Temple of Doom Is this anybodys Favourite

[Bluenose]

Having been a fan of all three Indiana Jones films i was wondering why most people (even speilberg) dont like Temple of Doom.
I have just watched all three again on dvd and T.O.D is still my favourite, even more so now i have seen the uncut version(no wonder our censors cut the heart scene, its horrific).
Anyway i was wondering if anybody else liked T.O.D better than the other two.:confused:

[Narshty]

Yep, I do. In a couple of respects, it may be the patchiest, but it's also the most breathlessly exciting (Last Crusade is a bit too talky and philosophical, though it's still fabulous).

[Soprano]

Its my least favourite, but I still think it great. The bridge scene is a classic.

I like the other two more because, I think there is a more mystery. The relics he is after are well known. The Lost Ark and Holy Grail have both been written about for centuries, rather than the orange rocks in TOD.

I prefer Raiders and see it as the definative advernture film. Last Crusade because of Connery. And I think the Nazis are such good villians.

I will be watching on of these tonight. :thumbs:

[KeyserSoze]

it used to be.

when i watch it now, i cant see how it was my favourite, had a different tone to the other 2. I still like it, but i dont love it anymore.

Raiders and Last still excellent though :thumbs: i love em even more now. Cos when i was younger i didnt realise how funny the dialogue between Ford and Connery was, didnt realise how good the musical score was. And Raiders, which used to be my least favourite has got the amazing atmosphere, it could pass as a kinda horror movie in some ways :nuts:

[Esteban - CotS]

i think it was the first one i saw, which i personally think is very siginificant when it come to choosing favourites from trilogies and such, and because of that it was my favourite for a long time...

but the more i watch Raiders, the more i see it as a simply wonderful film, and it's easily the strongest of the three. they're all high class, way above-average adventure films, but Raiders is something special :)

even more so now i have seen the uncut version(no wonder our censors cut the heart scene, its horrific).

mm, first time i'd ever seen it today.. quite "bad" really wasn't it? felt like i was watching a completely new film, almost...

[c9550904]

I think it had the potential to be the best Indiana Jones film, but never quite fulfilled it. I know that people have said that Temple was too dark, but I personally loved seeing Indy calling Mola Ram a "*******", along with his off-the-cuff "oh, ****" on the rope bridge. These added to his character IMO (especially when you consider that this was at a point in Indy's career where he little more than a ruthless tomb raider).

Empire Strikes Back was dark, but that didn't do it any harm.

[custard_chris]

I don't think it's the 'darkness' that's the problem with TOD, it's more that Short Round and Kate Capshaw are much more irritating than Karen Allen in the first film or Sean Connery in the last one.

In particular, I can see that Capshaw's character was a deliberate to be something different to Marion, but I just find her whiny.

[Alan. b]

Its my least favourite as well, I guess mine would be The Last Crusade only because I love the byplay between Ford and Connery.

[jambo]

I like it plenty. Last Crusade is my least favourite.

[Magis the Moose]

TOD was the first one I watched when I opened the boxset today so that says something perhaps? Raiders and TOD I like for different reasons, but funnily enough I didn't like Crusade too much - I found the 'slapstick' with Connery too much.

[thescrounger]

I love Temple of Doom, Last crusade is the weakest of the three, thank god for Connery else it would be a real stinker.

[Nathan-Wind]

Its my favourite BUT and its a big one. I think all three films are awful and TOD is just the least worst one. The first time I saw Raiders my jaw dropped with how bad it was. I couldn't see what any of the fuss was about.

[857]

that kid annoys the hell out o f me:lol:

[KeyserSoze]

:eek:

he is the gadget master !!

[Confucius]

If the three movies were available as individual releases, I would have bought Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. As it is, to me Temple of Doom is by way of an watch-once-and-forget (in this case again) extra; much as Sudden Impact and Dead Pool are in the Dirty Harry box set.

[Byron]

Originally posted by c9550904
I think it had the potential to be the best Indiana Jones film, but never quite fulfilled it. I know that people have said that Temple was too dark, but I personally loved seeing Indy calling Mola Ram a "*******", along with his off-the-cuff "oh, ****" on the rope bridge. These added to his character IMO (especially when you consider that this was at a point in Indy's career where he little more than a ruthless tomb raider).

Empire Strikes Back was dark, but that didn't do it any harm.
He says "oh, holy ****" off the cuff when the Nazi sub shows up in 'Raiders', and the other word for illegitimate children gets chucked around a fair bit, though for some reaosn the BBFC only cut it in 'Temple'.

