An indication of the personal termoil that Spielberg and Lucas were experiencing at the time, this is a darker, more ominous installment in the franchise although still a rip roaring adventure despite some of the political incorrectness that often dates older films.
Not as charming as the original but a solid action adventure movie which stands on its own.
867 Reviews
Kate Capshaw...
warrencorson28019 September 2018
Perpetually Entertaining...
Xstal6 June 2022
The Cult of Thuggees seek to plunder, Sankara Stones and all their wonder, an archaeologist will resist, using whips and guns and fist, in a treasure of a film packed with adventure.
There are puzzles to be solved and riddles broken, the dialogue's a joy, beautifully spoken, action packed from start to end, returns a massive dividend, engaging all the way and thought provoking.
There are puzzles to be solved and riddles broken, the dialogue's a joy, beautifully spoken, action packed from start to end, returns a massive dividend, engaging all the way and thought provoking.
One of my favorite sequels!
Smells_Like_Cheese23 November 2003
I know that there are a lot of haters when it comes to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, it has it's flaws and is by no means the strongest movie of the Indiana Jones series, but I just have so many good memories about this film and still to this day when I watch it, it gives me chills and excitement. The characters are memorable, the script is great, and Indiana is still pulling in the action packed excitement continuing from Raiders of the Lost Ark. The direction, editing, even the special effects are great. You have to love Short Round and Willy, the two new side kicks to Indiana's new adventure. Now I agree, Willy can get a little annoying here and there, but she was just so hilarious in that scene with the bugs and having to save Indiana and Short Round. Plus, Short Round has some of the most memorable lines of the entire series "Okey, dokey, Dr. Jones, hold on to your potato!", cheesy, but so funny. Harrison Ford still has Indiana down to a tee, this was the role that was meant for him.
In this prequel, we start off in China on a trade off gone wrong with Lao Che, he ends up meeting a beautiful and very high maintence American girl, Willie. They escape together with Indiana's little side kick, Short Round and accidentally without knowing, they've escaped onto Lao Che's air plane. They wind up in India, where they find out about these rocks that can restore the village they're in, also the children have been kidnapped by Mola Ram and Indiana must free the kids and restore the rocks so the village can be safe again.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a fun sequel, I don't know why people complain so much about it. I can understand if people say it's the weakest of the series, but on it's own, this is a fantastic movie. It's one of my biggest recommendations to my friends as well as other film viewers. It just has everything you could want: action, romance, alligators, and heart sacrifices, lol, OK, that sounded gross, just trust me this that this is such a fun movie. It's one of my favorite films, I know that sounds bad, but I just love this film. It's a lot of fun and Indiana and Short Round are just the best buddies to watch argue on screen. This is an awesome sequel, definitely a must see.
9/10
In this prequel, we start off in China on a trade off gone wrong with Lao Che, he ends up meeting a beautiful and very high maintence American girl, Willie. They escape together with Indiana's little side kick, Short Round and accidentally without knowing, they've escaped onto Lao Che's air plane. They wind up in India, where they find out about these rocks that can restore the village they're in, also the children have been kidnapped by Mola Ram and Indiana must free the kids and restore the rocks so the village can be safe again.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a fun sequel, I don't know why people complain so much about it. I can understand if people say it's the weakest of the series, but on it's own, this is a fantastic movie. It's one of my biggest recommendations to my friends as well as other film viewers. It just has everything you could want: action, romance, alligators, and heart sacrifices, lol, OK, that sounded gross, just trust me this that this is such a fun movie. It's one of my favorite films, I know that sounds bad, but I just love this film. It's a lot of fun and Indiana and Short Round are just the best buddies to watch argue on screen. This is an awesome sequel, definitely a must see.
9/10
Obtainer of rare antiquities
tieman6427 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
"Wouldn't it be really cool to make a James Bond movie? A proper one, with Sean Connery." – Steven Spielberg.
In a prophetic article on "Raiders of the Lost Ark", Jonathan Rosenbaum predicted the rise of "set piece cinema". He called the directors of these films "disciples of Hitchcockian storyboards" in which "The Sequence becomes the raison d'etre of film-making". These sequences would themselves increasingly demand more time and money, as the only way to satiated audience would be to offer bigger and more outrageous set-pieces.
The James Bond franchise was arguably the first big budget series to exploit "set-piece cinema". To minimise financial risks, each Bond script is virtually identical. The stunts differ, the exotic locales are alternated, but beyond these superficial changes the Bond plot is always the same. By the time George Lucas started working on "Raiders", there'd already been 12 Bond flicks. The Bond formula had been set in stone and "proven" successful. All that was needed were a few minor cosmetic changes, and Lucas would have a franchise of his own.
As such, all four Indiana Jones movies follow the Bond formula precisely. First we have the pre-story action sequence, a self-contained action sequence in which Indy searches for an artifact. In "Raiders" it's a Golden Idol, in "Temple of Doom" it's a flask of Ashes and in "The Last Crusade" it's the Cross of Coronado. In each film, Indy finds the artifact and then promptly loses it to the villains.
After this pre-film action sequence, we then get the exposition. In the Bond films, this is where Bond learns of his mission. In Indiana Jones, this is where Indy learns of some religious myth. Bond and Indy then travel to an exotic location, Indy typically meets an attractive woman (who is always later captured), the audience is introduced to the sub-villain, and we're treated to two action sequences. At the end of the second act, Indy and Bond are then always captured by the central villain.
Of course our heroes then escape, there's a final big action sequence (always, in Indy's case, involving a vehicle), and an ending in which the bad guys are killed by the very artifact they sought. There are repeated plot beats, like Indy making a deal with the enemy, run-ins with henchmen, repeated scenes dealing with Indy's phobias, but basically the film follows the standard Bond formula. As Spielberg remarked after first reading the "Raiders" script: "It's Bond without the hardware".
As all Indiana Jones films are essentially the same, the only way to judge them are to pit their action sequences against one another. Each film has 5 action sequences. "Raiders" has one sequence involving a giant boulder, one involving an indoor gunfight, one involving a running battle with henchmen in Egypt, one involving a fistfight underneath a plane and one involving a moving truck. As what what constitutes action continuously gets "faster" and "harder", most of these sequences are deemed tame by modern audiences.
"Temple" also has five showcase sequences. One involving a song and dance routine, one involving a chase from henchmen, one involving an extended fist fight, one involving mine carts, and a final showdown on a rope bridge. Most of these sequences have aged well, the rope sequence the most tense moment in the trilogy, the others striking a tone that alternates between ultra sadistic and goofily over-the-top. More than other Indy films, "Temple" still feels audacious; part vaudeville movie, part musical, part quasi-racist B movie in the mould of 1930 serials. Opening with a rendition of "Anything Goes", it's totally ridiculous. Spielberg fans hate it.
"Crusade" likewise has five action sequences. One involving young Indy, one involving a Venice chase, one involving a showdown with air-planes, one involving a motorcycle chase and a final battle in which Indy faces a tank. While the opening and closing sequences are very strong, you sense Spielberg bored with everything in between.
In contrast, "Temple" is the Indy film which holds up best today, its cinematography richer, its camera work better, its pace faster, its tone unashamedly goofy (shades of Verhoeven) and with a hero who's simultaneously more muscular and more vulnerable than usual. Spielberg would go on to condemn and all but disown the film – he thinks its "sadistic" and "in poor taste"; he would say the same of "Jaws" - but it's the fact that "Temple" embraces the baseness that lurks in all his films that makes this Indy outing less hypocritical. Elsewhere "Doom" goes beyond emulating its influences ("Stagecoach", "Sierra Madre", "King Soloman's Mines", "Zorro", "Valley of the Kings", "Lawrence of Arabia", "The Naked Jungle", the same plot as "Gunga Din", often misread as a pro-colonalist film) to replicate wholesale the Colonialist/Orientalist/racist/sexist tone of 1930s serials, characters exoticized and demonized, the Other base or thoroughly in need of white salvation and the script falling back on various racist binaries. This repeats the treatment of Arabs and Nazis in the other two films (the way Spielberg/Lucas yearn for 1930s popular culture goes hand in hand with the decade's rise in Reaganism).
Nowadays, of course, popcorn films are moving away from what Rosenbaum called "set piece cinema". With spectacle dead, the majority of modern pop-corn flicks abandon elaborate set-pieces and instead seek to bombard their audiences with information. This is the post-cinema, cyber age, blockbusters now overwhelming audiences with plot. Thirty years ago we marvelled at Indy outrunning a giant boulder. Today, we salivate over narrative gymnastics, popcorn plots seeking to excite us with the sheer density of their tales. You know, like checking email, watching Youtube, wheeling through an Ipod, ebooking and cyber-surfing all at once. Indy would weep.
