Jump to content
IGNORED

Movie Debate #59: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom


Reed Rothchild

Rate it  

27 members have voted

  1. 1. Rate based on your own personal preferences

    • 10/10 - One of your very favorite movies of all time. Top 10.
    • 9/10 - Killer fucking movie. Everyone should watch it.
    • 8/10 - Great movie. An easy recommendation.
    • 7/10 - Very good movie, but not quite great.
    • 6/10 - Pretty good. You might enjoy the occasional watch, or tune in if you happen to catch it on cable.
    • 5/10 - It's okay, but maybe not something you'll go out of your way to watch.
      0
    • 4/10 - Meh. There's plenty of better alternatives to this.
    • 3/10 - Not very good.
      0
    • 2/10 - Not your cup of tea at all. Some people might like this, but you are not one of them.
      0
    • 1/10 - Horrible in every way.
      0
    • 0/10 - The Citizen Kane of painful experiences. You'd rather shove an icepick in your retinas than watch this.
    • Never seen it, but you're interested.
      0
    • Never seen it, never will.
      0


Recommended Posts

I can't stand the opening sequence, especially after it's predecessor has one of the most famous openings in cinema history, and Sankara Stones are hardly as awe-inducing as the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail, but it's an excellent action-adventure film whose only real knock is that it is sandwiched between two of the greatest action-adventure flicks of all time...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love all 3 original IJ movies and I know I'm probably alone in this but Temple of Doom is my favorite one. I don't know why, it just is. Possibly because it was the first one I ever saw as a kid and stuck out in my mind the most. Maybe I just like the theme of it the best. I'm not sure why. But like I said I like all 3 original IJ movies. I won't talk about Crystal Skull.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7/10

I love the first and third Indy movies, but I'm one of those people who aren't that into the second one.

It's enjoyable enough, and it definitely has a few great classic moments (like snatching the hat from behind the closing wall), but every time I watch it I feel that it drags on a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give it a solid 7.

It would have been a better movie with a less grating female costar.

And it would have had a better legacy if it had better opened the door for a broader range of "serial adventure" out of Indiana Jones than a primary focus on Judeo-Christian artifacts and Nazis.  (part of what made the PS2 / GC era Indiana Jones video game so great, IMO, was capturing that world traveler adventure vibe with something more mysterious than thoroughly tread Judeo-Christian artifacts)

All that said -- it is a great adventure movie with a good range of settings and an imaginative enough villain to shape pop culture for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave it a 6 - I found Willie Scott and Short Round to be mostly annoying.  And the theme was a little too dark to fit the spirit of the old cliffhangers which originally inspired the film series. Lots of really good parts which never really gelled for me in the way that the first one did.

I did like to use the opening show scene to demonstrate the wonderfulness that was my then cutting edge laserdisc player on a Mitsubishi 36" CRT.  (This was before DVDs came out.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to use the worst least favorite, because that would make you think I believe it's poor, bad, or really any far worse than the others as it's not.  I just prefer the subject matter and the grander amazing scenes with or without smarmy jackass nazi's acting tough and getting what they ultimately deserve in the end.  The movie, it has the action, the intrigue, the strange juju of it all, but it's also I guess more confined, smaller, less epic in its set pieces and what they were doing there that's all.  Sure Mola Ram is a prick, epic one all things considered what he did to people, and was hoping to pull off, but the movie lacks the scale of the others in wow punch factor, but it works.  I couldn't give an 8 or a 10, went with a 9.  It isn't so much that it has faults, just design choices that scale it a bit less punchy and memorable, but it's not obviously worse either.  It's like those middle chapters to a really damn good book where you remember what happened, and where it ended on a re-read, but the middle glued it together in good form.

Personally can't wait to see the other two movies get pulled into this.  I'm going to love seeing all the commentary on why crystal skull so called sucks and how so.  Few people try and deconstruct that one and just get into the sheep bin of criticism without thinking about the earlier three as it perfectly follows suit, just in another time(decade) and place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Administrator · Posted
2 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

This is the problem with me trying to be funny or witty or anything else.  The other person has no idea what I'm talking about, so I just come off as a moron 😆

...or they're just drunk 🤣

He's definitely had a bit of the sauce. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Events Helper · Posted
3 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

This is the problem with me trying to be funny or witty or anything else.  The other person has no idea what I'm talking about, so I just come off as a moron 😆

...or they're just drunk 🤣

i dont know what that would mean even if i wasn't drunk!

Just now, Gloves said:

He's definitely had a bit of the sauce. 

Blame canada!!!!!  😒  👑

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tanooki said:

Few people try and deconstruct that one and just get into the sheep bin of criticism without thinking about the earlier three as it perfectly follows suit, just in another time(decade) and place.

I'm sure you've seen this? That's a deconstruction if I ever saw one (just skip over the "comedy" bits)


Personally I enjoyed Crystal Skull well enough in the theater. I didn't think it was great, definitely not on the level of the classic Indy movies, and not even Temple of Doom either, but enjoyable.
The dynamic with Indy's son worked surprisingly well, and I think he did a good job as supporting actor. Other things worked a lot less well, and the overall plot completely lacked any kind of spark or attachment. Could have been a lot better, but it could have been a lot worse too.

Edited by Sumez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

9

I've always loved it and never particularly agreed with the criticisms.

You don't agree with criticism of Willie?

 

To me, Willie is pretty much the only thing that holds this movie back from being neck-and-neck with Raiders of the Lost Ark.

She is Temple of Doom's version of the awful jarring soundtrack in Ladyhawke.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Not really.  We didn't need a Karen Allen repeat.

I'm not saying we needed a Karen Allen repeat.

But we didn't need Willie, either.  Even if you decide the movie is better with a "damsel" instead of a partner for Indy, you can have a "damsel" who doesn't spend more time screaming than speaking and doesn't exercise a pitch-range that makes your ears bleed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...