Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

After the dark-toned journey of Temple of Doom, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg bring the beloved Indiana Jones back into the light for one last hurrah. Featuring plenty of girls, guns and globetrotting, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade pulls out all the stops and recreates most of the magic that captivated audiences in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Trilogies are oftentimes fickle things. The original is almost always the best, the second installment usually disappoints to a degree (though there are exceptions), and the third chapter can go either way. This film closes out the Indiana Jones trilogy in the best way possible- returning to its roots.

Last Crusade recaptures the light-hearted heroic swagger of old adventure serials that made Raiders of the Lost Ark so fun. Indy’s got his sass back and Harrison Ford oozes charm from start to finish. The Nazis are back as the chief antagonists, seeking an artifact with great power. Said artifact is the fabled Holy Grail; something that Western audiences can easily wrap their heads around. To cap it all off, Indy travels to several gorgeous foreign locales, including Venice, Berlin and Petra (serving as the exterior of the fictional resting place of the Grail).

There are enough differences to prevent this film from feeling too formulaic though. The opening segment once again shows Indy chasing after an artifact but it occurs in Indy’s youth. This opening segment serves a dual function- it shows how Indy first got into high-stakes artifact chasing adventures and it also sets up his relationship with his father, who plays an important part in the film. The addition of Henry Jones is a welcome breath of fresh air as well. Instead of flirting with a woman or bossing around a kid, Indy has met his equal in his father. Sean Connery and Harrison Ford have brilliant chemistry on the screen.

While I normally get annoyed when father-son conflict resolution is injected into an otherwise good plot, I didn’t mind it one bit during this film. Indy’s issues with his father are legitimate but handled with enough light-heartedness that it never becomes the kind of thing you roll your eyes at. Their bonding never seems forced, which makes it more effective, I think.

One of the problems with Temple of Doom was that its action sequences sometimes went a bit too far over the top. Perhaps this was to make up for the dark tone. Fortunately nothing in Last Crusade approaches the level of silliness as the mine cart chase or the airplane/raft escape. The action pieces are spectacular but don’t steal the show. The focus remains the characters that we love to root for.

Some of the special effects in this film show their age quite a bit but they were pretty good when the film first came out. Sometimes this is a hard issue to see around, particularly with older movies where the bluescreen work is painfully obvious. Having grown up with movies from the 80s and 90s though, it is pretty easy for me to gauge the quality of the effects based on my knowledge of other films from the same era. So Last Crusade does pretty well in that department, despite looking silly 20 years later.

Reviews for Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade were somewhat mixed when it was released but it has been embraced by fans of the original. Not everyone prefers this third installment to Temple of Doom but most of us Indy fans do. I’m a sucker for this film. In some ways it is more fun than Raiders but, when you get right down to it, the original set the tone for the series. This film saw the Indy series seemingly finish on a high note that lasted for 19 years. Last Crusade redeems the series from Temple’s bleakness by borrowing just enough of what Raiders did right with a helping of originality mixed in.

RATING: 4 out of 5

First Knight (1995)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

I don’t know if this has come up yet, so I want to share something with you: I am not a big Richard Gere fan, so many of his films I see are likely to have their ratings tainted by subjectivity. Just a fair warning. Anyway, First Knight falls into some of the standard pitfalls that King Arthur films succumb to, but it goes further than other interpretations do in getting things horribly wrong.

Many Arthur films screw up in a number of excusable areas. First, they typically set the Arthur story too far into the Middle Ages, with shining armor, valiant knight and glorious castles. In fact, Arthur existed in the 5th or 6th Century when things were not as opulent and glamorous as the romanticized tales have led many to believe.

Secondly, most Arthur films really overdo the kinship of the Round Table. Depictions of gorgeous stone or wooden tables abound and the knights were all dashingly handsome. In reality the round table probably didn’t even exist. The knights were really a kind of rag-tag band of wandering men who fought for justice. Their relationship was probably close, but not as glorious as we’ve come to believe.

Finally, almost all Arthur films, and most films with knights and swords, use horrible swordplay for their fight scenes. As heavy and cumbersome as real swords would have been, the parrying and quick swordsmanship defies physics. It’s all stage and film trickery meant to make the fights look cool and more dangerous.

But like I said, all of these items are excusable because they have been commonplace in presentations of the Arthur legend for quite some time. First Knight has bigger problems on its hands.