Raiders of the Lost Ark – 8/10, Temple of Doom – 8.5/10, Last Crusade – 7.9/10
In a prophetic article on "Raiders of the Lost Ark", Jonathan Rosenbaum predicted the rise of "set piece cinema". He called the directors of these films "disciples of Hitchcockian storyboards" in which "The Sequence becomes the raison d'etre of film-making". These sequences would themselves increasingly demand more time and money, as the only way to satiated audience would be to offer bigger and more outrageous set-pieces.
The James Bond franchise was arguably the first big budget series to exploit "set-piece cinema". To minimise financial risks, each Bond script is virtually identical. The stunts differ, the exotic locales are alternated, but beyond these superficial changes the Bond plot is always the same. By the time George Lucas started working on "Raiders", there'd already been 12 Bond flicks. The Bond formula had been set in stone and "proven" successful. All that was needed were a few minor cosmetic changes, and Lucas would have a franchise of his own.
As such, all four Indiana Jones movies follow the Bond formula precisely. First we have the pre-story action sequence, a self-contained action sequence in which Indy searches for an artifact. In "Raiders" it's a Golden Idol, in "Temple of Doom" it's a flask of Ashes and in "The Last Crusade" it's the Cross of Coronado. In each film, Indy finds the artifact and then promptly loses it to the villains.
After this pre-film action sequence, we then get the exposition. In the Bond films, this is where Bond learns of his mission. In Indiana Jones, this is where Indy learns of some religious myth. Bond and Indy then travel to an exotic location, Indy typically meets an attractive woman (who is always later captured), the audience is introduced to the sub-villain, and we're treated to two action sequences. At the end of the second act, Indy and Bond are then always captured by the central villain.
Of course our heroes then escape, there's a final big action sequence (always, in Indy's case, involving a vehicle), and an ending in which the bad guys are killed by the very artifact they sought. There are repeated plot beats, like Indy making a deal with the enemy, run-ins with henchmen, repeated scenes dealing with Indy's phobias, but basically the film follows the standard Bond formula. As Spielberg remarked after first reading the "Raiders" script: "It's Bond without the hardware".
As all Indiana Jones films are essentially the same, the only way to judge them are to pit their action sequences against one another. Each film has 5 action sequences. "Raiders" has one sequence involving a giant boulder, one involving an indoor gunfight, one involving a running battle with henchmen in Egypt, one involving a fistfight underneath a plane and one involving a moving truck. As what what constitutes action continuously gets "faster" and "harder", most of these sequences are deemed tame by modern audiences.
"Temple" also has five showcase sequences. One involving a song and dance routine, one involving a chase from henchmen, one involving an extended fist fight, one involving mine carts, and a final showdown on a rope bridge. Most of these sequences have aged well, the rope sequence the most tense moment in the trilogy, the others striking a tone that alternates between ultra sadistic and goofily over-the-top. More than other Indy films, "Temple" still feels audacious; part vaudeville movie, part musical, part quasi-racist B movie in the mould of 1930 serials. Opening with a rendition of "Anything Goes", it's totally ridiculous. Spielberg fans hate it.
"Crusade" likewise has five action sequences. One involving young Indy, one involving a Venice chase, one involving a showdown with air-planes, one involving a motorcycle chase and a final battle in which Indy faces a tank. While the opening and closing sequences are very strong, you sense Spielberg bored with everything in between.
In contrast, "Temple" is the Indy film which holds up best today, its cinematography richer, its camera work better, its pace faster, its tone unashamedly goofy (shades of Verhoeven) and with a hero who's simultaneously more muscular and more vulnerable than usual. Spielberg would go on to condemn and all but disown the film – he thinks its "sadistic" and "in poor taste"; he would say the same of "Jaws" - but it's the fact that "Temple" embraces the baseness that lurks in all his films that makes this Indy outing less hypocritical. Elsewhere "Doom" goes beyond emulating its influences ("Stagecoach", "Sierra Madre", "King Soloman's Mines", "Zorro", "Valley of the Kings", "Lawrence of Arabia", "The Naked Jungle", the same plot as "Gunga Din", often misread as a pro-colonalist film) to replicate wholesale the Colonialist/Orientalist/racist/sexist tone of 1930s serials, characters exoticized and demonized, the Other base or thoroughly in need of white salvation and the script falling back on various racist binaries. This repeats the treatment of Arabs and Nazis in the other two films (the way Spielberg/Lucas yearn for 1930s popular culture goes hand in hand with the decade's rise in Reaganism).
Nowadays, of course, popcorn films are moving away from what Rosenbaum called "set piece cinema". With spectacle dead, the majority of modern pop-corn flicks abandon elaborate set-pieces and instead seek to bombard their audiences with information. This is the post-cinema, cyber age, blockbusters now overwhelming audiences with plot. Thirty years ago we marvelled at Indy outrunning a giant boulder. Today, we salivate over narrative gymnastics, popcorn plots seeking to excite us with the sheer density of their tales. You know, like checking email, watching Youtube, wheeling through an Ipod, ebooking and cyber-surfing all at once. Indy would weep.
Raiders of the Lost Ark – 8/10, Temple of Doom – 8.5/10, Last Crusade – 7.9/10
Prequel to "Raiders of the Lost Ark"
jhaggardjr24 March 2002
It's funny to call "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" a followup to "Raiders of the Lost Ark". This film is a prequel to the 1981 smash hit, a movie where the events that take place actually took place before the events in "Raiders". Notice at the beginning of "Raiders" that the year is 1936. In "Temple of Doom", the year is 1935. See what I mean? "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" is another rollercoaster ride of a movie brought to life by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. Harrison Ford is back as archaeologist Indiana Jones who this time searches for a sacred stone that was stolen from an Indian village. Along for the ride is American singer/entertainer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw, aka Mrs. Steven Spielberg) and little Chinese sidekick Short Round (Ke Huy Quan). On their way to finding the stone they stumble across a palace that leads to the gateway of the Temple of Doom run by an evil Thugee cult. The action and special effects are first-rate as you would expect, though the story is a tad weaker than it was in "Raiders". Plus, Capshaw's performance leaves something to be desired. She goes so far over-the-top in some scenes that you'd wish Karen Allen would show up as Marion. Nevertheless, Capshaw isn't all that bad. She does make an impression during the times when she's not screaming. But Ke Huy Quan (now known as Jonathan Ke Quan) comes off better as Indy's young sidekick. The following year he starred in the Spielberg produced Richard Donner directed "The Goonies", but then didn't appear in much after that. "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" is great fun only if you can get by Kate Capshaw's simpering wimpering character or the over-the-top violence. I found it to be exciting from beginning to end.
***1/2 (out of four)
POINT OF INTEREST: this was the film that lead to the creation of the PG-13 rating in 1984 (along with Spielberg's other 1984 movie "Gremlins"). Both "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and "Gremlins" feature violence that most people felt was too strong for a PG rating, though the MPAA felt that it wasn't strong enough to merit an R rating (other Spielberg movies that got PG ratings that were quite intense were "Jaws", "Poltergeist", and the original "Raiders of the Lost Ark"). So after "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and "Gremlins" opened in theaters at the beginning of the summer movie season of 1984 and became two of that year's biggest hits, the MPAA realized a new rating had to be created. The PG-13 rating was born. In August 1984, the first movies were released with the new PG-13 rating ("Red Dawn" and "The Woman in Red"). It's not a new rating anymore. The PG-13 rating has held up very well these last 18 years and it'll still go strong in the years to come. But I'll always remember "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" as the leading factor to the creation of the PG-13 rating.
***1/2 (out of four)
POINT OF INTEREST: this was the film that lead to the creation of the PG-13 rating in 1984 (along with Spielberg's other 1984 movie "Gremlins"). Both "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and "Gremlins" feature violence that most people felt was too strong for a PG rating, though the MPAA felt that it wasn't strong enough to merit an R rating (other Spielberg movies that got PG ratings that were quite intense were "Jaws", "Poltergeist", and the original "Raiders of the Lost Ark"). So after "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and "Gremlins" opened in theaters at the beginning of the summer movie season of 1984 and became two of that year's biggest hits, the MPAA realized a new rating had to be created. The PG-13 rating was born. In August 1984, the first movies were released with the new PG-13 rating ("Red Dawn" and "The Woman in Red"). It's not a new rating anymore. The PG-13 rating has held up very well these last 18 years and it'll still go strong in the years to come. But I'll always remember "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" as the leading factor to the creation of the PG-13 rating.
An entertaining experience, but unable to match the sheer brilliance of the original.
barnabyrudge9 September 2004
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is the second of the Indy films from director Steven Spielberg, though chronologically it is actually the first. This prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark tries to out-do its predecessor for breakneck spills and gross-out moments, but the sparkle isn't quite there. It's an entertaining film for sure, but not as good as the original, partially because the plotting this time round is a little awkward and partially because Kate Capshaw as the main female character is an almighty irritation.
