Even though it's really only a few weeks since I saw the Indiana Jones movies for the first time, I can just about begin to imagine what it might have been like to hear they were making a new one after 19 years, and wondering if they were going to mess it up. I thought Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was such a great way of ending Indy's story that maybe it should have been left alone. But credit to all concerned -- they've done themselves proud.

The movie is set in 1957, and the plot concerns a crystal skull with psychic properties which will, if returned to a certain temple in South America and reunited with its twelve fellows, will grant its bearer Ultimate Power. Or so the legend goes. But does the plot really matter in an Indiana Jones film?

The action set-pieces are as good as ever (I found myself grinning in places, just as I did when watching Raiders of the Lost Ark), and wear their absurdity gleefully on their sleeves. Perhaps the silliest point is when Indy survives a nuclear blast by taking refuge in a handy lead-lined fridge -- but this inspires cheerful laughter, not derision.

I was also impressed by the number of good performances. The passing years haven't had any discernible impact on Harrison Ford's ability to play the action hero. Karen Allen returns as Marion Ravenwood, who gets to do more stuff this time, and hence to be the feisty character she never had much chance to be in Raiders. Cate Blanchett's Irina Spalko (leader of the Russians after the Ultimate Power promised by the skull) is a proper female villain you can boo. Shia LaBoeuf plays Mutt Williams, a young greaser who at first seems to have the same function as Willie Scott in The Temple of Doom -- namely, to be the sidekick who's hopelessly out of his depth (at moments of uncertainty, he combs back his hair, clutching the comb like a talisman); but, unlike Willie, Mutt proves useful by the end. And there's John Hurt as Indy's former colleague Harold Oxley, who's been driven mad by the skull.

Although I pretty much dismissed the plot as irrelevant a few paragraphs ago, I did actually like the way Crystal Skull made the Indiana Jones 'format' (for want of a better word) work in a 1950s setting. And, most of all, if this fourth movie is to be the last (and I really don't see how there could be another), it makes a fine end to the saga of Indiana Jones. It adds to the series rather than diminishing the previous three, which is as good an outcome as one could ask for.

Got a bit behind with these: I taped this when it was on TV, but only just got around to watching it. To recap, this is my third post in a series as I watch the Indiana Jones movies for the first time, before (eventually) going to see the newest one (the previous two instalments are here and here).

So, this time is Indy on the hunt for the Holy Grail -- or, more accurately, on the hunt for his father, who was in the process of deciphering the Grail's whereabouts, but has been kidnapped by the Nazis, who seek the Grail for their own nefarious purposes. Flouting the law of diminishing sequels, I found that I enjoyed The Last Crusade the most of the three. I wasn't grinning as much as when watching Raiders of the Lost Ark, but I could put that down to familiarity with the formula as much as any inherent qualities of the individual films. The third movie is still non-stop action, but has a much better plot (it feels more like a proper globe-trotting adventure than the other two), and the female lead does not scream and need rescuing all the time (shame they had to make her a baddie for that to be the case, though).

Best of all, however, is the presence of Sean Connery as Indy's father, and the friction generated between Henry Jones Jr and Sr. I would go so far as to suggest that The Last Crusade is the ideal Indiana Jones film: it's exciting, it's funny, it has its tongue in its cheek without laughing behind its hand (pardon the imagery)... It's an old-fashioned adventure yarn of the best kind, a perfect end to the series -- which, of course, it was for 19 years. Right now, I feel as though The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull will have to be something very special for it to have been worth making. Log on to the next episode of IndyWatch to find out if it was...

Previously on IndyWatch: our intrepid hero watched the first of the BBC's weekly re-runs of the Indiana Jones movies, and found it quite entertaining. Will the second be as good? Read on to find out...

Hmm, I'm starting to think that maybe it's not such a good idea to watch all of Indy's adventures so close together, as it does tend to highlight how similar they are. At the start of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, I was grinning at the brio of the action, just as with Raiders of the Lost Ark. But I must admit to feeling a bit jaded by the end (even though Temple has the better ending of the two, as at least Indy has to do some work to beat the bad guys), even though there were genuine thrills like the mine-car chase (I wonder, did they make a theme park ride of that?).

I suspect this was mainly down to the script, which seemed quite... uninteresting in the middle; and in particular made the mistake of having a 'heroine' who was completely useless -- 'I broke a nail' gags are funny once, but not for two hours. These films would have told much better stories if they'd had female leads who could (and did) take care of themselves instead of needing to be rescued. Hopefully there'll be a character like that in the next two movies...

I'd hoped to write more than that, but there's really nothing else I want to say. Then again, maybe that says more than anything.

To be continued...

Straight out with it:: I have never sat down and watched an Indiana Jones movie. But, with Indy 4 coming to a cinema near me later this month, now seems a fine time to catch up. And, happily, the good old Beeb are showing the first three on successive Sundays; so last night, I sat down and watched Raiders of the Lost Ark (without any popcorn or Chocolate Orange, alas, but I managed).

Do I need to bother with a plot summary? It's 1936, and Indiana Jones (who, let's say, is the kind of archaeologist one would not imagine bothering to wait around for geophysics results and stuff like that) goes off to Egypt to stop the Nazis (aided by Indy's nemesis, the archaeologist Belloq) finding the lost Ark of the Covenant. Along the way, there is much adventure, before the baddies all get zapped by a deus ex machina (or is it a machina ex deus?).

No, the plot doesn't bear much scrutiny; but it's not that kind of movie. Watching Raiders, I found myself grinning a lot -- not because I thought the film was corny, but at the sheer joy and exuberance of it. It's as though Lucas and Spielberg realised exactly how daft the whole genre was, but were determined to celebrate it regardless. The main criticism I'd make is that, for such an apparently feisty heroine, Indy's old flame Marion has too little to do, unless you count being captured and rescued. As for the rest, I think it's best just to enjoy the ride.

Join us next week on IndyWatch for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom...