Chen G.

But he does ultimately becomes that, albeit by proxy.

I think that's special pleading. Its a kind of spin on the heroic quest type story, but that story is still recognisably in there. Its McNicoll who gets the amulet to where he needs it, its McNicol who triggers the bomb, and at the end he goes off with the girl...

Definitely one of the film's weaker links, for sure. Also, I get all the stuff about the lottery but at that point in the movie you really just want to get back to the dragonslaying! And like I said before the finale is a total sham.

Really? I actually think this is probably the best of the 1980s bunch of fantasy films: notwithstanding the bizarre finale where Sir Ralph Richardson is used as a time bomb straight out of a James Bond film, I found it a clever movie, with equally inventive filmmaking, a superb dragon, a suitably grimey dark ages aesthetic and nice locations. Definitely better than stuff like Legend, which looks utterly gorgeous but has one of the dumbest scripts I've ever come across, better than the more saccharine (but good!) Willow, better than some of the hokum that happens in Excalibur, and better than Krull and Conan. Haven't seen Labyrinth all the way through, but its a different kind of fantasy film alltogether, anyway.

A lot of these late-in-the-game sequels are depressing without necessarily knowing they're depressing.

PRECISELY. Its not a conclusion to a story being told like in Star Wars, but its very, very clearly and overtly a farewell to the character.

You have prequels for that. The point at which a story begins is much less definitive than where it ends; and so, if the series had reached a kind of culmination, rather than undoing that culmination, you can still explore it further by going backwards. Spielberg didn't do that. Spielberg did a sequel.

I'm not averse to all sequels, but there are films that leave room for sequels. There are sequels that leave room for more sequels still. And then there are sequels which are clearly made not to leave room for a further sequel, but as a finale. Either because the story is resolutely, once and for all concluded; either because (as is the case in The Last Crusade) its a kind of farewell to the character; or (more in the older days of Shakespeare et al) its because it literally ends with "then everyone died, the end." Whichever of the three it is, when you see a series finale, you know it when you see it, and The Last Crusade is manifestly such a finale. Once wrapped-up, the story can't be unwrapped.

That's not my point. My point is that, regardless of whether sequels turn out well or not, the fact of the matter is some films leave room for sequels (prequels are a little different). Some films do not. The Last Crusade belongs in the latter category.

I share Nick's sentiment, but its not a sentiment that applies, at least in my case, to every sequel or prequel. The issue here is with sequels to what were for all intents and purposes FINAL entries. I don't need to know what happens after the end.

It does. But my basic, fundemental issue with it still stands, and would stand even if it were much better a movie than it ended up being. I didn't need to see more of Indy after he rode into that sunset: its anticlimactic.

That's the biggest stumbling block for me. I don't like the way the movie looks. I don't like the soap opera aspect of bringing Marion back and going all "Indy, he! is your son!" I don't like some of the beats and/or setpieces (that. bloody. jungle. chase!) But, really, above all I just don't like the concept.

Yeah, maybe as part of "worst 5" is a little harsh, but its definitely lower-tier Spielberg.

No lies detected here. Sorry, Edmilson. But its just...not a movie I particularly enjoy.

Well, it is the series' satyr play...