:confused:

I've yet to see the *other* version of 'Temple' yet, given the comments on this thread it looks like it could live upto its infamony. :D But I think 'Raiders' is by far the clear winner, then 'Last Crusade' for the great father-son dynamic. That bloody kid and hysterical woman in 'Temple' have always grated big-time. Mixing the family-film cliches with adult content, very bizzare!

[stefmcd]

The intro sequence to Temple of Doom is one of my favourites full stop.

:)

[bes]

Temple of doom is a peerless action film, and is my favourite of the trilogy [although Raiders is just as good]; last crusade is a pile of tiresome slapstick pants.

[pompeyfan]

TOD is my least favorite of the three, with Raiders being my favorite, but I still find itr watchable - it's the first one of the trilogy I've put on, but that could be because it's set before Raiders, but it's more likely a case of getting the worst out of the way first;)

[rainbird]

Raiders is the only one I'd pay for. I watched the laserdisc of it last year and I thought it stood up tremendously well (prior to that I hadn't seen it for 7-8 years). The first one is tightly plotted, good natured and fairly belts along. :clap:

ToD is a a slim and uninteresting story in which the set-pieces are blown out of all proportion by the desire of its makers to top their previous efforts. And as for Kate Capshaw whining and screaming throughout - hell with that. ToD is a tiring movie in all the worst ways. For all the relentless action on display one leaves it dissatisfied. It's a movie for kiddies whereas Raiders was something that both kids and adults could enjoy equally.

TLC is a slight improvement but every time I watch it I can't shake the feeling that almost everyone involved is just sort of 'going through the motions.' It's not a bad movie exactly but for some reason neither is it especially memorable.

I rather suspect that Lucasfilm and Paramount are well aware of this which is why they've issued all three films as a set thus forcing punters who'd love to have just the first film in their collection to have to pay for all three. :oh-hum:

[Michael Brooke]

<I>Temple of Doom</I> was Pauline Kael's favourite, and by a fairly noticeable margin - her review was an out-and-out rave, but she was much pickier about the other two (though she broadly liked <I>Raiders</I>).

It's far too long to reproduce in full, but this is the first paragraph:

<I>The great thing about a tall tale on the screen is that you can be shown the preposterous and the implausible. In </i>Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom<i>, the director Steven Spielberg is like a magician whose tricks are so daring they make you laugh. He creates an atmosphere of happy disbelief: the more breathtaking and exhilarating the stunts are the funnier they are. Nobody has ever fused thrills and laughter in quite the way he does here. There isn't a letdown anywhere in it. A friend of mine denounced the picture as "heartless"; another friend called it "overbearing". In a sense, they're right, but they're also off the beam. This kind of storytelling doesn't have to be heartfelt; it just has to hold their interest (and delight you). </i>Indiana Jones<i> is a series of whoppers - it depends on verve and imagination to concoct the next big fib. And it leaps from one visual exaggeration to another - overbearingness is part of its breakneck style. (If it were modest and unassuming, it would fall apart).</i>

...and so on for another six-and-a-half pages in my edition.

[Dene]

IMO there's a lot more ingenuity in it than in the third: the impression I have is of everyone being at the top of their game in Temple of Doom, whereas Last Crusade doesn't come across as being quite as fresh.

And by being different from the first and third, isn't that good? It feels like a proper trilogy somehow. Be a bit tiresome if they were all as similar as Raiders and Last Crusade are to each other.

The entire opening 15 or so minutes in the 'Club Obi-Wan' is marvellous stuff, from the Busby Berkeley-style number to the ensuing diamond/antidote free-for-all it's a stunning opening.

So, in short, it's my second favourite after Raiders -- all round, I reckon it's the best.

[210]

It's by far my favorite of the Indiana Jones movies, but I rate all of them very high. They R better than the 'Star Wars' movies. I don't know why people don't like 'Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom' as much, maybe of the tone of it? It's nearly a black comedy with adventure and black comedies can be very hit and miss with people

[TheoGB]

Originally posted by rainbird
I rather suspect that Lucasfilm and Paramount are well aware of this which is why they've issued all three films as a set thus forcing punters who'd love to have just the first film in their collection to have to pay for all three. :oh-hum:

I think you do Lucas and Spielberg and injustice. They wanted three separate 2-disc releases but had the boxset thrust on them by Paramount, IIRC.

