Why do we hate Temple of Doom???

[temple of john]

I have found that most Indy fans consider TOD to be at the bottom rung of the ladder in terms of Indy films. Why??? I personally didn't really like the film. I liked it more as a kid when I was not looking for certain elements in the film. What do you feel about it?

[ClintonHammond]

I think it's the best Indy move by half a head at least.

[intergamer]

The only thing is that certain scenes like the ones in the little sankara stone village and some other scenes like the pulling out the heart, for some reason I find them a little weird and hard to watch repeatedly. And I really don't like the part where Indy is (maybe?) brainwashed by the evilness, it's also not the kind of stuff I want to see more than once.

So Casual fans like Raiders and LC the best, since they really capture the Indiana Jones spirit and are hard not to love the first time you watch it.. as you start to get into the trilogy more and more, that is when you realize that ToD is underappreciated.

But out of the three, LC is the most generally rewatchable, Raiders is the first and maybe the best, and ToD is the most interesting - but only in the context of the other two.

[Ryan Jones]

Honestly, I can't say that I have a favorite, but Radiers is definitly number 1. But for Temple of Doom, I like it just as much as any of the other films. I like it because of all the humor in it, and it has a really good storyline(just like all of them) and it has some really good stunts in it. I think the reason people don't like it is because its "dark", and it isn't like anything Raiders or The Last Crusade was.

Ryan

[Paden]

I think that part of the issue with TOD, for some viewers, is the structure of the story itself. Both Raiders and Last Crusade involve extended quests over multiple locations, involving a variety of mysteries and obstacles. Raiders had an unrelenting pace wherein the story remained in constant motion, always offering the audience action, suspense, or wonder. I tend to think that TOD was written with an eye toward recreating that unrelenting pace. It succeeded, but in doing so some of the other elements mentioned above, which made Raiders so special, were omitted. TOD takes place essentially in two locations, with the location in India being the primary setting for the majority of the film. Once events surrounding the Thugee get rolling, the movie certainly delivers an ample share of battles and thrills. But it felt almost more like a pure action film, wherein the hero unexpectedly finds himself in the midst of a battle with the forces of evil, not a "race for the prize". Although it was certainly engaging, it never had the “grand quest” feel that you found in Raiders or Crusade.

As well, a couple of the elements seemed out of balance, when compared to the other films in the trilogy. Some of the graphically horrible incidents in Raiders (i.e. the discovery of Forrestal, the fate of Belloq, Toht, and Dietrich when the Ark is opened) were sufficiently horrific to make audiences squirm, but they weren’t over the top. TOD seemed to take those elements a little too far, with incidents that seemed unnecessary to the story, such as Willie’s grueling experience at the formal dinner. Additionally, the manifestation of the supernatural is generally awe-inspiring in the Jones films. Both the Ark and Grail produce occurrences that inspire amazement. The climactic incident involving the Sankara Stones is a bit underwhelming and Indy’s “possession” feels a bit forced in context.

What I’m driving at is that, for myself and probably others, TOD’s story structure differed from its predecessor and successor enough that viewers that expected the quest/search for hidden treasure aspect of the other two films were somewhat disappointed by what the movie offered. As well, the way some of the above mentioned horror and supernatural elements were utilized gave the movie a very different “feel” from the others in the trilogy. Some like the ambience of TOD better than the other chapters in the trilogy. But those that are strong proponents of one or both of the other chapters probably find its significant differences sufficient to render it less enjoyable.

Just my two cents. For the record, Raiders is by far my favorite of the trilogy, but I genuinely enjoy TOD, just not to the extent that I favor the other chapters in the saga. :)

[indyt]

I guess Raiders and LC seem more like.....well, Indy. I know I probably need to explain that better!!:rolleyes:

[spohlso]

For me, Raiders is one of my all-time favorite movies. Indiana Jones was one of the coolest movie characters I had ever seen. I loved every second of that film.

I was INCREDIBLY dissapointed with TOD. IT was a terrible movie to me. Categorically:

A) Indiana Jones wasn't as cool. ~He hung around with some little kid. This detracted from the character in Raiders who was totally self sufficient. Much like the difference between the original Bob Kane "Batman" comics of the 1930s and the "Batman & Robin" comics that followed. No grown adult is cool when their best friend is still in the single digits chronologically.

B) Willie Scott ~This character just sucked. The constant screaming is nothing but pure annoyance. Can't stand any scene in this film with her in it.

C) Humor level a bit too slapstick ~Humor is a good thing when done right, but TOD with it's "Looky at the disgusting things them crazy foriegners eat" style humor and "That Oriental kid sounds funny when says things" style jokes just further distanced this movie from the coolness that was Raiders.

D) Stunts too far over the top ~One thing that makes Raiders cool (to me at least) was the exciting stunt scenes. They were exciting because, at least visually, they seemed like something that could have really happened. A guy jumps from a horse to a truck? Risky, but I can imagine it. A runaway mine cart flies off a broken track and just happens to land perfectly on another track several hundred feet away? That's just getting silly. I can't really connect with any sense of excitment when I don't feel that chracter is at any sort of risk (which I don't if it seems like the character isn't even existing in the realm of the possible.)

E) No real story structure ~At least in Raiders (and LC) Indy had a goal and took specific steps to reach it. In TOD, he falls out a window into the car he JUST HAPPENS to need to be in, jumps in a plane that JUST HAPPENS to belong to the bad guy, falls from the plane to a place that JUST HAPPENS to need his help and when he gets to the final showdown with the bad guy, the British Army JUST HAPPENS to be there when he needs them.

F) Lame villain ~With Raiders, Indy and Belloq had at least an implied rivalry. With TOD being a prequel, there was a wonderful opportunity to expand on that. Instead we get a villain who doesn't know Indy from Adam. Mola Ram was a decent enough villain I suppose, but the lack of an even implied history made him very one dimensional.

G)Too much magic ~With Raiders, the magic Ark stuff was just at the very end (with the exception of a Nazi logo getting scorched.) It gave the supernatural aspect more weight, as they weren't depicted as everyday events. TOD has magic rocks, vodoo dolls, spontaneous combustion and demonic possesion. Magic crap morning, noon and night. May as well take place at Hogwarts.

H) ~Lack of continuity ~My biggest gripe with TOD. If it's 1 year before Raiders, what the heck happened to this kid who was inseperable from Indy? I can understand dumping Willie, but they made it seem like Indy was practically Short Round's adopted father. Also, in Raiders Indy seems very skeptical about magic even existing. This from a man who not 1 year earlier saw a chest heal itself while a still beating heart was removed (which in turn burst into flame) used magic himself to make ROCKS CATCH ON FIRE, was possesed by an ancient Asian demon, got voodoo smacked doll-wiseand had to stop someone from magically removing his own heart. If all that stuff happened to me, I'd be a bit more open minded.

I just realized I could go on all day, so I'll just leave it with....
At least they kind of started to get back on track with LC.

[IndyBuff]

ToD is my favorite Indy film but I can cetainly see where the darkness and setting of the story would turn off viewers, especially casual fans and newcomers to the series. The action sequences are great and the last thirty minutes of the film is a pure roller coaster ride and non-stop thrills.

I think that some of its charm, for me anyway, comes from a few different factors:

1.) Since the film is a prequel, it shows that Indy was a seasoned adventurer and explorer and that artifacts and traveling were nothing new to him.

2.) We see how Indy is able to adapt to different situations and different people. He plays a kind of father figure to Short Round and he's able to help Willie, who obviously has never experienced anything like this before. He also gets caught in the middle of a scheme that he wasn't expecting and uses his resources to get out of it (although this happens in the other two films as well).

3.) I give the producers credit for taking the series in a new direction. Instead of simply trying to make another copy of ROTLA they went out of their way to experiment and do something different. Obviously people have their own opinions about whether or not this worked, but at least they were willing to take risks here.

I love all three films and picking a favorite is like trying to pick a favorite child. All three are brilliant but ToD is slightly my favorite with ROTLA and LC right behind it.:)

[spohlso]

Not to be argumentative or anything... but WOW!!!!

It's like you and I went and saw 2 completely different films. Don't take this personally, but I have to express specific disagreements:


1.) Since the film is a prequel, it shows that Indy was a seasoned adventurer and explorer and that artifacts and traveling were nothing new to him.
I never at any point during Raiders thought anything less. It did not give me ANY impression that it was the first time Indy faced adventure. He seemed quite adept (and perhaps even experienced) at exploration and obtaining rare antiquities. In this manner (I personally) felt that TOD could only be called redundant.


2.) We see how Indy is able to adapt to different situations and different people. He plays a kind of father figure to Short Round and he's able to help Willie, who obviously has never experienced anything like this before. He also gets caught in the middle of a scheme that he wasn't expecting and uses his resources to get out of it.
The Short Round thing came across more like a continuity error. As if the writers had forgotten that INdy DIDN'T have sidekeick in Raiders. Having to help WIllie is not something I would consider a plus for TOD, as to using his wits to get out of a situation, again, redundancy at most.


3.) I give the producers credit for taking the series in a new direction. Instead of simply trying to make another copy of ROTLA they went out of their way to experiment and do something different. Obviously people have their own opinions about whether or not this worked, but at least they were willing to take risks here.

I couldn't possibly disagree more than with this statement. TOD did not seem like a bold new direction. It came across as lazy screenwriting. Take a movie with stunts and a few jokes and put in bigger stunts and sillier jokes. I will call TOD a lot of things, but risk taking expiremental theater is probably the last thing I would ever think of in regards to this film.

[phatr32]

what paden said!

[Ryan Jones]

Well, in response to the mine cart landing perfectly on the tracks, I know that there is a 1 to a billion chance of that happening, BUT, I couldn't think that they actually took it seriously. They had to have put that in so people would go "YEAH RIGHT". And actually, if all possible get a portable dvd player in a car, then drive over bumbs at high speeds while watching the mine cart chase. Its just like a roller coaster ride, but better. And, if you want a good laugh that is funny, listen to the sounds the Thugees make when they come around and hit the fallen Thugee on the tracks. I laughed forever.

Ryan

[HovitosKing]

On the contrary, I thought ToD was brilliant. I love all 3 films, each for different reasons. Raiders is my favorite, but that's generally a given with fans.