The film opens in a Shanghai restaurant, where Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) causes a riot in pursuit of a diamond. Fleeing the scene with American singer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw) and teenaged pick-pocket Short Round (Ke Huy Quan), he escapes to the airport. However, Indy and his companions unwittingly board an airplane owned by one of Indy's enemies, from which they have to make an audacious mid-air escape when the real pilots bail out mid-flight! Soon, the intrepid trio find themselves in India, where they come across a village in the grip of starvation. The village children have been kidnapped by local cultists to work in a mine, digging for the sacred Sankara Stones, and Indy is persuaded by the distraught villagers to rescue their youngsters. His quest takes him to the opulent Pankot Palace and, beneath it and beyond a maze of tunnels, the Temple of Doom.
Ford is great as Jones, bringing genuine charisma to a role that he was born to play (can you imagine how things would have turned out if Tom Selleck had got the part, as originally planned?) There are some great moments along the way too, including the intentionally subversive opening sequence in Shanghai, a particularly funny and exciting runaway mine-train sequence, and an unforgettable banquet at Pankot Palace in which the food served up is enough to churn any stomach. But Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom still can't live up to the standard set by Raiders of the Lost Ark. As mentioned, Capshaw is a real pain on the senses as the always-squealing heroine, and the plot seems to over-stretch in an effort to link to the next development or set piece. The hunt-for-the-missing-children plot device allows Spielberg to dip into the kind of cloying sentimentality that occasionally mars his films too. This is certainly an entertaining and professionally assembled film, but in no way a rival or an equal to the excellence of its predecessor.
The film opens in a Shanghai restaurant, where Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) causes a riot in pursuit of a diamond. Fleeing the scene with American singer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw) and teenaged pick-pocket Short Round (Ke Huy Quan), he escapes to the airport. However, Indy and his companions unwittingly board an airplane owned by one of Indy's enemies, from which they have to make an audacious mid-air escape when the real pilots bail out mid-flight! Soon, the intrepid trio find themselves in India, where they come across a village in the grip of starvation. The village children have been kidnapped by local cultists to work in a mine, digging for the sacred Sankara Stones, and Indy is persuaded by the distraught villagers to rescue their youngsters. His quest takes him to the opulent Pankot Palace and, beneath it and beyond a maze of tunnels, the Temple of Doom.
Ford is great as Jones, bringing genuine charisma to a role that he was born to play (can you imagine how things would have turned out if Tom Selleck had got the part, as originally planned?) There are some great moments along the way too, including the intentionally subversive opening sequence in Shanghai, a particularly funny and exciting runaway mine-train sequence, and an unforgettable banquet at Pankot Palace in which the food served up is enough to churn any stomach. But Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom still can't live up to the standard set by Raiders of the Lost Ark. As mentioned, Capshaw is a real pain on the senses as the always-squealing heroine, and the plot seems to over-stretch in an effort to link to the next development or set piece. The hunt-for-the-missing-children plot device allows Spielberg to dip into the kind of cloying sentimentality that occasionally mars his films too. This is certainly an entertaining and professionally assembled film, but in no way a rival or an equal to the excellence of its predecessor.
One of the greatest adventure films of all time...
WhitePhantom8 April 2003
Everyone complains about Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. One of my friends and I used to argue for months on end about which Indian Jones film was the superior. Almost anyone we ask say that Temple of Doom is their least favorite, and the worst in the Jones trilogy. I believe the only reason people say this, is because it's the middle film, sandwiched between an all time classic, and a Hollywood blockbuster. To me, there is NO question that Raiders of the Lost Ark is the far superior Indiana Jones film. To anyone who says Last Crusade is the best I can do nothing but disagree (let me point out that all THREE films are nothing short of phenomenal). Temple of Doom had so much to live up to after the first film, and instead of trying to re-create Raiders (something I feel Crusade did), Lucas and Spielberg decided to take the franchise in a new direction. In my opinion, this was a great idea. Crusade and Raiders are too similar: both of them take place in desert terrain, both have Indy going after a very famous, biblical artifact, and both have Indy fighting off the Nazi's from attaining this object for global domination. Without Temple of Doom, Last Crusade would be an obvious copy of Raiders of the Lost Ark. A different style of Indy film is needed to expand the trilogy, making Indiana Jones a truly global character, and Temple of Doom did just that.
The film itself is a non-stop action, adventure ride. Harrison Ford is once again AMAZING as the dashing professor/archaeologist thrill seeker. Short Round is a loveable character who adds a humorous touch, and reveals the more compassionate side of Indy's character. The ceremony scenes are truly breathtaking and tense. During these scenes the film contains some very graphic images, but are used justifiably to convey the real dark, feel of this film (i.e. the removing of the man's heart while he's still alive, and lowering him into a fiery pit). The mine cart chase scenes are the most amazing, fast moving action sequence in any of the Indy films, and you feel like you're on a roller coaster each time you watch it. All these events lead to the film's spectacular and memorable climax.
I know with three films as amazing as the Indiana Jones trilogy, it's hard to pick a best and worst film, in fact it's nearly impossible. I'm just going to say that each film is great on it's own, and really shouldn't be compared to the other two.
The film itself is a non-stop action, adventure ride. Harrison Ford is once again AMAZING as the dashing professor/archaeologist thrill seeker. Short Round is a loveable character who adds a humorous touch, and reveals the more compassionate side of Indy's character. The ceremony scenes are truly breathtaking and tense. During these scenes the film contains some very graphic images, but are used justifiably to convey the real dark, feel of this film (i.e. the removing of the man's heart while he's still alive, and lowering him into a fiery pit). The mine cart chase scenes are the most amazing, fast moving action sequence in any of the Indy films, and you feel like you're on a roller coaster each time you watch it. All these events lead to the film's spectacular and memorable climax.
I know with three films as amazing as the Indiana Jones trilogy, it's hard to pick a best and worst film, in fact it's nearly impossible. I'm just going to say that each film is great on it's own, and really shouldn't be compared to the other two.
Spielberg/Lucas' (partly) misguided-guide to sheer cliffhanging, shamefully entertaining adventure-lore
Quinoa198413 April 2006
(re-Review): I've never disliked this movie, but it's also been a hard movie to love over time. I also never watched it as much as I can remember Raiders, or even Last Crusade (the latter I feel like was more of a TV thing, like on the USA network). I think the two main things that bog this down are a) I don't really care all that much about the quest for the stones - as far as MacGuffins go, these are some flimsy MacGuffins, which I almost forgot about midway through the movie, and b) Willie Scott is just a terribly written character.
Kate Capshaw, it should be said, isn't exactly BAD, per-say, but her character is so one-dimensional that she's not really given all that much interesting stuff to do except be the uber/quintessential Damsel-in-Distress, to the point (perhaps it was the idea?) of parody, or as some kind of ditzy sexual object. Her best scene is when she is going back and forth across the room, inter-cut with Jones talking to himself, about whether or not to leave the room or wait for the other to come to have 'mating rituals'. Oh, she CAN be annoying in her screaming and perpetual HELP ME-ness, and yet it's interesting that some people - not all, but some - are more annoyed by Short Round.
To put it into Star Wars terms, imagine, easily enough, that Jones is Han Solo (and of course, both are Ford). Short Round is basically one of the droids, doing whatever to help the hero in his quest. Willie, on the other hand, is no Leia, or even a goddamn Padme. It's a flatly written one-dimensional object to follow along Dr. Jones on this mission that, in the grand scheme of things with this series, is a bit superfluous.
Some backstory on the production can sometimes help; it was a dark time for Lucas as he was going through a divorce, and he poured I imagine a lot of that darkness into the depiction of these tribespeople doing their insane rituals involving torn-hearts and fires burned and so on underground. Certainly those moments where Jones is in 'evil' mode are scary - though how he just snaps out of it due to fire is just one of those 'things' you really have to suspend-to-disbelieve here. And on Spielberg's part, he's always there to work and make some craftsman-stuff, but his heart is really in a couple of the set- pieces, like the descending spikes from the ceiling in the trapped room, and of course the cart-chase.
That cart-chase is a piece of icon action cinema, and for good reason; it makes the movie into a literal interpretation of what it's trying to be, as a ROLLER COASTER ride. And like roller- coasters, they're fun, they're diverting, they may be scary, and once they're over you... don't get much substance from them. So Spielberg is there to work but not fully with his heart in it (one wonders what he thought of the script on first read, from future Howard the Duck scribes Hyuck and Katz), and Lucas in a mood that is bizarre and tonally strange. What to make of a movie that has such very dark turns, and the ends with the goofiest set piece of Jones chopping a bridge so that the nameless Indians fall to their deaths as hords of crocodiles are just there already waiting.
In other words, this is the most outlandish, CARTOONISH of the bunch. I'd almost like this more if it was an animated movie; ironically years later Spielberg would make The Adventures of Tintin, a kind of Indiana Jones with a kid as the hero, and that somehow is LESS cartoony than this movie with its scenes where everything is over the top. Again, it makes for a good ride, and Ford is always great as Indiana Jones - yes, even in Crystal Skull, which I don't think is as bad as has been made out to be - but it's memorable only for the ride aspect, not for its particular, shall we say, pathos.
