Perhaps not the most entertaining of the trilogy, but certainly the most complete... (POSSIBLE SPOILERS)

Rating: 9/10 (25 March 2001)

It doesn't have the sense of wonder that "Raiders..." had, because the character had already become a movie icon. It's not as breathlessly paced as "Temple..." because the makers were working on the assumption that this was going to be the last, so they wanted to tie up some loose ends. I would suggest, however, that if you were to watch only ONE instalment from the trilogy, this would be the one to choose to give you the most compact flavour of what the series is like as a whole (I DON'T recommend you do this BTW. watch 'em all!)
Asking me which of the trilogy is my favourite is an easier question than if you were asking me which is the best; "ROTLA" is my fave, but every film appeals to different people because of the reasons I've listed above. I'm not going to even try comparing "The Last Crusade" with its predecessors.
What I can say about it is this: The introduction of Connery as Indy's father is a masterstroke. Actors as icons don't come much bigger than Sean.
He works so well with Ford that you never think you're watching "James Bond" and you buy the uneasy relationship the two have with each other. I have to say, this is more down to the skill of the two actors themselves than particularly masterful writing, but even so, it never feels false. This is quite an achievement, as it could easily have been deployed as just a one-note gimmick about the hardships of having parents.
The opening sequence is terrific; a perfect intro for newcomers to the series, and more back-story for longtime fans. Phoenix was a perfect choice for Young Indy, and I'm sure he would have been the ideal man to step into Harrison's shoes permanently when he decided he was too old for the part. I can't understand why some people complain that it was contrived. The whole series is fairly contrived, relating as it does to the cliffhanger serials from the '30's & '40's. I see nothing in that segment that has a different tone to anything that has gone before it. So Indy climbing into Lao Che's plane at the start of "Temple..." wasn't contrived?
Some may justifiably complain that the set-pieces are perhaps not what we've come to expect from the franchise, but I feel this is a direct result of trying to introduce a more personal element with the relationship between the Jones's. They're still better than most other imitators in '80s cinema, and by now most of us love the main character so much we'd be rooting for him to thwart a slightly painful verruca... Maybe it is more sedate and less imaginative than its companions, but they were hardly BAD films, and perhaps a change in pace was needed. Still great.