Additionally, I just discovered that Dan Aykroyd played the part of Earl Weber, the man who organized Indy's flight out of Shanghai. If I knew this at some point in the past, it had been lost in the infinite recesses of my memory until recently. I think it's funny.

[temple of john]

I think if they had not had a "Willie" or a "Short Round", I may have liked the film more.

[temple of john]

On the contrary, I thought ToD was brilliant. I love all 3 films, each for different reasons. Raiders is my favorite, but that's generally a given with fans.

Additionally, I just discovered that Dan Aykroyd played the part of Earl Weber, the man who organized Indy's flight out of Shanghai. If I knew this at some point in the past, it had been lost in the infinite recesses of my memory until recently. I think it's funny.

I believe that in that same scene, Spielberg and Lucas are standing in the background also. Someone else may be able to verify that though. I know I read it somewhere.

[indyt]

I didnt know that, cool.

[ROSLEE]

:) I really liked Temple Of Doom. It was dark but it was a great sequal to Raiders.

-R-

[ClintonHammond]

Except that it was, in fact, a pre-qual

,-)

[monkey]

I think that part of the issue with TOD, for some viewers, is the structure of the story itself. Both Raiders and Last Crusade involve extended quests over multiple locations, involving a variety of mysteries and obstacles. Raiders had an unrelenting pace wherein the story remained in constant motion, always offering the audience action, suspense, or wonder. I tend to think that TOD was written with an eye toward recreating that unrelenting pace. It succeeded, but in doing so some of the other elements mentioned above, which made Raiders so special, were omitted. TOD takes place essentially in two locations, with the location in India being the primary setting for the majority of the film. Once events surrounding the Thugee get rolling, the movie certainly delivers an ample share of battles and thrills. But it felt almost more like a pure action film, wherein the hero unexpectedly finds himself in the midst of a battle with the forces of evil, not a "race for the prize". Although it was certainly engaging, it never had the “grand quest” feel that you found in Raiders or Crusade.

As well, a couple of the elements seemed out of balance, when compared to the other films in the trilogy. Some of the graphically horrible incidents in Raiders (i.e. the discovery of Forrestal, the fate of Belloq, Toht, and Dietrich when the Ark is opened) were sufficiently horrific to make audiences squirm, but they weren’t over the top. TOD seemed to take those elements a little too far, with incidents that seemed unnecessary to the story, such as Willie’s grueling experience at the formal dinner. Additionally, the manifestation of the supernatural is generally awe-inspiring in the Jones films. Both the Ark and Grail produce occurrences that inspire amazement. The climactic incident involving the Sankara Stones is a bit underwhelming and Indy’s “possession” feels a bit forced in context.

What I’m driving at is that, for myself and probably others, TOD’s story structure differed from its predecessor and successor enough that viewers that expected the quest/search for hidden treasure aspect of the other two films were somewhat disappointed by what the movie offered. As well, the way some of the above mentioned horror and supernatural elements were utilized gave the movie a very different “feel” from the others in the trilogy. Some like the ambience of TOD better than the other chapters in the trilogy. But those that are strong proponents of one or both of the other chapters probably find its significant differences sufficient to render it less enjoyable.

Just my two cents. For the record, Raiders is by far my favorite of the trilogy, but I genuinely enjoy TOD, just not to the extent that I favor the other chapters in the saga. :)

This is one of the best analyses of TOD that I have ever read. Well done Paden.

Truly TOD had quite a different 'feel' than the other two films.

Personally TOD is my favorite of the trilogy. But then, I've always been kind of different. To me TOD is almost the epitome of everything that an Indiana Jones movie should be. There were a few holes though. Paden points out two of these............firstly, the Sankara Stones.............."underwhelming" is a good choice of word. I mean, compared to the Ark of the Covenant, and the Holy Grail.......well, it's kind of tough to compete. Plus it's not something familiar in our Western Civilization.

Secondly, and in my opinion much more important is the fact that TOD did indeed lack the "Grand Quest" aspect that Raiders and Last Crusade both had. There indeed were NOT enough locations. In my opinion, every Indiana Jones adventure should have at least one (probably a few) good 'planning' scenes, where, in some comfortable locale, the 'quest' is mapped out through dialogue and interaction of characters. i.e. the scenes at the college in both Raiders and LC...........the scene at Sallah's apartment in Raiders.....etc.

But I still love TOD........think I might just watch it today..........

[Moedred]

Throwing a rock at a Thuggee's head while surrounded by enemies in unfamiliar territory is a stupid, contrived thing for Indy to do. The plot takes a 20 minute detour. Finally, with not much more of a plan, he vows to save the children for real this time... and does.

[Vlad Dracula]

F) Lame villain ~With Raiders, Indy and Belloq had at least an implied rivalry.

Lame villain!?

Mola Ram was one bad ass dude. Easily the best villain out of all three movies.

[Michael Jones]

I think Harrison Ford gives his best performance in TOD.

[indifan101]

I can't stand for Willie's wines, b-i-t-c-hing and screaming! This part drives me insane!:mad:

[Grizzlor]

I LOVE Temple of Doom, just as much as the other films. It was my first Indy movie that I saw. I rented it on video tape like a year or 2 after it was out and made a copy, which I watched all the time. It was definitely more of a kiddie movie, but so what? Harrison and Sean made Last Crusade my favorite though. TOD was still great, although I agree the room of bugs and pulling out the heart were really dumb.

[CMNeir]

I thtink it was a little dark for an Indy film. I liked the first for the action and the third for the family and comedy. The second was good and alll, but if i had to choose. It'd be the 1st and 3rd Indy film.

[darthsidious42]

TOD is the best of the three:)

[JediIndy]

Yes, I think Temple of Doom is actually the second best next to Raiders. Crusade really was just a clone copy of Raiders, except they changed a few elements and added a father figure. Temple, George and Steven really pushed the envelope. I mean they really, really pushed the envelope. Sure they got alot of negative feedback from the critics and general movie going public. But it still won alot of awards for origininality and sound and set design.

I especially like it and the reason why it's so rewatchable is that its so DIFFERENT. They took alot of different chances and the movie is pretty cool and original.

Myself i'm east Indian by decent and i've been to India and I have seen the Sankara stones and recognize all the statues of the gods and goddesses. Sure Kali ma is truly not a evil goddes in the Hindu Pantheon. Like Shiva she is scary looking because she destroys evil people. (Rakshasa's or demons they call them in India) They did change that and took some artistic licence.

[Deadlock]

"Pretty cool and original"? Not so much (http://www.theraider.net/features/articles/gunga_doom.php). :)

[westford]

I like Temple of Doom. OK, so if you take Raiders as being the "typical" Indy film, Last Crusade is closer to that "template" than Temple is, so Temple sticks out as being different. But that doesn't make it a bad film.

[qwerty]

"Pretty cool and original"? Not so much (http://www.theraider.net/features/articles/gunga_doom.php). :)
I just followed this link and DAMN
Temple of Doom is just the copy of Gunga Din

[JediIndy]

Yes, I read the link and yes it looks like they copied most of gunga din. I never heard of Gunga din. One day i'll check it out, but Temple of Doom like the Phantom Menace did take alot more risks than most hollywood films these days. I personally salute George Lucas for trying to tell a story, even if it was copied than try to get as many people in the theatre as possible. Him and Steven could have easily had Indiana seek out another famous western artifact like the spear of destiny or Noah's ark, but he chose to go to India. Being East Indian i'm happy he showed some of our rich culture. Yes it was depicted wrongly but most people i've talked to are intelligent enough to understand that East Indians DO NOT eat baby snakes and chilled monkey brains! :)

[doctor jones]

ToD was my least favorite i don't know why but it definitly has a darker tone:eek:

[Gustav]

I have considered each of the three films my favourite at some point in time. First it was LC then Raiders and then TOD and now I can't decide. I don't think TOD is any less Indy though. In Raiders and LC he seems more scholarly because he starts off in a college classroom in both and everything that follows is sort of in Indy's agenda, but TOD is just something that befalls Indy and he's just going along with it. He still seems like he knows pretty much everything though because he can understand the language of that little Indian village and he is aware of the Sankara stones and the Thuggee cult and apparently the British extermination of the Thuggee in the first half of the 1800's. So he's still got that characteristic and he's also definitely got the cocky humour that he has in the other two films, in fact I think he tones down on the humour significantly in LC. He also still gets the crap beat out of him in some good scuffles but he always wins. Getting the crap beat out of him and still winning is a major characteristic of Indiana Jones.

I think of TOD as sort of a weekend excursion for Indiana Jones.

[Abe Vayoda]

I don't hate TOD, I really like it, in fact...
It has a few problems, but not as many as LC. Which, other than the father son angle, I didn't like at all. Only thing I would have cut would have been the dinner sequence.

They both lacked the magic that Raiders had.

[ROSLEE]

"I have considered each of the three films my favourite at some point in time"

That's how I see it! They all are the best too me. :)

-R-

[Moedred]

Well, the score ain't the best. It suits the tone of the movie fine, but there's a reason why no one's demanding it on CD. All that clanging and chanting and some woman howling "reowrrrrr!" As with Darth Maul's theme -- Khara Matha Khara Rath Amah! Khara Rath Amah Yuddha Khara! -- Williams imitates Carmina Burana when he should stick to strings. (Unless it's Exsultate Justi from "Empire of the Sun.")

By the way, what are the Sanskrit "mug o rum, keg o rum" temple chant lyrics anyway? How do you sing "Anything Goes" in Chinese? I wish someone other than me would do the research so I could sing along to my favorite movies. :(

[indy_123]

Why do you Hate TOD It was the best Indiana jones movie for now. I mean Indiana jones 4 might beat TOD.:whip:

[Luisiana Jones]

1-Way too fantastic, not very believable, and its not that the rest are, but u get what I mean.

2-Short round is not cool, but not for being himself, but for being that little annoying thing that hangs around Indy.

3-Girl is the worst of the trilogy, just lame.

4-History doesnt have a nice plot.

5-Where are the nazis???

[Cammy]

Hmm... when I saw the title of this thread, I decided I might pitch in and throw in my two cents worth. But I'm not entirely sure what it was about TOD I didn't like.

The girl. Maybe it was the character, who seemed like such a weak sidekick, and I love the idea of strong women around Indiana Jones to give him a run for his money. That's why I loved Marion so much, she was tough.