Kate Capshaw, it should be said, isn't exactly BAD, per-say, but her character is so one-dimensional that she's not really given all that much interesting stuff to do except be the uber/quintessential Damsel-in-Distress, to the point (perhaps it was the idea?) of parody, or as some kind of ditzy sexual object. Her best scene is when she is going back and forth across the room, inter-cut with Jones talking to himself, about whether or not to leave the room or wait for the other to come to have 'mating rituals'. Oh, she CAN be annoying in her screaming and perpetual HELP ME-ness, and yet it's interesting that some people - not all, but some - are more annoyed by Short Round.
To put it into Star Wars terms, imagine, easily enough, that Jones is Han Solo (and of course, both are Ford). Short Round is basically one of the droids, doing whatever to help the hero in his quest. Willie, on the other hand, is no Leia, or even a goddamn Padme. It's a flatly written one-dimensional object to follow along Dr. Jones on this mission that, in the grand scheme of things with this series, is a bit superfluous.
Some backstory on the production can sometimes help; it was a dark time for Lucas as he was going through a divorce, and he poured I imagine a lot of that darkness into the depiction of these tribespeople doing their insane rituals involving torn-hearts and fires burned and so on underground. Certainly those moments where Jones is in 'evil' mode are scary - though how he just snaps out of it due to fire is just one of those 'things' you really have to suspend-to-disbelieve here. And on Spielberg's part, he's always there to work and make some craftsman-stuff, but his heart is really in a couple of the set- pieces, like the descending spikes from the ceiling in the trapped room, and of course the cart-chase.
That cart-chase is a piece of icon action cinema, and for good reason; it makes the movie into a literal interpretation of what it's trying to be, as a ROLLER COASTER ride. And like roller- coasters, they're fun, they're diverting, they may be scary, and once they're over you... don't get much substance from them. So Spielberg is there to work but not fully with his heart in it (one wonders what he thought of the script on first read, from future Howard the Duck scribes Hyuck and Katz), and Lucas in a mood that is bizarre and tonally strange. What to make of a movie that has such very dark turns, and the ends with the goofiest set piece of Jones chopping a bridge so that the nameless Indians fall to their deaths as hords of crocodiles are just there already waiting.
In other words, this is the most outlandish, CARTOONISH of the bunch. I'd almost like this more if it was an animated movie; ironically years later Spielberg would make The Adventures of Tintin, a kind of Indiana Jones with a kid as the hero, and that somehow is LESS cartoony than this movie with its scenes where everything is over the top. Again, it makes for a good ride, and Ford is always great as Indiana Jones - yes, even in Crystal Skull, which I don't think is as bad as has been made out to be - but it's memorable only for the ride aspect, not for its particular, shall we say, pathos.
A landmark of the 80's and my childhood!
afonsobritofalves29 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was the first sequel ever made by Steven Spielberg (although this film is technically a prequel).
Let's face it, making a continuation of the wonderful film Raiders of the Lost Ark seemed practically impossible, because although the film had a lot to do more stories in, it had a practically perfect argument, and it was almost impossible to do something equally good or better, and although this film is not really as good as the first, it is still very good!
First of all, it is important to mention that this film was one of the first films in history to create the PG-13 classification, due to its violence that exceeded that of the first film (which was not too little), therefore, this film is not very recommendable. for people under that age, being the only film in the Indiana Jones saga that can really scare young people due to its violence and dark theme.
As for the argument, the film starts with a scene quite different from the beginning of the other films, while the other films start with a scene of mystery and suspance, it begins with a relaxed dance scene, followed by a very fun action scene ( and a very hidden reference to Star Wars that almost nobody notices when seeing the film for the first time and a clearer one to James Bond films), where we are introduced to the characters of the film, and one thing that I found quite curious in this film is that none of the characters we know in Raiders of the Lost Ark, with the exception of Indiana Jones of course, do not appear in this film, which is not a good thing, but it is also not a bad thing.
The opening scene of this film is simply fantastic, firstly because it is very very long and also because it is full of action and more action, a lot of it is unrealistic, but it doesn't matter when the film amuses us like that. The beginning of this film is really full of adrenaline and fun action scenes, and in my opinion, the characters in this film help a lot in the development of these scenes.
After these unrealistic but fabulous action scenes, we arrived at the scene where the adventure begins, deep down that whole beginning was just to get to know the characters. The adventure of this film has a very dark, even macabre plot, as the people of a small village in India need help to recover one of the three stolen sacred stones and to recover all the children from the village that had been kidnapped and think that Indiana Jones and his two companions arrived there to help them sent by the gods, and something that says a lot about the character of Indiana Jones, is that he just decides to help this village because he realizes that these stones are very valuable. This is a story with much less potential than that of the first film, but it is fun, captivating and interesting, not leaving the audience bored or sad for a single moment, moreover, this scene gets to be intriguing, although unrealistic.
And this is where the story starts to get sinister, when during the trip to the place where they need to arrive (which is done in a montage that shows several scenes that make us love the characters and at the same time remind us of the first film) , the guide is frightened by a statue that Indiana Jones is going to investigate and ends up discovering that it is a demonic statue for the Hindu religion full of human fingers ... this is really being macabre! Which is followed by a horrible but super cool dinner scene where we are told all about the evil Hindu legends about that palace and that whole situation, where we see our dear characters eating insects, snakes, monkey brains, eye soup and other disgusting things (I know this is not really relevant to the final evaluation of the film, but it is impossible to talk about this film without mentioning this scene), it is also in this scene where we meet those who will end up being the villains of the film.
And after one of the best romance scenes I've ever seen (whoever saw the movie knows what I'm talking about), the action begins! Indiana Jones and friends find the entrance to the Temple of Doom, go through some traps that would not look good in any other film. Then discover the great villain of the film in the best possible way, dressed as a demon from the Hindu religion and tearing someone's heart out to offer to the god Kali. And as if that were not violent enough, we still saw children being enslaved, scenes of torture and macabre cults, with voodoo dolls and blood drinks ... yes, this film is not for everyone, it is true that the films of the years 80's and 70's were much more violent (which is a good thing), but this is undoubtedly one of the worst in that sense, which is not a bad thing!
The rest of the film consists of the characters correcting everything and saving everything, with great action scenes, full of intensity, such as the singing scene of the bridge and the scene of the mine trains and of course, the scene that appears in all the films of the Indiana Jones saga, the scene in which Indiana Jones fights a man much bigger than himself!
To sum it up, the film has a story that despite being the weakest story in the Indiana Jones saga, it is a fantastic and fun film, being a film that despite being violent, it is a film that everyone can enjoy, whether by the action, for the suspanse, or for the short comedy scenes!
I also want to mention that this was the last Steven Spielberg film that has free violence, which makes me sad, since that was a milestone in the classic films of Stiven Spielberg, especially in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws. I think Steven Spielberg just started using violence as something serious and more reasonable due to the bad reviews that this film has, but I have to argue with those criticisms, this film only works because of the constant violence that we see in this film, and Spielberg if you are reading this remember that this is one of the best films of the 80's and that you did a great job and this is one of the films that made me fall in love with cinema and made me consider you the best director ever!
In more technical parts, the film has a fantastic collection of special effects, but this is not surprising since it is a Steven Spielberg film! The film also has a great soundtrack made by John Williams and I am not just referring to the classic March of the Raiders! The clothes used in the film were realistic and the editing of the film fabulous! As for the actors, Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones was fine as always, although many consider Short Round to be an irritating character, I think he is a really fun character and could come back in a future film, and I think this character just works because of the Actor Ke Huy Quan, although actress Kate Capshaw is a good actress, the character Willie Scott that she plays is not a character that I like and I think this could be better worked.
Everything in this film is good, but it cannot be compared with the other members of the original trilogy of the Indiana Jones saga (Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade), so I will give an evaluation to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom of 8/10.
Let's face it, making a continuation of the wonderful film Raiders of the Lost Ark seemed practically impossible, because although the film had a lot to do more stories in, it had a practically perfect argument, and it was almost impossible to do something equally good or better, and although this film is not really as good as the first, it is still very good!
First of all, it is important to mention that this film was one of the first films in history to create the PG-13 classification, due to its violence that exceeded that of the first film (which was not too little), therefore, this film is not very recommendable. for people under that age, being the only film in the Indiana Jones saga that can really scare young people due to its violence and dark theme.
As for the argument, the film starts with a scene quite different from the beginning of the other films, while the other films start with a scene of mystery and suspance, it begins with a relaxed dance scene, followed by a very fun action scene ( and a very hidden reference to Star Wars that almost nobody notices when seeing the film for the first time and a clearer one to James Bond films), where we are introduced to the characters of the film, and one thing that I found quite curious in this film is that none of the characters we know in Raiders of the Lost Ark, with the exception of Indiana Jones of course, do not appear in this film, which is not a good thing, but it is also not a bad thing.
