Boring, trite, lacklustre and too much toned down, just a rehash of "Raiders", pleading forgiveness for the masterpiece "Doom".

Rating: 6/10 (8 October 2017)

I still don't understand why this movie became the fans' favorite, when the vastly superior "Doom" is constantly bashed. I was lucky enough to watch the original three in the cinema and i've watched them by the correct chronological order: my first was "Doom", then a rerun of "Raiders" and 5 years later as a teen, enthusiastically attended the release of "Crusade", but it ended with me lefting the movie theater in a total state of disappointment. Where do i start ?
Firstly, it lacks the sense of action and adventure, the sarcasm, the edgy and the goosebumping thrills from the previous two installments. When we think or talk about the most memorable scenes from this franchise, "Raiders" have the most iconic and unforgettable opening in the South American jungle, like if a comic book came alive; the sequence in Nepal when Indy and Marion reunite; the swordsman in Cairo; the Well of Souls; the truck chase and so on. "Doom" have a glamourish opening which reminds the classical musicals from the Hollywood golden age, mixed with the exotic war dramas from the 30's & 40's and the early James Bond films, plus the plane crash; the spike chamber; the black sleep of Kali Ma; Mola Ram (which was one of the most sinister villains ever put on film); the mine chase and the rope bridge.
"Crusade" have a lacklustre opening sequence, where Indy, at the young age of 13 and in the total of 10 minutes screen time, acquires all his future trademarks: "It belongs to a Museum"; the ophidiophobia; the chin scar; the mastering of the whip and even his Fedora hat given away by a man who was supposed to be Abner Ravenwood, the future Indy's mentor, but he was ended up credited in the cast list as "Fedora Guy", because Lucas at the last moment, opted to exclude the Abner connection. One of his first dumb moves.
To the rest of the film, the two beards gave us a tepid boat chase; the rescue on the Castle Brunwald; the zeppelin; the tank chase in the desert, which was an unimaginative rehash of "Raiders", and the anti-climatic, to not saying boring, finale.
Secondly, the MacGuffin in this one wasn't as exciting as the Ark of Covenant or the Sankara Stones, and once again it's a Jewish / Catholic artifact that resembles too much the Ark and even have the greedy Nazis as the evil nemesis, searching for the power of the Grail to make an invencible army. Not wanted to repeat myself, but once again, the germans are collaborating with a foreigner scholar, not Belloq who died 2 years before during the events of the Ark, but Donovan.
Thirdly, the characters, Ford has been saying that this one is his favorite Indy, but what he said doesn't mean that it rings true, because he looks bored and uninterested for almost the entire movie and his acting feels more like a mix of spoofing Indy and playing Harrison Ford, than the Indiana Jones we all loved. His lack of conviction is apparent here, he grew tired of the character after the difficult shoot of "Doom" and around this time, he was establishing himself in more serious roles in drama films. Connery was a case of mere stunt casting, not because he was the best actor to play Indy's dad, but the two beards wanted the former James Bond in it, and Sean was fresh from his Oscar winning role in the B.O. Hit, "The Untouchables" and became a trend again after almost a decade into oblivion.
Connery's roles in the acclaimed, "The Name of the Rose" and the sleeper hit, "Highlander", in which he played the witty old mentor to younger heroes, convinced Spielberg & Lucas that he could do the same for Ford and cash-in on Connery's crescent popularity. The executives at Paramount, applauded.
Poor old Connery delivers an inspired performance with lots of heart and integrity, which earned him the SAG and BAFTA nominations, and no question about that, but he wasn't the best pick to play Henry Jones, Sr. Charlton Heston should have been cast. Not only he resembled much more Ford in the looks, acting style and 'screen persona', but also Heston's jungle adventure movies from the 50's, such as "The Naked Jungle" or "Secret of the Incas", were the obvious inspirations to Indiana Jones. Even more than James Bond.
The late great Denholm Elliott, returns as Marcus Brody, this time more than a glorified cameo, he's also into the adventure of tracking the Grail, except that in "Raiders", Spielberg & Lucas established the character as an adventurer and an archaeologist like Indy in his younger days, but he only serves here the purpose of the buffoon, the comic relief, a distracted erudit that "gets lost in his own Museum" and sometimes looks and acts as if he's suffering from Alzheimer.
John Rhys-Davies also returns in this installment, but his character Sallah have as much importance to the plot as his brother-in-law's camels. A total waste of two great actors and two beloved characters from "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
Julian Glover and Alison Doody are too weak villains, they look like Disney Channel next to Arnold Toht or Mola Ram.
Sexy and doll faced, Doody is certainly the nicest Indy Girl to look at, a delicious eye pleaser, but the worst in the acting department, and Glover is not a fill-in for Belloq's sophisticated and flamboyant eeriness, not even by a mile.
Michael Byrne as Colonel Ernst Vogel is the only menacing villain, but he's just supporting, at least they should have made his character more prominent
Last, River Phoenix, sporting a late 80's haircut style, played Indy at age 13 in 1912, a bit 'off', but we can accept that as Indy is well-known for being a misfit. The late actor gave an acceptable performance as young Indy, after he played Ford's son in the underrated, "The Mosquito Coast", where he studied his mannerisms and dialogue delivery.
"Crusade" was scripted and made like this for both beards 'play it safe', after the bad reviews over "Doom", they opted to dumb down "Raiders" and offer "Crusade" as a lacklustre crowd-pleaser, that is more a comedy than an adventure film. They atoned the dark, cynical and sarcastic aspects from the first two, in exchange to the politically correct and lighthearted afternoon flick in which Harrison Ford and Sean Conney sometimes it looks like they're playing Abbott and Costello in search for the Grail.
It still have incredible production values: the filming locations such as Venice; great cinematography by Douglas Slocombe; the master musical score from John Williams (even if it was the weakest from the original trilogy); the stunning art & costume design and some impressive stunt work, but it painfully lacks in everything else from the acting to the tone, the trite directing and the unimaginative script.
Neither Ford's heart, Lucas or Spielberg, were within the making of "Crusade", and the magic started to disappear only in its third film (the Indiana Jones franchise could have been the next 007), maybe making this the last film (before the revival with "Crystal Skull", that was a mess of bad CGI, blue screen and terrible cinematography), was a good decision by the main trio.
As an overall saturday afternoon film, i rate it a 7, but as an Indiana Jones film i rate it a 5, so my final vote is a 6.