The story was well, strange. The idea of a Thugee cult didn't seem to mesh with me. I prefer it when Indy movies focus more on the archaelogical and religious stuff than mystical, ancient cults. I had no problem with the story's progression, it was certainly entertaining. It probably doesn't help that I've always been scared out of my wits of that particular movie especially when they're lowering victims into that pit. *shivers*

Despite that, I enjoyed it. Short Round added humour to the show, but yes it was a little odd he appeared out of nowhere, hence why for years I thought TOD was the 3rd movie. I feel inspired now to go and watch Temple of Doom and maybe the rest too!

[ROTLA]

The reasons I considered ToD to be the least of the three:

1. Shorty - as others have pointed out, he's more annoying than entertaining. The movie could have been made without him and still have taken the same path. I just don't think he really helped the story progress.

2. Environment - I think spending so much of the film in Mola Ram's lair just became too much.

3. Story - Don't get me wrong, it's not bad. But it's somewhat flat compared to RotLA and LC. It's too simple. The other films had several layers, while ToD was pretty basic. This may well be the biggest problem I have with it.

4. Willie - The problem with her is the noise. Actually, this is slowly becoming a non-factor. I was always bothered by her presence. Too much whining, not a strong person. But I'm finally starting to embrace the difference between her and Marion/Elsa.

[H_Donovan]

I think that part of the issue with TOD, for some viewers, is the structure of the story itself. Both Raiders and Last Crusade involve extended quests over multiple locations, involving a variety of mysteries and obstacles. Raiders had an unrelenting pace wherein the story remained in constant motion, always offering the audience action, suspense, or wonder. I tend to think that TOD was written with an eye toward recreating that unrelenting pace. It succeeded, but in doing so some of the other elements mentioned above, which made Raiders so special, were omitted. TOD takes place essentially in two locations, with the location in India being the primary setting for the majority of the film. Once events surrounding the Thugee get rolling, the movie certainly delivers an ample share of battles and thrills. But it felt almost more like a pure action film, wherein the hero unexpectedly finds himself in the midst of a battle with the forces of evil, not a "race for the prize". Although it was certainly engaging, it never had the “grand quest” feel that you found in Raiders or Crusade.

As well, a couple of the elements seemed out of balance, when compared to the other films in the trilogy. Some of the graphically horrible incidents in Raiders (i.e. the discovery of Forrestal, the fate of Belloq, Toht, and Dietrich when the Ark is opened) were sufficiently horrific to make audiences squirm, but they weren’t over the top. TOD seemed to take those elements a little too far, with incidents that seemed unnecessary to the story, such as Willie’s grueling experience at the formal dinner. Additionally, the manifestation of the supernatural is generally awe-inspiring in the Jones films. Both the Ark and Grail produce occurrences that inspire amazement. The climactic incident involving the Sankara Stones is a bit underwhelming and Indy’s “possession” feels a bit forced in context.

What I’m driving at is that, for myself and probably others, TOD’s story structure differed from its predecessor and successor enough that viewers that expected the quest/search for hidden treasure aspect of the other two films were somewhat disappointed by what the movie offered. As well, the way some of the above mentioned horror and supernatural elements were utilized gave the movie a very different “feel” from the others in the trilogy. Some like the ambience of TOD better than the other chapters in the trilogy. But those that are strong proponents of one or both of the other chapters probably find its significant differences sufficient to render it less enjoyable.

Just my two cents. For the record, Raiders is by far my favorite of the trilogy, but I genuinely enjoy TOD, just not to the extent that I favor the other chapters in the saga. :)


I whole-heartedly agree with this post.

While I did like TOD, I didn't enjoy it as much as Raiders of TLC. Why? I don't know, this film kind of got away from what Indiana Jones is, IMO. No Marcus, Sallah, university, or anything that anyone was familiar with from Raiders. A little bit too much of Dark magic for some too, I believe.

Not to mention Kate Capshaw's CONSTANT screaming...:dead:

[roto13]

Reasons ToD is the best of the three:

1) Shirtless Indy

That is all.

[roundshort]

Reasons ToD is the best of the three:

1) Shirtless Indy

That is all.


Actually that is just plan scary, roto13 I hope you are a female . . .

[roto13]

Actually that is just plan scary, roto13 I hope you are a female . . .
Does it matter?

[roundshort]

Does it matter?

If a shirtless Indy excits you . . .I know Canyon is into it!

[PhantomStranger]

Hate! God NO! I love this movie, in fact I think it's far better then "...The Last Crusade" Not tha I think "Crusade" is a bad movie, it's not, I just thought it was a pale imitation of the original "Raiders" were as "Temple.." had an original type of villian, great action scenes and is overall a superior adventure movie. In fact, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and watch it again now.:whip:

[JerryKing]

The Indy trilogy progressively goes down, from the best - Raiders - to the good - Temple - to the, to say the least, average - Crusade...

"Crusade" would have been improved enormously, however, if only that whole wretched "Teendy" opening had been cut in the editing room...

[PhantomStranger]

...

"Crusade" would have been improved enormously, however, if only that whole wretched "Teendy" opening had been cut in the editing room...


Agreed. That whole begining irritated the hell out of me. They tried to squeeze everything that had made Indy into the man he was, into that one sole adventure, I truly hated it.:whip:

[Doctor Jones'89]

ToD is a good movie in my opinion, but Raiders is a wonderful movie with capital W, because Raiders is the adventure that everybody wanna live.
However I love all three films because everyone is very different from the others: Raiders is a strong powerfull movie with action, with a love story and with a mithologycal chest, maybe the most famous, that complete the atmosphere of this grat adventure movie. ToD give much more space to action and humor. Last Crusade is the story based on relationships, feelings and also humor.
I hope we'll agree at all if I say:
If the Advencture has a name...
...it must be Indiana Jones :whip:

[temple of john]

ToD is a good movie in my opinion, but Raiders is a wonderful movie with capital W, because Raiders is the adventure that everybody wanna live.
However I love all three films because everyone is very different from the others: Raiders is a strong powerfull movie with action, with a love story and with a mithologycal chest, maybe the most famous, that complete the atmosphere of this grat adventure movie. ToD give much more space to action and humor. Last Crusade is the story based on relationships, feelings and also humor.
I hope we'll agree at all if I say:
If the Advencture has a name...
...it must be Indiana Jones :whip:

I like this post alot. Very well put Doc. :whip:

[Doctor Jones'89]

Thank you a lot temple of john! :D

[Captain Katanga]

I don't think ToD made the relic Indy was after (3 stones) interesting enough. The Grail and the Ark we had good build up for it and they made it interesting before Indy even finds them. The rocks in ToD are boring and by the end you don't even care because Indy let all the prisoned kids go anyway so what good are the rocks? ToD is decent, but if they learned anything...you need to make the relic Indy is after mysterious and worth the adventure to keep the audience interested.

[qwerty]

I disagree. ToD is the only Indy story that might be even close to realistic. It is a good story, not original, but still good.
If you want a big Indy advanture watch ROTLA again.

[darthsidious42]

I don't think ToD made the relic Indy was after (3 stones) interesting enough. The Grail and the Ark we had good build up for it and they made it interesting before Indy even finds them. The rocks in ToD are boring and by the end you don't even care because Indy let all the prisoned kids go anyway so what good are the rocks? ToD is decent, but if they learned anything...you need to make the relic Indy is after mysterious and worth the adventure to keep the audience interested.


It's not so much the stones as it is saving the childeren and bringing life back to the village. Just like The Last Crusade is more about father and son than it is about the grail.

[temple of john]

I disagree. ToD is the only Indy story that might be even close to realistic. It is a good story, not original, but still good.
If you want a big Indy advanture watch ROTLA again.

I agree. Ripping someone's heart out and having it still beat in your hands is very realistic. Just the same for the magical rocks. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[indifan101]

So is the guy still being alive!:rolleyes:

[Moedred]

Of course it's possible to live without your heart... otherwise cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) would be a waste of time. Staying conscious is harder.

The heart is myogenic and can beat autonomously. Try this experiment in your back yard: place a live frog's heart in the palm of your hand and spit on it. (Don't worry, it won't catch fire.) It will beat for several minutes.

[Moedred]

Each "magic" stone is a shiva linga, or "Shiva's phallus." I'm sure a character who hung out with Freud would have caught on to that. The movie didn't make this clear, though there was a lot of talk about "having the stones." I think Lucasfilm missed a great opportunity to license products for purchase in adult super stores.

Lots of cultures use human phallic symbols to ritualistically fertilize the crops. Right now Finn is probably dancing around a big decorated Midsummer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midsummer) maypole, hoping for a plentiful harvest. I've done this in Sweden. The party is truly magic.

[qwerty]

I agree. Ripping someone's heart out and having it still beat in your hands is very realistic. Just the same for the magical rocks. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I did say "close to realistic" and not realistic.

[temple of john]

I did say "close to realistic" and not realistic.

I was only joking Qwerty...:whip:

[Abe Vayoda]

Try this experiment in your back yard: place a live frog's heart in the palm of your hand and spit on it. (Don't worry, it won't catch fire.) It will beat for several minutes.

jesus... what the ####! Have you done this?

I didn't know that about the phallus stones. That's funny, I guess more gay humor for Mr. Cranky then...

[Moedred]

what the ####! Have you done this?
I have not. But William Harvey did for his 1628 book, the start of modern physiology.
There are plenty of live frog dissection labs online. Their hearts can beat autonomously longer than a human's. How long is a question for Jack Kevorkian, the live organ harvester.

[ElodieJones]

I don't hate Temple of Doom.
I prefere that movie to Last Crusade !

The only bad thing is the violence !
But the movie is really great.
Many excellent scenes, like the bridge, the mine car chase, the Jungle, and others...
Many of them comes from a first scenario for Raiders.

[ClintonHammond]

"I don't hate Temple of Doom.
I prefere that movie to Last Crusade !"

I do as well EJ.... :-)

[Violet Indy]

Don't hate it either. When I first saw it at nine, I thought it was awesome!!! No violence from that film ever scared me. It scares the crap outta my brother though!!! My mum's favourite of the trilogy is Temple of Doom.

[seasider]

For me, Raiders is one of my all-time favorite movies. Indiana Jones was one of the coolest movie characters I had ever seen. I loved every second of that film.

