Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - the most underrated IJ film!

"You cheatin', Docta Jones!"

 

I think the scene between Indy and Willie where they're
waiting on each other in their bedrooms is hilarious!
The battle of the sexes is on!
With both of them playing "hard to get"!

"You'll be back over here in five minutes." - Willie
"I'll be asleep in five minutes." - Indy

 

IMO Temple of Doom would have been better if Lucas had directed it himself instead of Spielberg.
One of the things that bothers me is the way the movie attempts to be dark, gory and violent, but at the same time features Short Round screaming around Karate kicking several soldiers defeating them etc.
I think the movie would have been better if these "childlike" elements from Spielberg that breaks with the overall feel was left out making it a more a total experience of a dark Indy movie.
Lucas wanted it dark and gory (he was in a very dark mood after his divorce), Spielberg approved but doesn't seem to go the whole way. IMO Lucas would have made it a more complete and better movie if he had directed it himself.

 

Temple of Doom is not underrated. It deserves the less-than-spectacular reviews that it gets and its low position on the IJ totem pole. Why? Because it is too dark. Indiana Jones is not a dark character, nor are Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade dark. IJ movies simply don't work as dark. Now, I'll admit that there are good parts in Temple of Doom. The opening scene and a lot of the humor. But get this: they aren't dark. Both RotLA and TLC are not, for the most part, dark. And they were very successful. Notice that the dark Indiana Jones movie is not. This supports my point: Indiana Jones movies should not be dark and this is why the Temple of Doom fails as a good IJ movie.

 

Temple of Doom is dark in a cheesy, serialistic way, like Tales from the Crypt--its a fun kind of scary. Raiders had plenty of creepiness in it--the well of souls, the snakes, the spirits at the end and of course all the exploding heads and melting faces. TOD just took that aspect and made it more front and centre since the plot revolved around occultism rather than "fighting the good fight". Temple of Doom has darkness in it but its not what i would consider "a dark film." Last Crusade turned into a comedy in many places! So if TOD is considered a horror flick then Last Crusade must be considered a comedy. You see what i am saying; Crusade took the humorous angle of Raiders and put it in the foreground while keeping the Nazi plot while Temple of Doom took the occult angle of Raiders and put it in the foreground while keeping the jungle plot. Its just that comedy is a more mainstream taste, hence Crusade is most loved. I love Temple of Doom with all of its bugs, beating hearts, magic stones, human skulls and rooms of spikes! To me that summarises the jungle-trekking, idol-snatching treasure hunter Indiana Jones much more than fighting Nazi's! I mean who is he supposed to be, Captain America? Give me a break. Temple of Doom is one of the best adventure flicks ever made, hampered perhaps only by a very weak female sidekick.

 

What I mean is that ToD is dark relative to the other Indiana Jones movies. RotLA, while it might have had some creepy parts (again, relative to the other IJ movies), was not defined by those parts. Not so with ToD. Furthermore, Raiders used those parts tastefully whereas Temple of Doom sometimes just threw the creepy stuff in for the sake of being creepy. That's a big difference. I think your view that 'ToD brought out the creepy side of Raiders and Last Crusade brought out the funny side of Raiders and since people like funny stuff more than creepy stuff Last Crusade is more popular' is overly simplistic and wrong. Temple of Doom was just defined by its creepiness. It didn't show a lot of depth. On the other hand, Last Crusade was not defined by its funniness. There were deep and complex themes as well as good action throughout the movie. This is why Last Crusade is more popular. I also think we have touched on another issue here: the nature of Indiana Jones. Zombie, you said "To me that summarises the jungle-trekking, idol-snatching treasure hunter Indiana Jones much more than fighting Nazi's!" Well, I disagree with you. Part of all the Indiana Jones movies is the underlying good vs. evil struggle going on. He isn't just some treasure hunter. So I feel that Indy's fight with the Nazis over artifacts like the Holy Grail and Ark of the Covenant shows much more clearly his personality.