The opening scene of this film is simply fantastic, firstly because it is very very long and also because it is full of action and more action, a lot of it is unrealistic, but it doesn't matter when the film amuses us like that. The beginning of this film is really full of adrenaline and fun action scenes, and in my opinion, the characters in this film help a lot in the development of these scenes.
After these unrealistic but fabulous action scenes, we arrived at the scene where the adventure begins, deep down that whole beginning was just to get to know the characters. The adventure of this film has a very dark, even macabre plot, as the people of a small village in India need help to recover one of the three stolen sacred stones and to recover all the children from the village that had been kidnapped and think that Indiana Jones and his two companions arrived there to help them sent by the gods, and something that says a lot about the character of Indiana Jones, is that he just decides to help this village because he realizes that these stones are very valuable. This is a story with much less potential than that of the first film, but it is fun, captivating and interesting, not leaving the audience bored or sad for a single moment, moreover, this scene gets to be intriguing, although unrealistic.
And this is where the story starts to get sinister, when during the trip to the place where they need to arrive (which is done in a montage that shows several scenes that make us love the characters and at the same time remind us of the first film) , the guide is frightened by a statue that Indiana Jones is going to investigate and ends up discovering that it is a demonic statue for the Hindu religion full of human fingers ... this is really being macabre! Which is followed by a horrible but super cool dinner scene where we are told all about the evil Hindu legends about that palace and that whole situation, where we see our dear characters eating insects, snakes, monkey brains, eye soup and other disgusting things (I know this is not really relevant to the final evaluation of the film, but it is impossible to talk about this film without mentioning this scene), it is also in this scene where we meet those who will end up being the villains of the film.
And after one of the best romance scenes I've ever seen (whoever saw the movie knows what I'm talking about), the action begins! Indiana Jones and friends find the entrance to the Temple of Doom, go through some traps that would not look good in any other film. Then discover the great villain of the film in the best possible way, dressed as a demon from the Hindu religion and tearing someone's heart out to offer to the god Kali. And as if that were not violent enough, we still saw children being enslaved, scenes of torture and macabre cults, with voodoo dolls and blood drinks ... yes, this film is not for everyone, it is true that the films of the years 80's and 70's were much more violent (which is a good thing), but this is undoubtedly one of the worst in that sense, which is not a bad thing!
The rest of the film consists of the characters correcting everything and saving everything, with great action scenes, full of intensity, such as the singing scene of the bridge and the scene of the mine trains and of course, the scene that appears in all the films of the Indiana Jones saga, the scene in which Indiana Jones fights a man much bigger than himself!
To sum it up, the film has a story that despite being the weakest story in the Indiana Jones saga, it is a fantastic and fun film, being a film that despite being violent, it is a film that everyone can enjoy, whether by the action, for the suspanse, or for the short comedy scenes!
I also want to mention that this was the last Steven Spielberg film that has free violence, which makes me sad, since that was a milestone in the classic films of Stiven Spielberg, especially in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws. I think Steven Spielberg just started using violence as something serious and more reasonable due to the bad reviews that this film has, but I have to argue with those criticisms, this film only works because of the constant violence that we see in this film, and Spielberg if you are reading this remember that this is one of the best films of the 80's and that you did a great job and this is one of the films that made me fall in love with cinema and made me consider you the best director ever!
In more technical parts, the film has a fantastic collection of special effects, but this is not surprising since it is a Steven Spielberg film! The film also has a great soundtrack made by John Williams and I am not just referring to the classic March of the Raiders! The clothes used in the film were realistic and the editing of the film fabulous! As for the actors, Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones was fine as always, although many consider Short Round to be an irritating character, I think he is a really fun character and could come back in a future film, and I think this character just works because of the Actor Ke Huy Quan, although actress Kate Capshaw is a good actress, the character Willie Scott that she plays is not a character that I like and I think this could be better worked.
Everything in this film is good, but it cannot be compared with the other members of the original trilogy of the Indiana Jones saga (Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade), so I will give an evaluation to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom of 8/10.
"Hey, Dr. Jones, no time for love. We've got company."
ryan_kuhn2 October 2006
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark, the sequel was inevitable. George Lucas came up with the story and Steven Spielberg again directed this second adventure in the Indiana Jones serial. The high energy and joy seen in Raiders of the Lost Ark has been replaced with a darker, more serious adventure, as Indiana is charged with recovering a magic stone for a village in India who has seen drought and all of the children have gone missing. The beginning of the movie is the high point of the film, with an extravagant musical number in club Obi Wan (oh, that George Lucas and his inside Star Wars jokes), a Shanghai night club where Indiana is closing a deal over artifacts from the Chinese dynasty. Kate Capshaw is the featured singer and the latest "Indiana girl" in this film, a movie that, curiously enough, occurs BEFORE Raiders of the Lost Ark, so the suspense of Jones' fate (if there really was any) is removed, and so any potential love affairs that fail to carry over between movies. Also missing is John Rhys-Davies' Sallah and Deholm Elliot's Brody, instead, we get to see Indy's child helper, Short Round, who's job is to go into tight quarters and say "Doctor Jones" about 300 times. The plot is complicated, as I had to watch the movie a couple of times to get an idea of was actually happening, and, unlike the previous film, most of the movie happens in one place. The famous scene in this movie is the dinner at the palace, where the visitors are treated to chilled monkey brains and other appealing meals. The movie does feature a fantastic scene with an underground rail system that turns into a chase sequence that is filmed well and is enjoyable to watch. This film does not have the whimsy or innocence seen in the other two Indiana movies, and suffers because of it. While still an enjoyable film, it is the least of the three Indiana movies.
A character in search of a story.
Anaisnine3 December 2011
You are Steve Spielberg and George Lucas. You have created one of the best made films of all time. You have created a box office bonanza. You have created one of the most iconic movie characters of all time.
What do you do? How do you follow it up? All too often we see filmmakers fall into the deadly sequel trap, this trap of course being "take the elements and scenes the public really responded to in the first film, and ramp it up to 11"
Invariably, this approach always fails. Why does it always fail? Because this strategy is often pursued at the expense of the most important element of all- character development and a coherent story, which are the elements that made the original as successful as it was in the first place.
From the first scene of Raiders the character of Indy is carefully unfolded before us- he is a man who is driven, resourceful, intelligent, and not afraid of a good fight. But he is also has his weak spots( fear of snakes, which isn't even a weak spot because it enhances his character by showing he has some vulnerabilities) and can be a bad judge of character( the underling who double crosses him in the first 10 min of Raiders). These elements are developed and built upon as the story unfolds.
As for the story, again it is laid out carefully. We have Indiana's rivalry with Belloq who is Indiana's cynical foil, his willingness to fight against evil by seeking the Ark to foil the Nazis, his past relationship with Marion, and the unveiling mystery surrounding the ark. All of this is done in a balanced and measured way.
The characterization of Indiana and the other major characters is balanced with the telling of the story. Do we learn all of the backstory for each major character? No, but we learn enough about them to make them fully fleshed and compelling. Belloq is amoral and greedy, but like Jones he does have a love for knowledge and values artifacts, also he does at least feel human compassion for Marion- a tough nut, a woman who can fight her own battles and as the movies goes on you can see why a man like Indy fell for her. Sallah is a loyal friend to Indy with whom we can infer he has had some previous adventures.
Raiders was a great balance of characterization, story, plot, great action sequences, amazing FX and an iconic score. All combining to make one of the best movies of all time.
Sadly, Temple sacrificed the characterization and plot and just decides to make this simple one big action sequence with some gross out sequences to pander to the kids- Temple really went of the way to pander to the child audience( the character of short round, the plot of kids needing to be rescued, gross out moments etc). Was this an attempt to increase merchandising sales? I do not know. Even more disturbing, Indy's "love interest" this time around is more a caricature of the damsel in distress rather than a fully fleshed out character. We are not given insight into the motivations or desires of the villains other than they are Eeeeeevell. In the other words, the villains are just stock wooden characters there to be defeated by Indiana. Granted, its hard to create a better villain than Nazis, but at least Belloq had some charm and style.
But the most disappointing aspect of this sequel is..we don't learn anything new about Indiana. How did he become the man we saw in Raiders? Given that the film is set a year before the events of Raiders, it was a perfect opportunity to show some of the events that lead to Henry Jones jr becoming Indiana Jones. But in this film, we are given nothing to add to the aura or mystique of Jones, nothing to illuminate other facets of his character or his relationships that existed by the beginning of Raiders.
Some said the movie failed because it was too dark, or too violent or too gross and too much action. The movie failed because despite having a fantastic character to base the movie upon, it failed to tell the story of that character.
What do you do? How do you follow it up? All too often we see filmmakers fall into the deadly sequel trap, this trap of course being "take the elements and scenes the public really responded to in the first film, and ramp it up to 11"
Invariably, this approach always fails. Why does it always fail? Because this strategy is often pursued at the expense of the most important element of all- character development and a coherent story, which are the elements that made the original as successful as it was in the first place.