Personally I can't understand how anyone can really defend Temple of Doom from the 'worst in the series' tag. As a kid I loved it, but like Return of the Jedi, it has nothing to stand on in an adult world.

Really really really bad special effects (from the plane exploding on the mountain, through the mine car dolls, up to the dreadful bluescreen water bursting through the mountain), and it takes the series a step too far into the ridiculous, for my money.

There is also the whole 'loads of kids fighting down the bad guys' thing, which is handled better than Ewoks in Endor but not much.

That said, it has set pieces I really enjoy (mostly the first half of the movie) and so I'd always own it for old times' sake.

I still remember, as a 9-year old, how I laughed my head off right the way through most of it in the Empire L Sq - I think the other parents were disturbed as to what sort of mother my mum was, since their kids were all wetting themselves with fear!! I don't know why I clicked into the comedy in it so much, but I guess I did.

Oh and it's worth noting this is a bad Spielberg film, but that's obvious about 1000 better than most other directors' best efforts.

[thescrounger]

Originally posted by TheoGB


Really really really bad special effects (from the plane exploding on the mountain, through the mine car dolls, up to the dreadful bluescreen water bursting through the mountain), and it takes the series a step too far into the ridiculous, for my money.



All the bluescreen stuff has been 'improved' on the new DVD. And I'll take minecar dolls over CGI any day of the week.





Oh and it's worth noting this is a bad Spielberg film

Only in your very humble opinion.

As a kid I loved it, but like Return of the Jedi, it has nothing to stand on in an adult world.

Why should that be a problem? All these films were designed as pure entertainment, not biting social comment.:wave:

[TheoGB]

Originally posted by thescrounger
All the bluescreen stuff has been 'improved' on the new DVD. And I'll take minecar dolls over CGI any day of the week.


Ah well as mine's still in the post I couldn't possibly comment on that. I did ask somewhere else and no one said. However, this wasn't a question of reevaluation, that I saw. I'm glad to hear this has been improved, though the models in a car are just plain bad - it's not a question of that or bad CGI - I don't want that either. :nuts: I just want good effects. :wave:

Only in your very humble opinion.
Or you could read the line after where I point out this doesn't mean it's not a good film. Maybe if I say again that a bad Spielberg is far better than most peoples' you'll get it?

Why should that be a problem? All these films were designed as pure entertainment, not biting social comment.:wave:
Because (particularly given the title of this thread) it is being judged against its peers, both of which are far better at connecting with and being enjoyed by adults due to their attitude to events and their portrayal.

Those who keep moaning about slapstick in the Last Crusade really should watch that final section of TOD again where Indy stops the mining car with his feet then dances around moaning about 'water'.

I certainly enjoy TOD but it's not a particularly good Indy adventure, and I'd include stuff from the YIJ TV series also in making that comment.

[thescrounger]

Because (particularly given the title of this thread) it is being judged against its peers, both of which are far better at connecting with and being enjoyed by adults due to their attitude to events and their portrayal.

No mate, that's your subjective opinion. You are also implying that adults dislike pure fantasy which again is not true. Just because it's your opinion doesn't mean you should state it as fact.

It's not so much the slapstick that makes Crusade the weakest of the three, it's because it's quite sloppy film making generally compared to the first two films.

[TheoGB]

Originally posted by thescrounger
No mate, that's your subjective opinion. You are also implying that adults dislike pure fantasy which again is not true. Just because it's your opinion doesn't mean you should state it as fact.

It's not so much the slapstick that makes Crusade the weakest of the three, it's because it's quite sloppy film making generally compared to the first two films.

Well sorry if you feel I'm personally insulting you but suggesting this is a more of a kids movie out and out than an adult's film.

What part of "I certainly enjoy TOD" was suggestive of you that I dismiss it. I would have bought all three if they were available separately. :nuts:

But then that's cos I am the sort of adult who is happy to indulge in 'pure fantasy'. That doesn't mean that most do. *shrug* My mum and her partner greatly enjoy Raiders and Last Crusade; they don't enjoy Temple of Doom. This isn't an isolated case: Temple *is* a different sort of movie to the other two. On the one hand it is darker in tone, but it's angle is very much sent down a path of 'kiddieness' (Shortround being an example here).

Personally I think the slapstick in all three movies comes off (just about) because it's Spielberg doing it - very much a director's job to make these things work.

But Temple of Doom is by far from my favourite of the three for the reasons I've outlined.