I was INCREDIBLY dissapointed with TOD. IT was a terrible movie to me. Categorically:

A) Indiana Jones wasn't as cool. ~He hung around with some little kid. This detracted from the character in Raiders who was totally self sufficient. Much like the difference between the original Bob Kane "Batman" comics of the 1930s and the "Batman & Robin" comics that followed. No grown adult is cool when their best friend is still in the single digits chronologically.

B) Willie Scott ~This character just sucked. The constant screaming is nothing but pure annoyance. Can't stand any scene in this film with her in it.

C) Humor level a bit too slapstick ~Humor is a good thing when done right, but TOD with it's "Looky at the disgusting things them crazy foriegners eat" style humor and "That Oriental kid sounds funny when says things" style jokes just further distanced this movie from the coolness that was Raiders.

D) Stunts too far over the top ~One thing that makes Raiders cool (to me at least) was the exciting stunt scenes. They were exciting because, at least visually, they seemed like something that could have really happened. A guy jumps from a horse to a truck? Risky, but I can imagine it. A runaway mine cart flies off a broken track and just happens to land perfectly on another track several hundred feet away? That's just getting silly. I can't really connect with any sense of excitment when I don't feel that chracter is at any sort of risk (which I don't if it seems like the character isn't even existing in the realm of the possible.)

E) No real story structure ~At least in Raiders (and LC) Indy had a goal and took specific steps to reach it. In TOD, he falls out a window into the car he JUST HAPPENS to need to be in, jumps in a plane that JUST HAPPENS to belong to the bad guy, falls from the plane to a place that JUST HAPPENS to need his help and when he gets to the final showdown with the bad guy, the British Army JUST HAPPENS to be there when he needs them.

F) Lame villain ~With Raiders, Indy and Belloq had at least an implied rivalry. With TOD being a prequel, there was a wonderful opportunity to expand on that. Instead we get a villain who doesn't know Indy from Adam. Mola Ram was a decent enough villain I suppose, but the lack of an even implied history made him very one dimensional.

G)Too much magic ~With Raiders, the magic Ark stuff was just at the very end (with the exception of a Nazi logo getting scorched.) It gave the supernatural aspect more weight, as they weren't depicted as everyday events. TOD has magic rocks, vodoo dolls, spontaneous combustion and demonic possesion. Magic crap morning, noon and night. May as well take place at Hogwarts.

H) ~Lack of continuity ~My biggest gripe with TOD. If it's 1 year before Raiders, what the heck happened to this kid who was inseperable from Indy? I can understand dumping Willie, but they made it seem like Indy was practically Short Round's adopted father. Also, in Raiders Indy seems very skeptical about magic even existing. This from a man who not 1 year earlier saw a chest heal itself while a still beating heart was removed (which in turn burst into flame) used magic himself to make ROCKS CATCH ON FIRE, was possesed by an ancient Asian demon, got voodoo smacked doll-wiseand had to stop someone from magically removing his own heart. If all that stuff happened to me, I'd be a bit more open minded.

I just realized I could go on all day, so I'll just leave it with....
At least they kind of started to get back on track with LC.

You make some good points. I'll try to add my 2 cents on some of these:

A)I don't see why Indy having a kid tagging along would have made him less cool. I actually thought it added an extra dimension to his character. Indy never has been and never is completely self-sufficient. Every adventure he has, had help from friends and contacts. In this case it just happened to a kid.

B) I agree that she was annoying, but I think that was the whole idea. She was the anti-Marion. Almost.

C) TOD was full of dark humor. You had some of that in Raiders with Indy shooting the swordsman. Humor will always be subjective to the viewer. If you're trying to make a case for racial stereotypes with your examples then you may have a point, but in doing so you might as well call the entire trilogy racist.

D)Stunt believability is like sort of like humor. Subjective to the eye of the beholder. I agree that many of the action sequences in the movie were a bit over the top, but I think that was the intent for this movie. I mean you had guys ripping hearts of people for crying out loud.

E)The story structure was definitely different from the other movies, but I think that's makes this movie appealing. Indy is put in a situation where he is inconvenienced by having an annoying broad with him and dumped in a place where he was not planning on going to. Who said an adventure story has to be organized? Part of the fun in going on an adventure is not knowing where you're going to end up and who you'll meet. TOD was all about that.

F)Mola Ram was unfortunately a villain who could've used some fleshing out, but I don't think he needed to have a history with Indy to be more appealing. Having a villain who doesn't know and therefore doesn't respect Indy is what separates him from the Belloq and Donovan. The result is a villain who pushes Indy to his limits with torture and enslaves him. This is also the only movie where Indy has a direct one on one showdown with the main villain. If you're looking for continuity, this might explain why Indy seems so cocky and confident when confronting Belloq.

G) I don't see how you can have too much magic in an Indiana Jones movie. Less is more when it's called for. In this case, you had Indy in India which is a location much more exotic than Nazi Germany. An increase in magic usage is appropriate for the environment you had in TOD.

H) Every movie is a different adventure and a common formula usually calls for different villains, different love interests and usually different sidekicks. Nobody knows what happened to Shortround or what happened to Marion for that matter and there's no point in trying to explain it. He's on a new adventure and is meeting new people and places. Indy is a skeptical person by nature so even with what happened in TOD to him, he has to approach every artifact with open skepticism. In Raiders he evolves from skepticism to believing enough to know when to keep his eyes shut.

TOD is a flawed movie, but I think it has aged well to the point where public opinion has swayed over the years in its favor.

[Jay R. Zay]

B) I agree that she was annoying, but I think that was the whole idea. She was the anti-Marion. Almost.

most probably this was the whole idea but we should be willing to consider that the whole idea might have been a bad idea as well.

C) TOD was full of dark humor. You had some of that in Raiders with Indy shooting the swordsman. Humor will always be subjective to the viewer. If you're trying to make a case for racial stereotypes with your examples then you may have a point, but in doing so you might as well call the entire trilogy racist.

the movie actually has a very low quality forced humor. not subtle, not witty. it isn't built from the context, it isn't developed cleverly. it is the obvious, simple slapstick humor that was used in early movies when public humor was widely undeveloped and people didn't know how exactly to bring humor to the audience. both raiders and LC had a clever humor, raiders had a more subtle one, LC was stronger but none of them relied on slapstick elements. slapstick humor can be nice if it is used from time to time, 3 or 4 times in a movie. not all the time.

E)The story structure was definitely different from the other movies, but I think that's makes this movie appealing. Indy is put in a situation where he is inconvenienced by having an annoying broad with him and dumped in a place where he was not planning on going to. Who said an adventure story has to be organized? Part of the fun in going on an adventure is not knowing where you're going to end up and who you'll meet. TOD was all about that.

or, in other words, the movie was lacking a clear line. it was a connection of evens none of which was leading any further but to the next scene. this supports the impression that the movie was made just like that - as an array of sequences. not as an entity as raiders or LC, where all paths lead to the climax.

F)Mola Ram was unfortunately a villain who could've used some fleshing out, but I don't think he needed to have a history with Indy to be more appealing. Having a villain who doesn't know and therefore doesn't respect Indy is what separates him from the Belloq and Donovan. The result is a villain who pushes Indy to his limits with torture and enslaves him. This is also the only movie where Indy has a direct one on one showdown with the main villain. If you're looking for continuity, this might explain why Indy seems so cocky and confident when confronting Belloq.

G) I don't see how you can have too much magic in an Indiana Jones movie. Less is more when it's called for. In this case, you had Indy in India which is a location much more exotic than Nazi Germany. An increase in magic usage is appropriate for the environment you had in TOD.

mola ram was just a crazy guy. just because somebody goes bonkers that doesn't mean he is impressive. in raiders and LC, the whole adventure was built up as a chess game, to gentlemen players trying to win. polite when meeting but without remorse in the actual fight. just like james bond. i liked this element very much, to see two clean guys working against each other. mola ram was no gentleman. he was just a weird guy that did weird things.

G) I don't see how you can have too much magic in an Indiana Jones movie. Less is more when it's called for. In this case, you had Indy in India which is a location much more exotic than Nazi Germany. An increase in magic usage is appropriate for the environment you had in TOD.

well but nazis are The Evil. other religions are strange and exotic but not The Evil. and there very well can be too much magic. indiana jones usually is considered as a "realistic" movie with ONE supernatural element that everybody is after. it's not about a whole world that is entirely unbelievably drawn (as the ugly food) to shout at the audience "YOU SEE? THIS IS A VERY *E*X*O*T*I*C* PLACE!". it was like a childs idea of other cultures.

H) Every movie is a different adventure and a common formula usually calls for different villains, different love interests and usually different sidekicks. Nobody knows what happened to Shortround or what happened to Marion for that matter and there's no point in trying to explain it. He's on a new adventure and is meeting new people and places. Indy is a skeptical person by nature so even with what happened in TOD to him, he has to approach every artifact with open skepticism. In Raiders he evolves from skepticism to believing enough to know when to keep his eyes shut.

the indiana jones movies unfortunately aren't developed very consequently. the scenes of Raiders don't fit to the movies they made afterwards. in Raiders, he doesn't believe in magic, although one year before in india he has seen something that was even more unrealistic than the whole ark-stuff.

also, in raiders he jokes about his mother. in LC, his mother doesn't seem to be a joking matter to him.

HTOD is a flawed movie, but I think it has aged well to the point where public opinion has swayed over the years in its favor.

actually i think it might be an "okay" movie but it simply isn't indiana jones. it is a very weak movie, done weakly. this isn't just to be reduced to a matter of taste.

"the mummy I" has many of these flaws in common with ToD but on the whole i like it better because it doesn't pretend to be something that it isn't. The Mummy looks like a lower budget fun production and yet has much to offer. ToD looks like an epic but can't even be just a "fairly good" movie.

[Ray Delark]

I LOVE The Temple of Doom. It's perfectly fantastic! :whip:

[sarah navarro]

I have found that most Indy fans consider TOD to be at the bottom rung of the ladder in terms of Indy films. Why??? I personally didn't really like the film. I liked it more as a kid when I was not looking for certain elements in the film. What do you feel about it?

what are you talking about????:(

TOD is the best indy movie ever

[Niteshade007]

I will admit that Temple of Doom is a lower quality of film than Raiders. I think most will admit that the grittiness of Raiders is lost in a more slapstick interpretation. Of course, the slapstick was brought in to mellow out the darkness of the film, and in the end we are left with a film that seems to be a little less subtle and creative than Raiders. Now, I like Temple. I would choose it over Last Crusade any day. But I do think that it is not necessarily a great film, or even a good film by some standards.

