I enjoyed the film but I would definitely not call it the best of the three

Rating: 8/10 (4 March 2004)

My Rating: *** out of ****.
It is rare when a third film in a trilogy ends up being the best. In fact, they are mostly the weakest in the trilogy. Look what happened this year with Matrix Revolutions. It made 150 million dollars at the US Box Office when it was expected to do a lot better. It was not well received either (I gave it a *1/2, although I am not a "real" critic). Unfortunately, while The Last Crusade is very entertaining, it also proves that the third film ends up being the weakest. It is a satisfying, worthwhile conclusion to the trilogy but it disappoints in a few areas.
Raiders of the Lost Ark is rightfully hailed as one of the best action/adventure films ever made. When it came out in 1981, it was a huge Box Office Hit and received many Oscar Nominations(including Best Picture and Best Director). Three Years Later came its sequel/prequel: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. It was not as well received. A lot of people complained that it was too dark and violent(some say that film is the reason we have the PG-13 Rating, it certainly deserved it). The film did well but it left some fans cold. It would be five years for the third and hopefully final Indiana Jones film. The Last Crusade was better received and did better at the Box Office. Fans were happy and some consider it to be the best.
Yet but if you think about it the plot of The Last Crusade is just the Raiders formula with a few minor changes. Even if you hated The Temple of Doom, it at least did something different. Spielberg and Lucas took a chance with Temple of Doom and when they were criticized they backed away. They went with the easy money formula for the next film.
Recently, I just watched The Last Crusade and I actually found the beginning to be kind of sluggish. The early action scenes are especially low on tension. The train sequence and the boat ride in Venice are competently done by Spielberg but they are not that exciting. The Rat Scene has a lot more tension than those two action scenes(I hate Rats), although it is not as suspenseful as the snake scene in Raiders.
Its when Indy arrives at a castle in Austria(I think its Austria) that the tension goes up. The action scenes from then on are exciting. We get to see Indy's Dad(a Delightfully Entertaining Sean Connery) and the sluggish feel is pretty much gone.
One other complaint I have with the film is that the tone is too jokey. Some of the attempts at humor are not funny. I was amused when Indy's Dad accidentally shot their plane with the machine gun. However, I was not amused by many of the other attempts at humor.
Harrison Ford is in top form here. He has been perfect as Indy from the beginning of Raiders all the way to the end of this film. I will through a fit if he does Indy 4 though(He is waaay too old). However, Ford is nearly matched by Sean Connery as Indy's Father. His performance here may not be his greatest, but he is wonderfully entertaining.
However, the villain is a disappointment. Julian Glover just cannot play a good villain. He was passable in For Your Eyes Only but will never be remembered as one of the best Bond villains. Julian Glover is adequate but easily the worst of the Indy villain. Michael Byrne is effective as Colonel Vogel(the villains side kick type) but even he will not be remembered.

The girl is another disappointment. Alison Doody is completely forgettable as Dr. Schneider. Kate Capshaw may have been a little annoying but she was certainly better than her replacement(although this maybe considered to be Karen Allen's replacement, its kind of confusing). I kind of wonder why Karen Allen was not brought back. I would have welcomed her with open arms.

Nevertheless, despite the flaws I mentioned this is still worth checking out. It brings the trilogy to a satisfying end (It better be the end!!!!!!!!!). Really, The Last Crusade is just the Raiders formula put to effective use.