[negative1]

grady,

great response...i do actually agree with most of your points..
i don't really want to drag this out....but i will post some defense
of them....although being an apologist isn't exactly what i'm trying to do..

i don't think this film was that great either,
but compared to:
================================
sahara
national treasure
the mummy

this still stands head and shoulders above them..
which might not be saying much..

i take it you actually liked 'last crusade'...i felt it was
a huge letdown as the then finale, and was a very weak
climax for the trilogy.....it was so derivative of the first
film, that i had a hard time taking it seriously...especially
as you mention the overall simplicity of it..there was no
suspense, no motivation, and besides sean connery just
'being there' underutilized.....along with the pseudo
backstory to introduce the 'indiana jones' character..
did we really need to see him as a young man?

anyways, i digress, as i don't mean to dig too far back
into 'the last crusade'...

i'm sure many volumes have been written about the trilogy,
what each movie meant, their impact etc...and i don't mean
to revisit that here...

i'll post more clarifying points about indy 4 later on..

thanks for your detailed points....

later
-1