[IndyJr.]

Hmm... I liked the film. It showed one thing that needed to be shown. What's the special ocassion Indy like? We've seen the explorer Indy and the class Indy... but how's the special ocassion Indy? The Nuhachi scene pulled that off. It also pulled off a good musical... how many times could a movie like Indiana Jones pull off a musical? huh? Also the whole Nuhachi scene rocked because it was able to sucesfully bring suspence while making it funny, interesting and old-fashion (which in this case added a + for Indy). I also liked Short Round. He added a very cool aspect to the film that we've not gotten with Raiders and we didn't get with Crusade. I mean, Indy and a kid go on the darkest adventure. It also adds more problems for Indy, which is always good (like having to risk his life and having to wait when he could have escaped the spike chamber. He waited because if he would've gone he would've left Shorty.) Willie's character was cool. We got the spunky tom-boy in Raiders. Now we need the feministic nail-loving girly girl in Doom! Also I loved the falling plane, mountain, river scene. That was pure genious. THE most intelligent (as much as Hollywood can get) suspence, drama scene in the Indy films! The village scene was creepy, which was good for Indy. Indy needed a creepy realism added to him. The Trek scenes were also good. The Pankot eating scene was pure genious too. :up: The Temple of Doom scene was over the top a little... I did like the heart-pounding suspence added to it by the drums and chanting though. The evil-Indy transformation was meh... pretty good but not the best. It was a little odd. The mine car chase was also VERY good. My favorite (in terms of suspense and chills) would be the rope bridge scene. All together this is a very good movie.

[Niteshade007]

Also I loved the falling plane, mountain, river scene. That was pure genious. THE most intelligent (as much as Hollywood can get) suspence, drama scene in the Indy films!

Have to disagree with you there. That scene was pretty far-fetched. I wouldn't call it intelligent at all.

But I agree, it was cool to see Indy in a tux. And I didn't mind Willie (obviously, she's my avatar). Short Round didn't bother me. I felt that the scenes in the Temple were a bit dragged out, and I agree, I didn't care for "evil Indy," I thought Harrison did a good acting job with it, but it just didn't do anything for me as a viewer.

Also, that tub of water filling up the entire cave was a bit hard to swallow, but oh well.

[ClintonHammond]

"TOD is the best indy movie ever"
+10!

[IndyJr.]

Have to disagree with you there. That scene was pretty far-fetched. I wouldn't call it intelligent at all.

But I agree, it was cool to see Indy in a tux. And I didn't mind Willie (obviously, she's my avatar). Short Round didn't bother me. I felt that the scenes in the Temple were a bit dragged out, and I agree, I didn't care for "evil Indy," I thought Harrison did a good acting job with it, but it just didn't do anything for me as a viewer.

Also, that tub of water filling up the entire cave was a bit hard to swallow, but oh well.

well when I say interesting I don't mean smart and physically possible. I mean smart in terms of directing... even though it's not physically possible, it's still something that could be hard to think up if you're in the writers chair. ;)

[deckard24]

ToD is far superior to LC in my humble opinion! Raiders is such a fantastic film that it's never going to be matched, but ToD has always come in a close second for me in the series. I always found LC to be a rehash of Raiders with way too much slapstick for my taste.

[JimmyPSHayes]

TOD is my favorite Indy movie. I was 10 years old when it came out and my dad took me to a big theater in Hollywood for opening night. I'll never forget that experience. That may have tainted my view on the film, but even today, it's still my favorite.

[Vendetta08]

I didn't use to, but now I like ToD more than Crusade. Crusade just flat out bores me sometimes.

[Fish1941]

I will admit that Temple of Doom is a lower quality of film than Raiders. I think most will admit that the grittiness of Raiders is lost in a more slapstick interpretation. Of course, the slapstick was brought in to mellow out the darkness of the film, and in the end we are left with a film that seems to be a little less subtle and creative than Raiders. Now, I like Temple. I would choose it over Last Crusade any day. But I do think that it is not necessarily a great film, or even a good film by some standards.


I sure as hell won't admit that TEMPLE OF DOOM has a lower quality than RAIDERS. Slapstick interpretation? Are you kidding me? TOD is the darkest of the three films. And as far as I'm concerned, TOD is just as original as RAIDERS. It's just different. Perhaps some cannot deal with the darker story or the fact that it wasn't a replica of RAIDERS.

[Matinee Idyll]

Why do we hate Temple of Doom???

We, meaning me, meaning I... don't.

It's wonderful.

[Sankara]

No Indiana Jones-Fan hates "TOD"! Okay, "Raiders" and "Crusade" may be better - but "Temple" is still one of the best movies of all-time.

[Niteshade007]

I sure as hell won't admit that TEMPLE OF DOOM has a lower quality than RAIDERS. Slapstick interpretation? Are you kidding me? TOD is the darkest of the three films. And as far as I'm concerned, TOD is just as original as RAIDERS. It's just different. Perhaps some cannot deal with the darker story or the fact that it wasn't a replica of RAIDERS.

I like Temple of Doom. I like that it is different and not a remake of Raiders like Last Crusade was. I guess I didn't put my thoughts down clear enough. Yes, Temple is the darkest of the trilogy, but the slapstick elements that are brought in to try to lighten up all that darkness that shrouds the film lessons the film in my opinion. One of my favorite scenes is Willie running around the campfire at night screaming because she keeps running into animals while Indy and Shortie fight. I find it to be hysterically funny (and something I can relate to), but it isn't necessar to the plot at all (we've already established that Willie is a woman not used to the jungle) and is in there purely for the comic element. To me, they added too many of these types of scenes, when in reality, they should have just gone with the darkness. I hope I have expressed myself better. Temple of Doom is an enjoyable movie, and one that I'd watch any day over Last Crusade (which had even less reason to have the slapstick as it was not nearly as dark as Temple).

[Vendetta08]

The only thing Crusade has over Temple is Sean Connery.

[Bullwhip]

I love ToD. It not only introduced me to Indy as a kid, but as a huge 30s pulp fan, it's a fanboy's dream come true.

[oki9Sedo]

Temple of Doom is fantastic. Last Crusade isentertaining and the most well-rounded film of the three, but the action is pretty poor.

One, its tame. No bloody propellor accidents in this one.

Two, its just plain dull. The speedboat chase couldn't have been any more by-the-numbers. Not to mention 1980s London docks don't look anything like 1930s Venice.

The one good action scene was the tank chase.

[JD2008]

I just followed this link and DAMN
Temple of Doom is just the copy of Gunga Din

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"

Albert Einstein

[JimmyPSHayes]

All right, I'm totally in the "I love TOD" camp, but that last comment made me laugh.

[Kingsley]

That Gunga Din similarity puts TOD definitely below the others for me... if IT being different was the argument to preciate it, that argument is gone :(

[ClintonHammond]

The list of truly original movies is pretty damn short.

[Kingsley]

The list of truly original movies is pretty damn short.
You're right, but I speak against those who put TOD above LC taking "originality" as the main reason... of course it's more "classy" to rip from another film and not from the same franchise ;)

[|ZiR|]

That Gunga Din similarity puts TOD definitely below the others for me... if IT being different was the argument to preciate it, that argument is gone :(

You are aware that the entire Indiana Jones franchise is basically one big homage to the classic serial adventure, right? Both Raiders and Crusade ride on the coat tails of many, many films (http://www.theraider.net/information/influences/inspirations.php).

Gunga Din isn't the only one, and I don't see how its similarity makes Temple of Doom any less enjoyable.

[ClintonHammond]

"I speak against those who put TOD above LC taking "originality" as the main reason..."
There's NOTHING original about any of the Indiana Jones franchise....

There are plenty of other reasons why Temple is WAY better than LC....

[Kingsley]

Yes, inspired is one thing... but when something is too inspired it lacks a bit.
And I'm ok with other resaons to justify TOD being above LC, but originality isn't a valid one.

[kongisking]

Well, in response to the mine cart landing perfectly on the tracks, I know that there is a 1 to a billion chance of that happening, BUT, I couldn't think that they actually took it seriously. They had to have put that in so people would go "YEAH RIGHT". And actually, if all possible get a portable dvd player in a car, then drive over bumbs at high speeds while watching the mine cart chase. Its just like a roller coaster ride, but better. And, if you want a good laugh that is funny, listen to the sounds the Thugees make when they come around and hit the fallen Thugee on the tracks. I laughed forever.

Ryan

Agreed. Another adventure film inspired by Indy (and one of my close, close favorites adventure-wise), Sahara, uses a deus ex machina almost exactly like this, where at the end of the film when Dirk and Al and Eva are hiding inside the Confederate ironclad. The villian is approaching in a helicopter, ready to shoot them to oblivion, but they have one desperate chance. They try to FIRE ONE OF THE CANNONS INSIDE THE SHIP, EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW THAT THE SHIP IS HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD AND COULD NEVER, EVER BE FUNCTIONAL AGAIN!!! But they still try, and guess what? Against all odds, the damn geezer-of-a-weapon still works, and it fires an explosive cannonball right into the copter, killing the villain and saving the heroes.

Now, here is where I make my point: Right after this miraculous event happens, Dirk and Al both whisper to themselves, "That never should have worked..." in incredulity. See! They are aware of the logic and goof-nut nature of the world they live in! They accept the fact that what just happened was a very, very, very VERY rare piece of sheer dumb luck.

Years and centuries ago, man scoffed and condemned the idea of heading into space, flying in the air, sailing the entire Earth and all other things. So if a movie uses an event which seems absolutely ridiculous, it just shows that some things in this world that we think of as slim or impossible COULD work, in the context of a big, silly Hollywood action movie made to please teens and hopefully get a good dollar out of the deal. AND, most importantly, to just give the audience a good time an enjoy themselves!

If you guys scoff at things like mine carts making jumps across broken train tracks and archeologists dismissing supernatural occurences years later after having actually witnessed them, I'm okay with it. Hell, I admit to the flaws, plot holes and gaps, and utterly stupid events that are in TOD too, but I watch these type of films knowing what genre they are and that adventure movies rarely ever stick to laws of physics or stuff like that.