From the first scene of Raiders the character of Indy is carefully unfolded before us- he is a man who is driven, resourceful, intelligent, and not afraid of a good fight. But he is also has his weak spots( fear of snakes, which isn't even a weak spot because it enhances his character by showing he has some vulnerabilities) and can be a bad judge of character( the underling who double crosses him in the first 10 min of Raiders). These elements are developed and built upon as the story unfolds.
As for the story, again it is laid out carefully. We have Indiana's rivalry with Belloq who is Indiana's cynical foil, his willingness to fight against evil by seeking the Ark to foil the Nazis, his past relationship with Marion, and the unveiling mystery surrounding the ark. All of this is done in a balanced and measured way.
The characterization of Indiana and the other major characters is balanced with the telling of the story. Do we learn all of the backstory for each major character? No, but we learn enough about them to make them fully fleshed and compelling. Belloq is amoral and greedy, but like Jones he does have a love for knowledge and values artifacts, also he does at least feel human compassion for Marion- a tough nut, a woman who can fight her own battles and as the movies goes on you can see why a man like Indy fell for her. Sallah is a loyal friend to Indy with whom we can infer he has had some previous adventures.
Raiders was a great balance of characterization, story, plot, great action sequences, amazing FX and an iconic score. All combining to make one of the best movies of all time.
Sadly, Temple sacrificed the characterization and plot and just decides to make this simple one big action sequence with some gross out sequences to pander to the kids- Temple really went of the way to pander to the child audience( the character of short round, the plot of kids needing to be rescued, gross out moments etc). Was this an attempt to increase merchandising sales? I do not know. Even more disturbing, Indy's "love interest" this time around is more a caricature of the damsel in distress rather than a fully fleshed out character. We are not given insight into the motivations or desires of the villains other than they are Eeeeeevell. In the other words, the villains are just stock wooden characters there to be defeated by Indiana. Granted, its hard to create a better villain than Nazis, but at least Belloq had some charm and style.
But the most disappointing aspect of this sequel is..we don't learn anything new about Indiana. How did he become the man we saw in Raiders? Given that the film is set a year before the events of Raiders, it was a perfect opportunity to show some of the events that lead to Henry Jones jr becoming Indiana Jones. But in this film, we are given nothing to add to the aura or mystique of Jones, nothing to illuminate other facets of his character or his relationships that existed by the beginning of Raiders.
Some said the movie failed because it was too dark, or too violent or too gross and too much action. The movie failed because despite having a fantastic character to base the movie upon, it failed to tell the story of that character.
One of Spielberg's worst!
saip_pun31 July 2021
Not sure what Spielberg and Lucas smoked while they filmed this, by far the most nonsensical of Hollywood movies. Chinese cuisine is shown as Indian cuisine :), ageing actress with no depth, shorty steals the show, everything seemed out of place. Watch it at your own risk.
Why is this one the darkhorse?
bat-57 May 1999
Temple of Doom may not be as good as Raiders, but it doesn't deserve all this negative flak. The story is a little darker but that doesn't take anything away from the film. It makes the situation that much more dire. John Williams' score infuses the sacrifice sequence with a sense of building dread. The chanting, the heavy drums all building into a wild climax of heart burning and lava filled mayhem. The mine car chase is wild fun and Indy's bridge manuver is one hell of a climax. Still don't know why everyone's so down on this movie.
Changed My Mind About This Stylish Film
ccthemovieman-15 April 2006
For a long time, this was the only one of the three Indiana Jones films I did not like. Then, when it was part of the DVD package that came out over five years ago, I had to buy it if I wanted the other two, so I gave it a third look. Wow, all of sudden I liked it.
For the first time, the woman (Kate Capshaw) and the young boy (Ke Huy Quan) weren't as annoying as I had remembered them. The stupid kid really had rubbed me the wrong way, but this time only Kate was annoying....and she was fine once she calmed down and got rid of the hysterics.
The action in this film is mostly at the beginning and at the end. It is so Rambo-ish (bad guys never hit the target but good guys always do) it is ludicrous. It also has dumb dialog in a number of spots, paying homage to voodooism, spells and other nonsense.
Yet, despite these criticisms, it's entertaining start-to-finish and has some fantastic visuals. The photography in here is beautiful: the best of the three Jones adventures. I particularly liked the opening dance number which reminded me of a Busby Berkeley extravaganza. This whole film looks spectacular on DVD.
For the first time, the woman (Kate Capshaw) and the young boy (Ke Huy Quan) weren't as annoying as I had remembered them. The stupid kid really had rubbed me the wrong way, but this time only Kate was annoying....and she was fine once she calmed down and got rid of the hysterics.
The action in this film is mostly at the beginning and at the end. It is so Rambo-ish (bad guys never hit the target but good guys always do) it is ludicrous. It also has dumb dialog in a number of spots, paying homage to voodooism, spells and other nonsense.
Yet, despite these criticisms, it's entertaining start-to-finish and has some fantastic visuals. The photography in here is beautiful: the best of the three Jones adventures. I particularly liked the opening dance number which reminded me of a Busby Berkeley extravaganza. This whole film looks spectacular on DVD.
Anything goes!
CuriosityKilledShawn20 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Set before the events of 'Raiders', Dr. Jones is in Shanghai doing business with Chinese crime boss Lau Che. Losing the upper hand in a night club he barely escapes with his life (and baggage in the form of Willie Scott and sidekick kid Short Round) to the airport. But little does he know the plane he gets on is owned by Lau Che and the pilots sneak out in mid-air while they are sleeping.
After jumping to safety in an inflatable dinghy Indy, Willie and Short Round drift by an Indian village that has been stricken with bad luck since the theft of their magical Shankara stones. Encouraged by the villagers to go to Pankot palace and retrieve the stones, Indy has no idea that what he will find involves an evil cult hellbent on taking over the world with their lunatic new religion.
Temple of Doom is, without a shadow of a doubt, the best Indiana Jones film. I know a lot of nerds are going to disagree with me but I do think it superior to Raiders of the Lost Ark because I prefer the darker, nastier tone and the fact that it just doesn't let up from the word 'go'! Two hours of Temple of Doom's running time pass in a breeze of sheer adventure as Spielberg takes us from one memorable set-piece to another. The opening musical number, the fight in the Obi-Wan Club, the chase through Shanghai, the plane crash/dingy ride, the journey to Pankot Palace, the dinner scene, the human sacrifice, the freeing of the slaves, the mine-cart ride, the water rush, the rope bridge, the cliff-hanging...wow! How much more can you pack into a film? It's physically impossible!
Originally criticised on it's release for being too dark, Temple of Doom still ends up being a classic. I guess the audiences of 1984 were expecting Raiders of the Lost Ark 2 and were taken aback when they got something else. If you watch it with the others you can feel how different the film is with no scenes taking place in America, no University and no Sallah or Marcus Brody.
John Williams' brilliant music is also at it's best. He even received an Academy Award nomination despite already being nominated for his work on Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is quite rare. The film did win an Oscar for its visual effects (beating the equally impressive effects of Ghostbusters) which, when viewed today, at least might seem a little bit dated, but still hold up quite well.
Or course, there's nothing really important about the film. I mean it won't beat Schindler's List or Munich in terms of drama but if you want escapism and soaring, thrill-a-minute adventure his name is Indiana Jones and the place is the Temple of Doom.
After jumping to safety in an inflatable dinghy Indy, Willie and Short Round drift by an Indian village that has been stricken with bad luck since the theft of their magical Shankara stones. Encouraged by the villagers to go to Pankot palace and retrieve the stones, Indy has no idea that what he will find involves an evil cult hellbent on taking over the world with their lunatic new religion.
Temple of Doom is, without a shadow of a doubt, the best Indiana Jones film. I know a lot of nerds are going to disagree with me but I do think it superior to Raiders of the Lost Ark because I prefer the darker, nastier tone and the fact that it just doesn't let up from the word 'go'! Two hours of Temple of Doom's running time pass in a breeze of sheer adventure as Spielberg takes us from one memorable set-piece to another. The opening musical number, the fight in the Obi-Wan Club, the chase through Shanghai, the plane crash/dingy ride, the journey to Pankot Palace, the dinner scene, the human sacrifice, the freeing of the slaves, the mine-cart ride, the water rush, the rope bridge, the cliff-hanging...wow! How much more can you pack into a film? It's physically impossible!
Originally criticised on it's release for being too dark, Temple of Doom still ends up being a classic. I guess the audiences of 1984 were expecting Raiders of the Lost Ark 2 and were taken aback when they got something else. If you watch it with the others you can feel how different the film is with no scenes taking place in America, no University and no Sallah or Marcus Brody.
