, done that" syndrome.
  
  I find it interesting too that I wasn't offended by the idea of a super-old Crusader knight guarding the actual Grail. True, it sounds ridiculous, but I'm ok with slight flights of fancy in these films. In a way, I can understand where Lucas was trying to go with the alien plot of Indy 4. I really think there was a way to make the alien idea work. I imagine that's why the script went through so many iterations. But as you say, they definitely chose poorly.
  
  I'm glad Connery didn't reprise his role in Indy 4 either. Indy 3 was just about perfect.
  reply
• 

  webomatica

  6 months ago

  Yeah - it's pretty shocking how much better Crusade was when I rewatched it
  after seeing Crystal Skull. It covers so much more ground - the opening
  scene to Indy's childhood, Venice, Germany, the mideast, and the Grail is on
  par with the ark in terms of a cool object to quest for. Then add in Indy's
  dad and it's almost better than raiders in some ways.
  
  I think the super-old crusader is in retrospect, was definitely rather
  silly, and possibly not much sillier than anything in Skull, thankfully he
  didn't leave the cave, and showed up at the end after a lot of great stuff
  had already passed. Wheras, Skull seemed to have silly things scattered
  throughout the whole movie, starting with that refrigerator, although, even
  that magnetized coffin was pretty silly, too.
  reply