For starters, Gere plays Lancelot very poorly. Gere is only 5’11” and many of the actors in the film are of a comparable height. Guinevere is only a few inches shorter than Lancelot, though you can hardly tell because of her hair and all. King Arthur is several inches taller than Lancelot, which is a historical no-no. Lancelot, by legend, was a very tall man, towering above many of his peers. This little goof really jars your suspension of disbelief if you know your Arthur at all.

Along with Gere’s height, his performance of Lancelot is completely void of any accent. Literally every single character but Lancelot speaks in an appropriate British accent. The fact that Gere refuses to even try to pull off an accent is a major point of contention with me. They have voice coaches for a reason. Use them.

The dialogue is very wooden, unsatisfying and predictable. This is a huge detriment because most Arthur stories include very beautiful prose and really capture the beauty of the romanticized Arthur legend. This is compounded by the fact that the acting is rather unbalanced. Some actors perform up to par, but most either overact or under-act their roles. This leads to a bizarre up and down feeling when processing the lines.

The special effects and stunts are all a little to modern as well. Camelot is presented as a gigantic city with opulent towers and brilliant colors. It’s all too over the top and came right out of left field for me. A stunt involving a runaway carriage was also rather hokey. It was essentially set up as a medieval car chase, with all the predictable elements of the bad guy jumping on top, crashing through windows and breaking off of doors. Sorry, been there and done that a hundred other times without the added cheese of a medieval setting. There was also a gauntlet prop that Gere ran through in exchange for a kiss from Guinevere that was easily far beyond the design of anything from the Middle Ages.

The love story is altogether unconvincing and they go about Arthur’s death all wrong. Somehow, the writers found it a bright idea to have Arthur snuffed out by relatively minor character from Arthurian legend. The man, Malagant, never amounted to beans in Arthur histories and his position as an evil conqueror and murderer was just confusing.

In the end, First Knight gets a lot of things all wrong, but still manages to look pretty. Ironically, many of the castle locations are shot as old and overgrown with vegetation even though these structures would have been new at the time. Girls will swoon over the sappy love story and guys will sit there with a glazed look on their faces. While it doesn’t quite do enough damage to itself to drop too far in my rankings, I would advise against seeing this film unless you seek an example of how not to present the Arthur legend.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5

Never Say Never Again (1983)

Question: What’s a sure-fire way to suck the fun and mystique out of a James Bond film?

Answer: Have the first third of the film focused on Bond going to a health clinic to eliminate free radicals in his body and other such silly new-agey medical psychobabble.

Never Say Never Again is an unofficial entry into the James Bond series. It is not considered to be canon and is actually a remake of 1965’s Thunderball. Sean Connery returns to the role he started, but instead of playing a supposed ageless super spy, Connery gives us a middle-aged Bond who’s not quite at the top of his game anymore, but still chugging right along.

While Connery does play Bond well, the entire film is lacking something. All the quirky jokes referencing his age are needless and get annoying pretty quickly. The writing isn’t very good, and the film fails to improve upon the original incarnation of Thunderball. But it remains to be said that even a weak Bond movie is still fairly entertaining. It was nice to see anybody but Roger Moore as Bond for a change.

This unofficial 007 flick is officially passable.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

Sean Connery returns as 007 in this film, after swearing of the series two films prior. Supposedly the money was right to get a return performance out of him. His performance is what makes the film worthwhile, although some would argue against my reasoning.

Some say that Connery gives a lackluster performance, only doing it for the money. They’ll argue that he’s careless in his portrayal and makes Bond seem indifferent about his missions. It is true that Connery shows he doesn’t give a flying fart about being Bond anymore but this attitude actually helps sustain the movie. An opening montage features Bond mercilessly beating people to learn the whereabouts of Ernst Blofeld, who was responsible for the death of his wife in the previous movie. He thinks he finally kills Blofeld, but he is mistaken. Bond is out for blood, so Connery’s careless performance only enhances this quality in Bond.

The evil mastermind resurfaces (Bond killed a look-alike) and causes more anguish for 007. Bond is sent to investigate a diamond theft and he discovers Blofeld is behind it. A secret satellite has been put in orbit which uses the stolen diamonds to fire a concentrated heat beam at any target he likes. Blofeld takes out a few nuclear missile stations but Bond ultimately saves the day.