 

I still feel Temple is the more enjoyable and thrilling sequel due to the following reasons:

1.) Mola Ram is a far more compelling villain than Donovan. Mola Ram may not be as well developed a character as Belloq but he's at least got some screen presence and a personality. The guy rips hearts out with his bare hands, sacrifices people, laughs hysterically, enslaves innocent children, brainwashes them (and Indy) with the Blood of Kali, drops his own men off a cliff. Plus he's the only main baddie to actually go toe-to-toe with Indy and almost kicks his ass. Donovan on the other hand is dull and boring. What's he do interesting as a villain? Uh, he shoots Henry at the end and that's it.

2.) It offers something new as a sequel. I prefer Temple's approach to try something different and expand the franchise rather than semi-remake Raiders.

3.) The Dark Tone. I like it's dark, violent tone rather than Crusade's light, comedic tone. It helps create a unsettling atmosphere that the audience is unsure of what's next.

4.) More Thrills. The action sequences are more thrilling and have an energy lacking from the setpieces in Crusade. The action in Temple is bursting with a hyper kinetic enegry whereas the ones in Crusade feel sluggish and mechanical.

5.) More memorable leading lady. Willie may have been annoying but at least she doesn't fade into the background like Elsa in Crusade. I mean really once we find out Elsa's been doublecrossing Indy she more or less disappears from the majority of the film.

 

While I agree with most of your other points I strongly disagree on this. Willie is just plainly irritating all the time. She is the "Jar Jar Binks" of Temple of Doom. IMO she is the really the biggest weakness of Temple.
While Elsa disappears in Crusade she sure does a good impression with the screen time she has.

 

I have to say, the biggest weak point in the movie was the girl. Her senseless screaming made the entire movie the least enjoyable of the three. And short round wasn't a very good character either, since heres this Archaeologist, and his sidekick is a pre-teen asian kid? I'm sorry, I just think its lame. My personal preference is Last Crusade, the duo of Harrison and Connery was just too cool.

 

Lucas should have directed...because there was too much kiddie stuff?

Spielberg is the King of casting and directing child actors. Compare Short Round, Elliot from E.T., Jack Banning from Hook, and the kids in Jurassic Park to the kid versions of Anakin Skywalker and Boba Fett.


Oh yeah, even though the films themselves weren't that great, the kids in A.I. and War of the Worlds also gave great performances (Dakota screamed too much, but all the screams were believable).

 

Spielberg is also the king of making movies with irritating little kids in them. Something Lucas has never done (until TPM that is). Lucas was in a dark mood during the making of Temple and encouraged a lot of the dark bloody stuff. It was apparantly some kind of therapy for him after his divorce (The same way Polanski made the most violent Macbeth ever after his wife was killed).
I think that if he had directed it himself he would have gone all the way and skipped stuff like short round beating up grown-up warriors and all.

 

I have to disagree.

Yeah, it was nice for Lucas to provide Spielberg with a unique story different from Raiders but I still wouldn't have wanted him to direct Temple. It was through Spielberg's direction that the film's action sequences like the mine car ride, Club Obi Wan and the rope bridge scene remain action classics in the mind.

Lucas can't really direct action. SW: A New Hope excepted, watch any of the recent SW films. They totally pale in comparision and lack the overall thrills of any of the sequences in Temple.

 

I couldn't disagree more. Lucas is great at directing action. Better than Spielberg IMO. Just watch any of the recent SW movies.
Lucas would have directed Temple of Doom brilliantly. He was even better at directing then than he is now.

 

This is a joke, right? Spielberg did a terrific job of directing Temple.

The action in the new SW films are way overeliant on CGI, making them look artifical and fake. Plus, there is little character investment due to the fact that the characters aren't interesting and have terrible dialogue saddled with.They play out like commercials for Playstation/XBOX games.

Spielberg has better understanding of how to get good performances out of actors, create tension, plus hires talented screenwriters and knows how to create great action with or without CGI or stuntmen. Look at all these great sequences he's done: The shark attacks in Jaws, the truck chase in Raiders, mine car ride in Temple of Doom, tank fight in Last Crusade, the dino chases in JP and the Lost World, the battles in Saving Private Ryan, chases in Minority Report and finally the alien attacks in War of the Worlds. All of them feel very real and manage to generate thrills from the auidence. The use of real actual models is actually better than overblown FX. Plus we care for the characters and fear for their safety.