The thread was a personal question; I opened my paragraphs by making it clear I was explaining why I found the movie bad. If I really have to put IMO (and I damned if I'll put an H in there!) at the end of every sentence for fear of someone failing to get that point then :oh-hum:, frankly.:)

[TheoGB]

Hmm. Having just watched this again, and uncut for the first time, I revise my opinion of Temple of Doom: It's really pretty bad.

Even the opening bit seemed lame and full of some utterly awful and not even vaguely amusing, slap stick (with them kicking stuff around on the floor), and with bad dialogue, cheesiness the like of which only kids enjoy and the rest of the series stays away from.

Willie's like Jar-Jar in terms of her ability to ruin every scene she's in. The kids in the mine are like the Ewoks fighting the Stormtroopers. Just tragic...

Mine Car sequence was still good, though, as was the middle section from the meal until Indy comes out of his trance pretty much...

[Ol' Blue Eyes]

Great piece of entertainment. I've watched that and Raiders so far in my box set and they stand up well. It's interesting to finally see trhe stuff that was cut out! That sacrifice scene was pretty nasty alright! :lol:

I like that the three films are all different. Raiders is the solid, cliffhanging adventure, Temple Of Doom is more of an intense rollercoaster ride and then Last Crusade is the witty, light-hearted comedy.

Things that stood out - how well written they are compared to today's blockbusters (even Temple Of Doom, which has the weakest script, is well-structured and strikes a good balance between the violence and humour), what a great director of action and physical comedy Spielberg is, that Indy is 10% the character on the page and 90% Harrison Ford's sheer presence and that John Williams' music is just phenomenal.

Temple Of Doom was probably the most influential. Along with Terminator which came out the same year, it set a new standard for intense action. Practically the last third of the movie is non-stop action. It sustains momentum for an unbelievably long time. I think that's what Pauline Kael admired. Spielberg tried a similar thing in 1941 and failed but with Temple Of Doom he succeeeded. Aliens topped it a couple of years later but not by much!

[Joober]

TOD has always been my favourite, but then again I like them all. You can't beat a good 80's action/adventure movie :D

[TheoGB]

Originally posted by Ol' Blue Eyes
Great piece of entertainment. I've watched that and Raiders so far in my box set and they stand up well. It's interesting to finally see trhe stuff that was cut out! That sacrifice scene was pretty nasty alright! :lol:

I like that the three films are all different. Raiders is the solid, cliffhanging adventure, Temple Of Doom is more of an intense rollercoaster ride and then Last Crusade is the witty, light-hearted comedy.

Things that stood out - how well written they are compared to today's blockbusters (even Temple Of Doom, which has the weakest script, is well-structured and strikes a good balance between the violence and humour), what a great director of action and physical comedy Spielberg is, that Indy is 10% the character on the page and 90% Harrison Ford's sheer presence and that John Williams' music is just phenomenal.

Temple Of Doom was probably the most influential. Along with Terminator which came out the same year, it set a new standard for intense action. Practically the last third of the movie is non-stop action. It sustains momentum for an unbelievably long time. I think that's what Pauline Kael admired. Spielberg tried a similar thing in 1941 and failed but with Temple Of Doom he succeeeded. Aliens topped it a couple of years later but not by much!

I certainly couldn't disagree with the brilliant pacing and direction, though like I say, I just wasn't finding the opening stuff as funny as I remembered a few years back.

I think Willie really does spoil it for me, though. :( Shortround isn't far behind, though his character is generally reasonable.

[Brozyniak]

Funny how a lot of people don't like TOD as much as the others when Speilberg himself says on the commentaries that he hardly storyboarded it (except for a few set peices that he meant for ROLA).

It perhaps smacks of a lack of cohesive direction throughout with some interesting parts that don't quite hang together very well.

I agree with what TheoGB says about the special effects :gag:

The stunt with the boat out of the plane was nearly as OTT as Bond in the opener of Goldeneye :cuckoo:

[Niceguygeoff]

I've always loved ToD because it stands out so much from the other Indy movies. It's not quite my favourite (you can't top Raiders IMO) but it is a classic from my childhood that I will always treasure. The 'Anything Goes' musical number always gives me a buzz, and to have the movie uncut (at last) makes me even happier.

[Guiness]

Temple is Spielberg's most underrated film, as well as his most inventive and best-looking. It's a masterpiece, as is Raiders, but Temple is a favourite punching bag for movie bores, so don't believe the hype. Spielberg has never been so daring or confident with a movie. Temple is Spielberg in his creative if not prolific prime. Crusade, although engaging (and it had better be given it's pedigree) simply doesn't work as a result of reducing all four of it's heroes to comic buffoons.