And you know what's funny about everything I just said? Most of the time I gripe and snort about stupid logic holes in other movies with as much energy as you guys do, and yet here I am defending the most logically-flawed of the Indiana Jones movies! SHEESH!!! :o :o :o :rolleyes:

[Shortie]

I love them all. Raiders & Doom trade places every now & then, LC always at the top.
Short Round's the coolest side-kick, even outside Indy.

[Raider Jack]

I love it, I like how it shows what Indy was like before he became the character we know in Raiders and LC, good stuff, I've probably seen this one the most cuz when I used to visit my grandparents in california this one would always be on TV. The film has a certain element that I can't pinpoint for certain that seems to be missing in the other 2, I love the other 2 as well, LC is my fav, but they have a dif. feel than TOD.

[Indy's Fist]

I love TOD!

[nyuszi]

i really loved TOD! it's different from the other two, that's true, but i've always found it both hilarious and scary. at the same time. :)

am curious what ppl will say about the new film? will they find it THAT much different as to warrant hate/dislike? will they talk about it the way some hardcore SW fans talk about EPI-III? somehow i'm sure. it's hard to please everyone.

[NoCamels]

Temple of Doom is fine. My main problem with it is just that I don't like watching the ripping people's hearts out or the torture stuff. Scary, I like but gory I do not. I think it's a perfectly good Indiana Jones movie, I just don't watch it nearly as often as the other two.

[otto rahn]

"One in a billion" chances SHOULD come off 99% of the time for "pulp" style heroes like Indiana Jones. It's one of the great cliches of the genre !:up:

[Rivers]

I love Temple of Doom and think it has been judged way to harshly over the years... I think the action is superior to Last Crusades....and the one thing I am absolutely sick of hearing is that Willie Scott screamed to much and was an unsympathetic heroin....What the hell do you guys want Willie to be?? ....an exact clone of Marion?? Then everyone would have complained about that. Try telling me your average female wouldnt scream her head off at the stuff Willie encountered in TOD and I will call you a liar...give it a rest!
I am glad to see a lot of people showing support for TOD.... It is not a bad film like so many make it out to be...people are just being over critical and comparing it to it's predessesor (Raiders) which is regarded as one of the greatest films of all time. Lighten up, just beacause it wasnt a clone of Raiders doesnt make it a bad movie.

[otto rahn]

I actually like the way that Willie starts out as this screaming girl who worries when she cracks a nail or gets wet and ends up bashing a thug in the nose during the "mine car" sequence ! My complaints have always been the "gross out" nature of the banquet scene and the relative obscurity of the "mcGuffin" (at least when you compare it to The Ark or The Grail). I like "Temple Of Doom" the least of the three movies, but that isn't to say I don't like it !

[Fish1941]

When I first saw TOD, I didn't like it very much. In fact, I was reluctant to see it again. The only thing I didn't mind was the fact that I could take the heart ripping scene a lot better than I did that scene in RotLA, in which Belloq and the Nazi had their faces falling apart.

Yet, after seeing the movie a second or third time - reluctantly - it became my favorite Indiana Jones. And 23 years later, it is still my favorite Indy movie. Go figure.

[herr gruber]

How could anybody hate the finest action adventure film of not just the trilogy but EVER!!!!!!!!!! I saw this in the theater and it was the most exciting experience I have EVER had movie wise. Blistering action! Great humour! Indy takes a complete beating and wins through! Great score! What's not to love? I think that people who debunk this movie secretly accept it is the most exciting.

[Indy's Fist]

Acording to rottontomatos.com even TOD has a very high ranking. In fact only Indy & the classic Star Wars movies are ranked as highest among movies with sequels. I love TOD because it was such a departure from Raiders & later to Last Crusade. It was dark, spooky and fun all at the same time.

[indyflys_solo]

I believe that in that same scene, Spielberg and Lucas are standing in the background also. Someone else may be able to verify that though. I know I read it somewhere.
Yeah, I read that too. Also on the DVD special features it shows Harrison in his white tux and Spielberg in a pith helmet at the airport, joking around... maybe that was when they filmed it? (I also heard that Lucas and Spielberg were "missionaries" in that part at the airport, so...)
I also want to go on record that I agree with Paden.
:)

[Tennessee Smith]

I can deal with Short Round in the movie but I can't stand Willie. After a girl life Marion it was hard to see her being Indy's type. She was just way too annoying.:down:

[Niteshade007]

Yeah, I don't view Temple of Doom as a great film by any means. It's certainly enjoyable, at least to me anyway, but it's not one of the finer pieces of cinema out there. I recently showed it to a friend though who hadn't seen it, and she said she enjoyed it more than Raiders. While I agree that this one may be considered more fun to view, it never really seems to know which direction to go in. It's stuck between a dark adventure tale and a fun-loving action film. It's unbalanced. And while I don't hate Willie, the romantic scenes between them weren't great. They seemed to come out of nowhere, as my friend put it. I agree, and although I love the dialogue in the bedroom scene, Indy has not shown much interest in Willie before this point, besides a comment about how she looks at dinner.

[IndyFalco]

Temple of Doom rocked my socks

That's all I'm going to say about that

[marky_77]

Raiders, Crusade then Doom for me. I like parts of Doom but overall, I just don't enjoy it like the other two. It's way too dark and too different to Raiders which is the benchmark. I think the ending is easily the best of the 3 films though.

[ResidentAlien]

So much Temple hate.


...I'll never understand that...


It's about a thousand times better than its disappointing follow-up.

Raiders, Temple.....
....
....
....
...
Last Crusade somewhere way down here for me.

[metalinvader]

Never understood the hate either...

Nor will I ever understand the folks who complain about the "gore".The gore was tame,Even for 1984.

[ResidentAlien]

Never understood the hate either...

Nor will I ever understand the folks who complain about the "gore".The gore was tame,Even for 1984.


Especially for 1984.

The 80s were the height of exploitation films. There were some intensely gory films back in the 80s. Temple isn't one of them.

[metalinvader]

Especially for 1984.

The 80s were the height of exploitation films. There were some intensely gory films back in the 80s. Temple isn't one of them.


Ahhhh...Good ol' 80s exploitation..I always did love Argento.

Suspiria FTW

[ResidentAlien]

Ahhhh...Good ol' 80s exploitation..I always did love Argento.

Suspiria FTW


Suspiria rocks my entire world.

I hope that Michael Bay remake is officially canned. It's still on IMDB... so I'm a bit concerned.

Seen The Bird With the Crystal Plumage?

[metalinvader]

Suspiria rocks my entire world.

I hope that Michael Bay remake is officially canned. It's still on IMDB... so I'm a bit concerned.

Seen The Bird With the Crystal Plumage?


Ugh..It should be canned and so should Bay.To bad he is still doing "The Birds" rehash.

As for "The Bird With the Crystal Plumage",I've always wanted to see it.Contemplated buying it at one point but got something else instead...Someday,Someday...

[ResidentAlien]

Ugh..It should be canned and so should Bay.To bad he is still doing "The Birds" rehash.

As for "The Bird With the Crystal Plumage",I've always wanted to see it.Contemplated buying it at one point but got something else instead...Someday,Someday...


Yes friend, see it.

Suspiria's sequel, Inferno, is pretty disappointing, sad to say.

Though the third film in the trilogy comes out this year, Mother of Tears, and I'm psyched for it. Mmmm... Asia Argento...


Also, see Argento's first outing for Masters of Horror. His film was called Jenifer; loved it. I'm pretty sure he directed another episode later on too, but I never did get to it.

[AndyLGR]

Maybe its the more dark tone is why some people dont like TOD? I don't personally think its as good as the other 2, but thats only because I think theres a long period where nothing really happens and it seems slow.

Yet my ten year old son loves this one over the others:whip:

[AHegele]

I didn't read into how Argento came into the conversation but i'd like to add my two cents. He's great! Suspiria of course is excellent, Bird with the Crystal Plumage is wonderful. Deep Red is a must see! I actually enjoyed Sleepless, Inferno, Tenebrae, Four Flies on Grey Velvet (if you can find a copy), Trauma and The Stendhal Syndrome too. Opera and The Card Player are pretty good. Haven't seen Do yo Like Hitchcock or his Master of Horrors yet.

[metalinvader]

Yes friend, see it.

Suspiria's sequel, Inferno, is pretty disappointing, sad to say.

Though the third film in the trilogy comes out this year, Mother of Tears, and I'm psyched for it. Mmmm... Asia Argento...


Also, see Argento's first outing for Masters of Horror. His film was called Jenifer; loved it. I'm pretty sure he directed another episode later on too, but I never did get to it.

I didn't mind Inferno but it was very disappointing.The lighting and atmosphere were great but it was just a weak film.I ended up trading in the dvd.

But like AHegele said..Deep Red is a must see.Amazing deaths,Creepy dolls and even creepier songs..Classic Giallo!

[herr gruber]

I've noticed that a lot of younger children seem to find Temple the most enjoyable. Make of that what you will.

It's certainly my favourite.

[Travis85]

I liked Temple of Doom the most when I was a kid, but now I like Crusade the most, although I still love ToD.

[ResidentAlien]

Ugh..It should be canned and so should Bay.To bad he is still doing "The Birds" rehash.

As for "The Bird With the Crystal Plumage",I've always wanted to see it.Contemplated buying it at one point but got something else instead...Someday,Someday...


Sad day, dude:

http://www.cinematical.com/2008/03/06/david-gordon-green-heads-to-suspiria/

:(

[Major West]

So much Temple hate.


...I'll never understand that...


It's about a thousand times better than its disappointing follow-up.

Raiders, Temple.....
....
....
....
...
Last Crusade somewhere way down here for me.

Yes I agree.

Temple of Doom is very misunderstood.

[Salacious]

I agree as well.

TOD is far superior to LC. TOD still had the republic serial flavour to it. I like the different feel from Raiders as well.

The action and set pieces are very excellent in the movie.

And I feel this is Harrison at his best as Indiana Jones...even more than Raiders.

Raiders is the better movie though.