John Williams' brilliant music is also at it's best. He even received an Academy Award nomination despite already being nominated for his work on Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is quite rare. The film did win an Oscar for its visual effects (beating the equally impressive effects of Ghostbusters) which, when viewed today, at least might seem a little bit dated, but still hold up quite well.
Or course, there's nothing really important about the film. I mean it won't beat Schindler's List or Munich in terms of drama but if you want escapism and soaring, thrill-a-minute adventure his name is Indiana Jones and the place is the Temple of Doom.
Thrilling action-packed and third adventure movie with Harrison Ford as the intrepid archeologist
ma-cortes5 September 2005
The adventurer and archaeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) with his bullwhip wielding and hat will fight against nasty enemies in India along with an oriental little boy (Jonathan Ke Quan) and a night club Singer (Kate Capshaw who married Steven Spielberg). Jones agrees with the village's inhabitants look for a lost magic stone. Meanwhile , they stumble with a secret thug cult ruled by an evil priest (Amrish Puri).
The Indiana Jones adventures trilogy tries to continue the vintage pathes from the thirty years ago greatest classics , and the comics-books narrative , along with the special characteristics of the horror films of the 80s decade , as it is well reflected in the creepy and spooky scenes about human sacrifices . The picture is directed with great style and high adventure and driven along with enormous fair-play in the stunning mounted action set-pieces . Harrison Ford plays splendidly the valiant and brave archaeologist turned into an action man .Kate Capshaw interprets a scream girl who'll have a little romance with Indy . The movie blends adventures , noisy action , rip-snorting , humor , tongue-in-chek , it is a cinematic roller coaster ride and pretty bemusing . The motion picture has great loads of action , special effects galore and the usual and magnificent John Williams musical score . The glimmering and dazzling cinematography is efficiently realized by Douglas Slocombe . The pic was allrightly directed by Steven Spielberg. Film culminates in a spectacular finale that will have you on the edge of your seat . It's a must see for adventures aficionados , as perfect entertainment for all the family .
The Indiana Jones adventures trilogy tries to continue the vintage pathes from the thirty years ago greatest classics , and the comics-books narrative , along with the special characteristics of the horror films of the 80s decade , as it is well reflected in the creepy and spooky scenes about human sacrifices . The picture is directed with great style and high adventure and driven along with enormous fair-play in the stunning mounted action set-pieces . Harrison Ford plays splendidly the valiant and brave archaeologist turned into an action man .Kate Capshaw interprets a scream girl who'll have a little romance with Indy . The movie blends adventures , noisy action , rip-snorting , humor , tongue-in-chek , it is a cinematic roller coaster ride and pretty bemusing . The motion picture has great loads of action , special effects galore and the usual and magnificent John Williams musical score . The glimmering and dazzling cinematography is efficiently realized by Douglas Slocombe . The pic was allrightly directed by Steven Spielberg. Film culminates in a spectacular finale that will have you on the edge of your seat . It's a must see for adventures aficionados , as perfect entertainment for all the family .
Temple of Doom is MY favorite in the series!
Movie Nuttball19 April 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Mild Spoilers
Indiana Jones trilogy,from the masters George Lucas and Steven Spielberg comes a great action packed series of films that takes place in the early 1900s.Indiana Jones is really a hero,he goes from from country to country to find a special artifact and/or place and he usualy succeeds! This trilogy reminds ME alot of Star Wars. These are truly some of the best films ever.
The Temple of Doom is MY favorite in the trilogy. I just love them jungles and the villan in this one.MY favorite part of Temple of Doom is the diner! Yummy! I just love the guy that say,Ah Desert! Temple of Doom spooky as well. This movie has action from beginning to end!
Indiana Jones trilogy,from the masters George Lucas and Steven Spielberg comes a great action packed series of films that takes place in the early 1900s.Indiana Jones is really a hero,he goes from from country to country to find a special artifact and/or place and he usualy succeeds! This trilogy reminds ME alot of Star Wars. These are truly some of the best films ever.
The Temple of Doom is MY favorite in the trilogy. I just love them jungles and the villan in this one.MY favorite part of Temple of Doom is the diner! Yummy! I just love the guy that say,Ah Desert! Temple of Doom spooky as well. This movie has action from beginning to end!
Does everything you expect an Indiana Jones film to do, but can't live up to the first film
stephendaxter12 March 2015
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is the second instalment of the Indiana Jones franchise and the prequel, yes, prequel to the first film. The decision to go for a prequel was an interesting one but didn't affect the film at all as it was a different quest to the first film. That aside, for me this film was very disappointing compared to what the first film accomplished. This felt like it was missing a lot of the elements that the first film managed to use so well. Yes this film did have some comedic moments but not as many as the first film and it did have a little more darker horror like scenes, but i felt that this was missing a lot of the awesome action/adventure sequences that made the first film so iconic. This film failed to deliver in that sense, there was some interesting action sequences but i didn't feel that the adventure was there, and i was pretty disappointed. The plot itself was at times pretty interesting and i was invested in what was going on and at times it dragged on and got predictable. I did like the opening, it had the comedy, action and mystery that i loved from the first Indiana Jones. But following their arrival in India they quickly setup the quest they had to go on but then spent quite a bit of time in the village and on the way to their destination, and it wasn't all that interesting. Similarly later on when the mystery gets revealed, it spends a lot of time inside this location that did not feel like Indiana Jones at all. It was a different environment that i was used to seeing him in and it really wasn't too interesting, some of the action was good though.
Harrison Ford still did a really good job as Indiana Jones and he was not the problem with this movie. I was not a huge fan of the supporting cast, Jonathan Ke Quan as Short Round was decent, his character was there to play as a sort of sidekick to Indiana and was a pretty likable kid. But, i really didn't like Kate Capshaw as Willie Scott, it was more the character that i didn't enjoy watching because i felt like she really didn't belong, if we had Short Round in the film for some comedic relief, i don't see why we needed Willie, i believe she was just there because the plot later on required her to be. John Williams again did a great job with the score but didn't live up to the first. And that really is the best way to describe this whole film, it did a decent to good job in all the categories but unfortunately fell really short of what the first film accomplished. - 6.8
Harrison Ford still did a really good job as Indiana Jones and he was not the problem with this movie. I was not a huge fan of the supporting cast, Jonathan Ke Quan as Short Round was decent, his character was there to play as a sort of sidekick to Indiana and was a pretty likable kid. But, i really didn't like Kate Capshaw as Willie Scott, it was more the character that i didn't enjoy watching because i felt like she really didn't belong, if we had Short Round in the film for some comedic relief, i don't see why we needed Willie, i believe she was just there because the plot later on required her to be. John Williams again did a great job with the score but didn't live up to the first. And that really is the best way to describe this whole film, it did a decent to good job in all the categories but unfortunately fell really short of what the first film accomplished. - 6.8
This is a great movie
jmaycock25 May 2002
I can't understand how this movie is rated so low? This is an absolutely fantastic movie. The best in the trilogy. Of course everybody always rates the first movie in a trilogy the best - like Godfather I and Star Wars(the original 1977 movie), but clearly the films that followed them were better, as is the case with this one. I saw this film about 20 times as a kid and have recently watched all 3 movies again, enjoying this one the best. It has some great action sequences in it, notably the roller coaster ride through the mine, some great laughs, and romance. What more could a movie offer?
Plot holes and racism
di1an23 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Firstly, Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of my all time fave films. Same for Last Crusade. But Tempe of Doom, well, here's what ruined ot for me....
...the rampant, if unintentional racism. Indian people eating MONKEY BRAINS FOR DESSERT????!??? Are you kidding me? Since when? SNAKE SURPRISE?? Eyeball soup? Giant beetles?? That was pretty low for some cheap shocks. Secondly, when Indy and co arrive at the village, which is supposed to be in India/Nepal, the people are speaking Sinhalese, the national language of...Sri Lanka! WTF? A language not even spoken in India! Look at a frickin map Spileberg! Why not frickin' Korean then? Parts of TOD were filmed in Sri Lanka, and Spielberg didn't even bother getting the goddamn languages right? It's like saying, 'yeah, *beep* it. as long as they're brown and they speak some kind of gibberish, no one will care'. What if at the start of the film in Shanghai, the Triads were speaking Japanese or French instead of Cantonese/Mandarin? Even if this doesn't smack of ignorance to you, it as at the very least a glaring plot hole.
...the rampant, if unintentional racism. Indian people eating MONKEY BRAINS FOR DESSERT????!??? Are you kidding me? Since when? SNAKE SURPRISE?? Eyeball soup? Giant beetles?? That was pretty low for some cheap shocks. Secondly, when Indy and co arrive at the village, which is supposed to be in India/Nepal, the people are speaking Sinhalese, the national language of...Sri Lanka! WTF? A language not even spoken in India! Look at a frickin map Spileberg! Why not frickin' Korean then? Parts of TOD were filmed in Sri Lanka, and Spielberg didn't even bother getting the goddamn languages right? It's like saying, 'yeah, *beep* it. as long as they're brown and they speak some kind of gibberish, no one will care'. What if at the start of the film in Shanghai, the Triads were speaking Japanese or French instead of Cantonese/Mandarin? Even if this doesn't smack of ignorance to you, it as at the very least a glaring plot hole.