[ro_ram_ro]

Raiders is an amazing movie, so fresh and a very good story, compared to the other 2 which drift into formula too easily. When I was 12 I thought TOD was amazing, very kiddie very fast and action packed. The errr factor with the insects and sheep heads :clap: and the scary heart ripping moment. I was so disappointed with Crusade the story seemed so contrived, with the writers desprately trying to squeeze in too much. Connery being Fords dad was so unbelivable.

[c9550904]

Having long been of the opinion that Temple was the worst of the three (despite being very good in its own right), I've had a rethink after watching all three again and I've changed my mind.

Raiders is undoubtedly the best of the three. As people have alluded to before, it's fantastically paced and there are lots of evocative moments, or moments which make you think "wow" or "cool" or "ohmygod" or whatever. Off of the top of my head:

Sandbag/statue
Boulder
Running for the plane in the jungle
The map room
Snakes and the well of souls
The truck
Indy's appearance on the U-boat
Rocket launcher in the canyon
Opening of the Ark

There were a fair few of these in Doom too

The whole intro
The raft
The temple and sacrifice
The close-up on Indy's face when he's about to free the children (angry Indy is cool)
The mine car chase
The rope bridge

Although there were some excellent set pieces in Last Crusade, I think that there were a lot less really memorable invocative moments, as a lot of these moments were (IMO) weakened by the accompanying comedy element. Examples of this:

- The intro. Quite good, but quite 'kiddie' with the stoopid trumpet playing boy-scout
- Boat chase. "Go betveen them"
- Fireplace. "Dad", "what", "Dad", "what" etc
- Tank chase. Good sequence, diluted slightly by the Dad/Marcus comedy.
- The Hitler sequence. I didn't really get any sense of foreboding when Indy met Hitler. More a sense of "ha ha - look what happened to him!"

For me, the invocative moments of this movie were:

Bloke at the starting giving young Indy his hat
Bike and sidecar chase
Dad and the umbrella (well, the line after it)
The three trials

The ending, with its similar theme to Raiders (unknown entity causes mayhem) was nowhere near as strong as the opening of the Ark.


So, all in all, Temple of Doom has been elevated above Last Crusade. Apologies for the essay!

[TheoGB]

I liked your essay, :), but I just wanted to point out how strange I find it when people attack Last Crusade for comedy moments here:

Originally posted by c9550904
The whole intro
But then this has the 'comedy' lines from Willie ("This Nur-hachi must be a real small guy"), combined with the 'throwing of the gun out the window.

The raft
And here I really felt the moment when Indy says it wasn't so bad and then there's the sudden fall off the cliff was a little dodgy to say the least. Actually my weakest point of the movie
The temple and sacrificeROCK ON!
The close-up on Indy's face when he's about to free the children (angry Indy is cool)
Yeah it's great...But straight after, the dodgy punch sound effects off screen followed by the guard flying and the kids doing the 'yippee' (c.f. Anakin Ep I :oh-hum: ) isn't. :(
The mine car chase
The rope bridge
Yeah both those rock...but I find the crocodiles 'eating people' to be most unsatisfactory. People fall against a blue screen and then we get the close up of happy crocs eating clothes. It's just bad.

My point is not that these things make Temple necessarily worse than the others (though for me they do) but that you can't really compare across to Last Crusade to suggest that it falls down for reasons that Temple does too.

In a sense I prefer Last Crusade because to me, despite some pretty obvious moments (as the ones you describe) which are fairly cheap on the laughs front, those who deliver them are doing a fantastic job (Connery and Ford in the main). On top of the that, the film tends to stay fairly 'grounded' at the times when it should do, with the German fighter sailing past them in the tunnel on the road being an obvious moment that this is lost.

[c9550904]

But then this has the 'comedy' lines from Willie ("This Nur-hachi must be a real small guy"), combined with the 'throwing of the gun out the window.

Fair point, but Indy doesn't buy into this comedy. The hostile atmosphere is there throughout this sequence.

And here I really felt the moment when Indy says it wasn't so bad and then there's the sudden fall off the cliff was a little dodgy to say the least. Actually my weakest point of the movie

That's true. Perhaps my judgement is being clouded by the start of the sequence which was pretty clever :)

Yeah it's great...But straight after, the dodgy punch sound effects off screen followed by the guard flying and the kids doing the 'yippee' (c.f. Anakin Ep I :oh-hum: ) isn't. :(

Again, fair point.