[MaxPhactor23]

I always felt that, in many ways, Last Crusade was a rehash of Raiders with a few new characters. That’s not to say I dislike it, quieted the contrary, but it never struck me as incredibly original. Temple of Doom I vastly prefer. Call me blasphemous, but it’s my favorite in the series. I don’t get where the “It’s not Indy” criticisms come from. If anything I felt it was more Indy in the archeological sense. You’re surrounded by a temple with natives, traps, sacrifices and other primal elements. I don't see how the magic or dark powers in the film are any more or less believable then the powers of the Ark or Holy Grail. To me it’s an entire film made in the light of the Raiders opening. And Indy not being as cool? I say nay! I thought he was cooler! Two words: Bridge scene!

[Mr. Z]

I love TOD; I think I like it more as an adult then I did as a kid though. The scene where Indy has recovered from the Kali hypnosis and they show the close up of him before he punches the thug. There are just a huge number of major "Yeah!" moments in the film like that. It lacks the sheer feel of adventure that Raiders contains, but it is still a heck of a lot of fun. :up:

[deckard24]

I always felt that, in many ways, Last Crusade was a rehash of Raiders with a few new characters. That’s not to say I dislike it, quieted the contrary, but it never struck me as incredibly original. Temple of Doom I vastly prefer. Call me blasphemous, but it’s my favorite in the series. I don’t get where the “It’s not Indy” criticisms come from. If anything I felt it was more Indy in the archeological sense. You’re surrounded by a temple with natives, traps, sacrifices and other primal elements. I don't see how the magic or dark powers in the film are any more or less believable then the powers of the Ark or Holy Grail. To me it’s an entire film made in the light of the Raiders opening. And Indy not being as cool? I say nay! I thought he was cooler! Two words: Bridge scene!
You said it man!!:hat:

[crowmagnumman]

I don't wanna bash Crusade, but TOD is way awesome. I don't get the hate for it.

[Way of the dodo]

Indy and Short Round's synchronized Thugee beatings=Temple of Doom is the greatest movie ever made.

[crowmagnumman]

Indy and Short Round's synchronized Thugee beatings=Temple of Doom is the greatest movie ever made.

Haha, there ya go. Stuff like that is why I love TOD.

[acsgrlie]

Temple of Doom will always be my favorite (with Raiders at a close second). It was the first one I saw when I was 8 or 9 and I wanted to see it specifically because of Short Round. Yes, it's much darker than the other two, but that was the intent. And Spielberg mixed in the comedy very well. The dinner scene is always a favorite.

[Mr. Z]

On the documentary of the first DVD release, both Spielberg and Lucas said they wished they didn't make it as dark as they did (I'm sure you all knew that), but Ford claimed it was one he was very proud of. Food for thought ... not monkey brains, but knowledge-based food. ;)

[Uki]

I love TOD. Short Round, the bridge scene, mine car chase, dinner scene, the spike room, Club Obi-Wan...good stuff!

[Cagefighterkip]

"why do we hate Temple Of Doom?"

i didn't realize we did, i love it w/a passion...

[SterankoII]

I've always liked it too.

[oki9Sedo]

"Haters" tend to overlook the fact John Williams score is the best of three, Spielberg's direction of action and suspenseful situations is at its peak (especially the bridge scene), the fact that it isn't really that much darker than Raiders, and the fact that it has a story and setting totally different to Raiders, but is still a pulpy, comic-book action-adventure movie that feels part of the same world.

[Mr. Z]

Pretty hard to beat that Raiders score IMO. All of the violence towards children makes it much darker than any of the films. That being said, I still think it is a really fun and exciting flick. In fact, I really haven't seen too many people in this thread who don't like it.

[Cagefighterkip]

Pretty hard to beat that Raiders score IMO. All of the violence towards children makes it much darker than any of the films. That being said, I still think it is a really fun and exciting flick. In fact, I really haven't seen too many people in this thread who don't like it.

imo last crusade had the best score;
the violence, children, and with all the violence in the flick and darkness its still shockingly fun and exciting agreed

[phantom train]

TOD is my second favorite IJ film - my first being "Raiders" (and in some ways, TOD even rivals "Raiders", though "Raiders" is a better film). I felt TOD was far, far superior to LC for many reasons:

* The introductory sequence in "Club Obi Wan" involving Willie Scott and the dancers, the fight scene with Lao Che and his henchmen, the frenzied search for the antidote, the confusion involving the diamond and the ice, etc. was not only one of the best intro. sequences to an IJ film, but one of the best intro. sequences to any film, ever. Extremely well-done and original.

* The sequence when the airplane was falling and they had to jump out using the rubber raft was nail-bitingly cool; Especially memorable was when they landed on the snow and you saw the plane crashing into the mountain in the background, then the raft sped down the snow-covered hill and eventually landed in the river - I don't think I've ever seen a sequence similar to this in a any film before or since.

* The whole film was very dark in tone and content, much more than the other two IJ films. This added another dimension to the movie, and really made it unique in the trilogy.

Though LC was alright, I felt the plot was VERY similar to the plot in "Raiders", and I thought that S.C.'s presence really unbalanced the film. (However, I'm sure I'm in the minority here, since I know a lot prefer LC to TOD).

[oki9Sedo]

All of the violence towards children makes it much darker than any of the films.

You see children being whipped and forced to do hard labour in the mines, but they all arive alive and healthy back to the village in the end.

The whole film was very dark in tone and content, much more than the other two IJ films.

Its definitely darker in content, but darker in tone? I would argue with that. Tone means mood, correct? Well the mood in Raiders was quite ominous and serious throughout (set from the very beginning with the shadowy lighting and mysterious figures passing through the dark jungle)whereas the mood in Doom was more upbeat (set from the very beginning with a dance number), because it had more slapstick comedy and more good-humoured banter between the leads.

Aside from the heart-ripping scene, the film isn't as violent as Raiders either.

[sarah navarro]

"Haters" tend to overlook the fact John Williams score is the best of three, Spielberg's direction of action and suspenseful situations is at its peak (especially the bridge scene), the fact that it isn't really that much darker than Raiders, and the fact that it has a story and setting totally different to Raiders, but is still a pulpy, comic-book action-adventure movie that feels part of the same world.
I love it i think it might be the best but its between that and ROTLA.I love how John Williams uses an all male chorus for the thugee chant,ceremony.I think it sounds so cool.:whip:

[oki9Sedo]

I love it i think it might be the best but its between that and ROTLA.I love how John Williams uses an all male chorus for the thugee chant,ceremony.I think it sounds so cool.:whip:

Oh I agree!

[AndyLGR]

I watched TOD the other night for the first time in a little while, and my views on it haven't changed that much. Its difficult not to compare it to ROTLA, which most people my age saw first and then couldn't wait for the sequel.

It starts off well with some good action, but then I think it hits a brick wall with the village scenes and the journey to the palace which slow the pace of the film down considerably.

Its not really until Indy escapes the black sleep that the action and pace of the movie pick up again. But I really enjoy the darkness and the atmosphere of 'doom' as they find out whats going on beneath the palace.

All in all it isn't that bad a movie, its just that its a little different from the original whicjh maybe some people, myself included, found hard to accept.

Harrison is great in it. Willie is annoying and is probably intentionally the opposite of Marion. Shortround is unconvincing. Mola Ram is a great villain, very menacing.

[GlasgowChivas]

As Louie Walsh would say....

" I liked it."

[Matthew]

We hate it? I love it, it's my favorite one by a hair (I admit if I'd seen Raiders first that would have been my favorite. I'd say the first one any of us saw, because it was the first rush, became our favorite for most of us.)

[TideHorn78]

I was lucky enough to be able to see a 25th Anniversary Screening of the entire trilogy back in 2006. I must say that ToD works so much better on a Big Screen than a TV. That being said, I don't hate it at all. It's fun and different from the other two. I guess I prefer Raiders and Last Crusade because I was more invested in the search for artifacts storylines... That's my two cents.......

[Snakes]

Sadly, the only time I ever saw any of the films was when an old (and HUGE) theater screened Raiders. It was probably the best movie watching experience I've ever had. I hope they re-release all 3 films in theaters again someday. (With no changes or CGI!)

[roundshort]

Not a hater here, my second favorite after Raiders, and a very, very close second!

[Mr. Z]

I was lucky enough to be able to see a 25th Anniversary Screening of the entire trilogy back in 2006. I must say that ToD works so much better on a Big Screen than a TV. That being said, I don't hate it at all. It's fun and different from the other two. I guess I prefer Raiders and Last Crusade because I was more invested in the search for artifacts storylines... That's my two cents.......
I think that's a key as to why it sometimes gets overlooked ... no real search for artifacts. I realize you have the Sankara stones, but it just isn't the same as the Ark of the Holy Grail. Still, it's a fun movie. :whip:

[jonesissparrow]

I like Temple of Doom. I like that it is different and not a remake of Raiders like Last Crusade was. I guess I didn't put my thoughts down clear enough. Yes, Temple is the darkest of the trilogy, but the slapstick elements that are brought in to try to lighten up all that darkness that shrouds the film lessons the film in my opinion. One of my favorite scenes is Willie running around the campfire at night screaming because she keeps running into animals while Indy and Shortie fight.

That's my favorite scene as well. You know if TOD didn't have that many freaky moments like The Dinner Scene and the heart ripped out I can call it masterpiece. Even though there are elements of Gunga Din in it TOD tries very hard not to be a copycat of that film and Raiders and be their own and it succeeds fantastically! Yes Willie can be a pain but she's a saint compare to Jar Jar Binks:sick:

[indyflys_solo]

Let me rephrase your post question: "Why don't we like Temple of Doom?"
(Sorry, but it's a Ford/Lucas/Spielberg movie. No matter how strange, it is impossible to genuinely hate it.)
Well, for one thing, it IS dark. I think that's a big factor in how people feel about the Indy prequel/sequel... that it doesn't quite have the same aura as the other two (hopefully soon to be three) Indy films. Sure, the Indiana Jones series is epic, but not quite on the same level as Star Wars. Some make the argument that "Empire Strikes Back was the dark second film, why can't Indy have one too?" Well, because Indiana Jones and Star Wars are simply not the same thing. In Star Wars, there was always the possibility that something bad would happen, that Han Solo might never get out of carbonite, that the Rebels wouldn't blow up the Death Star in time. Indiana Jones, although an epic adventure, is much more lighthearted than the Star Wars films.
People enjoy the comic-book humor and the action-packed adventure, but one of the most appealing things to the general public about the Indiana Jones films is that they are safe. The audience always knows that Indy will turn out okay, even if he's being attacked by random assassins in the middle of Cairo. A large part of this is due to the music: Johnny Williams' wonderful, cheerful, (even ironic at times) themes are a constant reminder to the audience throughout both Raiders and Crusade that no matter how bad it appears, everything will eventually turn out fine.
We didn't enjoy quite the same lighthearted soundtrack in Temple of Doom, and heroic, in-charge Indy going crazy? That was just too much for many audience members, myself included for quite a time. I think mostly that the sense of real danger, conveyed not only throughout the story but in the music and lighting, was a turn-off to many people. It felt strange and uncomfortable to many of us expecting another rousing adventure with the man in the fedora, and the dark humor injected in place of that adventurous fun was a jolt. But although it didn't quite measure up with ROTLA and TLC, TOD was still a decent film that I still enjoy watching. (Sometimes.) ;)

[Dr. Gonzo]

I dont particularly think that its a very dark movie at all! And I dont hate it either.
But with that being said it is my least favorite.