Best of the trilogy - macabre, action-packed, and exotic
Leofwine_draca4 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Ever the atypical one, this has long been my favourite of the trilogy thanks to the fact that I saw it at a young, impressionable age and that its stuck in my heart ever since. Maybe it's the constant stream of action or the numerous macabre and downright horrific aspects of the tale that appealed to me at such a young age, but I still can't see why people are so down on this movie. Sure, there's plenty of unwanted comic relief, some of it stupid, but at least Spielberg still kept the sentimentalism out of his films at this stage. As a roller-coaster ride (literally too, at one point) of special effects and bad guys getting whacked, INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM is a fantastic popcorn movie and one that can be watched over and over.
Harrison Ford had by now settled comfortably into the role of Indy like a glove and puts in an assured, wisecracking, heroic but human performance just like in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK - with the addition that he now has to act "evil" too after getting possessed by evil blood (see, I told you it was horror-tinged) in one scene. Aside from Kate Capshaw, saddled with a hugely grating blonde bimbo sidekick/love interest character, the rest of the cast is made up of either Chinese, Japanese, or Indians, guys who do pretty well with their respective caricatures - particularly impressive is the downright demonic Amrish Puri who glows pure evil as the bad guy Mola Ram. Kudos too to Jonathan Ke Quan as a child sidekick who isn't too annoying (compared to the similar kid in RED SONJA a year later, he's magnificent).
The movie jumps from one outlandish action sequence to next, bound together by great locales and hummable tunes. A shoot-out (at the Obi Wan restaurant, a not-so-subtle joke imposed by George Lucas as executive producer) is followed by a jump from a plane on to a dinghy (!), rides through the jungle on elephant back, sacrificial rites in an underground Satanic temple, near death perils, a wild mine cart ride, and finally an outstanding finale on a rope bridge overlooking a crocodile-infested river. The special effects are very good (especially the back/forward projection during the excellent mine cart sequence), and the film enjoys plenty of in-jokes like references to the first movie (Indy's run from a flood instead of a giant stone ball, his attempt to defeat two skilled swordsman in a same manner as he did previously only to be thwarted).
The horror elements include a gruesome banquet (consisting of sheep's eyeball soup, boiled beetles, snake, and monkey brains - a great highlight as a kid), mouldering corpses, creepy-crawlies, hearts being ripped out, human sacrifice, and voodoo, and also a perfect death for the chief baddie as he gets torn apart by crocs. Plus all the near-death escapes from falling ceilings and spikes in the same style as the first movie. The body count is huge, with dozens of bad guys snuffing it in one way or another, it's amazing that this was PG when a similar film like COMMANDO was strictly 18. A third film, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE, followed five years later and added Sean Connery to the brew with reduced success - this is as perfect a brain switch-off blockbuster movie as you are likely to get.
Harrison Ford had by now settled comfortably into the role of Indy like a glove and puts in an assured, wisecracking, heroic but human performance just like in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK - with the addition that he now has to act "evil" too after getting possessed by evil blood (see, I told you it was horror-tinged) in one scene. Aside from Kate Capshaw, saddled with a hugely grating blonde bimbo sidekick/love interest character, the rest of the cast is made up of either Chinese, Japanese, or Indians, guys who do pretty well with their respective caricatures - particularly impressive is the downright demonic Amrish Puri who glows pure evil as the bad guy Mola Ram. Kudos too to Jonathan Ke Quan as a child sidekick who isn't too annoying (compared to the similar kid in RED SONJA a year later, he's magnificent).
The movie jumps from one outlandish action sequence to next, bound together by great locales and hummable tunes. A shoot-out (at the Obi Wan restaurant, a not-so-subtle joke imposed by George Lucas as executive producer) is followed by a jump from a plane on to a dinghy (!), rides through the jungle on elephant back, sacrificial rites in an underground Satanic temple, near death perils, a wild mine cart ride, and finally an outstanding finale on a rope bridge overlooking a crocodile-infested river. The special effects are very good (especially the back/forward projection during the excellent mine cart sequence), and the film enjoys plenty of in-jokes like references to the first movie (Indy's run from a flood instead of a giant stone ball, his attempt to defeat two skilled swordsman in a same manner as he did previously only to be thwarted).
The horror elements include a gruesome banquet (consisting of sheep's eyeball soup, boiled beetles, snake, and monkey brains - a great highlight as a kid), mouldering corpses, creepy-crawlies, hearts being ripped out, human sacrifice, and voodoo, and also a perfect death for the chief baddie as he gets torn apart by crocs. Plus all the near-death escapes from falling ceilings and spikes in the same style as the first movie. The body count is huge, with dozens of bad guys snuffing it in one way or another, it's amazing that this was PG when a similar film like COMMANDO was strictly 18. A third film, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE, followed five years later and added Sean Connery to the brew with reduced success - this is as perfect a brain switch-off blockbuster movie as you are likely to get.
So it's still Indiana Jones.
maxmages21 September 2022
Warning: Spoilers
It's the most controversial and polarizing film of the entire series, because a lot of things didn't add up with this film either. And as far as I've heard, Spielberg didn't really like this film either.
Well, I personally think it's great because it's something different, but it still feels like Indiana Jones. I saw this one the most when I was a kid and for years I didn't understand why so many people put down this film. Now it's growing up, I can understand it. I still think this film is super good.
In general, I prefer to see the one I see here than many other current Hollywood films because I can't think of a film that's so bizarre and has such tonal breaks and is still mainstream.
First and foremost because of Harrison Ford, who without a doubt makes a fantastic Indiana Jones and even short round I find entertaining.
There are just so many little moments that I like. Which is why I can't be mad at the film. There isn't anything about this film that I find bad or hate in any way. And I have to say. I don't like to take violence against children the wrong way, I don't want children to suffer. But I like that she's shown that, like that that you can really see People are in danger and I also like that the camera is pointed at them. You see all these emaciated slave children, you see them being beaten and whipped and this one child crying and praying to be killed, then you know for sure. Now the punk is going on here, people have nothing to smile about , these are people who need help, and it's also good that a mainstream film shows that you are really shown what kind of suffering is happening there.
From a film point of view, I only have 2 things to blame, namely this villain Mola Ram, he suddenly appears out of nowhere and you don't really know what your plan is and the plot seems so thrown back and forth, they are suddenly there , then suddenly they are there. You just get thrown into the plot all of a sudden. Thrown in and there's no ongoing plot. It's arbitrary to me. I think if you had to focus on that English aristocrat as a villain, that would have worked a bit better and then he'll be taken over by the Mola Murdered Ram and then he went on. But you can't have everything.
Well, I personally think it's great because it's something different, but it still feels like Indiana Jones. I saw this one the most when I was a kid and for years I didn't understand why so many people put down this film. Now it's growing up, I can understand it. I still think this film is super good.
In general, I prefer to see the one I see here than many other current Hollywood films because I can't think of a film that's so bizarre and has such tonal breaks and is still mainstream.
First and foremost because of Harrison Ford, who without a doubt makes a fantastic Indiana Jones and even short round I find entertaining.
There are just so many little moments that I like. Which is why I can't be mad at the film. There isn't anything about this film that I find bad or hate in any way. And I have to say. I don't like to take violence against children the wrong way, I don't want children to suffer. But I like that she's shown that, like that that you can really see People are in danger and I also like that the camera is pointed at them. You see all these emaciated slave children, you see them being beaten and whipped and this one child crying and praying to be killed, then you know for sure. Now the punk is going on here, people have nothing to smile about , these are people who need help, and it's also good that a mainstream film shows that you are really shown what kind of suffering is happening there.
From a film point of view, I only have 2 things to blame, namely this villain Mola Ram, he suddenly appears out of nowhere and you don't really know what your plan is and the plot seems so thrown back and forth, they are suddenly there , then suddenly they are there. You just get thrown into the plot all of a sudden. Thrown in and there's no ongoing plot. It's arbitrary to me. I think if you had to focus on that English aristocrat as a villain, that would have worked a bit better and then he'll be taken over by the Mola Murdered Ram and then he went on. But you can't have everything.
Cartoonish and silly
WatchingWendy23 July 2023
The first Indiana Jones movie was an instant classic. A good premise as to why IJ would be going after the Arc. Clever, campy, funny, with a bit of fantasy. Well balanced and clever ending. This Temple of Doom sequel is just stupid. Bad effects, dumb story, ridiculous situations. So heavy handed and corny - I can't believe Spielberg did this movie. Was this considered good in the 80's? Since Spielberg met his future wife on this shoot, maybe he was too distracted to do a good movie. Don't bother watching this one. Maybe some of the other Indians Jones sequels are better- but this is one is just dumb.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