Yeah both those rock...but I find the crocodiles 'eating people' to be most unsatisfactory. People fall against a blue screen and then we get the close up of happy crocs eating clothes. It's just bad.

Probably not really relevant to the comedy discussion, but agreed - it is a bit ropey.

My point is not that these things make Temple necessarily worse than the others (though for me they do) but that you can't really compare across to Last Crusade to suggest that it falls down for reasons that Temple does too.

For me, the comedy moments are far more apparent in Last Crusade and there's an overall comedy undertone throughout the whole movie. The humour in TOD was way more up front than Crusade, but it wasn't quite so persistent and in many cases, the comedy came after the action scene. In Crusade, you often get both happening simultaneously which tends to lighten the whole atmosphere.

Don't get me wrong. Last Crusade is a corker, but when I sat and thought about it, I could think of way more memorable moments in Temple.

I feel like such a film geek, but I'm enjoying this! :)

[TheoGB]

I'll be watching Last Crusade in the next few days so I'll see how it feels.

These DVDs have made each movie feel different. The crispness and care of the transfers is to be appreciated, and I found myself noticing stuff in Raiders that I didn't remember, to the point where I had to stick my VHS widescreen copy in to really see how bad it had looked! :D

Actually one point about TOD which I find intriguing is that (as others have said, maybe on different sites) we have an absolutely outstandingly dark and evil villain - probably the best in the series - yet he is surrounded by utter incompetents. They can't hit Indy with swords, arrows, or anything...they are easily overrun by kids (leaving you wondering why the kids didn't overrun them before).

At least the Nazis come across as having a sense of being good at what they do, from what I remember - obviously Indy can't be killed, but fights are spread out and left to a point where you have less sense of 'Stormtroopers in a different costume'... :suspect:

[c9550904]

Originally posted by TheoGB
Actually one point about TOD which I find intriguing is that (as others have said, maybe on different sites) we have an absolutely outstandingly dark and evil villain - probably the best in the series - yet he is surrounded by utter incompetents. They can't hit Indy with swords, arrows, or anything...they are easily overrun by kids (leaving you wondering why the kids didn't overrun them before).

At least the Nazis come across as having a sense of being good at what they do, from what I remember - obviously Indy can't be killed, but fights are spread out and left to a point where you have less sense of 'Stormtroopers in a different costume'... :suspect:

That's so true. Come to think of it, Indy's boldness also makes them look really crap. The thuggee guards are such a daunting force that Indy goes unarmed into the mine to potentially take on 10-20 of them. I can't imagine that he'd have done the same with the Nazis (although they've got guns...)

[Guiness]

I'll defend any component of Temple, and i think Mola Ram is a great Villain, but you think he's better than Belloq or Toht? You're crazy.

[ryonhilluk]

I prefered the third film, although i did enjoy Temple Of Doom quite a lot.

[TheoGB]

Originally posted by Guiness
I'll defend any component of Temple, and i think Mola Ram is a great Villain, but you think he's better than Belloq or Toht? You're crazy.

Well I think as an out and out piece of pure evil I'd have said yes. Belloq is far cleverer and slimey, and Toht is creepy, but neither have quite the overall thing of Mola Ram, I'd say.

Still when Ronald Lacey grabs that red-hot poker as Toht, don't some of you secretly wish he'd say "Because I am the Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells! Bend over, Blackadder!" :lol:

[c9550904]

Originally posted by Guiness
I'll defend any component of Temple, and i think Mola Ram is a great Villain, but you think he's better than Belloq or Toht? You're crazy.

Belloq's slimy and manipulative and surrounds himself with tough-guys, but he's not in the same ball-park as Mola Ram when it comes to evil. Toht is very menacing, but he wasn't the main bad guy in the movie. Also, I can't help but think of that daft sound he makes when he's cooling his burning hands in the snow :lol:

[Guiness]

That's why he's great!

Toht and Belloq do so much cool stuff (even Dietrich has his moments), but Mola Ram just sort of cackles and preaches.

That said though, after the water tank topples he does the best unhinged maniac grin i've ever seen.

[TheoGB]

Well I just finished Last Crusade again and it's certainly 'The Daddy'.

It's not just my favourite Indy film - it's an example of a really great movie in my mind. It's wonderfully paced such that no action sequences are too long, no dialogue sections woolly and unclear, and direction is brilliant.