[TheRobotGoddess]

*shrugs* TOD was so creepy it felt more like a horror film than a good-hearted Indy adventure. Short Round was one of it's only redeeming qualities :)

[Vance]

I actually can find TOD unwatchable... There are a few major issues.

#1 - Willie Scott. It can't be said enough, but what should have been an interesting character (read her TSR bio) was turned into a screaming wuss without any redeeming features. The 'screams' were supposed to be funny... they weren't.

#2 - Shallow Characterization. We're introduced to a lot of people in the palace, but none of them really stand out. Chatter Lal gets some new lines, but we really don't know who he is (it wasn't for YEARS that I even realized he's the same guy as who is holding Willie later). Mola Ram is just a shallow crazy villain. The Prince is using Caribbean style Voodoo for no apparent reason... etc...

#3 - Over the top. Unlike the other two films, TOD has no real since that it's grounded. Once that plane launches, things get more and more ridiculous as you go. Upon repeat viewing, even the mine-cart scene seems ponderous.

#4 - Bad Humor. Much of the stuff that was supposed to be 'funny' (see Willie) was just plain terrible. This culminates in the atrocious 'dinner' scene which is both incredibly racist (both in the meals and in the characters in attendance), as well as a very cheap 'laugh'.

[agentsands77]

*shrugs* TOD was so creepy it felt more like a horror film than a good-hearted Indy adventure.
Which isn't a bad thing, in my mind. It's nice to see a really dark Indy adventure (and TOD does have plenty of lighthearted humor throughout to try and balance it out).

[The_Raiders]

*shrugs* TOD was so creepy it felt more like a horror film than a good-hearted Indy adventure. Short Round was one of it's only redeeming qualities :)


Creepy?! I find TOD more of a comedy then a horror movie. :hat:

[No Ticket]

I actually can find TOD unwatchable... There are a few major issues.

#1 - Willie Scott. It can't be said enough, but what should have been an interesting character (read her TSR bio) was turned into a screaming wuss without any redeeming features. The 'screams' were supposed to be funny... they weren't.

I'll agree with you there. She kind of always annoyed me with how often she screams. She has a good cinematic scream, the only really good point in the whole film where I think it was apropriate was when she runs across the bridge only to find Mola Ram over there. That was a good one. I wish she'd shut up most of the time. But then again, so did Indy. "Aw, Willie, shut up!" It's good to know we're on the same page as Dr. Jones.

#2 - Shallow Characterization. We're introduced to a lot of people in the palace, but none of them really stand out. Chatter Lal gets some new lines, but we really don't know who he is (it wasn't for YEARS that I even realized he's the same guy as who is holding Willie later). Mola Ram is just a shallow crazy villain. The Prince is using Caribbean style Voodoo for no apparent reason... etc...

Even when I was 5, I noticed that Chatter Lal was the same guy later in the movie. I always thought about it this way, we never leave the perspective of Indy and gang. We see things as they are introduced to them and when those characters go away we're still with Indy, Willie and Short Round. We don't know much about Chatter Lal because Indy and gang don't either, nor do they see much of him. We never really see what's going on with the other characters. We're always right there with Indy seeing what he sees as he sees it. It's kind of like in Saving Private Ryan, where the camera man follows everyone around as though you were another soldier.



#4 - Bad Humor. Much of the stuff that was supposed to be 'funny' (see Willie) was just plain terrible. This culminates in the atrocious 'dinner' scene which is both incredibly racist (both in the meals and in the characters in attendance), as well as a very cheap 'laugh'.

I don't think the dinner scene was supposed to be "funny" or "humorous" at all. It was supposed to gross you out. Which is what it did when I was a kid, I couldn't even watch it closely because of stuff like "Snake surprise." But the point wasn't meant to be racist, it was meant to be exotically strange and gross you out. I know that there are people in parts of this world who eat things that I would find gross... and it's considered normal by them. This fact is also brought up at the beginning of the movie when Indy is given food at the village and Willie doesn't want to eat it.

[The_Raiders]

Well said No Ticket :hat: I disagree with most of what Vance said (no offense to you Vance :hat: ) Maybe one reason you don't hear very much about some charactors is becasue Lucas and Speilberg want you to make up something of your own. I do agree Willies annoying and whiny. Acually the only time I didn't mind her screams was when her and Indy jumped from the window from club obi wan. I love all the other humor in the movie, Short Round, the dinner, and everything else, over all it's a terrific movie. And takes second on my favorite list :hat:

[The Golden Idol]

I dislike Temple of Doom as well. Raiders and Crusade are just so much better in my opinion, because the former is just an adventure classic and the latter is an awesome "father-son" story which really benefits from Connery's involvement. Temple just seems... weak.

[agentsands77]

I dislike Temple of Doom as well. Raiders and Crusade are just so much better in my opinion, because the former is just an adventure classic and the latter is an awesome "father-son" story which really benefits from Connery's involvement. Temple just seems... weak.
TEMPLE has a sloppy story, but I'll take it over CRUSADE any day because of its terrific energy, visual tone, and great set pieces.

CRUSADE, to me, is the movie that feels weak. It's a really dull film, as if everybody was uninterested. It doesn't even feel like Spielberg directed it - it's as if a less talented guy stepped into his place, and everyone suffers as a result. Even Ford phones it in.

And as for the much-praised father/son dynamic, I think it's poor. Just a bunch of shoddy jokes undermining the characters that aren't really that funny. Just lame.

[Vance]

There are positives to the movie, and didn't mean to say there weren't. But, guys, Willie alone makes me hate the movie. "It's been two seconds, Willie, scream your little lungs out again!" Waste of some character potential there, too, unfortunately.

Short Round was a saving grace, to be sure, and I'm disappointed that he won't be appearing as Full Round in Crystal Skull. The bridge scene is, of course, a classic confrontation. ("They will be found, you won't!")

[herr gruber]

"It's been two seconds, Willie, scream your little lungs out again!" Waste of some character potential there, too, unfortunately.

What character potential do we expect from a pampered singer who's facing a life threatening situation?

[No Ticket]

What character potential do we expect from a pampered singer who's facing a life threatening situation?

Exactly the point of her character being the way she is.

[herr gruber]

Exactly the point of her character being the way she is.


Exactly the point I just raised!

[No Ticket]

Exactly the point I just raised!

Exactly! :up:

[oki9Sedo]

Last Crusade has a better story than Temple of Doom, but only because it stole it from Raiders.

At least Temple of Doom is fresh and original, and works as a great complementary piece to Raiders instead of doing the same thing again. And its not like it has a bad story, its an excellent story, just not as strong individually as the other two. But like I said, at least its new.

[agentsands77]

This probably isn't new information, but in the EMPIRE "Month of Indy," they have TEMPLE OF DOOM feature and in it was this quote:

"The banquet scene was a joke that went wrong. I got a great deal of flak for it because people kept saying, "How does an intelligent man like you agree to be in a film which shows Indians dining on beetles and eels?" Steven intended it as a joke, the joke being that Indians were so ****ing smart that they knew all Westerners think that Indians eat cockroaches, so they served them what they expected. The joke was too subtle for that film."

If that was the intent, it doesn't quite work, given the Indians' voracious appetite for this food.

[MarxBrosFan]

This probably isn't new information, but in the EMPIRE "Month of Indy," they have TEMPLE OF DOOM feature and in it was this quote:

"The banquet scene was a joke that went wrong. I got a great deal of flak for it because people kept saying, "How does an intelligent man like you agree to be in a film which shows Indians dining on beetles and eels?" Steven intended it as a joke, the joke being that Indians were so ****ing smart that they knew all Westerners think that Indians eat cockroaches, so they served them what they expected. The joke was too subtle for that film."

If that was the intent, it doesn't quite work, given the Indians' voracious appetite for this food.

Yeah, I really can't believe Spielberg thought that joke would work.

[Kingsley]

If that was the intent, it doesn't quite work
Exactly... for me, the problem with TOD is that many parts doesn't quite work. There are brilliant scenes (like the opening, the bug tunnel and trap scene, or the bridge scene)... but I don't like many other things, and even consider them flaws that made this movie the least beloved for me.

[ben7]

Wow, to be honest I didn't realise "Temple of Doom" was looked down upon by the faithful Indy fans.

For me, its a favourite in so many ways, and not just because it's the fondest memory I have of a film from my youth.

It's just a great film all around for me. It's got a good balance of action and thrill.. not dark enough to be thought of as morbid yet it has a particular mood which you feel throughout the film.. and it has enough humor in it to break up the darkness and keep it 'fun'.

Plus, none other than the legendary Mr Roy Chiao RIP

[tupogirl]

It is my least favorite for one simple reason...Indy has snakes, I have bridges...

[Doctor Jones'89]

Funny!
Hi love crossing bridges and climbing but I HATE (and fear) snakes!
Once I was out for a walk in a forest when I met a viper just in front of me:eek: !
Another time I was reading a book in a park when a snake crawled out from the bushes and crossed the path, disappearing in the grass.
Bad experiences ....Trust me!;)

ToD has just a snake so I can afford it:D
Just kidding, I've already expressed my opinion about Temple of Doom, time ago...

[oki9Sedo]

It is my least favorite for one simple reason...Indy has snakes, I have bridges...

"Come on! Stwong bwidge!"

[Vance]

What character potential do we ex