Without Connery’s attitude this film would have been less appetizing. A muddled script featuring a few oddities, such as a gay couple who are diamond thieves (it’s never known if they were working for Blofeld or not), and some poor editing during a chase scene would have otherwise made the film lackluster. A strong performance saves the day though.

Also, the title song is quite good, making a rare combination of a good Bond theme song and a good Bond film.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

You Only Live Twice (1967)

Head East, old chap!

Featuring exotic locations and a terrific score, You Only Live Twice is one of the better humorous Bond films, which is saying a lot. The series still maintained its dignity to this point, while splashing in enough wit and gadgetry to satisfy a majority of modern day Bond fans.

After faking his death to provide more maneuverability, Bond heads to Japan in an attempt to uncover the powers behind the abduction of both a US and a Soviet space capsule. The clock is ticking though, as both the USSR and the USA blame each other for the disappearance of their respective capsules, pushing them (and the world) to the brink of a nuclear war.

Sure enough, the evil S.P.E.C.T.R.E. is behind it all, and Bond faces off against the evil mastermind Ernst Blofeld. Partnering up with Japanese secret agents, Bond faces certain death with a grain of salt and his classic charm, both saving the day and getting the girl.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Thunderball (1965)

The terrorist organization known as S.P.E.C.T.R.E. hijacks two nuclear warheads and attempt to hold the world for ransom or else they will unleash a nuclear crisis. Enter James Bond. He manages to get mixed up in all this while at a health club, where he is supposed to be improving his body. After important meetings with his boss he sets off to track down one of S.P.E.C.T.R.E.’s top men and the one in possession of the bombs.

Straightforward enough, the film’s plot is easy to follow and falls into what will become a pattern for Bond saving the world from evil megalomaniacs bent on world destruction and getting rich. So, in a way, it’s pretty basic. But the filming techniques make for some delightful experiences. The underwater fights are very well done, although they run too long, and show a commitment to upping the ante for the kind of viewing experience Bond films will be. It attempts to dazzle the eyes with over-the-top gadgets and effects, but the weaker story (in comparison to the previous entries) doesn’t trick the mind into being quite as satisfied with the end result. The score for the film is terrific, but the theme song, by Tom Jones, is forgettable.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Goldfinger (1964)

The turning point in the Bond series and the best of the over-the-top, camp and gadget-filled sequels that would follow. Bond finds himself investigating a mysterious Swiss gold magnate suspected of illegally transporting his vast riches between nations.

Whilst investigating, Bond is captured and escapes several times and discovers the madman’s true plot to become the richest and most powerful man in the world. Connery is still in top form and seems to be having fun with his character’s new-found machismo. His overconfidence comes off as cocky swagger but refrains from becoming arrogance.

The gadgetry is still within the realm of plausibility (excepting of course the giant industrial laser that threatens to slice Bond in half). Bond’s sexual prowess and natural seductiveness begin to hit full tilt, as even the villain’s assistant (aptly named Pussy Galore) turns good after succumbing to Bond’s inescapable charm. The best popcorn pleaser you’ll get from the Bond series, while it still maintains a sense of dignity.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

From Russia with Love (1963)

Without a doubt, this is the best of the serious Bond films to date. The script is excellent and the plot is very believable. In return for amnesty after her defection, a Russian agent also promises to deliver a decoding device that will help the West in its struggles against the Soviets.

Bond is sent to retrieve the girl and the device, but terrorist bad guys are sent to do the same thing. They also happen to want Bond dead for killing Dr. No, one of their associates, in the previous film.

Romance and suspense reign supreme in what is still the most well-written Bond film yet. Q makes his first official appearance and does provide James with a few gadgets, but they are all fairly conceivable in real life. The final showdown on a speeding train and the beautiful theme song make this film one that most can enjoy.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Dr. No (1962)

The very first Bond film got things started off right. There’s plenty of mystery and intrigue, a helping of sexiness and very little camp and gadgetry. The opening theme song is now legendary, although the plot of this film is largely forgetful.

Bond is trying to figure out if the disappearance of an agent and his secretary may be connected to disruptions of American rocket launchings in Florida, only to discover a relatively sinister plot and a conniving villain behind it all.

Not exactly a “save the world” premise, but tight writing and the character-driven nature of the film delivers us a lasting impression of the man simply known as Bond…James Bond.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5