Cheesy, tedious retread of "Raiders of the Lost Ark"

Rating: 1/10 (4 July 2014)

Still wondering how this movie, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE (1989) is so revered in the Indiana Jones "trilogy". Yeah, I'm not counting Crystal Skull, but not for the reasons people think. It's just that it's painfully obvious that Skull was probably never meant to be made and that it was supposed to all end in 1989 with this movie. There are actually things I like about Skull, but not this copycat of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
The movie starts out with a silly, "childish" sequence of a Young Indiana Jones (essayed by River Phoenix, who looks NOTHING like a younger version of Harrison Ford) on an exploring trip with his boy scout troop in 1912 Utah, who finds an ancient relic in a cave and is pursued by nefarious villainous types, and goes through all these requisite stunts that mimic action sequences we've already seen in the first 2 movies, but these scenes EXPLAIN Indy's phobias and adult idiosyncrasies. Indy eventually loses the battle, giving up the artifact to the bad guys, but is supposed to have learned a valuable lesson about life....YAWN! We also get a glimpse of Indy's Dad.
Flashforward to the film's setting, 1939, where Professor Jones is teaching at university while horny college girls drool over him like a rock star (just like in the original film). Then ANOTHER group of nefarious types approach him about some stone artifact they found in the ocean that is proof of the existence of the Holy Grail, so Indy goes on a trek across the globe (just like in the original film), which encompasses Italy, Germany, and Israel, in search of the Grail.
Along for the ride is Indy's Dad Henry Jones (played by Sean Connery in blatant stunt casting), who was the leader of the original mission to find the Grail. And guess how the end up meeting? See, these Nazis are holding Jones Sr. hostage because they are also interested in finding the precious artifact. Does the word "Nazi" sound familiar? JUST LIKE IN THE ORIGINAL FILM! I'm sensing a trend here. Also, there is the required female sidekick. Of course, it's never a bad idea to have an attractive lady in a movie, but this one is a stereotypical blonde bimbo who is supposed to be some kind of smart DOCTOR. I've seen half-naked Bond girls who are more convincing as smarties than this chick!
Speaking of BOND, back to the stunt casting of Connery! This movie shamelessly plays on Ford and Connery's universal appeal by pairing them as son and father, because they bear absolutely NO resemblance to each other. I can suspend disbelief in a movie like "Highlander", because there are so many things that movie has going for it other than just Sean Connery, but not in this movie. He is in no way, shape, or form convincing as Indy's Dad. Ford had way more chemistry with his co-stars in the previous 2 movies. The humor between the 2 actors is very strained and not funny, their dialog composed of endless, annoying bickering.
The action in this movie is nothing to write home about either. It's amazing, but I actually thought much of the effects in this movie looked incredibly cheesy! And this movie came out years AFTER the first 2 movies, whose effects to this day look fresh and engaging. Then we have the repetitive battles with Nazis. Now, I actually think that Temple of Doom is the best Indy flick, but Raiders still is entertaining with many positives, and at least the villains in that movie had a panache and mystique about them with talented actors playing them with flair, but the villains in this are incredibly stale with no flair.
What boggles my mind even more is that there is a healthy amount of fans that actually think THIS awful movie is the BEST of the original trilogy when it is nothing but a sad clone of the Raiders and not nearly as entertaining as Doom! A case where mindless action wins over real filmmaking. Can't win 'em all!