This movie is NOT WEAK!

Rating: Null/10 (4 November 2003)

OKAY, I can honestly say that I have read over 180 comments on this film (I'm studying it), and its appalling to read those who dismiss it and then admit they didn't even watch it all (because it was 'so' boring). You can't snub a film without watching the entirety first. Anyway, as I mentioned before, I have read a lot of comments and I wanted to write my own (after reading all the negative comments). Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, I just don't agree with many, and I'm sure many won't agree with me:
Firstly, For those of you who believe that the scene where young Indy finds his hat, whip, scar, love for adventure, and fear of snakes all in 10 minutes is "the most contrived and unbelievable" thing you have seen, then you are somewhat arrogant. To just blow it off as 'unbelievable' is weak, could you perhaps just ask yourself that maybe all he needed was inspiration. Indy found his inspiration within Fedora (the one who gave him his hat). Already Fedora inspired him to 1) find his love for adventure 2) find his 'look' for adventure. Indy met him once, but maybe all he needed was just a little inspiration, which is just what Fedora provided. Ok, I agree adding in his whip and fear of snakes was a little far-fetched, but don't completely call it 'contrived' or 'unbelievable.'
Secondly, its a movie. Must everything in a movie represent reality all the time?? I suppose evil aliens really will visit earth, take over our satellites and begin destroying the world. Or that there is a spy who was frozen for 40 years then unfrozen so he could take on his arch-nemesis.
The purpose of a movie is to temporarily remove the viewer from reality and place them 'inside' the movie, accepting what ever unfolds. I accepted the fact that Indiana and his father were fighting Nazi planes in the air, I didn't say `wait a minute. No. that blue screen is way too cheesy. I can SEE how fake it is. This is definitely ruining my movie watching experience.' I just accepted it as it was, they at least ATTEMPTED to make it look decent which is fine by me. A movie is supposed to be enjoyed, not immediately dismissed because of minor 'flaws.'
Another commenter mentioned that they found the whole father/son relationship too 'loopy' and he had never mentioned his father in earlier films. If you had actually watched the film you would have noticed he held a resentment towards his father, thus he would not have mentioned him any earlier. He didn't really believe his father was a good 'father-figure' and never really spoke to him since they had that "quite drink," - a milkshake, 20 years earlier.
AND to those who even CONSIDER temple of doom to be better than the last crusade must be INSANE. Ok! I can handle the unrealistic parts in a movie, but an 8 yr old kid karate chopping people was going a little too far. Also the love interest played a very annoying part, they should have killed her off 5 minutes after she went on screen.
The one-liners were great in the last crusade, and the chemistry between Connery and Harrison didn't fail us, they were great together and Connery bought in a refreshing new character in the Indiana Jones story. For those who didn't find sean connery, or the one-liners the slightest bit funny, then I really do feel sorry for you.
I'm not saying The Last Crusade is the best movie of all time. I mean, its a great movie, but it does have a few flaws. Then again, what movie doesn't? The only complaints I really have is the way they turned Marcus Brody into a complete imbecile. They could have least made him slightly more intelligent, it's not like they needed him for comic relief, Connery was handling that fine. Also, I have to admit that it seemed to lack originality. However, although it followed the same basic storyline, it didn't fail to keep me entertained. In what other film can you find a boat, train, plane, bike and tank action sequences, plus drama, comedy, action, adventure, romance AND including issues such as faith, morals, betrayal, family, etc.. NO ONE can possibly say that this film was a complete failure! And if they do, then they cant appreciate a good film when they see one.