It's true to say there aren't any big 'set pieces', but actually I feel that's precisely because of the flow of the movie - it doesn't have dull bits, which means you don't find yourself concentrating on one section or another. In all my times of watching this, I've never contemplated skipping forward to the next section. It's utter class!! :thumbs:

[DamienB]

TLC beats TOD into a cocked hat based on one line alone

"No ticket"

:D

But Raiders is still the daddy... even now it's been renamed to 'Indiana Jones and ...'. :nono:

[CrackD0wn]

Well just finished watching all 3 from the trilogy and I have to say I thought Temple of Doom was my favourite. Having not seen each of the films for at least 8 years I had forgotten most of them so it was like watching brand new movies. My order goes

1. Temple of Doom
2. Raiders of the Lost Ark
3. The Last Crusade

[thescrounger]

If you compare scenes from Last Crusade to Raiders, you can see just how weak last Crusade is in comparison, at least Temple was made before Spielberg got tired and sloppy, and made the by the numbers crusade, which only saving graces are Connery, even though his inclusion does turn the franchise into a farce at some points. Turning Marcus into a bumbling idiot was a mistake as well.

[John Crichton]

Originally posted by TheoGB
Oh and it's worth noting this is a bad Spielberg film, but that's obvious about 1000 better than most other directors' best efforts.

Let me re-phrase that bit of your post:

Oh and it's worth noting this is a bad Spielberg film, but that's obvious about 1000 better than the crap he's been doing for the last 10 years.

I do like the Indiana Jones films (my favourite is definitely Raiders, followed by Last Crusade and Temple of Doom) and Steven Spielbergs early work, but in my opinion he is one of the most over-rated directors of our time, just like Sean Connery is one of the most over-rated actors of our time.

[Dan Druff]

Originally posted by thescrounger
If you compare scenes from Last Crusade to Raiders, you can see just how weak last Crusade is in comparison, at least Temple was made before Spielberg got tired and sloppy, and made the by the numbers crusade, which only saving graces are Connery, even though his inclusion does turn the franchise into a farce at some points. Turning Marcus into a bumbling idiot was a mistake as well.

:thumbs:


..and a Grange Hill 6' right handed Hitler to boot.

Terrible film, not only not a patch on the first (which it tries desperately to emulate), not only the worst Indy movie, not only one of Spielbergs three worst movies (along with The Lost World and Hook), but ones of Harrison Fords worst as well. To be fair Connery has made worse movies, just about.

[Idle Child]

As a child growing up in the 80s, Temple of Doom is by far my favourite Indy film. I mean what's not to like? There's the opening "Anything Goes" credit sequence and ensuing fight for the antedote, There's Shortround, there's the airplane jump, there's the jungle roaming and shannigans with the elephant, there's the lovely Palace meal "Monkey Brains", there's the booby traps, the insects, the screaming, the love interest, saucy bedroom foreplay, the underground cult, the torture chambers, the bad guy with the funny feather hat, the mine car chase and ofcourse THE BRIDGE CUTTING scene. :notworthy

Classic Indy for me, and i don't care what anyone says against it. It's fun, exciting and it's a no brainer of an action film. Decent acting to boot. The dynamic of Indy and his "girl" make the film even more enjoyable. I love all that angst ridden back chat of two characters clearly having feelings for each other but taking the mick out each other because they're just too darn proud to make their feelings known. It's entertainment, baby.

[TheoGB]

Originally posted by John Crichton
Let me re-phrase that bit of your post:

Oh and it's worth noting this is a bad Spielberg film, but that's obvious about 1000 better than the crap he's been doing for the last 10 years.

I do like the Indiana Jones films (my favourite is definitely Raiders, followed by Last Crusade and Temple of Doom) and Steven Spielbergs early work, but in my opinion he is one of the most over-rated directors of our time, just like Sean Connery is one of the most over-rated actors of our time.

Jurassic Park - One of the finest action movies of the 90's
Schindler's List - utterly awesome
Minority Report - Makes Tom Cruise watchable!!

Those are just three Spielberg's of the last 10 years that I have really enjoyed.

I don't think he's overrated - Minority Report proved to me that he can still produce quality action entertainment even now. :)

[thescrounger]

When people say that Temple is a bad Spielberg film, what exactly are you comparing it to? If anything, and why is it bad? IMO it succeeds as it was intended as pure fantasy popcorn entertainment, based on the old saturday morning adventure film. It has less depth than the first film, but this aint what the films about folks.