Now compare to a Mini-Me-like Yoda jumping around, or the made for the Playstation,podrace. They can't hold a candle to anything, Spielberg's done.

How can you even compare Lucas to Spielberg when Lucas has only directed six films and only four of them with any actual action? Not to mention the PT was a failure overall.

 

I have never said Spielberg didn't do a good job on Temple. I love that movie, It's just that I think it would have been just a little better overall if Lucas had directed it. Short Round would have been less irritating for instance. This is of course speculation, but I think so based on that Lucas was in such a dark mood and he still knew what was funny and what was not back then.

- In 1984 Lucas would not have used any CGI of course, the screenplay for Temple was not written by him so the characters and dialogue would be the same as with the existing Temple.
- In 1984 no movie by Lucas would ever look like a Playstation commercial.

- Back then Lucas still made good movies with good acting in them. Spielberg may be better at directing actors, but Temple has some horrible acting; Short Round, the Chinese mafia and Willie (I think Lucas could do no worse than that).
- Those talented screenwriters (Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz who also wrote American Grafitti) were hired by Lucas, not Spielberg.
- Back then Lucas could create great action without any CGI.

The brilliance of the shark attack in Jaws was not Spielberg's accomplishment at all. It was mainly due to the mechanical sharks breakdown that they had to opt for showing so little of it thus creating so great tension. This was apparantly mainly editor Verna Fields accomplishment (Spielberg wanted to show off the expensive rubber shark). Of course Spielberg has learned from his mistakes and become a better filmmaker since then.

In 1984 the SFX for Temple would basically have looked the same (models and stuff by ILM) if Lucas had directed it.

Terrence Malick has only directed four films yet he is considered one of the best directors ever. Number of films is not the issue. You may think the PT was a failure, I (and most others judging from the number of people who has seen them) think they were a success. The PT is not Lucas best work, but they are still great movies.
I believe that Spielberg may be a better filmmaker than Lucas today, but twenty years ago Lucas was better than Spielberg overall IMO.

 

I have never said Spielberg didn't do a good job on Temple. I love that movie, It's just that I think it would have been just a little better overall if Lucas had directed it. Short Round would have been less irritating for instance. This is of course speculation, but I think so based on that Lucas was in such a dark mood and he still knew what was funny and what was not back then.


I still don't see how Lucas directing it would have made it any different. And I thought Short Round was great. He had great chemistry with Ford. Something you can't say for a lot of child actors. And you have to be kidding about Lucas's penchant for slapstick. See Return of the Jedi's burping gags in Jabba's palace or the Ewok hitting himself in the face.

- In 1984 Lucas would not have used any CGI of course, the screenplay for Temple was not written by him so the characters and dialogue would be the same as with the existing Temple.
- In 1984 no movie by Lucas would ever look like a Playstation commercial.


Yeah, ok, so what's your point? You were saying Lucas is better at directing action and that's just not the case.


Back then Lucas still made good movies with good acting in them. Spielberg may be better at directing actors, but Temple has some horrible acting; Short Round, the Chinese mafia and Willie (I think Lucas could do no worse than that).
- Those talented screenwriters (Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz who also wrote American Grafitti) were hired by Lucas, not Spielberg.
- Back then Lucas could create great action without any CGI.


See my previous post on Short Round. What was horribly acted by the Chinese mobster characters? They did their job of being menacing and then chasing Indy. That's all they were asked to do and did a fine job. As for the screenwriters, I meant that Spielberg used other screenwriters to do the screenplay. I like that that he knows his limitations since Lucas isn't the greatest at writing dialogue.


The brilliance of the shark attack in Jaws was not Spielberg's accomplishment at all. It was mainly due to the mechanical sharks breakdown that they had to opt for showing so little of it thus creating so great tension. This was apparantly mainly editor Verna Fields accomplishment (Spielberg wanted to show off the expensive rubber shark). Of course Spielberg has learned from his mistakes and become a better filmmaker since then.