[TheoGB]

Originally posted by thescrounger
When people say that Temple is a bad Spielberg film, what exactly are you comparing it to? If anything, and why is it bad? IMO it succeeds as it was intended as pure fantasy popcorn entertainment, based on the old saturday morning adventure film. It has less depth than the first film, but this aint what the films about folks.

I don't think the film is about depth either. None of them are deeper or shallower than the other. In fact Spielberg very rarely does 'deep' movies.

The point is that the film does not connect with the same wide cross-section of ages as Raiders or indeed Last Crusade, and is not the same critical (and I mean in the sense of professional critics) success as many of Spielberg's other movies.

And hence the idea that it's a 'bad Spielberg'. The man raises a bar for himself by the process of having made so many good films over the years.

But that said, it's still a much better film than (say) The Phantom Menace. :D

[thescrounger]

The point is that the film does not connect with the same wide cross-section of ages as Raiders or indeed Last Crusade

Why would you say that, and based on what though?

[TheoGB]

Originally posted by thescrounger
Why would you say that, and based on what though?

Based on the reception of the professional critics who (by and large) are a bunch of hard-to-please old fuddy-duddies.

Based on those I know of my parents generation, who loved Raiders and also Last Crusade, and Jaws etc. They never really liked Temple.

I personally can't undestand who people can't see the essential 'childrens' film that lies at the heart of Temple compared to Raiders and Last Crusade. It is a paradox, because Temple IS so much darker. But I've written all this out.

I can't explain it, and I'm not saying it's good or bad that people like it, but I know that if I speak to people the general feeling is that Temple is not of the same calibre as his 'great' films.

To me it's the same as Return of the Jedi. I enjoy it, but it's the little things that let it down - Ewoks, the loss of Han as a 'shady character', Vader being boring, etc.

With Temple, Willie spends the whole movie being almost entirely useless, and to make it clear how bad she is, an annoying 10 year old kid kicks more butt than her. One of my all time least-favourite sections is where we see Indy beating the crap out of Pat Roach's guard and then we pan across to Shortround pummelling the Prince in a punch-for-punch immitation. It's that little 'kid's fight imitating the adults' thing that shows where the 'childrens' heart is of the movie. As a kid you root for Shortround - he is who you'd like to be in an Indy film; but seeing it as an adult he just seems horribly out of place in the world of adults, must as Ewoks just seem out of place in the world of big guys with blasters in Jedi...

[thescrounger]

It's definately an adults children film in my book. More so than the first which was just out and out adventure But to say it doesn't have broad appeal is silly. Just look at Harry Potter or the James Bond Films. Temple did the same box office as Raiders. As for the crittics, shmittics. There are very few I'd consider worth listening to. Willie Scott or the kid being irritating doesn't get in the way of this being a top film for me.

[TheoGB]

Originally posted by thescrounger
It's definately an adults children film in my book. More so than the first which was just out and out adventure But to say it doesn't have broad appeal is silly. Just look at Harry Potter or the James Bond Films. Temple did the same box office as Raiders. As for the crittics, shmittics. There are very few I'd consider worth listening to. Willie Scott or the kid being irritating doesn't get in the way of this being a top film for me.

What on earth have Harry Potter or James Bond got to do with it? When I describe it as a kids movie I mean literally that its level is with kids more than adults.

There's nothing that says adults can't enjoy a well-made kids movie. Toy Story's a case in point there.

Temple was indeed popular at the box office, but that's down to it still being a fairly good film. It was also a sequel so it's not surprising. Last Crusade was the biggest film of 1989 over here. Not really the point, though, is it?

And whether or not you listen to critics they are often a good way to get a sense of an idea of how different people will view a film. My point was that Temple does not have *as* broad an appeal. It is a less successful movie than Raiders and Last Crusade in that respect. I've already pointed out to you how it feels worse to me.

[thescrounger]

Originally posted by TheoGB
What on earth have Harry Potter or James Bond got to do with it? When I describe it as a kids movie I mean literally that its level is with kids more than adults.



It has a touch of the goonies about it. My point was saying that Temple not having broad appeal is about as silly as saying Die Another Day doesn't have broad appeal.

I'm pretty sure the critics slated it's horror factor more than it's kids factor though. If anything it has more of a teenager appeal. Although it's the ideal film for a family unit.

[Marv]

Did you know that Temple of Doom bested Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi's $8.4 million single-day box office record.

[Alan b]

Nice thread resurrection.

Moving..