Of course, he has and that's why the film turned out so great in spite of the shark malfunctioning. I meant that Spielberg did a great job of creating tension, editing and using William's music to convey suspense. The shark attacks still rank as some of the most tense scenes in cinema.


In 1984 the SFX for Temple would basically have looked the same (models and stuff by ILM) if Lucas had directed it.

I'm sure it would have. But Spielberg knew what he was doing.



Terrence Malick has only directed four films yet he is considered one of the best directors ever. Number of films is not the issue. You may think the PT was a failure, I (and most others judging from the number of people who has seen them) think they were a success. The PT is not Lucas best work, but they are still great movies.
I believe that Spielberg may be a better filmmaker than Lucas today, but twenty years ago Lucas was better than Spielberg overall IMO.

I didn't say the number of films didn't make his filmography any less effective, I said that Spielberg put more films out twenty years ago which gave him an edge over Lucas in output. And Steven grew as a director during the period. Look at Duel, Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, E.T., Temple and The Color Purple. Lucas only had THX, American Graffiti and Star Wars. Plus, he became more interested in being a producer and building Lucasfilm & ILM than being a director. Lucas's only real action movies were THX and SW. And a lot of those action setpieces leaned heavily on the special effects. He couldn't even touch (and probably didn't care about besting) Spielberg'

 

...Because this is a thread about Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? NOT the prequel trilogy.

 

Well, OK then but I was saying Weebacca should tell me why they're great movies. If possible, they can send a PM to me or something, they don't have to post it here.

 

Temple of Doom is really good. I give the same score as LC.

But Raiders is by far the best one... i mean the ending alone leaves you wondering!

they need to make IV similar to raiders ...

 

Temple Of Doom is my favorite out of the three, because it's mainly special effects and action. I also prefer ROTJ over the other OT movies for the same reason.

But I don't like poorly done special effects and action.

The special effects and action in TOD and ROTJ are pulled off perfectly. It's all straight forward, perfectly paced, and without CGI.

I like any movie with that formula.

As long as Indy 4 only uses CGI when absolutely necessary, it'll be good.

 

I like Temple of Doom because it's darker.

 

On the issue of Lucas directing TOD. Lucas did quite a bit of uncredited direcorial work on all 3 Indy movies and was a very hands-on producer. I don't think the would've been that much different had he directed it himself. We still would've had a child character as a sidekick and a pampered female love interest which the audience would've still found annoying just in a different way. Lucas in 1983-84 was a depressed man who had lost his desire and passion to direct movies fulltime 6 years prior. This isn't the kind of person you want directing an Indiana Jones movie and Lucas knew that. Yes, it was a dark movie, but that doesn't mean it had to be depressing or morbid. It's an adventure not an ordeal. I think the slapstick humor and action sequences is what balanced the movie and made it enjoyable.

I defend George Lucas as a director all the time, but for Indy it's always best when it's in Spielberg's hands.

 

I always like Temple of Doom. I think the whole plot of how they end up in the jungle is brillant. Alot of the criticism of the movie (that I have seen) is based on Willie. However, I like her. She screamed through the whole movie, it was great!! And her scene at the table with the monkey brains was priceless as was her love-hate relationship with the elephant. And I loved the action scene in the miner cart.

However, what I didn't care for was the kid king. To me he just wasn't very conviencing. It was like, who are they kidding, Indy would crush this kid in 10 seconds flat.

~Piper

 

Temple of Doom is without a doubt the best Indy movie and (other than Star Wars) my favorite movie of all time. The quotes, the story, the action its is miles ahead of "Raiders" and I think Steven Spielberg was too hard on himself about it and didnt see how good it was, is and will be. The bridge scene is just too awesome!

 

TOD is the best Indy movie. I'm shocked by the sometimes negative reaction to this movie.I saw it in the theater as a kid and when I got to the end of the movie I was completely worn out from the action in a good way. Last Crusade was a little boring and hokey. The whole thing with the knight guarding the grail was a little too far fetched for me.